“Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death”
posted at 8:08 am on March 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I think us infidels should start our own terrorists organization and target wannabe suicide bombers. I’m still working on a cool name and logo. Any suggestion?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 8:14 AM
We had that spirit once when we dropped Little Boy and Fat Man, and that saved a lot of American lives
Ropera on March 4, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Wouldn’t it make sense to remove their
aengus on March 4, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Let me guess: Ed Morrissey, another neocon zionist lap dog. Exit question: jew, or crypto-jew?
kafiiri on March 4, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Dershowitz, the lone ranger from his clique, is spot on.
The highly educated Islamic elite OF COURSE use Western weaknesses to their own advantage. They always have, and always will. Since their defeat outside of Vienna, they have spent the past few centuries thinking, thinking, thinking, generation upon generation. What should have happened; what would work under what circumstances now?
“Our” Western liberal tendency is too ironic to pass off without keeping at the forefront of our self awareness. “We” would be liberal except that each time we are, we become brutes. But those brutes amongst us make certain that the up and coming generation goes through the same ideological idiocy in the quest for the ideal utopia required of maturity prior to total responsibility. When one truly becomes totally responsible for EVERYONE and all failures, reality sets in hard, and utopia vaporizes into celestial ether.
Captain, when you son advances in years, you know that when his son prepares for graduate school, your son will have the same table discussions as the two of you did recently. Life goes on. But if the mullahs have their way paved by lenient nice-guys, OUR life will not go on. If he truly believed what he is saying, he would be willing to prove himself right or wrong by placing himself in the hands of the mullahs now.
maverick muse on March 4, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Dead on correct, sir.
I’ve believed this war could’ve been won years ago had we - the West - not handcuffed ourselves with notions of “civilized” behavior that only serve to make the irradication of radical Islam impossible. That the worldwide MSM and the various forms of the Left are actively doing all they can to make sure the handcuffs never come off is to be expected, but what is surprising and most disturbing is witnessing how the rational among us have - with few exceptions - pulled back from advocating the kind of total war that surely is necessary. The Bush administration has seemed almost in defeat (7 years after 9/11, and Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran are still standing?!, and Hezbollah and Hamas and Fatah are as strong as ever?! What war on terorr?) and sharia creep seems now to be an accepted part of Western culture from Seattle to Paris.
What is missing is a Western leader willing and able to simply state the truth.
Halley on March 4, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Bravo to Mr. Morrissey for expanding this from a featured link to a full blog entry. I’d already sent the WSJ column link to several relatives after reading it here yesterday. This is the sort of information that is absolutely crucial for people to understand at this point in time, I only wish our elected leaders had the courage to articulate and draw attention to it…
Cylor on March 4, 2008 at 8:25 AM
If they love death so much, why do they hide in caves, and behind innocent civilians? They are cowards, and I hope every last one of them gets to taste a bullet fired by an American soldier.
I love life, but I don’t love Pepsi. I’m more of a Dr. Pepper man…
revolutionismyname on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Cap’n Ed, WELL SAID. That is why I said yesterday, and still mean it today: WE NEED TO MAKE IRAN GLOW IN THE DARK FOR 1 MILLION YEARS.
It is a matter of giving them EXACTLY what they want to the point that they can’t stand it anymore: DEATH.
jimbo2008 on March 4, 2008 at 8:28 AM
I personally like Diet Coke much better…
pullingmyhairout on March 4, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Actually, in WWII, we didn’t worry much about civilian deaths among the enemy. Can you imagine how quickly we would have had to stop strategic bombing of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan if there had been photos of dead babies on TV every night. We are in a fight for our very survival. To win, we have to have the courage to kill civilians when doing so meets our strategic goals. Unfortunately, we don’t have that courage.
fleiter on March 4, 2008 at 8:34 AM
The beauty of the death culture is that they repeatedly spend ~25 years cultivating the desire for death in their young people and then kill them off, thereby removing the potential for reproduction.
