On April 1st, 8 UN workers were killed, 2 of whom were beheaded. U.S. President Barack Obama had this to say: "We stress the importance of calm and urge all parties to reject violence and resolve differences through dialogue...". Granted, I know that this statement could have been taken out of context by the journalist who wrote this article, but, if it wasn't... does he realize the ambivalence in his words? Now, it is my understanding that the UN workers' purpose was to "resolve differences through dialogue", and I am all for diplomacy, but to "urge all parties to reject violence" goes considerably beyond simple diplomacy in its indirect indirectness.
To honour the fallen since last time.
Canada
U.S. (R.I., Ga, Fla (2), Conn, Cali (2),
Wis, Fla, Ohio (2), Tex, Md, Col, Okla)
UK (3)
Posts
5 comments:
I agree...I try to step back and see the whole picture when it comes to this subject but honestly, I think the President's words are not even appropriate for this situation anymore. Why? Because as you stated, that's why the UN folks were there, have been there for years in fact, in the first place. Diplomacy only works if both sides are at the table talking...it appears that Islam would rather kill..
I would also take issue with the statement by US spokes person Mark Toner When he said that "This is an isolated act done by a small group of people and ... does not reflect the respect the people of the United States have toward Islam," He is correct that this was an isolated act where I think he is now incorrect is where he says that it doesn't reflect the feelings of most Americans. Most Americans are having trouble seeing why Islamic Believers do this kind of thing and Islam itself appears to promote violence. The Govt. here in the States believes what IT wants to believe...I don't think they are being realistic about how Americans really feel.
I think the time for talk was lost a long time ago Mr President...
T:
You also have to bear in mind that the Islamic Extremists do not only attack non-believers, but that they also punish and kill those who are followers of their own faith.
"Diplomacy only works if both sides are at the table talking... it appears that Islam would rather kill..." One has to remember that a political representative from an Islamic country, such as Afghanistan, that comes to the table to talk is not the voice for all the people of that country, and if any sort of accord is struck, that does not guarantee the co-operation of the radical element that exists within that country. The greater issue is that radical Islam is not something that is limited to national borders or international boundaries
T:
I just wanted to add that my very brief and pared down comment is solely my opinion based on the very, very limited knowledge that I have absorbed by way of information gleaned from news articles over the past year.
Also, that this was an unusual type of post for me to do, but I just couldn't let it pass without saying.
It's controversial and I usually stay away from such posts as well. When I commented I was fully aware & in agreement with the points you made in your first response and quite frankly in my mind they just reinforce what I'm saying. Those ARE the reasons diplomacy doesn't work..it's not because they aren't Muslim's that want peace, they're certainly are. But because of the extremest's that don't, it makes talking at this point a waste of time...and our government still seems to think you can negotiate with the peaceful representatives while the extremist's are killing people and blowing stuff up. Unfortunately, it just seems logical to me that the Killers in the bunch have to be eliminated before discussions can take place...I could be wrong, I realize but how long have we been spinning our wheels there?
Thanks T. Your first comment had me a little worried, but your second comment cleared that up.
Post a Comment