Posted on 06/03/2010 10:30:34 PM PDT by pillut48
And today, President Obama should end his and his country's shameful silence over the inhumane blockade of Gaza that is denying 1.5 million beleaguered people the basic necessities of a decent life.
Time to start acting like America again.
That bloody debacle in the Eastern Mediterranean last Sunday was an inevitable result of Israel doing what it always seems to do: going beyond what is essential to her security, to impose collective punishment upon any and all it regards as hostile to Israel.
Israel claims, and film confirms, that its commandos rappelling down onto the Turkish ship were attacked with sticks and metal rods. One was tossed off a deck, another tossed overboard into a lifeboat.
But that 2 a.m. boarding of an unarmed ship with an unarmed crew, carrying no munitions or weapons, 65 miles at sea, was an act of piracy. What the Israeli commandos got is what any armed hijacker should expect who tries to steal a car from a driver who keeps a tire iron under the front seat.
And the response of these highly trained naval commandos to the resistance they encountered? They shot and killed nine passengers, and wounded many more.
But we have a blockade of Gaza, say the Israelis, and this flotilla was a provocation. Indeed, it was. And Selma was a provocation. The marchers at Edmund Pettus Bridge were disobeying orders of the governor of Alabama and state police not to march.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Collateral damage.
There are NO ‘innocents’ in invading forces.
Perpetual war for perpetual peace?
Bad analogy.
I would propose a somewhat better analogy: Suppose Border Patrol and Customs agents attempted to inspect trucks suspected of carrying contraband, and that the drivers of those trucks attacked them with deadly weapons. The BP and Customs agents would have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.
Don't you agree?
If we started to, what do you think the response would be? People would be outraged.
Your answer is a non sequitur -- unless you believe the Israelis murdered people on the flotilla.
My analogy is not exact, but it is quite close. True, the Israelis were not attacked while inspecting trucks crossing their border; they were attacked while attempting to inspect a ship approaching a blockaded coast. Aside from that difference, the situations are similar.
If our Customs agents are justified in using force to protect themselves from attackers, the Israelis are justified in using force to protect themselves from attackers.
I guess Pat buchanan wouldnt mind if Hamas started taking over adjacent to Vatican City.
I always disagreed with him on economic and other matters, but would have sworn on a sefer torah that he was no anti-Semite, that that was just liberals trying to smear a formidable, outspoken conservative. No more, though. This is it. “Unarmed ship,” my ass.
Same here.
Where the hell have you been? He has been that for quite some time.
Buchanan has gone so far to the right, he came back out on the left. Him and his buddy L.Ron Paul.
It is the Washington DC effect.
>> Whatever respect I might have had for him disappeared just now.
He’s a jackass.
Watching Dora the Explorer and Wonderpets with my almost 2 y/o twins for the past few years, mostly. I get 99% of my news coverage from FR. ;-)
Like I said, I’ve never seen Pat Buchanan *in depth*, just quickie interviews on various networks, never read his books or articles (until this one), so I never realized how much of an anti-semite he is. NOW I know.
Nope, never did.
Try this analogy. A Mexican driver is driving in Mexico near the US border. A US Army Ranger squad drops a couple flash-bang grenades and rappels onto his truck. He tries to defend himself and gets shot four times in the head and once in the chest.
Do we give the Army Ranger a medal? Or is he court-martialled and sent to Leavenworth?
Your slavish devotion to the Israeli narrative of events shows that you are incapable of independent thought. When the time comes for you to meet your maker, will you stand there and tell him that you stood up for what is right or will you rationalize the murder of innocent civilians?
Try this analogy. A Mexican driver is driving in Mexico near the US border. A US Army Ranger squad drops a couple flash-bang grenades and rappels onto his truck. He tries to defend himself and gets shot four times in the head and once in the chest.
After being told repeatedly to pull over. And if by defend, you mean hitting the Ranger with a pipe, shooting him, or trying to take him hostage. And this driver belongs to a anti-American group that funds those killing Americans. All of which is to say, suicide by cop, or in this case, Ranger.
Do we give the Army Ranger a medal? Or is he court-martialled and sent to Leavenworth?
Neither.
Your slavish devotion to the Israeli narrative of events shows that you are incapable of independent thought. When the time comes for you to meet your maker, will you stand there and tell him that you stood up for what is right or will you rationalize the murder of innocent civilians?
That you call these people civilians instead of paying attention to their affiliations or prepared actions show taht you reflexively support them, allies to Al Qaeda. So, what are you more loyal to: the US or resentment to Israel?
So what if he is an anti-Semite?
We all have our prejudices and other character flaws.
Why not evaluate what he says rather than what you think about his character?
What is with the knee-jerk pro-Israel sentiment, anyhow? Isn’t that just another kind of prejudice?
Please tell me you're exercising some biting sarcasm that has gone over my head. You can't really mean that, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.