Here is what the 9/11 commission report says were the motivations of 9/11's mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed (KSM):

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

page 154

"........KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech excoriating U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world."

======

You will note that, according to the 9/11 commission, the primary motivation behind 9/11 was U.S. support of Israel and the repressive tyrants we call our allies.

Change this and it will help reduce terrorism.

And, btw, it is the moral thing to do also.

They hate us because we support him -- quite simple really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010301742.html

'Free to speak out' in Egypt

Monday, January 4, 2010; A12

WHAT IS the U.S. position on democracy in Egypt? The American ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, was asked that question Dec. 14, during an appearance at an Egyptian university. She said: "In my time in Egypt, I have noticed that many Egyptians are very free to speak out. The press debates so many things."

The assembled students must have wondered if Ms. Scobey was talking about some other country. Egypt is rated 143rd out of 175 countries for press freedom by Reporters without Borders. Independent journalists who dare to criticize President Hosni Mubarak are routinely subjected to lawsuits by ruling party members that can result in prison sentences. Opposition bloggers have been beaten and harassed, and one, who called Mr. Mubarak "a symbol of tyranny," has been imprisoned for nearly three years. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, one of the foremost Egyptian campaigners for democracy, has been in exile since 2007 because of charges stemming from articles that he published in The Post.

Other than her curious praise for Egyptian free speech, Ms. Scobey did not say what the "U.S. position on democracy in Egypt" is. Instead she offered the generic disclaimer that "yes, the United States supports democratic values; we support respect for human rights and will work with anyone to those ends." In so doing, she echoed perfectly the tone set by the Obama administration so far in its dealings with Egypt and other autocratic governments of the Arab Middle East.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration correctly judged that an absence of political freedom was contributing to the growth of Islamic extremism, as was U.S. support for strongmen such as Mr. Mubarak. For a time it pressed Arab governments for democratic change, and it made some headway in Egypt before retreating in its final years. The Obama administration, in contrast, appears to have put democracy promotion in the region on a back burner. As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it during a November press conference in Cairo, the administration's "vision" focuses on "education, human development, economic development and human rights." She didn't mention "democracy."

The new administration is obviously eager to distance itself from the policies of President George W. Bush. But this is a particularly unfortunate time for the United States to disregard the issue in Egypt. During the next two years the country will have two elections, for parliament and for president, that could determine whether the corrupt power structure maintained by the 81-year-old Mr. Mubarak remains in place. Egypt's democratic opposition movement has been pressing hard to make the elections genuinely free, and lately the cause has gotten a significant boost from Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his stewardship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr. ElBaradei declared that he wants "to see Egypt become a democratic country" and would support constitutional reforms that would allow him and other independent candidates to run for president.

Here, it seems, is a genuine opportunity for the United States to press for democratic change. U.S. officials say that they have, in fact, been raising the elections in bilateral discussions with Cairo. But there has been no public indication that the administration supports Mr. ElBaradei's call for a genuinely competitive election. Instead, questions about democracy are answered with the sort of other-worldly rhetoric delivered by Ms. Scobey -- and funding for democracy programs in Egypt has been cut by 60 percent. That is a shame. The United States has sponsored education and economic development in Egypt for decades, without changing the country much. If the Obama administration neglects Egypt's elections, it, too, will fail.

Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including The Future of Political Islam.

"Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world.

But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html

Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Graham E. Fuller

Former CIA station chief in Kabul and author of The Future of Political Islam
Posted: May 10, 2009 03:41 PM

For all the talk of "smart power," President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of U.S. strategic thinking.

-- Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.

-- The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist.

-- It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The "Durand Line" is an arbitrary imperial line drawn through Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border. And there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as there are in Afghanistan. The struggle of 13 million Afghan Pashtuns has already inflamed Pakistan's 28 million Pashtuns.

-- India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan -- in the intelligence, economic and political arenas -- that chills Islamabad.

-- Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not. Pakistan can never afford to have Pashtuns hostile to Islamabad in control of Kabul, or at home.

-- Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.

-- The U.S. had every reason to strike back at the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan after the outrage of 9/11. The Taliban were furthermore poster children for an incompetent and harsh regime. But the Taliban retreated from, rather than lost, the war in 2001, in order to fight another day. Indeed, one can debate whether it might have been possible -- with sustained pressure from Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and almost all other Muslim countries that viewed the Taliban as primitives -- to force the Taliban to yield up al-Qaida over time without war. That debate is in any case now moot. But the consequences of that war are baleful, debilitating and still spreading.

-- The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border. U.S. policy has now carried the Afghan war over the border into Pakistan with its incursions, drone bombings and assassinations -- the classic response to a failure to deal with insurgency in one country. Remember the invasion of Cambodia to save Vietnam?

-- The deeply entrenched Islamic and tribal character of Pashtun rule in the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan will not be transformed by invasion or war. The task requires probably several generations to start to change the deeply embedded social and psychological character of the area. War induces visceral and atavistic response.

-- Pakistan is indeed now beginning to crack under the relentless pressure directly exerted by the U.S. Anti-American impulses in Pakistan are at high pitch, strengthening Islamic radicalism and forcing reluctant acquiescence to it even by non-Islamists.

Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world.

But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis.

The Pakistani army is more than capable of maintaining state power against tribal militias and to defend its own nukes. Only a convulsive nationalist revolutionary spirit could change that -- something most Pakistanis do not want. But Washington can still succeed in destabilizing Pakistan if it perpetuates its present hard-line strategies. A new chapter of military rule -- not what Pakistan needs -- will be the likely result, and even then Islamabad's basic policies will not change, except at the cosmetic level.

In the end, only moderate Islamists themselves can prevail over the radicals whose main source of legitimacy comes from inciting popular resistance against the external invader. Sadly, U.S. forces and Islamist radicals are now approaching a state of co-dependency.

It would be heartening to see a solid working democracy established in Afghanistan. Or widespread female rights and education -- areas where Soviet occupation ironically did rather well. But these changes are not going to happen even within one generation, given the history of social and economic devastation of the country over 30 years.

Al-Qaida's threat no longer emanates from the caves of the borderlands, but from its symbolism that has long since metastasized to other activists of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the Pashtuns will fight on for a major national voice in Afghanistan. But few Pashtuns on either side of the border will long maintain a radical and international jihadi perspective once the incitement of the U.S. presence is gone. Nobody on either side of the border really wants it.

What can be done must be consonant with the political culture. Let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures.

If the past eight years had shown ongoing success, perhaps an alternative case for U.S. policies could be made. But the evidence on the ground demonstrates only continued deterioration and darkening of the prognosis. Will we have more of the same? Or will there be a U.S. recognition that the American presence has now become more the problem than the solution? We do not hear that debate.

(C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK; (TM) TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including The Future of Political Islam.

Dr. Walt may want to revisit this assumption, a staple in much of what he writes about the Middle East in particular.

The use of poison gas is a tactic, So is the use of tactical nuclear weapons. So are deliberate campaigns involving rape of civilians on a large scale. The extent to which such tactics are or are not used to address perceived grievances, or to attain other objectives, is not simply a question of whether the grievances (justified or not) and objectives exist.

The assumption that it is might lead one to the conclusion that appeasement of grievances is what is needed to eliminate use of tactics deemed morally offensive. Other things being equal, though, it is more likely in the best case to lead to the suspension of objectionable tactics in specific circumstances. Terrorism -- deliberate attacks on unarmed civilians, especially those remote from an area of conflict -- will continue to be seen as a legitimate tactic. If it is perceived to have been successful in securing political objectives, in fact, it is more likely to be used the future.

