To fully understand this extraordinary rage

among Muslims one factor stands out above all else:

The occupation of Muslim land by non-Muslim forces

From the time of the Crusades,

the pattern has been consistent

Yet the West still doesn't get it.

The greatest offence to Muslims is Israel’s existence

— a non-Islamic state in land claimed by the Muslims

It's part of the same pattern, from

from the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

to Russia's occupation of Chechnya

Jordanian & Iraqi Doctors behind UK Bombing

A cell made up of 7 medical personnel from Jordan and Iraq appears to have been behind the attempted bombing at Picadilly Circus on Friday and the actual car bombing at the Glasgow airport this weekend.

One is a neurologist, Muhammad Asha, from Jordan. Another is an Iraqi physician, Bilal Abdulla. CNN is reporting that Asha's family back in Jordan is stunned. They are middle class, not religious, and intermarried with Christians.

Why would highly educated and relatively well-off middle-class Muslims behave this way?

This cell of highly networked professionals had developed a narrative about the world that necessitated their drastic action.

The kind of thinking they would be engaged in would typically be:

"Britain and the US are conducting a genocide against Arab Muslims in Iraq, are ethnically cleansing Fallujah, Baqubah, and Baghdad, and this must be stopped and cannot be borne.

"Something must be done, something dramatic, to draw the attention of an apathetic public to the kind of policies they are supporting."

It's clear that a lot of this radical Islamic thought is now being driven by the Iraq War and to some extent Afghanistan, and that social peace in Europe may well require Western withdrawal from those countries.

The West's refusal to understand Muslim rage is personified by Blair's attitude:

The Observer draws attention to what it describes as Blair’s “powerful attack on ‘absurd’ British Islamists who have nurtured a false ‘sense of grievance’ that they are being oppressed by Britain and the United States.”

“The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we’re not actually fighting it properly.

"We’re not actually standing up to these people and saying, ‘It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd.

"Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.’”

The assertion that Muslim peoples have no legitimate cause for grievance against Britain, or that Britain has no intention of dominating Muslim countries, is a grotesque lie.

Historically, the role of British imperialism in subjugating vast areas of the world—in India, Africa, Asia and the Middle East—has earned it the enmity of millions.

Moreover, this is no past episode for which the British ruling elite are no longer responsible.

Britain is a major power, whose corporations and banks play a significant role in maintaining the impoverished economic state of vast layers of the world’s population.

And during Blair’s decade in office, it has played second-fiddle to the Bush administration in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in backing Israel in its brutal suppression of the Palestinians and last year’s offensive against Lebanon.

The West Causes 'Terrorism'

When US and UK government officials and foreign policy pundits discuss terrorism, they usually focus on the characteristics, personnel, history, tactics, targets, objectives and effects of terrorist organizations.

They rarely talk about motives.

To fully understand Islamic 'terrorism', one needs to understand what triggers this extraordinary rage. And throughout history one factor stands out above all else: the occupation of Muslim land by non-Muslim forces.

From the time of the Crusades, the pattern has been consistent. The Soviet Union learned this difficult lesson following its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1970s.

The Russians learned it again when they occupied Chechnya in the 1990s. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 Six Day War and its military interventions in Lebanon triggered similar reactions, as did the U.S. military presence in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that Israel’s very existence—a non-Islamic state in land claimed by the Muslims—is part of the same pattern, as is the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is much the United States could do to defuse the problem, and a good place to start would be by removing land-based U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf.

Even Osama bin Laden claims he attacks the United States primarily because of its military presence in the region. Other reasons, he claims, are secondary.

Remember, bin Laden first went to war not against the United States, but against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

When he returned to his Saudi Arabia homeland after fighting the Soviets, he found a large--and to him unacceptable--U.S. military presence in the desert kingdom, which remained after evicting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. It was then that the United States became a target.

During the Cold War, one could make a plausible argument for some U.S. involvement overseas to counter the expansionist Soviet superpower. When the Soviet Union collapsed, that rationale disappeared.

Even if the United States believes the global oil market will fail to deliver Persian Gulf oil to U.S. shores without U.S. military forces protecting it (a dubious proposition), the U.S. military could protect our oil lifeline from offshore, without troops stationed in Muslim countries.

The United States has done so before. In 1991, when the George H.W. Bush administration believed U.S. oil supplies were endangered by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, U.S.-based land and air forces were sent to the Gulf to push Saddam out of Kuwait.

After the job was done, those forces should have been brought home. Instead, the United States established a large military footprint in the region, which, in retrospect, was exactly the wrong move.

Now it’s time to get rid of that unneeded land presence, not to increase the ante by talking about permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

Just look at the troubles the United States has caused in Afghanistan. There, the continued U.S. occupation--which has changed its main focus from killing or capturing bin Laden to nation-building, counterinsurgency, and drug interdiction--is fueling a resurgence of the Taliban movement.

Only by minimizing the permanent U.S. military presence in Arab and Islamic lands can we hope to stem anti-U.S. terrorism.

The United States should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, inform the Afghans that U.S. forces will return if any Afghan government harbors al Qaeda, and use Special Forces to hunt down al Qaeda’s leadership.

This process needs to be repeated in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

The lesson learned is that empire does not enhance security--it undermines it. U.S. power on Islamic soil is especially problematical.