Surly, that can't be true. If so, then Muslim terrorists would also attack Japan, Germany, and France. But, they only attack the USA and the UK. (Japan is much richer than the UK.)  Why? Because of USA and UK foreign policy. (For example, the USA and UK imposed sanctions on Iraq in the 1990's that killed around 1 million Iraqis).

The more things change, the more things remain the same Acorn.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1BC840B8-CDEC-4C7D-BF44-B68E85DC211F

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas


The Persians (Iran), gave their edict to destroy Israel via a Mullah speaking for all the Mullahs that run Iran, not the parroting mouthpiece of a 'President' who is more of a Press spokesman for Iran.

The Human Rights commission has condemned Hamas and the Palestinians as well.

Again, my previous posts on the subjects stand.

That's the core of the issue Fred. As long as the west keeps interfering with their internal affairs to secure their energy resources the West will pay the heavy price not only interms of human resources but also financially. I have always argued that part of the problem with the US policy is supporting these puppet corrupt regimes that become the No 1 enemy of the US (US and some other western powers financed and provided aid to Saddam during an 8 year war with Iran) Some argue that this was the preferred option at the time I call it short sightedness in US foreign policies, which IMO has backfired and will backfire so long as there's no change.

As in Al Qaeda and many other terrorist groups?.. Or as moderates that need to get their house back in order? 

I think its quite interesting that nobody replying to this has actually started with the avowed motive of al-Quaeda in its outrage on 9/11.  The essence is that US 'occupation' (i.e. its huge military bases) in Arabia is seen as an affront to the holiness of the land.  As an attempt to imagine a similar situation in US, could it ever happen that a say Cuban/Russian military base could be located in say Salt Lake City?  I'm fairly certain that some fringe group of nuts would find it acceptable to bomb Havana in protest....    Of course, if the Cubans behaved with the sensitivity to local prejudices and culture that the typical american abroad displays I should imagine that 9/11 would be a cats sneeze compared to the storm they would provoke.

What I think I'm saying is that the conflict between US and fringe Islamic groups has a number of causes, but the main one is that the Islamists have an attitude towards their homelands that is not unlike that of some extreme americans to theirs.  And this attitude is exacerbated by a belief amongst americans that (american) military might is a moral virtue that all other countries should accept.  I realise that this lays me open to charge of inappropriate generalisation.  Would reply first of all with a tu quoque argument (which, since the whole point is about peoples attitudes, is not invalid here).  Just look at the idiotic generalisations by the lesser mortals posting on this thread.  Secondly, I would call to evidence the responding attitudes of a large number of countries when faced with US imperilaistic views.  And finally I can only draw on my own expeience - I travel widely (although not in arab lands) and have met many moderate arabs and other muslims.  Their assessment of US is uniformly poor -  and it doesn't matter whether it is true or not, we are talking prejudices and generalisations here.

Finally, let me just say that it is a very american approach to say 'they are jealous of us'.  That reflects a particular focus on material superiority and self that is not quite as common outwith US.  One constant criticism however is that the much-vaunted wealth of US is used to produce arms and fantastic means of destruction (almost entirely aggressive - whats to defend with 2,000 miles of ocean between you and any enemy?), when a large proportion of the world's population is starving.  The US is not alone in being a 'first world' country that couldn't care less about the rest of humanity, but it is pre-eminent in shoving its material success down starving peoples throats - and its military is probably the most noticeable aspect of this.  Which brings us round to where we started....

You all fail to see where this so called "Islamic" terrorism originates. It is not born purely out of Muslims frustrations with the west as it is of concsciously channelling of these frurstrations. Here is the simple truth Islamic extremism originated as a Saudi (and to a lesser degree Iranian) export. What happenned is the Saudi regime (and the Iranian revolution) needed some sor t of outlet where their peoples frustrations with their predicaments could be outlet. The rising discontent over Saudi corruption in the 70s had the potential to upheave the country, the royal family, instead of cleaning its act, decided to start funding the discontented and their frustrations over Muslim- Arab failures against Israel (and a host of other issues). They were given almost exclusive control over the religious half of the education system in the countrya and the religious schools they (and the exiled scholars from Egypt and Syria) educated the first generation of Saudi jihadis. These would have been an even bigger problem for the Saudi rayols had not the Afghan invasion and the ensuing jihad provided the outlet where they could go off and do their jihad. The rest you all know about.

Coming back to the original argument the Islamic extremists and the whole concept is a way that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other countries in the region vent out their homebred frustrted masses. That is why despite the good relations between the West and these countries the nationals of these countries are also the foremost among the ranks of the extremists in both position and numbers. Oh by the way Iran got its act together somewhat, during the late 90's early 2000s and is not so much an exporter of terrorism as it was in the 80's.

I don't think the use of al-Qaida to vent out Saudi populace frustration was premeditated or planified on the long run. It became sort of a deal between bin-Laden and the House of Saud: "Osama, we don't hunt you if you go do your  jihad far, very far from here. In Afghhanistan for instance."

Iran, is funding and tutoring terrorist groups more than ever. But their terrorist groups (Hezbullah, Sadr brigades etc) enjoy a certain support and legitimacy from the global muslim community and practice within the boundary or not too far off, of the laws of war.
They are not those crazy killers of al-Qaida. These groups are at the limit between terrorism and guerrilla.

My2ct