|
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 11:18 AM by BurtWorm
Using the Israeli-Lebanon situation as its presumed model for the proper response to terrorism, what is different about the northwest region of Pakistan that prohibits the US from making the same sort of aggressive attack on al Qaeda that it is egging Israel on to make against Hezbollah in Lebanon? If Pakistan is the US's alleged ally in the GWOT, wouldn't that remove the obstacle that is making Israel's attack a problem for the international community--namely that it is attacking a sovereign state without permission allegedly to cripple the terrorist organization that is its alleged target?
Mind you, I don't necessarily believe bombing the hell out of northwestern Pakistan will anymore attain the objective of ridding the world of al Qaeda than Israel's assault will rid the world of Hezbollah. In fact I'm highly skeptical that either campaign will work as planned. But isn't it interesting that the extreme right (i.e., "mainstream" :eyes: ) media and powers that be in the US who are screaming for Hezbollah's blood, and who complain that Israel isn't manly enough for their taste--isn't it interesting that these same chicken hawks don't give a shit about the US routing al Qaeda by any means necessary (except for spying on potentially all US citizens :eyes: )? Is this because they've suddenly gone "realist" when it comes to al Qaeda? Or fatalist? Or just purely apathetic? How do they harmonize this dulled attitude toward the US's enemy with their aroused attitude over Israel's enemy?
|