[edited to remove most caps]

-Carter
-Clinton
-Bush Jr.

And conservative Reagan’s funding/arming of our current enemies didn’t help either.

But I didn’t exactly mean this to turn into a post on US foreign policy choices.

I think Sam is right in suggesting that the reason we aren’t seeing a forceful rejection of the violent “jihadists” is that the Muslim world is, frankly, deeply conflicted about how to regard the extremists.

Oh I totally didn’t even register that all of those incidents I listed above related to administrations that were democrats. Oh well, good point. (PS: I’m not a Republican…bro). Up until 2001 I’d hesitate to blame the government’s actions solely on the party in power; be it Democrat or Republican…because up until 2001, no party acted without at least the partial consent of the other. I remember pre 9-11 talking heads bringing up just how little difference there was between parties and how that affected voter turnout.

Different world now.

PS: Some think that Monica Lewinski scandal is in part responsible for the failure to kill Bin Laden. Clinton was embattled, had no political leverage, so he couldn’t do more than launch a couple of missles…ironically because he thought it might expose him even more to Republican attacks. But that is another digression…

You’re absolutely right Sam… Prior Adminstrations are at fault for the ongoing debacle and increased terrorism that is at the heart of our failed forgein policy in Iraq. Carter deserves the blame for doctoring the story of WMD’s and Clinton for 911. These guys all by themselves helped usher in worldwide hatred and dislike toward our country.

Sam, your head is in the sand bro… And while we’re at it we can blame clinton/Lewinsky scandal on Republican Foley’s pedophile/homosexual scandal…

Muslim culture feels humiliated by Western success and thier own culture’s inability to withstand external and internal exploitation. In such frustration it is natural that the closest common ideology be asked to provide explainations for percieved cultural failures. Islam has become that vehicle.
Tribalist loyalties failed following WWI; that nationalist movements, like those found in Egypt ,foundered and eventually failed to meet any more success as shown by the debacles of the 60s wars with Israel. Dictatorships were shown to be weak as Syria and Lebenon sank into backwaters and Iraq was toppled so easily. Muslims don’t trust the stable governments (Saudis, Kuwaitis etc…) because they know that those governments are sell-outs. Muslim nations and peoples have been repeatedly humiliated in front of the West as it exploits thier lands and buys off thier leaders.

Thier sole success at resisting the outside has been the purging of the West and its proxy Shah leader from Iran by radicals.

I think that given such circumstances, even moderates feel a sense of pride that Islam is now on the edge of everyone’s lips. (no such thing as bad press). Terrorism in the name of Islam is now powerful. Thier greivences are forcefully being appealed. Thus, they feel a new sense of power and esteem because something related to them is changing the face of the world. Why would moderates stop this unless they were fully integrated and considered themselves Western? After years of feeling inferior, even when living in the West, Muslims can now look proudly upon thier religion as the first force to pose any real challenge to western/Russian economic imperialism since WWII.

Our flaxen responses to the Iranian hostage crises, Somolia, USS Cole and other aggressions only served to encourage the trends toward violence because they garnished press and prestige but only minimal retribution.

All and all, I’d say that radicalism is now as mainstream in the Islamic sphere as anti-westernism, and has just as much staying power.

But he has clarified his position and apologized (to my satisfaction anyway). I think the Muslim reaction was overblown. Ironically, the backlash rather confirmed in many people’s minds that the 17th century Pope may have gotten it right. And that’s unfortunate.