There can be no solution other than extermination for a death culture, they will kill off themselves and their means to reproduce while also losing support and subordination.
Perhaps it is difficult for Western cultures to grasp this fundamental difference which does not seek any resolution or compromise, seeking only their own deaths and ours as well. That should only strengthen our resolve to segregate our societies (yes, I understand that segregate is a taboo word) from these death-worshipping barbarians.
As experts have always said, there is no negotiating with terrorists. Kill them or remove them from society permanently.
Geministorm on March 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM
I’m not sure that we have to be like them in order to defeat them. The court of public opinion… and this goes beyond just Americans and Arabs, is an important part of the long term battle against these terrorists. Terrorist love it when the civilians they hide amongst get whacked because it builds sympathy for their cause… it produces more volunteers and people willing to turn a blind eye to terrorists and radicals in their midst. Those arguing for a more proportionate and targeted response aren’t succumbing to some targeted vulnerability. Those who advocate using overwhelming force against acts conducted by individuals and cell level organizations are the ones merely playing into AQs hands and reacting precisely the way Bin Laden and Co. would like.
lexhamfox on March 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM
This seems, to me, to be a good argument for us to start re-examining our nation’s policy of not condoning asassinations. You quote any number of imams praising and yearning for death. Well then. Let’s help these cheerleaders for death realize their dream.
It would seem to me, these imams are combatants in every sense of the word.
It ticks me off that these barbarians have made it necessary for us to consider such actions.
Brian K on March 4, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Yep, I agree. If they want death so much lets oblidge them. I will ask around about that name. hehe
boomer on March 4, 2008 at 8:37 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Yes, just shut up. You make stupid sound smart.
leanright on March 4, 2008 at 8:38 AM
we will not win this struggle. The muslimeen are out breeding us. While the west’s birth rates are stagnating, the peoples of the Islamic ummah are breeding like bunnies. In time they will just grow grow grow. As stated above they also have a faith. An extremely strong one that is centered on death and becoming a shahid. Half of our 300 million don’t care. How many of their 1.2 billion are OBSESSED?
Plenty when you include the supporters monetary or not, the martyrs and their families, radical govts like Iran, etc etc etc.
blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Perhaps because killing more people is preferable than killing fewer in the process, and that they think their big moment hasn’t come yet; if they hide out in a cave long enough to get better weapons that can kill more people when they go, they will have died “better.” Or they haven’t trained and/or they haven’t brainwashed their successor(s) yet, and there’s still much work to be done? Your “logic” is mighty illogical. Let me guess…you’re voting “D” today?
ParisParamus on March 4, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Beer I love. Carbonated sugar sludge? Not so much.
A bad peace is worse than a good war. A good war would make the death cultists history.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Any movement that straps on bombs to kill innocent civilians is not a religion. It is a sect and a criminal sect at that.
Society wins when criminal sects are wiped of the face of the earth. Show no mercy for the sake of society!
Golfer_75093 on March 4, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I don’t advocate Total War, but the strategy of proportional response is an abject failure. They bomb a Navy vessel, we launch som Tomohawks at some tents. They bomb a few embassies, we bomb a few more tents. This didn’t work for LBJ in the 60s, and it didn’t work for Clinton in the 90s.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Exactly Ed! NOW is not better time. Later is going to get us all killed!
upinak on March 4, 2008 at 8:44 AM
golfer. It is a religion. Just a copy cat one with a bloody twist. It is a complete copy cat of Christianity and Judaism.
blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I disagree. As long as Islam is a religion devoted to killing everyone else, it should be wiped out. I’m glad about, I celebrate, I rejoice in the Spanish genocide of the traditional Aztec religion adherents. I’m glad we don’t face a Hugo Chavez committing human sacrifice in Venezuela. I’m glad we don’t face an invasion of illegal Mexican and Central Americans immigrants who want to institute human sacrifice here in the United States.
Is Islamic Jihad any more moral than Aztec human sacrifice for Huehueteotl?
thuja on March 4, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Don’t worry Ed, it’s just a phase, he’ll ow out of it.
Tony737 on March 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM
They are idiots. They are out-breeding us anyway. If they were smart, they’d just immigrate, have kids, take advantage of the PC wave, and not blend in to the host culture. They’d win in a few generations.
Oh, wait….they’re doing that too.
p40tiger on March 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM
I don’t see many posts here that are actually worthy of the ban-stick, but that thar’s one of em. Unless that was satire and I’m just too dense to get it. It does sound like satire. Kind of Monty Python.
Immolate on March 4, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Reality check. In total war there can be no such thing as a civilian. To think otherwise is to lose. Cruel, but true.
OldEnglish on March 4, 2008 at 8:51 AM
If it is a Muslim’s “love of death” that explains suicide bombing, why is it that most suicide bombers are secular?
dave742 on March 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM
It shows how much these morons know about us, it’s CocaCola or nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
flytier on March 4, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Mmmmmmmmm Pepsiiiiiiii! One of mankind’s greatest inventions.
Great article Capt Ed, should be a must read in American schools … but they’re too busy learning how not to offend islam.
Tony737 on March 4, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Rational thought coupled with military training says the rules of war with terrorists are simple.
Do not hesitate. Send them to Allah before they send you to God.
This statement is not racist, sexist, or any of the other liberal blather-its a realistic fact of the times we live in.
MSGTAS on March 4, 2008 at 9:01 AM
The cult of death isn’t going to go away by wishing, and that’s all a negotiation with someone whose mind is thusly twisted would be - wishful.
There’s some truth to the joke that “we haven’t played cowboys and ayrabs yet”…
I would much rather see a consistent, firm response from the west rather than decades of appeasement followed by bursts violence - it would lead to a more stable environment if the Islamists, like any other spoiled little shiites, could perceive the pattern of the response.
Mew
acat on March 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Ed. I really appreciate your plain language. I sure wish we could get this across to Americans because this is exactly the way it is. I was leary about McCain, but I read a link on yesterday’s thread that posted an articale chronicling his time as a POW. I know McCain has a temper, but if he can maintain his composure after what he’d been subjected to in that POW camp, he can handle anything. He is made of strong stuff, and fully understands the threat. We may not agree with his domestic policies, but not fighting terrorism leaves domestic policy moot, because we won’t have one to worry about if the terrorist succeed in bringing their war to our front doors. McCain has been on the front lines for our country before, and rose to the occasion, I trust him now.
csvdsaint on March 4, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Bombs are put together and jihadists trained within mosques, yet we won’t take them out because they are “religious buildings.” What, taking out mosques we know are “terrorist central” will make these Neanderthals mad at us? What will they do? Oh… exactly what they’re doing already. Got it.
Hell, we won’t even pour water up their noses to find out where the other bad guys are and what they’re up to. Do you know why the radical Islamists think we’re stupid and weak? Because we apparently have become so.
Sugar Land on March 4, 2008 at 9:04 AM
He’s a troll. Give him some more rope to hang himself with…
Leonidas Hoplite on March 4, 2008 at 9:06 AM
What a great post. Well said, Mr. Morrissey.
Too many Americans are still fighting the last war, and WAAAAY too many Americans don’t even want to fight the war in which we’re presently engaged. I put most liberals in the latter group, of course. I put much of our military brass in the former group, though. We are spending billions on smarter, more precise weapons and every day we get better at killing “bad guys” while reducing “collateral damage” and civilian casualties.
You are right, there can be no negotiated settlement with an irrational enemy. Their will must be broken, and we need a genuine “whatever it takes” attitude by an American public to win the war and stop the hand-wringing about winning the public-relations war.
melanzan on March 4, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The problem is what they teach their kids. This preacher was in AUSTRALIA teaching his kids that their best hope in life is to die ‘for Allah’. This isn’t in ‘Palestine’, Kashmir, or anywhere else that there is actually a struggle for human rights. This is in AUSTRALIA.
