1) I am not talking about that Butterfly, I’m talking about news channels in OUR countries (yes, France, Italy, and even the BBC) that too often used the word « terrorists » to describe resistance in Iraq. Of course there were some exceptions, usually left wing newspapers. I will not generalise of course but I happen to read the news on a wide variety of European websites and that’s the general feeling I got. “Bien sur� the vast majority stood against the war, but right now I’m talking about their description of facts. I might be the only one around to think so, but what we call terrorist organisations (in Iraq, Palestine, Ireland, Mexicao, Tchetchnia...) are to me legitimate Liberation organisations that are strggling for their basic right of living free and God help anyone who stands against oppression. They become terrorists when they target innocent people by killing, abducting or abusing them. No one can accept that.
And Chirac’s stance against the war was due to the loss of French interests in the region. Don’t forget that Total lost all its market shares in Iraq since the American invasion. And France learned its lesson from the first gulf War when Mitterrand supported Bush father but in return obtained nothing in returns. Not even a share of the war costs (paid by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others) or oil. I could say more about that but it’s not the subject (Don’t forget what De Gaulle said: “States have no friends. They only have interests). Chirac stood against the war. Fine. But is he a journalist? Surely not. And my criticism were aimed at “Medias�.
2) Buttefly. What do you expect from me? To say that the killing of civilians is legitimate?
3) I am not standing as Taycir’s lawyer. Read my previous post…
1) I am not talking about that Butterfly, I’m talking about news channels in OUR countries (yes, France, Italy, and even the BBC) that too often used the word « terrorists » to describe resistance in Iraq. Of course there were some exceptions, usually left wing newspapers. I will not generalise of course but I happen to read the news on a wide variety of European websites and that’s the general feeling I got. “Bien sur� the vast majority stood against the war, but right now I’m talking about their description of facts. I might be the only one around to think so, but what we call terrorist organisations (in Iraq, Palestine, Ireland, Mexicao, Tchetchnia...) are to me legitimate Liberation organisations that are strggling for their basic right of living free and God help anyone who stands against oppression. They become terrorists when they target innocent people by killing, abducting or abusing them. No one can accept that.
And Chirac’s stance against the war was due to the loss of French interests in the region. Don’t forget that Total lost all its market shares in Iraq since the American invasion. And France learned its lesson from the first gulf War when Mitterrand supported Bush father but in return obtained nothing in returns. Not even a share of the war costs (paid by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others) or oil. I could say more about that but it’s not the subject (Don’t forget what De Gaulle said: “States have no friends. They only have interests). Chirac stood against the war. Fine. But is he a journalist? Surely not. And my criticism were aimed at “Medias�.
2) Buttefly. What do you expect from me? To say that the killing of civilians is legitimate?
3) I am not standing as Taycir’s lawyer. Read my previous post…