Order Cheap Viagra Online - Online DrugStore

What does it mean to be a citizen of two countries? Where does your allegience lie? Debbie Schlussel minces no words.

One thing is lost in all the press coverage of the whining Americans who went to Lebanon of their own accord and now want us to pick up the tab to get them out. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN LEBANON ARE HEZBOLLAH SUPPORTERS. Most of them are Shi'ite Muslims, many of whom hold dual U.S. and Lebanese citizenship. Many are anchor babies born here to Muslims in the U.S. illegally. Some are illegal aliens who became citizens through rubber-stamping Citizenship and Immigration Services (and its INS predecessor) coupled with political pressure by spineless politicians. Of the 25,000 American citizens and green-card holders in Lebanon, at least 7,000 are from Dearborn, Michigan, the heart of Islamic America, and especially Shia Islam America. These 7,000 are mostly Shi'ite Muslims who openly and strongly support Hezbollah. Ditto for many of the rest of the 25,000 that are there.

UPDATE: Thanks to Tom at Stones Cry Out for the link, and his discussion of responsibility. More thoughts from Diana West at the Washington Times:

A thought-provoking sideshow to Israel's war on Hezbollah -- and what a precious gift Israel would bestow on the Free World by destroying the Hezbollah mini-state -- is the effort to extract "foreign nationals" from Lebanon, some of whom have had their summer vacations in Hezbollah strongholds interrupted by war. Who are these people now clamoring by the thousands for international rescue? Press reports label many of them "dual nationals." Some, despite their British, Swiss, American or French passports, make Lebanon their home. I was quite startled to hear, in an online audio report posted by the Daily Telegraph, that British passport-holders evacuated to Cyprus were undergoing "Home Office screening" to determine whether they "might constitute a threat." The report reasoned that this made sense "because obviously we're talking about a large number of people who have lived in the Middle East most of their lives." This presents a bizarre spectacle: Britain's navy re-patriating what you might call extreme expatriates who potentially pose a "threat" to Britain as a partner in the so-called war on terror. This makes the following headline from the Guardian all the more inapt: "Britain's biggest sea evacuation since Dunkirk." As I recall, none of the 300,000 Dunkirk evacuees required a security screening before returning home. In this wide-open question of loyalties we may see the expanding emptiness of the modern nation-state, where basic identification with the nation itself is no longer at the core of citizenship. . . . American sympathy for Hezbollah profanes the American dead. In our wide-open society, however, such allegiance isn't considered beyond the pale. But it should be. And it could be. I have long argued that the "war on terror" is an amorphous term -- sacrificing clarity for fuzzy political correctness. What if we, as a nation, belatedly declared war on specific jihadist groups -- al Qaeda and Hezbollah and other organizations dedicated to our destruction? This would have the tonic effect of clarifying not only our enemies' identity, but our own. We can't fight if we don't know who we're fighting. We can't win if we don't know who we are.

UPDATE: Who is a Civilian?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 at 11:22 PM and is filed under National Security, Public Square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.