It is also worth considering whether grievances and political objectives can become excuses for the use of tactics attractive for other reasons to the people employing them. Campaigns of deliberate rape, frequently embarked on in African conflicts during the recent past, are an obvious example. While modern Arab terrorists are not the only people ever to have engaged in tactics like suicide bombing and putting human bombs aboard airliners, they have certainly pioneered these practices, aggressively sought to promote them among non-Arabs, and succeeded in persuading the public in most Arab countries that they are, in certain circumstances, morally justifiable. Realism, in its common meaning though not perhaps in its academic one, requires we consider whether this may say something about Arabs.

Now, it is no more than common sense that quarrels with any people should not be sought unnecessarily. American and Western conduct should never be assumed to be fixed and immune to reconsideration. On this Walt and I agree, though our thinking about specific cases probably diverges. It remains true, though, that most tactics we think of as "terrorist" have been employed widely by Arabs against other Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, not just against Americans and Israelis, killing and maiming many more of the former than the latter. Middle Eastern governments, oppressive as they generally are, got that way as much because they feared assassination and violent revolution as because they feared reform, whether liberal or Islamic. The Arab reaction to the genocide sponsored by the Arab-dominated government in Darfur beginning in 2003 was one of sympathy and support -- of the government responsible for the genocide.

It is finally the case that what we think of as modern, free and ordered society is inevitably compromised when terrorism becomes accepted as "just tactics." The Western world -- even Americans, with our unhealthy tolerance of non-political violence -- understands this, and reacts to human bombs and deliberate massacres of civilians with fear and revulsion. That is what the "war on terrorism" is all about.

The Arab reaction, making full allowances for a range of opinion in the various Arab countries, has been different. It is certainly fair to argue about what this means, or what it says about Arab political culture. It is foolish to assume that it doesn't mean anything.

Not much more to say - you said most of it, if not all.

According to Ynetnews, Mr. Mitchell ; and on the eve of his departure for his new tour, he has threatened Israel with sanctions if it does not advance the peace process {honestly I am not joking and I am not under the influence of anything that numbs the senses}, and Sec. Clinton seems to be promising a speedy return to the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis without pre-conditions. A glimpse of optimism perhaps, for an overtly gloomy circumstance?.
khairi janbek.paris/france

So, according to your logic we should have stopped all scientific research in response to the Unabomber?

A question for you, JANBEKSTER, sir. If Mitchell is such a big player, why is Abbas in Cairo talking to Mubarek and why has Shimon Perez stolen the headlines as the Grand Go-Between? Too many chefs are stirring that pot, if you ask me.

The post itself is a bit of a waffle and not as attention grabbing, or clearly wrong, as the headline.

By all means, let's understand why our enemies hate us, because that information is useful to us, tactically and stratigically. But no serious person is going to recommend we take a Munich-like journey to Osama's cave to address his 'legitimate grievences'. The demands of the delusional, the fantatic, and the power-made are endless and by definition can never be met (unless one wants to get with Sir Maxxalot and advocate the genocide of the world's Jews).

So -- getting intellegence on the bad guys is a good idea. Doing what we can to delegitimize them with their supporters is also a good tactic (although Al-Queda, by sawing the heads off of innocent men and women, does a good job of that already). But we need to remember, that these are bad guys, they are our enemies, and will remain so. They can be neutralized or killed, but we there is no benefit in trying to reach an 'accomidation'.

To paraphrase Orwell, the goal of terror isn't to create a better world, or a universal caliphat, or to protect fellow muslims. The only goal of terror is terror.

You are way off base. Show me a country who has done more to help Islamic countries; freeing Kuwait, getting rid of Sadam, and billions of dollars in aid. What bothers the Islamists is that we are a success and they are a failure. Do you honestly think that there is anything we can do to convince them to stop trying to kill us?

of al-Qaeda and its so called affiliates for western countries, is no less than it is for Arab and Muslim countries. Therefore; logically, there should be firm cooperation between Arabs and Muslims with the western world, in order to be able to counter this common menace.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Walt's article reads like just another political tract with something to sell, not the work of a supposedly serious academic. His list of fixes to terrorism happen to coincide exactly with how he has wanted US foreign policy to change, just as politicians' fixes always involve voting for them and approving their spending of more money.

