| > This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization. Hm? Which crusades are those? > Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts". You mean countries that had civil wars going on in them? That seems practically tautological. > But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top. You mean that terrorist attacks increased in places when they had foreign military bases in their country to target? What is that evidence of, exactly? > But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common? Fundamentalist Islam and low economic development. |