“That's all well and good in some make believe fantasy world where the US and co are pure as the driven snow, but we've dwelled and delved too long on the daark say to be this black and white about what terrorism is and the virtue of terrorist organisations….Going back to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan who were combatting the Soviets. Ronald Reagan himself stated these "freedom fighters" represented the same values as those upheld by our founding fathers.”

You could not be more right. Even the Regan-era movie Rambo III’s ending credits dedicated the movie to the “freedom fighters” engaged with their Soviet oppressors. That title changes, however, when those fighters train and fund terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies. A country is not able to be dynamic in its relationship with other states? Conversely, the United States would later become allies with Russia. Under your argument, that would be illegitamate and hypocritical, no? Neither case diminishes the United States’ bid against terrorist activity in Afghanistan (not the country itself).

You wanted a working definition of what the Global War on Terror entailed, and I gave it to you. In stating its purpose, the definition does not include an “Innocent Clause”, whereby the United States, et al are limited to how they may act against terrorist activity because of their past, concerning the support they have given to groups they have later deemed threatening. The War on Terror has changed the way countries view their own support of groups which could later turn around as hostile towards them and their interests. This by no means absolves America or her allies from doing exactly that- but certainly does not mean their future relationship with terror bodies and NGO’s should be capped or limited because of it. At the end of the day, it is American interests and global security which matters most, and should be looked at as the paradigm through which we conduct activity with other states.