Posted on 11/22/2005 5:24:24 AM PST by paudio
The Arab League? You mean the royal order of despots.
I suspect they are more likely to spin it as the local Iraqi population giving a vote of confidence to Murtha. 'Republicans shut down Democratic efforts to end unjust war; Iraqi's call for withdrawal'. Even Fox headlined the call for a timetable which is a direct political slap in the administrations face. The media and the dims could easily play this as "legitimate resistance", albeit political in nature, to the jack-boot, neocon, imperialist, war for oil and haliburton, poorly planned, fraudulent, illegal, torturous, unilateral, fascist attempt at world hegemony by the republicans.
The non-terrorist Iraqi population has been summarily ignored by the media throughout their doom and gloom reporting. Lets see if the media suddenly insists on hearing the voice of the people now that they've found quotable "representatives" who are providing "withdrawal timetable" headlines.
LOL! They got the question-we got the answer- They are in jeapordy.
Who are the "leaders" mentioned and who do they represent? Why were they meeting in Cairo? Let's get the facts before we jump to conclusions.
The leaders of Iraq need some semblence of acceptance from surrounding states. In these meetings I'm sure they got an ear full. There are parts of this announcement that I do not like at all. Still, reality does force some comments at times that will pacify the regional naysayers.
The part about the terrorists not being called terrorists if they just target U.S. troops is completely unacceptable to me.
The terrorists do not adhere to Geneva Convention standards and basicly tumb their noses at any idea of conducting their actions by acceptable international standards. The left takes the U.S. to task if there's a hint of impropriety, but never addresses the butchery conducted by the terrorists. Why is that?
Why would anyone consider them not to be terrorists at any time?
No sale there...
A great point, and one that I have been unable to make clear to others.
""... insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens."
It's true. If ONLY military targets are attacked, they are not terrorists. But that's not the case.
So do I
I do not think it is worth making a discussion with you. keep you knee jerk reaction going on.
LOL! Boy I have been waiting for a reply, and you take my breath away with your intellect. END SARCASM!
So you are saying that the Iraqi government is saying it is OK for the terrorists to target the Iraqi security forces since the communique does not say to terrorists “do not target Iraqi forces”. You are making your own dumb conclusions and believing the liberal media spin on this.
What? LOL!
Who needs to "spin" this at all? It says fighting our soldiers is legitimate resistance, doesn't it? No member of US Congress or MSNBC put that language in there.
The group meeting in Cairo had no representatives from the current Iraqi government. Fact.
So the Iraqi President is what, a dog catcher from a small province?
Some Iraqi delegates are the ones saying they aren't terrorists. I'd say that's more important than a lefty saying it.
Seen this? Surprised?
Which may not be so bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.