Home

Warnie Award


Photos


  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing photos in a set called Your Favorites. Make your own badge here.

Hugh Hewitt Blog

Blog powered by Typepad

« Fear Not | Main | Lunacy of London Mayor »

July 08, 2005

Comments

harold historian

When we are attacked, we are all attacked, but to you, it is just another occasion to attack other Americans. Truly disheartening.


hurl

Harold - Wow. You equate the rape and slaughter of thousands with the efforts to pull foolish heads out of the sand..... Hmmmm....

The words "Profound moral stupidity" come to mind....

James s

When the likes of Teddy "chappaquiddick" Kennedy, Dick "Nazi and Soviet gulag lovin" Durbin, attack our soldiers for doing the great work of defending our country in the world wide war on terrorism, I think it is perfectly fair to attack America hating Americans.

Another fine example of "Liberalism is a mental disease."

harold historian

The hatred that echoes through the chambers of this blog towards liberals is as strong as the hatred towards Muslim terrorists.

Wayne M

Harold,
We are not only at war with international terrorists but we are also at war with many within our country. There is a cultural war and a values war. Many in our national leadership would rather support our enemies than our troops. Anytime is the right time to confront these individuals.

Why is confronting error or evil hatred?

John

No, it's not a war.

War is fought between armies, with declarations of war, agreed restrictions in terms of who may be targeted, and defined goals.

What is happening now is a struggle between undefined groups of people, with few restrictions apparent on either side, and no defined goals. It is not a war. It *is* a violent struggle, an unjust and inequitable affront to all the values that the USA (and the UK) holds dear.

It would be quite possible to answer that list of things that "muslims" have done with an equally long and bloody list of things that "Christians" have done. However, neither list is in any way helpful except to defend a pre-existing emotional attachment to hatred of the Other.

Should bombings like that in my country yesterday not move us to pity rather than hatred? Should our reaction not be restrained and dignified, rather than unthinking and out of proportion? Should the results of our actions not be intended to show that we will continue as though nothing had happened, rather than to cede victory to the bombers by doing what they want?

pax et bonum

James s

I am sorry but you would not be able to come up with at list of terrible things done by Christians in the name of Christ that agreed with Biblical teaching. That is not to say Christians have not done bad things, it is to say then when they do bad things they are against the teachings of the church.

On the other hand, the things that are being done now by Muslim extremist groups are indeed inline with the teaching of Muslim doctrine.

No, the bombing should not move us to pity (except for the families that have lost loved ones), it should move us to denounce the actions of these perpetrators in the strongest possible terms and to hunt them down and kill them so that they will not do it again.

These people want you to concede and do nothing. The right thing is to respond with such power that fear is put into the hearts of every would-be terrorist.

harold historian

When 4 bombs, each weighing less than 10 punds, can be set off and do the damage that they did, then "responding with such power that fear is put into their hearts" is the mark of a ineffective response.


From the WP:

"We must defend a vast infrastructure constantly while extremists get to pick the time and place with very limited tools," Hamre told the FT. "Obviously we must try to intercept the terrorists. But we must also address the broader socio-political context. We can't solve this with a relatively limited dimensional model of counterforce. Being mighty is one thing. Being effective is another."

Wayne M

What do you mean by... "But we must also address the broader socio-political context"?

harold historian

We should be open to understandng the situation a litle better than Michelle Malkin provides.

We should be open to considering things OTHER than religion as the problem.

And we should be open to considering things OTHER than military force as the solution.

The question, mind you, is what would be an effective solution.

John

"you would not be able to come up with at list of terrible things done by Christians in the name of Christ that agreed with Biblical teaching...On the other hand, the things that are being done now by Muslim extremist groups are indeed inline with the teaching of Muslim doctrine."

That's simply not true. We could look at the crusades - terrorism against muslim states, based on "biblical teaching". Or we could look at the current "war on terror", promulgated based on alleged "biblical teaching". Both brought huge amounts of death and suffering to innocent people. We could look at the Inquisition, the Reformation Wars, the Irish wars of independence and the campaign in Northern Ireland, and on and on.

The "teaching of muslim doctrine" that you mention is almost universally opposed to the violence perpetrated this week. The response of the British Muslim population has been uniform horror and condemnation. To believe that "muslims" are terrorists is to fall into the worst sort of stereotypical thinking.

