 |
| |
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Kerry Calls al-Sadr Voice 'Legitimate'
11:58 am PST, 7 April 2004
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday called the voice of militant Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr "legitimate," setting off a firestorm of protest from a number of American political quarters.
Kerry, in an interview with National Public Radio, said of a newspaper owned by al-Sadr, which was shut down last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."
The Massachusetts senator quickly reversed himself, however, adding the imam was aligning himself with known terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Kerry could not completely condemn those groups, either.
"Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment," he said in the NPR segment.
Kerry's comments--first reported by the New York Sun--come amid escalating violence in several Iraqi cities, including Fallujah, which U.S. military officials say is being directed by al-Sadr.
Military sources say fighting inspired by the imam has left some 30 U.S. troops and at least 130 Iraqis dead.
Kerry also wavered somewhat when asked whether he supported al-Sadr's arrest.
"Not if it's an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry said, according to the Sun.
On March 28, the U.S.-led coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawza, for 60 days, the Sun reported.
|
http://7am.com/cgi-bin/catwire.cgi?..._2004040704.htm
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
I think the Economist summed up how was of thinking like this best. He thinks out load when asked questions. It seems quite obvious to me, reading what he said, that he's trying to say that while al-Sadr is a terrorist, the fact he has many supporters and sympathisers means we can't just ignore him. Yes, the fact he condone's violence against American troops is bad, but there are a lot of Iraqi's that don't want American troops there, and it is a popular voice. It can't just be ignored.
He did not say Hamas was a 'sort of' terrorist organisation, he said a newspaper that has started to align itself with Hamas is a sort of terrorist alignment. It's not the newspaper of Hamas, it's not directly terrorist, so he is correct, it is a sort of terrorist alignment. As for the term legitimate, he meant the voice of the newspaper, and then clarified that while legitimate was probably a little strong a term, it can't be ignored, and it does have support among groups of Iraqi's. Also, IIRC, it was considered legitimate until recently, before it aligned so much with Hamas.
He has flip-flopped, but when asked in an interview for a quick answer, he may think about it during the interview and realise the exact wording he used may not be the most appropriate, so go and further explain what it. It's just semantics. I wouldn't call this flip-flopping, I would call saying one thing to one group, then another thing to another group, as he did during the primaries, flip-flopping.
I support the closing of a newspaper that calls for attacks on US and Iraqi peacekeeping troops, but I agree with Kerry that you can't just ignore al-Sadr and hope his followers go away or see sense. What they've done is despicable, but ignoring them makes them more likely to attack again, to get out attention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Hezbollah have never been a terror group. If they are on any 'official' list, then that must have happened quite recently. They are a legitimate group formed after Israels aggression against Lebanon. They kicked the IDF out, and are still exchanging gunfire with the Israelis when they violate Lebanese airspace, which they do quite often.
They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group, since they fight using conventional means, to protect sovereign territory.
By maintaining that they are a terrorist group the one's who do lose any credibility, if they even had one to begin with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group |
Hezbollah has shelled a civilian town. Is is this a terrorist act?
Hezbollah supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad with money and knowhow.
It advocates a worldview including such pearls of wisdom as "the Jews are trying to take over the world".
More recently, in fact, it created a television show featuring that very statement and the 'Protocols of Zion': "Horseman without a horse".
Is it too much of a stretch now?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zevico
Is it too much of a stretch now? |
You don't support any of your claims.
quote:
The EU has designated most of the groups and individuals listed by the U.S. for asset freezing, with the notable exceptions of the Hamas "political wing" (the "military wing" has been listed), and Hezbollah. |
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/21922.htm
The U.S is playing high and mighty, but...
quote:
Why are local Lebanese subsidiaries of major American corporations -- like PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Western Union -- lending comfort and support to terrorists by advertising on Hezbollah television?
Hezbollah is officially named a "specially designated terrorist group" under Executive Order 13224. This designation empowers the U.S. government to impose financial sanctions against those "that support or otherwise associate" with Hezbollah. |
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...risch101302.htm
The hypocrisy...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zevico
Hezbollah has shelled a civilian town. Is is this a terrorist act? |
Not to mention the bombing of a civilian Jewish centre in Argentina, kidnapping civilians, hijackings, etc.
Hezbollah is certainly on the "official" US list of terroris organizations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Hezbollah have never been a terror group. ...
They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group, ...
By maintaining that they are a terrorist group the one's who do lose any credibility, if they even had one to begin with. |
That's mighty fancy footwork Tripledoc ... omitting the part of the Washington Institute article that completely sinks your argument, then claiming the US is hypocritical for dealing with these people. Its not at all clear you can have it either way, but you certainly can't have it both ways. The sections you did not see fit to quote are as follows...
quote:
That Iranian-backed and -funded group has been implicated in the attacks against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans in 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 12 Americans in 1984, the Israeli Embassy and Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people in 1994 and numerous other terrorist attacks, murders and kidnappings over the years. ...
As Al Manar's Chairman of the Board Nayef Krayem said to me, "There is no act of resistance that can be classified as terrorism." It is no surprise then that Al Manar's programming glorifies suicide bombers, exhorts Palestinians to kill Jews and revels in the carnage of terrorist attacks on civilians. The fact that Al Manar almost always has immediate footage of terrorist outrages or Hezbollah attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border adds to the speculation that Al Manar officials are themselves party to Hezbollah's operational planning. As emerged during a recent North Carolina trial of two Hezbollah operatives, Al Manar employees conduct pre-operational surveillance of potential targets and engage in other logistical and financial support activities for terrorist acts. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well most voters don't really know Kerry. It's a consequence of the Dems having a sweetheart primary where they were runing against Bush instead of each other. Kerry also doesn't seem to be doing a very good job a defining himself thus far either. |
Most high level dems though Bush was unbeatable come December, so they did not get in. After it was clear this was not true, too many people went with "electability", which is a terrible thing to go on.
quote:
As to record: That doesn't really seem to be something that inspires much confidence considering the shear number of flip-flops on major policy issues and the fact he seems to be trying to run from his liberal credentials and claiming to be centrist. |
1, Talk about flip-flops? Kerry flops verbally before making a decision. Bush pulls of Grand, immense reversals and then chalk it up to learning. I guess the BIG LIE still works marvelously.
2. Bush claimed to be a centrist and it worked wonders for him. I would prefer Kerry saying "yes, I am a liberal, and better than that a lying, decietful, secretive bunch of ****ers who are in the WH", but then he would be accused of cursing again, and we could never have that.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2004 13:47
. Unless there happens to be a libertarian on the ticket.
|