They need to stop teaching their kids that they should love dying, and we’ll stop killing them. . . it’s pretty simple really.
ThackerAgency on March 4, 2008 at 9:09 AM
It strikes me that in our own Revolution, we used the British tenets of “civilized warfare” against them as well, right? Didn’t they have “rules” about not attacking officers on the field or something like that? Our guys didn’t really care, IIRC. How many colonels did our guys nail with their Kentucky Rifles?
It certainly is a valid and arguable point that war is terrible and should be fought as vigorously as possible. The challenge is to keep the inhumanity from carrying over to times of peace. I think America is up to it. I admire the ideals our country was founded upon, and I will defend them to my dying breath, but I have no wish to die for their being applied to those who use them as a weapon against us.
Maybe this sounds like a “kill them all, let God sort them out” argument. I’m not going that far, but on the other hand how much support would al Qaeda have among so-called “civilians” if the war was brought to their doorstep…just as al Qaeda insists on bring the war to ours?
JohnTant on March 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Trying to reason with the essentially unreasonable
(fatalistic theocratic fanatics)
is being more unreasonable than they are.
You do not negotiate with those whose idea of a just settlement is
your decapitated head settled on the floor.
Some things you just have to kill off.
Terroristic fanaticism being one.
profitsbeard on March 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Yes, I agree. But with the cowardly democraps and RINOs in our congress holding GW’s arms back during this war on terror I’m afraid proportional response is the most we can hope for. But now that GW is a lame duck, I would hope he would be inspired to at least decapitate Hezbollah, Hama, Iran and AQ quickly and rather dramatically. No need to wipe out too many civilians, just devastate the important targets and see what falls out afterwards. Sorry, but war is war and the only humane thing to do is to win it as quickly as possible. That’s my two cents.
Zorro on March 4, 2008 at 9:26 AM
They love death - we should give it to them - in numbers so large it would make thier heads spin.
jdawg on March 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
The term “unconditional surrender” during WWII sent a message to all of our enemies. It did mean fire bombings of civilian targets and eventually dropping the big one (twice) instead of sacrificing untold Americans in order to gain control of a war that we did not want, or start.
The more we attempt to fight conditional wars, the deeper we will sink into chaos. The more winning a war becomes distasteful, the more our enemy will make it so. You can’t fight conditional wars against an enemy who wishes to wipe out you and your entire culture. When your enemy is willing to destroy their own children, and themselves just to get you……it’s time to get unconditional really fast, and put a stop to it any way possible no matter how terrible that sacrifice effects the here and now. We are all not electing the leaders or giving enough of our support to that type of solution, but we are sitting back fat and lazy while our military does every day.
Hening on March 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
In my opinion this is one of the key concepts we are facing and we will continue to lose as long as we believe that war is between leaders and not between countries. The big naughty is nationalism and patriotism because we are all just citizens of the world that all want the same thing but our leaders prevent it by getting into these stupid wars to line their pockets. We are lost as long as we believe that the average citizen doesn’t take a side and is just an innocent bystander.
jmarcure on March 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM
“Arm yourself because no one else here will saaa-ve you…”
Spanglemaker on March 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM
What he and his cohorts fail to understand is that this is precisely the reason that they will lose in the end.
morganfrost on March 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Of course we’re not going to reject rationalism and kill everything in sight. But we’re frequently told about this “tiny minority” of extremists and of the millions upon millions of moderates… who passively or actively protect those extremists.
The only way this is ever going to end is for Islam to clean its own house. Until these moderates are forced by negative consequences to step up and drive out the “tiny minority” we’re going to have Islamic terrorism. If that means flattening civilian areas where terrorists are launching rockets or hiding weapons caches, so be it. Give them a warning - turn them in or else - and if nobody steps up flatten the place. Let the moderates who choose to protect the tiny minority bear the consequences for their decision. That’s rationalism.
