Most militant? I disagree. Most conservative, probably. But that’s not synonomous with militant. ObL and some ( by no means all, or even most ) of his cadres accepted, SA has traditionally not been a hotbed of terrorist activity ( at least not since the 1920’s ). And I think it’s wealth has a lot to do with that, though there are probably other factors at work as well.
Insomuch as this might be starting to change these days, it probably has some relation to the increasingly frayed nature of the SA’s paternalistic welfare state. It’s not just the extremely impoverished and ignorant who are prey to the appeal of extreme idelogies. In that part of the world, the educated but status-less, who are aware of the luxuries of the wealth and position, but denied what may seem like their just due by repressive or corrupt regimes, are also vulnerable to being radicalized. University students all over the Third World are a case in point 
.
Not really, in my opinion. But I don’t think anyone in here is making that argument. It’s not that some Muslims may hold the U.S. personally responsible for their economic plight ( though doubtless some do, for whatever reason ). It’s just that economic inequality can help create a situation where radicalism can more readily breed. It’s certainly not strictly deterministic. Monty’s correct that poor does not necessarily equal violent radical. But I think it is only logical to assume that it can be a push in the wrong direction. It’s a factor, and a very important one IMHO, but not the only factor.
milroyj, grienspace: I don’t have a quote handy ( but a web search should yield info ), but just to add a specific name to Collounsbury’s list, how about the underground Army of God, which truly does seem to advocate the murder of all abortion providers on religious grounds. Their clerical components are no doubt fly-by-night preachers of some sort, with obviously little respect or standing in the greater Christian community. But similarily ObL’s pronouncements don’t speak for a majority either.
Now you can quite legitimately criticize the fact that more moderate Muslim “clerics” don’t take a more publically condemnatory stance vis-a-vis ObL. I deplore that sort of “closing of the ranks” as well. As do some liberal Muslims I know ( Muslim Guy on this board being among them, I believe ). It’s a sad situation. But it doesn’t change the fact that ObL’s particular brand of fanaticism isn’t widely accepted in the Muslim world.
I daresay even many fundamentalists aren’t on the same wavelength as he is. No doubt there are some “moderate” members of , say, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, that whatever their general level of intolerance, would probably be just as eager to distance themselves from ObL as Falwell would be to distance himself from Fred Phelps. I’ve already mentioned elsewhere the internal split in al-Quaeda in 1992 over the potential killing of innocents in a planned embassy bombing in Riyadh. But just as another example, I remember catching an NPR interview ( I think ) with a long-time expert on Islamic fundamentalism. That person pointed out that in discussions with the members of most Islamist groups in most places, when the question came up of what was more important, the Greater Jihad ( the internal struggle with one’s self ) or the Lesser Jihad ( the external struggle against Islam’s enemies ), they’d role their eyes and reply with the equivalent of “Gee, there is a reason it’s called the Greater Jihad you know.” Everywhere but in Afghanistan - There the results were just the opposite.
The Taliban, as I believe MEBuckner very astutely pointed out elsewhere, really are the Islamic equivalent of the Christian Identity Movement. And al-Quaeda are the equivalent of the Army of God - Just a hell of a lot bigger, better financed, and with a lot more targets.
- Tamerlane