Posted on 03/04/2008 5:38:25 AM PST by jdm
Not long ago, my son and I had a dinner argument over the war against radical Islamist terrorism. He’s a brilliant academic, about to enter graduate school for either math, physics, or both, but he sometimes gets trapped in his rationalism — which, to be honest, isn’t exactly the worst thing a father could wish for his son. He insisted that violence only made the problem worse, and that we had to find a negotiated settlement with Islamist terrorists.
Alan Dershowitz had an answer for that in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. In an essay entitled “Worshippers of Death,” Dershowitz argued that the West has to understand that terrorists use our rationalism as perhaps their greatest weapon against us:
Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women — some married with infant children — are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:
“We are going to win, because they love life and we love death,” said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: “[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah.” Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.”
“The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,” explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: “We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid.” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: “It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion.”…
As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at — some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the “harsh arithmetic of pain,” whereby civilian casualties on both sides “play in their favor.” Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently.
Dershowitz challenges Western preconceptions about the definition of combatants in an age of symmetrical warfare. Instead of generals fighting the last war, the entire civilization has reacted to the asymmetrical terrorist conflict with the wrong notion of which side has the short end of the asymmetric stick. It’s not just the suicide bomber who qualifies as an “illegal combatant”, but also the civilian who allows the construction of the bomb in his home, the civilian who sends money to support terrorist activities, and the mosque where such activities get planned.
That’s a far cry from the Western notion of war, and its scope reveals that the West may find itself outnumbered, if not outgunned, in this war. If we want to dismantle the networks that support and create terrorism, then we have to adjust our definitions of civilian and combatant accordingly. That change has been forced on us by the terrorists, which is one of the reasons we cannot abide their presence: they want real non-combatants to die in droves in order to undermine our morale, precisely because we want to remain in a World War II mentality.
Does that mean we should reject rationalism and our humanity and kill everything in sight? Of course not. I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims any more than I want Muslims to think that they have to wipe out all Christians and Jews. We do have to understand, however, that strikes on terrorists who bury themselves among civilians will create the collateral damage terrorists fully intend as a demoralizing influence on our will to resist them.
In short, we need to understand this war as something other than Hitler rolling into Poland or Japan bombing a naval base in Pearl Harbor. We face a network of radical theological nihilists who want to destroy civilization by using our civilized impulses against us. We have to maintain those impulses but not shy away from doing the necessary work of ridding the globe of this new and dangerous cancer, militarily, politically, and financially. That will require the West to understand that the collateral deaths are the fault of the terrorists, whether that is in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, or anywhere else where terrorists launch attacks in the midst of civilians.
In short, it requires the West to dump the fantasy of the old set-piece paradigms and get serious about saving millions and perhaps billions of lives in the long run by doing what needs to be done now. The irrational do not seek a negotiated solution, and rationality cannot be rescued by surrendering to the irrational.
Rationalism is GREAT - as long as both sides are rational.
Alas, that is not the case when one is dealing with religious fanatics.
Yeah, if we just TALK to these people, and find out why they don’t like us, and not act so arrogant and beligerant in the world,
they’d be peaceful.
The brilliant young academician sounds like a prime candidate to attend the “Daniel Pearl/Nick Berg School of Diplomacy”
What- there isn’t any Daniel Pearl/Nick Berg School of Diplomacy? Hmm, wonder why..
To paraphrase Patton - let enemy die for his country.
Kill them all, and let God — or Allah — sort it out? The dilemma facing the civilized, secular West comes down to this: if we have to become as blood-thirsty as our enemies for survival’s sake, have we forever lost that which makes us superior to them?
“I don't want you to talk Mr. Bond... I WANT YOU TO DIE!”
Well, Coke Zero for me, anyway...
“No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country”. — George S. Patton
See my tag line
Hmmm. Steve Coughlin said these same thing in his treatise, “To Our Great Detriment” (Link below)
In case you forgot he’s the expert on Islam the Pentagon axed ostensibly “was due to an expensive contract.”
Right.
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
That will require the West to understand that the collateral deaths are the fault of the terrorists, whether that is in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, or anywhere else where terrorists launch attacks in the midst of civilians.
Well, he almost gets it. People in "the West" need to understand that mosques are military installations. Islam is a military organization. It must be outlawed and the mosques must be destroyed.
ML/NJ
Ann Coulter is right. Kill the leaders and convert them to Christianity. Islam is a religion of death.
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them , and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them "
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him. "
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power. "
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion. ’”
The Japanese in WWII were as resolute or more than any jihadists. When the gloves came ALL the way off in late 1944 even they began to come around.
I guess people don’t read history any more. The US has ample precedent of facing hardened fanatics, and responding by creating more and more efficient ways to kill them.
Coke didn't even finish in the money.
If they want to die so much, then why do they cry foul when *civilians* are hit?
There are no civilians in islam.
People in the West need to understand that Islam gives us 3 and only 3 options -
Conversion
Humiliating Subjugation, subject to death on a whim
War
Choose.
Dear Islamists... Your conclusion is wrong, although the basis is correct... We DO love life. We (the West in general, and Americans in particular) want everyone to get along. We believe that everyone should be able to try to achieve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It even says so in one of our most revered documents. We would LOVE to get along with you, and live together in peace, harmony, and prosperity. So, yes, we do love life.
But you claim to love death. Fine. If that's what you love, so be it. If you want to base your society on death, giving up any future hopes for your children, then so be it. You will never know peace, except through conquest. But those days of conquest will come to an end. Eventually, you will cross a line where the people of the West, and in particular, the Americans will say "ENOUGH!" and put the adults back in charge. You see, right now, we've gotten "fat and happy." But that can change in a moment.
While we don't love death, as you claim to, I can say, without a doubt, we do know it, and if we so choose, we're perfectly capable of using it as a terrible tool. Don't believe me? As the residents of Dresden, Germany, or Tokyo Japan. You want nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to wreak havoc on the US? I'd like to remind you that those two cities were pretty much wiped out WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons.
Put simply, we don't love, worship, or strive for death. We want everyone to live happily together. But eventually you'll push too far, and you'll bring ruinous consequences down upon yourselves. You'll yearn for the days of "Black September" when you tried to overthrow the Kingdom of Jordon, and your people were slaughtered.
This isn't the sort of thing that we enjoy or relish. But it's something that we've shown that we're quite good at, if necessary.
Mark
Killing for survival is different than killing for pleasure.
So, *No* to your question.
Very interesting point.
Well, perhaps we can set up some vending machines for you.
This has long been an assertion of mine... Terrorism is able to flourish because "armchair politicians" are able to safely send funding to terrorists. Were those financiers to begin turning up dead, funding would end pretty quickly.
Mark
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not such a snob that I want to be superior to them. I simply want to be triumphant over them. And frankly, I think I personally could push a button annihilating the entire region and then go back to being as secular and civilized as ever, right down to obeying traffic laws, saying please and thank you, opening doors for others, and making sure my pets are spayed and neutered.
If they love death sooooooo much, let ‘em come out of hiding and taste as much of it as the USA will give them...
Well there is but the course requirements are a b!tch.
It is better said that the WoT is the effort of barbarity to destroy civilization. It is important to see the struggle in that way for an important reason.
Barbarity knows that all else being equal, it will lose, and it is fighting for its very survival. This is because anyone, literally anyone, can compare barbarity to civilization and tell that civilization is better. And if people choose civilization, barbarity will wither away.
This means that those who fight to preserve barbarity are invested in barbarity, they cannot live with both barbarity and civilization together. Because if civilization merely continues to exist, barbarity loses.
Half their energy is devoted to fighting civilization, and the other half to keep everyone around them from choosing to become civilized. This makes them utterly vicious brutes to those under their sway.
Instead of a religious struggle, see this conflict as if a Christian from the 7th Century, came to our time and tried to force us to live as people did in the 7th Century, “because it is better.”
You would think them mad, even if they were Christian.
Now granted, there are some westerners as well who romantically think of such times, with most people starving in poor and isolated villages, as better than the way we live today. Organizations like Earth First!, also hate and abhor the civilization in which we live.
So can barbarity win? Only if they succeed in forcing civilization to not only adopt the way of the barbarian, and tear down what it has created. To forget science and technology and culture, and embrace only obedience to the leaders of the barbarians.
Communists tried this in Cambodia, killing the “impure” who had taught or attended school, ever worked for money, ever used a machine, spoke more than their native language, used glasses to see, and a hundred other things. You can see both how utterly intolerant the barbarian has to be, and how ruthless.
Anyone of us daily sins beyond redemption in the eyes of the barbarian. Even reading this on a computer means you are worthy of destruction and death. If they think themselves kind, they will accept total obedience to them and their way, perhaps. But civilization must stop altogether.
And in a way, this is worse than just a “cult of death”.
That's rationalism? Doesn't seem very rational to me.
Are you saying you actually think you can negotiate a reasonable agreement with terrorists?
This is key not only in the war against islamic terrorists, but also in conservatives' war against liberalism.
