Kind of a bit of meaningless rhetoric though. I mean they make a point to say the resistence is legitimate.. "as long as..." Then they go on to pretty much describe the major tactics of the resistance... i.e.. targeting civilians, mosques, and other non military targets. It's basically a comprimise to the Sunnis in the meeting.

The real news here is that the government of Iraq is making their own assessments about what they need to do in order to be able to stand on their own. That is huge!!!

Kind of a bit of meaningless rhetoric though. I mean they make a point to say the resistence is legitimate.. "as long as..." Then they go on to pretty much describe the major tactics of the resistance... i.e.. targeting civilians, mosques, and other non military targets. It's basically a comprimise to the Sunnis in the meeting. The real news here is that the government of Iraq is making their own assessments about what they need to do in order to be able to stand on their own. That is huge!!!

And their assessment is that Sunnis should quit attacking Iraqis and keep attacking American soldiers. I repeat Mr. Auster's point: these are the people for whose sake our men are dying and being maimed?

Nice twisting of words. Their assessment is that during war, military targets aren't terrorist attacks. Which, btw, is true.

Nice twisting of words. Their assessment is that during war, military targets aren't terrorist attacks. Which, btw, is true.

I'm not debating terminology. This communique has no purpose but to say that bombing a market full of shiites is wrong, but attacking a US convoy is legitimate resistance. Is this what our troops are being killed for? For an Iraqi government that says there is nothing wrong with Iraqis killing American troops?

You are picking one part out of an entire report to back your own preconceived notion of the situtation. Ok, that's pretty much human nature. However, news flash... in war military targets ARE legitimate targets. That is NOT saying that there's "nothing wrong" with it. It isn't even saying that they back those doing the attacking. It's just a fact.

We select military targets and attack them, they select military targets and attack us... this is called "war".

The Iraqi government never said there was "nothing wrong with it", they merely said that attacks on military targets by one side is as legitimate as attacks on military targets on the other.

The main point here is, they did condemn the attacks agaisnt police stations, recruiting centers, businesses, hotels, mosques, and other civilian "targets"... which means they DON'T support most of what the bacteria do.

You're right, I am picking out a point that's actually relevant to Americans.

From the news article: In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution. "Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

...

However, news flash... in war military targets ARE legitimate targets. Yeah, apparently the legitimate targets are American troops. That is NOT saying that there's "nothing wrong" with it. It isn't even saying that they back those doing the attacking. It's just a fact.

I didn't think it was possible for someone to spin this, but apparently I was wrong. To call something "legitimate resistance" IS to say there is nothing wrong with it. If the satement is already an understood fact, then there is no reason to make a public declaration.

The main point here is, they did condemn the attacks agaisnt police stations, recruiting centers, businesses, hotels, mosques, and other civilian "targets"... which means they DON'T support most of what the bacteria do.

But they don't condemn the attacks on the American troops are are providing security for their country so it can be rebuilt. Again, I ask you, is this what Americans are dying for over there?

they DON'T support most of what the bacteria do

reason enuff to keep letting em kill our troops. i didn't realize you and cindy sheehan shared such similar views.

gp, if you wanna fix this page, go to your blog site and click on 'edit' then find the bad quote tag and correct it.

gp, if you wanna fix this page, go to your blog site and click on 'edit' then find the bad quote tag and correct it.

Thanks, Kingbee. I think I took care of it. I'm still trying to get the hang of all the tags.

Nice little spin job yourself. Strange, but none of my training taught me that military targets were off limits during a war. Just as we were encouraged to take out enemy military targets, imagine, we were also trained to expect the enemy would do the same... even if we didn't like it.

Nice little spin job yourself. Strange, but none of my training taught me that military targets were off limits during a war. Just as we were encouraged to take out enemy military targets, imagine, we were also trained to expect the enemy would do the same... even if we didn't like it.

Excuse me, ParaTed2k, but when did you become such a relativist? I'm not quoting the statements of leaders of the insurgency, but those from mainstream political figures intent on being democratically elected in Iraq. I expect comments like that to come from insurgents, not from figures that our government says are legitimate. Why should American boys be asked to sacrifice their lives for a government that thinks that of them?

Lawrence Auster's reply to Richard Lowry of the NRO who makes excuses for the statement:

Lowry excuses inexcusable statement by Iraqi leaders I said last night that the Iraqi leaders' statement justifying resistance against U.S. forces should be a deal killer as far as our continued involvement in Iraq is concerned. Unsurprisingly, supporters of President Bush don't see it that way. Richard Lowry writes at NRO: Neither the statement about a timetable for US withdrawal (“dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces”) nor the nod to national resistance (“a legitimate right of all nations”) has much significance beyond symbolism. But by Lowry’s reasoning, what public statement by a political leader could ever have real, and not “merely” symbolic, significance? Politics consists of words, namely men discussing the good, as Aristotle put it. It establishes what a society regards as right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. The leaders of the Iraq government are saying that it is legitimate—i.e., right and acceptable—for the terror insurgents to keep blowing up the American soldiers who are in that country to protect that government. As far as political speech is concerned, you can’t get much more real than that.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

Alright Good Point, let's throw the rhetoric aside for a minute and look at the quote itself.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistence".

The bacteria in Iraq do not fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people. They seem to prefer civilian targets. Therefore this quote is NOT backing the bacteria, but condemning their terrorism.

Condemning terrorism is fine, but it means very little to me, and has little effect on American troops over there. Frankly, I don't really give a damn about the Iraqis, or the Mohammedans in general. If satisfying their desires and looking out for their well-being benefits America and our allies, then I'm all for it. I do not support the creation of democracies in the Mohammedan world which legitimizes and enables their hatred of us. Given the choice, I'd much rather see a pro-American strongman in power than an anti-American democracy that supports and exports terrorism and jihad.

Another point I would like to make is despite the increase in car bombings and such against Iraqi civilians, attacks against American troops are not going down, nor are American casualty rates. The increased Iraqi casualties are in addition to the steady casualty rates for Americans. In other words, the number of American casualties is not going down, just the proportion of American casualties to Iraqi casualties.

Well, then I guess all you want is a puppet government, which hasn't ever been the plan. Too bad freedom means so little to you that you would wish bondage for Iraqis, as long as they are held down by a tyrant friendly to the U.S.

May you never live what you wish for others.

It's a matter of methods, not political stance. If they were "resisting" democratically, or through non-violent means, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. From that perspective, I'd agree. The problem is sickos like those referred to will take any statement like this as an affirmation of their tactics. They'll see it as winking at their methods, just like they do in Israel.