Posted on 07/19/2006 9:51:03 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
OMG...I'm still laughing over this...for anyone who hasn't seen this yet and needs a morning ROTFLOL...do NOT miss this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667378/posts?page=79#79
# 79...brilliant:)
"Two words.....selective editing."
a la Michael Moore perhaps?
It's becoming very clear how many we've given citizenship to who aren't and have no desire to become US citizens. Seems there are many who collect passports to use for their own convenience. Easy in. Easy out.
LOL..very good, SE MOM.
Hi.
I'm in NY but my brother lives in Israel. They are all hunkering down.
But it wasn't even an interview. The creep was just spouting and spouting and spouting, and FNC just ran it and ran it and ran it. I'm sure all the media did...I was only watching FOX. In an interview, a questioner at least could get in a contrary word.
The Marines have landed! "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
I am going to get some work done so I can listen to the speech. Back later.
What time is President Bush speaking? Thanks!!
Intel...BIGTIME...
10:30 AM eastern
Newsweek
By Rabbi Marc Gellman
Remember Amalek
What the Bible says about fighting terrorism.
July 19, 2006 - The Bible is the greatest collection of books, and I believe it to be the complex but discernable word of God. However, the Bible can also be a dangerous book when it is used as a blueprint for any particular political or military stance seeking sanction and support through a few carefully selected and often misleading segments.
On both sides of any war debate, both pacifists and provocateurs can use the Bible's authority. The same is true for the Qur'an and for the Vedas. God's will and God's ways, we must always remember if we are to be true to the message of faith, are not our own. As Abraham Lincoln cautioned, the important question is not whether God is on our side but whether we are on God's side. However, we ought not conclude from this humble caution that the Bible is utterly recondite and irrelevant to the wars we fight. I believe that the key to the Bible's message to us in this moment is remembering Amalek.
In Deut. 25:17-19 we read: “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.”
What made Amalek so dastardly was that unlike any other enemy who attacked the Israelites fleeing slavery in Egypt from the front, Amalek attacked the rear. This meant that his soldiers could kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm and in so doing avoid engagement with the soldiers at the front. In this way he could produce maximum carnage and maximum terror. The moral problem the Bible addresses is that this is not warfare, it is the slaughter of innocents—it is terrorism.
Why, I wondered, would God command us to remember the terrorist Amalek? There are other villains in the Bible, but there is no biblical command to remember Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus. We are commanded only to remember Amalek. I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed. Indeed our remembrance of Amalek is combined with a chilling pledge from God that is also unique in the Bible: “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exod. 17:16). Our enemies are just our enemies except if our enemy is Amalek. In that case our enemy is also the enemy of God. Amalek thus becomes the symbol of terrorism in every generation. He is the symbol not of evil but of radical evil.
In our generation Amalek is alive and well and killing the weak ones at the rear of the march. Amalek has attacked the rear of our line of march in Madrid and Bombay, in Jakarta and London, in Haifa and Tel Aviv, in New York and Washington, in a quiet field in Pennsylvania and in a hundred other homes and families—leaving them covered with blood and tears. Yes, one can disagree and debate how Amalek must be fought, but not that Amalek must be fought. One must report and mourn the innocents who are inadvertently killed by our soldiers in our battle against Amalek, but that remembrance must always make the spiritual moral and political distinction that our victims were killed by mistake and Amalek's victims were killed by design.
I have no new or fresh or insightful take on the latest battle in the worldwide war on Islamic fascism except the message of our president: victory is the only way. In my heart and prayers, I thank President Bush for remembering Amalek. And to all the world leaders who are used to thinking about war as just a struggle for land or oil or power, remember that this war is different and this enemy is different. If you can, come to realize that this is a war against a lover of slaughter. If you join us, then we shall not have to fight Amalek alone and he cannot again attack the weak ones at the rear of the line.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
The guy was one of the evacuees the MSM gave air-time (David Merhige or something) and all he did was slam Israel. Presumably he is who he says he is but who knows; like that goat-farm raised Californian in Al Queda...Adam Gatayn(?).
From NRO today:
Terrorism as Social Contract
An Arab failure.
By Mario Loyola
In a declaration issued from Moscow Sunday night, the G-8 called on Israel to exercise restraint, avoid civilian casualties, and “refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government.” These fine expressions of humanitarian sentiment unfortunately miss the point. The danger to Arab civilians is not Israel, but rather their own failure to enforce their laws against the thugs and terrorists among them.
People forget that the state of Israel was itself forged, in the midst of its War of Independence, from a compendium of armed groups — the Haganah, Palmach, Etzel, Lechi, and others. Many of these had illustrious histories — and some had terrorist tendencies. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first leader, realized that the independent existence of these armed groups was incompatible with the survival of Israeli society. He brought them all within the central authority of the state. Those who resisted were defeated at every turn — their leaders arrested, their organization banned, their movements crushed. Because all Israelis wanted democracy, Israel was able to establish a monopoly of violence with the near universal support of its citizens.
But in the Arab world central authority more often depends on universal fear of a dictatorship’s secret police. The choice they face is often not one of democracy vs. mob rule, but rather mob rule vs. tyranny. This helps us to understand the recent history of Lebanon.
When Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000, Syrian tyranny was the ultimate authority in the war-torn country. After the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the U.S. and France drove Syria out of Lebanon, pushing for a democratic transition. But the transition, which seemed to get off to a good start, soon faltered. The minority Hezbollah would give up neither its arms nor its areas of local support. So, with support from the local populace, mob ruled nested in Lebanon.
