October 04, 2004
Rhetorical Question
If our action in liberating Iraq is creating so many new terrorists, how come all the actions taken in response to it are carried out by militants and insurgents?
Your rhetoric is quite telling.
Firstly, USA is not there to liberate but to occupy for as long as it takes to create a strong foothold militarily. Liberation of a country does not entail shooting air-ground missiles at unarmed civilians or at wedding parties. The civilian deaths during the ongoing occupation is just too high (15,000 to 30,000)to qualify us as "liberators".
As for your question regarding insurgents and militants, I do not understand what you understand by the term "terrorist". There are actually websites saying that they hope W wins this election, so that they (the "terrorists") can recruit more from among the unempyed and disenfranchized in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, and similar places.
Posted by: HIranya at October 9, 2004 07:49 AMHIranya - do you have any concept of how many 'locals' died in liberating France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg in WWII?
Or how many 'locals' died in Italy and Germany in ridding the world of their governments?
And the numbers for eastern Europe are almost inestimable.
It sounds, by your rhetoric, that liberation is impossible, and therefore should not be attempted.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 10, 2004 05:33 PM