Okay, to do with terrorism but nothing to do with Islam.
Okay, the suspect's allegedly from Afghanistan, but no reason to think he's motivated by being a Moslem.
Okay ....
For those of us not caught up in the anchorite pretence that all is well, and all will be well, as usual, this is all about one fairly common, well-financed and apparently not unreasonable interpretation of Islam and the thugs who are attracted to it.
This doesn't mean anyone should victimise Moslems. They absolutely should not. It is not a problem of all Moslems. It is a problem of some of them. Nevertheless it does mean Islam has a problem. It is the common thread, whether a terrorist is from the Arabian peninsula, from Somalia, or from Afghanistan. The number of Moslems sympathetic to violence is far too numerous for the association of adherence to Islam and terrorism not to be statistically significant.
If you don't admit the problem, how can you solve it?
To me, it looks like Saudi Arabian theology and money is the epicentre. So I find myself on the side of the folks who want to sue that kingdom for 9/11. A country which promotes a violent and inflexible form of Islam cannot be innocent of the results of its teaching. Even if the violent action is not directly tethered to the teaching. If you tell believers they are righteous and they are victims and secular societies are responsible for the harms done to them, then you are generating the terrorism which results, even if you don't require it.
If Saudi society suffers a financial consequence of its monarch's policies, maybe they will stop him doing what he appears to be doing. Those folks may be Moslem, but they believe in the power of money even more. How might it feel to have a lot less of it?
If they have less, maybe the notion of spreading Wahhabism will seem less attractive. And Moslems elsewhere will be shot of the influence of this toxic form of Islam and the dimwit thugs whose self-righteousness is engaged by it.
| 