THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
By: Greg Strange
"Let [President] Bush, [and British Prime Minister Tony] Blair . . . know that we are the enemies of democracy." --- Statement by al-Qaida, according to an Associated Press translation, following the recent election in Iraq.
Well, thanks a heap for that clarification, al-Qaida. Some among us--specifically, the "War never solved anything" crowd--had no idea. Enemies of democracy, huh? No kidding? News flash for Michael Moore: the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq arent really the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers after all. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi isnt really an Iraqi patriot fighting for freedom against imperialist aggressors.
Come to think of it, Zarqawi isnt Iraqi, period. Hes a Palestinian-Jordanian, so his cause has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi patriotism. What it has to do with is an insane aversion to modernity, freedom and anything non-Islamic, any or all of which if tolerated, might actually contribute to bringing the Middle East out of the Dark Ages.
So of course Zarqawi was vehemently opposed to elections in Iraq. Why give Iraqis a chance for freedom, progress and prosperity when Baathist/Islamic fascism is so much more of a hoot? Right before the election he declared that anyone who votes in it is an infidel. Then immediately after the election he said, "These elections and their results will not affect us in the al-Qaida in Iraq but will increase our strength and intention to getting rid of injustice."
It is difficult to take seriously talk of "getting rid of injustice" when it comes from someone whose organization recruited (or tricked?) a teenager with Downs syndrome into becoming a suicide bomber on election day. It doesnt get much more depraved than that, but such is life on planet Zarqawi-bunga. Still, Iraqis turned out to vote in greater numbers than Americans usually do, even spitting on the dead body of a failed suicide bomber as they stepped around it on their way into one polling place.
Given the relative success of the Iraqi election and given the aforementioned al-Qaida/Zarqawi statements about "enemies of democracy," etc., one has to wonder if the antiwar contingent, both in the U.S. and around the world, has yet begun to get even the slightest clue as to what this war is all about and why it is so justified.
Forget about weapons of mass destruction. And no, it wasnt a grand Republican lie. It was a colossal intelligence failure, but one that was made by every other organization of spooks in the civilized world. But it was never, ever offered as the sole reason for going into Iraq. The reason WMD was emphasized above all else was because the Bush administration understood it was the only reason that wasnt dismissed out of hand in the narrow and timid minds of the vaunted international community. For anyone who honestly cannot comprehend what other legitimate reasons there could have been, heres a brief primer:
1) Umpteen willful violations of UN resolutions by Saddam; 2) constant destabilization of the region by Saddam; 3) the huge cost of maintaining the no-fly zones indefinitely, all because of Saddam; 4) the bragged about payment of large rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers by Saddam; 5) mass graves, rape rooms, torture dungeons, all constituting crimes against humanity by Saddam; 6) psychotic, kill-crazy sons of Saddam poised and ready to continue their fathers legacy in perpetuity.
Notice a pattern? Saddam was rather a bad actor, though the UN and its fawning admirers never regarded his performance as bad enough to forcibly yank him offstage. But by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to remove him and if the coalition of the unwilling had any reasonable sense of morality themselves, they would have, at the very least, not objected.
But beyond correcting the items on the list above, there was another more far-reaching objective behind the overthrow of Saddam. If you want the Middle East to ever cease being the worlds incubator for apocalyptic Islamic terrorism, the fundamental nature of the region has to be changed. And why start with Iraq? Because, as cited above, by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to remove Saddam. So the idea was that once hes out of the way, some semblance of democracy gets established in Iraq and thats the necessary foot in the door to changing the entire region.
Bush-haters, pacifists and apologists for Western civilization will want to know what gives America the right to forcibly change a region on the other side of the world. Its very simple. Apocalyptic Islamic terrorism is what gives America the right. No rational argument can be made for doing nothing significant to prevent barbarians from committing acts of mass murder and vandalism on a scale that threatens the civilized world.
But its not only good for us, its good for the citizens of that region as well. If given a choice between a) the status quo in the Middle East; b) the lunacy of bin Ladenism; or c) peace, freedom and prosperity, which do you think the Arab masses would choose? If you say anything other than "c" you are basically saying the Arab people as a whole are incapable of rationality, which makes them some sort of inferior breed of people, which doesnt exactly fall within the usual parameters of politically correct speech so adored by the war-hating left.
Besides being plotters of apocalyptic Islamic terrorism--as if that isnt enough--al-Qaida has explicitly stated that they are the enemies of democracy. When given the chance, the Iraqi people turned out in droves to vote anyway, even at the threat of death. They obviously want something different than what has been forced upon them for so long. It is only reasonable to assume that other people in the Middle East would welcome the same chance also. How much clearer does it have to be for the "War never solved anything" crowd?
