Awww....

Inspector Gadget style?

Hahaha! You don't want to be doing the bare minimum now, would ya?

There are many places in which Muslims are defending their countries, and there are many places where Muslims are, like any other nation, defending their rights of liberation.
However, there are other groups that either use religion as a cover or bait (to bait recruiters, you all know how easy it is) to hide their own agenda and selfish needs. There are also groups who flat-out misunderstand their religion.
For me to decide on these places you mention, I have to inspect the conflict's history thoroughly, because it would be a big mistake to just judge with little information. Just because there are Muslims involved (1/6 of the world) doesn't mean Islam is the reason in it. Many of the conflicts, in Sudan for example, have reasons of tribal warfare, fighting over resources, as well as external hands playing into the scene.
If a government of an Islamic country ignores its religion's teachings and takes money from the people and preventing them the sweat of their brows, then it's not a religious issue anymore; for example.

Quran tells you about events that happened in the past to learn from, including asserting your right to defend yourself. There is a lot of context in these verses, including the early Muslims's patience in face of murder and oppression for more than 13 years, and this is where these verses come into context, marking the first time early Muslims used military force to defend themselves.
One's failure to learn a context of a story; any story is not a problem of the storytelling medium.

9:5 and 9:29? Way to miss context. These verses are talking about certain events in history in which people of Quraish were killing/torturing/robbing early Muslims for more than a decade, until them the Muslims were given the light to fight back and defend themselves. If you don't know Arabic, it isn't my fault you take your translations or (mis)interpretations for wrong sources. What is the point of reading something without knowing its context?

This is made of win

Maybe you're right.

I am not a simpleton who believes USA GOOD RUSSIA BAD, so I have no reason to think that the Russian gov't can actually make good use of FOSS, even if it doesn't support all of its ideals.
Is there a memo I missed that says any prime minister in the world can't possibly be supportive of some FOSS ideas such as ridding one's self from Microsoft's crap systems?
No matter the ulterior motives; wanting to get rid of Microsoft's systems is always a good thing.

I honestly expect something of the sort in some stupid US media.

Really, is there anything wrong with wanting cheapness and robustness?

I'm more worried about them insisting it is still confidential although it is available for the entire world. Will they, for example, prosecute an employee for accessing classified info if they find trails of WikiLeaks in his browser history?
One can hope that this is just a facade, and that people will not prosecuted for accessing info that is publicly available on the web.

Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this.
A memo from the US Marines says this:USMC Personnel (Marines/Civilians/Contractors) are hereby cautioned and directed to NOT access the WIKILEAKS website from a personally owned, publically owned or US Government computer system. By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.
Obviously committing a security violation as an employee of the US Marines is, well, not a laughing matter.

You might find more info here.

In fact I have, as a non-US citizen living outside of the US, have seen one of the results of this censor when trying to access one of the censored sites, getting a warning page with a FBI DVD-like warning. The problem with censoring the domain name itself is that the website can be hosted outside of the US, and yet they'd have power to censor it.

It happens eventually, step by step. What I'm talking about in terms of WikiLeaks censorship is the US gov't preventing US Army as well as US gov't employees from accessing WikiLeaks.

As for censoring websites from the entire world, I meant by it seizing websites that reside in the .com domain and preventing access to it not just for US citizens, but also for everyone around the world who may want to access that domain name. A country blocking a .com domain (Note that I'm not talking about seizing the actual site, because it may be hosted in the US but blocking the domain name itself means even if the site was hosted outside of the US).

The ongoing trend does not bode well for the freedom of the internet, and the US gov't, unfortunately, has been showing us worrying signs of intentions to control the cyberspace.

The problem with saying "We are still able to do this and this" is that soon you may not be able to, and as a non US-citizen, I care about this because it will affect the entire internet, not just, say, US newspapers.