Skip to comments.
Hard Terror, Soft Targets
Wall St Journal ^
| August 21, 2003
| SHERI FINK
Posted on 08/21/2003 5:32:54 AM PDT by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:49:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The bombing of Baghdad's Canal Hotel, headquarters of United Nations operations in Iraq, is an attack on all ordinary Iraqis, the end of any surviving perception that the U.S.-led coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq are working, and the death of innocence for relief workers world-wide. The U.N. Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and the building's other dead or injured civilian workers had come together from around the world and within Iraq with the goal of improving life for all Iraqis. For their protection in the conflict zone, they relied primarily on an invisible shield forged from tradition -- and from the laws of war, which state that noncombatants, and particularly relief workers, are never legitimate military targets.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: humanitarianrelief; iraq; rebuildingiraq; softtargets; unhqbombing
1
posted on
08/21/2003 5:32:55 AM PDT
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
Dr Fink is a pompous biased ass.He didn't miss an opportunity to slam the coalition.
2
posted on
08/21/2003 5:37:17 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: MEG33
She
3
posted on
08/21/2003 5:39:04 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: SJackson
Dr. Fink has one of those split level intellects which allow a trained medical mind and a total idiot to coexist simultaneously. How could she think that terrorists would discriminate between 'protected' persons like herself and 'legitimate' targets like American soldiers? Did she think terrorists would respect the Geneva convention? Well obviously she did up until now.
Her dream palace has gone up in the flash that destroyed the UN headquarters. She can continue to try and sit on the fence but the Al Qaeda will blow the fence up.
4
posted on
08/21/2003 5:43:00 AM PDT
by
wretchard
To: SJackson
Dr. Fink is quite obviously part of the problem. A self-regarding mollycoddler of bad folks everywhere, who still doesn't get it. Why shouldn't they kill UN workers? They want to kill each and every single person who will not submit to the will of the terrorists.
Two choices, submit to them or fight them. Either way one could die. Anyway, we all will die, the question is how do we live in the time alloted us?
Dr. Fink has chosen to spend her time whining, but I assert that is a poor choice.
5
posted on
08/21/2003 5:50:42 AM PDT
by
jocon307
To: SJackson
>> "We can no longer rely on the promise of protection given to us by the Geneva Conventions." <<
It should be obvious to any thinking person that Treaties and Laws only protect against the law abiding elements of the world.
These people never seem to learn that peace is ONLY achievable through strength and force.
6
posted on
08/21/2003 5:52:13 AM PDT
by
sd-joe
To: SJackson
I simply do not understand why we are "rebuilding" Iraq. We owe them nothing. We busted up the place; let us move on to the next target. The UN can "rebuild" it if they want--with blue helmeted soldiers from France to protect them if they feel they need it.
--Boris
7
posted on
08/21/2003 7:49:08 AM PDT
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson