I have one answer to a key point of his...
Second, if the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists?
Because they're busy fighting on their home turf, against more obvious and direct targets, i.e., foreign troops occupying their land. That would be us. And the traitorous quislings helping them for personal advancement. e.g., Iraqi police recruits (a bonus of course if they're Shi'a heretics).
They can paint themselves sincerely as heroic resistance fighters, willing to die for the freedom of their country, with the approval of many peers.
Why bother going abroad (not that easy for these nationals even if you have one of their passports, not that easy to be unwatched afterwards, etc) and find an organization which you may well have had no direct contact with? Why then go and attack uninvolved civilians, when you've already seen the involved invaders?
British-located sympathisers attack in London, Spanish in Madrid, etc. That's easiest for them, and addresses the targets which *they* feel will have the greatest impact.
it's a sufficiently obvious answer that I don't know why he did not address it himself, unless he felt it weakened his argument. |
