Jan Egeland: full of bullshit as always
Remember this putz, who accused the United States and other Western nations of being "stingy" in the tsunami relief efforts? Now the jerk says that "civilians pay a disproportionate price in Lebanon and northern Israel" during this new conflict.
Where was Jan after the countless suicide bombings that were specifically meant to kill Israel civilians, or were those not sufficiently "disproportionate" for him to criticize? There's just something about his statement that really, really grated me today. To hell with him and the rest of the UN -- the Lord reward them according to their works.
James Taranto made the best quote so far about Israel's methods: "Some have criticized Israel for not responding proportionately to the attacks, but we'd counsel patience. After all, the Israelis aren't done yet." (Hat tip to our friend Karol.) If Israel wanted to be perfectly proportional, then Damascus, Tehran and pre-Saddam Baghdad would have been leveled a long time ago beneath mushroom clouds. Israel can't go that far, of course, because of "international pressure."
This is the time for Israel to mop up. It's time for it to crush the terrorists, not by killing every one, but by using such force that every would-be jihadist will think twice about sticking his head outside his rathole. Syrians especially need to learn that if they want to continue supporting terrorists, Israel will destroy their way of life. And that's war: Israel didn't start it, but I want it to finish it this time.
Meanwhile, conservative moonbats are at it again. So what if the New York Times reveals that the U.S. is sending a new shipment of precision-guided missiles to Israel? The shipment is new, but not that we've sold such arms before to Israel. Hezbollah already knows what weaponry Israel has and what it can use; a lot of them have found out first-hand. liberal catnip has a great point: the Department of Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency already publishes arms sales on the WW. And she's Canadian!
Comparing the shipment to the first atomic bombs is as stupid an analogy as any liberal has ever made. We can publicize a shipment of precision-guided missiles because they are not new weapons. On the other hand, the Manhattan Project was kept strictly secret until after Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. So secret, in fact, that Harry Truman didn't know of the program until after FDR's death. Also, as anyone familiar with WWII history and/or military logistics would notice, there was no such thing as "US Pacific forces" that "requested the expedited shipment" of the first two bombs.
The Times is a den of vipers, to be sure, but why must conservatives resort to lies and half-truths to contend with devils? And why must they throw around "treason" when they clearly don't know what really constitutes it? Perhaps they do, which is all the more dangerous, since it demonstrates they'll trample the Constitution in waging purely ideological war.
It's Treason as Usual at the NYT
The Treasonous Times Befriends Hezbollah
Thankfully the Founding Fathers had the foresight to put this into Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis added) They knew better than anyone else in history how "treason" can be misused, and not just by the Crown. They had the foresight to define "treason" very narrowly, knowing that for all our blood spilt, we'll always have "loyalists" who will hurl "treason" at anyone they accuse of not acting in the nation's interest.
Going by the one and only one definition of treason, how is anyone at the Times aiding Hezbollah by revealing what we can already find out from the Department of Defense? But I suppose the Times really is doing Hezbollah a favor, because then the terrorists will know precisely (pun intended) what hit them.
Where was Jan after the countless suicide bombings that were specifically meant to kill Israel civilians, or were those not sufficiently "disproportionate" for him to criticize? There's just something about his statement that really, really grated me today. To hell with him and the rest of the UN -- the Lord reward them according to their works.
James Taranto made the best quote so far about Israel's methods: "Some have criticized Israel for not responding proportionately to the attacks, but we'd counsel patience. After all, the Israelis aren't done yet." (Hat tip to our friend Karol.) If Israel wanted to be perfectly proportional, then Damascus, Tehran and pre-Saddam Baghdad would have been leveled a long time ago beneath mushroom clouds. Israel can't go that far, of course, because of "international pressure."
This is the time for Israel to mop up. It's time for it to crush the terrorists, not by killing every one, but by using such force that every would-be jihadist will think twice about sticking his head outside his rathole. Syrians especially need to learn that if they want to continue supporting terrorists, Israel will destroy their way of life. And that's war: Israel didn't start it, but I want it to finish it this time.
Meanwhile, conservative moonbats are at it again. So what if the New York Times reveals that the U.S. is sending a new shipment of precision-guided missiles to Israel? The shipment is new, but not that we've sold such arms before to Israel. Hezbollah already knows what weaponry Israel has and what it can use; a lot of them have found out first-hand. liberal catnip has a great point: the Department of Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency already publishes arms sales on the WW. And she's Canadian!
Comparing the shipment to the first atomic bombs is as stupid an analogy as any liberal has ever made. We can publicize a shipment of precision-guided missiles because they are not new weapons. On the other hand, the Manhattan Project was kept strictly secret until after Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. So secret, in fact, that Harry Truman didn't know of the program until after FDR's death. Also, as anyone familiar with WWII history and/or military logistics would notice, there was no such thing as "US Pacific forces" that "requested the expedited shipment" of the first two bombs.
The Times is a den of vipers, to be sure, but why must conservatives resort to lies and half-truths to contend with devils? And why must they throw around "treason" when they clearly don't know what really constitutes it? Perhaps they do, which is all the more dangerous, since it demonstrates they'll trample the Constitution in waging purely ideological war.
It's Treason as Usual at the NYT
The Treasonous Times Befriends Hezbollah
Thankfully the Founding Fathers had the foresight to put this into Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis added) They knew better than anyone else in history how "treason" can be misused, and not just by the Crown. They had the foresight to define "treason" very narrowly, knowing that for all our blood spilt, we'll always have "loyalists" who will hurl "treason" at anyone they accuse of not acting in the nation's interest.
Going by the one and only one definition of treason, how is anyone at the Times aiding Hezbollah by revealing what we can already find out from the Department of Defense? But I suppose the Times really is doing Hezbollah a favor, because then the terrorists will know precisely (pun intended) what hit them.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home