The reason American oil interests want Iraq's oil is to get out from under the thumb of Saudi oil.

I'll disagree. Record profits don't happen gazillions of barrels flooding the market. American oil interests are perfectly happy being under the Saudi's thumb.

With Saddam gone and Iraq unstable, everyone in Big Oil, including our very own companies, benefits by that oil in Iraq staying right where it is: underground and unavailable. So we didn't go into Iraq to get the oil out, we went there to keep it securely locked away and unavailable. Just like the Saudis and Big Oil wanted it to be. The less oil available, the higher the price consumers have to pay for it.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

I do agree that terrorism which originates in the middle east is about middle eastern concerns, it is not primarily about the US.  However, the US has a close connection to events in the middle east.  There is no question that the nation of Israel has only been able to survive for the past 59 years because of US support.  That is the most unforgivable crime of the US as seen by Muslim fanatics, although there are many other crimes of which the US is deemed to be guilty.  US support for the Shah of Iran was also a very serious issue (for which the US is still hated in Iran) and then there's the fact that the US has largely dominated the entire world, since WW II, and has used that dominance to export a culture which is distinctly non-Islamic, and which is to some extent even anti-Islamic, given that the supposedly unbiased and religiously free US tends to be dominated by Christians who are in many cases intolerant of other religions or points of view.  The US still sends out a variety of Christian missionaries to convert the heathens in other countries.  And then there's the war in Iraq, which has been managed clumsily enough to create even more resentment of the US (not including the Kurds, who appreciate US efforts).  So there are lots of reasons for Muslims to hate the US.

It may still be that Osama bin Laden personally cares more about reforming Saudi Arabia than he does about bringing down the US, although it is difficult to know exactly what he is thinking - and despite his periodic public statements, I personally have some reservations about his candor.  He is not necessarily telling us his true thinking.  And again, just as the US protects Israel, it also protects Saudi Arabia, whose oil exports are greatly valued.  Even if Saudi Arabia is target #1 for al Qaeda, it would still be true that only the US stands in the way of taking over Saudi Arabia.  So, everything considered, I will stand by my claim that the US is target #2, after Israel, for Muslim terrorists.

If the terrorists could destroy the Grand Mosque and pin it on the US, that would be a great propaganda victory, combined with a crushing religious loss.  One has to wonder how a fanatical Muslim would be able to balance those two factors.  Would someone destroy the most revered object in his or her religion for a strategic purpose?  And even that strategic purpose is uncertain, since there is always the possibility that people will uncover the truth, thus discrediting Muslim terrorists rather than discrediting the US.  Still, people have done stupider things, one cannot rule it out.

Also, this would be a great departure from existing tactics.  The purpose of terrorism is to inspire terror, in hopes that the terrified enemy will therefore surrender.  To make a terrorist attack appear to have been committed by your enemy might make that enemy more frightening.

If the US were to adopt a deliberate policy of terrorism (as compared to the accidental terrorism of "collateral damage") maybe Muslims would become frightened of America, perhaps so frightened that they would no longer wish to antagonize America.  The war on terror might go in that direction in the future.  If the US becomes sufficiently terrified, it will become correspondingly more ruthless.  Terrorists are very naive in expecting that a terrified America will just roll over and play dead, so that Islam can triumph everywhere.  On the contrary, the more terrified America becomes, the more viciously it will fight back.  If the US ever does decide to destroy the Grand Mosque (which it may), the most effective strategy would be to wait until the mosque is packed with religious pilgrims, and then hit it with a nuclear missile, with massive loss of life.  This would certainly be an effective use of terror, which would demonstrate that Islam does not have a monopoly on that particular tactic.  Of course, as long as the US wishes to continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Muslim world, such an escalation of hostilities would seem to be unwise - even aside from the moral objections, which are very severe.  Still, in times of war, it is hard for one side to maintain higher moral standards than the other, because that way the other, more ruthless side will have an advantage, and may therefore win the conflict.  

Those who use terrorism may very well eventually be subjected to it.  Sort of like the old familiar biblical quote, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

I would hope nobody ever pulls a stunt like that, although I know there are unfortunately countless whackos who would probably do something that stupid just to be able to sit back and watch the chaos envelope the region/world.

Bust a move!