> That assumes that targets of various terrorist activities - state
> sponsored or otherwise - are the intended primary targets, rather than
> targets of opportunity. I think the latter is usually the case.
[...]
> Another thing is internal politics, in which attacking foreign straw men
> is either a diversion or a way of attacking internal interest groups.
This is an intriguing analysis, Woj, but it would seem to apply largely if not entirely to states; it doesn't explain, for example, the motivations of the 9/11 hijackers, obviously non-state actors. For them, I think it is safe to say, the US was indeed the primary target, and in fact they succeeded hitting highly symbolic targets. For whom was this "just" domestic politics? Likewise, Bin Laden has specific grievances with the US, originating with its presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and he has become adept at demonizing the US in the eyes of the Muslim world. In what way is this just sordid realpolitik?
You seem to discount the power of ideology. Why?
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam