why the grown ups need to be in charge
The thing that separates the political left so drastically from the right is their incredible denial that radical Islam poses a threat to our survival. Some even go so far to suggest that we are the aggressors in this conflict and the Islamofacists are somehow the victims. It's our fault due to "oppressive" and "imperialistic" foreign policy that has filled these humble and reverent people with righteous indignation leading to frustrated violence. If we just capitulated more enthusiastically, all would be well. This propagandist tripe plays right into the schemes of those who don't view us through the lens of geo-politics, but theology. A reasonable question to ask is, was American foreign policy at fault when Muslim armies invaded Europe in the early 8th century?Among the Democrat presidential field there appears a mad dash to be the most amorous towards the enemy. The vapid and intellectually bankrupt John Edwards has gone as far to say that the "war on terror" is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan and isn't really happening as the administration claims. We don't need war, we need a "conversation", they say. Bleh. Following last weeks terror acts in the UK the only sound emanating from the Dems was crickets chirping. Conversation... not so much.
Read this article penned by a man who was once a terrorist and confirms that which the left wishes to deny. The left's entire paradigm is based in an alternate reality and this guy proves it.
And fascinatingly, it's not a bunch of ignorant, folk Islam, yokels behind the most recent terrorist plots exposed, but doctors!
Our enemy is at war, and we need to be too.
(pay attention this weekend: 7-7-07)
Labels: islamofacism, politics, the city of man, war
posted by Anonymous at
5:41 AM
4 Comments:
Why can't it be both, though? Islam is at war with the "Christian" West. Always has been; always will be. We have to recognize that.
At the same time, though, Islamists have to pick their targets carefully. They do not generally attack "the West", they attack the nations perceived to be at the forefront of interering in the Muslim world. And we do interfere in all parts of the world, and our doing so is hardly a 'conservative' foreign policy in any traditional sense (what other sense can their be?) of "conservative."
There are monsters in the world. True. We did not create them. But we invited them to attack OUR house by going over to monsterland and throwing our weight around. There is a reason they attack US, and not (generally) Sweden.
Also, there IS something of the golden rule that applies here, I think. Even if they are a bunch of crazed Islamo-fascists who are going to hate us no matter what; they are also human beings and it is basic human nature to chafe at imperial control. If we want to be the superpower in the world, and to exercise our power in political contexts far away from our own border, then we are acting like an empire. A benevolent empire, perhaps; but the people in the colonies don't make such distinctions and never have. (And neither would we, if the shoe were on the other foot). Bottom line is if you're going to act like an empire then you can't be surprised when people throw rocks.
But, at the same time, we have to recognize that the rock-throwers are evil, that they would still hate us even for our perceived westernism even if they weren't throwing rocks and evne if we weren't involved in an 'involved' foreign policy. It's not either-or. It's both. They hate us no matter what, and we have egged them on.
By
Holla, at 7:09 AM
Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad, but I reject entirely the notion "we invited them to attack our house". As soon as multi-media informed the backwater corners of the world that we existed, we became their enemy.
By
Anonymous, at 10:25 AM
An enemy they were going to actively try to attack on its own soil, though? Or just an "evil" civilization that really needs to submit to Sharia and one day will do so, may Allah be praised? There is a big difference b/w the two sentiments, but both of them involve us being an 'enemy' in their eyes.
And, again, I understand why you are chafing at my claim that we "invited" them to our house, but remember the context in which I am making that claim and my point about the Golden Rule. If, say, China played a heavy-handed role in our political affairs, we would resent it, right? We would resent it no matter how benign China's intentions actually were, and even if we became convinced that China's intentions were benign we would still say something like "we don't want your do-gooding over here."
None of this justifies terrorism--i.e. attacking non-combatant civilians. Of course not, may it never be! But it does help explain WHY the evil terrorists are attacking us. And it is not simply because we are "Christian," or, even more unbelievably, because we are "free."
Does this make more sense?
By
Holla, at 5:07 AM
I get what your saying, but I think you are erring in your chronology of causality. Sure I would resent somebody who was mucking around in our affairs. But we are only mucking around in their affairs because of the manifold dangers they have presented us for some time.
Sure the hornets get mad when you try and take down their nest, but that isn't a good reason to leave it in eaves overhanging the yard where your children play.
There is a problem with your application of the Golden Rule in this circumstance. I'll let you tell me what I think it is though.
By
Anonymous, at 2:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home