Laura on March 4, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Amazing, another post filled by armchair generals from Bumfuck, Alabama advocating genocide of more than 1 billion people. You people would be a good application of the death penalty.
kafiiri on March 4, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Fat and lazy is not the problem. The problem is that many first world people no longer believe in country or culture and because of that they can not fathom someone that does. Patriots, flag wavers and nationalists are all slurs we use to describe an undesirable person. A great many of us just can not believe someone would die for their country and belittle those that would as stupid. This is not a liberal view it is a first world view. How many times has it been pointed out that Clinton bombed Iraq to cover a sex scandal and Bush bombed Iraq to line the pockets of his friends? You don’t hear that other presidents started wars to line their pockets or cover scandals because during those times we had pride in or country. We are fighting a war against our own culture and we are heck bent on losing that war because to do otherwise is just not civilized.
jmarcure on March 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I rest my case.
jmarcure on March 4, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Thuja should get a standing ovation.
Islam should be denied the status of a religion, just as human sacrificing Satan worshippers or Aztec sun-worshippers are denied the rights of following their religion.
If the West declares that Islam is not a religion, we can deal with it as the death cult it really is. No right to worship Mohammad, just as you have no right to sacrifice a baby to Satan. No mosques in our cities, no tolerance of burkhas, hijabs, or madrassas. They can worship their filthy blood god all they want, but they’re going to have to do it in basements with the rest of the death cults.
And then we can get on with the happy task of freeing a billion enslaved Muslim, women and men both, and bringing them out of the darkness and into the Light.
bonnie_ on March 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I loved this whole thing. AD’s bit, EM’s bit…This perfectly expresses my position.
beefytee on March 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Post saved as one of those uncomfortable truths… but a truth nonetheless. Goes right up there with Grim’s post at Blackfive a while back… disturbing, but a truth that most will never be able to admit.
hindmost on March 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I think a few rats snuck aboard with our new shipmates.
dinasour on March 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM
The good news is that this is starting to happen in Iraq. The bad news is that it took Iraq for this to happen.
Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics
BAGHDAD — After almost five years of war, many young people in Iraq, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM
OK, who let the moonbat slip through the crack?
Crackpipe, that is.
rightside on March 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Thank You!
Lawrence on March 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I am a little from column A, a little from Column B, and a little from Column C.
Perhaps it’s because I’m not all the familiar with the Internets. Or perhaps it’s because I have a life. But I’ve never understood the mentality on going onto a webpage or blog as it were to do THAT. I don’t get it. It’s a free country with freedom of speech and all that jazz, but shouldn’t this guy just stick with the “everything’s a zionist conspiracy pages”? Or the holocaust denier ones? Or the KKK ones?
Then again, I have a life better spent doing other things that crap stirring on websites I don’t want to be on….
mjk on March 4, 2008 at 10:28 AM
The Sharia Demolition Front? Or better known as the SDF?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
There had to be one foul rat slipping through but HotAir will kill it off pretty soon. In the meantime, look at just what this kafiri is, a sick, dumb supporter of death and hate.
All of you are so right, the questions becomes: how do we get the people around us to understand the sickness that surrounds us here and on the planet. It is a pestilence of the lowest form of life and we must eradicate it, no questions!!
sharinlite on March 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM
And yet, when I suggest killing them to the last man, woman and child, I am considered the bad one.
I have always seen it as a matter of self preservation.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM
One of my research papers in seminary had to deal with cults. I chose Islam since the paper would write itself. My professor explained that Islam is a world religion and doesn’t qualify as a cult based on the number of followers.
To me it will always be a very disturbing, negative and essentially evil cult no matter how many people subscribe to the evil it creates, or how much they whine about not support terrorism and the systematic abuse of women and children. We do know them by their fruits.
Hening on March 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Right on sicko. How about Degenerate Underground for Muslim Beating and Arab Sharia Shooting?
Better known as D.U.M.B. A.S.S.
leanright on March 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Those of us on the right understand this. The liberal dinosaurs and ex-hippies controlling the mainstream print and electronic media are the ones who don’t. The lazy sheep who digest this MSM koolaid are as much to blame.
spidgy on March 4, 2008 at 10:50 AM
leanright on March 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM
How’s the logo coming?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims
Not all. But a lot of them.
Look, we had a shot at this back in the Crusades, and several opportunities since then. We keep holding back. It’s the time now for 100 tits for every tat.
Bring it on.
pabarge on March 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Islam is the ultimate copy cat religion!
It is christianity and islam but with a blood twist thrown in there! Islam claims the same forefathers, and traces its roots to Adam.
Abraham - Ibrahim.
Psh
blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Agree. You can’t fight terrorist organizations that hide amongst civilians with conventional forces. But you can with special forces, commandos, covert intelligence operations, and (as Brian K suggests) assassination teams. We’ve been attempting this, with some success, in Afghanistan and Iraq (and most recently in the Sudan).
No place should be off-limits, including mosques and other ’sacred’ sites. But I’d stop bragging about successful hits to the press. Just take out the leadership quietly and efficiently, and as new leaders emerge, take them out, too. At some point you’ll be able to disrupt the terrorists to the point where they simply cannot carry out attacks.
A harder question is how to treat the incendiary preachers of violence in our own country, in mosques where imans are flaming the fires of radical Islam. Where does freedom of speech and religion end, and national security begin?
MrLynn on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It’s sad to see the decline of the west in motion, both from external and internal factors. It’s strange too because so many of us see it and want to prevent it, yet so many others are content to just stand around like cows and chew. It feels like being trapped in a mental institution that’s on fire or something.
Grayson on March 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Geministorm, the only problem with your assumption above is that it doesn’t jive with the demographics. Despite seeing mothers celebrating their little angels’ (/sarc) martyrdom, they aren’t offering up ALL of their kids. Muslims are still out-producing all western nations in the kids department. Hell, even ultra-Catholic Italy is below replacement value.
So what I say is this: Every couple in America need to have at least three kids. My wife and I are helping out; we have four. ;)
mjtyson on March 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Pepsi, the pride of the Carolinas. New Bern, NC to be exact.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Great line.
Ortzinator on March 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Also,
I prefer Wild Cherry Pepsi.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Right after 9/11 Silvio Burlesconi said “This is a clash of civilizations, and we should not doubt the superiority ours over theirs.” The liberals howled even then, our dauntless president W even sought to distance himself from such an inflammatory (yet true) statement of the obvious. They use our own laws against us(see Mark Steyn’s predicament) agitate for concessions to their way of life(from Sharia law to footbath’s at Universities here in the US) and laugh as they undermine our society.
Personally I like Coca Cola.
Lunkinator on March 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
This is all incredible rational. We have an enemy. That enemy wants to kill us. We need to eliminate the enemy. Unfortunately, the cowardly enemy uses civilians as shields, collateral damage sucks, but unfortunately is a necessary evil in this particular case.
If the enemy would stand up and fight we would not have this problem. How about we blame the collateral damage on them, the enemy that would use their own people, even their own blood as shields. The youth see their innocent parents die and the first people there to help them point a finger of blame at the US is the enemy, a new terrorist is born.
The enemy now presents as much a threat to their own people as to ours. We have taken action against it. Maybe it’s time for the people to. Maybe it’s time that the shields become the swords.
beefytee on March 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
And George S. Patton said,
and, he said further,
And I like Coca-Cola.
