It should be no real surprise that the relatively-unknown John O. Brennan – rather than putative Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano – was called upon to defend the administration against Dick Cheney’s criticism of terror war weakness on the talk show circuit Sunday. Napolitano has probably disqualified herself forever with her inane comment that the “system worked” on December 25.
Still, Brennan’s defense was pretty lame – no more than insisting that Obama was strong on terror because, well, Brennan says so and he’s an expert. Well, expert or not, I can safely predict he will be completely ignored outside the punditocracy. Even there, he won’t get a lot of attention. Reason? No one really believes Brennan, not even the president’s staunch defenders who watch nervously as their leader’s poll numbers tank at a record speed.
And why should they? If they are faintly honest with themselves, they know that the president has never been terribly interested in the War on Terror, almost to the point of wishing it would go away. Last March, in an interview with Der Spiegel, his same Homeland Security secretary equated the “t-word” with “man-caused disasters,” of all euphemisms, as if terror acts were similar to someone forgetting a rivet on a bridge.
Not that the “War on Terror” is an accurate appellation in the first place. “Man-caused disasters” is actually a euphemism of a euphemism, because the “War on Terror” itself has no real meaning. Terror is a method, not an end or a place. Fighting a “War on Terror” is like fighting a War on Cannons or Airplanes. Meaningless.
But we all know that the “War on Terror” is actually a euphemism for the “War on Radical Islam.” But nobody says it. Nobody official anyway. (Bush did say something like that once in a speech, as I recall, but was quickly shouted down by the nabobs of political correctness.)
Does this matter? Well, in two words… Hell, yes! Using euphemisms to describe what we are doing in this instance assures that we will continue doing it for years and decades to come. It does this by telling our troops in this war – from the soldiers in the field to the intelligence officers in Langley to our own people in the cities and towns of America, whose support is the most crucial of all – that we are fundamentally unserious, that we think this is all an unimportant issue that is better off ignored. The president’s campaign message got through this once. He ran on soft-pedaling the War on Terror. That was one part of the “hope and change” we all understood.
I know there are those who thought that this soft-pedaling of this war would calm down the Islamic world and make things go away, but by now events have shown them to be wrong. From Sana’a to Somalia, from Detroit to Ft. Hood, and most importantly on the streets of Tehran, things have by now, if anything, heated up, morphing to new, and often more complicated, locations.
Yet still we dare not speak the name of the War on Radical Islam. Still we fear to offend. Perhaps we need a new euphemism. For now I would suggest the “War on Ourselves.” It looks to be becoming dangerously successful.
When Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano resigns it will be for calling the war on terror “man-caused disasters” instead of “person-caused disasters”. For whichever reason she resigns, the “system worked”.
Why even talk about ”radical Islam” when the problem is just plain old mainstream Islam? There is no radical Islam just as there is no moderate Islam nor is this ”a small group of extremists”. There is only Islam, the same wretched ideology since the time of Mohammed the war-lord.
Would you ever use such terminology with Nazism or Communism? No, you would sound like a fool if you tried to distinguish between radical & moderate Nazis.
Islam is an extremist totalitarian political ideology, period.
Individual Muslims may choose to ignore much of Islamic teaching, many are only cultural Muslims or Muslims by an accident of birth. Many practice Islam as a folk religion. Many Muslims are nice, normal, peaceful people DESPITE Islamic teaching. That this is true does not change in any way the true nature of Islam the ideology as expressed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, Shari’a Law, or the rather despicable career of Mohammed, held to be the ”exemplary man”.
Since this hostile, aggressive, & expansionist ideology has renewed it’s 1400 year war against the ”unbelievers” we should face reality & fight back – pretending that this war is not being waged against us will not make it go away.
“Fighting a ‘War on Terror’ is like fighting a War on Cannons or Airplanes. Meaningless.”
Psst. Don’t tell that last bit to Captain Nemo. (OK, ne’er mind there’s no point in not informing a fictional character.)
no.3 Terry, You hit the nail on the head. There is no such thing as Moderate Islam. Unless we name the foe we can’t seriously fight it. Islam has no problem openly declaring war on the civilized world. We must not back down from acknowledging this fact. Mohamed was a terrorist, murder,torturer,rapist;the could go on, but the fact is, he was the embodiment of virtually everything any civilized people would consider evil. Are murder, rape, torture, terror and all the rest of Mohamed’s qualities acceptable in moderation? No civilized people should think so.
No, no, no…
Obama has now made it perfectly clear!!
This is a ““War on a Far-reaching Network of Violence and Hatred”.
Known now as “WFNVH.”
As in, “they have to reach real far” to come get us…
I mean, if you remember his speech.. he plainly told us:
“…our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans, not each other”
Forgetting I guess, (maybe because of strenuous vacation commitments), the “fellow American” at Fort Hood who decided to exercise his right to jihadism on other fellow Americans, or the 5 Virginian Americans arrested in Pakistan seeking willingly to pursue their goal to go jihadist on “fellow American” troops!
No, this is now Obama’s “WFNVH”!!
Clean, simple…no crazy “religious” conotations to muddy the waters.
I mean, it’s so cool…you can throw just about ANY belief or crazy ideology in there and IT WORKS!
Truly, a forward thinking President we can count on to counter ANY “isolated extremist”. I know I’m relieved……………NOT!
Obama & his team are drowning, flailing around, their incompetence impossible to conceal, their amateur-hour foreign policy going from failure to failure. With every passing day, more & more people see Obama for what he really is – not much. This last incident & his pathetic handling of the issue may be a tipping point in public opinion. In a short time, my bet is that many of the prostitutes in the mainstream media will abandon Obama & widespread criticism will become the norm.
The War on Hostile Ideologies. Clean. To the Point. Includes hostile religions (Islam according to the Qur’an) any hostile offshoot of any basically peaceable religion (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, etc.). Omits the straight peaceable ones (same second list). But then it occurs to me… hostile to what? Our way of life? Does that include capitalism? Let’s see… who’s hostile to capitalism? Hmmm…
“fundamentally unserious”
Exactly. The result is liberals who argue, in feckless opposition to American public opinion, that terror attacks are less of a problem than lightning strikes. Instead of making any effort to solve the problem, liberals continue to deny there is any problem. Fundamentally unserious.
We also have to declare a sort of war on radical secularism. This is the case even if one might be an atheist. A very secular culture as portrayed in the TV program “Sex in the City” is the quintessential example. These sorts of immature and self-indulgent individuals simply refuse to embrace the responsibilities of adulthood. Combating Islamic extremism is perceived to be such a drag. Where is the fun in that? The existentially convinced secularist only cares about the pursuit of pleasure and focusing on their immediate wants and needs. This readily explains the bizarre behavior of blue-state New York voters who persist in selecting politicians who are wimpy regarding the so-called war on terror. The events of 9/11 did little to change their minds.
The Obamanoughts fail the most basic lesson of Sun Tzu’s counsel: Know thy enemy. Indeed, they dare not even speak his name. And the Arab mind equates this with cowardice and unmanliness, with characterological weakness.
While identifying the target as “radical Islam” is certainly more focused than “terrorism”, but it still fails to provide a means of clearly identifying the adversary – the target. The term ‘radical’ has itself many disparate meanings (16 in my dictionary), implying anything from wild-eyed fanaticism to pious devotion to fundamentals – and that’s not counting the mathematical and chemical definitions. When used to refer to a subset of Muslims, it tends to elicit the false dichotomy with the famous “moderate” Muslims, for whom we have been diligently searching during the last several years.
When a moderate Christian has a “born again” experience, he may become far more dogmatic and devout as a consequence, and search for the fundamentals of his faith, yet he is unlikely to bear the label of “radical”. Simultaneously, if he follows the teachings and behavioral example of Christ, he cannot do other than become more loving and peaceful, toward his fellow man. My observations are that Jews behave similarly (even to the point of being liberals).
Contrariwise, when the moderate Muslim (I’m sure they are out there hiding somewhere) becomes more devout and observant of his religion, and searches for its fundamentals, he must become rigorously obedient to the words of Allah as written in the Qu’ran, and must emulate the behavioral example of Mohammed, the supposedly perfect human, who practiced deceit, treachery, rape and murder. The more devout and observant the Muslim becomes, the more his beliefs compel him to transform himself into a savagely murderous Jihadist, who justifies killing, and sending his children to blow themselves up, to achieve eternal rewards by slaughtering kafirs (that’s us).
The term “Jihadist” is at least an identifier of those Muslims who practice or believe in the intrinsic doctrine of violent jihad, that has always been fundamental to Islam. It has no meaning referential to non-Muslim belief systems. And it implies that, while not all Muslims are actively engaged in jihad, they accept and validate the underlying concept in proportion to the depth of their process of submission to Allah.
And have you noticed how reliably we humans tend to root for our own tribe, or the home team? There was dancing in the streets after 9/11, and many of the celebrators were, without a doubt, moderate Muslims.
