#2
The only reason bombing terrorists won't bring peace is because of terrorism supporters in the muslim world, the cowardly politicians who appease them, the terrorism apologists who work for them, the appeasers and the moronic 'let's engage' types like the writer of this opinion piece.
#3
The assault on Gaza has more to do with internal politics than its national security. The U.S. needs to reengage forcefully in a Mideast peace process.
Why? I think Israel is reengaging forcefully' just fine on its own. Or would you suggest a wing B-52's from the Good Ole USA to 'light up' the engagement?
#7
I "love" the idea by these turds that because Hamas has been incompetent in their attempts to kill Jews (only a handful have been killed) that the Jews, therefore, shouldn't fight back.
Like all her ilk she is as despicable as the terrs.
The always-smart, always reasonable Caroline Glick nails it. Too bad she can't be the next Israeli PM.
By Caroline Glick
Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed. On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.
Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.
While Hamas joyously renewed its jihad against Jews and Christians, its overlords in Iran also basked in jihadist triumphalism. The source of Teheran's sense of ascendancy this week was Britain's Channel 4 network's decision to request that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give a special Christmas Day address to the British people. Ahmadinejad's speech was supposed to be a response to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional Christmas Day address to her subjects. That is, Channel 4 presented his message as a reasonable counterpoint to the Christmas greetings of the head of the Church of England.
Channel 4 justified its move by proclaiming that it was providing a public service. As a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post, "We're offering [Ahmadinejad] the chance to speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."
While that sounds reasonable, the fact is that Westerners see Ahmadinejad speaking for himself all the time. They saw him at the UN two years in a row as he called for the countries of the world to submit to Islam; claimed that Iran's nuclear weapons program is divinely inspired; and castigated Jews as subhuman menaces to humanity.
They saw him gather leading anti-Semites from all over the world at his Holocaust denial conference.
They heard him speak in his own words when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
And of course, over the years Ahmadinejad has often communicated directly to the British people. For instance, in 2007 he received unlimited airtime on UK television as he paraded kidnapped British sailors and marines in front of television cameras; forced them to make videotaped "confessions" of their "crime" of entering Iranian territorial waters; and compelled them to grovel at his knee and thank him for "forgiving" them.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/02/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, why not just use this method on those miscreants they capture? When the world is outraged, just point out that you're using the punish they themselves have authorized and which the 'world' by its silence had no problem with.
...People who've seen politics up close when young tend to be embarrassed to be in politics. This is because they have seen too much of the show-biz aspects, the balloons and smiles and rallies. They are rarely (and this is odd) tutored in the meaning behind the artifice: that the artifice exists for a purpose, and the purpose is to advance a candidate who will advance a constructive philosophy. And so they find the idea of coming up with a philosophy sort of show-offy, off point and insincere.
This is one reason modern political dynasties tend to have a deleterious effect on our politics. When you get new people in the process who think politics is about meaning, they tend to bring the meaning with them. On the other hand, those who've learned that politics is about small and shallow things, and the romance of dynasties, bring that with them. (They also bring old retainers, sycophants, and ingrained money lines, none of which help the common weal.) Those who are just born into it and just want to continue it, bring a certain ambivalence. And signal it. They're always slouching toward victory. It's not terrible, but it doesn't do any great good, either.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/02/2009 09:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't read this *sniff* elitist trash writer *sniff* after what she wrote this summer about Palin. FOAD, Peggy
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/02/2009 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I was dman disappointed in that column Frank. It sounded like my wife wrote it.. and she's damn near a commie and some what classist to boot. To my better .5z credit tho she's apply the same damn hammer stick to Caroline. So I dunnoo...
I pray for Bill Clinton to get the Nod.
Also there's a 1/1000 chance he might do an Adams and do some serious good.
#3
Carloine has already said unless she is appointed to the senate seat she has no intent to run for the office in 2010. Translation: give me my pony or I go home to sulk.
If the woman really thought she was the best person qualified to hold the office she would run. Trouble is, she knows in her heart she is not the most qualified for the job. She just "feels" the most "entitled" to Uncle Bobby's old seat.
#4
I only clicked this link when I remembered it came here and not the linked article. No traffic for turncoats. I could care less what Noonan has to say about anything.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