The eggs are now hatching. In the service of Iran, Hezbollah has triggered a cross-border war with Israel. In so doing, Hezbollah undoubtedly committed several crimes under Lebanese law — kidnapping, murder, and possibly treason. That these crimes have been endorsed by all the Hezbollah leadership, including Hezbollah ministers in the current government of Lebanon, demands an effort by the government of Lebanon to prosecute them. Instead, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora refuses to move against Hezbollah, crediting them with the liberation of Lebanon from Israel, and referring to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as “a hero.” What Saniora has not yet understood, and we must make him learn it, is that sovereignty is both an obligation and a right.
Lebanon should heed the example of Gaza, which has gone from the frying pan of occupation into the fire of mob rule. Now overrun by rampaging wild-eyed 22-year-olds armed to the teeth with Kalashnikovs, rockets, and high explosives, Gaza has become a nightmare of violence and lawlessness. Soon, Lebanon may look the same. And one cannot blame Israel for defending itself, any more than a police officer can be charged with murder in a case of suicide-by-cop.
This is why the West’s habitual urgings to Israel — that it negotiate, that it end the occupation, that it exercise restraint — are so misguided. They only distract attention from the real obstacle to peace, which is the failure of the Palestinians and Lebanese to embrace the rule of law. It is the social diffusion of violence in these societies that makes the occupation untenable — but also an end to it unfeasible. It renders the peace process pointless. And it impels the Arabs to maximize their civilian casualties, and blame them all on Israel.
Consider the perpetual exhortation that Israel negotiate with the Palestinians. Israel can always find some group of marginally congenial Arabs to regale the world with promises and high-sounding platitudes. The problem is that when these supposed “partners for peace” (such as Palestinian “President” Abu Mazen) go back and try to impose the agreement on the armed groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, even Fatah’s own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades) the invariable response is “we respect the will of the majority, but there will be no monopoly of violence.”
Now here is the fatal contradiction in the entire Palestinian position, the one thing that makes a peaceful settlement of the conflict impossible. If there is no monopoly of violence, there can be no central authority, and if there is no central authority, no one can claim to represent “the Palestinians.” If at least there were a dictatorship, as in Egypt, Israel could negotiate meaningfully because at least it knows that its negotiating partner can deliver on his promises. But because there is no Palestinian who can claim to bind his community to any settlement, who cares what any one Palestinian has to say? Why would the U.S. send high-level envoys? To talk to whom? Abu Mazen? He can’t even be held to the most self-interested of the promises he makes. And the same, apparently, goes for the prime minister of Lebanon.
Hence the historic choice Israel faces now, which is to continue ruling the territories indefinitely, or withdraw unilaterally to whatever borders it thinks it can defend. And here we come to another of the West’s misguided suggestions to Israel: Negotiate a withdrawal from the territories. Because of the chaos of mob rule among the Palestinians, the occupation is clearly untenable. Unfortunately, the alternative is not even possible.
To fill the void left by Israel’s disengagement from Gaza last year, the Palestinian “Authority” agreed to secure the borders and establish general law and order. These undertakings broke down the moment that Israel left. Weapons began to flood into Gaza, wild gun battles raged in the streets, rockets started flying into southern Israel, and Israel has now found it necessary to reoccupy parts of Gaza. All this was entirely predictable. The Israelis would have to be insane to withdraw from the West Bank under these circumstances — with or without negotiations. As Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza shows, there are no borders Israel can defend if on the other side there is the chaos of mob rule. And as Lebanon and Gaza both show, no separation wall can protect against missile terrorism.
It is plain to see that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah — and their Syrian and Iranian masters — need the occupation, and will do anything to maintain its logic. As long as they can goad Israel into causing civilian casualties, they will be able to keep the conflict alive, without ever having to accept the ultimate defeat: peaceful coexistence with Israel. It is the infernal legacy of Yasser Arafat, playing itself out in every generation, like a Koranic doom.
And this brings us to yet another of the West’s eminently unhelpful suggestions to Israel: Exercise restraint. This admonition has always struck me as both perverse and insulting. The Israelis are democrats and humanists like us — they don’t need anyone lecturing them about civilian casualties. Indeed, the Israelis are far more worried about Arab civilian casualties than are the Arabs themselves. Besides all the reasons the Israelis have to worry about them — reasons both moral and expedient — the entire strategy of the terrorists calls precisely for getting Israel to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible. Their strategy is suicide terrorism on a social scale. Both Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally fire missiles from densely populated areas so that Israel will kill civilians when it retaliates, because that inflames the Arab world, and helps turn world opinion against Israel.
We feel deeply for the civilians on both sides whose lives have been and will be ruined by this war. But if Israel’s enemies choose to use civilians as human shields for attacks against it, they and not Israel are guilty of war crimes. It is Hezbollah and the Palestinian terror groups which should be held up for international condemnation when they force Israel to conduct military operations in civilian areas. Israel cannot be expected to make up for its enemies’ lack of concern for their own civilian casualties. The purpose of military strategy is to win.
In the meantime, if the international community demands anything of Israel, it should first demand that Lebanon enforce its own laws against the terrorist Hezbollah. And if any international force is to be sent, local law enforcement should be its primary mission. In the meantime, the United States should leave no doubts that it stands with Israel in this fight.
— Mario Loyola is a former assistant for communications and policy planning at the Department of Defense.
I am humming right along with you...LOL
No, I don't recall Lebanon/ese being on the billboard and the organization's name wasn't that long and it was black, red, and yellow if that helps. Of course, that was 10+ years ago so who knows.
Another answered prayer! Great! Glad you're out of harms way. Sounds like you've got new material for a book. Can't wait!
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.