Whatever we are doing is not “war” on anything. War is assertive. We are engaged in evasion and illusion.
What are truly dealing with is “Defense of the Realm” against the radical wing of a primitive and barbarous religion that believes that its “church” should be our state, and has openly declared war on our nation and our culture.
If we are not willing to declare war against a religion; if we have so lost out faith, our will, and and our sense of nationhood that we are willing to go no farther than to adopt a cringing, reactive posture in the face of open attack, then we should at least deal with it honestly.
All war is disastrous. All war os man-made disaster – this war – this war -this man-made disaster – has been forced upon us. We have not made war on anything. This enemy has no hesitation in declaring its purpose and its intent. It regards us – and rightly so – with utter contempt for our lack or a similar purpose and resolve. It does notperceive itself as engaged in an 18=month war, or an 18-year war. If it takes 100 years, it is OK with the mullahs and the imams. And Terror – mindless, pitiless killing of those it has declared war on, military or innocents – is its major strategy.
“Naational Defense against Terror” is what we are engaged in. With an administration and a MSM that is so witless that they are treating it as if it was a drug-gang offense that we can turn over to the police and attorneys. To cower before and cater, to Islamic lobby organizations, calculatedly taking advantage of our namby-pamby tolerance, our embrace of “multiculturalism”. is suicidal. It certainly cannot be called “war” against anything.
Our Republic has never before been faced with such a conjunction of crises: faced with destruction from two forces: a one-party revisionist, consumption-control based version of Stalin/Maoist communism, and at the same an oppressive rule-by-force-of-arms, one-faith, primitive religion. With an electorate composed largely of do-do birds, unconcerned about whether we wind up as political serfs or religious slaves.
Yeah, what about the peaceful peoples? They are nice and who wants to be the enemy of the Free peoples… not me! kinda mean. They would never want us to get hurt or have man-made-disasters.
But I also like to know exactly why we are sending young peoples off for. They also must be so confused I think and thats really not fair cause they are just trying to protect me and could die. So at least we could clear up one thing. It may be rough at first guys but my father told me once nothing is free and nothing worth doing is easy.
Maybe the peaceful peoples can figure out whos who and whats what and whats the difference and then let our soldiers and secret-agents know so the wrong peoples don’t get hurt by our soldiers and attack-planes. Tough times indeed.
This is becoming a debate if one religion is any better than the other, so this also becomes a false; my beliefs trump yours.
If we are going after terrorists, then go after them. It will take a generation of assassinations, blowing up suspected training camps, and lots of innocent blood spilled on both sides. If we are not willing to do this and sustain the hits in return, then it will become attrition and last generations, maybe hundreds of years.
If we are going to debate who’s religion is better, “authentic” or has more value, then we are talking about another series of religious posturing as during the crusades during the early middle ages. The only winners were those that sold weapons and grain to the armies, and financed the wars.
“Believers” that died for their church, Govts, kings, sultans and rulers were just fodder, either ignorant groups of basically farmers, or knights and nobles out to seek their fortunes. The groups actually managing wars had political and economic reasons to foment the war to maintain power structure.
Alex, (#11), Islam is no more “just another religion” than the National Socialist (“Nazi”) or Communist Parties are “just another political party”.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It may be based around a “religious” theology, but from its very inception it has been a rapaciously expansionist way of life that would brook no long-term competition or co-existence.
Terry, (#3 and #5) is absolutely right in his appraisal. There are no such things as “fundamentalist” or “moderate” Muslims — only “good” and “bad” Muslims. “Good” Muslims are our self-declared mortal enemies, while that endangered, (if not mythical), species — the “moderate” Muslim, is nothing but a “bad” Muslim.
When will you people face reality? Is it not obvious that the triumph of Islam is inevitable?
Every day, more Muslims enter this country. Every day more Muslim babies are born while you kill your children in unholy abortion mills.
Every day more mosques are built while your churches are converted into mosques, fall into disrepair, or are used as public latrines.
You must cease oppressing Muslims. You must cease insulting Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw). You must cease warring against Allah (swt) and fighting the spread of Islam.
You must discard your man-made laws and systems of government and implement Allah’s (swt) Law (Sharia).
Time grows short. Renounce your false religions now. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
hello Jack #12, thank you for the response.
Christianity does not allow for co existence either, there is thousands of years history of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History.
Now Islam has once again become a popular alternative to Christianity and it brings two groups of religion into conflict.
We will have a war, it is unavoidable, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking we are fighting for religious reasons, just as 1000 years ago. It was economics then, it is economics now.
Painting all Muslims as evil and bad is pretty ignorant of the world, and its a result of shrewd packaging.
If we left the middle east to its own ends; developed our own energy sources and left them to survive on their own without western support, then we would not need to have these ridiculous routines we are forced to live with. Unfortunately the people making decisions need to pump that last petro dollar out of the ground.
Furthermore, if a woman is forced to wear a veil / burqa in certain middle eastern countries, then conversely she may be required NOT to wear one in western countries. The notion that we cannot pass laws to protect ourselves is ridiculous, she can choose to live in the middle east among her own people if the burden is too great in the west. Why we cannot pass laws to overturn hypocrisy is beyond me.
Napolitano and her “man caused disasters” must go. . she is typical of obama’s inept and in fact dishonest administration and is helping to destroy our country. I was no fan of Bush, but even he was better than the clown in the Big House. . .
it’s long overdue. good essay Roger.
still when is a muslim moderate ? when he doesn’t follow the tenets of islam ?
When we start calling this war against us Jihad, we can begin to end it. Until then we are wasting our soldiers’ lives. The Muslims we ally with to fight terrorism are obliged to support Jihad as part of their religious duty. We may have a problem.
The moronic ploy to use the phrase “Man-caused disasters” is to align alleged AGW events equally with those caused by radical terrorism. However it fails to do this miserably, as the cost of life at the hands of Islamofascism is immediate whereas a fairytale like AGW takes generations to ferment and in that time it can be disproved. Islamic terrorism/radicalism is real, it’s here, it is now. It is 1400yrs strong and marching on. It’s also there for all the world to see and recognize minus a UN peer review process and lengthy contemplation.
Islam is at war with all its disbelievers. It’s at war even with infidels sympathetic to their cause. Indeed if the US is ever brought to her knees, bleeding heart liberals will be willing victims to their own slaughter; and the only thing ‘Made in USA’ will be the cherry pickers their ‘religion of peace’ overloads will string them up from. They’re just too darn naive to foresee the fate that awaits them if the West loses out to these barbarians. An oppressed Iranian population, thirsting for freedom and much needed moral and international support is way too much for this pathetic Democratic Party of twats to grasp. -F Epic Fail.
An excellent article and one I agree with as well as some of the comments. When Obama was elected, I as well as many others, knew that in an unsafe world we were suddenly even more unsafe and that our enemy would see his weakness as a green light. This has already come to pass,quite dramatically, twice in 2009 and will probably be ramped up considerably as long as the country is ruled by the Gang from Chicago whose goal is not to protect our country but to ruin it.
ALEX:
Your incisive analysis of history, Islam and Christianity will surely earn you a place on Mount Rushmore along with Moe, Curly and Shemp. Good job.
Alex, you think clearly and express true points.
But like most commenters in PJ, you assume we still have a Republic.
Postulate for a moment that the Republic was lost quite a while ago.
Then nothing, including “why we cannot pass laws …” is beyond you.
I’d even question “War on Radical Islam,” as it seems to say this is somehow different from “Regular Islam.” It isn’t: Islamic supremacism, the unification of politics and religion in a totalitarian whole under sharia law, and the jihad imperative are all essential parts of Islam, whether radicalized and acted on, or not. The problem is Islam plain an simple, and, until we state it that plainly, it’s going to be a problem for the world again and again.
Other than that quibble, Roger, your essay is spot on.
When Bush began the “War on Terror”, it was little more than a half-hearted attempt to fight jihadists. His facade of strength hid an underbelly of weakness and half-measures. His biggest blunder was calling it a “War on Terror”, thereby refusing to name the enemy, and in the same breath saying “Islam is a religion of peace”. Imagine FDR saying to congress that we are now engaged in a War on Blitzkrieg and Sneak Attack Bombing, and that “Shintoism is a religion of Peace, and Fascism is a governance with peaceful obedience as its core”. Then, in an act of cowardice that defined our actions since 2001, Bush changed the name of the War in Afghanistan from “Operation Infinite Justice”, because it offended Muslims (“only Allah has infinite justice”).
Now we have Obama, who makes Bush look like General Patton, who has replaced War on Terror with “Overseas Contingency Operation”, and terrorism as a Man-Caused Disaster. ERgo, terrorism can be treated like a bridge collapse, with lawyers and litigants. And since fighting terror is by overseas operations, it absolves him of taking serious steps to protect the homeland.
Topnife (#9): to expound on Sun Tzu, we do not know our enemy. We do not know ourselves (schools demonize American history and traditions in favor of teaching balkanized multiculti PC psychobabble). We will lose every war.
