SCOTT MCCLELLAN: "We do not negotiate with terrorists." FOX/AP: Rejecting a suggestion by Usama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney told FOX News.
Bush's policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists and NOT to seek a truce with terrorists is good. And he should apply it equally in all situations - whether the terrorist is a jihadoterrorist targeting the USA - OR ISRAEL! But time after time after time after time, the Bush Administration twists the arms of Israeli leaders to accept truces with HAMAS and the other jihadoterrorist groups, and to negotiate with them. Rice is as gulty of this as Powell.
This is hypocritical and diminishes the moral clarity of the GWOT - and it diminshes our chances of overall success: the defeat the jihdaoterrorists/islamiofascists enemy we SHOULD engage him aggressively EVERYWHERE, not just where the enemy attacks the USA; we should be on the offense in Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, the Philipines, Jordan, Turkey, Chcehnya, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, the Horn of Africa, AND ISRAEL TOO! ESPECIALLY NOW:
Bush's policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists and NOT to seek a truce with terrorists is good. And he should apply it equally in all situations - whether the terrorist is a jihadoterrorist targeting the USA - OR ISRAEL! But time after time after time after time, the Bush Administration twists the arms of Israeli leaders to accept truces with HAMAS and the other jihadoterrorist groups, and to negotiate with them. Rice is as gulty of this as Powell.
This is hypocritical and diminishes the moral clarity of the GWOT - and it diminshes our chances of overall success: the defeat the jihdaoterrorists/islamiofascists enemy we SHOULD engage him aggressively EVERYWHERE, not just where the enemy attacks the USA; we should be on the offense in Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, the Philipines, Jordan, Turkey, Chcehnya, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, the Horn of Africa, AND ISRAEL TOO! ESPECIALLY NOW:
ITEM #1: NZ HERALD: SUICIDE BOMBER INJURES 20 IN TEL AVIV. ITEM #2: "Reuters":
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on a visit to regional ally Syria, pledged support to militant Palestinian factions at a meeting with their leaders in Damascus on Friday, a Palestinian group said. The talks came a few hours after Israel's defense minister accused Iran and Syria of being directly responsible for Thursday's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv which wounded 30 people.
I believe that Bush is a good and true supporter of Israel and that he and Powell and now Rice and others merely have had a double standard when it comes to Israel because Israelis are so so so SO darn good at defending themselves and because the USA and the EU and THE UN don't want increases in the intensity of the Israeli-Arab conflict to exacerbate the GWOT. THIS IS A MISGUIDED POLICY.
Truces with jihadoterrorists are ALWAYS a bad idea. (This links to a 1997 article explaining why truces with jihadopterrorists are always a bad idea. YUP: 1997!!!!)
HECK: the Israelis should be expected and allowed AND ENCOURAGED to do to the jihadoterrorists who are targeting them EXACTLY WHAT WE JUST DID TO THE AL QAEDA IN PAKISTAN: kill them with any and all means necessary. Anything less is a double standard. And that's HYPOCRISY, plain and simple. A hypocrisy which makes it tougher for us to defeat the enemy - it gives jihadoterrorists safe-haven, hope, and a place/cause to rally their adherents. These adherents should be shown that theur cause and their tactics are wrong, and to do this they must be CRUSHED. Everywhere.
I CALL ON BUSH AND CHENEY AND RICE TO QUIT THIS HYPOCRITICAL POLICY. If we don't think it is right or good for us to appease our enemies, then WE MUSTN'T EXPECT OR DEMAND THAT THE ISRAELIS APPEASE THEIR ENEMIES. It's that simple. (More on APPEASEMENT of Israel's enemies HERE - from POWERLINE.)
Truces with jihadoterrorists are ALWAYS a bad idea. (This links to a 1997 article explaining why truces with jihadopterrorists are always a bad idea. YUP: 1997!!!!)
