Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The enemy within -- and it's not who you think (David Warren nails Islamofascism's 5th column)
Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | September 13, 2006 | David Warren

Posted on 09/13/2006 8:43:18 AM PDT by GMMAC

The enemy within -- and it's not who you think

Ottawa Citizen
September 13, 2006

COMMENTARY: DAVID WARREN


Listening to President Bush speak, on Monday's anniversary of 9/11, after a day of distastefully sentimental memorials, my question was not what have we achieved in the last five years, but rather, what have we learned? Bush and Blair -- the captain and vice-captain of Team West in the war against "the terrorists" so far -- are both now in the twilight of their political careers. Both have recently broken with habitual discretion, and made attempts to name the enemy. This has, if anything, added to their unpopularity, for when they mention that the enemy presents himself as Islamic, there are shrill cries not only from radical Muslims, but across the spectrum of the Left in the West.

Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two, has now retreated from his use of the term "Islamofascist" -- which as I said in a previous column, is a fairer label than "Islamist" for an enemy that spreads a palampore of traditional Islam, over a stuffing from the Western-bred totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. As I wrote Aug. 27, from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri, we hear rhetoric that uses an Islamic vocabulary and crude grammar, but animated with a syntax that owes more to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, than to the Prophet and his traditional interpreters. The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".

Mr Blair gave an interview worth reading to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, published Monday. The editors present characterized it as "sombre". The British prime minister was still going through the motions of advocating the "peace process", and the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, without (according to me) any real conviction that it could work. It is just something Western politicians do to please the figurative "Arab street", and it does not please anyone, any more. With much more conviction, he said leaders throughout the West have grasped that we are in a truly "global struggle", for which the people of the West are not prepared. The politicians have failed to explain to us how much is at stake, and how much will be lost if we are not resolute in defence of Western values.

For all its uncharacteristic awkwardness, Mr Blair's answer to a question about British home-grown terrorists donged the bell:

"It's not necessarily what have we done wrong, because part of the problem of what you have in Western opinion is that Western opinion always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a sort of, you know, grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. Now, that warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."

I frankly admire both Bush and Blair, as courageous politicians, with open minds, doing their best within the limits of what is politically possible in their respective spheres. They are both towering figures, in comparison to the little men who oppose them. We won't know what trouble is, until the little men replace them.

I continue optimistic about what can be done, should we summon the will to do it. I have written repeatedly that a robust and unified Western response to "Islamofascism" could fling it quickly onto the trash-heap of history, to join Nasserism and Baathism and other earlier manifestations of Arab nationalism and socialism. Smack it hard, without apology.

My pessimism is founded in the fear that this robust and unified response cannot be mobilized. We have a huge fifth column in the West, and it is not the Muslim immigrants. They become radicalized only because our "victim culture" encourages them to nurture their grievances. Yet most, despite temptation, remain good, decent people, doing their share of the West's work.

Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.

© Ottawa Citizen


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 5thcolumn; 911; 911truther; blair; bush; canada; enemywithin; infiltration; islam; islamofascism; islamofundamentalism; kevinbarrett; liberals; libertarians; ronpaul; terrorism; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last
Note: the url linked above only confirms this article's primary source due to the Ottawa Citizen having arbitrarily posted it within the pay-to-view section of its website.

However, it may be sourced directly under Warren's own working title 'Fifth column' at both http://archives.zinester.com/14807/106573.html and http://www.davidwarrenonline.com .

1 posted on 09/13/2006 8:43:21 AM PDT by GMMAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; Pikamax; Former Proud Canadian; Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; Ryle; ...

PING!
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

2 posted on 09/13/2006 8:45:03 AM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

David Warren has it right.


3 posted on 09/13/2006 8:46:01 AM PDT by American Quilter (You can't negotiate with people who are dedicated to your destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

"Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two.."

Mr Bush's speeches have been far better than Tony Blairs.


4 posted on 09/13/2006 8:46:21 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

"Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends."

Well-stated!


5 posted on 09/13/2006 8:47:41 AM PDT by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

A must read....


