"Understanding Islamist Terrorism".

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/dont-give-isis-what-it-wants-united-states-reaction/

http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/daeshisil-freedom-powerful.html

Any drastic social change will cause rumblings from those treatened by them.

That's either threatened from an emotional or financial view.

abuayisha wrote: Balliol your questions call for speculation. May I suggest Karen Armstrong's book entitled 'Fields of Blood' where she argues against the notion that faiths cause wars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6I-V3iNeFo

Or may I suggest a book by a former muslim - Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"We have now had almost a decade and a half of policies and pronouncements based on the assumption that terrorism or extremism can and must be differentiated from Islam... this kind of approach wholly misunderstands the problem of Islam in the 21st century... For the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts... we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts."

abuayisha states. Balliol your questions call for speculation. May I suggest Karen Armstrong's book entitled 'Fields of Blood' where she argues against the notion that faiths cause wars.
There is little doubt that the reviews of this book other than those in the rightwing press make this a book worth reading and I will do so.

Matt suggests. May I suggest a book by a former muslim - Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

She wrote; "We have now had almost a decade and a half of policies and pronouncements based on the assumption that terrorism or extremism can and must be differentiated from Islam... this kind of approach wholly misunderstands the problem of Islam in the 21st century... For the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts... we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts."
Looking at the reviews this also deserves reading even if it may not give answers that I would be happy with.
Also posted by Matt
Originally posted by Balliol

�Why do people carry out acts such as the ones I have described above.�

Matt states, �There will, of course, be several reasons, but Islam is a major cause and a clear and obvious unifying one. What percentage of the World's Christians and Jews are murdering people and using their religion to justify it?�
I will not bore you with the many examples that history gives us of Christians murdering people and using their religion to justify it. As for the Jews, well they are giving us regular examples of such a policy.

Matt asks in regards to the person given prison sentences, �What was his motivation? As he said in a tweet: "test detonation of my keys to paradise". That sounds like an Islamic motivation to me, despite the years of denial by all western political leaders.�
I cannot answer such a question because although I read daily reports of such mindsets I am unable to understand them.
I am an 80 year old Englishman of a radical disposition but the statements made by Matt do not fit into my world, they worry me. I do hope that there is a valid alternative view.
I am also a compulsive book buyer and I started this quest as a result of finding a copy of �Understanding Islamist Terrorism� Patrick Sookhdeo in a market book stall. Were I to be of a mystical disposition I would have considered it as a gift from above but as I worked my way through it I started to believe that the book was a one sided attempt to depict Islam as an utterly murderous arrogant religion who appeared to believe that they had the right to demand that the whole world accepted their doctrine. I then looked at some of the reviews of his book and reached the conclusion that his writing was simply a vindictive attack upon Islam.
I will be honest and state that I would welcome the suggestion that maybe the disgraceful secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, concluded by the British and French diplomats, Sir Mark Sykes and Georges Picot regarding the partition of the Ottoman Empire once World War One had ended. Obviously it clashed with the McMahon Agreement of 1915 and the statements made by T E Lawrence to the Arabs who had expected to be allowed to govern their own regions after helping the Allies fight the Turks during the First World War but that worried not the British and French governments.
Added to that it has been propounded that the destruction of the Twin Towers was provoked by the absolute hatred that radical believers of Islam held for America for a number of reasons but even were that to be a valid suggestion most westerners would find such actions impossible to understand.