Norman Spector does not mince words:
If the Globe and Mail’s Mr Saunders were a bit less disingenuous he might at least have suggested at the end of his piece that our security and intelligence organizations could usefully spend some time monitoring Islamist websites (as one trusts they do):
Canada’s looking for terrorists in all the wrong places
…this isn’t a matter of religion causing extremism. Yes, Islamic terrorists are, by definition, very religious, but they usually adopt this religion after becoming radicalized politically. The path from strict religious faith to violence simply doesn’t exist – in fact, the most religious are among the least likely to become extremists.
This is a political movement based on a territorial claim (what CSIS calls the “common narrative,” which involves securing the “land of Islam” and attacking those who invade or humiliate it). As such, it has more in common with earlier terrorist movements (the IRA, the FLQ) than it does with any widespread beliefs within diaspora communities.
This doesn’t make things easy for police or governments. It’s a criminal tendency, neither imported nor theological, not rooted in communities or faiths [do not the Jihadis themselves claim to be acting in the name of Islam?]. At the very least, we now know where we shouldn’t bother looking.
Gee, I guess that “land of Islam” (Darul Islam) just has nothing important to do with a certain religion. And by the way, just what is that “territorial claim”? Do Jihadis, e.g., want Spain back without making it Islamic once more?
On the other hand, if the equivalence Mr Saunders suggests is valid, I guess the IRA and FLQ were killing people in order to establish some sort of Roman Catholic Church rule in Northern Ireland and Québec respectively. Actually not so much blowing smoke, more belching politically-correct smog. More on Dauntless Doug:
Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute