I know you're not serious but just in case I thought I'd reaffirm the fact that the real Ahmadinejad is very far from what the West has protrayed him to be, he may be a semi-crackpot, but in reality he's not much worse than most political leaders.

I find the notion of waiting for the final day of judgement quite hilarious, you don't have to wait to see hell, just to go some parts of the third world, people (by "people" I mean crazy evangelicals) in the West have the luxury of being able to anticipate hell, some people aren't so lucky;-)

That reminds me of a joke:

"This guy is driving his car in the desert. He notices this guy jumping along the road. He's naked and his hands and feet are tied with rope. The guy stops his car and asks the guy, 'Hey, buddy, what's the matter?' And the guy tells him, 'Well, I was driving along and I saw this bastard hitch-hiking so I stopped and the son-of-a-bitch pulls a gun on me, takes my clothes away and then ties me up. Then the dirty son-of-a-bitch reams me in the ass!' 'Oh yeah?' says the guy getting out of his car. 'Yeah, that's what that dirty son-of-a-bitch did!' says the man. 'Well,' says the guy unzipping his fly, I guess this just isn't your lucky day!' ""

I'm all lubed up and ready to go;-) .

Sorry I hadn't realised you replied to this, I'll try to get around to the one about Urinating on corpses as well.

"Ron Paul never said the United States was the world's largest terrorist group."

Of course he didn't, he's american, he doesn't think like that, nor has he suffered in any way from your countries actions, but he got accused of providing justification for 9/11, he said he wasn't, he said he just wanted people to understand the motive instead of them being convinced it was due to there (supposed) freedom.

"Comparing yourself to Ron Paul, won't do you any good"

I think the comparison is quite valid actually, please explain to me how it isn't.

"That's exactly what you've done. Saying "It's the only way they can resist" is a justification,"

Well, then saying they blew up the twin towers because you keep Isreal's genocide going, and have military bases on their holyland, and have supported brutal dictators is also a justification, so ya, I was justifying it, in the same way Ron Paul was justifying 9/11.

"a false one at that"

How else could they resist? They either employ guerrilla tactics or face irrevocable destruction.

"You said "Innocent of what?"."

Yes, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought they were guilty of.

"Your denial will cost you this debate."

I don't deny it, justification doesn't imply support, if it did Ron Paul would be an Al Queda supporter.

"Why am I not surprised that you were unaware of this?"

Because you falsely beleive you know far more about this than I do.

"No, this is not an isolated incident."

I have done the necessary research and I have to say I conceed this point entirely, I could try to argue that the Taliban have denied this (probably because of the shame), and that they are not used regularly (only 7 in 2009), but these are meaningless details, the fact that they are used for this purpose at all is the only crucial detail.

"Like I said, the Taliban has a fucked up ideology."

I have never argued against this point.

"If that aim was getting rid of Americans, I'm sure they probably did have a majority support at one point,"

Not just at one point, for the overwhelming majority of the conflict, thus far.

"that support has since eroded."

30% doesn't imply 100% erosion, and at the rate you keep indiscriminately killing their civilians while the Karzi government tolerates it (7 children died in an air raid recently), the more support they generate.

"The more important point to make is that the Taliban ideology has always been a minority view."

This is true, the reason the Taliban came to power in the first place was because the USA and Russia used it as their war games playground, when your influences left there was complete anarchy, war lords ruled certain sectors with an Iron fist, the people welcomed the Taliban originally (despite their extremist ideology) because they restored order to their society, that is also why I beleive many have completely turned on the Taliban i.e. they are starting to realise they can have order without extremism.

"The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban long before the U.S. came in."

I agree, I could write far more, but I don't to write too much unnecessarily.

"Not when you harbor and give safe haven to the world's most wanted man,"

He was only placed number 1 on your most wanted list, you don't speak for the world, this is yet more american exceptionalism seeping out without you even realising it.

"Not when you train and support the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

Osama's involvment is almost certainly true, but lets not speak like all the facts are out in the open and the evidence is as clear as day, while I don't consider myself a 9/11 truther, it would be utterly illogical of me to exclude the possibility of some government collusion (possibly willful ignorance). Al Queda is a US creation, and there is evidence currently beginning to suface that suggests you may be supplying them in Syria. Could there have been a plot by a small number of powerful individuals to take down the twin towers by using some US proxy forces, again, while it may not be extremely likely based on what is known, given the way the commission was conducted, given the all the other unaccounted for facts, as I said, it would be utterly illogical to exclude it. Or rmaybe they simply ignored the warning, and intentionally let it happen, there are strong reasons to support this claim also.

