I heard today that the latest round of car/truck bombings killed 35 kids in a neighborhood who were part of a community celebration of the opening of a water treatment facility (or something like that). What a wonderful way to show those Americans how unwelcome they are. Did they also forget to thank us for fixing the water? How do these animals earn anyone's sympathy anywhere in the world-- except from someone who is likewise an animal.
man i saw this headline today at work and i just read the story now and it's pretty disgusting. i think everyone knew how bad the insurgents were before but this is just a horrible event. i don't know how this is being reported in the iraqi media, but i am curious if an event like this would serve as something that would make the iraqi people completely turn against any sort of "insurgent movement". these are just mindless unplanned terrorist attacks. they serve no politic purpose for iraq. i am kind of just rambling because this is just a horrible story.
I imagine that it is an outdated quote rather than a comment on this news story, but it just goes to show that the French were <b>wrong then just as they are wrong now</b> in regards to this war on Terrorism.
The French were right on the war in terrorism when they were flying the most air missions in support of our Afghanistan invasion excepting the U.S. The French were also right when they saw that Saddam wasn't a threat that required an invasion to keep under control. The French were wrong for not wanting to to do more in Aghanistan recently, and they are wrong about not wanting to do more with the Sudan.
Seems to me like this is being studioiusly ignored. Who is really the enemy here: the "insurgents" or the Americans?
are you a republican or democrat? Senator Notbush, the DNC, and MoveOn would have you believe the greatest threat to world peace is the republican party. The rest of us pretty much feel like the fault lies with those who are trying to kill us. The democrats have conducted a campaign of unprecedented hate and divisiveness. Although there's ample room to critizise bush on several fronts, and i might otherwise be disposed to consider another candidate, it's the unrelenting hysteria of democrats that ultimately keeps my vote firmly in the bush column.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29325.htm -- THE REAL STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ By AMIR TAHERI September 29, 2004 -- WHILE kidnappings and head-choppings in the Sunni Triangle domi nate the news from Iraq, the real battle for that nation's future is fought in diplomatic, political and media arenas outside that country. The terrorist movement in Iraq, at times graced with the label of "insurgency," is in no position to impose its will on the nation. With the help of its outside backers, it could, to be sure, continue kidnappings and killings for years. More than a dozen countries (Colombia, Peru, Malaysia, the Philippines, Algeria, Egypt, etc.) have experienced similar terrorist movements in recent decades. In every case, the terrorists, having pushed the limits of brutality as far as they could, were ultimately defeated. It took Peru almost a quarter-century to defeat and destroy the vicious Shining Path. At no time, however, did it manage to threaten the basic structures of the nation or, ultimately, to divert its process of democratization. In Colombia, an insurgency that dates back almost 40 years is now facing certain defeat. It took the British almost 12 years to defeat the so-called "insurgency" in Malaya which, despite massive support from China and the U.S.S.R., was doomed from the start. The ultimate reason for terrorist movements' failure is the same that constitutes their raison d'etre: Individuals and groups choose terrorism because they know they cannot mobilize popular support. The terrorist hopes to force history in his direction with the help of bombs and guns. He tries to substitute his will for the will of the people. While claiming to fight in the name of the people he is, in fact, excluding the people from the political process if only because "ordinary citizens" are not prepared to die, let alone kill, for abstract ideas. So the "insurgency" in Iraq is going nowhere fast. It will be as roundly defeated as were its predecessors in so many other countries. The danger for Iraq's future lies elsewhere. It comes, in part, from Americans who want Iraq to fail because they want President Bush to fail. Some 81 books paint the president as the devil incarnate; Bush-bashing is also the theme of three "documentaries" plus half a dozen Hollywood feature films. Never before in any mature democracy has a political leader aroused so much hatred from his domestic opponents. Others want Iraq to fail because they want America to fail, with or without Bush. The bitter tone of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he declared the liberation of Iraq "illegal" shows that it is not the future of Iraq but the vilification of the United States that interests him. Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies — the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others — but on the side of the "insurgents." Those who want Iraq to fail because they hate Bush and/or America as a whole (for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq) know that "the insurgents" can't get anywhere. Nor would the Bush- or America-bashers really want Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi to become ruler of Iraq. If Jimmy Carter had been U.S. president or if Iraq had been liberated by the European Union, we would have none of the hot air that is blown about the war throughout the world. But someone like Carter or an entity like the European Union could never say boo to a goose, let alone destroy a vicious tyranny. Those who want Iraq to fail so that Bush and/or America will also fail are now focusing their energies towards a single goal: postponing elections in Iraq for as long as possible. To achieve that goal, they will stop at nothing. It was on that basis that opponents of Iraqi elections have cooked up a story around the claim that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shiite clerics in Najaf, wants the election postponed or may even boycott. U.S. and European newspapers that had always dismissed Sistani as "a reactionary mullah" have recently put him in the headlines and devoted lengthy editorials and op-ed pieces to his supposed opposition to the holding of elections. The initial story was built around the claim that Sistani is unhappy with the elections because the Shiite share is limited to 55 percent of the total rather than 60 percent. This is an absurd claim for the simple reason that the planned elections treat all of Iraq as a single constituency in which every vote is equal to every other vote. And if several or even all of Iraq's political parties wish to enter the election with a single list of national unity, how could Sistani overrule them? The ayatollah has never claimed to be a dictator. Nor is Iraq an Iranian-style "Islamic" state, where a single mullah can overrule everyone else and even suspend the basic tenets of the religion. Anyone who knows Sistani would know that he is the last person to play the deadly game of Shiite-Sunni rivalry. Note also that the January election is to form a Constituent Assembly, a body that will write the nation's new constitution. It is therefore important that the assembly enjoy the widest possible support among all Iraqis. Immediately after Saddam's fall, some of us had urged the Bush administration to transfer power to an interim Iraqi government and organize elections as quickly as possible. Sistani endorsed that view as early as August 2003, calling for a transfer of power to the Iraqis and the holding of elections. His position has not changed. Sistani wants elections, and wants them as soon as possible. All he asks is that the international community, including the United Nations, play a role in organizing and supervising the series of elections planned for next year. His hope is that Iraq would not only have a new constitution, to be approved in a popular referendum, but also an elected parliament and a government with a clear electoral mandate before the end of 2006. That, he knows, is the fastest way for the Coalition forces to leave Iraq in peace and with dignity. Sistani insists on international participation, beyond the U.S.-led Coalition, for two reasons. First, he knows that divisions among the big powers over Iraq are harmful for all concerned. He wants them to unite in helping the people of Iraq make their true feelings known through free elections. Second, he knows that the elections will enjoy greater legitimacy if the international community unanimously endorses the results. Sistani's message is simple: Think of the future of Iraq, not the settling of past scores. E-mail: amirtaheri@ benadorassociates.com
FWIW, on CNN they showed responses of the Iraqi civilians to the deaths of these kids (including one father whose kid was killed) and they blamed the American troops for the kids deaths and accused them of giving the candy to the kids as a way to shield them (i guess thinking the insurgents wouldn't attack the troops if they were surrounded by Iraqi kids). I'm not saying that's what happened but that's what some Iraqis believe
wow outlaw that is just absolutely baffling to me how people could say that and seriously believe it. it's really pretty sad. how could a father say something like that...geez the guy is blaming american troops for giving away candy what the hell is that guy thinking? if he believed that crap then why in the hell did he ever let his kids near american troops if he thought there was that much chance of a freaking attack??? you know i understand that he is probably not in his right mind since his child just got murdered, but even thinking like that just makes no sense. you have to put the blame on the people doing the killing and not make up strange conspiracies to put the blame on someone else who isn't doing the killing at that event. just mind boggling to me
basso, the only reference I can find to this "quote," from Taheri in his column, is Taheri's column. After looking through google, the only mention of this quote is from various blog sites, "****France" was one, the RNC was another. I can find nothing to substantiate it. If you can find it anywhere credible, please post a link. Keep D&D Civil!!
The same thing I would say about one dead child, or 35,000... it's a horrible tragedy. Keep D&D Civil!!
And what about their killers and their motives? Isn't that more important than what some French guy said? Aren't these the guys you see as standing up for a wronged Iraq?
Good lord. Don't you have a clue as to how I feel about terrorists, after reading a zillion posts of mine? I gotta run and eat dinner with the family. I'll check back later, giddy. Keep D&D Civil!!
i'm assuming he said it in french, and i don't know what the original would have been. i'll try and spend a little time on it tomorrow.
Yes, but I'm still puzzled about this question that I posed: "Aren't these the guys you see as standing up for a wronged Iraq?" You know they could have blown up that water treatment facility in the middle of the night.
The quote means that when it comes to getting the French hostages released from the terrorist group, the best allies are the Iraqi resistance who don't kidnap. Who do you think would have more influence on releasing the hostages, Rumsfeld? Fox News? Talking about taking something out of context. ]Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
