To Dan and Others of Like Mind...
"America recognizes that there is a problem with some extremists. We disagree (according to yesterday's voting) with how the powers that be have tried to handle it."
And this is the disconnect, Dan. America needs to recognize that there is much more than a 'problem with some extremists.' This is not the perspective Americans need to take. This IS a war, however much we disagree on Iraq. Radical Islam is at war with us-- they have stated as much. How prudent, therefore, is it to not take the Islamists seriously? How prudent is it to continue with the view that we have a 'problem' with some extremists. What happens if we shape our policy to the idea that this is just a 'problem' rather than a war of ideologies? The shape I see is a policy inadequately 'shaped' to defend America and Western Civilization.
Perhaps the biggest disconnect I see is that Islam is thinking generationally-- in terms of goals, whereas we are only thinking about the present conflict and how to get out of it. In short, we are completely discounting Islam's generational goals. The enemy's strategy is built upon small steps/gains over decades, but America is too focused upon it's own pleasures and conceits to believe this enemy is any different than enemies of the past. To quote Dan Simmons' essay...
"In 2006, you’ll be ripping and tearing at yourselves so fiercely that your nation – the only one on Earth actually fighting against resurgent caliphate Islam in this long struggle over the very future of civilization – will become so preoccupied with criticizing yourselves and trying to gain short-term political advantage, that you’ll all forget that there’s actually a war for your survival going on."
And is this not the case? America 'ripping and tearing' at itself, so preoccupied with criticizing itself and trying to gain 'short-term political advantage'? I've offered a similar analogy myself on several occasions: Dogs fighting over worthless scraps while the cat eats from the bowl.
Did you bother to read the essay? Granted, it's obvious fiction-- and long, but knowing what we know about Islam, can we afford to not see the illustrations within Dan Simmon's essay as something to at least consider? And seriously?
Do we wish to end the threat of Global Jihad, and eventual Dhimmitude, or do we continue to view that last phrase as an impossibility while continuing to allow muslims to make small, incremental gains?
What happens when they hit us again in the U.S.? You have to know that will happen, right? Will the Democratic party continue to believe that the War on Terror is nothing more than a conflict in Afghanistan, and the Hunt for bin Laden?
There's a bigger picture here. Democrats now control the House, and may well control the Senate. How long will they control either if they continue to treat this war as they have, rhetorically, these last 4 years? Democrats don't have a very strong reputation for being hawks on national defense. If the U.S. gets hit again-- and it will --will it happen during the reign of a Hawk-ish Democratically controlled Congress? Or will it happen during the reign of a Democratic congress that refuses to believe we are at war for the very survival of civilization? Will the Democratic party change it's stripes and tell cry-babies like Murtha to sit down and shut up? That's what they told Ned Lamont-- Lieberman is stongly pro-war [on terror]... and guess who won THAT race! Or will weaklings like Murtha be allowed to shape policy that allows Islam to continue to make incremental generational gains that lead to world-wide victory?
Democrats fought the patriot act tooth and nail. Senator Reid crowed into the microphones last year that they [Democrats] had 'killed the Patriot Act'. And yet Democrats now claim they'll institute all of the 9.11 Commission's recommendations? Do you not see the disconnect here? Someone recently stated on this blog that the enemy will claim a victory no matter what we do, but is that an excuse to allow them even the smallest of victories? --Remember, claiming you've won a thing hardly matters if you have no tangible proof of said victory. Are we willing to be as ruthless as the Islamists to defeat them? Because that is what it will take-- all argument about 'Democrat vs Republican' aside, commonsense clearly shows that unless our will to defeat the enemy is greater than the enemy's will to win, we will surely lose.
"You Athenian invertebrates with your love of your own exalted sensibilities and your willingness to enter into a global war for civilizational survival even while you are too timid, too fearful... too decent... to match the ruthlessness of your enemies... At least understand that such decency goes away quickly when you are burying your children and your grandchildren,[o]r watching them suffer in slavery. Ruthlessness deferred against totalitarian aggression only makes the later need for ruthlessness more terrible. Thousands of years of history and war should have taught you that. Did you fools learn nothing from living through the charnel house that was the 20th Century?"
You may ask why I am so enamored of an essay that relates a fictional meeting between a liberal circa 2005 and a time-traveler. I wouldn't personally characterize it as 'enamored', but I recognize that some of you may. But my point in all this is, if you're being honest, and you take everything I've written over the last year into account, this is the theme I've been pushing... Islam is dangerous, and we're not taking it seriously enough, and idiots like John Kerry don't help the other HALF of this nation to trust that Democrats have the stones to do what has to be done to survive what's coming. It will take more than courage to survive what's coming, it will take a will and desire greater than that of Islam's to enslave the world.
And please remember that Islam does not mean 'Peace'... It means 'Submission'.
I'm willing to support a Democratic congress... But I will not support idiocy. And Democrats are going to have to show me they are capable of being Hawks... REAL hawks, against a threat too many in America seem either incapable of seeing, or unwilling to accept. Both views are dangerously suicidal.
So there you have it. Congratulations on your victory at the polls yesterday. Now let's see what you're capable of doing with it. I'm willing to be optimistic, but don't expect me to keep my mouth shut if Democrats begins doing stupid things, and offering idiocy in lieu of policy... None of YOU ever did.
And for the record, I haven't been in complete agreement with how the powers that be have tried to handle this war. But I do agree that we are at war. Which is more than Nancy Pelosi can say. Let's hope she changes her tune. She'll certainly have my prayers... And if she does change her tune, she'll have a measure of my respect and support.
from the mind of... Eric | 12:50 PM
20 Comments:
"knowing what we know about Islam"
I think one difference we have is that what YOU think you know about Islam and what I think I know about Islam is different.
Given what I know about Islam, we need to deal with terrorism as the crime that it is. Given what you think you know about it might call for some other action.
Ultimately, I don't think most Americans agree with you that Islam is a religion of violence. They are taking what I believe is the more rational and realistic take that Islam is a religion with a variety of adherents - including some who are advocating violence.
I believe that this is what most Americans think and if this is true, then it calls for dealing with those who'd advocate violence - not Islam as a whole. We recognize that if we treat Islam as a whole as the problem, we run the risk of pushing the majority of Muslims in with the minority who advocate violence.
THAT would be a huge mistake and that is, I suggest, at least one reason why the Republicans have taken a beating.
I won't be silent either. I refuse to accept submission to the tyranny of Islam, nor will I accept the tyranny of Socialists masked as Democrats.
Great, well thought-out post! Keep it up!
"Given what I know about Islam, we need to deal with terrorism as the crime that it is. Given what you think you know about it might call for some other action."
Arrogance, Dan? Elitism?
Tell me...are we going to pursue EVERY radical muslim?
It seems that you, yourself, are calling for war.
But you think there's just a handful of threat out there, right?
anyone who has studied Islam knows it contains the tenet for "jihad" and because of those beliefs it is very dangerous and unlike any other religion. what is at the real core of Islam is the "convert or be killed" philosophy. that kind of fascism should not be ignored. even scarier are the numbers and growth of the islamic population in our world. given the history of attacks by extremists on the western civilization, i don't understand why people can recognize the danger here. great post!
"Arrogance, Dan? Elitism?"
lol!
you certainly have no idea what either of those words mean, do you, dil? neither could posibly apply to so equable an observation.
you really are a desperate, stumpy little ogre, aren't you?
lol!
MANDATE!
KEvron
Mandate, KEv?
How do you figure that?
"MANDATE!"
LOLOLOL!
Yeah, Kev...cluelessness...you've got that one down!
LOLOL!
From Drudge:
Preliminary: Senate Ballots cast: 31,591,495 (D) 25,054,569 (R)...
It's sure as heck more of a "mandate" than Geo. Bush had.
"Mandate, KEv?
How do you figure that?"
go pound sand, tugger, you wilfully obtuse wuss.
KEvron
What I know about Islam:
The "Prophet Mohammed" was a warmonger and a pedophile. The Koran contains many verses which call for the death of Jews and "unbelievers."
