|
The Right Wing Thought Police!
I have been surfing through the blog roll this week, checking out the latest
posts from bloggers I visit less often than the usual suspects. This was mostly
inspired by the fact that the Blogdom of God alliance blog roll is back up
and working, thanks to diligent effort by
N.Z. Bear, who runs the blog
Ecosystem.
One of the overseas bloggers I like to read is
Dr. Adrian Warnock's blog. Dr.
Warnock set up the
Blogdom of God alliance in response to a comment thread on Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost in which
I took part. So, I visit Dr. Warnock's blog on a fairly regular basis, but
not usually every day. While the Blogdom of God blog roll was down, I didn't
visit his blog for quite a while - mostly just laziness on my part, since I tend
to get to his blog by linking to it from the Blogdom of God blog roll on my
site.
When I finally did visit his site, I was intrigued by a post by Dr. Warnock
that was an excerpt from a post by Dan of "Dan on Everything" called "Is History Repeating Itself,"
so I went and read the original.
I hadn't ever seen "Dan on Everything" before, so I wasn't sure what to
expect, having no inkling whatsoever of his political leanings. In fact, I knew
nothing whatsoever about Dan, except that I presumed he was a Christian, since
Dr. Warnock had linked to his site.
Well, let me just say that the post led to a "lively exchange" of views on
how to deal with terrorism, Iraq, Israel and extreme Islam.
Dan, apparently, believes that the root cause of terrorism is that the
Western democracies, most especially the United States, have taken advantage of
and repressed the people of the Middle East, not dealt fairly with the
Palestinians (siding always with Israel), and have fostered and encouraged
terrorism by responding forcefully when attacked. Dan's views (if I have
represented and understood them correctly) are fairly standard amongst those on the
left side of the political spectrum. In my view, they place the responsibility for ending
terrorism on the shoulders of those that have been victims of terrorism,
excusing the horrific actions of extremists by essentially arguing that if we
had somehow just treated them better, the terrorists wouldn't have attacked and
brutalized their victims.
It's the standard appeasement argument. In Dan's own words: "The bottom line
is that you can’t win a war against an idea. No matter how horrible it is.
You’ll just make it stronger." And later he says, "Finally, as you asked, my
solution to the terrorism problem would be based primarily on finding some
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Any military action against rouge
states would require the approval of the UN, as that is the only international
body that can confer legitimacy on such things. I would also try to change the
way the WTO, World Bank and the IMF operate so that poorer countries got a
better deal thereby enabling more people to get out of the poverty that so often
drives them to extremism. Following on from all that, I would seek to reduce our
dependence on oil so that foreign policy in the region did not have the
potential for conflicting priorities."
Now I don't have any animosity toward Dan, whatsoever. At least he is honest
about his position and isn't afraid to back it with actual (if, in my opinion,
flawed) reasoning, unlike so many on the left, who tend to use ad hominem
attacks and obfuscation of their true beliefs and motives. I'm not going to
disparage Dan personally in any way. He seems like a decent person, sincere in
what he believes.
So, I'll deal strictly with appeasement (being more fair, dealing equitably,
whatever you want to call it) as a solution. As I see it, the real problem with
the appeasement argument is that it really solves nothing. It amounts to "let's
all just be nicer to each other."
Those that hold to appeasement as the solution believe:
- If the Israelis are nice to the Palestinians, then the Palestinians
won't attack the Israelis.
What do the Palestinians say about this? Well, this is what they say:
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the
international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all
contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism
of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement
educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of
Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad..." That's from the
Charter
of Hamas. It lays out the purposes, methods and strategies of the
Islamic Resistance Movement (usually known as Hamas). If you think that if
Israel would only be reasonable the conflict with the Palestinians would
end, you ought to read what Hamas really wants and thinks. It's quite
enlightening - and quite frightening, as well.
- The United Nations ought to be the final arbiter of all military
actions.
Where to even start on this? Well, how about with "UNSCAM." It appears that millions,
perhaps even billions, of dollars were siphoned off of the United Nations
Oil For Food program, directly into Saddam Hussein's personal funds and used
for building ever more elaborate palaces for his personal use and the use of
his sons and cronies. Some of the money
may even be funding
the current terrorism in Iraq. The United Nations had a financial
interest, the full magnitude of which is still not completely known, in
keeping Saddam Hussein in power. So did France, Germany and Russia, who
stood to lose billions of dollars in oil and weapons contracts. Yes, it was
all about oil - for those opposing the war! The United Nations is a
human institution, and like any human institution is liable to greed and
corruption. France and Russia both have veto power on the United Nations
Security Council, and are determined to oppose the United States. Trusting
our national defense to those with no interest in ensuring it is just plain
ridiculous.
