Which, then, is the greater evil: action or inaction? Non-intervention may have emboldened al Qaeda in decades past, but operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have not prevented terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, or, most recently, in Amman.
But it has prevented attacks here in the U.S.
Freedom must be defended and evil defeated, period.
...They perceive the West as inherently evil, a materialistic and morally depraved entity that must be destroyed....
And the idiot liberals, those they hate the most, build them a brand new shiny mosque in Boston.
A free society, as opposed to totalitarian governments, has the right to protect itself in order to perpetuate the freedom of its citizens. That is what our sedition and treason laws are all about. That is valid for a free society but it is not valid for a closed society.
There is a reason we are no longer enforcing those laws. That reason is that the Communists and the Jihadists have similar goals and tactics and both are the enemy of freedom. They not only use our freedoms to under mind them, they seem to manage for us to pay for our destruction.
One of their key methods is to demand moral relativism. Each view has an equally valid opposing view, or so they say. The purpose of that is to eliminate moral certainty, a cornerstone to a free society. Once they have established that our society is no better than any other they are well on their way, and they are.
Free and open societies are unusually vulnerable to deception and defeat because of their nature, which is human nature and our God-given right and desire for individual freedom.
Our salvation is to doggedly stick to our historical moral values and belief in freedom and not being afraid to decalre it and defend it. That is what they are trying to destroy. We must not let them.
It's a topic that has not as yet undergone serious analysis - what have the Islamists wrought? There is a comfortable pretense that the Americans started this by an endless laundry-list of grievances, and that's fine for the fantasists that the international left and the Islamists seem to have become, but the real world is much more likely to be faced with the results of an armed and activist West that is no longer content to sit there and take it, with the possible exception of the French, of course. And I have to ask Mr. Walters to consider exactly what the effects of this activism are likely to be.
First, of course, is the overthrow of the system of internationalism under which Islamic terror thrived. Where there is no longer a UN to be manipulated there is a major tool shattered not only of the Islamists but of the left as well. Is this wise from their point of view? That is precisely what is happening. A putative world order is being destroyed by the reaction of the United States, Great Britain, and their allies to an Islamism to which the left has reflexively allied itself.
This really needs to be examined. What is happening is a revolution all right, but not the one the left has hoped for.