6 posted on 09/13/2006 8:50:11 AM PDT by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery

Aw, those Commie professors are just doing their job, and raking in mom and dad's hard earned bucks, too!


7 posted on 09/13/2006 8:52:02 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks the Iranian Monkey and te rest of the IslamoWhackos are not correctly representing Islam.

The Saudi's Wahibi Islam is being taught in America in mosques across America which are largely paid for by teh Saudi's.

For Libroids, that means with American money extorted by the Saudi's.


8 posted on 09/13/2006 8:58:59 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
...we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living..

That's the point... Islamic facists DO NOT want democratic rights and complete religious freedom. They want the whole world to be ruled by an oppressive Islamic theocracy with forced conversion to Islam for all unbelievers.

9 posted on 09/13/2006 9:06:02 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC; Tolik

Ping!


10 posted on 09/13/2006 9:06:25 AM PDT by fanfan (Trust everybody, but cut the cards yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"Mr Bush's speeches have been far better than Tony Blair's."

While it's personal preference & I'd agree with you, perhaps Tony gets this little bone because, without his oratory talent & being right on the WOT, he's otherwise a clone of Mrs. Clinton.
Britain's ever-growing nanny state under Blair & Labor is the proverbial child-raising 'village' of her dreams.
11 posted on 09/13/2006 9:11:59 AM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

Tony is better at off the cuff pressers and the like. Helps to be in the Brit parliament to hone such skills. I was specifically referring to their prepared speeches. I find Bush to be more inspiring.

And yes, Tony's socialism is doing britain no favors.


12 posted on 09/13/2006 9:17:42 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".

The problem is the solidarity within Islam that forces those who might not wish to strap on explosives and blow their neighbors up to offer at least the support of silence to the homicidal maniacs who claim to speak in the name of their religion. Silence is acquiescence, and in the absence of open rejection from the main bodies of Islamic clerics these men from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri really do speak for Islam.

The failure here is twofold - first, from suicidal Western cultural critics who, in a pretense of fairness, consistently marginalize their own culture, and second, from Moslems who take the attitude that crazy as the lunatics may be they're still Moslems and hence are to be supported in the face of the Unbeliever.

That approach to solidarity itself has more in keeping with fascist and communist doctrine than it does with history. (Warring Moslem cities in Spain routinely used Christian mercenaries and allies, and vice versa, for example.) In Marxian doctrine this is dealt with as class solidarity, and one of the attractions of the Islamist movement to Marxist theorists is its similarity to international class struggle and the identification of the Moslems as an oppressed class. That is a gigantic blind spot and the explanation, I suggest, for the support on the part of the left for a doctrine whose victory would break the left utterly. That is the reason the left supports these fanatics - they hate the rest of us more.

13 posted on 09/13/2006 9:31:08 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The problem with our war on Islamofacism is we fail to address the issue of the nation states (Iran, Syria, North Korea, the defacto Nation State of Hezzbolo in Southern Lebanon etc. When we only go after the terrorists and not the nation state that supports them we will lose. Only when the rogue nation state is in fear of its destruction will they stop their support of Islamofacism. The destruction of Iran's ruling class would not be that difficult. Kill them and let the people of Iran finish the job. If that means massive strategic bombing with conventional weapons or tactical nukes so be it.

We did not start this war. In WWII we were in a fight for survival. The greatest acts of terror were carried out by the RAF and the United States Army Air Corp. The Brits burned Dresden to the ground. The United States fire bombed Tokyo and other major cities of Japan. This terror worked and broke the back of the enemy. The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were minor terror raids as compared to our fire bombing. It worked! They lost, we won.

