Doug, this is precisely what I argued elsewhere in this thread. Discontent and the dissolution of social order can have multiple outcomes. Some of those outcomes are reprehensible (cf. pogroms) others are neutral (cf. migrations), others are commendable (abilition of a tyranny, creation of a more just social order). Therefore, the fact that a social action has roots in popular discontent means nothing - all that matters is the goals that actions aims to achive and the means it uses. If memory serves it was you who pointed out time and again that claims of oppression (of a majority) are a prominent feature of fascist movements.
I watch with a sense of disbelief how many self-styled lefties (on this list and elsewhere) responded to the September 11 attack. These people sound like a broken record, repeating ad anuseam old idiotc slogans that could create a rebel image in the 1960s - and thus could be helpful in geting laid - but otherwise explain nothing. I understand that such verbal behavior is a ritualistic response to a threat - the same kind of response like flying a US flag, or attending a church service. That is why I simply do not respond them.
However, since the romantic vision of popular movements in the 1960s, there has been substantial research on social movements showing that it is the availability of material resources and not what the potential participants think or feel that determines a movement's shape and participation. Ideological convictions of the participants usually develop and take shape as a result of movement participation. Thus, someone may join a terrorist organization solely because he has been recruited, and then develop an ideology justifying his participation (the oppression-schmopression spiel).
So there is time for kvetching and flag waving, and there is time for a serious rational discourse grounded in empirical facts. I am ready for the latter.
wojtek