Governments are in the business of lying, think of the Iraq justification (you even beleived A Queda was found in Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

"You mean like saying that the United States Invaded Afghanistan for it's non-existent oil?"

I've already outlined Afghanistan geostrategic importance, and I have already provided ample evidence i.e. US state departments documents, testimony from officials who were privy to the sensitive details of negotiations between the US and Taliban prior to the invasion.

Please let's disupte the facts, a country doesn't have to have oil to be very important, having privileged access to the oil pipeline adversely affected Russian influence while simultaneously enhancing your own.

"Not according to Osama Bin Laden. "

Osama Bin Laden didn't speak for any country, how can you not see that? His support came from people radicalised by religion and your ill treatment of them.

"According to him, it was a war against the Great Satan, and a war against the Infidels."

Ya, I'm sure we could find plenty of white supremacists in your country who want to wipe out all africans or muslims in some big biblical war, it doesn't mean Zambia or Turkey have the moral right to invade and occupy the US, your inability to see that doesn't stem from lack of insight, it stems from the grip your ideology has on you.

"Ever since the cold war, there has been this irrational fear of communism,"

This was intentionally created in order to instill fear in the population. Submission to authority is created by fear, which is why there is so much scare mongering and war mongering in the US mainstream media. The media job is to manufacture consent for government policy, it used to mould people’s minds in order to create compliant, pliable, and heavily indoctrinated individuals, and you (or I for that matter, but to a lesser extent) are no exceptions.

Militant radical Islam is simply a replacement for communism.

"many conservatives believed that countries one-by-one would fall to communism and that The US would be swallowed up."

Please wacth the clip I provided from 0:40-1:27, it s a segment from a half hour documentary on americas hisotry by americas greatest historian (and possibly greatest author), Gore Vidal. I would also strongly recommend you watch teh whole thing.

"They adopted policies to oppose communism by any means necessary, and sometimes that meant supporting brutal groups like the Contras."

This inane rationalisation is not even worthy of response, I hope you are not too blind to see why.

"He was charged with lying to federal agents and for falsifying his immigration papers"

And not blwoing up a commerical airliner that killed over 70 civilians.

"then held in an Texas Jail for nearly 5 years"

He was jailed for 3 years in Panama until american pressure got him released, when his presence in the US was realised hundreds of thousands of people poured onto the street of Havana demanding justice, he was detained by Homeland security while they tried to find a friendly nation that would give him asylm, Venzueala sought his extradition, it was denied on the grounds that he would be tortured (hypocrisy at its finest), he was released in 2007 and was essentially free, he faced another trial in 2010 in which he was cleared of all charges. Not too sure where you're getting your info. from.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#2010_Texas_trial

"He was ruled innocent of those crimes."

Shock :O

It's called a PR show

"Hell, the Taliban constructed training camps for Bin Laden's soldiers in Afghanistan."

Bin Laden paid for everything I can assure you, all they did was allow him in their country, the principle is exactly the same.

"Luis posada, was one man."

He was just the pertinent example, the document history of hired US terrorist and henchmen is too long to detail.

"Osama Bin Laden had a small army."

Evidence?

I would advise you watch a documentary called "the power of nightmares" by renowned documentary film maker Adam Curtis.

"he Taliban seized military control of Afghanistan with Pakistani militia soldiers, weapons, and supplies."

I didn't mean they were voted into power, I meant the people welcomed them and the security they brought.

"And without this Pakistani support it probably would have failed."

I don't deny that.

"The Taliban also launched rockets into cities, burned crop fields, denied UN food to 160,000 starving people dragged people out of their homes and executed them."

Ya, they have done mnay horrible things, but your country has done far worse to Afghanistan, I'm not even talking aboiut the war in '01.

"This caused people to flee the country."

I'm not saying the people didn't turn on them once they realsied the kind of society the Taliban had in mind, but to neglect the fact the many supported them prior to taking power doesn't due justice to history.

I disagree, the movie calls to attention the degradation in culture that has taken place in the Western world. Pop/celebrity culture is an embarrassment to the human race, I don't beleive this culture should be encouraged as it has very little artistic or creative merit, it is anti-intellectual, it is completely neurotic, it glorifies the ego in way that forces people to conform to highly destructive (to the mind, personal happiness, freedom etc.) mode's of thought and behaviour.

It isn't just you. .

Amen brother!!!!!! .

This movie looks fucking amazing, I'm downloading it right now, finally the undercurrent of cyncism at western worlds cultural garbage reaches the big screen.

As usual your response is laden with american exceptionalism masquerading as decency.

"Bullshit you're not. Should we review past comments"

You know this was the exact same insult levied against Ron Paul when he tried to explain the motivation for 9/11, typical.

"When I questioned you about the Taliban using children as suicide bombers you said and I quote: "it is the only way they can resist...", Please tell me what this is if not a justification?"

I'm not trying to justify the act itself, it is quite obviously deplorable, and I was even unaware they used such practices, this is first time I've heard of Taliban strapping bombs to children, are you sure this is a routine practice and not an isolated incident?

Also, I don't have to condone their savagery to understand it.

"When I questioned about them using IEDs in heavily populated areas you again said: "the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence"

Because they do, it doesn't mean I support them.

"You think this is a war between countries?"

Well, maybe not anymore, but for most of the war the population supported the aims of the taliban against the foreign invaders, so yeah, when the majority of a countries people despise the invaders and what to rid themseves of them, and they simultaneously support the force that is trying to accomplish that, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to describe it as a war between two couintres (aolbeit an unconventional one), one very small and weak, another very large and agressive. Up to about three years ago that's exactly what it was.

"And the Taliban doesn't have either the moral nor the legal high ground."

Actually as the legal government of the country when it was invaded they have the legal high ground, I can assure you.

"The Taliban was part of the Al Qaeda support structure, the U.S. was perfectly within it's right to take out that support structure"

Can you not even realise when you make such stupid statement that directly contradict the fundamental tenets of international law? You are unbeleiveable. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist, not the ruler of a country. To show you how stupid you sound like me hihglight one of the many terrorist and foprmer cia mass murderers currently provided with asylm in the USA e.g.

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-cia-luis-podesta/

Now, by your logic, since he is responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths across latin american (e.g. in Cuba and Venezuala most notably), they have the legal right to invade the US, is this not directly comparable to Afghanistan granting asylm to Bin ladn and few associates?

Do not see your own inherent hypocrisy? I don't think you do, I think it's like programming, it's hardwire into you, you run on an operating system called "american exceptionalism 2.0"

To quote Chomsky, "terrorism" is only what other people do.

"What do you think the Taliban has been doing since they came to power?"

The Taliban are an indigenous group that came to power with popular backing in Afghanistan in 1992, they may have proved to be unpopular subsequent to that but I think we both know there is a qualitative difference between them enforcing something and you enforcing something.

"Telling people how to live their lives."

I admit that the principle's of democracy don't allow for tranny of the majority, but we have no right (legal or moral) to force our ideals upon them, watch the Robert Fisk interview.

"Remember what I said earlier, the Taliban represents a minority ideology and any who opposes that is threatened with violence or even death."

They maybe a minority now, but it has taken almost 11 years of war for that to happen, and they still have the support of probably a third of country, so really, it isn;t exactly a tiny minority, and they rose to power with popular backing. They will be a political force in Afghanistan again, i just hope their ideology get's watered down by the presence of other more moderate politcal elements.

"this however does not require me to agree with your assessments."

Would you support an aggresive invasion of Iran if Isreal decides to knock out their nuclear facilities?

"Well if everybody knew about it then it wouldn't very well be clandestine, then would it?"

It also wouldn't help with the false image the US paint's of itself, and then successfullly sells to the population, and much of the rest of the western world, although in recent times your atrocious crimes have become much harder to conceal.

"This issue is much more complex than I think you are willing to admit."

Yes, it's all very complex, just like the Stalinist Russian, there the little truth with a small t (i.e. actual truth, purges, Gulags etc.), but then there's the big truth with a big T(Soviet ideal tommorrow).

"Does the U.S. government support and fund rebel/insurgent forces in other countries. Yes."

And these are the very same groups that cut the heads off civilians and post it online, and you back them with guns and money, and provide offices for their politcal wings in washington.

