|
Is Condi allowing the Iraqis to freely attack our troops?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
This disgusts me to the core. It's bad enough that our ing stupid Adminstration refused to send the proper number of troops to secure post-war Iraq, let alone not give them the proper body and truck armour needed to protect them, but now we see the new Iraqi government leaders have agreed that killing American occupied forces is not terrorism, and that it's essentially justified to kill in the name of resistance:
| quote: | In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...e.ap/index.html |
Get it?
But here's the kicker - check out the traitor's response, Condi Rice:
| quote: | QUESTION: The Iraqi factions, who don't always get along, have been meeting with the Arab League and others as they prepare for next month's elections. A statement they did agree on says that they recognize the legitimate right of Iraqi citizens to resist the occupation forces. How do you explain that to the parent or the spouse of an American serviceman or woman on the ground in Iraq, getting shot at every day, that the people they're fighting for, the people they're trying to protect to bring these elections and this democracy about, say that the people who are shooting at them have a legitimate right to do so?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, that's not how I read the statement, John. I do think there were many, many voices at this conference -- and by the way, the Iraqi Government was there, but so were many, many people who were not -- and the purpose is to try to give all Iraqis a sense of stake in their future. But the line about resistance was very quickly followed by, but of course we condemn terrorism and of course violence should not be sanctioned. I think what they were trying to do was to get a sense of political inclusion while recognizing that violence and terrorism should not be a part of resistance. After all, do Iraqis really want to -- any Iraqi, sitting around that table, want to suggest that killing an innocent Iraqi child standing at a bus stop is legitimate? Or that killing Iraqi soldiers who are lining up at recruitment centers is legitimate? Or even that multinational forces -- who by the way are there under a UN mandate -- are somehow legitimate targets?
I don't think that that was what was being communicated. But I would just remind people that this was a really broad range of voices, and the Iraqis who have governed themselves by violence and coercion are now trying to do it by compromise and politics.
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspCom...id=121164&src=0 |
Yep, she basically says don't believe what they wrote. Pay no attention to that minor detail. So here's some conclusions that can be drawn by Condi, our daring Secretary of State:
1. She's a complete lying sack of dung
2. She doesn't want us to pay attention to the detail that killing our troops in the name of resistance is justified by this new Iraq government
3. Killing our troops is okay
Who the side does she stand for? And does she speak for this Administration?
Are you Republicans ready to distance yourself from these traitors yet? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Defending your nation on your own soil is NOT terrorism, especially from agressors who're literally raping and torturing your people, and have virual control of your nations most valuable resource (i.e. stealing it). This invasion isn't only an act of aggresion, it's terrorism. Go check a US army manual "terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Just because the majority of the population was "duped" into initially supporting this "war" based on lies and fabrications doesn't change the nature of it one bit. It's agression and terrorism. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| And to answer your question, this Administration doesn't give a flying about us or the troops or the well being of the Iraqis. |
|
|
|
|