The literal interpretation of those verses create an atmosphere of death and terror which cannot be denied with only a cursory glance at the daily newspaper.
How many rallies has MEMRI translated which call for "Death to America?"
"Bomb, bomb, USA
Bomb, bomb, UK."
Take this, for example.
I particularly looooove the line "We will take their wives as war booty! Allahu Akbar!"
Pelosi has a lot of work ahead of her. Being the first female speaker, she has to show that she can work with the other party while holding her own values. She must be an eloquent statesman without being shrill.
More difficult than that, IMO, is what she will do with taxation and foreign affairs. This election, in part, was a referendum on big spending. Will she allow the tax breaks to expire? Will she burden the people with more? Will she curb social entitlements and pork or go hog wild?
The other thing I will watch her on is Iraq. As the first woman speaker, she must prove that she can be wise without being weak. That is a big challenge, as most Muslim leaders will come to the table already hating her for her gender. Because of this, she must be doubly tough.
I hope she does well, too, EL. I would love for her to earn my respect, too.
'Twould seem, Brooke, that while the majority of the US is rightfully concerned about those Muslims who'd advocate violence, they will no longer buy the Crusade that many on the Right want to make this.
In short, you all made your case and the American voting public repudiated it.
"...they will no longer buy the Crusade that many on the Right want to make this."
LOLOL!!! Have you not been paying attention to what the Muslims have been saying overseas!?!? THEY'RE the ones on the crusade!! LOL! It's the American people who aren't buying!!! LOLOL!!!!!
You crack me up, Dan! For a bright guy you sure can be obtuse at times...
Everyone please note: When Dan says 'a Majority of Americans' he means a majority of VOTING Americans which, in terms of Tuesday's election, did vote Democrat, but that in no wise implies a majority of ALL Americans. Still, the damage is done, and there's no sense in crying about it. Best we can do is pray for WHOEVER gets the title, Speaker of the House. Let's pray it isn't Murtha.
I'll note that I usually say "a majority of voting Americans" when talking about elections because, as you point out, that is not always the same as America at large.
My hunch, given polls on the topic of war (and it is just a hunch), is that a VAST majority of Americans disagree with you, as opposed to "just" the majority that voted out the Republicans. If you don't accept the validity of polls, then we'll just have to leave it at that, I suppose.
"Have you not been paying attention to what the Muslims have been saying overseas!?"
Yes, actually I have. They are all over the spectrum, with many being opposed to terrorist activity in the name of Allah. It varies greatly from nation to nation.
I will allow that surveys have suggested that we're losing the "war" for goodwill, as a greater majority of muslims were sympathetic to us and opposed to terrorism immediately after 9/11 than they are 3 years after we invaded a nation unprovoked.
This is one of the reasons why the Republicans have been relieved of duty - their plan is a failing one.
If we use this election as a guide, imperfect as it will be, the word VAST is hardly applicable. Current estimates say that only 40% of the electorate (those registered to vote) actually voted. It is also estimated that 8 million Republicans stayed home-- I've found no numbers for Democrats.
Yes. Many are opposed. But they are doing nothing to stop it.
You're hearing all these muslims who condemn the violence... and do nothing, while paying little mind to the whack-jobs who publically call for the death of America and Americans, and encourage their followers to make it happen.
I'm not too much concerned about the Muslims who oppose the violence, my focus is on the ones that advocate it!
What matters is what a majority of voters think.
Oooooh!
Snappy comeback, there KEv!
You really got me with that one!
No oversight, mom2. You and I stand together opposed to the sort of violence you are talking about.
I'm just saying that our fight is not with all muslims. It is with the small percentage who are embracing violence.
And I'm further saying that it seems to the American voters that our approach of attacking a muslim country and killing a goodly number of muslims in the process - muslims who were not necessarily the ones who were embracing violence - then we are exacerbating the problem, increasing the number of muslims who will decide to embrace violence to fight our violence (fighting their violence, etc, etc), is a bad, bad, backwards idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home