If we want to figure out how to change foreign policy to decrease terrorism (assuming that such a thing is possible) we should at least look for policies that are correlated with an unusually high number of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately for Walt, nothing he lists remotely meets this litmus test.

One would say Mr./Ms. Nur Al Cubicle , that the only consequential thing, is the return of the Palestinians and the Israelis to the peace negotiations.

Unfortunately, neither the Arabs nor the Israelis are capable any longer, of peace making on their own, therefore, without the US; be that with pressure on one side or on both sides, or by imposing its own vision of peace, I think at best, I would certainly hope that the alternative to absence of peace will be no war and no peace, otherwise, I think the international community should brace itself for picking the pieces in the case of war.
khairi janbek.paris/france

It is becoming painfully clear from the video of Jordanian bomber and Wall Street Journal article titled ‘Risky ally in war on polio: the Taliban’ on January 9, 2010 that the US governments have been silent partners of Pakistani governments in the continuing deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan ever since US overthrew Taliban government in 2001.

That is because US governments have been tolerating Pakistani governments’ sanctuary, support and protection of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s Afghan Taliban (QST) in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan which is fully under the control of Pakistani governments and Haqqani in North Waziristan while US and Pakistani governments trumpet Pakistan’s so-called heroic efforts to destroy Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and Swat valley.

Furthermore US efforts to isolate Al Qaeda as the only enemy that US needs to defeat as emphasized by President Obama recently are pointless. Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban - all three are the peas of the same pod as proved by Jordanian bomber‘s posthumous video.

The video by Jordanian bomber and the Wall Street Journal article only reiterate what General McChrystal so vividly wrote in his August, 2009 assessment to President Obama:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

It is bizarre to say the least for US governments to even claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic fundamentalists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistani governments are sheltering, supporting and protecting the very leaders of this Taliban insurgency.

Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, Jan 7, 2010 06:08 EST
More cause and effect in our ever-expanding "war"
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

If it is taboo to discuss how America's actions in the Middle East cause Terrorism -- and it generally is -- that taboo is far stronger still when it comes to specifically discussing how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels Terrorism directed at the U.S. An article in yesterday's New York Times examined the life of Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian who blew himself up, along with 7 CIA agents, in Afghanistan this week. Why would Balawi -- a highly educated doctor, who was specifically recruited by Jordanian intelligence officials to infiltrate Al Qaeda on behalf of Western governments -- want to blow himself up and murder as many American intelligence agents as possible? The article provides this possible answer:

He described Mr. Balawi as a "very good brother" and a "brilliant doctor," saying that the family knew nothing of Mr. Balawi’s writings under a pseudonym on jihadi Web sites. He said, however, that his brother had been "changed" by last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

An Associated Press discussion of the possible motives of accused Christmas Day airline attacker Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab contained this quite similar passage (h/t Casual Observer):

Students and administrators at the institute said Abdulmutallab was gregarious, had many Yemeni friends and was not overtly extremist. They noted, however, he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza.

When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of Al Qaeda announced earlier this year that they were unifying into "Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula," they prominently featured rhetoric railing against the Israeli attack on Gaza, and "presented their campaign as part of the struggle to liberate Palestine, since Israel and the Crusaders are one." So extreme is anger towards Israel over Gaza among Yemenis that even that country's President -- our supposed ally in the War on Terror -- called for the opening of camps to train fighters against Israel in Gaza. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta signed his "martyr's will" from Al Qaeda on the day in 1996 when Israel attacked Lebanon, and he did so due to "outrage" over that attack. There's just no question that the U.S.'s loyal enabling of (and support for) Israel's various wars with its Muslims neighbors contributes to terrorist attacks directed at Americans.

