State Department: Truth Or Furthering Anti-Israel Agenda?
I find it very interesting that the State Department has issued an edict that Americans shouldn’t try to leave Lebanon, that they must stay put. Why do I find that interesting? Because as we were told this on Fox News by a priest who said he now knew what it was like to be a hostage (sorry, was there a gun pointed at your head? I think not), he openly pondered why it was that all the other foreigners’ countries were bringing in ships to rescue their citizens… why only the U.S. was leaving its people there? Why indeed? Could the State Department be trying to make things worse to have it reflect badly on Israel or am I getting paranoid?
posted by Esther @ 7:21 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
esther,
I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this but it maybe that trying to get Americans out would be more dangerous than them staying.
Hizbollah, hell the whole Middle East believe that the US and Israel are to blame.
There maybe fear that someone in Lebanon would give information to Hizbollah about any planned evacuations.
I see it as a safety issue. Would could be better propaganda for Hizbollah than to kill a whole bunch of Americans or take them hostage. It would be so easy if they are all in one spot.
I can't imagine all hell wouldn't break loose if they killed a large group of Americans though. They want trouble but they don't want THAT kind of trouble.
Well, most of the Americans in Lebanon are probably of Lebanese origins.
Most of them are probably Muslim.
Perhaps the State Department wishes to get rid of them. :-0
Well, I doubt it.
It looks like the leftoid public service employees wish to have a human shield in place courtuesy of Uncle Sam.
I might be wrong.
esther,
My bad but there is good news. Apparantly the State Department is wrong.
Foxnews is reporting that security teams are now in Beirut at the US Embassy laying plans to evacuate Americans.
Interesting Felis.....
Oh wow, Seawitch. Thanks for that!
CBS Morning News is trying to pump up sympathy for the civilians in Lebanon. I haven't seen any such attitude toward Israel. Ugh!
Esther,
This article might be of interest. Note the last two paragraphs:
Refusing to criticize Olmert for his current leadership, Sharansky only offered this note of caution: “I hope he’s not making one mistake, and that is planning for more weeks ahead. At most, he will have days.” Why, I asked him, will Israel only have days, especially if Hezbollah continues firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas? “Because of the world,” he answered. “At the moment Israel starts becoming successful, the world tells us to stop.”
If Sharansky is right and Israel is stopped before successfully disarming Hezbollah and pushing the terrorist organization off its border, then the world will have delivered a stunning victory to Islamic terrorists everywhere, especially the Iranian mullahs. Not only would this be a crushing blow to the Jewish state, but perhaps more significantly because of the long-term implications, to the United States.
I haven't read that story so I cannot give any reasons for what seems to be a mistake.
I do know that President Bush, unlike many other Western countries, has firmly stood by Israel's right to defend itself. While France's President Chirac was basically blaming Israel, United States blocked the United Nations from passing any resolutions against Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home