Article

2004-05-23 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-23 2:26:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 superb read that, i think he's dead right when he says about people who compare Bush to Hitler,people who make such comparisons are clearly completely oblivious to the history that shaped the world to what it is today. My thinking is that if the people of Allied nations were properly informed about the true nature of Binny and more generally the whole essance of what Islam has become, for far to long we've listended to 'moderate' Islamic 'leaders' telling us Islam is no threat its a religion of peace etc etc.Now we all can quite clearly see that this it not the case and definate and decisive action has to be taken against this huge proportion of the Islamic religion.Are goverments tell us of the deadly threat of Islamic fundamentalists and how wide spread they are in the world yet the media simply chose to ignore all the gritty detail like the madrasses,the surmons delivered by Islamic preachers threatning destruction of the west,the Iranian black hats,and probably most importantly lovely law system that is Sharia,now as you can probably tell im no expert on the subject but at least i know what the threat realy is about and im sure most of you readers do too.The unfortunate truth howerver is that in general the populations of allied countries are fed with over politically correct, non offensive (to Muslims) tripe! I fear the biggest eneamy is our very own media and its constant attempts to divert/hide the truth.

Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-23 6:16:14 AM|| 2004-05-23 6:16:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "...yet the media simply chose to ignore all the gritty detail like the madrasses,the surmons delivered by Islamic preachers threatning destruction of the west,the Iranian black hats,and probably most importantly lovely law system that is Sharia... I fear the biggest eneamy is our very own media and its constant attempts to divert/hide the truth."

It seems to me there are several factors involved besides "political correctness" and the irrational-- and nonsensical-- belief that all cultures are of equal value.

Another factor, at least for us in the States, is simple politics: the Democratic Party has made a conscious choice to affect an opposition to what the Bush administration is doing in the war, and it is just that: an affectation, a posturing. They could just as well have chosen to support the effort, as the Party leadership is fully aware of the necessity of what we're doing; but their calculus apparently told them there were more votes to be had by opposing the war than by supporting it. Hence Sen. Kennedy's fevered howling. The media, being overwhelmingly Democratic, is merely following the Party line.

Simple denial is yet another factor: I think there is a strong desire to avoid facing the reality that we are in a fight for our very existence against a virulent ideology that seeks, quite literally, the submission of all mankind and which, for now at least, will do absolutely anything to achieve it. We really don't want to think about it, it's too unpleasant and frightening. At some dimly lit level we all know that history's biggest death-match, the one between Western liberalism and radical Islam, is taking shape; but for many people the thought is simply too horrible to contemplate. So they push it out of mind and retreat back into their little September 10th world.

And there's simple laziness, as well. The struggle involves difficult questions, none of which our culture wants to deal with. Why were the 9/11 attacks committed? We know who the actual attackers were, and what organization they were operating in; but who, in a larger sense, really perpetrated the attacks? Why is the Islamic world acting the way it is right now? How can we win this war? What is the "right thing" to do? What actions will benefit us most in the short term? In the long term? What is proper, ethically? How far can we go, what are the limits, in terms of our use of force? These questions, strategic, tactical and moral, are all very difficult to deal with, and a society accustomed for the last half-century to a diet of televised pablum in which simplistic, synthesized conflicts are routinely resolved in neat, entertaining, one-hour packages is ill-equipped to deal with them. So we don't deal with them: instead, we continue to occupy our attention with the customary trivial pursuits, expecting others to ask-- and infallibly answer-- the hard questions.

The final element, and I suspect the one that bothers Bill Whittle the most, is the emergence in the West of a systemic self-loathing, an ennui that has given rise to a chronic cynicism about the very worth of our culture. And it is this self-loathing, I think, that leads to the likes of Sen. Kennedy's asinine notion that the transient abuses at Abu Ghraib are equivalent to Saddam Hussein's quarter-century of systematic horror-- and to the equally asinine belief that the U.S. is becoming a "police state."

If people want to know what a REAL police state is like, just wait til we all live under sharia. Because that's what's going to happen, if we don't get off our asses and get serious about preventing it.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-23 8:58:10 AM|| 2004-05-23 8:58:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Regarding Bill Whittles opening point, a quote from Winston Churchills History of the Second World War, where nothing went right for the longest time:
"War is full of horrible surprises"

Posted by Grunter 2004-05-23 3:42:36 PM|| 2004-05-23 3:42:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I've made a point of letting some of my coworkers read these essays most of whom are diehard Labor Democrats. For the most part their reaction is favorable. I don't consider Whittle a Republican or a conservative persee. I consider him more of a realist that sees the world as it really is not as he wishes it to be. All in all I think this is his best eassy since History. I don't know if he could handle the daily writing grind but some body should offer this guy a chunck of change to do a regular column. I don't always agree with what he says but like Voltaire I will defend his right to say it just as much as I will defend the rights of Molly Ivans to say what she has to say

Posted by cheaderhead 2004-05-23 7:16:21 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:16:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Good God, this is incredible. Brilliant. He's put it perfectly. And I haven't even read the second part yet.

Everybody needs to read this. Everybody needs to understand.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 7:41:21 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:41:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Read ALL his essays. Every last one of them is as good as this one-- and some, IMO, are even better.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-23 7:45:50 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:45:50 PM|| Front Page Top

12:31 Shipman
12:31 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:11 Gentile
12:11 Gentile
11:32 Phil B
11:22 ruprecht
11:19 ruprecht
10:57 Phil B
10:55 Robert Crawford
10:22 .com
10:06 Robert Crawford
09:52 CrazyFool
00:26 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Mark Espinola
00:02 Mark Espinola
23:52 Mark Espinola
23:37 RWV
23:34 Jen
23:33 scott