Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill  

Video: BBC urges appeasement

posted at 4:05 pm on September 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

I put out the APB and our friend Brian of London at Friends of Micronesia came through. In a big, big way.

Here’s the BBC listing; this is an edit of the last ten minutes. The clip is short but there’s a lot to digest. Judging from this BBC precis of the program, the speakers you’re looking at are, in order, Professor Mohammad Mohamedou of Harvard, General Ali Shukri of Jordan, and our old friend, Bash-bashing Bin-Laden-hunter Michael Scheuer. I’m unfamiliar with Shukri but I remember Mohamedou from his op-ed in the Globe last year, in which he established himself as the leading expert in this miserable field. He’s presently an associate director of Harvard’s program on … humanitarian policy.

As for Scheuer, the Wikipedians have done us a service by compiling some of his choicer quotes. Devote two minutes here and here before you watch. And pay special attention to his comment in the clip, in which he advocates appeasement while scoffing at the suggestion that he’s advocating appeasement. Expect more of that logic in the next few years — “it’s not that we’re giving the enemy what he wants; it’s that we’re ridding ourselves of things we don’t want.” Victory by concession. Like this.

Without further ado, then. It opens at Ground Zero and closes at the Iwo Jima Memorial, just to make the message of surrender that much more rancid and astonishing. Dedicated to a special lady who can’t figure out what crazy Don Rumsfeld’s so worried about.

Update: Inayat Bunglawala, the Muslim Council of Britain’s media secretary, naturally thought the program was just peachy. LGF has followed Bunglawala’s writing for years — particularly his propensity for issuing veiled threats if Britain doesn’t change her foreign policy pronto.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A more nuanced understanding? Nauseating

Valiant on September 4, 2006 at 4:24 PM

Zarqawi got himself a jihad he could only dream of too. And we introduced him to Allah, which is quite akbar.

Pablo on September 4, 2006 at 4:43 PM

Disgusting. Absolutely chock-a-block with leftist tropes, like trying to retroactively claim that the war with Iraq was sold as a blow against Al Qaeda.

And the worst of it is that these people are such cowards that they never even really come out and clearly say what it is they are advocating. They just use a bunch of crappy buzzwords like being more “nuanced” or “less exposed.” This whole video was predicated on the concept of advocating retreat and appeasement, without actually saying so clearly for fear of the repurcussions. Just disgusting.

The irony of using the Iwo Jima monument was stunning. The planners and the soldiers of Iwo Jima didn’t sit around crybabying over the enemies they killed, or American PR image, or any of the frivolous criticisms of the current conflict. If the makers of this little leftist gag reel had considered that, then maybe they would have thought about balancing out these 3 media stooges with someone who advocated the same kind of forcefulness that won Iwo Jima.

Squid Vicious on September 4, 2006 at 4:57 PM

And pay special attention to his comment in the clip, in which he advocates appeasement while scoffing at the suggestion that he’s advocating appeasement.

I don’t know that he actually “advocated” it.. sounds more like he was making a prediction on what will happen. Listen again to what he said. He said was “we will see American policy change….” “…because it’s not in America’s interests to remain as exposed as we are in the Middle East..” I may not agree with this hypothetical policy change, but it certainly sounds like he’s stating what Washington politicians will do as a result of caving in to polls. I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something.

I vaguely remember seeing this guy on FNC before and I don’t remember him being some kind of appeasing liberal type, but those quotes at Wikipedia you directed us tell a different story… but there are others too. By the way, I don’t know anything about this guy off the top of my head so I’m not defending him, just adding to the conversation here:

O’REILLY: I’m bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to…
SCHEUER: No, I don’t quite follow it, sir, because I — as much as I’d like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it’s conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that’s the way it is.
O’REILLY: But there’s a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They’re not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now…
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we’ve won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven’t won a war since….
O’REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That’s the first step.
O’REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O’REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.

And he NAILS this one:

“Clarke’s book [Against All Enemies] is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel’s failure to condemn Mr. Clinton’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick [Clarke], Bill [Clinton] and Sandy [Berger] and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.”[9]

RightWinged on September 4, 2006 at 6:40 PM

“…The irony is that America initially presented the invasion of Iraq as a lethal stike against al-Quida. It ended up presenting Bin Laden with a jihad he could only dream of.”

