Being a big fan of abstraction and philosophy, I would go the next level of abstaction of all of those memes -

the ubermeme: Bush bad, very bad man. Look at all these bad things he has done.

The memes represent the fight between two of the three possibilities given in Colossians 2:8, from the point of view of 'the basic principles' or 'reality-based' community. Bush is solidly in the 'Based on Christ' philosophy thereby infuriating the RBC.

Of course, the RBC is blind sided by the TOM 'traditions of men' (ie, Mu·ham·mad·ans).

That term itself is fighting words to the RBC, but totally understandable and perfectly acceptable to the BOC crowd.

Blessings,
Bob(A.)

The US has driven Iran to build a bomb.

The Islamicist movement is a defensive response to US led globalization.

The Iraqi "resistance" is a legitimate response to foreign occupation.

The Iraqi government has no legitimacy because it was planted by a foreign occupation.

Saddam governed Iraq in the only way possible.

Al Sadr is a true Iraqi nationalist: he's uniting Sunni and Shia Iraqis against the Americans.

Islam good, Neocons bad.

Our overreaction to 9/11 feeds violence and Al Qaeda.

Peace only when we bring the troops home.

Violence in Iraq result of too few troops.

Pro US government in Iraq oppresses women and minorities.

Pro US government in Iraq tortures its opponents.

Dangerous if Iraqi government succeeds, because US may try this kind of intervention again.

Bush responsible for Katrina, Rita, Wilma and for too much/little rain and the crops not growing (okay, that was a joke...I think).

They want to lose. There are several reasons they want to lose.

One would be that it would hurt Bush and the "neocons" politically.

The other is a general antagonism against the use of force.

They favor lawfare over warfare. Just look at the stories about the Gitmo gang, and the "concern" over the enemy combatants not being charged and tried.

When you come right down to it they want to returned to the failed terrorism policies of the Clinton administration. One fo the ironies is that the Clinton administration adopted those policies because it felt that a more effective policy was not political sustainable. These same people claimed that 9-11 changed everything, but many in the media are trying to prove them wrong on that point.

I summarize your points as follows:
- The US is disrespectful of Islam; Islamic extremism should be tolerated as a “lifestyle choice”
- The US routinely violates human rights
- Iraq is Vietnam: Perpetually on the brink of civil war, and growing more violent by the day

Q: Why is the provocatively dressed rape victim innocent, but the provocatively wealthy terrorist victim guilty? (Sounds like the setup for a joke, doesn't it?)

I summarize your points as follows:
- The US is disrespectful of Islam; Islamic extremism should be tolerated as a “lifestyle choice”
- The US routinely violates human rights
- Iraq is Vietnam: Perpetually on the brink of civil war, and growing more violent by the day

Q: Why is the provocatively dressed rape victim innocent, but the provocatively wealthy terrorist victim guilty? (Sounds like the setup for a joke, doesn't it?)

-The war on Terror is illegitimate or a farse.

Has anyone else seen the latest articles on cnn.com calling the war on terror, "the so-called war on terror?" To me that's like calling WW II the "so called WW II," or the Civil War being called the "so called Civil War." I wasn't sure if this was a trend or just some idiot journalist making a statement.

Here is Iran's right hand man...

Interview with Iraqi Shiite Leader Muqtada Sadr

Master of deception and the media. Something serious needs to happen to this guy.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

don't forget the latest: we're in a quagmire in Afghanistan and the warlords are winning. We failed to immediately eradicate all the opium production -- as if that's what we went there for.

When we do leave Iraq, they will immediately start clamoring for us to leave Afghanistan. That will be front and center, above the fold, 24/7.

The US press are idjits.

Don't forget "US unilateralism"

The big one, underlying most of the others, is that we use our military strength to extract resources from other countries, usually in the Third World. It's also sometimes described as the "brown proletariat" theory. Nothing can stand against it. The numbers of troops we have in wealthy countries (even countries that used to be poor and are now wealthy, like Japan and South Korea) versus their scarcity in poor third-world ones make no impression on these innocents. We are rich because we steal it, and that's that. It gives a whole new dimension of meaning to the term Invincible Ignorance.