US Vetos Condemnation of Assassination

This post was written by marc on March 26, 2004
Posted Under: Bush,Letters to the Editor,Politics

Letter to the Editor

Its an interesting dilemma when it comes to condemning assassinating terrorists. Sort of a no win situation. Certainly someone who terrorizes can’t complain when the victims strike back. But in a culture of war and mutual terrorism to we condone or condemn such acts? What is the right way to end the cycle of violence? Every time you kill a terrorist – it causes them to breed. But to not kill them inspires them as well. And there are those who use such violence for political posturing and personal profit. If Bush is going to posture as the “War President” then he’s going to need a lot of war to divert attention away from a collapsing economy.

America has always been the voice of peace – not war. We are making too many enemies in the world and its time we changed direction and start making friends. We have a lot of work to do to rid the world of terrorism and we can no longer afford to support a political opportunist who feeds on war. What we need is a “Peace President” – not a “War President”. A president who has good judgment and can figure out who the enemy is.

Reader Comments

America can in no way be a judge against terrorism with its past engraved and built on the same…Was Nat Turner a terrorist or was he attacking terrorists? He was skinned and burned at the stake. Were KKK holdouts bombed by a government against terrorism? No, because they were part & parcel of it…

The greatest miracle Christianity has achieved in America is that the black man in white Christian hands has not grown violent.…
Malcolm X

#1 
Written By humper on March 26th, 2004 @ 8:51 am

“America can in no way be a judge against terrorism with its past engraved and built on the same.”

Say what? I once stole some candy from a store; does that mean I can’t call out people when they’re thinking about shoplifting? I once tossed a cat up in the air; does that mean I can’t physically impede another who plans to do the same?

Pray tell, good friends: how would a “peace president,” or prime minister in this case, have dealt with the knowledge that a very real terrorist plot was unhatching in London? A raid? Nah, too aggressive … need to get in touch with our inner feelings so we can discuss the matter politely with the terrorists.

“What we got here is, failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach.” Applies perfectly to the blast-happy baboons of the world.

#2 
Written By Dave on March 30th, 2004 @ 6:59 am

“I once stole some candy from a store; does that mean I can’t call out people when they’re thinking about shoplifting?”
Would seem pretty silly if you are still shoplifting yourself…

“I once tossed a cat up in the air; does that mean I can’t physically impede another who plans to do the same?”
Again,if you are still tossing cats, midgets etc. how and why would you have any credibility telling someone else to stop???

“how would a “peace president,” or prime minister in this case, have dealt with the knowledge that a very real terrorist plot was unhatching in London? A raid? Nah, too aggressive … ”
If only there was a raid or some proactive measures taken when there was information of a terrorist plot unfolding.
If you get “wind” of a plot to firebomb your house with your family inside, you have names of suspects, you have the resources of a few intelligence agencies and billions of dollars at your disposal; do you wait for your home to be bombed before you take action?

#3 
Written By humper on March 30th, 2004 @ 11:21 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Previose Post: