Right, so, I'm not going to pretend to have a balanced perspective on this. What I see is through casual visits to some of the more major news sites like CBC, CNN, or BBC.
It seems that every other day something has been blown up - a hotel, a police station, a grade school, with the intent of causing as much damage as possible with a blast against civilian targets, tourists, and businessmen. Sometimes a particular group takes credit, but other times none do.
Religion is usually cited as the cause. Religion removes the fear of death from the attackers and provides justification to hurt those people. It's a hardline stance that allows no negotiation.
Something which has interested me however, was the bit of reporting done in the post-9/11 environment that went on to explain that these people are a vast minority. The majority of practitioners do not feel this hate, this compulsion. Moderates if you will. It was a refreshing if brief respite from the constant drone of "blah blah hate the west blah kill you blah".
Now here's where I start to lose focus. If they are the majority, a majority opposed to such actions, why are they such a silent majority? Why is there no focused backlash against this behavior internally? Tempers are very quick to flare over slights to islamic culture from the west, but the opposite, hate against the west, seems to be handled only in very muted, diplomatic tones.
I get the sense that I'm missing a lot of the picture. I'd like to read some books on this. If anyone can recommend some good reading with a balanced and experienced persective, I'd be grateful. Or if anyone has an opinion themselves I'd also love to hear it.