> one-track on this subject lately) I'm not comfortable with the comparison or
> the possible implication that one is partial justification for the other.
> (I'm not sure that Mike personally meant that implication, but there are
> definitely those that do.)
I wasn't aiming for a comparison. I just wanted to hear some condemnation for a
totally separate event on the 'other side'. I'll give you a perfect example:
The head of the UN voiced his 'concern' about the civilian deaths when Israel
went into Gaza to get the body parts of their soldiers back. He didn't condemn
the fact that the troops where there in the first place to destroy missile
workshops in civilian areas. He didn't condemn the fact that terrorists were
hiding themselves in a civilian population. He didn't even condemn the fact that
they were desecrating the bodies of the dead soldiers. He only talked against
Israel. This is what I see waaaay to many times.
America is bad for this, Israel is bad for that. Saudi Arabia? Not bad. Any
African state? Not bad (until the death toll hits the 2 million mark or so).
China? Korea? France? The UN itself? Never bad.
No comparison, just a desire to hear condemnation where it's deserved. It'll
never happen, but I still hope.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
