You might find Robert A. Pape's "Dying to Win" an interesting refutation of your post.

> While the motivation of individual terrorists is quite diverse, and some do actually want foreign influence out of holy sites, the overwhelming force behind their hatred towards western culture is actually based on the conviction that they have to destroy a deeply amoral and infidel society.

An interesting assertion. You have perused their literature, as you've implied some for of quantization. Please do share your data.

> The 9/11 terror attacks were carried out mostly by religious lunatics from Saudi Arabia, a land that is both wealthy and not occupied by western forces. Of course subsequent American military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq has catalyzed the recruitment of some new terrorists who may start out with the reasons you described. But even given the ongoing conflicts in the occupied countries, the majority of terrorists come from wealthier backgrounds and never suffered any occupation themselves.

You have entirely misunderstood me. It's not the occupation of nation states that motivate, but the occupation of Holy Lands. You'll note that Saudia Arabia contains the Holy City of Mecca and the Holy City of Medina. American bases once near these cities caused a significant amount of religious and secular anger; strong American relations with Saudi Arabia still do.

> However, the prime motivation of the terrorist is not withdrawal of western influence anywhere.

Oh?

> Instead the goal is to achieve some kind of conversion by using fear as a weapon.

Hopelessly vague. You do know that these groups actually _state_ their intentions, both publicly and privately?

> The religious radicalization of the US in recent years together with our willingness to obliterate the freedom that once formed the very basis of our society, those are the intended effects and they were achieved on purpose.

How do you know this? How could anyone, further, have predicted this outcome?

> We are now closer than ever in spirit to the Islamic idea of society,

That's wrong-headed. Islamic societies were for centuries bastions of learning and art. Increased environmental hardship and the resulting poverty shifted Middle Eastern cultures to a more repressive frame of being, but this is hardly some intrinsic "Islamic" trait. Also, I seriously doubt that the goal of fundamentalist Muslims is to create fundamentalist Christians. Seems rather counter-productive, especially considering their rhetoric and historical views concerning The Crusades.

> we once again have disavowed science in favor of abject ignorance,

This phenomena is hardly new in human civilization. Note that Victorian Britains were enamored of the Marvels of Science and their disenchanted Edwardian children became mystics.

> we are taking back achievements of equality,

Oh?

> we are even working on instating Sharia law in some places.

Preposterous.

> We have indeed declared war on the concepts that Muslim radicals hated the most, not the least of which are: individual freedom and rights, self-fulfillment, women's rights, sex (for non-procreation purposes), education, free speech, and science.

Note that despite the rhetoric of al Queda, they have never attacked a country which did not operate a military base near territory they consider Holy. This assertion has no basis in fact.

> Keeping that in mind, the TSA's purpose is not to provide security, or even to provide a false sense of security. Its job is to update people's expectations about the nature of the society they are now living in. They chose to do this in a place where we're vulnerable, where our employment is on the line, where we invested a lot of money. They chose to do this in a place that once symbolized the freedom to travel anywhere we wanted without government interference. To show they own us, and to not-so-subtly demonstrate how completely our freedom depends on personal compliance and the ability to get along with overseers who possess the power to do pretty much anything to us on a whim.

Ah, "They". I reject your initial premise without more evidence and so do not, as yet, grant your conclusion. The vaguely Conspiracy Theory Open-Secrete tone of the conclusion is further damaging, to my mind.