Not A Story for The New York Times

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Adam's Apple, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    By RALPH PETERS, New York Post

    January 25, 2005 -- IN just two days, Iraq took two giant steps forward. The forces of freedom in Baghdad announced the earlier bust of the al Qaeda killer behind the wave of suicide bombings. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 1 terrorist in Iraq, told the world what he thinks.

    Under pressure, men and women reveal their true character. On the run and frantic, Zarqawi offered a perfect contrast to President Bush's inauguration speech supporting global freedom: Zarqawi announced that democracy is "an evil principle."

    There you have the deepest fear of oppressors everywhere. Whether dictators or assassins, they dread the free choice of free people. Terrorists know they can't win elections. Nor will many people vote to impose religious law on themselves.

    The only hope the terrorists have is the tyranny of the bomb, the gun and the lash.

    Even Moqtada al-Sadr, baby-faced bully of the Shi'a slums, realized that few of Iraq's Shi'as would vote for his con- game wrapped in religion. As a result, he's withdrawn his sup port for elections. The Iraqi response? Nobody cared.

    Even before the elections, democracy did what the guns could not: It downed another demagogue.

    Meanwhile, Zarqawi, the deadliest thug in the country, has grown desperate. In the wake of terror's defeat in Fallujah, his key lieutenant got fitted for handcuffs — a triumph revealed only yesterday to avoid compromising the grab's intelligence value.

    Zarqawi knew his goon was gone. His wet-the-pants response? Lecturing the enthusiastic voters of Iraq that democracy is evil, then calling the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "Satan" for supporting the elections.

    This is not sound politics. A Sunni Muslim, Zarqawi can only mobilize the Shi'a voters he fears by attacking their spiritual leader.

    But then Zarqawi has made one blunder after another in the face of wide spread support for Sunday's election. Indeed, while he and the other terrorists have played checkers, the Shi'a majority has been playing chess.

    For example, key Shi'a religious leaders wisely agreed that Iraq's first free elections should not replicate Iran's mis take of putting mullahs atop the government. That keeps the mullahs off the blame-line, should governmental efforts falter, while still allowing reli gious leaders a voice behind the scenes (an authority that men of God enjoy from Indiana to India). It calms Western fears of a "second Iran" emerging in Iraq and so reduces the chance of a confrontation between the Coalition and the mullahs.

    This isn't deviousness. It's statesmanship. We may live to be disappointed in them, but Iraq's Shi'as are confounding all the Western elitists who insist that the yokels aren't ready for democracy.

    Just let people vote. Then the left's prophets of doom who dismiss the deep human desire for freedom can read the results and squirm as they explain their faulty predictions.

    What's really happening in Iraq? Contrary to media depictions, suicide bombings and other attacks are going down, not up. The terrorists are running short on resources. The bad boys are getting popped — not least because Iraqis, sick of the violence, turn them in.

    And the leading terrorist in Iraq just told the common people what he thinks of them: He should decide their future, not their ballots.

    Think that's going to play well with the masses? Does anyone except The New York Times believe that a Jordanian- born, Sunni Muslim terrorist is going to convince Iraq's majority Shi'a Arabs or the Kurds to throw up their hands, stay home on Election Day and hand him power?

    Rarely has the contrast been so clear between the forces of freedom and those of oppression. Last Thursday, America's president offered the world a courageous vision for the future. Over the weekend, the top terrorist in Iraq insisted that the world should return to a cruel and savage past. There you have the basic conflict of the 21st century.

    Iraq's election won't produce perfect results. But the issue is no longer whether the people will vote, but how many millions of voters will risk their lives to go to the polls.

    Those who still warn that Iraq's elections are misguided are on the side of the terrorists. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi thinks so. And he's right.
     
  2. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    This is an op-ed piece. This could easily appear in the NY Times under the name of Williams Safire or one of their other politically conservative columnists.
     
  3. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    So Menewa you don't agree with what he's saying? :wtf:
     
  4. Polystyrate
    Online

    Polystyrate Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm very skeptical anytime we hear about how close we are to capturing or shutting down these enemies. I mean wasnt it last year we said we had defeated all major resistance in Iraq only to watch the fighting soar, or that we had bin ladens luetenants and he was in our grasp? Where are we gonna be if the Iraqi people want saddam back? or Zarqowi? Or are only US approved nominees allowed to run? I beleive if the Iraqi people truly wanted our ways of life they would already have them.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    And they would have been able to accomplish this how?
     
  6. Polystyrate
    Online

    Polystyrate Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    How did the american colonies repel the most powerful monarchy in the world at the time? Well to be honest, we used gorrilla and terroristic tactics, but when its our side they are freedom fighters. Democracy is a by product of an already stable civilization not the cure for a chaotic one, imagine how you would feel if the ussr had put an occuping army in the US with checkpoints on every major roadway to set up a communist government in the us?
     
  7. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

    LOL!!! I guess if the gorilla tactics had not worked, we could have resorted to chimpanzee warfare!

    Sorry, I try not to pick on spelling or grammar, but this was just too good to pass up.

    Now I'm having trouble remembering if it's the gorilla or the guerilla to whom you give the banana
     
  8. Polystyrate
    Online

    Polystyrate Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    lol, hooked on phonics worked for me!
     
  9. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    If Ronald Reagan had declared himself President For Life, detained and totured political dissidents, allowed his sons to rape whomever they wanted, and tested weapons on my city; I would be making a frickn' pilgrimage to Red Square in gratitude.

    Are you saying that the American colonists goal of a representative government is morally equal with Zarqawis goal of an Islamic dictatorship? Forget that question...that was clearly what you implied. The real question is I suppose is did you mean to say that or are you really that stupid?
     
  10. gaffer
    Offline

    gaffer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +44

    The Colonist fought the revolution with soldiers that went toe to toe with the British and lost most of the major battles. Terrorism was not used. The colonist did not slaughter their own people. The final defeat of the Britsh came with the advent of the French into the war. France was a major power just like Britain. The French fleet off the coast and the combined forces of French and Colonial troops is what beat the British.

    Comparing our troops in Iraq to soviet troops is an afront to our troops as far as I am concerned. The terrorist, insurgents and other thugs in iraq are not freedom fighters. They are fighting to drag iraq back into the middle ages like the rest of the countries around there. They don't want freedom in iraq therefore they can not be freedom fighters. And to compare them to the patriots of the revolution is wrong and silly grasping for justification of your support of those thugs.
     

Share This Page