Pericles,

As a matter of fact i have modified my views a little since I wtote some of those things. They must be near on a year old.

you say >> "In hindsight, the major change that occurred was a hardening of Europe's anti-terrorism stance in general, which was hardly the bombers' key objective."

I wonder what evidence you have for this. What changed? Anti-Terror laws?

If you wish to contend that Islamo-Facist related terrorist incidents have not increased since 9/11 then provide some evidence. Otherwise it purely speculation on your behalf. Frankly the suggestion that wikipedia would focus on events after 9/11 and neglect to be as thorough before then, is unrealistic.

here are some other sources which contain evidence of the increase in Islamo-Facist terror activities.
http://209.232.239.37/gtd2/charts/total_casualties.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

Horus,

CJ's definition of an Islamaphobe - anyone who doesn't agree with his loony-left worldview

CJ's definition of a wingnut - same as above.

CJ's definition of an hysteric - same as above

I'd like to bring some focus back to this thread.

The issue is CENSORSHIP through terrorism.

Set off bombs in the underground and on buses, kill 57 people, and even the doughtiest apologists for Islam have a hard time minimising the enormity of the act. They will confine themselves to finding "reasons" for the terrorists' behaviour.

But if you continue killing people at random, society will lose interest in your alleged "reasons." People will realise that yours is an unsavoury and violent belief system

But TARGETED terrorism can be much more effective. Terrorise writers and publishers who offend Muslim sensibilities and soon there will be little objective analysis of Islam. If the price of offending Muslim sensibilities is a life time for you and your family under police protection then most people will remain silent.

Even worse, sometimes you can get governments to do your dirty work for you. Hence Victoria's censorship law, the so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" of 2001. Note how the title conflates racism with antipathy towards a religious belief system.

So called "hate speech" laws are proliferating.

We also have the case I alluded to previously of the arrest of the Dutch cartoonist, Gregorius Nekschot.

That is why, CJ MORGAN'S knee jerk reactions notwithstanding, this is NOT a minor incident. The Jewel of Medina will be published. What of the books that won't even be written?

That's not quite where we started this conversation, now is it, Phil.L?

>>If you wish to contend that Islamo-Facist related terrorist incidents have not increased since 9/11 then provide some evidence<<

I was quibbling with your scaremongering tone:

>>The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organisations<<

As justification for the word "massive", you now produce some - slightly dated - statistics that haven't been put together by amateurs. Fair enough.

But the selection of the timeframe is everything, is it not?

http://tinyurl.com/3keldz

No-one, including myself, would deny that 9/11 created a few more fanatics who believe they can settle their scores with the infidel. What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement.

Where you see a global movement, I see small groups of nutters.

This thread's particular band of petrol-bombing idiots, whose movements were obviously known to police ahead of time, seem to be more the norm than the marauding packs of scimitar-wielding fanatics that you envisage.

Unfortunately it looks as though their actions against individuals might still have their desired effect, as the fate of this particular oeuvre de genie apparently hangs in the balance.

Equally sad for the publisher is the damage done to his home.

On 28th September, it was apparently worth £4million

http://tinyurl.com/3fcm5w

"under police guard last night after a fire-bomb attack on his £4million London home"

Next day, it was a million and a half cheaper.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3646

"the attack on the £2.5million London home of its UK publisher, Martin Rynja, at the weekend was 'a reprehensible act of violence'"

Terrorism sucks, eh?

Get off the grass Steven.

Here's a little exercise for you:
-go to Amazon.com
-type in "islam" in the search box
-have a peruse of the number of titles that can be percieved as critical of Islam

Do you think this censorship by terrorism is working?

If someone does not write a book because they are scared of Muslims, then the book they didn't write would probably not be a good one anyway.

<< What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement...Where you see a global movement, I see small groups of nutters. >>

Precisely. Ironically, Al Qaeda and the Bush administration have a mutually beneficial relationship. In order to justify the war on terror, we need a huge, threatening, co-ordinated enemy force to frighten the populace with - just like we had during the Cold War.

For that reason, every instance of Islamic terrorism after 9/11 had to be attributed to Al Qaeda, even when it was carried out by unrelated or rival groups. The result is that every pissy little band of jihadi wannabes can get attention just by renaming themselves. The US built the Al Qaeda brand in a way that would make Coca Cola jealous.

Any nuanced investigation reveals that the strung-out cells of militant Islam pose no appreciable threat, but the image of heathen Saracen hordes pouring out of the east to ravage our cities appeals to the strong apocalyptic strain in conservative thinking.

BUGSY

As of today the attempt to enforce censorship through terrorism has had very limited effects.

In fact the most notable successes have been indirect. Various governments have enacted so-called "hate speech" laws that seek to conflate criticism of Islam with racism.

The demonisation of critics of Islam with the label "Islamophobe" is more an "own goal" than succumbing to terrorism.

Nonetheless there is no question that critics of Islam are taking a risk. It's early days yet in the struggle to retain the right to free speech.

SANCHO

The Bush administration has done more to advance the cause of Al Qaeda than anything they could have managed on their own. However, Al Qaeda is a bit of a sideshow.

The real danger is not so much Muslim terrorism as the accommodation and appeasement of what is in essence a Fascist ideology disguised as a religion. And much of it seems to be financed by Saudi oil money.

The best way to fight Islamic Fascism is to use more energy-efficient cars and move to electric vehicles. That would cause the oil price to plummet and would effectively neutralise Saudi Arabia and Iran. Cutting off your enemy's financial balls is usually the best way of winning a conflict.

The Bush administration has resisted all efforts to move in this direction.

Hopefully Obama, if he is elected, will do better. I have no hope that McCain would.