We are fighting this war on the terms laid down by the enemy. George Patton sure as hell did not ask Rommel what tactics he could and could not use. Patton understood that the war machine of the enemy must be destroyed and the civilian population was what feed, clothed and made the tools of war for its army. The civilians were thus legitimate targets. When the enemy knows he will lose his wife, his children, his country and his life he will not oppose you.We are in a fight for the survival of western civilization

14 posted on 09/13/2006 9:36:39 AM PDT by cpdiii (Socialism is popular with the ruling class. It gives legitimacy to tyranny and despotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED
Members and movement attacked from several directions
Madison, WI (PRWEB) September 9, 2006 --- Three professors who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been threatened with the loss of their positions for their research and teaching about the events of 9/11. Other attacks are coming from national magazines, such as TIME and U.S. NEWS, which have cover-stories this week suggesting that those who believe 9/11 involved a conspiracy may need psychological counseling. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have published pieces intended to bolster the official account of 9/11.

“This flurry of activity suggests that the government is becoming desperate in its efforts to keep the truth about 9/11 from the American people,” said James H. Fetzer, the founder and co-chair of the society. “But I don’t think it’s working.” Fetzer finds attacks on faculty members, including Kevin Barrett, a humanities instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bill Woodward, a professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and Steven Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University and the society’s co-chair, especially disturbing.

“According to the government, 9/11 is ‘the pivotal event of the 21st century,’ which changed everything”, he observed. “So it obviously deserves to be studied. College and universities are the institutions that undertake the study of significant historical events. The very idea that faculty should not be studying the events of 9/11 verges on the absurd,” he remarked. “And since the official account-that the events of 9/11 involved 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airliners and perpetrating terrorist acts under control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan-involves a conspiracy, it is impossible to study 9/11 without dealing with conspiracy theories.”

Fetzer thinks the administration wants to suppress serious research on 9/11 because the official account cannot withstand scrutiny. “What the government has told us is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things,” he observed. “Its truth requires violating laws of physics and engineering that cannot be violated and cannot be changed.” He offered a recent piece from NIST that attempts to resolve “frequently asked questions” as an illustration. “We have posted it on our web site at st911.org along with several critiques. I invite anyone to review that exchange to determine if the official account has any basis in science. It does not.”

An article from Popular Mechanics that has been turned into a book doesn’t fare any better, he observed. Since there is no objective foundation for the official account, there is no ground to suggest that skeptics of the official account need psychological counseling. “Rationality is the tendency to accept, reject, and hold-in-suspense beliefs on the basis of logic and evidence,’” Fetzer stated. “Given what we know now, those who continue to defend the government’s account are the ones whose beliefs cannot be justified by logic and evidence, not the critics. The situation abounds with ironies.”

“Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from the beginning.” He cites the recent acknowledgment from the FBI that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 and the President’s response during a press conference that Saddam Hussein had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only this week a Senate Intelligence Committee report explained that Saddam not only was not collaborating with bin Laden but opposed him. “These were reasons we were given for going to war,” he said. “If the government has been lying about them, we already know the government has been lying about 9/11.”

Scholars, a non-partisan society of students, faculty and experts dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, includes physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and aeronautical engineers among its members. “We have no funds and no budget but are doing this because we believe the American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. Even I find it difficult to believe that the American government could have attacked the American people and killed 3,000 civilians to promote its political agenda, but that is where the evidence leads.”

Contact information:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(608) 835-2707 (home)
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org


15 posted on 09/13/2006 9:39:10 AM PDT by mission9 (Be a citizen worth living for, in a Nation worth dying for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery
"Well-stated!"

IMHO, David Warren is likely Canada's most perceptive & articulate Catholic conservative.
It's truly unfortunate he doesn't get more national & international exposure.
The archive on his above liked website is an absolute literary & analytical treasure trove!
16 posted on 09/13/2006 9:39:59 AM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two, has now retreated from his use of the term "Islamofascist" -- which as I said in a previous column, is a fairer label than "Islamist" for an enemy that spreads a palampore of traditional Islam, over a stuffing from the Western-bred totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. As I wrote Aug. 27, from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri, we hear rhetoric that uses an Islamic vocabulary and crude grammar, but animated with a syntax that owes more to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, than to the Prophet and his traditional interpreters. The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".

The author has it precisely backwards. The ideology of the enemy is based on a refusal to reconcile Islam with modernity, and it leads them to attack the West because they (correctly) believe that Western cultural and economic influence will impel Islamic societies to make such adaptations.