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/stra021105.shtml
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
By: Greg Strange
"Let [President] Bush, [and British Prime Minister Tony] Blair . . . know that we are the enemies of democracy." --- Statement by al-Qaida, according to an Associated Press translation, following the recent election in Iraq.
Well, thanks a heap for that clarification, al-Qaida. Some among us--specifically, the "War never solved anything" crowd--had no idea. Enemies of democracy, huh? No kidding? News flash for Michael Moore: the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq arent really the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers after all. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi isnt really an Iraqi patriot fighting for freedom against imperialist aggressors.
Come to think of it, Zarqawi isnt Iraqi, period. Hes a Palestinian-Jordanian, so his cause has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi patriotism. What it has to do with is an insane aversion to modernity, freedom and anything non-Islamic, any or all of which if tolerated, might actually contribute to bringing the Middle East out of the Dark Ages.
So of course Zarqawi was vehemently opposed to elections in Iraq. Why give Iraqis a chance for freedom, progress and prosperity when Baathist/Islamic fascism is so much more of a hoot? Right before the election he declared that anyone who votes in it is an infidel. Then immediately after the election he said, "These elections and their results will not affect us in the al-Qaida in Iraq but will increase our strength and intention to getting rid of injustice."
It is difficult to take seriously talk of "getting rid of injustice" when it comes from someone whose organization recruited (or tricked?) a teenager with Downs syndrome into becoming a suicide bomber on election day. It doesnt get much more depraved than that, but such is life on planet Zarqawi-bunga. Still, Iraqis turned out to vote in greater numbers than Americans usually do, even spitting on the dead body of a failed suicide bomber as they stepped around it on their way into one polling place.
Given the relative success of the Iraqi election and given the aforementioned al-Qaida/Zarqawi statements about "enemies of democracy," etc., one has to wonder if the antiwar contingent, both in the U.S. and around the world, has yet begun to get even the slightest clue as to what this war is all about and why it is so justified.
Forget about weapons of mass destruction. And no, it wasnt a grand Republican lie. It was a colossal intelligence failure, but one that was made by every other organization of spooks in the civilized world. But it was never, ever offered as the sole reason for going into Iraq. The reason WMD was emphasized above all else was because the Bush administration understood it was the only reason that wasnt dismissed out of hand in the narrow and timid minds of the vaunted international community. For anyone who honestly cannot comprehend what other legitimate reasons there could have been, heres a brief primer:
1) Umpteen willful violations of UN resolutions by Saddam; 2) constant destabilization of the region by Saddam; 3) the huge cost of maintaining the no-fly zones indefinitely, all because of Saddam; 4) the bragged about payment of large rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers by Saddam; 5) mass graves, rape rooms, torture dungeons, all constituting crimes against humanity by Saddam; 6) psychotic, kill-crazy sons of Saddam poised and ready to continue their fathers legacy in perpetuity.
Notice a pattern? Saddam was rather a bad actor, though the UN and its fawning admirers never regarded his performance as bad enough to forcibly yank him offstage. But by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to remove him and if the coalition of the unwilling had any reasonable sense of morality themselves, they would have, at the very least, not objected.
But beyond correcting the items on the list above, there was another more far-reaching objective behind the overthrow of Saddam. If you want the Middle East to ever cease being the worlds incubator for apocalyptic Islamic terrorism, the fundamental nature of the region has to be changed. And why start with Iraq? Because, as cited above, by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to remove Saddam. So the idea was that once hes out of the way, some semblance of democracy gets established in Iraq and thats the necessary foot in the door to changing the entire region.
Bush-haters, pacifists and apologists for Western civilization will want to know what gives America the right to forcibly change a region on the other side of the world. Its very simple. Apocalyptic Islamic terrorism is what gives America the right. No rational argument can be made for doing nothing significant to prevent barbarians from committing acts of mass murder and vandalism on a scale that threatens the civilized world.
But its not only good for us, its good for the citizens of that region as well. If given a choice between a) the status quo in the Middle East; b) the lunacy of bin Ladenism; or c) peace, freedom and prosperity, which do you think the Arab masses would choose? If you say anything other than "c" you are basically saying the Arab people as a whole are incapable of rationality, which makes them some sort of inferior breed of people, which doesnt exactly fall within the usual parameters of politically correct speech so adored by the war-hating left.
Besides being plotters of apocalyptic Islamic terrorism--as if that isnt enough--al-Qaida has explicitly stated that they are the enemies of democracy. When given the chance, the Iraqi people turned out in droves to vote anyway, even at the threat of death. They obviously want something different than what has been forced upon them for so long. It is only reasonable to assume that other people in the Middle East would welcome the same chance also. How much clearer does it have to be for the "War never solved anything" crowd?
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/stra021105.shtml
