Pro-dictatorship crowd?? That's pretty funny coming from the folks that supported Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, the former head of El Salvador, Augusto Pinochet, Prince Faud, the current head of Indonesia, Pervez Musharaf, Reza Palavi, etc.. etc.. etc..

Pretty typical right-wing stuff though, call your opponent what you are in spades.

As to why radical Pakistani's would blow themselves up if Houssien was a pro-secularist (of which it's not faith, it's undisputed except by the less than 1% crowd), geez, toss me another softball but.. BECAUSE WE ARE OCCUPYING IRAQ. They were glad to get rid of Houssien, I recall a meeting with an ABC reporter (imbedded) and some Shiites in Basra (a town with very little insurgency btw), the reporter asked a question about the single greatest mistake the U.S. could make. In what certainly appeared to be unscripted in it's response, the resounding answer was, "Stay."

It shouldn't be hard to understand that people may have more than one motivation, however their core motivations are those which guide their conduct. In this case, certainly theocratically minded Sunni and Shiites were very glad to see the man who had tortured and killed outspoken clerics gone, but they obviously have no interest in occupation by the west. That's not really difficult to grasp unless you willfully don't want to.

PB

PB, can you explain why the folks blowing up women and children in Iraq are also non-Iraqis?

Well.. first, I surely don't know everything...not even close.

It seems, and this just is an opinion, but based on the comments by the British Muslim (Pakistani expatriots) terrorists involved in 7/21 attacks, that occupation of Messopotamia, especially Kharbala (a revered Shia and I beleive Sunni site), is an anethma to extremist Muslims.

Consequently, and it's clear from interrogations of foriegn terrorists in Iraq, many, even the majority, are simply there to attack the US for being in Iraq, which is both consistent with what Al Qaeda is advocating for, and is frankly consistent with the fact that it isn't about Islamofascism (a very very very poor term), as that would imply a coordinated attempt to impose theocracy on Iraq, which is NOT the point of the Pakistani-Brits, nor is it the universal point of those we've caught in Iraq.

Their point is that we must go, no matter what else happens, Westerners cannot occupy their holy lands. We knew this would be a problem going in, and conflating that with Al Qaeda's attempt to spread pan-Islamo theocracy is as disengenuous as it is wrong.

Having said that, bear in mind that 96% of those we catch and imprison in Iraq as insurgents are Iraqi's. I have not heard statistics on this, but it is my understanding that the VAST majority of suicide bombers are Iraqi's (i.e. higher even than 96%). The 96% came from our own DoD release and is backed up by the Red Cross' numbers. So my question back is, why would Iraqi's, who hated Houssien according to Cheney, blow themselves up when we got rid of the dictator? The answer is pretty straightforward, we have three motivations primarily in Iraq, those who supported Houssien who want a destabilized environment with the hope of bringing the Baath secular Sunni rule back, we have those who are truly are in favor of a Sunni Caliphate (such as Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden), and we have those who just want the US the hell out. From all reports, the latter group is acting as foot soldiers for the two former. They don't care about Houssien any longer, and are willing to act as bomb throwers. The former two have an uneasy alliance with the goal of keeping Iraq out of the hands of theocraticly minded Shiites.

The short answer then is, because they either liked Houssien, or didn't, but don' care, they want us out for their own purposes, or just becasue they want us out. Either way, it's hardly this well organized, pan-islamism. It's just as it appears, a bunch of folks with different motivations, who mostly just hate the fact we are there, just like the guy in Britain is saying. When it looks like a duck, it's usually a duck. Using blather and gross generalities to call it an elephant, doesn't make it an elephant.

Ok, so why is Islamofascism a terrible phrase, first, it's not at all fascism, Fascism is, according to Moussoulini, Corporati il Stati, or the Corporate State, rule of the State by corporations or in close cooperation with them. Second, there is no state controlled by Islam alone, the only one there was we knocked over, but unfortunately just put in a disorganized and weak central government that can maintain only nominal control and now chiefly exports herroine. Even Iran is not primarily run by Clerics, though their leadership does need some approval. Yes, Al Qaeda wants a Sunni dictatorship, but if dictatorship now equates to fascism, what does that make Stalin and the USSR. Further, it implies cooperation between Sunni and Shiite in this Islamic goal, which is ludicrous in the extreme. Finally, it insults the VAST majority of Islam by implying that Islam supports fascism. It should be called Wahabist Dictatorship, or even Sunni Despotism, but Islamofascism is both highly innacurate, and irresponsibly inflamatory.

Corporati il Stati, or the Corporate State, rule of the State by corporations or in close cooperation with them

"Corporati il Stati" does not mean "corporate state"--or anything else--in Italian. "Corporazione" (at least in the sense Mussolini meant it) does not mean "corporation." I'm not even sure what "close cooperation" with a corporation means, either. So you learned everything you know about this topic from some illiterate website. But carry on. Fascinating stuff.

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.