Either this journalist doesn’t remember why we invaded Iraq or he thinks we’re all so stupid we can’t even remember recent history. And that last line - “It ended up presenting Bin Laden with a jihad he could only dream of.” - oh no! By defending ourselves we always seem to just play right into the hands of our enemies. I guess we should all just convert to the Muslim faith right now.

And we’re supposed to believe that Bin Laden is a sympathetic character who is fighting against the authoritative governements of the middle-east? So, Bin Laden’s object is to institute limited government and constitutional republicanism? Ha, ha, ha! Oh my goodness.

Kevin R on September 4, 2006 at 6:50 PM

It appears Scheuer likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Rick on September 4, 2006 at 6:59 PM

Didn’t I see this video about -er- 70 years ago? Neville Chamberlain and “Peace of our time” and if we only give them what they want (Sudetenland) they will leave us alone….

CrazyFool on September 4, 2006 at 7:03 PM

The “’so-called’ terrorists”?

dorkafork on September 4, 2006 at 7:12 PM

“…The irony is that America initially presented the invasion of Iraq as a lethal stike against al-Quida. It ended up presenting Bin Laden with a jihad he could only dream of.”

And if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, Afghanistan would have presented him a jihad. Or if we invaded Saudi Arabia it would have presented him a jihad. Or Syria. Or if we had just stayed home our weakness would have presented him the opportunity for a jihad.

It is really hard to give these fools the benefit of the doubt, and assume they really are just fools, rather than the despicable rat bastards they seem.

B Moe on September 4, 2006 at 8:50 PM

“I was against appeasement, before I was for it, but not totally for it, but in principle I’m for it now” –Michael Scheuer (which in German means ’scrub’).

Looks like Mr. Scheuer’s mind needs a good scrubbing!

What a collossal professional failure, who can’t shut up!

Entelechy on September 4, 2006 at 10:29 PM

Correction - colossal (with one ‘l’) - doesn’t diminish Mr. Scheuer’s failure as a prfessional one bit!

Entelechy on September 4, 2006 at 10:33 PM

Appeasement is on its way - the new inter-face hospital gown in Britain…

Entelechy on September 5, 2006 at 11:11 AM

I do agree with this statement:

SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That’s the first step.
O’REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.

We need a Truman decision to help win this war on terror. We need to take the backbone out of the terrorists, demoralize them, gain worldwide suport in finding all of the terror leaders.
HOW?? The TRUMAN DECISION. NOT atomic, but world changing attacks against the ENEMY and ALL who help them in any way.
Same result as August 1945, save millions of people around the world from dying slowly over decades and kill these terrorists where ever they are. Two weeks of massive bombings and its over. Warn them, then do it!
If we dont? We’ll wait 10 years and then have to do the same damn thing after countless innocent people around the world have died from terrorists. Plus, they just might get WMD soon. Do we want that problem?

shooter on September 5, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Wow, scary thought here. Imagine a Ms. Clinton Whitehouse (ugh) a Pelosi Speaker, AND the next Zarqawi with chemical or dirty atomic suitcase bombs.
They could just walk over the border, any border. They could fly it in (non-english speaking guards at the airports wouldnt have understood what to look for). They could drive it in…..getting the picture yet? Where would they release it/them?

shooter on September 5, 2006 at 11:18 AM

Shooter, that is pretty scary. If that were to happen, you’ll see terror attacks increase ’cause they’ll see us as weak and leanin towards dhimmitude. They will start demanding muslim only swimming pools and fitness centers, they’ll demand muslims pray rooms in all work places and schools. Piglet will be removed from all Winnie the Pooh books, artworks will be destroyed, (these examples have already happened) etc etc. If Christians or Jews did these things the libs would be freakin’ out, but because it’s the muzzies, Hey it’s no pro-blemo. Are the libs cowards or just plain stoopit?

Tony737 on September 6, 2006 at 1:29 AM

My question is, who dresses these people in the morning? They sure don’t have the basic intelligence to do it themselves.

The theory of gravity must give them a lot of trouble as well. Drop something, it falls down. Consequences for actions. If you capitulate to a mass murderer, he kills you. Where do people get the idea that all you have to do to stop a monster is smile at it?

Nuanced understanding? I think we understand these fiends rather well. To defeat or even survive people as relentless as these, you have to be just as if not more relentless in your response.

theholyhermit on September 6, 2006 at 4:36 AM


You must be logged in to post a comment.