Even in the simplest systems our actions can have unintended consequences, and the importance of context and perspective are critical issues whenever one engages in a conversation relating to political issues. Consider this comment over at Sepia Mutiny:

Well, as an interested observer, I've got serious issues with ummah politics too. But as a new grand narrative of liberation, offering a utopian vision and a set of strategies for action (not all are violent), I can see its appeal....

Another reader took umbrage at the tone:

Yeah I know what the appeal of Islamist politics is to those who dream of Master Race fantasies - I can also see the appeal of Khalistan and the Pure Aryan Nation and Ram Raj - so what? There is no easy demarcation between those who propose essentially fascist solutions to societal problems - working 'peacefully' towards it is rhetorics and sophistry - the idea that Islamism is an 'anti imperialist' ideology is laughable....

To which the initial commenter responded:

I don't think that Islamists are fascists, but I've posted that elsewhere. But you would also deny them their basic human faculties in making political choices. I think that's a mistake. But leaving that aside, my point is that there is nothing much out there competing with this narrative of liberation in the marketplace of political ideas. Don't you think that's a really important problem?

I too believe that one should analyze and examine political movements and issues in a bloodless manner if you are to get far. Ultimately, a rational decomposition of the rise of the Nazi regime is probably fruitful if you perceive that fascist totalitarianism is a generic response to a particular fixed set of conditions. Nevertheless, I think problems crop up because people tend to privilege their analytic and emotive responses dependent on their own political biases. The
second comment tends to put the issue starkly: the need to "reason" or "understand" is not often extended to other groups or movements.