David (#8): only when a mushroom cloud over NY makes their hedonistic playground uninhabitable will the perpetual adolescents wake up. But then again, on the night of 9/11, I saw morons holding signs that said: “don’t let our pain be an excuse for war.” So don’t bet on anything waking these people up.
The radical Muslim will slice your head off while the “moderate” muslim will be holding you down. Islam will have to undergo its own reformation against murderous jihad. It is not up to anyone else to facilitate this by protecting their feelings, apologizing, or indulging their demands.
I suggest we rename it the War on Bacon Haters. Or the War on Nailclippers. Or the War on Jockstraps. Or..
However, someone of Character (not mere prominence) and Moral authority need to stand up and draw a line! “We refuse to knuckle under to these 7th century scum waging religious war on the West! ” We are being assaulted by an ideology and its damn far past time to assault that ideology back. We are the Christian West, like it or not, and we refuse to submit to a religion whose chief scribe and prophet was a murderer. Take your choice, religion of peace (Ha!) or Peace of Christ. “IHS”
PS Have the Sufis murdered anyone in the name of moo-hamm & eggs-ed?
“It will take a generation of assassinations, blowing up suspected training camps, and lots of innocent blood spilled on both sides. If we are not willing to do this and sustain the hits in return, then it will become attrition and last generations, maybe hundreds of years.”
You should study the history of Islam. Because what you warn against is already happening, has been happenging for hundreds of years.
Hello Pelaut, #18, thank you for the response.
yes, we lost the republic in the 19th century with the rise of corporate monopolies, then early in the 20th America assigned control of its currency and banking system to European Banking families. Just follow the money of any National / global situation and it flows to the same group of people.
People think they are following Christ, but forget what he did was stand up to corrupt systems; Religious and Political. What exists today is a corrupted system that mirrors what Christ destroyed. It needs destroying again.
Islam has been hijacked by radical fringes that make up their own beliefs and feed corrupted ideals to people so confused they believe denying themselves in this world will reward them sexually in the next. How exactly can reason be brought into this environment? It cannot, there must be a line drawn and when stepped over the response must be overwhelming and complete.
This article is well written, but it does not take the next leap; Bring on the Solution.
“If we left the middle east to its own ends; developed our own energy sources and left them to survive on their own without western support – ”
they would still want to destroy the West. Convert or die, Alex. Thats the choice put before you.
“Christianity does not allow for co existence either, there is thousands of years history of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History.”
The difference is, we got over it. Islam never has.
It’s a bit silly to talk about what the Inquisition did half a millennium ago and compare it to what the Muslims are doing right here, right now. I can’t name a single nominally Christian nation which doesn’t practice religious toleration, and neither can you.
Nice article, Roger.
‘Double euphemisms’ are actually a variant of a linguistic phenomenon known as the ‘Euphemism treadmill’ (term originally coined by Steven Pinker)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Euphemism_treadmill
Briefly, a euphemism over time will acquire the same derogatory connotations as the original and will itself require a euphemism, and so on and so forth.
Example:
lame → crippled → handicapped → disabled → physically challenged → differently abled
IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THIS ALLEGED PRESIDENT INTENDS TO THWART THE PROSECUTION OF THESE PROFESSED TERRORIST COMBATANTS BY SUBVERTING THE ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PROCESS TO ISOLATE, INTERROGATE, AND CONFINE THESE PROFESSED TERRORIST COMBATANTS?
One can determine whether one car is better than another, one medicine is better than another, one shoe better than another. The question to be answered with regard to religious belief is which on is True? How to determine this? Some dismiss all because of the behavior of the followers. If the behavior of the followers, of a religion, (or any belief system, moral, political or religious) is the determinant of Truth (better), then we should long ago have dismissed all systems and devolved into every man for himself, my truth, your truth, no truth, every which way but truth. (Which, indidentally, we have, to wit, the current nihilism and moral relativism.) Those who do not abandon reason easily understand the endpoint of nihilism and moral relativism is tyranny. If one possesses no moral beliefs with which, and because of which to restrain the basest impulses, but declares them desirable and virtuous by their ‘naturalness’, then my ‘natural’ desire to shoot you in the head, rape your wife and steal your car has a warrant of ‘natural’ approval. Shall we, in the West, continue along this road, refusing to defend what was once called Christendom, so as no to annoy the throat slitters of the religion of peace(sic.)? (Remember, it was Christianity created Europe, and not the other way around. And much of N. Africa and the Holy Land was Christian until assaulted and overwhelmed by the Mohammedans. Have you heard of Augustine of Hippo? Look up Hippo. Or Saint Nicholas, Bishop in Turkey.) How many armies did The Nazarene personally lead, and how many people did He, Himself, personally murder? “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has not been tried because it has been found too difficult” said G.K. Chesterton. Choose, perdition or Eternal Life, there is no middle ground! “IHS”
P.S. (Notice that the word “Choose” is not immediately followed up by the words “Or I will cut your head off.”
#13 Alex say: “Christianity does not allow for co existence either, there is thousands of years history of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History.”
Sure, its History Alex. Then may I ask why you used the present tense in your first sentence? Shouldn’t you have said “…didn’t used to allow…”? What Christian caused wars have happened recently to conquer new lands in it’s name? And what if we substitute Islam for Christianity in your first sentence? Why then we could leave the tense alone, now couldn’t we?
“ISLAM does not allow for co existence either, there is[are] thousands of years history of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History [and it is still going on].”
(Truth in commenting; I am not a Christian.)
“Fighting a ‘War on Terror’ is like fighting a War on Cannons or Airplanes. Meaningless.”
Well, meaningless maybe–but also typical. These guys prefer to fight the weapon. You see it also in the way they insist on focusing on making sure weapons, instead of actual terrorists, are kept off airliners. They seem not to understand that disarmament is worthless as a combat tactic, which false assumption goes all the way back (at least) to US-Soviet disarmament talks. Weapons are not enemies. The people who use them are. I wonder if the mistake doesn’t have something to do with the fact that progressives, from the beginning, assumed that people would become what they were trained to be–so that if you try to teach children not to fight, they won’t fight.
BS, that’s what I say.
[...] Yet still we dare not speak the name of the War on Radical Islam. Still we fear to offend. Perhaps we need a new euphemism. For now I would suggest the “War on Ourselves.” It looks to be becoming dangerously successful. [...]
Aferim!
As companion to Roger’s thoughts on this awful “attitude” are some excerpts from this week’s DER SPIEGEL’s (via RCP, link to Spiegel at the bottom)
*
“The West Is Choked by Fear/An Editorial by Henryk M. Broder -
A Somalian man broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard on Friday armed with an ax and a knife. He is accused of the attempted murder of the Danish cartoonist.
The attack on illustrator Kurt Westergaard wasn’t the first attempt to carry out a deadly fatwa. When Muslims tried to murder Salman Rushdie 20 years ago, the protests among intellectuals were loud. Today, though, Western writers and thinkers would rather take cover than defend basic rights.
[...]
This time, however, in contrast to the Rushdie case, hardly anyone has showed any solidarity with the threatened Danish cartoonists — to the contrary. Grass, who had initiated the Artikel 19 campaign, expressed his understanding for the hurt feelings of the Muslims and the violent reactions that resulted. Grass described them as a “fundamentalist response to a fundamentalist act,” in the process drawing a moral equivalence between the 12 cartoons and the death threats against the cartoonists. Grass also stated that: “We have lost the right to seek protection under the umbrella of freedom of expression.”
“I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” commented then-British Home Secretary Jack Straw, referring to the decision by several European media organizations to republish the caricatures. Meanwhile, Vorwärts, the party organ of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party — one of the country’s two largest political parties — defended freedom of expression in general, but gave the opinion that in this special case, the Danes had “abused” the freedom, “not in a legal sense, but in a political and moral one.” For Fritz Kuhn, the then-parliamentary floor leader for the Green Party, it was a déjà vu experience: “They (the caricatures), remind me of the anti-Jewish drawings from the Hitler era before 1939.” With his statement, Kuhn, who was born in 1955, demonstrated that either he had a sensational pre-natal memory or that he had never seen a single anti-Semitic caricature in the Nazi’s Der Stürmer propaganda newspaper. [...]
More @:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669888,00.html
although you have a good essay here Roger, you are tiptoeing around the problem.
As others have posted it is Islam that is the underlying problem. Not just radical Islam.
I understand the fear to look “extreme” but truth is still truth.
Since 9/11 we were told that moderate Islam will come out on the side of democracy. HOW MUCH LONGER WILL IT BE ??
Why not call it,
“The Defense Against Radical Islam”
At least then the euphemism works in our favor.
#11 Alex say: “If we are going to debate who’s religion is better, “authentic” or has more value, then we are talking about another series of religious posturing as during the crusades during the early middle ages. The only winners were those that sold weapons and grain to the armies, and financed the wars.”
(1)This piece by Roger isn’t about whose religion is better. It is about calling our enemy, who have attacked and continue to attack us and the big US, by their right and proper name.
