I bet if you go back into the archives of the Times, back to 9/12/01, you will find a similar editorial. Similar in tone, anyway.
I don't know who they took todays editorial from, but it is not a RT editorial. It shows a modicum of understanding, comprehension, and sense that is the anti-hallmark of your standard RT editorial.
Personally, I did not ever think I would read the words "Nor can any nation hope to immunize itself with appeasement or self-isolation." I must have taken the wrong vitamins this morning. I think I took my wacky pills instead.
This from the same Roanoke Times which talks about Iraq's failures on a daily basis. Again, I have to quote: "The danger is still shared and still supersedes all disputes. And a concerted, global response is still needed to prevail against it."
I guess as long as we can do it without Guantanamo, interrogations, killing insurgents, and a laundry list of other complains often found in the Times - we should continue with our plan to rout terrorisim from the face of the Earth.
But of course, the RT Eds have to get a shot across the bow of Bush. Claiming that the demands of the terrorists and their widespread nature undermines Bush's claim that freeing Iraq will help prevent terrorisim at home.
Ok, he's the deal with that whole thing. Iraq was a known funding source for terrorists. Ok - so maybe Saddam and Osama did not sit for tea and crumpets at the same table. But it is known, and proven that there were "runners" who went between Saddam and Osama from time to time, discussing funding and use of land. It's not like they sent each other "50 ways to know your a Despot" forwarded e-mails. (Although Im sure Kim Jong Il has recieved several of them.)
But there was a philosphical and idealogical parity between the two, and what in the business world would be termed a "working relationship." And if you want me to connect the dots for you, I can.
Saddam would pay $20,000 to the family of any Palestinian who became a 'maryter'. Of that $20,000 - much like in most religions, there was a tithe. The tithe went to a general account at a bank, (still does by the way) which was run by governments with ties to Osama. From what I understand of the system - it was almost like a credit union, you borrow out of the general fund - and you pay back into the general fund.
This account is funded by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims. Now again, I have to couch this in the fact that this is not every Muslim, nor most likely even a majority of them. But the funding is enough that it allows for Al-Quaeda to essentially franchise the business.
The attacks in London were in the NAME of Al-Quaeda, but not OF Al-Quaeda. The simplest explination is: A group of 'terrorists' formulates a plan. The plan is then routed through couriers to someone at Al-Quaeda. They judge the plan, weigh the benefits and provide assistance in "polishing up" the plan. When the plan is finalized, they then either provide the materials, or provide the funding to attain the materials. Then the plan becomes a mission. And we know the rest.
In short, YES. Going to Iraq will assist in the eradication of terrorists. Yes it has begun to help. Funding resources are no longer as strong as they were coming out of Iraq, not to mention the funding that would normally be routed elsewhere is now being routed into Iraq.
Yes, it is being used against our own troops. Along with Iraqi police, militia, and the general population in Iraq. To be honest, this whole Iraq thing is a bigger PR nightmare for the 'insurgents'. And if not for the fact that the US is spearheading the whole campaign, it would be a disaster for the terrorists. The only reason anyone is even showing up to fight (and somewhere between 75%-95% of all insurgents are from outside of Iraq) is because its American Troops. The brass ring.
We are making a difference, and we are not alone in this. Our allies who remain, who did not try to appease the terrorist mind, stand with us.
(Don't forget Poland!)
No comments:
Post a Comment