Sadly, it is beyond dispute that the two nations contain two of the largest extermist population in the middle east. Part of the reason the countries are governed by barbaric regimes, however awful they are.

"Furthermore, this comment shows your total lack of commitment to democracy - i.e. you are supporting these horrifyingly brutal dictatorships because you fear what would happen if their people actually had a say in running their own lives."

What an absolute misrepresentation. I made clear my opposition to the regimes, I made the correct point that we need to cooperate with them on the WOT.

So try and reflect what I say accurately instead of smearing.

"b) The US, Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI funnelled funds and arms to - and provided training for - the most extreme fundamentalist elements fighting in the "jihad" against the Soviet occupation. They were fully aware of who they were dealing with. The Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement was born in Afghanistan - and following the war, dispersed around the globe with dire consequences."

That is completely false. Large sections of the mujahadeen went on to oppose the taliban, many went on to fight with the northern alliance.

The fact that some of them went on to become terrorists is absolutely not the fault of the United states. The communists were defeated because of the US backed liberation army.

"c) Repeated aerial bombings of civilian areas can have no other consequence than the deaths of thousands of civilians. Such bombings have been carried out repeatedly - with the same consequences each time. It's simply unacceptable to say that there is no intention to kill civilians - it is known that such actions will kill civilians, and the results are the same."

That is warfare, and the plans of the coalition have always been to minimise civilian casualties. A war sadly is never fought without innocent victims. However the terrorists are the ones that are causing these wars, islamo facists are the enemy of not only us, but the innocent victims they target in iraq.

And once more it doesn't change the fact that innocent people were not TARGETTED.

You do know what that means right?????

" The so-called "war on terrorism" has caused a dramatic increase in terrorist actions; it has radicalised millions of Muslims across the world"

Once again, a far leftie smearing the islamic world, suggesting they are in such a mind set that their natural reaction is one that involves terrorism and killing innocent people.

Sadly, it you that has shown yourself to be a bigot.

"Furthermore, Zarqawi had no connection with the Ba'athist dictatorship (which he militantly opposed as a secular regime) - he was in northern Iraq prior to the war - i.e. the area out of Saddam's control"

Again, you are completely wrong. Zarqawi is known to have ben in hospital in the baghdad area after suffering injuries fighting the US in Afghanistan.

So maybe on a whole host of issues you can get your facts right next time, instead of smearing others. You are a cretin and charlatan of the highest order.

[ Parent ]

My mistake, I've checked the detail, It was the president for life of turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov who died late last year.

On the wiki topic I viewed to get that info, I was refered to thios interesting article:

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/election/uzbekistan/bbu260100.htm

"US slams Uzbek election as unfree, unfair and laughable"

"c) Your conclusion that they were not terrorists because they were fighting communists suggests that, for you, the morality of all acts are determined by imperialist interests (i.e. the acts of attacking civilians either side of the Lebanon border is terrorism or not solely based on who our allies are).  Suicide bombings in Kabul when there was a government backed by a communist occupation were examples of people 'co-operating with us' whereas now it is terrorism.  The fact is that it was often the same people - ordinary Afghans - who were killed.  When the Soviets were pushed out of Afghanistan 'collaborators' were killed in huge numbers - 'collaborators' were people who carried on teaching children, looking after the sick, being civil servants, etc.  From the perspective of those who were later to become Al Qaeda and to welcome the Taliban (not to mention many of those who decided instead to form the Northern Alliance and encouraged the 2001 invasion) 'collaborators' with a western imperialist occupying force and its puppet government are morally equivalent to those with a communist one.  You have a terrifyingly stark view of the world in which its all a simple case of our interests - at any price - against an unseen, organised enemy."

That simply isn't accurate. The mujahadeen was not as well organised and centrally pointed as you indicated. It was formed of dozens of groups, yes some that did some despicable things. However, after the war, the 'group' largely splinted and turned on each other, which is partly the reason the Taliban took power.

Some of these groups, the more extreme groups were armed and trained by the iranians, the saudis and pakistan, which is why you did see more extreme breakaways who did some of the things you referenced.

You once again misrepresent my position.

I do not condone any terrorism of targetting of innocent people, I do not condone any barbaric regime from Fidel Castro to the saudis. My point is, when it comes to the war on terror, it is in our mutual interest to work with them and to defeat a mutual threat, the islamic extremists.

To confront one of your further points:

"the acts of attacking civilians either side of the Lebanon border is terrorism or not solely based on who our allies are"

The Israelis did some very stuypid things last year, but overall, the intent was correct, their nation was under constant bombardment from iranian sponsored terrorists. They simply needed to act to confront this direct threat once and for all.

"d) The warmongers were keen to point out the presence of a senior Al Qaeda figure in Baghdad in 2002.  They chose not to mention that - disgracefully, actually - the figure was arrested by the regime and, mysteriously, died in custody."

I have not heard of this, could you provide me a link to read up on it.

"The Ansar-al-Islam movement were bitter opponents of Saddam, based in the autonomous Kurdish region of Northern Iraq."

Not so, they were a Sunni group that are now actively fighting the coalition.

Much of their munitions came from the Saddam regime and financial links are known to have existed between them and saddams intelligence agencies.

The links however murky were there.

I don't allege any major relations between saddam and al qaeda, but I don't need to, saddams links to terrorism were already there.

[ Parent ]