(2)The winners of past wars were not ONLY profiteers. Winners included those who wished to keep their religions and culture alive. Have you heard about The Gates of Vienna?
(3)You deplore war. Good for you. You are in good company. But there is something worse than war; it is called capitulation or submission or surrender, take your choice. These are more hateful things to a free people.
Which, since there is no such thing as “radical Islam,” makes “man-caused disasters” a euphemism of a euphemism of a euphemism! There are moderate Muslims and militant Muslims, but Islam itself is inherently militant — and unapologetic about it.
The true Muslim knows that “his duty is to fight against the unbeliever in every practical way, and to support others who do what he cannot to whatever extent he can. He might pretend otherwise — Islam approves of deceit as long as it conduces to the advance of Islam or the benefit of Muslims — but Allah’s command is in the Qur’an in black and white.
We are at war with Islam itself. Until we admit this to ourselves, we will continue to suffer terrorist assaults on our people and property, a gradual incursion of Islam and shari’a to our shores, and the rescission of our rights as freee men, most immediately our right of free expression. Ask Kurt Westergaard.
America will not be safe until Radical Muslim terrorists understand and firmly believe that attacking Americans is a zero sum game. Say what you will about the Bush administration, but people like Dick Cheney threw the fear of God into Radical Muslim terrorists. Did terrorists continue plotting against the United States during the Bush administration? Of course they did. But the big difference was that they realized that trying to pull off another 9/11 attack inside of the United States was going to be very difficult and that payback for such an attempt would also be a bitch, to say the least. And the terrorists also knew that they couldn’t hide behind our legal system anymore, just like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried to do after he was captured. It’s amazing how talkative and docile he became after just a few sessions with a wet board. The Bush administration also didn’t care about “world opinion” when it came to terrorists and don’t think the terrorists didn’t understand that too. All of these measures didn’t end terrorism, but they certainly prevented a lot of attacks from happening and we remained safe in the United States for 8 years.
Enter the Obama administration. Well, it’s been almost a year and we had one soldier killed at a recruiting station here in the United States by a radical Muslim, we had 13 killed and many wounded at Fort Hood by a radical Muslim, and we almost had an entire airliner blown to pieces by a radical Muslim on Christmas Day, and that attack only failed because of sheer luck and the bravery of a Dutch passenger on board the plane. We have an Attorney General who wants to give a trial in New York City for some of the worst terrorists in the world, giving them the same rights as any common criminal here in the United States. And yesterday, we closed the American embassy in Yemen because we were afraid, yes AFRAID, of a terrorist attack there. This kind of performance on the part of the Obama administration wouldn’t intimidate a teenage gang member, let alone a hardened bunch of radical Muslim terrorists. The Obama administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously or, more accurately, perhaps we should say that the Obama administration doesn’t take terrorism as seriously as the terrorists do. Terrorists are willing to murder anyone in order to promote their warped version of Islam. It is apparent that we are not willing to do whatever it takes to kill terrorists in order to defend our democracy. And although drone strikes are helpful against terrorists, it sends a message to al Qaeda that we’re only willing to engage the enemy at a distance, as long as we don’t have to get our hands dirty with actually having to personally execute people who have tried to kill us.
Much is always said about our treatment of German prisoners of war during World War II. Liberals always maintain that, even though the Germans were ruthless killers, we treated German prisoners of war properly and did not kill or torture them. To those people I would say, please take a long, hard, look at that other skirmish that took place in the Pacific.
People tend to forget that during our struggle with the Japanese, few prisoners were taken during the war. Thousands of Allied prisoners were taken by the Japanese after the major defeats sustained by the Allies in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Java. Many of these men were starved, beaten, and killed by the Japanese while in captivity and a small percentage of them actually survived the war. However, after the initial Allied defeats in the Pacific, few prisoners were taken after that, ON BOTH SIDES. After the Battle of Tarawa, roughly 5,000 defending Japanese were killed while only 17 Japanese prisoners were taken. After the Battle of Iwo Jima, approximately 22,000 Japanese troops were killed and only 212 POWs were taken. And after the Battle for Saipan, approximately 30,000 Japanese troops were killed and only 298 POWs were taken. The major point was that no mercy was expected or given by either side in this war. Both sides knew and understood that this was a fight to the finish and that the side with the most power, strength, and determination to win was going to succeed. The Japanese were dedicated to the emperor and were gladly willing to sacrifice themselves for an honored place in heaven (sound familiar?). The Japanese troops were extremely tough, brutal, and never cared about inflicting massive civilian casualties or autrocities if it brought them closer to victory (just look at how the Japanese murdered thousands of civilians in China, Korea, Java, and the Philippines). To the Japanese, there was only victory or an honorable, usually violent, death. And the only way the United States could respond to this madness was by killing Japanese troops, and even Japanese civilians on the Japanese home islands, in enough numbers to totally demoralize them so that they would finally give up and surrender.
We need to understand that the radical Muslims are not that different from the Japanese we fought during World War II. The Japanese even invented the suicide missions, or Kamikazes, which were so similar to the suicide attacks perpetrated by the 9/11 killers. We found out that the only way of stopping the Japanese was to prove that to continue the war with the United States would be a zero sum game and we brought home the point by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And guess what? They finally gave up when it became clear that no amount of fanatacism or religious faith could defeat either our military or nuclear weapons.
I hate to say it, but we’re right back in 1945 and we have to prove to radical Muslims that attacking the United States is a losing proposition, bad for them, their families, and the countries that shelter them. Once they understand this, really understand and believe this concept, will they leave us alone and find some other people to torment and attack. It is sad, I know, to have to say that, but history proves it’s the only way out of this mess.
Oops, sorry, blew the first link:
Hello, thank you for responding;
Once lands are conquered and genocide committed, there is no need to reconquer the land, is there..? how many times do Native Indians need to be killed off and land taken..? just once.
This occurred to varying degrees in North America, Central and South America. So asking where the atrocities are being committed today is mute point, they were committed and good Christian people are enjoying the results of those actions without question. And this occurred in the last 100 years in North America, until quite recently.
Who overthrew Iran in 1953..? we are still paying for this action by the US government, today, with flesh and blood. Were we not a Christian nation in 1953..?
looking at Central American History is just as recent…this is a few decades ago to establish the United Fruit Company so everyone could have bananas and oranges for breakfast. Nobody knows exactly how many people died, but several hundred thousand is an accepted figure. These were farmers killed to access their farms and lands in Central and upper South America. The people doing the killing were good Christian USA presidents and advisors.
The point is our Government is not going to act in good faith, regardless if its George W Bush or Barack Obama, its not going to happen. And it wont because American people cannot think critically and address core issues; following the money, who benefits from this action, what is the context of this action, what is the history of the region and its people, etc, etc.
Finding truth take work.
(Truth in Commenting; I am a Christian)
>“Christianity does not allow for co existence either, there is thousands of years history of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History.”
Bull.
What is not debatable is that political leaders start wars and sometimes use religion as part of their excuse; and religious disputes have been used as a cloak for political disputes. See the Albigensian Crusade, for instance, or the theological wrangling in the Byzantine Empire. However, the fact that States have forced people to convert to the State Religion (which happens in some cases to be Christianity) has nothing to do with the actual tenets of Christianity; it’s merely another avenue of political control.
If you actually read the New Testament, you’ll see it calls for you to love your neighbor, pray for those who abuse you, bless those who persecute you. By contrast, Islam calls for the Faithful to prosecute unrelenting war against the infidel, using deception and force. Pretending the two are equivalent is either a display of gross ignorance or a flat out lie.
HERE AT THE NATIONAL REVIEW!
More discussion on Lack of Separation of Powers and Unconstitutional Actions.
Alex: As long as we’re indulging ourselves in the comforts of presentism, we should probably throw in the bloodiness of Persians before they were Iranian, Aztec and Mayan butchery before those people were elevated to the status of victims of the West. As a Christian, surely you are familiar with the fallen state of man. Or is that still taught these days? Wear sackcloth and ash if you like, but the rest of us would just like to get on with our lives without the prospect of atrocity and slaughter by adherents of the religion of peace and tolerance.
“Christianity does not allow for co existence either,..”
It most certainly does. Christianty has built in flexibility, it has evolved over the centuries and is quite comfortable within a secular society. As a Christian, I have never been made to feel it is unexceptable to make close friendships with Jewish people, Buddists, Hindus, or anyone else, etc..I have never felt compelled to convert my agnostic/atheist friends and acquaitances. If they asked, I would tell them why I believed. Generations of American Christians have grown up with representations of other faiths in their lives.
” there is thousands of years history..”
Well, sure, but history is the key word here, as in the “dustbins of history”.
“… of slaughtering its competition or to conquer new lands in its name, this is not debatable, its History. ”
Although there are always exceptions to any rule, and Christians can be real pains in the neck like anyone else, that Old Testement stuff is a history of God’s introduction of Himself to mankind.Other than the Ten Commandments, very few folks are attempting to fulfill the dictates of the Old Testiment such as killing off those with differing beliefs. Once God caught man’s attention and displayed his seriousness, he forged a much more sophisticated relationship with man.
