Regardless of political affiliation, one of the main contention points that continues to drive Radical Islam and the United States at odds is the founding fathers of two political movements within both entities.  With respect to the United States, the neoconservative movement was born out of Leo Strauss dissatisfaction with Western liberal democracy.  As such, into the conservative movement within the United States was injected a great deal of pro-Zionism and abject dislike for Arabs and Muslims in general.  Due to the ongoing struggle that was represented in the land of Israel during the time that the neoconservative movement was initially founded, it does not leave one to question why such a pro Israel and Zionist interpretation of the political spectrum was inherently included into the platform of the neoconservatives.  Likewise, with regards to the Muslim-Egyptian Sayyed Qutb, his defining moment from turning away from Arab secularism was likely due to the impacts of European colonialism and his desire to reunify Arab and Muslim lands under the congealing banner of Islam.

However, with regards to what the 9/11 Commission Report found, the attacks of September 11th were precipitated not because the shareholders within al Qaeda were fundamentally opposed to democracy or the broad freedoms that Americans enjoyed (as was told to the citizens soon after September 11th); rather, the defining reasons were based upon a complete dislike and hatred for US policy within the Middle East to include: support for Israel, encouraging religious pluralism, and the stationing of a large number of US military personnel within Muslim lands (Traister 27).  As such, the recommendations that the 911 Commission could make on these determinants were practically hogtied.