2. The three major bloodlettings of the Hussein period occurred in the campaign against the Southern Shi’ites in C. 1983, the campaign against the Kurds in 1988-9, and the suppression of post-Gulf war uprising of 1991. Of these, the first two were directly aided by the US, and the third was indirectly aided by the US which preferred Hussein remain in power to the alternative of a popular uprising. This is particularly relevant since the members of the Reagan-Bush government were many of the same individuals in the Bush 2 government whom declare their love of freedom and democracy.
I cannot find any reputable source for your claim in 1983 and 1988. Please point me to the right literature so I can educate myself. Indeed Christopher Hitchens, a long time supporter of the Kurdish cause (one of the reasons he supported the Iraq war- after he realised he was being a hypocrite- moaning when the US took action and moaning when they did not) has noted that Americas sins were saying that they were with the curds but then abandoning them by failing to provide military support. From Mr Hitchens:
‘I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, "Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can’t see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don’t want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy’s image on it. So do you have to?" And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, "No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too." And from what I’d seen by then in that region, I thought, that’s basically morally true.’

3. The US did not condemn Iraq for the use of chemical weapons; It blamed Iran, and continued aiding the B’ath regime until the invasion of Kuwait.
I believe you are wrong here. The US did condemn the use of chemical weapons, it is a matter of historical record. It blamed Iran for what? What did the US supply in the run up to the invasion of Kuwait, source please, I am really interested to learn.

4. It’s well known that other countries supplied Iraq with weaponry during the Iran-Iraq war; however this does not alter the facts of the US support, which was extended from aid to direct military participation in 1987-8, in which the US Navy intervened against that of Iran. One consequence of this involvement was the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the USS Vincennes, with the deaths of all aboard.
What is your source for this, I would really be interested to check it out.

5. I did not suggest the Chechen war was a motive in the perpetrators of the London bombings. It’s relevant in that it was an analogous war waged in response to ‘terrorism’ which killed vastly more Chechen civilians than Russian civilians were killed by retail terror. Putin is a long-standing ally and arms recipient of the Blair government, and was inducted into the ‘war on terror’ by the US following the 9/11 attacks.
Wow, given that Russia is the worlds fourth biggest arms exporter I am surprised that Mr Blair is exporting to them. Coals to Newcastle I think, as a matter of interest what have we sold to them?

Youre unfamiliarity with the basic terminology of the terrorism debate is obvious here. Retail terror is the targeting of civilians by non-state groups, as opposed to state terror which is the targeting of civilians by the state.

To reiterate my argument again: Your point was that the Al-Quada campaign was motivated by Western weakness, and the closest example you could find for this policy was 12 years ago. Since 1998, the Western governments targeted by Al-Quada, or similar groups have responded with force in each instance. In fact – and one of the many reasons the Left oppose terrorism of this kind – terrorist attacks frequently make governments more aggressive since they create a domestic consensus in favour of force and marginalise dissent. This is exactly what happened in post-9/11 America. Given that retail terror has continued and took far more European, Australian and American lives in the post-98 period than before, we can conclude that either your ‘appeasement’ thesis is wrong, or that it has had no effect on Al-Quada and similar groups.

2. The three major bloodlettings of the Hussein period occurred in the campaign against the Southern Shi’ites in C. 1983, the campaign against the Kurds in 1988-9, and the suppression of post-Gulf war uprising of 1991. Of these, the first two were directly aided by the US, and the third was indirectly aided by the US which preferred Hussein remain in power to the alternative of a popular uprising. This is particularly relevant since the members of the Reagan-Bush government were many of the same individuals in the Bush 2 government whom declare their love of freedom and democracy.

3. The US did not condemn Iraq for the use of chemical weapons; It blamed Iran, and continued aiding the B’ath regime until the invasion of Kuwait.