EXCERPT: In Hamas ideology a truce can be offered to the enemies of Islam only for tactical reasons — principally when the enemy is strong and the Muslims are weak. The truce period is to be used to change the balance of forces. When this is accomplished, and the stage has been set for a Muslim victory, the truce must be broken. This strategy follows the practice and teachings of Islam's founder, the Prophet Mohammed, who arranged a 10 year truce with the Quraysh tribe in 628, when his forces were not yet powerful enough to defeat the Quraysh. The truce has been known since then as the "Treaty of Hudaybiyah," after the site near the Quraysh city of Mecca where it was negotiated. Less than 2 years later, when Muslim forces were sufficiently strong, the Quraysh were defeated by the Muslims and Mecca captured. The Arabic term used to describe the truce with the Quraysh was hudna — the same word used by Hamas in their "truce" offers to Israel.We must ignore all truce offers from all jihadoterrorists. The sooner we SMASH the jihadoterrorists EVERYWHERE the sooner we win. This means aggressively supporting REGIME CHANGE in Syria and Iran - AND ALSO IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES: If Abbas won't fight them (as he is contractually BOUND to do), then the Israelis MUST, and we should not discourage them from doing so, or from assassinating any and ALL leaders of the jihadoterrorist groups which target Israelis.
HECK: the Israelis should be expected and allowed AND ENCOURAGED to do to the jihadoterrorists who are targeting them EXACTLY WHAT WE JUST DID TO THE AL QAEDA IN PAKISTAN: kill them with any and all means necessary. Anything less is a double standard. And that's HYPOCRISY, plain and simple. A hypocrisy which makes it tougher for us to defeat the enemy - it gives jihadoterrorists safe-haven, hope, and a place/cause to rally their adherents. These adherents should be shown that theur cause and their tactics are wrong, and to do this they must be CRUSHED. Everywhere.
I CALL ON BUSH AND CHENEY AND RICE TO QUIT THIS HYPOCRITICAL POLICY. If we don't think it is right or good for us to appease our enemies, then WE MUSTN'T EXPECT OR DEMAND THAT THE ISRAELIS APPEASE THEIR ENEMIES. It's that simple. (More on APPEASEMENT of Israel's enemies HERE - from POWERLINE.)
3 comments:
Powerlineblog is usually right on the money, but with their post linked below I must disagree most strongly, and would comment there, but it is not possible.
The US should stay out of Israeli politics much like the reverse, but to be against Olmert is to be against Sharon's policy, which has proven effective in furthering Israeli and American security in the long view. My explanation here:
http://americansforfreedom.blogspot.com/2006/01/powerlineblog-is-wrong-on-olmert.html
Here's what's getting overlooked: Iran has a huge weakness of its own, its oil.
A few cruise missiles into the loading facilities and export pipelines, and their one source of income dries up. They are more vulnerable than anyone they threaten, and our guys should point out that all their export facilities are already targeted.
citizen sends
good point. but complex.
taking out their opil hurts the iranina people, not the mullahs.
it helps the russians.
but it could pressure the chinese - who use 350,000 barrels of iranian crude per day.
if we had drilling in ANWR we could be more direct in expoiting your point.
so... i would do what you say in stagesa; first whack all their nukers sites: at 12 dozen sites - maybe a s many as three dozen. needing 10-20 gps bunkerbusting missiles each.
and i would also whack SOME of their oil infrastructure.
but we'd have to get the russians and saudis to sell more.
ALSO: if we waited a few YEARS we might have some coal-to-oil conversion plants operating.
we should also get the chinese to do this too. maybe build em for the chinese. the chinese also have a lot of coal.
between the usa coal and the chnese coal there's enough to make oiol fdor thousands of years at the current rate.
in this regard, pennsylvannia has more energyu than arabia.
but can we wait!?
this is the big question.
the longer we wait, the greater the risk.
is it worth the risk!?
i think not.
let's whack em now. or "asap(olitcally feasible)."
meaning after the iaea refers to the unsc and a unscr is attempted.
then no one can say we didn;t tryu diplomacy.
thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment