I read the rest of your post and I think you're wrong on all counts. Violent Islamic fundamentalism is not by any means a new animal. It has waxed and waned in many Muslim countries for hundreds of years, sometimes in reaction to foreign invaders or colonial powers, but probably just as often against more moderate Muslims in power. Did it gain some popularity with moderate, middle-class Muslims as a result of the invasion of Iraq? Maybe, but in the past 3-4 years that acceptance has evaporated as the extremists more and more often are only killing other Muslims. That's why in places like Anbar, the Iraqi insurgents came to the conclusion they preferred us to Al Qaeda and turned against them.
I can't think of any historical precedent for violent Christian extremism rising against foreign invaders. Can you? And I'm not talking about resistance organizations that were nominally Christian based on the beliefs of their members (i.e., the IRA doesn't work), I'm talking about a real equivalent to extremist Muslim factions - an organization that wants to set up some Christian incarnation of Sharia law. And I don't think Westboro would grow at all if we had a foreign invasion; other militant groups would undoubtedly rise, but I highly doubt forcing fundamentalist Christianity on the general populace would be even a peripheral goal.
Clearly you're not a fan of Christianity, but for whatever reason - and it probably has more to do with the cultural and political traditions tied to the religions than anything else - fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity are not remotely equivalent. And to hypothesize otherwise is ridiculous, irrational, and contrary to historic precedent.