"it should move us to denounce the actions of these perpetrators in the strongest possible terms and to hunt them down and kill them so that they will not do it again."

It's rather fortunate, then, that we British don't think in such immoderate terms or we'd have an even worse situation before long.

True, we should condemn these attacks and those who committed them. True, we should try to discover who they are, arrest them and subject them to the full force of the law. But that's not at all what you seem to be suggesting - which is somehow that the law doesn't apply to these people, that we should just "kill them so that they won't do it again". We don't have the death penalty over here, you see. Just like various States in the USA, in fact.

Please remember, you USAians. This was an attack in the UK. Don't project your fears and biases onto us. We believe in treating people according to their own actions - we do not condemn all Muslims for what a very few of their co-religionists do. We don't believe in giving in to fear. We will continue doing what we always do, and will not allow these people to change us. For, if we do, we allow them control and give them the victory.

pax et bonum

Asahd h

John,
Your ignorance is astounding. First, the Crusades were fought in a reaction to Muslim aggression. Yes I would admit, they went too far and as far as they went too far, that part was not based on Biblical teaching. And how is the current war on terror based on Biblical teaching. This war is purely a war against aggression.

If you say these Muslim acts are opposed by Muslim leadership give me a list of names of notable Muslim leaders that are standing up and opposing these actions. Instead what you are apt to find is millions of Muslims around the world cheering the event just like the cheering that was going on after the world trade center attack.

Just remember you "UKians" that an attack on the west is an attack on the entire west. Millions of Muslims want us all dead. Wake up!

John

As for the Crusades and the "War on terror" being in response to aggression, that's debatable and irrelevant. Many of the Crusades were naken land grabs or attempts to remove troublemakers from Europe. Both campaigns, in any case, are bringing fear, pain and death to hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of religion (the rhetoric coming from the USA, in particular, often has a disgusting "Christian" flavour to it). Christians have done and continue to do terrible things in the name of their religion; our hands are not clean in this respect.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie from the Muslim Council of Britain made very strongly worded statements condemning the bombings, as have many other Muslim leaders in this country. For example:
"The president of Glasgow Central Mosque, Ashraf Anjum, said Scotland's Muslim community condemned the "indiscriminate attacks on innocent people" which had left at least 50 dead in London." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4663503.stm)
"They were united in denouncing the bombers and issued a statement. It said: "The bombers do not represent the views or beliefs of any community or religion. They must be hunted down and brought to account." " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4664161.stm)
and many, many more.

You are are amazingly blinkered to assume that the millions of British Muslims would applaud such a thing. Or, indeed, that the huge majority of moderate Muslims would do the same, whatever their country. The media showed us extremists rejoicing after the US attacks - but even that was far from representative.

"Millions of Muslims want us all dead."

Even if there are millions who do, there are far more millions of Muslims who wish us no harm at all. There are millions of Muslims in the UK and the USA who love their countries and want only good things for them. Why are you so filled with hate against all Muslims?

pax et bonum

Asahd h

You are right to point out that in this case there were indeed many Muslim leaders that come forward to condemn this action; shortly after I had posted my comment I read that this was indeed the case. This is good news for all parties. Maybe the Muslim community is waking to the horror that is being perpetrated in the name Of Allah and they will take action to stop it. Verbal condemnation is one, we get that out of the Liberals in the U.S. all the time but we know that action is what really matter. When will we see action out of the Muslim community to stop this terror? That remains to be seen.

You conceded my point about Millions wanting us dead. If that is true even if there 100 billion that do not, the millions that do are a terrible threat and need to be dealt with. Look what 20 did.

I have no hate for Muslims; I just understand this terrorist ideology that is growing rapidly worldwide, yes in the UK and in the U.S. I think with a mind that is alert and aware and vigilant. Constantly vigilant!

John

I didn't concede your point - I specifically said "Even if there are millions who do..." There may well be a lot who hate the West in general, but there are far fewer who would become terrorists (and, of course, our actions in Iraq and elsewhere are increasing this number daily!). And we can certainly claim that there are millions who hate Muslims now - the terrorists have achieved that much. They have created a situation in which many people have been brought to believe that it is "them" and "us", that we hate them and they hate us, and that there is no way round that, only war, terror and killing.