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Islamic terrorism is ultimately doomed to fail. First, the Muslim world is dependent on the non-Muslim world, especially the West, for the fruits of the modern world like medicine, education, automobiles, software, etc. Radical Islam has an inherent and fatal weakness in attempting to pull the modern world back into the 7th century. The modern world is much more competent than radical Islam. While the modern West is reluctant to employ violence to settle its disputes, once it decides to do so, it does so authoritatively.
Islamic terrorism also drives its own defeat by thinking it can intimidate large populations into submission. This is the flawed thinking of neighborhood bullies who, having successfully intimidated their street, think they can do the same to their city, state, or nation. It is a strategy that does not scale up. It creates its own resistance, as it has in the Anbar Awakening. Virtually everywhere Muslim terrorists have struck, it has awakened furious resistance. The harder they hit, the harder they are struck down. Terrorism is a strategy for losers.
In that sense, terrorists are something like Charles Manson and his idea that he would bring on his helter skelter revolution with violence. It was an insane scheme but he piled up the bodies before he and his family were rounded up. Likewise, the Muslim terrorists will pile up more bodies before they are played out.
Tantor on March 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Two points: 1) What happened in Anbar, where saner heads prevailed over an ideology of death and destruction, needs to be promoted throughout the Islamic world. 2) Watching the movie, Titanic, impressed upon me the true meaning of chivalry when the women and children were put into the boats first. Islamists send their women and children ahead first too, as suicide bombers and as human shields. What kind of men are these? Is that what the prophet Mohammad had in mind for his followers?
Bacchus on March 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I know I don’t post much, but I’ve been reading since a week after Allah started photoshopping on his own site…
But besides the link to Grim’s post I made above (which I really urge everyone who either hasn’t read it, or didn’t recall it immediately… please read now), this post and the moonbat responses remind me of the first Gulf War, when the “human shields” went to Iraq and were placed by Saddam’s regime around the refineries and ammo dumps… when the “shields” complained that they wanted to be placed around mosques and hospitals to protect them, they were scoffed at by the Baathists, who wanted these useful idiots to protect actual targets.
Even Saddam was more in touch with reality than these lunatics, knowing we don’t target civilian installations… it’s why his successors use our innate superiority against us still.
hindmost on March 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM
My do over paper would have been the professor’s religion.
PrettyD_Vicious on March 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Sherman said “They have chosen war for their remedy, and I intend to give them all that I can.”
Substitute the word “death” for war, and apply it to anyone who, by terrorism, murder, or the support or teaching of terrorism or murder, seeks our destruction.
njcommuter on March 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
If I had to live like they do, in the 12th century, I’ll probably want to kill myself too. It’s amazing how the leaders think death is great, as long as it is the death of someone else. What idiots.
mhexel on March 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Objectivists have been making these same arguments for more than five years. Nice to see folks catching up.
JeffB. on March 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
There is one ultimate reality test I perform with myself whenever this question comes up: I imagine that it is my son who has become the collateral damage in a strike against terrorists in my neighborhood. Would the principal espoused by Ed’s post still hold true in my mind?
Though it shreds my aorta to even think of it, the answer must be ‘yes.’
There is a seminal post at The Belmont Club, called The Three Conjectures, which addresses the geometrically increasing costs to the overall Muslim world if civilization does not prevail over the barbarism of that world’s Salafist Jihadi factions. The upshot is that our failure to emerge victorious radically increases the probability of this conflict’s escalation to the point that the extermination of Muslims worldwide (the very thing proposed by some intemperate voices right here) becomes the inevitable result.
The sheer horror of that scenario means that any lesser horror must be seriously considered…including tracking rockets and mortars back to apartment complexes and mosques and marketplaces. Every cooing and smiling and pooping infant who perishes as a result of this is a stain on our collective humanity. But so would be the grisly sequelae of not doing enough to curb the barbarism of those who put innocents in the path of their enemies’ return fire.
