Oriana Fallaci: Rage and doubt of a threatened civilisation

The Sunday Times ^ | March 16, 2003 | Oriana Fallaci

[Truthsearcher]

I agree with some of her points but I disagree with just as much.

How can she compare the USSR's presence in Afghanistan to ours? The USSR did ask the women to take off their Burka's, but they did not liberate the Afghan people, they merely went to impose a different form of oppression: communism.

Her article is full of a kind of European chauvinism, that some how Europeans have the capacity to appreciate liberty but that the people in the middle east aren't. She completely glosses over how we established freedom in Japan, and complete ignores that we created or help maintain the viability of democracies in many places in Asia, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, etc, none of which have a historical affinity for liberty prior to our arrival.

She goes on about how liberty was "returned" to the Eurpoeans and that in the Middle East they never had it and therefore won't really want it.
I say she is wrong. Human being are born with the asperation to be free, that longing is in all of us, including those living under tyranny in the middle east.

[marron]

I love this woman.

[MHGinTN]

Perhaps the years/lifetimes lived under Islamic law in one form or fashion, while living under political despots has cause the desire new take root, to be truly free and allow neighbors to be truly free to worship the religion of their choosing. Little will be accomplished by giving free elections to people who live under theocratic rule self imposed then transferred to religious Imams. Look at Iran. The struggle for real freedom is in real danger of being suppressed yet again. Religious totalitarianism is more insidious to root out of the psyche than the iron fist of political totalitarianism. The Middle East is hallmarked by religious totalitarianism, Islamism. The radicals outnumber the 'jihad is a personal quest of the soul' Islamists.

[Truthsearcher]

Obviously it take some time and it's a process, you don't expect a new born baby to be able to handle the rigorous of life, you nurture him and teach him and protect him until he grows up.

I don't expect the Iraq (or any Mid East nation) to transform into a western democracy overnight. But with our help over time it will happen.

[rageaholic]

Excellent article, since 9/11 I've come to be an admirer of Oriana Fallaci, hadn't heard of her before.

As for wars of survival, the situation is not nearly so grim. So far we're fighting a relative handfull of cave dwelling extremists.

I don't disagree with Fallaci's characterizaion of islam as a primitive cult of mindless godbots, but the fact of the matter is, now that 9/11 awoke America from our PC stupor, islam simply cannot mobilize the force necessary to seriously threaten our civilization. If they were even fractionally capable of this kind of effort, Israel would have ceased to exist long ago.

That being said, Europe may eventually be swallowed up by islamic immigration and birth rates, but I suspect they'll be awoken by their own 9/11 type attacks before its too late.

At least now its fair to call Islam the malevolent virus that it is. Imagine saying that before 9/11!

[MHGinTN]

May I offer a freindly observation?...

If they were even fractionally capable of this kind of effort, Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. You might want to incorporate one equation into your calculus: we hold nuclear weapons but would not nuke Mecca or Damascus or Baghdad as suicide murderers slaughter scores of our citizenry, but if the jihadis were to mobilize more than the proxy Palestinians to do their dirty work in Israel, the Israelis would use their nukes that way. Never underestimate the bloodlust of the radical Islamics, for if we were nuetralized, they would instantly turn to Tel Aviv as a next target, willingly sacrificing millions of fellow Arabs to eliminate Israel and then rule the world in Sharia law. Do you think the French would stand up to them? hardly

[Travis McGee]

What an amazing woman! She takes my breath away!

[rageaholic]

Tel Aviv as a next target, willingly sacrificing millions of fellow Arabs to eliminate Israel and then rule the world in Sharia law

That's been their goal for as long as I can remember, and that's my point. Even a billion muslims can't crush a tiny Western nation like Israel.

[rageaholic]

Do you think the French would stand up to them? hardly

Not at the present. But they have in the past, remember Charles Martel and the Moors at Tours.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The modern concepts of freedom and democracy are totally unrelated to the ideological texture of Islam, and totally opposed to the despotism and tyranny of theocratic states. In that ideological texture, it is God who commands, it is God who decides the destiny of man, and men are not the children of God: they are his subjects, his slaves. Inshallah - as God wants - inshallah.

Thus in the Koran there is no room for individual judgment, individual choice and freedom. There is no room for a regime that, at least in law, is based on equality and universal suffrage. In fact Muslims do not understand these modern concepts. They refuse them and hope to erase them from our lives by invading and conquering us.

Thanks Marvin. Another good article by Oriana Fallaci. She is right about the Muslims, and she is also right with her assertion that America has been attacked and has the right to defend itself. As she well stated, "this is not a liberation war, a war like the second world war. (By the way: neither is it an 'oil war', as the pacifists who never yell against Saddam or Bin Laden maintain in their rallies. Americans do not need Iraqi oil.) It is a political war. A war made in cold blood to respond to the holy war that the enemies of the West declared upon the West on September 11. "

And to those who say, there is no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, let's not forget that Saddam had connections with Al-Qaeda and supports and finances terrorism. He has rewarded each Palestinian terrorist's family with $25,000, plus he has never disarmed or complied with the UN resolutions. Under Chapter VII charter of the UN the same UN resolutions which Saddam has failed to comply over the last 12 years specifically authorizes its enforcement by "all necessary means."

[Alberta's Child]

Bump for an excellent article.

Though I would ask all Freepers to avoid any references to U.N. mandates when it comes to this topic. Just as the United States should never be constrained by the U.N. in pursuing its own interests in the world, neither should it ever use a "mandate" (or even 10,000 mandates) from that useless organization to justify military action.

[wardaddy]

Wonderful Signora Italiana BTTT

[SAMWolf]

we have realised too late that our values are in danger

Too many still don't realize it.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Though I would ask all Freepers to avoid any references to U.N. mandates when it comes to this topic. Just as the United States should never be constrained by the U.N. in pursuing its own interests in the world, neither should it ever use a "mandate" (or even 10,000 mandates) from that useless organization to justify military action.

You're right about that. However, Bush SR's pursuit of the UN mandate when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 brought us where we are today. Thus this is a continuation of the Gulf War, which ended with a ceasefire in 1991. The terms of which specified Saddam's immediate disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Too many still don't realize it.

That's unfortunately true.

[Diddle E. Squat]

She paints an overly dark picture, perhaps to capture attention and make some good points. But her near-doom conclusion overlooks an important fact: Whether or not the people of Iraq are ready to earn its freedom, the people of Iran ARE ready and most likely will be able to form a functional democratic form of government, if/when they are able to depose the current regime.

[Alberta's Child]

You're right. What is interesting, though, is that I was critical of George Bush Sr. in 1991 for the same reason I've been critical of George W. Bush in 2003 -- If it is in the best interests of the U.S. to wage war against a foreign nation, then why get the U.N. involved in the first place? Look at the difficult position that President Bush now finds himself in -- after making that case that it was important to go through the U.N., he now has to explain why it is important to ignore them.

And even if we were able to secure U.N. approval, why the heck would we ever want the U.N. to enforce a cease-fire agreement under any circumstances?

[Victoria Delsoul]

If it is in the best interests of the U.S. to wage war against a foreign nation, then why get the U.N. involved in the first place?

I agree. I don't like the UN either.

[Alberta's Child]

On a side note, I think the FreeRepublic Quote of the Month goes to someone who posted this gem on a thread about the Elizabeth Smart case:

"It's a good thing Hans Blix wasn't in charge of the search effort -- that poor girl would have been lost forever."