Is the West Too Civilized?

CNSNews.com ^ | July 22, 2003 | Daniel Pipes

[JasonC]

Right, you are in the mood for -

"the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed"; "the West Bank and Gaza would now be devoid of Palestinians"; "the Iraqi polity would long ago have been annexed and its oil resources confiscated." So you already said.

You only want to nuke Mecca. That will work like a charm, because ruthlessness always does. After all, this is our lives, right? So what's a little dealing with the devil, if that is where power is to be found?

But then, that isn't where power is to be found...

[A_perfect_lady]

You only want to nuke Mecca. That will work like a charm, because ruthlessness always does. After all, this is our lives, right? So what's a little dealing with the devil, if that is where power is to be found?

There is no devil. There is only us and them, and them wants to kill us. Us would prefer to kill them first because, I personally can live with us but not with them, and like any organism, I want to live as long as I can. Death is not necessarily better than life, but as Ambrose Bierce pointed out, it is longer.

[Tailgunner Joe]

so are you denying the US government's past and present practice of propping up corrupt and undemocratic regimes in the middle east (iran, iraq, saudi arabia)

I am endorsing it.

Here's a quick quiz for you to take to test your level of political morality:

Who was worse:

Batista or Castro?

The Shah or the Ayatollah?

Ngo Dinh Diem or Ho Chi Minh?

Lon Nol, or Pol pot?

Chiang Kai-Shek or Mao Tse-Tung?

The Czar or Lenin?

Who would you prefer to rule Arabia? The Saudi royal family, or Osama bin Laden?

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[webstersII]

?i?Who is ?they???/i?

As I said,
?in real life if someone says THEY are going to kick your @ss?
?p?
In this case our intelligence services have identified ?they?? as Bin Laden, the mastermind of the WTC bombing. The rhetoric that he and his buddies have been spouting says that they want to destroy all of us (that is, the U.S., the Western world, and anyone who supports Israel). They have proven their intentions by killing almost 3,000 of our citizens.

The supporters of Bin Laden and the rest of these terrorists are in (primarily) Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. Most of the support in Iraq is now history. Hopefully the rest of their supporters will sit up and take notice as well.

[JohnGalt]

In this post you say 'they' is supporters of Bin Laden, but Pipes, in this article, just uses 'West' and 'Islam' as distinctions.

The criticism of this article is that the author concludes that we should become 'more like them' which is stupid, but also seemed to be supported by more than a few responders.

Where do you come down on the thesis of the article?

[Publius6961]

Switzerland seems to do okay.

You mean the Nazi-gold-loving Swiss?

He he he he

[JohnGalt]

Prescott Bush made the same determination and look what riches he brought his family.

[jethropalerobber]

I am endorsing [US government's past and present practice of propping up corrupt and undemocratic regimes].

i have to hand it to you - at least you're consistent.

Who would you prefer to rule Arabia? The Saudi royal family, or Osama bin Laden?

it's odd that you present as two distinct options what are actually two sides of the same coin which we have choosen (sadly).

[JasonC]

It is a common figure of speech. Most native English speakers manage to recognize it. It means abandoning all moral principle in a dubious pursuit of advantage, that more or less always fails in the end. It has passed into a figure of speech because everybody once recognized the entire train of thought.

And what is this "we" bit? Are you assuming I'm on your side? That I still will be, regardless of what you choose as a course of action? "Personally", I can live with us minus those who want to nuke Mecca. And see precious little difference between those who want to nuke Mecca and those who nuked lower Manhattan. So, if you want to go to the head of my "prefer to kill them first" list, run around nuking cities.

Which is simply a single instance of the basic point, which I notice you managed to cut out of your selection from my previous. "But it isn't" - where power is to be found, that is. If you want to live as long as you can, avoid pissing off everyone who thinks as I do - we are a bit more numerous than Bin Laden's camp and decidedly stronger. Moral evil creates new enemies as fast as it dispatches the old ones. It is not a route to power, entirely pragmatically and even cynically, for that reason.

[A_perfect_lady]

And what is this "we" bit? Are you assuming I'm on your side? That I still will be, regardless of what you choose as a course of action? "

No, dear, I'm saying THEY consider you to be just another Westerner and will slaughter you even as you cringe before them, assuring them that you are one of the "nice" Westerners who isn't like those nasty ones willing to fight for their lives.

[Alouette]

sickofit Since Aug 5, 2003

James Bacque's 'Other Losses'
A Review by Stephen E. Ambrose

Ike and the Disappearing Atrocities
New York Times Book Review, February 24, 1991

Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience, says in his introduction: "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies." Last December, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts on the period to examine the charges.

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

In short, Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the militia.

What Holocaust-denial site did you dumpster-dive for this scumbag James Bacque?

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT