AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links... by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review
Posted on 10/14/2005 7:34:27 AM PDT by SJackson
The president made clear that the enemy we face is as dangerous as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
On October 6, President George W. Bush made what was perhaps most important speech of his career. Though understandably no match for Winston Churchill's rhetorical virtuosity, the president's speech can be compared to the British leader's many wartime addresses warning Hitler that Britain would never relent or give up the fight.
At that time, Churchill told the British people: “My aim is to extirpate Hitlerism ... Are we to move steadily forward and have freedom, or are we to move back into the Middle Ages by a totalitarian system that crushes all forms of individual life?”
Bush, equating Islamist militant ideology with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, said: “Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response; we never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.”
And like Churchill's warning to his people that he had “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat,” Bush also means to prepare the American public for a long and difficult battle against terror before ultimate victory will be achieved.
NOR WAS the timing of either speech accidental. Churchill spoke in May 1940 after facing down a cabinet revolt led by Lord Halifax, who wanted him to get out of the war and make a deal with Hitler in the wake of Dunkirk and the crumbling of the French and Belgian armies; Bush spoke at a moment when the war in Iraq has become increasingly unpopular in America – amid calls for a withdrawal of American troops.
If America withdrew before victory, Bush said, it would assure a takeover by Iraqi terrorists and their supporters. He must have remembered Churchill's admonition that “wars are not won by evacuations.”
But perhaps the most significant aspect of Bush's speech was his reminding the American people of the real sources of Islamist terrorism and explaining why, as was the case with Nazism, there could be no accommodation with it.
Some have tried to explain, and even justify, terror by citing a variety of supposed causes: poverty, Israeli “occupation,” the war in Iraq, disgruntlement with the values of the West, and those of America in particular – and even the Crusades! Not so, Bush's speech makes clear.
“They blame the West, America and the Jews for their own failures.” The real goal of Islamist terrorism, often abetted “by elements of the Arab news media that incites hatred and anti-Semitism,” is the building of a “totalitarian empire” of global reach.
“The militants believe that controlling one country” – i.e. Iraq – “will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.” Though referring mostly to al-Qaida, there can be no doubt that the way the American administration rightly sees it, the term “Islamic radicalism” covers such groups as Lebanon's Hizbullah and the Palestinian groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and parts of Fatah as well.
Indeed, Bush went further: “The influence of Islamic radicalism is magnified by helpers and enablers,” he said. “They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience, like Syria and Iran... that share the goal of hurting America...”
Bush and most Western leaders – for reasons of political correctness or wishful thinking – make a distinction between Muslim radicals and moderates. Though in some cases this may be justified, in others, Muslim and especially Arab moderates, whether for reasons of expediency or just plain fear, more often than not yield to the more extremist voices in their community. What makes the distinction between “moderates” and “radicals” even more problematic is the fact that Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been more than a bit selective in its opposition to terrorism – while others, as a result of their regimes' corruption and lack of concern for the lot of their people, have added fuel to the machinery of terrorism.
ALL THIS brings us to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and his forthcoming trip to Washington. Fact is that the Palestinian Authority so far has done absolutely nothing to fight terror.
This is borne out, among other things, by a report of a Palestinian parliamentary commission, remarking that the Palestinian government had never even discussed the matter. None of the terrorist organizations have been disarmed or dissolved – while the PA's own media go on with their customary incitement against Israel and Jews.
But Abbas is the one whom Bush, true to his vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and in line with the themes expounded in his aforementioned speech, would expect to be on the side of the good – and not just in words, but in deeds.
So far this hasn't happened and some observers may be forgiven for suspecting Abbas of deliberately wanting to preserve the terrorist option, just in case. Judging by the tone of Bush's speech, there is reason to believe that he will be quickly disabused of that notion.
As for Israel, it will surely not repeat the tragic mistake of Oslo and the 2000 Camp David summit, namely giving the Palestinians undeserved credit for something they do not, and probably never intended to do. We will not once again be led astray by the illusion that by ignoring the their failure to act that we shall somehow strengthen the forces of peace on the Palestinian side.
..................
..................
The Islamofascists are doing the same thing that Hitler did...blame your countrymens' plight on an outsider in an effort to unite them. In Germany, it was immigration and the Jews...in the Middle East it is the infidels. Islam teaches people to embrace poverty and seek their reward in the after life. (Don't worry, the government officials will drive the Rolls Royces around while you are gone.) If you are from Kabul and can't read or write, you take pleasure by passing your grief on to the woman or women that you own. The afterlife must seem pretty promising to someone who has been firing an AK-47 since they were nine years old. The only education you receive is from the local dictator about how bad the West is and don't question the Koran. If maryrdom is really that cool, don't you think that Osama bin laid once and Zarkawi and the gang would have been the first to sign up? These people are pawns in a game they can't win...Sad really. It is not a popular position, but in the same way that the A-Bomb brought a war to a hault quickly and ultimately saved a lot of lives on both sides, the same logic should be applied here. The US should make a statement that goes something like this: The United States openly endorses a peaceful and expedient withdrawal from the Middle East under the following conditions. Iran gives up its nukes to the satisfaction of the United States. All terrorist activities cease. The Iraqi government is fully trained and supported to the extent that they can function as a quasi-democratic society. Until that time, any suicide, road side or otherwise terrorist attack that results in the loss of human life will be revisited upon the attackers 10,000:1. The US will, to a city of their choosing, carpet bomb a city until such time as they believe that the appropriate number of casualties have been accomplished. Should you choose to attempt another attack, the US will have no choice but to repeat the exercise. This will continue until there are no more bombings or no more cities...the choice is up to you. Should you wish to avoid such a calamity, you may report subversive activity by calling Crime Stoppers at 222-tips. You are free to worship God peacably or meet him personally...the choice is yours. May you go in peace.
A new speech with the same old bias as to avoiding the cold hard truth.
Religion of peace...blah, blah, blah...hijacked...blah, blah, blah...does not condone the murder of innocents...blah, blah, blah...
If Islam is a religion of peace, why is it that the President is the only one that says so. Isn't it the burden of moderate muslims to show the world the distinction between themselves and the Radicals (if indeed there is a real distinction).
Do moderate muslims really dislike the idea of a world caliphate? Would they truly object if sharia were the highest authority in the U.S. and Europe? If moderate muslims truly reject the actions of the terrorists, why are their leaders always so conditional and waffling in their condemnations?
The President's speech may have had some Churchillian qualities, but it is not what Churchill would have said. Churchill was not politically correct because he was too busy leading.
This shift in Bush's rhetoric didn't come too soon for me, but Gawd, I do admire the management style.
On June 17, 1942, a German U-boat deposited 8 saboteurs on Ponte Vedra Beach (Jacksonville) equipped for industrial disruption.
Within a matter of days, all eight saboteurs had been arrested (without having accomplished one act of destruction), tried before a military tribunal, found guilty, and (one was given a life sentence).
Source: www.fbi.gov
Right on! Nailed it!!!!
Here is some good new but since the Moveon.org "conservatives" can only complain, not actually support anything, they have to find something to complain about even on this topic. Until the Moveon.org "Conservatives" learn to support SOMEthing, and stop whining about EVERYTHING, Adult Conservatives will continue to ignore them.
Remember how the Nazis justified their aggression – Lebensraum or living space. It sounds like such a noble motive when termed that way. We just want a little living space – meaning, give us your lands, particularly the ones with heavy industry. That’s all we want. Thank You very much Chamberlain. Outside of the United States I notice it is the Chamberlains who are getting the popular support from the masses in the West. It was that way with Chamberlain as well. No one wanted to hear anything from that killjoy Churchill after the agreement was signed with Hitler. (In fact I see parallels between the feeding of the Czech lands to Hitler and Gaza/West Bank to the Palestinians). I don’t know what kind of wake up call those in denial need. Including the Israelis who seem to believe they can buy their peace with land grants.
You are right. Churchill spared no breath in referring to the enemy is racial terms. I’m sure the term “Huns” was offensive to many German Americans, but Churchill didn’t give a damn.
I send your response to the Navajo code talkers to see if they could break your code.
Congrats, they couldn't make sense of it either.
I have to agree that selectivity is a problem. As is the mistake that has been made to judge whether an act is terrorism by the merits of the goals rather than the demerits of the means. For example to the French, homegrown terrorists are terrorists, but Arafat was a freedom fighter. The French have chosen to judge the acts of militants based on their targets or goals rather than by their means. The entire Western World must condemn terrorism as a means to gain objectives. Attacking infrastructure or guerilla tactics is perfectly legitimate, but killing civilians as a goal in itself is what is immoral and should not be tolerated. In the West we go to massive lengths to avoid civilian casualties. That is what separates us from the immoral barbarians who live largely outside the rule of law and civility.
You're right, though imo much of the world looks at the nature of the victims in making this determination as well.
Too bad the majority of the working Americans who choose not to go out of their way to get their political news, never heard a word about it.
I am suggesting a harder line against Islam, not an easier one. See my post #7 above for a clearer view (I hope) of where I am coming from.
When it comes to Islam, I can't imagine a position more conservative than mine. Islam has to be expunged from the face of our lovely little planet...or it will kill us all.
Meaning they judge whether or not the targets deserved it?
THAT is the way to deal with "terrorists" either outright proclaimed or suggested moderate. The fact is, the so called "moderate" Islamics were DEAFENINGLY SILENT after 9/11. It was like pulling teeth to get A SINGLE ONE of them to condemn this behaviour. I wish GWB would learn that you don't make deals with the devil. And 50 million dollars should NOT have been given Abbas until he proved himself. Once again, the tax payer has been robbed in plain sight and that robbery could have been predicted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.