There's a rather remarkable article in the left-leaning Guardian -- even moreso when you consider their typical biases. They deserve praise for allowing this man such a public forum offering, as he is, a line many don't want to hear.

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

US foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired -- and the potential litany of (often contradictory) complaints is endless: too much involvement in a region, too little, not enough foreign aid, or we're proping up a bad government, we're exploiting them by trading with them, we're not investing enough in development, etc.

But it ain't so: Islamic extremists were scheming to take over Iran 60 years ago, Jews were massacred in Hebron, Israel in 1929, long before there was any "Zionist entity" to blame, and there have been jihadists in the Phillippines for centuries. As the former jihadist above says: the main justification and motiviation is jihadhist ideology, not some fine point of Western foreign policy.

A quick refresher course, translated for us by MEMRI:

"When… Al-Zarqawi Went Out and Slaughtered a Few Infidels, the [Advocates of] Tolerance and Friendship Had a Fit"

"The way of [waging] jihad changes according to the [available] means, innovations, ploys and practices. Over the history of Islamic conquests, jihad was [waged] according to these [changing] general principles... which we cannot enumerate here fully. We can, however, mention one aspect which our [Islamic] nation is now in dire need of, since many Muslims today have a distorted [understanding] of Islamic principles and tenets, due to [the influence of] the enemy, or due to [the influence] of some Muslims whose spirit has been defeated... and they have begun to distort the [true] meaning of Koranic verses on [the pretext of] rationalism, moderateness, a civilized [outlook], or similar notions [....]

"The aspect that Muslims must accept is that of ruthlessness and firmness in jihad. Many Muslims today are educated in a spirit that is far from the [true] spirit of the Koran...."

The author then goes on to speak of the need to be cruel and merciless to anyone who is not a believer, citing Quranic verses to back up his stance.

I'm not saying, here, that this is the "true" version of Islam, or "true" interpretation of the Quran. I'm certainly also not meaning to imply most Muslims share this understanding. (Indeed, the author agrees they don't, and laments that.)

I'm simply pointing out that there are other motivations in the world than the imperfections of the foreign policy of Western Nations.

And the most morally twisted aspect of this argument (generally brought forth by the left, but also by people like Ron Paul) is that that one is basicly justifiying the idea that if you don't like some country's government or foreign policy, it's okay to directly target their civilians.

Take it away, Ron Paul...

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism....

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

Sigh.

Ron really needs to explain this to the individuals cited above, who seem to buy into this "simplistic" explanation. And explain it to terrorists in Egypt (a hotbed of terrorism -- yet there is no US military base there), and those who attack countries such as the Philippines, India, Nigeria, Kenya, and Bali -- countries which have no military presence in the mideast.

These terrorists have a long list of grievances -- and the US military being involved in Lebanon, or Iraq (or based in Saudi Arabia) was certainly on that list. But so are demands for Israel's nonexistence, anger over the loss of Spain, and universal adoption of Sharia.

What Ron Paul thinks is the only motivation (indeed, he assures us terrorism will simply stop if we comply with this one request: "Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease...") is simply one of the first shopping items on the long jihadist grocery list for world conquest.

Unsurprisingly, it begins with a demand to remove all opposing forces.