- Opposing terrorism with force just breeds more terrorists.
If that were true, you'd think the Iraqis, of all people, would agree.
So how about it? How are the Iraqis responding to terrorism? Like this: "Allawi creates anti-terror force."
The Iraqis understand that you must actively oppose terrorism, unless you
would rather just accede to the terrorist's demands. Personally, I don't
think my wife would agree to
wearing a chador in public.
What I don't understand about this argument is just how terrorists should be
opposed, if not by force. Should we start a letter-writing campaign, in
hopes of convincing the terrorists by the enormous amount of mail they get
not to blow us up? Perhaps we should pass
United
Nations resolutions saying that blowing people up is a really bad thing to
do. If we do that the terrorists are sure to stop, since they have
such great respect for the U.N., right?
Dealing with terrorism as a law-enforcement problem and trying to appease the
terrorists is how approximately 3,000 people ended up being killed on September
11, 2001. Osama bin Laden said himself that he saw the United States as a weak
power that only needed a little push before it withdrew from the Middle East
completely (from
a February 5,
2002 article on CNN.com):
| Bin Laden cited the Soviet debacle in
Afghanistan and the United States' failed 1993 mission in Somalia as
examples to suggest a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan was within reach.
"We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help
of God, and is even easier for us -- God permitting -- than the
defeat of the Soviet Union was before."
In Somalia, U.S. forces pulled out after 18 U.S. special
operations personnel were killed during a raid against a warlord
faction in the capital Mogadishu.
"Our brothers with Somali mujahedeen and God's power fought the
Americans. God granted them victory. America exited dragging its
tails in failure, defeat, and ruin," bin Laden said. |
Fortunately, bin Laden underestimated the response of the United States to
the 9/11 attacks. George W. Bush understood that we could no longer deal with
terrorism as a law enforcement issue. The continued attacks against Americans
and American interests over a period of more than twenty years, culminated by a
massive attack on American soil, finally required a military response.
I believe that there are many on the left (I used to be relatively left-wing
myself), that are good-hearted people. They are, in essence, idealists, who tend
to view the world as they would like it to be, rather than how it actually is.
They see violence as horrible and war as failure. As I Christian, I believe they
are absolutely right about that. But as I've gotten older, and hopefully a
little wiser, I've come to realize that there are situations that require us to
act in ways we would prefer not to act, in order to prevent a greater evil. The
war against terror, in my opinion, is one of those situations. It is no doubt
true, as Dan maintains, that opposing terror with force causes some number of
people to actively oppose us that otherwise wouldn't. I maintain that the actual
number of such people is not knowable, but it is probably not as large a number
as Dan thinks. I also maintain, as I've argued here, that we really don't have
any choice but to resist, unless we just accede to all of the terrorist's
demands - leading to the destruction of our way of life and the murder of all
Jews, everywhere. Because, ultimately, that's what they want:
Saudi professor Nasser Bin Suleiman Al-Omar, who runs
a large Islamic internet website, www.almoslim.net ,
appeared on Al-Majd, on June 13, 2004, to discuss the
approaching collapse of the U.S. and the growing strength of
Muslims within the U.S. Al-Omar stated: "America is
collapsing from within. Where are America's principles of
justice and democracy? …Islam is advancing according to a
steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims
have joined the American army and Islam is the second
largest religion in America. Today, America is defeated. I
have no doubt, not even for a minute, that America is on its
way to destruction. But as Ibn Khaldoun said, just as it
takes decades for nations to rise, it takes them decades to
collapse. They don't collapse overnight. Because Communist
Russia opposed reality it collapsed immediately. America may
not collapse this way. It will be destroyed gradually.
America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."
As I said to Dan in the comments on his site, just look at the original
sources. Read what the imams and other prominent Muslims say when they are
speaking to a Muslim audience in Arabic. It's truly an eye-opening experience,
and in my opinion, shows unequivocally that extreme Islamism, which is not at
all uncommon in the Muslim world, must be actively opposed by all means
available, up to and including military force.
Now, I want everyone reading this to understand that they must agree with
me. Dissent or disagreement is not acceptable. I am a
member of the right wing thought police! You will comply!
Did I do that last part right, Dan? I want to make sure I live up to my
reputation.
Permanent link
|
|