As always whenever the words "Israel" and/or "Terrorism" are mentioned, there is a severe danger of over-simplification and distortion from all sides, rendering several caveats in order: where U.S. support for Israel is a cause of anti-American Islamic extremism, it is generally not the only or even primary cause, but one of several; there is ample American interference and violence in the Muslim world that is quite independent of Israel, and that was true long before 9/11 and especially after. Al Qaeda leaders who actually care little about the Palestinian cause have a history of exploiting that issue to generate public support. The fact that Terrorists object to Policy X does not prove that Policy X should be discontinued. And most of all: to discuss causes of Terrorism is not to imply justification; one can seek to understand what we do to fuel Terrorism without suggesting that the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians is in any way legitimate or justified.

Despite all that, it's impossible to grow accustomed to the extreme fantasy atmosphere and self-absorbed blindness that pervades American discussions over Terrorism, especially in the wake of a new scare. The Right, seeking as always to exploit Terrorism fears, falsely accuses Obama of not displaying "war" language and a "war" mentality, in response to which he and his aides step forward to affirm -- yet again -- that WE ARE AT WAR!, and to point to all of the times Obama decreed this to be so and all of the war actions he has ordered. So we've spent the last decade screaming to the world that WE ARE AT WAR!, that we're a War Nation, that we're led by a War President. That we are "at war" -- not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but generally against Islamic extremists -- is an absolute bipartisan orthodoxy that must be affirmed by all Serious people. And we are currently waging some form of actual war in no fewer than five predominantly Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia); are threatening Iran with "crippling" sanctions and -- from our more deranged quarters -- war; and continuing our unbroken devotion to Israel's causes.

Yet even in the face of all of that, it is bewilderment and confusion that reign when our media stars and political figures talk about attempts to attack Americans. Why would they possibly want to do this? They must be crazy, or drunk with religious fervor, or consumed by blinding, inhumane hatred. Much of that is probably true for individuals willing to blow themselves up in order to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible. But it's equally irrational to think that you're going to spend a full decade bellowing WE ARE AT WAR! to the world, send bombs and troops and all forms of death to multiple Muslim countries (both directly and through Israel), and not have that directed back at us. That's what happens when a country is "at war" -- it doesn't just get to blow up things and people in other countries, but its own things and people sometimes get blown up as well. That's how "war" works.

It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?

The principal problem is that by pretending that we do nothing to fuel Islamic radicalism, we stay unaware -- blissfully ignorant -- of the staggering costs of our actions. I defy anyone to find a political figure in either major party's leadership who has, in the context of discussing U.S. policy towards Israel, ever even mentioned the fact that undying, endless American support for Israel -- making all of their conflicts our own -- increases the risk of terrorist violence aimed at the U.S. But it so plainly does. The fact that Israel is now explicitly vowing that its "next wars" against its Muslim neighbors will be "much harsher" than even the grotesque atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon means these costs are almost certain to increase even further.

Again, these facts do not, standing alone, prove that we ought to change these policies. The mere fact that Islamic radicals object to what we do does not prove we should stop, as there may be net benefits to those actions or they may be morally justifiable. But at the very least, rational discussions require that these costs and benefits be weighed, and that can only happen if we acknowledge the costs. But when it comes to our own actions in the Muslim world, and especially our undying devotion to supporting everything Israel does, acknowledging the costs (to say nothing of the morality) is exactly what we steadfastly refuse to do.

UPDATE: Today's Haaretz -- in an article headlined: "Report: Al-Qaida CIA bomber was furious over Gaza war" -- also reports: "The Jordanian national that attacked a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, killing 7 CIA agents, was furious over the Israel's Gaza offensive, the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported on Thursday." Phil Weiss asks about the connection between America's Israel policy and Terrorist attacks aimed at the U.S.: "I wonder how long the mainstream media will continue to treat this angle as a sidelight and not a main event"? Actually, treating it as a "sidelight" would be an upgrade from what they do now: ignore it completely and pretend it doesn't exist. As usual, these discussions can appear more freely in Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than they can in American ones.

