To which Marvin replies: Are you in favour of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, understanding that this means the likelihood of an Islamist government - yes or no?
[WS:] So here we are, between the Scylla of the Western capitalism cum US interventionism (I do not think it is imperialism in the traditional sense of the word) and the Charybdis of anti-Western Islamic nationalism (which has all the telltale signs of fascism). I know it is dandy to verbally support the latter while living in the US or Europe, because it is a risk free way of acquiring radical credentials while being effectively shielded from the horrors of the Islamist nationalism, which are many. But let's for a while think in pro-active rather than reactive terms i.e. consider what has a better prospect for the future instead of what has been bad in the past.
If the ultimate goal is some form of socialism i.e. a system that is universalistic, rational, egalitarian, democratic, and secular, the question then is which of the two offers a better chance of achieving such a system: Western capitalism or Islamic nationalism? AFIK, Western capitalism cum US interventionism (this includes Israeli expansionism too!) offers a much better chance of achieving socialism in the future than Islamism does. This is precisely the way Marx approached the issue in his take on the British rule in India - and this is also the way I am inclined to think.
In sum, being against US policies is not enough, Marvin. You (and that applies to Yoshie, Jean-Christophe and others) need to show that Islamic nationalism is a *better* alternative to the unholy triumvirate of Western capitalism, US interventionism and Israeli expansionism. Arguing that it is just an alternative does not quite cut it. I do not think that many rational people would give up the latter for the former.
Wojtek