quote:
Based on what is it absurd and unfounded?
Your statement is unfounded, with nothing to back it up, other than to say "that's absurd and unfounded."

There is clear evidence that Saddam Hussein has previously pursued weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the U.N showed mass stockpiles missing of VX, Sarin and Anthrax (as I've said repeatedly, and been ignored repeatedly). If Hussein had gotten his hands on nukes, then, Hitler-esque, he could take whatever he wanted, and no one could do anything about it.

You can believe what you want, but I don't see that your wild speculation has any basis.

Whereas my "absurd/unfounded" statements have quite a bit of basis in Saddam Hussein's past actions, U.N. sanctions based on these actions, and Hitler-like dominance of his own country.
Comparing Hussein to Hitler is just insane. Saddam Hussein isn't even on the same scale as Hitler when it comes to dictators. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but comparing him to Hitler is the worst comparison since PETA compared the Holocaust to meat production.

quote:
I suppose the CIA could be very cunning and buy some Russian WMDs and plant them in Iraq. But...what if they were caught?
The Russians would probably figure it out.

quote:
First, there is an Islamic concept called the umma, which is the union or community of Islamic peoples. Many fanatical Muslims see Muslims in other places get harmed or oppressed, which compels them to become jihadis. This is probably overstated (the pan-Arabism dream died with Nasser, and Hamas says the invasion of Iraq is a problem for Iraqis), but it is important - see for example Turkey's refusal to help the US in the invasion of Iraq.

Second, many educated Muslims resent the fact that the United States and the West assert the paramount importance of freedom and democracy, but don't practice it abroad. Thus, the West militarily and politically supports the strict and intolerant Sunni regime of the Sauds in Saudi Arabia. The US arms Israel to fight Palestinians, who are seeking their own homeland in a struggle which many Arabs equate with the US War of Independence against Britain. And the US helped topple the democratically elected (but socialist) Iranian government and replaced it with the Shah, whose regime was very totalitarian.

Many Muslims see the US as unwilling to export democracy, when it is against the US's own interests. (There is a semi-respectable rationale for doing so, which I'll get to in a moment.) So, while they may admire the US for its domestic freedoms, they hate its foreign policy, and seek to oppose it.

Third, many strict Muslims see the spread of democracy as contrary to Islamic faith. Islam teaches that sovereignty cannot lie with the people (as it does in secular countries), but instead is sourced in God. Appointment of a sovereign ruler by popular election (by man, not God) is therefore intuitively contrary to the Koran.

(Note, however, that there is nothing specific within the Koran prohibiting democracy, and in fact the Koran is silent on how rulers should be elected. In Iran, as an example of how an Islamic state is run, the Council of Guardians overseas the elected parliament, and reviews legislation to ensure they comply with their conservative and strict interpretation of Islam. On the other hand, one school of thought says that a popular election reflects God's will. There is room to maneouvere on this for even strict Muslims.)

So, some Muslims believe that resisting change - subversive Western thought - will preserve Islam. Other Muslims see the West as a spiritual wasteland because of the empahsis on consuerism and capitalism, and wish to resist this happening in the Islamic world.

Finally, many supposedly "fundamentalist" or "Islamist" organisations deny that they are in fact fundamentalis, but say that this is a label cast upon them by their opponents (usually autocratic leaders in places like Egypt and Morocco). They say they are Muslims, but moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can co-exist with secular ideals. They say they are painted as an extremist enemy in order for the autocratic rulers to obtain US or Western assistance to oppress them.

An example of this is again Turkey, where the supposedly fundamentalist Islamist party recently came into power - and the fear of the imposition of sharia law has not happened. Another example: in 1991, Algeria cancelled its election because the secular government was sure to lose to an Islamic party in a fair and democratic election - the secular government gave as its reason for cancelling the election that the Islamists would not hand over power if they lost the next election. In other words, the secular government illegally retained power when it seemed likely they'd lose it.

The fear is that an Islamist state would arise on the basis of "one person, one vote, one time only" (which is one reason why the West supports such odious regimes as the Sauds - if there were elections there, anti-Western fundamentalist Wahabis would come to power.)

As for the "jealousy" issue.... I think there is some truth to this. It must certainly rankle the people who think they are of the chosen faith to be militarily and economically subordinate to Christians and Jews. I don't think its a major issue though.

Nice post. I think that has a lot to do with it. Just browse the Web or go to the library, you'll read about so many interventions, arms dealing, and coups that it has to make anyone feel a little ashamed.