Howard defends war on Iraq as 'war on terror': "But we also need to understand that this contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror. We recognise this and so do our enemies. I find it astonishing when people claim that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against terrorism."

* I find astonishing the boldness and crookedness of Howard's position. It is plainly obvious and has been confirmed by one intelligence expert after another that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism but only increased the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda and diminished the safety and security of the peoples of the nations that took part in the unprovoked aggression.

"The reality is that international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq."

The reverse is the case. Reports on Al-Qaeda have it that they are not focussing on Iraq, but on other countries. The resistance in Iraq is not 'terrorism' but an anti-colonialist insurgency.

"Not only are organisations associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq but each and every turn of the Iraq struggle is interpreted by spokesmen for international terrorism as part of the ongoing campaign against the United States and her allies."

Certainly it is true that the unprovoked aggression against Iraq based on a pretext of transparent lies has been an enormous propaganda & recruiting boost for Bin Laden. His statements and positions demonstrate more credibility than the crude lies and deceptions of Bush/Blair/Howard.

"Whatever may have been the origins of the horrific attack in Madrid, al Qaeda and its associates opportunistically associated that attack with Spain’s participation in the military operation in Iraq. The terrorists have recorded Spain’s subsequent decision to withdraw from Iraq in the victory column against the West."

Spain's withdrawal from the war is a victory for the Spanish people, who finally got their governemnt to adhere to their clear wishes not to participate in this criminal and immoral enterprise; a victory for the people of Iraq who can look forward to the ultimate defeat of the invasion; and a victory against terrrorism, which must be combated by police action and addressing of grievances, not by war.

"With that in mind it is incontestable that a failure of will in Iraq by the coalition would be seen as an enormous propaganda victory for international terrorism. A victory with far reaching consequences."

The victory will not be a victory of 'terrorism' but a victory of indigenous resistance against colonialist invasion, occupation and exploitation. Howard's transparent ideological tactic is to conflate anti-colonialist indigenous resistance with 'terrorism'.

"Any weakening or retreat by the coalition in Iraq will not appease the terrorists. Those who imagine that respite from future terrorist attacks can be purchased by withdrawing or temporising could not be more wrong."

The defeat and retreat of the colonialist invaders will certainly reduce the incidence of attacks on the occupiers. Just as when the US withdrew from Vietnam casualties fell among US soldiers, so when the invaders withdraw from Iraq it is obvious the violence will diminish against them.

"International terrorism is an enemy of Australia because of who we are, not what we have done."

This is the fairy tale that is the essential ideological prop of the phony 'war on terror'. In reality it is Western colonialist and imperialist intervention in the Middle East region in pursuit or hegemony over the energy reserves that is the obvious cause of anti-Western rhetoric and violence (termed 'blowback' by Chalmers Johnson).

Howard to the end of his days will repeat this nonsense and will never be able to speak the truth: that the war on Iraq was a crime based on a pretext of massive lies which predictably increased the threat of terrorism against the invading countries, and that the real reasons for the war were and are to establish permanent military bases and to dominate the oil region of the Middle East.

Howard defends war on Iraq as 'war on terror': "But we also need to understand that this contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror. We recognise this and so do our enemies. I find it astonishing when people claim that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against terrorism."

* I find astonishing the boldness and crookedness of Howard's position. It is plainly obvious and has been confirmed by one intelligence expert after another that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism but only increased the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda and diminished the safety and security of the peoples of the nations that took part in the unprovoked aggression.

"The reality is that international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq."

The reverse is the case. Reports on Al-Qaeda have it that they are not focussing on Iraq, but on other countries. The resistance in Iraq is not 'terrorism' but an anti-colonialist insurgency.

"Not only are organisations associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq but each and every turn of the Iraq struggle is interpreted by spokesmen for international terrorism as part of the ongoing campaign against the United States and her allies."

Certainly it is true that the unprovoked aggression against Iraq based on a pretext of transparent lies has been an enormous propaganda & recruiting boost for Bin Laden. His statements and positions demonstrate more credibility than the crude lies and deceptions of Bush/Blair/Howard.

"Whatever may have been the origins of the horrific attack in Madrid, al Qaeda and its associates opportunistically associated that attack with Spain’s participation in the military operation in Iraq. The terrorists have recorded Spain’s subsequent decision to withdraw from Iraq in the victory column against the West."

Spain's withdrawal from the war is a victory for the Spanish people, who finally got their governemnt to adhere to their clear wishes not to participate in this criminal and immoral enterprise; a victory for the people of Iraq who can look forward to the ultimate defeat of the invasion; and a victory against terrrorism, which must be combated by police action and addressing of grievances, not by war.

"With that in mind it is incontestable that a failure of will in Iraq by the coalition would be seen as an enormous propaganda victory for international terrorism. A victory with far reaching consequences."

The victory will not be a victory of 'terrorism' but a victory of indigenous resistance against colonialist invasion, occupation and exploitation. Howard's transparent ideological tactic is to conflate anti-colonialist indigenous resistance with 'terrorism'.

"Any weakening or retreat by the coalition in Iraq will not appease the terrorists. Those who imagine that respite from future terrorist attacks can be purchased by withdrawing or temporising could not be more wrong."

The defeat and retreat of the colonialist invaders will certainly reduce the incidence of attacks on the occupiers. Just as when the US withdrew from Vietnam casualties fell among US soldiers, so when the invaders withdraw from Iraq it is obvious the violence will diminish against them.

"International terrorism is an enemy of Australia because of who we are, not what we have done."

This is the fairy tale that is the essential ideological prop of the phony 'war on terror'. In reality it is Western colonialist and imperialist intervention in the Middle East region in pursuit or hegemony over the energy reserves that is the obvious cause of anti-Western rhetoric and violence (termed 'blowback' by Chalmers Johnson).

Howard to the end of his days will repeat this nonsense and will never be able to speak the truth: that the war on Iraq was a crime based on a pretext of massive lies which predictably increased the threat of terrorism against the invading countries, and that the real reasons for the war were and are to establish permanent military bases and to dominate the oil region of the Middle East.