He quickly changed his tune when he realised he didn't have a leg to stand on. And if you read his posts he's been making some pretty sweeping statements about all moslems.
A)
Au contraire: they are not crazy. You can rightly call Saudi Arabia's rulers corrupt and craven, but they are not crazy. Repressive, yes. Needing legitimacy from Wahhabist clergy, yes. Walking a tightrope between Wahhabism and being in USA's back pocket, yes. But not crazy. With regard to Iran, I can't see any argument for calling them crazy. It's the USA + Israel out to demonise them. Ahmedinejad's statements and speeches are regularly misreported in US and British media (for example the deliberate mistranslation that he called for the annihilation of Israel).
B)
Again, you seem to be getting your facts wrong. The implacable foe of any Arab (or Iranian) secular or nationalist movement has consistently been the USA (and before the USA, the UK and France). Against Nasser, against the Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria, against Mossadeq in Iran. One can argue that it's because of the sabotaged failure of these secular and national movements -- largely due to US interference -- that fundamentalism has got a foothold. If, for example, Mossadeq hadn't been toppled and the worthless Shah put back on his throne, there would have been no revolution in 1979. In addition, many of these fundamentalists have been nurtured by the US itself -- Osama being one prominent example.
There are simply too many errors here to correct them all. The neo-cons have been working hand-in-glove with Israeli interests (indeed many of the Americans neo-cons have been ardent Zionists themselves). The new constitution that Bremer took with him to Baghdad was a neoliberal one outlawing trade unions, allowing for full repatriation of multinational profits, and so on -- after all, the raison d'etre for invading the country was to plunder it. Islam is a red herring in all these machinations.
It's a red herring. And you seem not to understand that it is so because you have no real knowedge of the region or its history.
C)
I see this conflation of three things frequently enough. The three things conflated are: 1) Islam has always been imperialistic and militaristic because of what happened 1400 years ago and also during the crusades, 2) The demographics of modern Europe, with lots of moslems in every West European country, and 3) supposed Islamic fundamentalism in the moslem world. The people doing this have an agenda of their own. It is disingenuous. The Islamic world has been on the receiving end since well before the decrepit Ottoman empire collapsed during WW1. The European colonial powers that had been tearing off bits and pieces of the empire -- mostly Britain and France -- were roughly elbowed aside by the upstart imperialist, the USA.
All of this is realpolitik -- of which you seem to be woefully ignorant. It has nothing to do with "liking" or "hating."
