You know, it's really delightful how this "argument" of yours has its own refutation on multiple points built right into it. Thank you for this testament to the flimsiness and dishonesty of your thinking. For example, at one point you say: "... the current Iranian theocratic regime would have attempted to develop a nuclear arsenal even if Israel hadn't existed. That regime knows Israel isn't a threat to Iran."
Then two paragraphs later: "...if the Bush administration hadn't started dealing with the Islamist threat, Israel would have had to step into the fray to protect itself from this menace, even if that meant conducting military operations anywhere around the globe. The same goes for the Iranian threat. If Bush is ultimately remiss in his attempts to deprive Iran of nukes, Israel would have to send its air force to take out their nuclear facilities. MARK MY WORDS [emphasis added]."


So which is it, bullshit freak? Does Iran need to see Israel as a military threat or not? Make up your mind.

Similarly with your opening argument. You describe the Islamist posture toward the West in two different and conflicting ways.
First: "...the main objective on their agenda is to destroy the entire Western way of life, to subjugate the whole globe to their radical version of Islam."
And then: "...the Islamists and Bin-Laden in particular [are] troubled first and foremost by Western Freedom as a threat to their belief system."

So first you'd have me believe they're theocratic imperialists, then you're telling me their motivation is to defend their belief system from Western influence. At best, this is very muddled, and in truth its totally manipulative. I don't think our "freedom" has anything to do with it, because for one thing Westerners aren't half as free as ideologue shitheads like you pretend. What freedom is that? The freedom to work sixty hours a week so we can buy all this bullshit we don't need so all the other brainwashed morons will think we're cool? Wowee. What we are is privileged, which comes from living on the sugar-dumpling end of the global colonial order. There's a big difference. A narcissist like you will never understand the distinction, but there it is.

The natives of the Middle East have excellent reason to worry about the West screwing with them: that's all we've done there since before the Postmodern Era. Israel is front and center in all that. It started out as the centerpiece of our design to stymie the Arab reunification movement, and since then has made itself useful in lots of other ways. The Western empires just LOVE proxies, they help them look so innocent and nice... Then there's the toppling of Mossadheg in Iran in 1953, replacing him with one of the most vicious dictators of the 20th century, the Shah -- a total Western secular whore. Likewise in Iraq ten years later, when we toppled Qassem and installed the semi-fascist Ba'athists, more Western secular whores. And all the landings by Marines in the eastern Med in the late '50's, '60s, and '80s... The formal statement of geostrategic domination called the 'Eisenhower Doctrine'... The CIA's assassination plots against Nasser... our inhumanly obscene oil conquest in Iraq over the past 14 years, killing on the order of half a million people... Reagan's terror war against Libya... And of course all this Islamist stuff got a gigantic shot in the arm from the CIA's terror war on the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80s... And the bases we set up in Saudi Arabia and then didn't want to relinquish... This is just off the top of my head. I could go on this way in lavish detail for about fifty pages.

There's a very simple reason for your refusal to acknowledge that any of this has contributed to Islamism: you're a manipulative lying asshole piece of shit. And you're just unshakeably convinced, in this symptomatic zionist way, that no one could possibly be smart enough to figure that out. Perhaps this comes from lying so thoroughly to yourself...

Your opening sentence even betrays the very thing you would deny: "It's radical Islam, closely followed by the rogue Iranian regime..." Okay, stop right there. First of all, this a false distinction. 'Radical Islam' and the Iranian theocracy are inseparable. Furthermore, the extremism of the 'rogue Iranian regime' is absolutely a product of Western policy toward that country over the past 60 years. Go back to 1979. The Shah. SAVAK. 26 years of rampant state-sponsored murder, torture, imprisonments, unspeakable brutality, religious and political suppression. Now go back to Mossadheg and his dream of a truly democratic Iran, a thing the Western empires would never allow. Enter Kermit Roosevelt, pedigreed U.S. aristocrat/spook. Presto chango no more Mossadheg...

The Iranian revolution is the all-time greatest example of a thing called 'blowback,' Mr. River in Egypt, and this is the framework in which all of Islamism exists. I don't think they're crazy, or that they want to take over the world, or that they "hate us for our freedoms" (puh-leez). Above all, I think they just want the West to get the fuck out of their faces and leave them alone. That's completely rational and legitimate. They may also be hysterical and dangerous now, but that's a pretty natural response to decades of upheaval and frustration. Your own people are hysterical and dangerous, too, so just stuff your knee-jerk denials up your ass. Getting out of their faces and leaving them alone is necessary if they're to recover their sanity. Iran, for example, has settled down considerably in the years since the Islamic revolution, even despite the West's best efforts to keep them suffering and crazy mad.

Of course, disengaging in this way would be absolutely contrary to the Western empires' agenda, so of course the rabid screaming zionist dupes will never so much as glimpse this logic...

Know what I mean, fuckhead?