"I just understand this terrorist ideology that is growing rapidly worldwide"

Then you'll understand that there is no single "terrorist ideology". Each group has its own ideology, and they are extremely varied. I have no problem with calls for vigilance - vigilance is a good thing. The problem is with cries for revenge, hatred and retribution, with those who allow fear to over-rule everything so that they take away the freedoms we claim to be fighting for in the same of "security", with believing that those we strugle with are less human than we are, less important and less worth saving.

pax et bonum

 Asahd h

John,
You are right, you did not concede my point, you made it for me. Clearly there are millions of Muslims that practice Wahhabism and they are willing to kill all infidels.

You are just pain wrong about who the terrorists are. The vast majority of those willing to perpetrate terror world wide are radical Muslims. There may be a few other groups that use terrorism, but radical Muslims are by far the majority.

So John, would you agree that freeing millions of women in Afghanistan was a good thing?

Would you agree that destroying the murder chambers in Iraq was a good thing?

Would you agree that taking the 2nd largest oil reserve hence money supply away from a mad man that was clearly bent on doing us harm was a good thing?


John

My point about "different ideologies" is that, even within the extremist Islamic groups, there are a wide range of ideologies. To talk about "the terrorist ideology" is to be overly simplistic because there are several distinct ideologies involved in the different groups. Indeed, the groups involved are often mutually antagonistic.

As for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I have no problem saying that there were some good results. I have also no problem in saying that we were flagrantly lied to about the reasons for the Iraq war, that we have done atrocious things there with no legal justification. We have acted against the principles that we trumpet to the world, and we have greatly increased the number of people now willing to use terrorism against us. Our methods are far too tainted for us to claim moral victory - "the ends justify the means" is a morally bankrupt philosophy.

To remind people - there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.

As for "taking the 2nd largest oil reserve hence money supply away from a mad man" - by what right did we do this? Who now controls this oil? It doesn't seem to be the people of Iraq.

pax et bonum

Peter Glover

The problem is that Islam itself...that is the actual teachings of Mohammed and the Qu'ran itself teach murder of 'infidels' and 'Jews and Christians'. Though many Muslims choose not to carry through Mohammed's instructions nevetheless they are diobeying their master's voice.

The Bible on the other hand teaches that murder (premeditated kiling) is a sin.

Islam is no 'religion of peace'. Being a historian myself, I had always thought being clued up on the facts is a good idea. The Crusades were a reaction to centuries of invasions of the mass forceable 'conversion' of countless nations by the sword of Islam.

Christ never lifted a sword or hurt anyone. Christ contends by the word alone. The Bible teaches these same things consistently.

Now then, where are the similarities again here...?

Case closed.

No terrorists in Iraq before we invaded...ha! ha! I think is the most appropriate comment. Read Stephen Hayes' The Connection about the many training camps Saddam sponsored for years...

Who controls the oil...well no longer Saddam for a start...the Iraqi Government members seem to think they do, oddly enough.

And by what right did we do this...by right of the ceasefire agreement in 1991 which Saddam needed 17 reminder resolutions to abide by - and still failed to so after 12 years...anything else?

John

The Qu'ran also teaches that the people of the book (i.e. Christians and Jews) are to be tolerated and not forcibly converted or otherwise persecuted.

The Qu'ran shares the OT with the Christian Bible and also condemns killing (i.e. murder) as a sin.

The Crusades were not a clean, simple "reaction to muslim invasion". They were not holy wars. They were an unholy mixture of politics and religion, with fervour whipped up based on religion in order to achieve political ends.

As for terrorists in Iraq, I don't think you could argue that there are vastly more there than there ever were before. I suppose the question of exactly how many were there before the war is impossible to prove now, so I apologise for bringing it up.

I don't think the Iraqi government believe they control the oil. It's nakedly controlled by the USA, and by the companies they've put in charge. US companies.

The 1991 ceasefire didn't give the right to invade. The UN resolution didn't give the right to invade. It was a decision made by the USA (and UK) in isolation with no international support or justification in terms of "real and present danger" - unlike what we were told at the time.

pax et bonum

John

Whoops.
"I don't think you could argue that there are vastly more there than there ever were before" should of course have read "I don't think you could argue against there being vastly more there than there ever were before".

pax et bonum

The comments to this entry are closed.