| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Hugh Hewitt takes the Norquist definition of Islam hook line and sinker... |
| 2005-07-27 |
| Without a valid opposition party this country is in extreme danger due to the lack of debate regarding exactly who we are fighting. Are we in a religious war? Is it true that Islam is a religion of peace? What do we make of Sharia and what is its bearing on this war? Can Islam co-exist with other religions including atheism, capitalism and agnosticism? Does Al Queda speak to a small minority of Muslims? Is Saudi Arabia our ally and if so exactly how does their funding of thousands of Mosques and Madrassas that perpetuate Radical Islam fit into their role as an ally? How inconsequential is the support for terror amongst Muslims? These are all valid questions that Hugh Hewitt seems to want to avoid or worse assume that they have been answered already and that there are no contradictions. Its a measure of our misunderstanding of our enemy that President Bush has been seen several times to be associating with Muslims who were later prosecuted for aiding Terrorists. Exactly how much of a misunderstanding of Islam must be present at the White House for that to happen? Does Hugh want to respond to why they are so misguided in the White House? And if they are misguided enough in the White House to place the President of the United States in such compromising positions exactly why should I trust that they have a grip on the facts? In this latest attack against Rep Tancredo Hugh goes completely over the top in what Glenn Reynolds called a Righteous Fisking of Rep. Tancredo's article in the Denver Post. Not sure if Glenn just has a delightfully wicked sense of irony or he was simply unaware of the marvelous contradiction in praising both Hugh Hewitt's attack on Rep Tancredo and Mark Steyns takedown of multicultural ideas regarding Islam on the same day but, I report you decide. Lets get on to Hugh Hewitt's soft-minded attack on Tancredo. Hugh will be in bold cause we don't want to miss a single word. He fails because he doubles down on his absurd insistence that "bombing Mecca" ought to be "on the table." No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo's defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness. No serious Christian theologian can endorse what is obviously an immoral threat against another faith. Excuse me for offering this observation but these are the same serious politicians who allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. Pardon me for not being impressed by the absence of any honest inquiry going on in regards to our enemies by our politicians after all they are so busy taking polls on how they should feel. We have an entire party in the Democrats that may at this point believe that 9/11 was the invention of President Bush and his Mossad Allies then we have a bunch of Republicans who absolutely refuse to consider where we might have gone wrong. Witness the idiocy of grown men still insisting that there was no collaboration between Al Queda and Saddam. At least Rep Tancredo is considering the worst case scenarios which if you haven't realized it yet has been notably absent from our political discourse, even as every expert declares that it is not a matter of if but when we get attacked by WMD's. In regards to any credible authority on war coming to his defense, that is absurd, any credible authority on war will tell you that no options are ever taken off the table. We bombed the hell out of civilians in WW2, French, Italians, Belgians, Germans, Japanese and any others who might have gotten in the way of victory. Hugh doesn't take this war seriously or he would understand that wars are not nice, he is still playing cricket, he doesn't believe the barbarians are at the gates wishing to rape, pillage and burn their way through him. If he did have that sort of attitude this conversation wouldn't be happening. This lack of urgency in regards to our war is prevalent amongst our political and intellectual elite who cannot for the life of themselves see war as the brutal horrible thing it is. That lack of understanding of war leads to the idiocy of us apologizing for not handling Korans of terrorist thugs with white gloves, it leads to assinine discussions on whether having someone stand for 1 hour is torture and it will ultimately lead to us losing unless some seriousness enters the fray. And the last sentence in Hugh's paragraph is illustrative of a dangerous multiculturalist view of our war. Islam is not a religion in the sense that we understand it but a way of life, it does not compare to Christianity in anyway except for the parts that Mohammad borrowed when he formulated Islam. Witness that Islam gave its conquered foes but three choices convert, pay a poll tax or die. Certainly Christianity has seen its bad episodes but none of them could be justified by the written word of God in the Bible whereas all of Islam's worst characteristics are called for by its writings. Indeed one of the most horrible crimes that we are witness to these days, that of beheading your foes was practiced by Mohammad himself; imagine Christ in the same position. Tancredo says: But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed. Hugh responds to this valid idea with a straw-man: In fact Tancredo is preoccupied with attention-getting statements that play to the frustrated edge of the conservative camp that sees any denunciation of "political correctness" as an endorsement of their desire for blunt talk against media elites. This is a fairly long article read the rest here |
| Posted by:Chort Jeans6309 |