Thus, the correct term for them is "Islamic Fundamentalists".

17 posted on 09/13/2006 9:42:54 AM PDT by steve-b (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mission9
“Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from the beginning.” He cites the recent acknowledgment from the FBI that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11

I guess the public announcement by Osama that the raids were much more successful that he had anticipated do not mean anything? The author of this offal is a MOONBAT at the minimum but most likely a bloody damn liar.

18 posted on 09/13/2006 9:43:14 AM PDT by cpdiii (Socialism is popular with the ruling class. It gives legitimacy to tyranny and despotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks the Iranian Monkey and te rest of the IslamoWhackos are not correctly representing Islam.




Anyone who actually has a Biblical Christian World View does.


19 posted on 09/13/2006 9:48:59 AM PDT by Waywardson (Carry on! Nothing equals the splendor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
What I don't understand is why anyone thinks the Iranian Monkey and te rest of the IslamoWhackos are not correctly representing Islam.

Because it doesn't.

There are Muslim members of this board who hold the same patriotic and conservative political views as you. Yet, they would consider themselves "subjects of Islam".

Worldwide, such Muslims are clearly a minority -- perhaps no more than 10% of Islam's billion-and-a-half constituency. Similarly, the Islamofascists are also a minority within Islam -- probably no bigger than a minority than those who value freedom and democratic institutions.

The remaining 80% represent the Islamic equivalent of what some on this board refer to as the "sheeple". While a much larger segment of society than in the U.S., in Islam, as in the U.S., that means uninformed and largely ignorant -- neither a committed libertarian nor necessarily a radical.

These Islamic "sheeple" are "up for grabs". Bin Laden understands this -- recall his "stronger horse" analogy? And so do Bush and Blair -- who have carefully avoided making war on Islam or the national populations. Instead, they have made war rather specifically on a.) the Taliban and then b.) Saddam Hussein.

That this approach can achieve success is obvious: Electoral participation in Iraq (and Afghanistan) topped 70%. The "sheeple" who are "up for grabs" responded to the opportunity.

Why make enemies of a billion-and-half Muslims when you don't have to in order to win?

20 posted on 09/13/2006 10:00:43 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Waywardson
"Anyone who actually has a Biblical Christian World View does."

Warren's world view is consistently in line with Catholic moral theology.
If you take issue with same, why not say so directly?
21 posted on 09/13/2006 10:13:20 AM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mission9

Who the heck is James H. Fetzer, PHD, and does he have any qualifications, even basic high school physics or chemistry, far less university level physics or engineering, to categorically deny NIST's explanation of why the buildings fell? I have some understanding of those topics and I find the explanations that have been given quite convincing - certainly more convincing than the wild ramblings of the 9/11 conspiracy nutbags.


22 posted on 09/13/2006 11:00:09 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; monkeyshine; ...
David Warren:

...I continue optimistic about what can be done, should we summon the will to do it. I have written repeatedly that a robust and unified Western response to "Islamofascism" could fling it quickly onto the trash-heap of history, to join Nasserism and Baathism and other earlier manifestations of Arab nationalism and socialism. Smack it hard, without apology.

My pessimism is founded in the fear that this robust and unified response cannot be mobilized. We have a huge fifth column in the West, and it is not the Muslim immigrants. They become radicalized only because our "victim culture" encourages them to nurture their grievances. Yet most, despite temptation, remain good, decent people, doing their share of the West's work.

Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.


Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

23 posted on 09/13/2006 12:00:59 PM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
You nailed it, buddy!
24 posted on 09/13/2006 12:02:28 PM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pissant

So many complaining President Bush is not a great communicator, it's odd to me they have no problem explaining what he has said.
Nothing works better than just plain English.
I'm sure if the president wanted to use big words, his speech writers could easily insert them.
After all, there are more of us every day people voting than English professors.


25 posted on 09/13/2006 12:17:06 PM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shery

Yes - very well stated.


