spinbadz own

For terrorists, it's party-time. They're celebrating the joy of the successful London mass murder with fresh blessed actions by brave mujahadeen.

In Iraq yesterday, we're told, 20-odd Iraqi children were slaughtered by exploding lemmings pouncing on a few US soldiers who were handing out sweets to the group. Meanwhile, several Israelis were (suicide-)murdered and scores maimed while at a downtown shopping mall, the first sneak bomb sprung on civilians there for 5 months.

Across the civilisation /non-civilisation divide the approach is a little different - sober and resolute. The police investigation into the London attacks moves apace. It's warts-and-all facts are headline fodder. Because of that, even Britain's leftist media establishment is forced to grok and digest the new mood. Part of the new zeitgeist dictates: call things by their proper name.

So the word "terrorist" (minus scare quotes) is popping up even in The Independent, in The Guardian, and on the BBC - sometimes under sufference.

There is an attempt in some quarters to accept the new mood and curb its course politically correctly. So Karen Armstrong, writing op-ed in The Guardian, beseeches us: if we must call the thing terrorism, let's not to call it "Muslim" terrorism. Without deciding on an accurate term she suggests "Qutbian terrorism" or "Wahhabbi terrorism", and finishes her piece on a pious crescendo:

"By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the increasingly perilous problems of our divided world."

Which would be impressive reasoning had she not, a few paragraphs earlier, referred to "Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US". Seeing as Ms. Armstrong was purporting to make pains to be technically correct and sensitive, she might avoided such terminology.

Neither of these "movements" glorifies or makes a habit of deliberately targeting civilians. It begs the question of why they are mentioned at all in an item discussing terrorism.

The misunderstood and maligned word "zionist" is not a religious term. It covers the full gamut of political thinking, left right or otherwise, on Jewish self-determination. It reinforces an unwarranted negative stereotype to use the description "Zionist fundamentalism".

In the US, many people on the right are not Christian and many Christians are not on the right.. Patriotic people of either or both descriptions are often not "fervent", and those that are are rarely minded towards killing civilians to advance their cause. The descriptive "fervently patriotic Christian right ", especially when used in this context, also reinforces an unwarranted negative stereotype.

Moreover, seeing as equitability clearly must underline any genuine "disciplined effort" towards accuracy, it runs in stark contrast to note that many newspaper reports on the new terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and American soldiers, mentioned at the outset, were short items buried deep in their respective publications.

There is absolutely no doubt that some - including Islamofascists and members of the far left - would interpret such attacks as legitimate responses to "Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US".

Whether Ms. Armstrong's description of these other political trends are equitable or accurate or otherwise, she did principally set out to find a satisfactory term for terrorism inspired by perverted religious views of a particular kind.

Can we agree to call it "Islemmingism" then?

Because, inter alia: lemmingism is indeed what it is, the actual perpetrators being the lowest beings on the food chain that begat them, while showing themselves, by their actions, to be unfathomably desperate, naïve, stupid, ignorant, hateful, intense, insecure and/or immature. What "promises" wrought them to chauvinistic murder - virgins in heaven, martyrdom, instant hero status, revenge; who cares?

Admittedly, the term "islemmingism" is insensitive and contemptuous.

Unquestionably, such emotion accurately conveys how such people are and ought to be viewed.

If prospective Islemmings imagine themselves to be heroes and dream of the leap from nothingness to notoriety - and there is every indication that that is the case - perhaps calling the malignancy for what it is might be part of an antidote: selfless martyr? No: self-possessed fame-seeker. Blessed, holy, warrior? Actually: psycopathically anti-social stooge - or scum. You're call, scumbag.

Achieving contempt and provoking odium, rather than winning respect, represents failure for Islemmingists in the first instance - in the very act of talking about them, and everybody knows part of their aim is to be talked about, to be feared.

Nothing scotches a social cancer like failure.