A few days ago I posted a comment regarding the Norway attacks.
“I have a great deal of trouble accepting that the Oklahoma killers or the Norway killers or the IRS killer were practicing Christians.
I also have a tendency to bring this up.
Given that the US Christian population is around 300 million and the Muslim population is around 1.5 million, what weighting should we give to the population size disparity?? 300:1? 280:1?
I mean if all factors besides population number are the same, shouldn't the number of attacks be the same?
And don't forget the known planned/attempted unsuccessful attacks stopped by our security forces.
So if the number of attacks by radical Muslims since 1991 are around 20, shouldn't there be a million or so attacks by Christians???
There is a difference. There is a driver and Osama bin Ladin explained it during his interview with Peter Arnett, then employed by CNN:
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world”
An Anonymous reader has sent this comment. I think he deserves a response.
Actually, you are missing the point of Bin Laden's response, which is quite reasonable. He is stating that this jihad was instigated by the aggression of the US (not the other way around), and when that aggression ends, so will the Jihad. The world he is speaking of is the Islamic world, in which the US has no constitutional or legal jurisdiction.
No. The US was in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of that government. We were also providing billions of AID to Pakistan, Egypt and Israel.
We had also aided the Taliban in their fight with the Soviets. (An enemy of my enemy is my friend.) In 1997 there was no aggression unless you want to go back to when Reagan tried to set up a peace keeping group in Lebanon and count that peace keeping effort as aggression.
And since I suspect that you are either Muslim or a sympathizer to them, perhaps Hamas, I would guess that anything anyone does that seeks to oppose their efforts is regarded as “aggression.”
And, can you define me the “Islamic world?” Do you mean the theocratic governments of SA, Iran, Syria and soon to be Libya and Egypt?
Further, the final sentence reads, “it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.”
If he had wanted to say what you claim then he would have said, “it must desist from aggressive intervention against the Muslim world.”
You also write:
So, effectively, if the US ends its unsustainable and illegal current foreign policy, then the US will be safe from islamic terrorism. Essentially what you have is this: islamic terrorism = blowback. Norwegian terrorist = blowback to blowback. Stop the illegal wars and this can be resolved.
By Anonymous on Mathematics anyone? at 9:27 AM
Our foreign policy is neither unsustainable nor illegal and is the result of radical Muslim terrorism. By watching Europe many of us here in the US have concluded that the goal of the Islam radicals is the establishment of Sharia law in the US. We consider that unacceptable and are perfectly willing to accept a long war, just as we did with the Soviets.
So far we have won our wars, although we have lost more than a few bloody battles.
Only this time around it would be nice if we could get some help from Europe. As Patton once said, “I don’t like to pay for the same ground twice.”
OnTwitter I am Lesabre1
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt
"Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense." - Victor Davis Hanson