4. It’s well known that other countries supplied Iraq with weaponry during the Iran-Iraq war; however this does not alter the facts of the US support, which was extended from aid to direct military participation in 1987-8, in which the US Navy intervened against that of Iran. One consequence of this involvement was the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the USS Vincennes, with the deaths of all aboard.

5. I did not suggest the Chechen war was a motive in the perpetrators of the London bombings. It’s relevant in that it was an analogous war waged in response to ‘terrorism’ which killed vastly more Chechen civilians than Russian civilians were killed by retail terror. Putin is a long-standing ally and arms recipient of the Blair government, and was inducted into the ‘war on terror’ by the US following the 9/11 attacks.

Apologies for the delay. I was on a liquid crusade against the tee- total Taliban last night.

“The attack, as with all terrorist attacks, is a political act, with, we presume, the aim of producing political consequences. If this is not the case, then this is not a ‘terrorist’ attack in our common understanding, but rather a sophisticated serial killer. To say it is a political act is not to condone it, but simply to categorise it. I do not understand the moral objection to this irrefutable statement.”

If you want to carry on the somewhat “studenty” debate about politics versus religion, to have any sensible debate you should perhaps define what you mean by politics, as there are a number of definitions. Whereas, this is little academic for me, it may be helpful.

My point is simply this. Al Qaeda (OBL) are driven by religion first and foremost. In particular they want to create an Islamacist state, with Sharia law. Apparently, applied fully, the Shariah is a code for living that all Muslims should adhere to, including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. Shariah is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life.

“I believe, like RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan), that only the Afghan people could produce democracy in Afghanistan”

You’ve still not answered the question was it correct or not to invade Afghanistan?
“The Ba’ath regime was responsible for the massacre of many thousands of Iraqis,”
Well done, you have got one thing right
“the vast majority in 1980-90”
Were are you getting your figures from on Iraqi deaths in the period, the UN, Human Rights Watch? Are you including war casualties? By the way did you not criticise me for going back to 1993?
“when it was backed politically, financially and nilitarily by the US government.”
There may have been a period when the US saw Sadam as preferable to Iran in the Iran- Iraq war (1980- 88). This was not just the position of the US, but also the policy of most of the Middle East, except for Syria which backed Iran. However, US support was relatively limited, and relations between the US and Iraq deteriorated when the US condemned Iraq for using chemical weapons during the conflict. Of course there was then the little matter of Gulf War 1, when essentially the US turfed Saddam out of Kuwait. Certainly, the biggest suppliers of military hardware to Iraq were Russia, China and France. Indeed in 1975 Jacques Chirac personally sold two nuclear reactors capable of enriching weapons grade plutonium to Iraq. The Israelis launched airstrikes in 1981 to destroy the plants. Tariq Aziz has said that it was Sadams biggest regret, invading Kuwait before developing a nuclear weapons capability.
“Well, thats hardly surprising. Advocates of the war on terror have a remarkable ability to avoid inconvenient facts. Between 15-25’000 Chechens have been killed in the war re-started by Blair’s ally Putin in 1999.”
Yes. I agree that Chechneya does seem to be a genuine grievance for the muslim world and hence the “Islamic fascists” who committed Wednesdays attacks. Though why the mistreatment of the Chechens by Stalin and more latterly by Putin should cause them to attack London are beyond me. If Chechneya is their grievance do you not think that the terrorists are a bit, well racist or religionist or whatever the correct term is, fanatical is the best term I think? Those Christians/Crusaders have attacked us in Chechneya, so we will blow up London? Do you think that it is legitimate to do this?

