Dear Washington Post Staff,
In "Hezbollah rearms away from border" (January 23, 2010), why not mention what the rearming is all about? The only mention of Hezbollah's intent was to say that they vowed to "continue 'resistance' against Israel” with no further discussion on what that means. Touching the surface, the article only said that Hezbollah was "Islamist" and "backed by Iran." When Hezbollah says "resistance", which you aptly put in quotes, they are referring to their genocidal goals - to kill the Jews of Israel. Why not mention this specifically and perhaps delve into it? The Washington Post has been known for its investigative style reporting but, unfortunately, not when it comes to the racist ideology of Iran-backed Hezbollah.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Published in the Washington Post
Thursday, January 7, 2010
In the Jan. 1 news story "Israel backs U.S. on Iran sanctions," reporter Howard Schneider wrote that an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel is "considered unlikely because of Israel's nuclear deterrent capacity." Considered unlikely by whom? Without citing a source, this statement has no merit.
A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel is quite possible -- so possible that Israel can't take any chances. Iran's leaders have specifically threatened the destruction of Israel. The nuclear deterrent during the Cold War worked because mutually assured destruction meant something to each side, but members of the Iranian leadership have a jihadist mentality. Dying for a "holy" cause, such leaders believe, will give them a space in heaven. Look at the long list of suicide bombers dying in the name of jihad.
Iran is not likely to be deterred from using nuclear force because of Israel's might.
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
In the Jan. 1 news story "Israel backs U.S. on Iran sanctions," reporter Howard Schneider wrote that an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel is "considered unlikely because of Israel's nuclear deterrent capacity." Considered unlikely by whom? Without citing a source, this statement has no merit.
A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel is quite possible -- so possible that Israel can't take any chances. Iran's leaders have specifically threatened the destruction of Israel. The nuclear deterrent during the Cold War worked because mutually assured destruction meant something to each side, but members of the Iranian leadership have a jihadist mentality. Dying for a "holy" cause, such leaders believe, will give them a space in heaven. Look at the long list of suicide bombers dying in the name of jihad.
Iran is not likely to be deterred from using nuclear force because of Israel's might.
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)