The French foreign Minister has just said that he would not attend a conference on Iraq unless elements of "La Resistance" are invited. Now someone should ask Kerry, if this conference is going to be the centerpiece of his new approach on Iraq, if he is going to invite Zarqawi to sit down at the table with him. Is he going to ask the fellows that took Americans passing out candy the other day as a opportunity to 'resist' the occupation by blowing up thier own children what they want? Are we going to let people that are committing terrorism to prevent the people of Iraq from letting thier voice be heard in an election have a voice at the negotiating table? Look for the 'resistance' to develop a 'political' wing. After all, no American President would sit down with a terrorist organization till they had at least had the decency to set up an internal division of labor. Why even the mafia has the decency to offer local merchants have a way to pretend that they are not paying protection money by setting up inflated price service vendors. When there is a political wing of Zarkawi's organization we will know the terrorists have won.
2 comments:
"Are we going to let people that are committing terrorism to prevent the people of Iraq from letting thier voice be heard in an election have a voice at the negotiating table?"
how do you define terrorism? I can say bombing a hospital or a wedding is also terrorism. oh, but those were done by mistake. sure, but no bombing whatsoever would have resulted in no mistakes. collateral damage terrorism is no less terrorism than an intended one. after all it is the number of graves and crying mothers in the end that counts.
also I thought democracy is about representing all people in a country not only the ones that someone from outside picks as representable. who is usa anyway to decide who is terrorist and who is not in iraq? i don't call that democracy.
I also don't understand why "having the decency" to conceal something (i.e. deprive stupid people from the ability to see what really is going on) is a policy to be encouraged.
"how do you define terrorism? I can say bombing a hospital or a wedding is also terrorism. oh, but those were done by mistake. sure, but no bombing whatsoever would have resulted in no mistakes. collateral damage terrorism is no less terrorism than an intended one. after all it is the number of graves and crying mothers in the end that counts."
If collateral damage is no less terrorism than and intended on [sic] then hitting someone with a car by accedent is no less murder than running them over intentionally. And if it is "the nubmer of graves and crying mothers in the end that counts" why has there been so little interest in the media in the 1 to 200,000 mass graves that we have found (mass graves which the EU has refused to help the Iraqi people investigate because Iraq has the death penalty). Are we really going to let the fact that some baathist thugs and guys who want to go back to the 13th century are willing to murder people at random deny the other 4/5ths of Iraqis the right to be a normal county?
"also I thought democracy is about representing all people in a country not only the ones that someone from outside picks as representable. who is usa anyway to decide who is terrorist and who is not in iraq? i don't call that democracy."
Actually democracy is exactly that: you get to be in elections only if you agree not to shoot if you don't like how the elections turn out. In any case, we aren't the ones preventing anyone from participating in the election, it is the terrorists. It is not as if the terrorsts operating out of Falluja are fighting for the right of the people in that city to participate in the election, they are fighting to preven the people in Falluja from exercising that right. In any case, the guy "we" picked to be in charge in Afganistan appears ot have just won the first free election in the country's history.
Post a Comment