In the main, Janice, I do agree with what you well said in Post number 142. The following did occur to me though where I thought I might add to or differ from your disquisition. If I differ in some finer points, I only mention them because I agreed with everything else.
The terrorists perceive the west as having declared themselves to be enemies of Islam and their way of life.
Nothing is more certain but that terrorists perceive the West to be an enemy of Islam and their way of life, yes; far less, however, is it certain that they perceive the West to have “declared” themselves such, as though any deceleration soever could be pointed to which states an intention by the West to annihilate their way of life and their particular religion. Could it not be the case that rather than perceiving any formal deceleration, they assume, without any particular referent that enacts it, an inherit struggle is somehow innate, and that the West of necessity must ever work against their way of life and Islam?
I remember how appalled I was to hear the post 9/11 Bush rhetoric when he used the word "crusade". Millions of westernized Muslims and other in their own countries who had nothing to do with bringing down the World Trade Center heard this word as Christians hear the word "jihad".
Nothing makes me cringe so much as that which has issued from the faux cowboy and real blockhead who had the unfortunate distinction of being an ex president of the United States. That be as it may, his use of “crusade”, inexcusable indeed, is not proportional in its extent of influence to the use of "Jihad", so frequent in the mouths of radicalized Islamists; I mean both words are wrongheaded and bad but this does not imply that of necessity who said the one had an equal influence in the state of current affairs as who said the other. The same kind of folly no doubt is at play but with the difference of proportion. Consider, do you really think that word said by W. Bush in a speech once, "crusade", evidences an equivalent contingent of Westerns whose mission it is to kill, as the word jihad does when said by radical Islamists? When the radical Islamist say it, in many instances indeed, they urge killing of Western citizens like you and me literally and not as a rhetorical flourish (but which is a rhetorical blemish in actuality). I will be so bold as to venture one may be more extremely pernicious than the other as far as proportion, though they both exhibit the same kind of mistaken judgement.
And then the choice of singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Y9NGXxdAg . That sent a bellicose message to everyone watching who was the "Other". Consider the message in the words of that song. In England, it was also sung by the archbishop of Canterbury and those gathered in the church in a (as we westerners saw it) manifestation of solidarity with the United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmpo0csiIMs
Did the choice of song at that particular ceremony in Washington really prove so influential to those who have taken up the cause of terrorism and killing Western citizens by all means? Did any specific saying, song or deed really ever consist of what tipped an Islamic terrorist over the edge to killing Western citizens for jihad. The real essential causes must surely be deeper than any such particular occurrence one could point to like this. Nothing said or sung at any speech or ceremony is at all an essential constituent of that fuel which drives men and women to blow themselves up or become radical Islamists. That said, these particulars you mention are grossly unaccountable and wrongheaded themselves; and are in every way to be condemned as contrary to resolution and peace.
Best,
Erik