Thanks for that post, Leonie. I´m with you 100%.
In addition - sorry for going off topic - always keep in mind the precarious difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". As someone interested in history, the massive use of the word "terrorist" by western governments and media painfully remind me of my good old Nazi friends : WW II being won by the Allies, we are now able to speak of Résistance or Partizans as of heroic defenders of national freedom, while Nazi propaganda presented them as "terrorists".
The same goes for insurgents in Iraq. If I imagine that some islamic superpower would occupy my country, impose strange values incompatible with mine, install a puppet regime, install an entirely artificial form of state, steal my national resources, terrorize the civilians by frequent house searches, favour foreign companies... in short dominate me, I would choose to fight it. No question. As I am no traitor to my country.
Especially if the invasion is based on lies, on causes that are hypocrite to the extreme, causes developed from the 11 September "new Pearl Harbour" to make the American citizen feel "threatened", and all that despite the fact that the perpetrators come from different countries, that my dictator had no direct link to these actions...
I am not a fervent supporter of cowardly bomb attacks on civilians, yet I support, in substance, the action of every Iraqi classified as an "insurgent", since I would do exactly the same thing. Against a country that is to be ruled by two parties only... parties not so different in essence... a system not far away from the totalitarian one party system.
This sounds like a defense for the islamist fascism of organizations like our much-feared Al-Qaida, but it isn´t meant as such. All I know is that the unrighteous U.S. intervention in Iraq has pissed off a good deal of moderate and more or less rational islamic tendencies. It has becaome one big counterproductive mess.