26 posted on 09/13/2006 12:24:49 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (We are but Seekers of Truth, not the Source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized.

The problem that most Westerners do not understand, and apparently neither does Mr. Warren, is that in Islam. there is NO differentiation between the political and the spiritual.

27 posted on 09/13/2006 12:28:23 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

Good article, unexpected ending, but makes sense. I almost laughed out loud at the last paragraph which would be hard to explain at work.


28 posted on 09/13/2006 12:28:48 PM PDT by Tarantulas ( Illegal immigration - the trojan horse that's treated like a sacred cow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

"Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends."

Amen to that and they all need a severe a$$ kicking!


29 posted on 09/13/2006 12:29:35 PM PDT by DarthVader (Conservatives aren't always right , but Liberals are almost always wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Thanks, my FRiend. Mr. Warren says it well. Sadly, it has been said before.........

“You ask what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory – Victory at all costs, Victory in spite of all terror, however long and hard the road may be; for without Victory there is no survival.”

Winston Churchill, 1940

I pray that, as a society, the US has the strength and courage for victory.

Lando

30 posted on 09/13/2006 1:03:56 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln (For what cause would a liberal go to war? Revolutions don't count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
With practicing adherents of most faiths, political actions flow from spiritual beliefs.

As example, I am a conservative because it offers a value system which provides worldly application of my understanding of my Christian faith as opposed to being one because my accepted personal ideology dictates as much.

Accordingly, David Warren doesn't fail to understand your apparent position but, rather, is contending that Islamofascists willfully pervert the teachings of their faith for their own selfish political ends.

In refusing to lump all Muslims together, Warren himself is taking a political stand properly founded upon his own Catholic faith.
31 posted on 09/13/2006 1:07:54 PM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
The real enemy are liberals - hiding in plain sight.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

32 posted on 09/13/2006 1:09:41 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

bump


33 posted on 09/13/2006 1:10:41 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"Why make enemies of a billion-and-half Muslims when you don't have to in order to win?"

May I suggest reading Winston Churchill's The River War, published in 1899? They are our enemies.

As for your reference to board members, to which board do you refer?

In answer to the Muslims you know, are you familiar with the Muslim concepts of tarqia and kitman? I asked because you are, by implication and assumption on my part, a non-Muslim. The above mentioned Muslim theological constructs have been dubbed "Holy Hypocrisy" for a reason. That reason is that Muslims are allowed to lie to the non-Muslim.

In short, one can't really know what a Muslim means because of "Holy Hypocrisy".
34 posted on 09/13/2006 3:05:11 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
we are in a truly "global struggle", for which the people of the West are not prepared. The politicians have failed to explain to us how much is at stake, and how much will be lost if we are not resolute in defence of Western values.

We need a Churchill for this Age.

35 posted on 09/13/2006 3:18:17 PM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant; GMMAC

<< "Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two.."

Mr Bush's speeches have been far better than Tony Blair >>

Absolutely.

The dedicated socialist, Anthony Charles Lynton "Tony" Blair, stands with one jack-booted foot and one side of his head facing and talking to his Euro-peon Neo-Axis masters. And the other, point-shoe-clad, foot and one of his faces turned and simultaneously talking toward the West.


36 posted on 09/13/2006 3:45:59 PM PDT by Brian Allen ("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
I am familiar with "The River War" and the writings of Churchill.

My reference was to this board: Free Republic.

And, yes, I am familiar with the practice of taqiyyah and kitman. But I am not prepared to believe that they universally apply to all Islamics in all of their relationships with the West and Westerners. Not any more than I am willing to believe that capital punishment and war are proscribed by the Ten Commandments -- though some Christians believe that it is.

Just as there are many different readings of The Bible, I understand there are basically four schools of interpretation of the Koran. Only one of them is jihadist and necessarily inimical to all other cultures (including other Muslims, obviously).

37 posted on 09/13/2006 3:53:36 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

I give Blair lotsa credit though. He has been steadfast in his support for America.