"The US Government has a history of backing rebel/insurgent groups"

You have a history of backing them against democractically elected governments, yes, and they are called terrorists, cause their job is to create terror in order to fufilll a politcal aim, and let me make clear that you have no bones about doing the dirty work yourselves (i.e. US military) if the objective is important enough, you only use these brutal terrorists (that are just as bad as any Al Queda) when the PR hit isn't worth the reward.

"if it perceives the Dictatorship which it is rebelling against as being the greater of the two evils."

This is classic grade A america BULLSHIT, this is the very propaganda washington is so good at peddling, unfortunately it bears no relation to the truth e.g.

Were the Sandanistas an unelected dictatorship?

What about President Salvador Allende in Chile?

What about Mohammad Mosadegh?

What about Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala?

What about Patrice Émery Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

I could on and on and on, you have a consistent policy of overthorwing any government that is not aligned with your interests, you don't mind dictatorships, you don't mind democracies, you really don't care as long as they are subservient to your interests.

"Most of the time though the dictatorships are worse than the rebel/insurgent groups backed by the U.S."

I can see why you have to beleive that bullshit, I mean your views would become quite tenuous if you didn't.

"Time will tell."

Time has already told, the West used the false justification of a "supposed" blood bath that was about to occur to remove Gaddafi for something more pliable (the NTC), they have proven to be no better than Gaddafi himself, they are guilty of atrocious war crimes, Libyan civilian are no better off, in fact they are worse as it has become as lawless place, but you won't see that on any Western news station, fuck no.

"As I pointed out and as you neglected, the support was only for the --aims-- of the Taliba"

As I pointed out, that still meant that they supported them and not you, you were the foreign invaders.

"even then it was still a minority."

No, they had majoity support for a long time, let's not distort history here, they have a monirity now, but it is a recent development.

"Apparently you don't realize that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil of it's own. It has to be imported into the country."

Perhaphs you are unaware of the strategic importance of Afghanistan i.e.

"One of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed “gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions” about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan."

The US planned on invading long vefore 9/11 ever happened, interviews from people in know have proved this i.e.

"He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik"

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

"They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one".

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris. "

Source: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

"I would like to see it."

It can be hard to see anything when you're blinded by nationalistic propaganda.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Therein lies the problem. You can justify any atrocity so long as it's committed by the losing side in the conflict."

I'm not trying to justify anything, I merely recognise the problem of big countries thinking they have some God given right to invade smaller weaker ones.You are classic imperialists, but your inability to realise that sad fact doesn't really matter, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

"but the only clear way to distinguish a legitimate force from an illegitimate one is the moral boundaries they are willing to cross in the process."

I don't beleive this to be the case, their is a moral, legal, and principled dimension to any conflict, you fail on all of these fronts. I will admit that that the Taliban are far worse on the moral front however.

"The Taliban doesn't have the support of the International Community precisely because of how it treats women and children."

You have an elementary misunderstanding of what action you are justified in carrying out, one of the real problems is that we (in the West) feel that we are the superior people, and we have the right to tell others how to live their lives, e.g. quote from Robert Fisk (paraphrasing) on Afghanistan:

"your NGO's go into a Afghan village announce that there will be equality of education between sexes, the men rightfully see that as an attack on their society, their culture, and their religion. I'm not saying that equaliity is not right, but they are the ones that need to make the decisions that shape their society, and if it takes another 100 years for them to modernise, well we just have to put up with it that"

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b42FJwydOCY

"I am doing no such thing. I have no 'beef' with Iran."

The government and military which you support does, and if you support them you must support their policies, otherwise how could you support them?

"As much as Iran may hate us, they know in a war (either conventional or Nuclear) they would lose and they have expressed no desire to engage the United States in Conflict, contrary to what some Politicians may claim."

If Isreal attack's Iran, you will follow them into the abyss.

"The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of these types of clandestine operations and are conducted without our consent"

I wonder why they are unaware, could that be intentional at all?

I doutbt even you are aware of the depth of them, I suggest reading the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Since/dp/1567510523

"they would lose and they have expressed no desire to engage the United States in Conflict, contrary to what some Politicians may claim."

You completely glossed over my point, which I made in some detail, and left three separate links for. Let me remind you that you are currently funding militarily and financially groups that are just as bad as the ones that that so trouble you morally. You use this as some jsutuficationfor invading small weak countries while simultaneously funding groups that are equally savage, and even providing them with offcies in washington, your countries hypocrisy is breathtaking. I'm not surprised you don't want to comment, after all, what you can you say?

