Something like this has been on display since the outrage of the 7th of July. A horribly large number of people have managed to convince themselves that regime-change in Afghanistan and Iraq has greatly increased a terrorist threat that they maintained didn't really exist.
Another example is the frankly perverted idea that this "insurgency", which a well-known political cockroach informed us had come to Britain is simultaneously a "progressive" force in Iraq - but here is a self-inflicted calamity - those chickens coming home to roost for a rapacious and imperialistic oil-grab.
It's not always a poor grasp of chronology that leads people to say a terrorist threat that clearly existed prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was in fact created by them. Please remember that there's the catch-all reason of the existence of Israel to consider - along with the handy notion of the microwave terrorist. You see, apparently 9/11 was a sign that terrorism was on it's last legs and we should have celebrated in recognition of this fact, but Bush and Blair failed to recognise this and with the War on Terror, hey presto - a terrorist network appears, operating in 65 countries.
If you can overlook that fact that this analysis is about as convincing as an episode of the X-files - it's a very useful concept, I think you'll agree. It's the one that leads to the happy and convenient view that Western withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq - combined (of course) with an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza - would remove the key grievances of the Islamist fanatics who like to express their disapproval of US and UK foreign policy by blowing themselves up - along with as many civilians as possible.
Ok, but once you've accepted the logic of appeasement, this doesn't really get to the heart of the "root causes of terror", does it? As well as leaving Afghanistan and Iraq to the tender mercies of the Taliban and the heroes of the resistance, it's surely self-evident that the entire Muslim world should be emptied of all Jews - not just those in Israel (you know how their very existence pisses some people off); all Crusaders will need to go, and not just those in the military; along with any freemasons that happen to be around (because remember, the Islamofascists have a thing about them too).
On the domestic front - being mindful to avoid the accusation of putting the lives of British subjects needlessly at risk, the government really should avoid doing anything that might upset the sensibilities of any clerical-fascists with chemistry sets who might be operating in our midst: off-licenses, pubs, night-clubs, theatres and cinemas will have to go - and this impious business of women walking around with their heads uncovered, as if they had nothing to be ashamed of, will obviously have to stop. Finally, to make absolutely sure, we should all convert to Islam - then we'll be safe.
Except we won't. If the "insurgency" has come to Britain, it's true nature - along with those who support it - should at last be clear to all those who either lacked the imagination or information, or were simply too stubborn, to recognise it before. The immolation of two young Muslim women at the hands of those murderers who would rather make orphans of their own children, and God knows how many others, on 7/7 serves as a sickening reminder of what some of us have been saying all along: as terrible as 9/11 and now 7/7 were - by a hideously long chalk, it is Muslims that are more likely to be the victims of the Islamofascist murderers than anyone else.
I was going to say "those who claim to be their co-religionists", rather than Islamofascists - but decided it was too imprecise because like all members of cults and sects, they see themselves as the true guardians of the pure faith, whereas those in the mainstream are not. So, Shias can be killed because they are heretics; Kurds because, although Sunni, they are disgracefully secular and pro-American; and "collaborators" because they have committed apostasy with this desperately wicked belief that liberal democracy might be preferable to a stone-faced theocracy. But most of all, the deliberate killing of Muslim civilians is permissible simply because the individual human life has no value in this quite literally anti-human world view. The value placed on an individual human death is, of course, quite a different matter for these people.
An alternative strategy to appeasement is required. Unlike some of those who submit letters to the Guardian on a depressingly regular basis, I don't suffer from the delusion that most of the world's problems stem from the fact that no-one has asked me how to run it, but as far as this goes, can I make a simple suggestion? However this is tackled and whatever the future holds, it would be - in my humble opinion - a step in the right direction if people would stop the hand-wringing search for what we did to invite this and get off their knees instead.
I'm bored to disgust with pseudo-lefties who have in some cases been getting away for decades with calling everyone they disagreed with a "fascist" and then when the real thing comes along, they tangle themselves up in the most pathetic fashion in a web of rationalisation and excuse-making - and one entirely of their own making, to boot. In Glasgow, we're used to people doing a similar - but altogether more lightweight - version of cheerleading a terrorism they've never experienced. And before you tell me that this sectarian idiocy is a sublimated rage against the grinding poverty they're experiencing, you might want to check out how much a season ticket to Ibrox or Parkhead actually costs.
In the same way, I'm afraid I'm not impressed with all those Muslims and non-Muslims who support regimes and terrorist movements that they've never been on the receiving end of. A question raised by Christopher Hitchens before the invasion of Iraq bears repeating at this time: what kind of "Muslim" state was Iraq where Ba'athism consecrated the entire country to the worship of a single human being; and where cities, mosques, airports and police stations were named after him - not to mention all those statues? One where traditional religious piety had been extinguished from the public sphere and an abomination put in its place, which all were compelled to prostrate themselves before. We used to call it idolatry.
So, for all those who have been banging on about how regime-change in Iraq and Afghanistan is perceived as a war on Islam, can I remind them that these were Muslims dancing in the streets of Kabul and Baghdad when their respective regimes collapsed? Also - and this is a wee bugbear - could at least some of these terribly civilised Anglican clerics who opposed the war on ecumenical grounds spread maybe just a little of this concern to their brethren who are being persecuted and murdered in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Maybe they could point out that these are real martyrs because they have killed by others - not by their own hands - and solely for their confession of faith. Or perhaps they think that would be impolite?
If not, just the basic point will do: if you think we deserve to lose to the Al-Qaeda murderers and their imitators, who are a death-cult whose very existence is based on a complete rejection of Enlightened values, then you've really got a bad case of despising the system that makes your miserable life possible. I won't lie to you, recovery can take some time in cases this severe - but you can make it. First lesson? Get off your knees.