UPDATE II: The Yemeni government today warned that any direct U.S. military action in that country "could bolster the popularity of Islamic militants" and "would strengthen Al Qaeda." For reasons that should be obvious, that's how it works: not only in Yemen, but generally.

UPDATE III: Time reports that Balawi (the Jordanian doctor) had been a genuine intelligence asset for the U.S., working to help the U.S. find and bomb Al Qaeda sites, but was completely transformed at some point into an Al Qaeda sympathizer and ultimately a suicide bomber who killed 7 CIA agents. Part of the reason for the conversion? Because of "his outrage at the high number of civilian casualties inflicted in the resulting strikes"; he "had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders." Relatedly, Spencer Ackerman notes that Balawi's Internet writings reflect a growing commitment to violence due to American and Israeli attacks on Muslims ("They have not left any excuse for any Muslim with a hint of honor to remain hesitant and accept the shame of staying away from the honor of participating in jihad").

Just contemplate how many Balawis there are in the world: Muslims who begin with sympathy towards the U.S. and hostility towards Al Qaeda who are completely transformed into the opposite as a result of the constant civilian death we and Israel bring (regardless of intent) to that part of the world.

Have you heard of notorious Islamist militancy group named Hizb-Ut-Towhid? The group was set up from 1995-1996 by Bayejid Khan Ponni (a.k.a. Selim Ponni) who left Bangladesh immediately after independence and returned in the 1980s to preach a radical version of Islam (Daily Star, April 19). He is a cousin of the former Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Humayun Khan Panni (bangladeshnews.com, August 13, 2006). Ponni, by some media accounts, has written a total of eight books on jihad which are widely circulated through dedicated outlets across the country (bangladeshnews.com, August 8, 2007). His first book, A Islam Islam Noi (This Islam is Not Real Islam) was heavily criticized and eventually banned by the Awami League government (Daily Star, September 28, 2003). Ponni's second book, Islamer Prokito Roop Rekha (Main Policies of Islam) argued that if democracy was not replaced with Shari'a rule in any society, armed struggle should be continued until Shari'a was implemented. A third book, Dazzal, called Jews and Christians "evil." Ponni has called upon his followers, who consider him an imam, to migrate to foreign countries to continue jihad against Jews and Christians. A large number of HuT militants have gone abroad after indoctrination. In Bangladesh's capital Dhaka, Gulshan is considered to be one of the posh areas, where diplomats and foreigners prefer to reside considering the comparatively safer security. But, for years, a notorious Islamist militancy group named Hizb-Ut-Towhid (or Hizbut Towhid) is continuing to operative a recruitment and fund collection center right at Gulshan Avenue under the disguise of a flower shop named Ferns and Petals. Ferns and Petals is a famous florist shop in India, wherefrom the famous brand name of the chain-store was stolen by this Islamist militancy group few years back. Hizb-Ut-Towhid is gathering strategic information on various community centers and large public gathering places in Dhaka through this florist shop, which is also engaging in floral decoration in weddings, corporate events and individual parties. It is reported that, various outlets of Ferns and Petals in Bangladesh are basically recruitment centers of Hizb-Ut-Towhid commando as well monthly subscription and donation from various people are received for this Islamist militancy group through Ferns and Petals in Bangladesh. Sigma Huda also is assigned to establish links with members of diplomatic corps and foreign nationals in Bangladesh under the mask of owner of Ferns and Petals in Bangladesh. Later strategic information on the whereabouts of these foreign nationals are forwarded to Saleem Khan Panni, kingpin of Hizb-Ut-Towhid, who is planning offensives on all diplomatic and foreign establishments in the country with the 'goal' of establishing Taliban type rule in Bangladesh.
Bangladeshi intelligence agencies should immediately initiate investigating the activities of Hizb-Ut-Towhid and Ferns and Petals. This illegal outlet is located at Dhaka's Gulshan avenue area. It was also learnt that, a close relative of Bangladeshi Commerce Minister is also associated with all such activities of Ferns N Petals in Dhaka.