You see the US government has a policy of supporting terrorism in as much as it does in carrying it out, this the ultimate hypocrisy of the so called "war on terror", we both know it was a war of terror that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and not to make any US citizen any safer.

"The poll you linked to stated that only 29% of afghans are sympathetic to the aims of the Taliban."

Yes, current data suggests their support has dried up, but this is a recent development, for most fo the war they have had significant support, obviously now that situ is impreoving they are realising that they don;t need the Taliban for the their security.

"You cannot give the U.S. credit, even when Credit is due."

You think you deserve credit? You are clearly ignorant of your countries involvment in the history of that country, but fair enough, you must be doing something right, I'll admit that, but you didn;t invade for betterment of the Afghan people, you invaded to secure oil and gas interests, and develop your strangle hold on the ME, keeping the population relatively appeased is something any imperial force would be wise to take heed of.

"So you think the United States rigged Afghan elections to elect a man that dislikes us? Evidence?"

No, I'm saying you are largely responsible for allowing him and his puppet regime to come to power, and now that he has it, he can maintain it, but it really doesn't matter, if you want him to go he'll go, if you need somebody willing to jump through a certain hoop that he won't jump through, he'll be gone in a second.

"Holy Christ man, I would like to have a conversation without it turning into a novel."

Ya, I kinda got a litte too caught up with that response, word or warning, when you reply to me with a fairly lengthy reponse chances are my reply will be at elast twice as long.Take a look at my response on the Taliban Urinating on Marines, that one even shocked me when I posted it.

"I simply don't have the time to respond to all of this."

I don't blame you, skim and respond to what to think is most relevant, it isn;t that mucbh longer than some of your own responses . If you take out all the quotes and the bold it's fairly manageable

"I wouldn't use InfoWars as a source if I were you. Alex Jones is a well known conspiracy nut"

I know that, however they were quotes from the washington post, although though I couldn't verify that as they don't archive before 2005.

"I very much doubt Americans would strap suicide bombs onto children, use human shields, decapitate civilians on video or plant IEDs in busy marketplaces."

You'd be surprised what fragmented groups lacking any other effective means of resistance will do when their backs are against the wall, you say that with such certainty but it's quite obviously wrong, we are all human, and we all the same capacity to commit evil acts, although I admit when hideous attacks are mandated by your ideology (especially if it's religious) it can increase their savagery .

"But to give you some perspective, the insurgency especially in Afghanistan isn't just an anti-occupation force."

I know.

"Imagine if China invaded the US, now imagine a corrupt and violent Radical religious group has taken control of the country and was recruiting Americans to fight against the Chinese Occupiers."

First of all the Taliban are what they are, and they still have a lot of support, even though it has been declining recently i.e.

"The survey released by the Asia Foundation found the number of people who said they sympathized with the aims of the Taliban had dropped to 29 percent, compared to 40 percent last year and 56 percent in 2009."

Now, aside from that, I really just can't stand your pontificating, you are currently backing and sponsoring any insurgent or terrorist group that will try to overthrow the elected government of Iran. You support the very groups you claim are cutting the heads off people and post it online, you will give these groups financial and military aid as long as they work as your proxies, that my friend is the worst form of hypocrsy imaginable. As an example the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) whose politcal wing (the the National Council of Resistance of Iran) have offices in Washington, Paris and other european capitals, so please spare me.

http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-sunni-insurgent-arrest/

But why should we be surprised, you'll support any group as long as their aims are aligned with your's, think of the Contras in Nicaragua, and all the other terrorist leaders that were traned at the notorious terrorist training camp the school of the americas, a perfect exampkle is this man who worked for your CIA for decades:

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-cia-luis-podesta/

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-posada-cuba-terrorist/

He was responsible for downing a civilian airliner (killing 78) with approval of the cia, very similar to 9/11, would you say so? He was responsible for plaining many bombings on civilian's targtes. He was granted asylm in the USA since arriving there, despite Venezuela seeking extradition. Cuba has called him the Osama Bin Laden of of Latin america, but he's your Bin Laden, even though Bin Laden himself was once your Bin Laden.

"that the average afghan would never support and under the Taliban Afghans have suffered"

The Taliban still have significant support, and it is only recently that it has begun to wain as the polling data indicates so please let's not try to paint a false picture of the US being liberators, when you invaded they had significant support, and may still significant support.

