Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …On this point, Ron Paul is full of it up to his ears. Joel Richardson of WND opines:
...despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.Richardson blames a Paul advisor, Robert Pape for this fraudulent argument. Pape claims in his book "Cutting the Fuse" that 95% of terrorist attacks worldwide were a response to foreign occupation. Richardson counters with his argument that Robert Pape is a pseudo-scholar whose claims have been refuted by other, real scholars. Further, Pape has been found conspiring with CAIR to promote his book and his arguments.
According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.
I think the best refutation of Paul and Pape's argument comes from Lawrence Auster of View From the Right. Auster writes:
I have written about Pape's fraudulent argument in the past. In December 2005, in a long discussion with a reader who was promoting Pape's ideas. I said:My reading of Islamic literature and books on Islam revealed that, according to Muhammad, the only sure way for a Muslim to go to heaven is to die in jihad fighting against the infidel. Without this, a devout Muslim's chances of making it to heaven are only one in one thousand. Therefore, I believe that jihad against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is merely Muslims taking advantage of a religious opportunity: they can secure their place in heaven attacking "infidels," even when the infidels were sent to their country to protect it, as we did in Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Obviously, a Western presence in a Muslim country is going to exacerbate jihadist manifestations including suicide terrorism. That's why I'm against any involvement by us in the Muslim world and any efforts to reform it from within.
But when analysts detach from Islam phenomena that are obviously deeply tied to Islam, such as terrorism, we have a problem. This is what all the mainstream intellectuals do today. They say terrorism is due to some cultural or economic or political factor that is extrinsic to Islam, so if we just remove that extrinsic factor, the terrorism will stop. So if we assimilate the Muslims in Europe better, or if we stop "discriminating" against Muslims, or if we create a global Provider State to give Muslim countries food and schools and highways, or if we betray Israel to its mortal enemies, then terrorism will go away.
My point is that while we should not do unnecessary things that exacerbate jihadism, ultimately jihadism is an expression of Islam itself. As long as Islam exists, jihadism, along with the terrorism that Allah specifically orders in the Koran, will exist as well. Thus any writer who says that terrorism committed by Muslims is not connected with Islam is promoting a dangerous delusion. [Emphasis added].
Islamic jihad is all about Islam and Muslim salvation; it is not Arabic nationalism. The problem, reduced to its essence, is Islam itself. Our best method of protecting ourselves from Islam is separation, i.e. stopping Islamic immigration into the west, developing energy independence, and ceasing the stupidity of "nation building" within the Islamic states.