By the way,as an aside,how many stonings are found in Israel today ?
Anyhoo, this is not a competition of religions at all-not on Christianity’s part at least. It isn’t even about religion, it is about political ideology, secular society versus theocracy/totalitarianism- freedom from absolute governmental authority.
Since most of the blowing up of things is aimed against infidels , whether or not they worship sitting, standing or kneeling…perhaps it should be the War on Infidelity.
However, this would be immediately misinterpreted in Hollywood and in Bill Clinton’s, Tiger Woods’ and Mark Sanford’s houses and selective prosecution, so that title won’t do.
“Infidelicide” is a goal of Islamaniacs, but you couldn’t get this administration to adopt either concept, much less the words.
“Muslims Acting Out”, strikes just about the right tone, sort of a pre-adolescent tantrum in need of a time out, and the acronym MAO would do well in the Berkeley and Greenwich Village focus groups as well as with the Communications Department.
However, it would focus on just one religious group (Muslims)…and you never know when the Hopi or Inuit’s might blow up a plane, based upon their belief system careening off into some bizarre death cult… desiring to watch their own body parts being blown to bits around the globe.
So, we have to settle upon the winning finalist:
(Casus fortuitus non est sperandus, et nemo tenetur devinare. A fortuitous event is not to be foreseen, and no person is held bound to divine it.)
“Casus Fortuitus Crimen Innominatum” The crime unforseen with no name, for which nobody is to blame.
So you are one of them, eh? Everything is economics? Then why are you wasting your time on the subject of religion?
Did you ever hear of the concept of manifest destiny? If you have, you may love it or hate it. However, that and attacks by some of the stone-age aboriginees was the cause of the deaths and relocation of some of them and the cause of a vast improvement in opportunities for a better life for others. The improvements included medicine, dentistry, literacy, technology, and the products of industry.
1953??? Why stop there? The Romans overthrew the Greeks…that is why they at war with each other today, isn’t it? Oh and some of the Germanic, Frankish, etc peoples overthrew Rome. That is why there can never be a European Union.
Look, I’m not going to argue with a pacifist/leftist any further. It is a waste of time. Nobody knows that more than I. But ridicule, I will. It is much more fun.
Alex say: “The point is our Government is not going to act in good faith, regardless if its George W Bush or Barack Obama, its not going to happen. And it wont because American people cannot think critically and address core issues; following the money, who benefits from this action, what is the context of this action, what is the history of the region and its people, etc, etc.
Finding truth take work.”
You people out there, you thought Obama had audacity? Prince Alxie clearly states we are his inferiors. We don’t follow the money. He says, in the fashion of the Lone Ranger’s Tonto, “Finding truth take work.”
Yes, Kemosabe, it sure do.
Alex, much could be said in answer to your strained equivalence argument, but suffice to say for now there is this thing known as voting with your feet. It appears on the face of it that you have weighed the twin horrors of islam and Christianity and decided that, for whatever reasons, and I’m sure there is more than one, you will tough it out in a pluralistic, open society, largely framed by Christian practices, traditions, and teachings.
The strain must be awful I know, surrounded by millions bereft of your insights, your sure knowledge of the identical evils and shortcomings of these faiths, happy in their ignorance.
But you will find contentment in the moral objectivity and, I daresay,the superiority that you hold with appropriate modesty.
Please be patient with us.
Since most of the blowing up of things is aimed against infidels , whether or not they worship sitting, standing or kneeling…perhaps it should be the War on Infidelity.
However, this would be immediately misinterpreted in Hollywood and in Bill Clinton’s, Tiger Woods’ and Mark Sanford’s houses and as selective prosecution, so that title won’t do.
“Infidelicide” is a goal of Islamaniacs, but you couldn’t get this administration to adopt either concept, much less the words.
“Muslims Acting Out”, strikes just about the right tone for this administration, sort of a pre-adolescent tantrum in need of a time out, and the acronym MAO would do well in the Berkeley and Greenwich Village focus groups as well as with the Communications Department.
However, it would focus on just one religious group (Muslims)…and you never know when the Hopi or Inuit’s might blow up a plane, based upon their belief system careening off into some bizarre death cult… desiring to watch their own body parts being blown to bits around the globe.
So, we have to settle upon the winning finalist:
(Casus fortuitus non est sperandus, et nemo tenetur devinare. A fortuitous event is not to be foreseen, and no person is held bound to divine it.)
“Casus Fortuitus Crimen Innominatum” The crime unforseen with no name, for which nobody is to blame.
# 16 – That was a spoof right? You do know that the founder of Islam was a child molester don’t you?
War on Radical Islam? Perhaps we should take a closer look at Islam. Any Muslim practicing Islam (Believing in the Words of Mohammed in the Koran, Hadith and Sira) are instructed to conduct jihad against the kafirs (non-Muslim) and they KNOW that Allah HATES kafirs.
As a Muslim you MUST conduct jihad against the kafirs directly by killing them and/or subduing them or passively by supporting MUSLIM charities which contribute to the jihadis killing kafirs. A Muslim CAN NOT have a friend who is a kafir (non-Muslim).
Read the Koran, Hadith and Sira. Inshallah it is written. The problem is Islam and IslamoFascists are the soldiers doing the cleansing of kafirs from the earth. Until Islam is purged of the sociopathic tenets of Mohammed words there will be bloody jihad.
The other possible solution is to separate Western Civilization from the 15th Century Political System called Islam.
We are not in a war with islam, although the mullahs would like to be at war with us. And whether the president is Washington, Bush, Obama, or any random US citizen has no meaning.
In Iran the youth are drinking coca cola, wearing jeans, listening to western hip hop and rock. Same as youth everywhere. They are not our enemy regardless of religion. The western world and the US is sending out wave after wave of cultural WMD’s and these are doing their job. The Iranian mullahs run a dictatorship and have a puppet “president” to hold power. All of the middle eastern islamic countries have the same problem. Their youth wants to be western; their young females want to have jobs and get equal pay and wear jeans. This threatens the mullahs power. The mullahs are waging war against coca cola and hip hop — against cultural WMD’s — i.e. “liberal” western culture, which is the provider of same.
The western world threw off the yoke of the church having real power during the renaissance/enlightenment. The pope today has no more political power than a middling corporation. But the islamic world has yet to reach this stage. Religion and politics are one and the same as it was in 13th century Europe.
We have a war, sort of, that we’re not intending to wage, which is that of the mullahs etc warring against *us* via sending waves of suicidel religious fundamentalists at us. In Iran the mullahs are slowly losing their power. The more enlightened and the more western a country becomes, the less power the mullahs are able to wield.
George Bush was derided for Iraq, but he was correct: he was merely trading short term pain for a long term win. Westernising is the equivalent to de-fanging: it puts real power into the hands of the people, not the mullahs.
Roger L. Simon, you’re doing little more than whipping up frenzied bible thumpers here, apparently for your own wierd amusement. You should know better.
54. Pedrosito:
You do know that the founder of Islam was a child molester don’t you?
You must be a Catholic priest.
I disagree with Alex’s #17 perspective which states that “christianity oes not allow for co-exisence”. This is historically untrue, for the basic theme of the New Testament is collaboration.
My analysis of the emergence of Christianity as an ideology of collaboration with neighbors is that it emerged within the Roman settling of the Middle East, which transformed the economies from small tribal self-subsistence to interactive trading settlements.The theme of ‘love thy neighbor’ would be ideologically necessary at this time.
The separation of church and state within the West was a monumental achievement and has not been accomplished in the Islamic states.
I suggest that Islam emerged within a tribal nomadic economy whose land base was being theatened by the expansion of the early Christian/Roman agricultural settlements.
If you read the Qu’ran, it is primarily a tract about a 7thc economic and political tribal nomadic mode of life -and has little to do with religion, i.e., the metaphysical. As such, there is NO separation of church and state – and this means that the political and societal ideology is defined as religious dogma and unable to adapt to modern life.
I also point out to Alex #17 that the Islamic states were/are technologically uneduated, and although they wanted to sell their oil, they have lacked the technology to extract and process it. Therefore, left to themselves as Alex suggests, they would be without any industrialism, or any modern life…or indeed, any economy other than a peasant subsistence.
That is why the West moved in to that area, because the West has encouraged science, technological devt and the use of reason – whereas Islam rejects such and insists on mindless obedience to a 7th c. tribal mode of life.
We have to confront Islamism, reject its refusal to modernize, reject multiculturalism which allows its followers to isolate themselves among us..and insist that Muslims take charge of its ideology and modernize it.
AND – a key tactic in the fight against Islamism is democracy. Democracy empowers a middle class, who are independent individuals in control of their national economy. The current ME states are politically run as TRIBES – which reject a middle class and keep power in the hands of an elite group/tribe. This power vacuum is the root cause of Islamic fascism.
