Dear Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey,
Having read several of your articles on PRAVDA.Ru, I feel that I must write a response to your wrong comments about the US in several of your articles. Your comments about Bush and the US government seem to follow the various videos and letters that seem to pop up from time to time from various Muslim terrorist groups. I honestly think that you believe that the US government is behind every terrorist attack in the world since Bush took office in some imaginary conspiracy to control the world for the ZIONISTS and corporations. You sound like Michael Moore and Osama bin Laden.
I wonder if you are an terrorist sympathizer or just misguided. I hope it is the latter. In one of your articles you say, "Anyone who commits an act of violence randomly against civilians is a terrorist and a common criminal who must be judged for grievous bodily harm or intentional murder. Period." By your own words, that would include the "freedom fighters" of Najef and Saddam. These are the same people that would send women and children with bombs to blow up other men, women, and children, civilian and military. The forces in Najef weren't freedom fighters fighting against some dictator like Saddam but for the control of a city for a religious fanatic in their leader, Moqtada al Sadr. It was about him wanting power, nothing more, nothing less. He wanted to control the choices of people. His stated goals were strict islamic rule or die. The new government in Iraq is made up of many different sects of Islam. The new government of Iraq has leaders of the many different types of people and religions that make up the region in it. But he couldn't have that. Just like Saddam. You claim that terrorism was brought to Iraq by us soldiers, not Saddam and his sadistic children. You claim in your articles that Saddam was the focal point that kept Al-Qaida. How? Osama didn't have to be in Iraq with Saddam. His objectives of terror was already being implemented there. How many thousands of women and children died in the years of his rule? How many Kurds died from poison gas and bullets? How many Shiites died in prison just because they belonged to a different sect of Islam. If you did some homework or a little journalistic investigation, you might have some clue. By your definition of a terrorist, BOTH OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS. As far as being freedom fighters, what freedoms are they fighting for? Not the ones that you and I have. Not the ones that many of the people of Iraq now have because of the US. I have many friends in the military and civilian support there and most of them report that the people of Iraq are happy that we came. But why would any reporter or journalist want to say that. It doesn't sell papers and doesn't make people want to read the articles.
Another article that you wrote about Beslan, you attempt to lay the Chechnya problem at the feet of Bush. You say that there wouldn't be a problem if the US and Bush didn't want Russia's resources for strategic purposes because of the location. You point to US influences in Georgia. I didn't hear that Georgia has had any terrorist attacks lately. Must have missed that. But why state truth in journalism. Do you honestly believe this stuff? Or are you just insane? Do you have any proof or justification for these statements? You sound like the intellectual geniuses that claim that the terrorists could have been negotiated with. The same geniuses that run the EU. The same geniuses that opposed the war in Iraq. The same geniuses that you blast. You, in the same article, blast the US government for giving condolences the Russia for its version of 9\11. You blast the US for calling for worldwide solidarity against these type of scum. You blast the US, but praise Putnin for stating the same thing. Russia has suffered as the US suffered 3 years ago. Now Russia understands our actions over the past 3 years. In interviews after the school tragedy, the russian military now echo the same statements the US military has said. In another article, you claim that the terrorist talked in American and that americans have been seen in terrorist training camps. Is that the US's fault? Why not say that because they spoke English, it was England's fault. Or that because terrorists have been seen in training camps that were Spanish, it is Spain or Mexico's fault. Your logic in many matters is faulty. Your thought processes are faulty. And your information is faulty. The terrorist that did this were for the most part Muslim per eye witness reports. They didn't call out for the freedom of Chechnya. They called to Allah. I know that many Muslims are people that want to live their lives in peace. I am not condemning Islam. All religions have their fanatics that will go to any link to achieve their goals. But in the last ten years how many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu's. In order to keep you from having to check your facts and do some work, let me help. Very few, if any. Many moderate and liberal Muslim clerics and leaders agree that Muslim terrorists have damaged Islam's reputation almost beyond repair. I don't wish to see it but am afraid of the future as more countries are affected by these terrorists.
Finally, as far as your comments about readers in the US claiming "USA being the deliverer of good against evil." That is a load of something smelly that you like to call your opinion. And that is what you write about, your opinion. Your claims of US sponsered terrorism are an opinion. Yes, the US armed the Mujaheddin against an invasion by the Soviets. Yes, the US armed Saddam in his war with Iran. In Afganastan, it was the right thing to do. The Soviets invaded Afganastan. They were the terrorists in that occasion. They killed civilians indiscrimanately. Remember the stories coming from refugees. Or is that too much truth or history. Yes, the US armed Saddam. That was the right thing to do at that time. They were fighting the Iranians, who wanted to control the Persian Gulf, Islam, and the many countries in the region. Did both of these actions have consiquences? Yes. But AT THE TIME, it was the right thing to do. How many times in the past have countries and governments done something that 20 years down the road bit them in the butt? More than I or you can count. In 1991, the US and many nations joined together and freed a country that was invaded because of oil. At the end of that brief campaign, due to pressure from Europe, the coalition left Saddam in power. The consiquenses of that can be counted in the Kurdish dead. This time we didn't bow to outside pressure and allow Saddam to continue to kill and terrorize. Will this bite the US down the road? Maybe, maybe not. As for fighting the FARC in Columbia, that is without a doubt the right thing to do. You seem to have a love affair with terrorists. The FARC kidnap, kill, and terrorized civilians every day. They are TERRORISTS, per your definition. They deal in drugs to support their cause. They kidnap and blackmail to support their cause. Sound familiar. Maybe like the Chechens. Maybe like Al-Qaida. But what does this have to do with PRAVDA? In your article blasting the American readers that wrote your website, you call for America to practice the ideals of debate, discussion and dialogue. This sounds like the same crap that you blasted the EU and reporters for in Beslan. I guess that TRUTH, according to you, has little place for facts or consistancy or reason.