Keith Devens .com

The weakening of our "war on terror"

One of the reasons I've been so mad at the administration for getting involved in the conflict in the middle east is because Israel is doing what it has to do. That's why it was such an insult for Bush to demand that Sharon cease Israel's military defensive. Not to mention that it's an insult to Israel's sovereignty. Bush, Powell, and the rest of them know that they're not doing any good, and the point is that Israel is making progress ( thanks ) through its actions. I wish our administration would return to the principles of the "Bush doctrine", and, if we won't keep to ourselves and let Israel alone, we should help them "root out" terrorists wherever they can be found.

Permalink | 5 Comments | id 1843

04:05 (utc-4)
edited: 04:08 (utc-4)

Comments

The ability to protect your people as a leader should be applicable to all people.

Exactly, and that's why I'm glad Israel is finally defending itself in spite of American pressure.

That is also why I am glad that the Palestinians are attacking the invading Israeli military. Glad to see we agree.

Yeah, and sending children suicide (homicide) bombers to attack soldiers. And hiding behind civilians (child and adult), literally, when being attacked. You said before you don't want to defend the palistinians: you're contradicting yourself. The palistinians Israel are fighting are terrorists. Would you also be proud of Hitler if he defended Germany if it was attacked? Or are you proud of the Taliban for valiantly fighting against American soldiers? Your support for terrorists disturbs me.

Ok, I have yet to hear of even one child that was used as a suicide bomber. I believe that the youngest I have heard of is 16. That is hardly a child. My point is that not all of those that Israel is killing are terrorists, and you fail to see this point, not even as a possibility. I do not support terrorism. I support freedom and peace. your support of killers and violence at all costs is disturbing to me too, Keith.

I am not sure what part of Hitler's defense you mean. In the end? No. If he had not tried to take over the world and instead was attacked by a neighbor, you bet I would have supported it. He was the aggressor and instigator, and without a doubt tried very hard to commit genocide, but if all of that had not happened, I would have no reason not to support the defense of Germany. or any other nation. The Taliban were never an internationally recognized government, so the US and Northern Alliance were simply restoring a legitimate government.

the question, in the end, is what do you support. Violence or peace. If we can agree that peace is necessary and the goal, then we have somewhere to start. I am not sure I can believe that Sharon or Arafat are interested in peace, so alternatives for BOTH need to be found.

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

**bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
"text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

Thursday, April 18, 2002

The weakening of our "war on terror"

Comments

Recent comments