Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Tom
I'll ignore the personal stuff and just reitterate.
The PROPER way for a reporter to express his/her indignation at how the neo-cons from america attacked them is to use the process. The legal process. The government process. The journalistic process. The word of mouth process.
NOT the process that fuels terrorism itself. Anger, attacks, demands, public whining, assasinations, bombings! You name it.
Learning that lesson was supposed to be one of the easiest things to come out of this. The only shock and awe left is when some people keep spouting the eye for an eye bullshit. Been there. Done that. Doesnt work. Time to get civilized.
|
I find it interesting that not one person referred to "this man" by his real name,
Muntader al-Zaidi. I think that says a lot about our perspective on Iraqi's.
Also, I do agree that al-Zaidi could have expressed his dislike for Bush in another way. However, considering that his country was invaded more than five years ago in a preemptive manner and thousands of Iraqi's have died as a direct result, I can understand his desire to take advantage of being so physically close to Bush. I don't condone it but I do empathize with him.
The Bush doctrine:
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction ? and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy?s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
I am truly shocked that you have the audacity to tell Iraqi's to "get civilized" considering the aforementioned.