Morningside - it's always nice when people can back up their point of view with such an impressive array of facts and figures.

My apologies to Michael Totten for provoking such a blather from you.

Take a pill, but don't call tomorrow.

No it would not, and that attitude, more than anything written in the Koran, is responsible for the current strength of Islamist/terrorist armies worldwide.

95% of all wealthy Saudis supported bin Laden immediately after 9/11. With the cooperation of the Saudi king, the Saudi government supplied al Qaeda in Iraq with the majority of suicide bombers. Approx. 55% of AQ in Iraq was Saudi. Saudi money finances most Islamist terrorism worldwide.

The idea that the Saudi government could ever be 'on our side' is so mind bogglingly stupid, I'm always shocked to see it in print, yet I see it every day. Like the idea that one can lose weight without eating less or exercising, the idea that the 'quants' and the financial experts could guarantee profits for all in an infinitely expanding real estate market, or Scientology, I guess we all have to accept that threads of rampant, self-destructive idiocy will always run through any culture.

In any case, the Iranians are sort of allied with the Russians. The Russians use this sort of alliance to frighten us and our Saudi 'friends'. The Russians have also bought up a large part of Britain, and so the British are defacto allied with Iran too.

The British are entirely owned by the Saudis and the UAE, the Russians try to stay on their good side and we're their toadies too.

Most of the Sunni terrorist groups worldwide are financed and populated by Saudis, but the Libyans also provide training. According to most reports, the US turns a blind eye to Libyan involvement in terrorist training as long as it's not in the Middle East. For example, Libyans trained the Islamist 'separatists' in Thailand, and Thailand's problem with terrorism is second only to Iraq and India's.

None of these groups have 'come around', we're just shifting our alliances, financing one terrorist state to 'fight' another one, and giving them lots of money and legitimacy, which allows terrorism to thrive. The only people who suffer as a result of this are the thousands of civilians who will get caught in the crossfire.

If you're happy to be cannon fodder so that politicians can be immeasurably wealthy and happy at your expense, then you should continue to support our alliances with terrorism.

I think you've got a mix-up in that statement I've pasted here....

...(unless I've misunderstood just who you mean by.."they")...and you seem to be lumping the U.S. with some who are allying with Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad. I'd be hard pressed to cite just where we Americans were in allegiance with Ahmadinejad....absent Columbia Univ. which had him as an eyebrow-raising speaker...nor do I think that Qaddafi was easily manipulated. He was simply made to see the reality of his folly of pursuing nuclear research. So far Ahmadinejad has not yet come around, at least in the mainstream media, but I bet genuine containment instigated by us Americans, a genuine possibility, would get his attention.

And, aren't those Saudi Royals very, very afraid of a Persian Bomb? And Persian dominance of the Arabian region? So they want their very own deterrent. It might just help American security to have the Saudi's on our side on that matter, after all, without our money buying their oil, the Saudi's would be still riding camels. Frankly, that's where they belong, but that's off-topic here.

I think you've jumped to conclusions, and lumped apples and oranges.

glasnost - sorry I didn't reply earlier-

Your response shows that I didn't explain the facts about government alliances with terrorists properly. All governments who ally with terrorist states have the ability to induce the cessation of terrorism. The upward and downward career trajectory of terrorists like Qaddafi and Mookie al Sadr are proof of that.

Qaddafi was formerly the most feared terrorist in the world. Al Sadr was formerly crowned the most dangerous man in Iraq. But when both men lost favor with their generous, politically powerful patrons, their careers and their armies were unceremoniously flushed away. The people who make deals with these terrorists know their daily routines, and they know where their bank accounts are located. When we decide that they're no longer useful, they tend to disappear in one way or another, in a quiet way that usually requires minimal military involvement.

Our governments don't make deals with these oil ticks because they have to, they make deals with them because they want to. Britain, the US, Russia and France ally with pompous buffoons like Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and the Saudi royals because they know how powerless and easily manipulated they really are. They know that terrorism frightens both enemies and voters.

The Arab way of warfare usually targets civilians (and only civilians). The targeting of civilians doesn't threaten Western politicians' power - it reinforces it. Most people react to terrorist attacks with calls for increased 'security' and government action. Frightened citizens put more faith in the politicians who are (indirectly or directly) supporting the terrorists.

The British government gives thousands of pounds to Hamas. We're planning to help the Saudis build a nuclear reactor. These deals aren't helping us fight terrorism, they're cementing alliances that will profit politicians and will cause more unrest and civilian deaths.

The only way ordinary voters can stop this cycle of violence is to get angry about our governments' alliances with our enemies, and to threaten the political power of any official who takes money or favors from terrorist states.

Right now, that would require us to be angry with the majority of our leaders on the left and the right. Which isn't such a bad idea.

glasnost, would you mind citing exactly which post I have made where I endorsed the Kach position of expelling all Palestinians from Israel? Looking over my post it doesn't seem to me that I advocated that position, or even talked about Israel/Palestine at all but maybe that's just my bias. And if someone has never endorsed the racist policies of Kach, would you consider it "character assassination" to associate that person with them?

I don't have any trouble having a civil conversation with Glasnost, Anand, and others you like to harrangue, and it isn't their fault that you do.

I'll use this as my response for a while for the next few times I'm talking to someone else and you bring your nuance around, until anyone who wants to know has figured it out.