Unless one like Ivan the Terrible appears on our national leadership horizon, we as a nation are headed towards a Muslim victory. Those of you who have little use for any religion will likely find it easier by far to feign alegience to Allah than to die or submit to the outrageous lifestyle saved for those who refuse to convert. Others of you who follow Christ will have the choice to die, or convert, which, according to history, many less-committed Christians did.
My point is that we have crossed the line wherein we as a nation had a chance to stand against Islam. What remains is to consider how you (and/or your children) will deal with the inevitable.
Lord have mercy…. (or is this against the blog site rules to say?)
All of these valid criticisms about Islam will fall on deaf ears in the Muslim community. One reason why Islam will not have a reformation is that in the Muslim culture, there is continuous intermarriage between close relatives. Repeatedly we hear reports of marriage between first cousins. Since it’s incontrovertable that this practice leads to reduced IQ, the capacity for critical thinking is greatly deminished in the adherents to Islam. Additionally, those few who escape the odds and have a normal IQ level are not going to become Imams or other leaders in that cult.
It took about a week for the vacationing President to yak about the Yemen/Al Qaeda connection & phenomenon.
Did he think he was revealing something new to the average American of average intelligence ?
And (I can’t bear to read or hear about in any detail), the Christmas day crotchbomber has lawyered up, clammed up, been read his rights ?
…the “War on Ourselves.” It looks to be becoming dangerously successful
Mr. Brennan’s incoherent squirming in the face of Chris Wallace’s direct questioning would have been hilarious if the subject wasn’t so serious. Watching these twits dance around the reality we (The West) face has become a tiresome routine. It’s as if “Alex” were in charge. The WTF meter broke its needle a long time ago.
May The Once have all the time in the world to snorkle away retirement without interruption. Soon the adolescent house party will begin breaking up and eventually the adults will come home to start cleaning it all up…again. “Sorry about the mess, Mrs. Palin.”
What really needs to happen is that we ultimately MUST offend ordinary muslims (by profiling, etc.).
After all, their silence in the face of every terrorist attack, or attempted attack, is complicity and tacit approval.
Maybe when it starts affecting their lives will they speak out.
Random thought: American Muslim’s comment (#16) also works pretty well if you replace “Muslim” and “Islam” with “MRSA.”
Could we also state that “political correctness” has been invented to weaken America, to subvert Freedom, to impose totalitarianism ?
Could we also state that the politicians who “don’t want to see” the worldwide threat posed by radical islam would like to see the end of America’s power ?
Could we also state that those politicians who are multiplying by four the federal deficit are cutting the budget for strategically important weapons ?
Random thought: American Muslim’s comment (#16) also works pretty well if you replace “Muslim” and “Islam” with “MRSA.”
American Muslim needs to understand that the Angel Gabriel’s impartations to Mohammed (PBUH) in the cave constituted very user friendly advice for someone enthralled with marauding & womanizing.
The (earlier) Mecca impartations were more “spiritual” in tone, but the (later) Medina impartations were hard core practical.
Why, one of the Sura grants Mohammed (PBUH) permission to have sexual relations with his foster (sometimes referred to as “adopted”) son’s wife.
Shari’a is equally user friendly in tone & configuration.
The notion that any entity purporting to be God would order the mujahideen (those “lions of monotheism”!) to slaughter nasty unbelievers who didn’t subscribe ?
Pure bunk.
#57 Now and Then say: I am But, But, But, But, But::
No, you are not But, But, But, But, But, you are NAT. Let me tell you something, NAT. After posting a series of comments that the good bloggers of the internet allow me to post, I always have a few letters left over. Today I have a few gs left over. I hate to waste them, so I am going to use them on your former screen name like this: gNAT. That is what you remind me of, a little insecto that makes a tiny sound and is useful only for it’s annoyance factor. But I love you for it, you sly trickster you.
As to your so-called comment at 57, gNAT, I must ask you if you have seen any blogs about Brit Hume making fun of and satirizing religious intolerance like yours yesterday? Quite funny. The moonbats are biting themselves in the back of the neck over it.
The real radical Muslims are the peaceful, pluralistic ones. They are the ones straying from Islamic teachings. We are not fighting Radical Islam, but plain old Islam. Radical Muslims should be given support; they are our allies.
Could we also state that the politicians who “don’t want to see” the worldwide threat posed by radical islam would like to see the end of America’s power ?
Yes, we’ve agreed many times that America’s domestic subversives (cf. many of the crowd currently running things in DC) are on the same philosophical page as radical Islamic extremists when it comes to bringing America down to size.
For the most glaring example, see this President’s sundry apology tours and repeated expressions of respect for and obeisance to Izz-lam.
He’d really (really !) like to sell his now twice repeated notion (his initial response to both Ft. Hood and the Xmas day bomber) that those guys are in the same category as a lone wacko going postal.
Unfortunately, the facts aren’t supporting Obama’s preferred narrative.
#3 Nails it.
Mr. Simon, your continual use of “Radical Islam” points to the fact that, in truth, “man-caused disaster” is not a double but a TRIPLE-euphamism, and even you are displaying that even you “fear to offend”, as you put it.
When even the Right uses euphamisms when decrying euphamisms, what hope can we possibly have?
Jonathan Cohn is your typical Harvard educated Progressive following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt. He denies it, but in his heart of hearts he desires to be one of our benevolent dictators. Cohn is not a nasty guy. He is likely very nice to little puppies and stray cats. I suspect he is fairly charming and amiable in person—and this is what makes individuals like him so destructive. They perceive themselves as warm, kind, and well educated. We should appreciate their power grab of our health services. After all, don’t they mean well? Aren’t Cohn and his buddies among the best and the brightest? And why in heaven’s name should they listen to any of the common folk? These humble souls probably never walked the corridors of any Ivy League school. Cohn is a wonderful human being doing the rest of us a favor.
Barack Obama, Jonathon Cohn, and the entire Democratic Party establishment are indifferent toward cost overruns and other problems associated with government run health services. They simply refuse to truly pay attention to such minor details. It gets so boring. These are merely minor glitches that will eventually be resolved in the future. The main thing is to currently seize power. Yes, they are that arrogant. One is often better off confronting a burglar or pickpocket intentionally trying to harm them. The altruistic and brilliant elites can be far more dangerous.
The truth is , this should be a war against Islam. The Radical Muslims are really the muslims that are not practicing real Islam. As they say I’ve met moderate muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
Similarly, if we embrace the idea that moderate Islam is the cure for extremist Islam, we will have to carry out a cultural peace process, in which we strive to build up the “moderate” Muslims (whether in our own country or in the Mideast) and turn them into leaders of the Islamic community. The path is filled with punji traps. In light of [Daniel] Pipes’s desolating observation that we often cannot even tell a moderate from a radical, our efforts to raise the influence of “moderate” Muslims–many of whom will turn out not to be moderate–will simply mean giving Muslims qua Muslims more cache and power in our society, with their demands and perhaps their threats ever increasing, while we get more and more entangled in the process of instructing, exhorting, bribing, and (maybe) changing them, even as we keep desperately assuring ourselves that moderate Muslim solution will work in the long run.
Because the search for moderate Muslims requires us not to see the other side as it really is, we must replace truthful speech with politically correct slogans that demoralize us and encourage our enemies. For example, almost every time Pipes criticizes radical Muslims, he must–in order to prove that he’s not a bigot and that he still believes in an ecumenic resolution–assure his audience that “moderate Islam is the answer.” Varieties of this double message, repeated constantly by the government and the intelligentsia, create deep confusion and ambivalence in the public mind. On one hand we’re being told that radical Muslims are a remorseless wicked enemy; on the other hand, we’re being told that almost all Muslims are moderate and harmless, and that we are bigoted if we think otherwise. The net effect of these two contradictory statements is to establish the unassailable legitimacy of Islam in our country. But, since there is no moderate Islam, the Islam that gets legitimized will, inevitably, be radical Islam.
The cultural peace process would distract and weaken us in other ways. Instead of spending our energy building up our own society and culture, which is within our power to do, we would be attempting to build up the Muslims’ society and culture, which is not within our power to do. We would be gambling our freedom and survival on the chance that we can bring something into existence that has never existed. We would be making our safety contingent on whether the moderate Muslims can be what we want them to be. We would keep gazing expectantly at each Muslim as a potential moderate, and averting our eyes when he turned out not to be one–just as the leaders of Israel and the U.S. kept closing their eyes to the real nature of the Palestinians for all those years and are closing them still. We would have to keep refusing to acknowledge failure, because that would wreck our fantasy of an ecumenic and peaceful world. Regardless of all disappointments, we will still keep telling ourselves that some wonderful “moderates” are just around the corner and that we have to reach out to them.
In the end, our refusal to face the truth about Muslims, our flattery of non-moderate Moslems as “moderates,” will convince them that we are saps lacking the wit and will to defend ourselves, which will increase their aggression against us. Like the Marxist dream with its 150 years on the road to nowhere, our dream of a moderate Islam will inevitably collapse one day, and the price might be nearly as high.
#16. American Muslim, you fail to understand some basic facts. Primarily, the fact of the US population being armed. Mohammad’s conquests were against unarmed persons and they had no means of communicating the fact of an attack to other citizens. The rules have changed.
Our country’s in the very best of hands.
Post 70 is in the wrong place. Please ignore. Sorry about that.
We can all be confident that this administration is on the right track. The nominee to head the TSA has many fewer infractions against him than many others who have been nominated, even though, by any standards, some of them are felonies. Have faith: the list of felonious candidates has to be getting shorter, so by the end of his current term, Obama will probably have run out of criminals to offer-up for appointments.
This should give us all confidence that our country will be safer in 3 to 5 years, so, in the meantime be sure to arm yourself against jihadists coming to a neighborhood near you.
On one hand we’re being told that radical Muslims are a remorseless wicked enemy; on the other hand, we’re being told that almost all Muslims are moderate and harmless, and that we are bigoted if we think otherwise. The net effect of these two contradictory statements is to establish the unassailable legitimacy of Islam in our country. But, since there is no moderate Islam, the Islam that gets legitimized will, inevitably, be radical Islam.
I have no dilemma about radical, moderate whatever, and am no longer interested in attempting to parse who is what, or whom.
The determined individuals (see, for example, Anjem Choudary currently at the head of radical Islam’s objective to take over Britain) will overwhelm and minimize & intimidate the moderates, simply by dint of sheer force.
While the IKHWAN outlined its intent for North America almost 20 years ago.
From the IKHWAN handbook, 1991:
4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level
of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
#77 Clear Mind
Now that’s funny !
the list of felonious candidates has to be getting shorter, so by the end of his current term, Obama will probably have run out of criminals to offer-up for appointments.
It was just a glimpse of a trailer,
so I may be wrong, but I think I saw
a wabbit, pursued by a Mat Hatter armed
with a riot gun, in the new “Alice…”
A glimpse of a future in which an
apocalyptic fundamentalist fanatic
uses a weapon of mass destruction
is a sight I would rather not see;
How about you ?
And since there is no war without cultural war,
let’s not forget that the “god” of islam is the same sheer NOTHING of the atheists.
God is Infinite Love. Whoever denies this is an atheist and a nihilist.
No trace of a God Who Is Infinite Love in islam.
I apologize for repeating my arguments, but we need to be a bit more aggressive in our stance against the murderers.
#80 M. Report
Dontch’ya worry.
Janet “the system worked” Napolitano is carefully keeping nukes and chemical/bacteriological weapons away from the hands of people like me who don’t even know how many Bibles, Avatamsaka Sutras and other Sacred Books have in their homes.
Everything will be OK.
I have seen that Obama hugs chavez who hugs amahdinejad, so we are in a circle of love.
This all might be comical, if untold lives were not at stake (who knows what the radicals might attempt and succeed at). It is true that these things could have happened under Bush’s watch, but at least he tried to do everything within his power to prevent these “man caused-disasters” (isn’t that what Global Warming is?). And he seemed to do a pretty good job.
Last thought, since September 11 2001, Islam’s alleged moderates haven’t been vociferous and insistent enough in condemning their criminal brethern’s fixation on the Koran’s bellicose passages.
I suspect that fear and, perhaps, even some closet admiration verging on agreement play a part in their failure to vehemently call out the insane agenda of Islam’s radical adherents.
(over and out)
The enemy is not radical Islam. The enemy is Islam. But keep making those subtle distinctions. They’re sooo helpful.
The Obamanoughts fail the most basic lesson of Sun Tzu’s counsel: Know thy enemy. Indeed, they dare not even speak his name.
But they DO know their enemy, and he is us!
In my opinion, even War on “Radical” Islam is not completely defining. It would be more appropriate to describe it as a War on “orthodox” Islam.
It’s the Jihad, stupid!
A more precise description of our War on Radical Islam would be a war on Extreme Orthodox Islam
Buried in the tortured logic of this editorial and the comments that follow is a grain of truth. The “War on Terror” initiated by Bush & Co was from the start a “War on Ourselves”.
How else could one explain the strateg(er)y employed? Illegal wiretaps, torture, pre-emptive war, defunding the federal government; it should have been obvious from the start. The “War on Terror”, much like the “War on Drugs”, is actually the premise on which has been built a totalitarian vision of America.
What everyone seems to be overlooking is the initial impetus behind the violence. We were not being repeatedly bombed and attacked by jihadis until we inserted ourselves into their political, cultural and military zone of influence.
It was only in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, when it became clear that the USA would be maintaining a robust military presence in the region, that bombings and attacks ramped up against domestic targets in America. As Osama bin Laden made explicit, it was our ongoing presence in Saudi Arabia that led to the ongoing violence we face at home and abroad.
Would we behave any differently if similarly treated? Probably not. It is entirely normal and correct for a people to rise up and resist the occupation of their land by foreign powers. That’s how our country started, in case you had forgotten.
The solution is not to widen the conflict by declaring war against a religion or a people – the solution is to remove ourselves from the role of occupier, by withdrawing our forces from the Middle East. By committing to just this course of action, Obama has begun the process that will eventually defuse and diminish the threat of violence against Americans at home and abroad.
Moreover, he has also begun the process of rolling back the “War on Ourselves” that Bush & Co began in earnest after 9/11/01. No more torture, no more wiretaps, and no more tax cuts for the wealthy. Back to moral and fiscal sanity. The alternative, as can be clearly seen from the commentary above, is endless and ever-escalating conflict, that will eventually grow beyond anyone’s ability to manage. Better to break the cycle now, while the consequences are acceptable and limited.
Peace.
DS
Blame Bush!
Peace!
Yes David, peace. Through victory.
Another eupehmism: Police Action: The Korean War.
Of course the radical Islamists use terror tactics – they can’t put together infantry regiments, armor brigades, fighter squadrons, and cruiser divisions. So they use terror-tactics.
Of course, if the terror tactics are highly successful – with large casualties in a short period of time – then those who can put together fighter squadrons, etc, can resort to terror tactics themselves and rack up even more impressive casualty figures in an even shorter span of time.
@ David S:
Moslem political, cultural and
military zone of influence.
Is that anything like the
“Greater South East Asia
Co-prosperity Sphere ?”
Or the “Sanctuaries” used
by the North Koreans, and
the North Vietnamese ?
Nothing like giving one’s
enemy a sanctuary, _If_
one wishes to lose the war.
Nothing like this war has ever
been seen before; Wait long
enough, and the Terrorists will
obtain, and use, weapons which
will destroy our civilization.
#16-American Muslim…Screw Allah!
#91-Peace pussy…Bush & Co.? Are you serious? I see you’re still loading up on the “let’s blame Bush” meme. What a good little foot soldier you are for dkos. As effective as that strategy was during the last two election cycles, it’s Obama working the joystick now. How many people did his drones kill this week? I’m actually shocked! I didn’t think he had it in him. I’ll bet you’re panties are pretty well bunched though, eh! Peace? Far Out, Solid, Right On, and…Groovy! What a dork!
Understand the crystal clear prime directive of Islam (not ‘radical’ Islam):
Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’” – Bukhari (8:387)
Fight what people?
Fight them where?
Fight them how long?
Understand Islam’s methodology:
Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said: “I have been made victorious with terror” – Bukhari (52:220)
Understand Islam’s mandate to all Muslims, the highest morality in Islam:
“Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet Muhammed) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…” – Muslim (1:149)
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR. Plain and simple.
~ The Infidel Alliance
“The difference is, we [Christianity] got over it. Islam never has.”
The difference between Christianity and Islam that is at issue here can be summarized as “Jesus said go forth and preach to the whole world. Muhammad said make war upon the whole world.”
Most Muslims may not be violent jihadists, but only a miniscule number of those “moderate” Muslims (both in Muslim-majority nations and in the West) are willing to take a public stand on behalf of non-Muslims oppressed by Muslims. Thus, there is still very little reason to believe that in the existence of a peaceful and tolerant Islam.
I propose we call this war the War on our Enemies. Or to be wordier: War on those who wage war on us.
I realize that this is very un-PC and is bound to offend some people; I apologize in advance.
I have not seen it noted elsewhere that “man-caused” is a synonym of “anthropogenic”, at least not noted in the sense that changing the language was not merely intended to reduce the focus on the war on radical Islam (war on terror), but also turn all the mechanisms devoted to waging that war in a different direction. It seems plausible to me that this administration was intending to shift resources devoted to the war on terror (“anthropogenic disasters” in Secretary Napolitano’s parlance) to climate change projects that were a cover for a statist takeover of our national institutions. In the view of the liberal/progressive/statist, conservatives (“global warming deniers”) are more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. I am pleased that Secretary Napolitano’s recent abysmal performance has dovetailed with the November exposure of the climate change/global warming fraud to derail this possibility.
