The point is that our occupation of their holy lands was the "greatest" reason for the terrorist's attacks, just like they stated in their Fatwa.
Uh, your original point was one of motivating factor not degree of consequence.
As such this post here is not germane to the topic at hand. You are making a transparent attempt at changing the subject. I'll assume this is the case because you received far more evidence than you expected when you asked for it and because you cannot refute any of it.
If you want to discuss the degree of consequence of the motivating factors bin Laden employs to justify his violence against us that is a different topic.
Furthermore, you readily accept the word of bin Laden as expressed in his propaganda. You see, as I explained, and which you totally ignored, the fatwa was directed at and specifically crafted for Western consumption. As such it is made to appeal to the emotions of Americans upon grounds he perceives will generate the most approval. An approval which he hopes will then translate into public opposition to American policy which continues to place American forces overseas in Muslim lands.
You would be wise to exercise caution when accepting the word of bin Laden as found in his propaganda so as not to be lured and fall prey to his manipulation.
To the point of "our occupation of their holy lands. . .[being] the "greatest" reason for the terrorist's attacks. . ." If that was really the case a reasonable assumption would be that he would also feature this idea prominently and centrally in his messages to fellow Muslims and jihadist. But, you know what, he does not do that. In his messages to his fellow coreligionists bin Laden and al-Zawahiri focus almost exclusively on justifications based on the religion of Islam.
In other words, if that indeed was the "'greatest' reason," as you claim, then bin Laden and al-Zawahiri would feature it as the greatest reason when attempting to motivate jihadists. But they do not do that. That suggest, as I said, that it is nothing more than propaganda employed to manipulate people like yourself into opposing policies which are detrimental to radical Islamists. I know it fits nicely in with your worldview of 'American the great oppressor and exploiter or foreign peoples,' and so does bin Laden, hence the reason he uses it, but it fails to explain the ultimate basis of bin Laden's opposition to the United States and its allies.
We brought this on ourselves.
Bin Laden agrees with you.
But you have an interesting thesis. And one you have not provided an argument to support.
Do you also blame the non-affiliated person who passes through the "turf" of a violent street gang for 'bringing it on' when they get accosted and brutally beaten, robbed or murdered simply for venturing into the wrong neighborhood and acting in a manner which the gangsters disapprove of?
But more to the point, your "We brought it on ourselves" idea fails to account for the extensive religious justifications bin Laden and al-Zawahiri uses in attacking us. Justifications that prove that even if Americans were not in the lands bin Laden believes holy we would still be legitimate targets for jihadist violence.