38 posted on 09/13/2006 4:01:58 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill; potlatch; ntnychik; Smartass; Boazo; Alamo-Girl; PhilDragoo; ...

good read and good posts, also see #15

thanks Tolik!


39 posted on 09/13/2006 4:16:16 PM PDT by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bitt

oooops, meant #13 (but 15 is fine, too)...


40 posted on 09/13/2006 4:18:21 PM PDT by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"Blair ... has been steadfast in his support for America."

You've stated virtually all that's positive that can be said about Tony Blair (see my post #11).

BTW, one Muslim who definitely 'gets it' when it comes to the Islamofascists is Salim Mansur.
41 posted on 09/13/2006 4:38:15 PM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bitt; Tolik

Both have recently broken with habitual discretion, and made attempts to name the enemy. This has, if anything, added to their unpopularity, for when they mention that the enemy presents himself as Islamic, there are shrill cries not only from radical Muslims, but across the spectrum of the Left in the West.


Why is anyone suprised at this. It does beg the question to the Left...who's side are you on?


42 posted on 09/13/2006 4:46:06 PM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pissant

<< I give Blair lotsa credit though. He has been steadfast in his support for America. >>

"Steadfast" is too strong for me. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has been steadfast. Mr Blair, teamed up immediately before and in the early days of the Iraq Expedition with the hapless Colin Powell and his treasonous State Department brahmanas, allowed the Saddamists to move their weapons and slip away -- and thus set up the situation with which we are now dealing.

And his support -- much appreciated as it is and although to be lauded -- has always been for Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization rather than specifically for America.

In ways that every other in post-Christian Europe and most in both the Westminster Parliament and among those who comprise his electorate seem unable to see, Mr Blair knows our fight is for the survival -- or not -- of our very civilization.

And for that, I'll join in thanking God for him.


43 posted on 09/13/2006 4:47:37 PM PDT by Brian Allen ("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

The NY Post ran a GREAT article from an arab yesterday. I'll see if I can find it.


44 posted on 09/13/2006 4:49:49 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: pissant

<< I give Blair lotsa credit though. He has been steadfast in his support for America. >>

"Steadfast" is too strong for me. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has been steadfast. Mr Blair, teamed up immediately before and in the early days of the Iraq Expedition with the hapless Colin Powell and his treasonous State Department brahmanas, allowed the Saddamists to move their weapons and slip away -- and thus set up the situation with which we are now dealing.

And his support -- much appreciated as it is and although to be lauded -- has always been for Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization rather than specifically for America.

In ways that every other in post-Christian Europe and most in both the Westminster Parliament and among those who comprise his electorate seem unable to see, Mr Blair knows our fight is for the survival -- or not -- of our very civilization.

And for that, I'll join in thanking God for him.


45 posted on 09/13/2006 4:50:41 PM PDT by Brian Allen ("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

He sent troops, and lots of them. Gotta respect that.


46 posted on 09/13/2006 4:50:56 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

This is an excellent article.


47 posted on 09/13/2006 4:51:41 PM PDT by Fair Go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I do.

And them.


48 posted on 09/13/2006 4:52:37 PM PDT by Brian Allen ("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
Excellent article. I think it is right on the mark.

Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.

I think this was the real enemy in the Cold war also.

I was recently on vacation and stayed at a B&B. One lady was from Boston and rhapsodized about how many universities and colleges there were and “how highly intelligent” people were. Well, I can take a little regional pride, and I like to be polite, so I did not argue. But if it were to happen again, I might say (or at least think), “Do people who spend their entire lives in school ever grow up?” It is not just a jibe. I really think they don’t. These perpetual children do not value the military, courage, sacrifice, or anything else that does not fluff up their egos.
49 posted on 09/13/2006 5:05:37 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Who hijacked the Religion of Peace? Mohamed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

"Holy Hypocracy" is part of all branches of Islam, as I read them. Therefore, I remain convinced that Islam and its believers are inherently antithetical to Judeo-Christian based Western societies.

History, alas seems to support my position. In this debate I wish the facts were otherwise, as I would like to be proven wrong.


50 posted on 09/13/2006 5:32:45 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson