Timothy McVeigh Quotes

Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. What the Syrians did in response, nothing. Israel has killed a number of terrorist leaders in Syria. Response? Nothing.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

What the devil are we going to be at with this great fleet, and the reinforcements if ships and troops that are following? The Danes have done nothing hostile towards us … Would it be justifiable without any previous hostile act?

This resolution simply says Israel has the right to defend itself. This includes conducting operations both inside its borders and in the territory of nations that threaten it, which is in accordance with international law.

As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same. If we go down that road, where are we going?

When under attack, no country is obligated to collect permission slips from allies to strike back.

It was essentially for self defence that we went to war in Afghanistan and would go to war in Iraq.

Most recently, terrorist forces have captured Israeli soldiers and fired rockets into Israeli cities - both unprovoked. These acts of aggression deserve the rapid and decisive response they received.

If Israel sees weapons moving toward its border, it acts.

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

If our interests - our legitimate interests, the interests of Russians - have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia, for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in accordance with international law.

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

The missiles come first, and the justifications come second.

The United States was an innocent victim after September 11. It had never attacked or occupied Afghanistan. So therefore it had no choice but to go after the aggressors.

I think we need to ask serious questions about how we engage militarily, when we engage militarily, and on what basis we engage militarily. What kind of intelligence do we have to justify a military engagement?

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

That was a declaration of war

No choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force, employed for its destruction, by force, for its preservation.

If the United States were attacked by rockets from one of our neighboring countries, we would be a lot tougher on them than Israel has been on the Palestinians. When we were attacked, we sent an army abroad and took over Afghanistan from the Taliban.

There's a very heavy burden of proof to be borne by anyone who calls for violence. Maybe it can be sometimes justified. Personally, I'm not a committed pacifist, so I think that, yes, it can sometimes be justified.

Wherever there's injustice, oppression, and suffering, America will show up six months late and bomb the country next to where it's happening.

Every nation has a right and duty to defend itself against unjust aggression. Offensive war of any kind is not morally justifiable.

I think it suffices to say that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Israel does not start wars.

War should be not a war of choice; it should be a war of necessity. And it should be a last resort.