P. Edronkin

Call It Iraq 2003 Or Just Plain Lynching

Best Sellers

Adventure Gear


Cosmic Cat - A cosmic, free game

Free American Roulette

Free European Roulette

3 Card Poker Gold, Free

Free Blackjack

Green Energy

Free games

Sports info and betting

Independent funding for a free lifestyle
Imagine a couple of people dressed as police officers who enter a building with their guns blazing, killing some neighbours, some individuals with guns inside that building, and even some of their fellow policemen and women, despite the advice of everyone else at the police station, but with the cheering of the town's crowd who think that a thug living there is about to do some very, very nasty thing.

Then, months after seizing the place they couldn't find any evidence of the thug's alleged deeds, the building's neighbours are beginning to feel really irritated, and the mobs that screamed for some action are starting to feel uneasy about the issue, not to mention that the thug escaped and now is probably planning a revenge.

Now, in order to justify their actions, these policemen begin to fabricate proof, or try to reinterpret using a convoluted vocabulary.

Perhaps the thug is or was a really nasty, mean man, but any fair system of law allows for a fair trial, but these police officers, on the premise that judges would not let them do what they had to do, simply prefer to go for unilateral actions, thinking that time will show other that they were right.

Instead of that, time shows that no evidence exists, so far, and by the way, it is discovered that no one gave these people the title of policemen; they just self-appointed themselves as such.

Wouldn't you call this a reckless lynching? A violation of all principles of law? A crime based on the pretext of avoiding another crime?

More importantly: wouldn't it be fair to take those officers to justice?

Now imagine two governments sending their troops into another country, guns blazing, killing scores of civilians, alleged enemy soldiers and even their own. Then, months after allegedly preempting an attack of the man that ran the show on that country, no evidence appears.

Then, their politicians and diplomats begin to use convoluted words in order to justify their actions, while the former leader of the invaded fled away and is directing from his hiding place a full-scale guerrilla war against them, and who knows what else he is planning for the future.

Suppose now that the U.N. had declared before the event that it was not a legitimate act of self-defence, but nevertheless, those governments decided to go on their own, thinking that time will say that they were right.

Months later, no attack plans were uncovered, no secret weapons found, no links with terrorist groups either, but a tedious rhetoric of alleged improvements in the life of the local people, while the only thing that seems to be improving is the aiming of resistance fighters.

How do we call this and what should the world do with such leaders? How about the real value of all those moral lessons that both Britain and te U.S. gave to the world for so long as self-appointed promoters of democracy, equality and other rights? Can we say that they really represent those ideas when proof shows that they are more than willing to violate their own principles?

One name for this thing is Iraq, 2003, the rest, I leave to your own imagination.

The Search Engine for Exploration, Survival and Adventure Lovers - Andinia.com