”Let’s go back to the point I made; Since 1998, each act of retail terror from Al-Quada, it’s allies or sympathisers, has been met with a corresponding act of state terror, beginning with Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan.
OK, lets assume terrorist attacks have gone up and there has been no “appeasement” by Western governments. I am not picking fault with spelling, as mine is none too good, but I am assuming that “retail” terror is “retaliatory” terror rather than the bombing of shops. So you are implying that Al Qaeda are only responding to some “injustice” done to them, and therefore all we have to do is remove these causes of “injustice”. Call me old fashioned, but I do not think it wise to “appease” anyone, because they have managed to plant 4 bombs on the underground. If it is known that this guy is a religious fanatic, I am even less inclined to give into them. Also, if it is known that this chap does not listen to music, watch tv, drink alcohol or even look at his sister in law because she is not covered up, then I am even less inclined. He sounds a bit of a weirdo to me, rather than someone you can sit down and negociate with. Also if OBL, or people inspired by him, supports the 19 activities I posted above, including the assassination of barbers for shaving of beards, I would be loathe to compromise with him. Now I admit that so far this is a personal view and you might well want to work with such individuals to bring “peace”.

However, moving on from my personal view on the merits of talking to such an individual, It might be worth looking at what is causing OBL to engage in “retaliatory” bombings. Burke suggests that, realistically, nobody knows what is inside the head of OBL, though he clearly wants an Islamicist state he has been pretty incoherent in actually what an “Ismamist state is”.

Let us take, what I think is your argument, the “America deserves it”, approach, which lets face it is quite common amongst the Loony Left. This argument goes America “supported” tyrannical regimes (e.g Saudi Arabia, ). I do not personally accept this argument, but obviously OBL believes it. Surely, there is now a problem with this argument, America and those nasty Neocons have installed democracy in Afghanisan where Afghan people, including the members of Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan are free to choose their own leaders. Why does OBL not like this? And why is he trying to kill them?

Moreover, given that there has been an election in Iraq and 60% of the electorate turned out to vote, why does OBL try to kill them. Is it because the people do not believe him or want him and that therefore he needs to terrorise them. They are “unbelievers” (Kafir ), who should be killed? In all sincerity, what is OBLs reason to ‘retaliate’ against these people?

You may think I am crazy, for my opinions, but I do not want to kill you for not agreeing with me. I just think you are incredibly misguided. OBL is a crazy fanatic, he is not retaliating to injustice, he wants to enforce his own religion on his fellow countrymen, personally I would consider that an injustice.

YEs, the bit in brackets is from the book. Page 180. Though it is a paraphrase the book actually says

"leading to the obvious charge that Clinton was attempting to distract attention from his personal affairs"

"Operation infinite reach (a cruise missile strike on Afganistan ordered by Clinton to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair)…"

Now Bob, is the bit in brackets a quote from the book?

I believe, like RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan), that only the Afghan people could produce democracy in Afghanistan. Outside Kabul, the warlords of the pre-Taliban era have been reinstated by the US and both human rights and women’s rights are in as bad a state as they were under the Taliban.

‘Iraq- is more debateable, and is still in the balance but I believe it will come good. Saddam killed over 100,000 in one year’

Ah, so youre using Saddam Hussein as your moral compass. Well, even if we use lower estimates of the death toll, the numbers of civilians killed in Iraq by the coalition are vastly more than the victims of retail terror in the US and Europe. The Ba’ath regime was responsible for the massacre of many thousands of Iraqis, the vast majority in 1980-90 when it was backed politically, financially and nilitarily by the US government.

‘Chechneya- I do not fully know the history, but Stalin did them a great injustice’

Well, thats hardly surprising. Advocates of the war on terror have a remarkable ability to avoid inconvenient facts. Between 15-25’000 Chechens have been killed in the war re-started by Blair’s ally Putin in 1999.

‘There are no easy options. Unless you have a magic wand? Or you could be a typical moaner/idealist- picking fault but not offering alternatives’

Let’s go back to the point I made; Since 1998, each act of retail terror from Al-Quada, it’s allies or sympathisers, has been met with a corresponding act of state terror, beginning with Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. The number of attacks from retail terror has also increased during the same period, culminating in yesterday’s horrific attacks in London. Using your ropey definition of ‘appeasement’, no government has been engaged in anything of this kind for several years. The fact that you had to go back to 1993 to find an example shows the weakness of your argument.