Originally Posted by
GUWonder
I don't believe that to be the case; but it's neither my or your
thought process nor being that which you mention which is truly of interest here.
The facts are what they are: most "jihadists" are not primarily or even secondarily interested in attacking Americans or attacking Americans in America. Most such outfits mentioned as "jihadists" by Bushists have much more narrow and geographically-specific political objectives than Al-Qaeda. (Some "jihadist" terrorist organizations are even targetted by Al-Qaeda or are otherwise in conflict them yet get lumped into the same category.) To lump a selective list of extremist outfits into one bucket on the basis of religion (read: "jihadists") and globalize the issue (even as most such outfits have no global objectives) is a useful fiction for certain parties but a dangerous fiction if one cares mostly about US national security interests and a global reduction in terrorist attacks rather than some other more narrow interests.
If you cannot understand the above, then I cannot help you.
No, I understand the above and actually (
...God and Dovster forgive me for actually saying this...please.....)
agree with it.
Most jihadists do have a narrow scope of interest, particularly at first. Most aren't interested in the USA (beyond a general hatred) as a tactical or strategic target unless it coincides with their objectives.
But I was interested why you said that terrorist organizations do not want to be acknowledged for many of their attacks, when it appears self-evident to me that they very much do.