I don't have any desire to be superior to them. I just want to be.
Bump
Does that mean we should reject rationalism and our humanity and kill everything in sight? Of course not. I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims any more than I want Muslims to think that they have to wipe out all Christians and Jews. We do have to understand, however, that strikes on terrorists who bury themselves among civilians will create the collateral damage terrorists fully intend as a demoralizing influence on our will to resist them.
Dershowitz disgusts me.
When he was protesting the Vietnam War, burning his draft card, waving the VC flag, hanging out with his fellow commies, and spitting on our troops, -- our grunts 'humpin a ruck through the bush' faced the same tactics, the same enemy (of sorts) - the freaking Viet Cong; aka VC, Charlie or Mr Charles. Back then he didn't give a dam (well they were fellow commies). But now, that the enemy are Muslims and HE as Jew is a 'target' along with Israel, it's a whole new ball game for him and collateral damage is acceptable. Well excuse me while I hurl.
Too bad Alan was 'busy' back then he'd know that asymmetrical warfare ain't new. Maybe he'd also know that what did work back then - something he now backs but hated then - was: Free Fire Zones, Black Flag Missions (Search & Destroy), etc. And some of the operations of MACV-SOG would've given him such fits that he'd call for the death penalty. Today against the Muslim insurgents, oops Alan says Terrorists, he'd demand they go on 24/7/365. Collateral damage be damned!
He'd also know that 'we' had the VC beat, beat so bad the NVA regulars had to join in. Even then we kicked a$$, we won 'Tet'. But the little commie puke and his ilk, and 'uncle' Walter declared all was lost. So we had to 'get out now' (I'm having Deja Vu all over again).
It's due to YOU and your ilk 'professor' that our ROE are so screwed up today and that there's more Jag Officers than Riflemen in the field. So 'professor' Dershowitz, go frock yourself.
~~~ rant off ~~~
Actually, if we’d just give them their wish and kill every last one of them, they’d be peaceful.
When the state department (aka- the us govt) can 'recognize' kosovo as an autonomous islamic state - you know there is something wrong with 'the system'.
There are too many academics, professionals (attorneys) and bureaucrats, too far removed from the sturm and drung of survival - (Not academic or professional survival).
As long as 'peak oil' is the war cry of those who are certain that they 'have theirs' - the rest of us will have to 'eat cake' and drive electric cars that go 40 miles between charges....
There are just too many people who have never had to fight or bleed or sacrifice who are now in control of the minds and well-being of too many.
Kill enough of them that the rest of them decide that that little jihad requirement in the Koran needs some “reform”.
Of course, any reform will have a cascading effect, because THE BASE premise of Islam is that the Koran is a complete and perfect work, and any reform is apostasy, requiring death.
“Innovator” is historically an epithet used for any scholars that dared “think outside” the Koran.
To win against an enemy like the Japanese required brutal tactics...basically killing them with what ever means was necessary as they would neither surrender or admit defeat. That is the same type of enemy we face with Islamic fascism and it will take the same brutal tactics to defeat them before they kill us. I just hope we have the stomach to do this because if we falter they will prevail.
No one wants to do this (..."kill everything in sight"..), but I am not convinced that it will be avoidable even so. The West is really going to have to do some serious soul-searching if it wants to prevail, and may well end up having to do some pretty unspeakable things to win.
Whenever I hear the ‘we love death’ nonsense from the jihadis, I think of Patton’s comment. “No one ever won a war by dying for his country, he won by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
So, if any of you reading this board pilot Predator drones as part of your day job with the US military, make a point of drinking Pepsi to celebrate successful kills with those Hellfire missiles.
Maybe, but I'd have left them alone if they'd have left me alone. I certainly have no evil plans for New Guinea, Iceland, Tibet, New Zealand, and all the other various and sundry cultures for whom I have little liking but who have not been chanting for my death for several decades now.
Well worth reading. Thanks for posting.
Cola wars.
Now there is a REAL jihad.
ping
You're as scary as the mad mullahs.
Maybe... But let's make this a little bit more personal. Could you kill someone who's threatening to kill your family? Take it a step further... Could you kill a group of people who have sworn to murder you and your aquaintences? Could you fight against people who are in the process of doing just that, as they did on September 11, on the plane that eventually went down in PA? Could you kill the people who try to poison a city's water supply, or maybe those who try to smuggle a dirty bomb, or even a nuclear device into a city, to kill tens of thousands of people? Keep scaling this out: I have to agree with A_perfect_lady.
Mark
Captured Alien: Die. Die.
Did anyone else think of Islam in that part of Independance Day?
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.