"The only reason we have anywhere near the level of support we have now is because of how we operate (not in spite of it)."

This is probably true, for most of the war though the US simply let the warlords the Taliban had originally recused the people from back into power, but the US doesn't give a fuck a Afghanistan, Russia and the US have been ravaging that land for decades, any country that get's caught up in those geopolotical games is the real loser.

"Oh yes, because President Karzai loves us {Rolls eyes}. "

I admit that even in recent time Karzi has come against the US on certain issues, particularly drone attacks against his own people (that even killed his own cousin), so ya recently he had to come out against you in order to maintain what little credibility he has even though he's rigged every election he's stood in and only rose to power because of you, his regime has been a classic puppet regime from the day you created it.

Fair enough, I wasn't sure, what were you saying then?

"You double-posted by the way."

I know, my connection was slow when I posted that, wasn't sure whether it posted the first time.

The title of this debate is fundamentally flawed, america's foreign policy has never been about policing the world, it has been about maintaing and advancing their global hegemony.

Maybe someday China will invade your country and then US citizens will take up arms against them if your military is defeated, then self righteous Chinese people can post statistic like about US insurgents.

"are caused by anti-government forces."

Oh yes, the government that was put into power witbh US backing, ya, there not a corrupt puppet regime at all, they have popular mandate, don't they?

"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."

Still waiting on that evidence that links Al Queda and Saddam's regime, I mean if the Bush administration couldn't find it, what makes you think you can?

Although that was statement of fact, so clearly you've bought into official lies.

"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."

Still waiting on that evidence that links Al Queda and Saddam's regime, I mean if the Bush administration couldn't find it, what makes you think you can?

"According to this graph not a single insurgent, Sectarian extremist, Militant, Iraqi soldier or afghan soldier was killed in the course of the whole conflict, which is obviously false."

Agreed.

"You mean the Taliban?"

I was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, why not trying to defend the Iraqi invasion as well.

"Except for harboring, training, and supplying Al Qaeda forces. Besides decapitating civilian hostages and videotaping it and posting it on the internet. Besides planting IEDs where civilians live and work. Besides using children as suicide bombers. Besides assassinating Government officials. Besides spraying battery acid in the face of little girls who dare to go to school. Girls are not allowed to go to school according to Taliban Theology."

Wow, steady on there tiger, let me make a fairly crucial qualification before I start dissecting each point you just made. I was talking about the justifcation for the invasion, 80% of what you've typed above are the crimes you would blame them for after you occupied their country. Do you agree? Cause I don't remember the Taliban planting any IED's in Kansas prior to the invasion, do you? Okay, let me deal with it point by point->

"Except for harboring, training, and supplying Al Qaeda forces."

This is pretty much the only real crime that in any way justifies your hanus actions, this and this alone is your countries sole justification for invading Afghanistan, installing a puppet regime and occupying it for the last 11 years.

Okay, so 9/11 happened, and it was beleived a group called Al Queda were largely responsible, but Al queda aren't a country, so even if you considered it an act of war, it wasn't perpetrated by the Taliban, and thus your justificaiton for invading was pretty tenuous. The people responsible could have been hunted down, but you see it wasn't about hunting them down and making america safer, official US documents as well the testimony of numerous people have proven this to be nothing more than a comforting fair tale for US citizens.

The Taliban were willing to give Bin Laden up, this is clear from recently released state department documents:

"It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued “until just days before” the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, “State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.”

Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, “We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’” Bearden added, “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” but this “never clicked” with U.S. officials."(1)

Even after the 9/11 attacks the Taliban would have happily handed him over if simply let them i.e.

"In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.

"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."(2)

You see, the real reason Afghanistan was invaded wasn't because the Taliban harboured Al Queda, or because it harboured the man beleived to be their leader, Bin Laden, it was because:

"One of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed “gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions” about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan."(1)

Another curious fact is that no american administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, even though it was known that Bin Laden was shacked up there with the majority of his Al Queda force (whose danger will go down in history to be one of the most widely exaggerated myths ever told) , why do you think that is? It's most likely due to the fact that had they put them there it would have been impossible for any American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for the pipeline.

Sources:

(1) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26410.htm

(2) http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

"Besides decapitating civilian hostages and videotaping it and posting it on the internet"

Ya, what's your point, by that logic you have the right to invade a lot of countries.

"Besides planting IEDs where civilians live and work."

I don't support those or any of these barbaric actions, and I wish the Taliban would simply dissappear so Afghanistan could modernise and join the rest of the world, but the sad fact is the Taliban are a force in Afghanistan precisely because they have a lot of political support, the US never really acknowledged that, and so the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence, and striking back at their enemy, and those who co-operate with the US are obviously considered viable targets. A group like the Taliban can either fade out of existence or resort to gruesome guerilla tactics i.e.

Quote from Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, when asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and civilian collaborators, he answered, "if the French will give us some of their helicopters, some of their aero planes, we will give them our baby carriages."

"Besides using children as suicide bombers."

See above quote, I don't have to like to it understand it, it is the only way they can resist, I despise them for who they are and what they represent, but I admire and respect theie resilience.

"Besides spraying battery acid in the face of little girls who dare to go to school."

Again, abolsutely disgusting, some of the worst behaviour imaginable, but you know what disgusts me almost as much, when things like that are going on in Saudi Arabia and other US allies, but then they are conveniently used as justifcation for illegal invasions that in reality have nothing to do with morality, or democracy or any other US fairy tale, and have very littel to do with Bin LAden as well.

"Girls are not allowed to go to school according to Taliban Theology."

Why not trying to loosen your own grip on your nationalistic idelogy before judging others, your country has actively prevented the middle east from becoming modernised, you see, your country likes being able to point out these things about Arabs, the US doesn't want smart well educated Arabs capable of governing their own countries, the US wants the status quo i.e. corrupt kings and dictators backed and propped up by the US that sell their own people out

"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."

I think I've already shown above how Al Queda leaders being accomodated in Afghanistan had little to do with teh actual invasion, the US were considering on invading way before 9/11.

As for Iraq, please provide with a single shred of evidence showing how Al Queda leaders were given asylm in that country. This should be very interesting. You did say both ciountries, right?

"As well as foreign Radical Islamic militia groups that bolster Taliban forces."

You what I hear when I read what you've written:"blah blah blah", have you forgotten all the terrorist groups your own country sponsors? Do you even have any idea just how many terrorist groups you are fund?

"Congratulations you are an apologist for the of Islamic Extremism."

Not true, but go ahead and tell yourself if it makes you feel better.

That's a nice statistic, it would interesting to see the one for Iraq, but since we still don't even know how many people were killed it would be fairly worthless, also, i feel it neglects the following little piece of info. that applies to Afghanistan just as much as does Iraq:

"Civilians in an occupied country have no obligation of loyalty towards the Occupying Power

regardless of the motives of the invading forces. The only obligations they have relate to their

civilian status: civilians are protected by applicable human rights law as well as by Geneva

Convention IV relating to civilians and the provisions relating to civilians in Protocol Additional

I. A civilian who takes ups arms against the Occupying Power loses rights as a civilian, but takes

on the rights and obligations of combatant forces. This is the situation of the classic levee en

masse: the Geneva Conventions recognize the combatant status of persons who spontaneously

take up arms on the approach of the enemy.7

This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of selfdetermination,

a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign

occupier.8 The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not

part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take

up arms as insurgents against any occupier.9 As protected combatants they have the right to take

up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that

violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who

spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered

“terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or

oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.

The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically

no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labeling

of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”10

If you truly beleive that completely self-indulgent BS then all I can say is that you are suffering from a severe propaganda induced delusion, and that your idea of reality has been willingly turned upside down.

Hey, you know that country your government gives more military aid to than all other countries combined so tyhey can maintain their apartheid regime and continue their genocide,look what they do with human shields.

"It says nothing about terrorists, taliban and insurgents... which makes me think that this graph is highly flawed."

Do you doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who suffered and died at the hands of your countries hideous aggression were civilians?

"terrorists taliban and insurgents are innocent"

Innocent of what? If you mean innocent of committing an aggression against the US, and doing nothing substantial to provoke or antagonise the US into invading their respective (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) countries, then yes, they are/were innocent. The only thing they are guilty of is taking up arms against foreign invaders, but that makes them terrorists, doesn't it? Yes, they are in no way morally equivalent to the US, the fine upstanding US who is responsible for the greatest genocide of the past decade.

I had to post my approval of this, an upvote simply wouldn't do.