The sunnis were not “disenfranchised” after the invasion; they lost their previous monopoly of political power- a rather different matter- and how is “Shia retribution for Saddam … followed by tit-for-tat revenge attacks” not Muslim-on-Muslim violence? Certainly Britain and the U.S.A. helped create conditions in contemporary Iraq, but it is absurd to speak as if the Iraqis themselves had no part in it and that everything that happened in Iraq happened regardless of them an their desires.

It is very easy to box it into Muslim-on-Muslim violence (it has in fact been Shia retribution for Saddam as the Sunni population was basically disenfranchised thanks to the Western alliance, followed by tit-for-tat revenge attacks).

Who created the conditions for present-day (and future) Iraq? Britain and the U.S. I understand that these comments digress slightly from the topic at hand, but I always keep hold of these facts when I see this kind of media commentary and offhand comments by people from the invading countries who still maintain some sort of illusion that they are a benevolent party to all this. It stinks of hypocrisy and ignorance, and to me illustrates the base stupidity inherent in all humanity - something which must always be challenged and overcome.

But to attack Gupta (a “confused ramble”) for objecting to it is beyond stupid - if you think her argument doesn’t answer the case properly then attack the Guardian for not finding someone better.

There’s an excellent chance we wanted Iraqis killing each other and set about causing it. (The incident of the two “British” rescued from that police station in Basra was particularly suspicious). However, just because we want extremism and misery in Iraq is no excuse for condoning it in Europe.