#3 Terry hit the nail on the head, but nobody then points out that Roger Simon himself refuses to name the enemy. In fact like a liberal he won’t call a spade a spade, speaking of radical Islam as if is distinct from Islam which is thus a RoP, at least Simon implies as much. Simon’s piece is classic liberalism then, the terrorists have hijacked the RoP and commit terror in the name of what is otherwise a decent religion, when in fact they are merely being true to their religion and the example of Mohammed.
Simon then is employing the euphemism of radical Islam for Islam, he’s no better than the liberals in denial. talk about being full of it. If Simon represents clear-headed conservatism on Islam God help us – we are doomed.
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot/?p=47
Well Excuse Me but did I hear the word WAR, a definable legal concept with rules and regulations engraved in law? There are NO WARS currently LEGALLY waged according to US Laws and therefore WAR POWERS and WAR FUNDS appear used ILLEGALLY by CONGRESS, the EXECUTIVE and the COURTS. A President can declare a war in an Emergency but then at the next convening of Congress, the Congress must OFFICIALLY DECLARE LEGAL WAR on the enemy. Remember it has to be a real Enemy, usually one with country, airforce, nukes, etc. not a WAR on a WORD – TERROR – that is a war tactic. At the next meeting of Congress if Congress does not DECLARE LEGAL OFFICIAL WAR NO WAR FUNDS OR WAR POWERS CAN BE USED legally forward. Sure you can call it an insurgency or occupation or covert action, usually illegally but different rules apply to these, but those powers are limited and the funds usually secret, etc…
To violate the LAWS OF WAGING WAR, is to COMMIT TROOPS ILLEGALLY and steal WAR FUNDS illegally and KILL SOLDIERS ILLEGALLY and TORTURE PEOPLE ILLEGALLY and WAG WAR ILLEGALLY! No small abrogation of LAW, major crimes falling under the absolute definition of TREASON and SEDITION, we can hang ya for these crimes. Eventually, when this coup on country by our leaders is defeated, these WAR CRIMINALS WILL ALL BE TRIED TOO, including all those TWO FACED LYING POLITICIANS who voted to give WAR POWERS and FUNDS ILLEGALLY, sacrifice the LIVES OF SOLDIERS in false WARS, sacrifice the LIVES of the VICTIMS of our WAR CRIMES against their countries and STOLE the FUNDS to finance these CRIMES ILLEGALLY. Good riddance to all in Congress Repub or Dem who aided and abetted the ILLEGAL WARS GRANTING ILLEGAL WAR POWERS that have led to WAR CRIMES.
As our leader parade around, scaring you about WAR from TERRORISTS, to hide their crimes through fear mongering and misnomers like WAR and PATRIOT ACT, they all commit war crimes, except the few lone wolves in Congress who voted against the WAR CRIMES, say Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, and ??? What are we the PEOPLE to DO when the GOVERNMENT is committing CRIMES in our, the PEOPLES names? We the People are then compelled by the Constitution to bear arms and form militias to beat them out of office, if voting them out does not work due to voter fraud. Hijacking the vote already occurred like when the country went to Hell in a Bucket, when the Supreme Idiots voted the biggest loser President Bush into power by a 5-4 vote. At that moment in history we witnessed and did not PROTEST the usurping of our Democracy and they picked a DECIDER who was a DECIDEDLY EVIL GUY AND A WAR CRIMINAL. With this SUPREME TREASON to usurp the People Vote, went the very word Democracy and to fix the country we will need to reboot the country to that point and remove any one that Bush appointed, as his crown was gained illegally by voter FRAUD committed by the Supreme Court Justice, the 5 that appointed him. Prescott Bush should be proud of his grandson, Prescott’s companies seized for trading with the ENEMY HITLER in WORLD WAR II, leading to the death of many US Soldiers, his grandson followed well in his footsteps.
#91 Thanks David S. This is the first reasonable statement of yours that I have seen. David S say: “It was only in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, when it became clear that the USA would be maintaining a robust military presence in the region, that bombings and attacks ramped up against domestic targets in America.”
So David S blames Saddam for recent terrorist acts because Saddam attacked his neighbor, Kuwait, in an effort to subjugate it. The result was the first Gulf War, as he says. I don’t really agree with his opinion but it should give David hope, as well as change. Why? Because Bush (the first) had the wisdom and courage to attack Saddam and run his by then ragged dregs of an army back into Iraq. And, David S, Saddam? You won’t see him no more (H/T The Godfather).
A refutation of David S’s goofy theory, see #100 & #91.
The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)
The first significant and prolonged US military presence in the region of Muslim lands: “During the Second World War, the North African Campaign took place in North Africa from 10 June 1940 to 16 May 1943. It included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts (Western Desert Campaign also known as the Desert War) and in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch) and Tunisia (Tunisia Campaign).” From Wiki.
Terrorist attacks 20 years after this “robust” presence = 0.
” It is entirely normal and correct for a people to rise up and resist the occupation of their land by foreign powers. ”
Wackos keep saying this, without any regard for reality.
Japan, Germany, Korea, Austria, Italy…
Go there, David S. Learn a Lesson Of History. It is entirely normal for people to accept a robust US military presence when necessary, and decades later, their nation is generally much more prosperous because of it.
Even in Iraq. Kurdistan is the most “Accepting” area of Iraq regarding US forces. The Kurds are not attacking us, and have not. They do not want us out.
Kurdistan is safer and more proseperous than other areas of Iraq. You can actually visit Kurdistan as a tourist without an escort of security guards.
This is reality, and it is not coincidence.
Even we Americans accepted foreign troops on our soil when it was a good thing. Lafayette? We have streets and towns named after him. After 9-11, European and Canadian NATO crews guarded our skies in NATO AWACs aircraft- and these aircraft were registered in Luxembourg!
Yeah, remember the intense anti-Luxembourg hatred after that? Me neither. Funny.
Summary: Smart people are capable of discerning when the presence of foreign troops is positive, and in such cases they accept it. Stupid people make blanket ” foreign military presence = bad” assumptions without further consideration. Nations with smart people prosper.
103@Fred Beloit
Actually Bush Sr. approved Saddam’s Kuwait invasion, then betrayed him. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil using sideways drilling. The State Dept. drummed up a fake story about incubator babies in Kuwait, employing the US Ambassador’s daughter.
How do people like Eliot get up in the morning and successfully tie shoes, take dumps, and exist in human company?
So this should more politically-correctly be called the “War on Man-Caused Disasters.” Makes me think we should look at our military options for such events as the AOL/Time Warner deal, the Burg Dubai and Obama’s decision not to pursue oil/gas development or nuke power.
@104. Fred Beloit:
A refutation of David S’s goofy theory, see #100 & #91.
You can’t refute something by offering arguments that support the premise.
The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)
How convenient that you ignore the topic at hand – namely, the ongoing presence of US troops long after “combat operations” were concluded. That’s an occupation, and one that was objectionable to the people of the region. It went on for more than twelve years after combat ended, and was replaced by the wholesale occupation of Iraq, which has been at least equally objectionable to the people of the region.
The first significant and prolonged US military presence in the region of Muslim lands: “During the Second World War, the North African Campaign took place in North Africa from 10 June 1940 to 16 May 1943. It included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts (Western Desert Campaign also known as the Desert War) and in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch) and Tunisia (Tunisia Campaign).”
In case you didn’t notice, these forces were not attacking the locals – they were fighting another occupying force of outsiders. Moreover, they left when the combat ended, not taking on the role of long term occupation. The situations are not even remotely comparable. If you want a better example, look at Israel. There is another situation where land has been occupied, and there has been ongoing terror and violence related to the occupation.
If the USA had actually left the region after the first Gulf War, much of the recent bloodshed on both sides could have been prevented. But that would not have served the interests of military contractors and petroleum companies that bankroll the GOP. Follow the money and it is quite clear who has been winning this war – and it’s not the citizens at large of either the USA or the Middle East – it’s the corporate cronies of Bush & Co who reaped billions in no-bid contracts, and who will no doubt bankroll yet another round of GOP hawks running for the right to bomb Iran.
Peace.
DS
#106 Hootchie Kootchie say: “Actually Bush Sr. approved Saddam’s Kuwait invasion, then betrayed him. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil using sideways drilling.”
Sorry, Mr Kootchie, I will need reliable sources for these claims of yours. You have been unreliable in the past. You seem to have a different grasp of history from the rest of the world. How about a letter from Bush to Saddam approving the attack on Kuwait? A telephone recording? Maybe a video?
@27 Code Blue: “to expound on Sun Tzu, we do not know our enemy. We do not know ourselves (schools demonize American history and traditions in favor of teaching balkanized multiculti PC psychobabble). We will lose every war.”
effin excellent.
schools demonize American history and traditions in favor of teaching balkanized multiculti PC psychobabble
I’m stealing that.
110@Fred Beloit
What do you do with these links, Fred? Hide them under your bed? Sharpen your denial skills? Hint: Google is your friend.