Of course, in my ‘reality test’ scenario above, I like to think that I would realize that there are benighted miscreants in my neighborhood, hoping to score propaganda points with the blood of my boy, and I would seek out a secure line to Israeli Intelligence with more precise targeting information. Then we’d go on holiday for a bit….
Noocyte on March 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Stripped away of all romanticism, what else is human history but the documentary evidence of genocide after genocide? As a historian, I am persuaded by the empirical evidence that genocide (or, at best, slavery for men and partial assimilation of the women-folk into the victorious side) is the essential fact of history. In layman’s terms, if we don’t do it to them, they’ll do it to us. Kill or be killed, all that stuff. At best, we try to escape this fact with laws and treaties, but they inevitably break down.
As a “historical realist”, I don’t see the issue here.
venividivici on March 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
My greatest fear is that by the time that the buried-head-in-the-sand liberals and the liberal MSM realize that they cannot negotiate with Islamic jihadists, we will be too weak, self-injured and compromised to save ourselves.
Its not a matter of which is the superior culture, religion, or strategy, its a question of whether a civilization dedicated to peaceful existence, the sanctity of life and freedom is ready to abandon its values in order to survive. This is no different than that old question, “What if you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler as a baby?”.
Off topic: Its interesting to observe how those of lessor intellect struggle to express themselves and the validity of their ideas and must therefore result to ad hominem attacks (name calling, racism, etc.). I often wonder if bigots even realize how hypocritical they are when they are spewing their hate, and intolerance at those they accuse of being intolerant…I vote to let kafiiri remain if only to present us with a view into that sludge pit.
.
Geministorm on March 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM
resort = result
Geministorm on March 4, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I agree completely. Along these lines, HotAir readers might appreciate the interview with Norman Podhoretz posted at NRO as follows:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Bugler on March 4, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Lets also not forget those “innocent civilians” that allow terrorists to setup and launch rockets from their roof tops and back yards. As I have mentioned in several other posts regarding this topic these people that knowingly allow terrorists to conduct operations cannot and should not be considered “innocent civilians” and instead must be treated as a legitimate military target.
I always tell people (mostly liberals) when they cry about “innocent civilians” being killed I remind them of the old adage of “don’t crap where you live” and I also remind them that during WWII you could bet your azz that if Patton’s troops came under fire from a civilian location, be it a church, hospital, mosque, etc. he wouldn’t hesitate one moment to take the position out.
Utilizing this tactic and doctrine does several things, it makes the enemy feel less safe and secure thus limiting the number of operations they conduct for fear of being targeted, makes them think twice about where they setup their base of operation, and if our military readily targets the enemy without hesitation (fear of hitting “innocent civilians”) this will also have a profound effect on their moral and their will to continue to wage war against us.
Most of us on HA understand this and do not buy into their propaganda; however the left does and by doing so are enabling our enemies to succeed on this front.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning wholesale destruction and annihilation but to not do anything out of fear of how it will make us look or out of fear of making the enemy hate us (more than they already do) is playing into the hands of our enemies, war is not nor has it ever been PC!
It’s true they use the deaths of “innocent civilians” as a propaganda tool, but as mentioned in the article the responsibility lies with the terrorist’s tactics of conducting their operations within civilian populations and the US and our allies need to do a better job of getting the word out as often as possible to drive this important point home that the responsibility for the death of “innocent civilians” lies squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists. If we do this then maybe, just maybe the left will finally come to their senses and begin to understand who the real enemy is, one can hope but I’m not holding my breath.
IMHO the only true “innocent civilians” in these instances are the children that are dependant on their parents to keep them out of harms way and are not in a position to do anything about the dangerous situation their parents have placed them in.
Precisely, we must change our mindset from a WWII mentality to better address and respond to their tactics, as long as we allow ourselves to be hamstrung when going after them (because we are holding ourselves to a higher standard by waging this war in a PC manner, something our enemies don’t do and eagerly use against us) our enemies will continue to win this aspect of the war as it prevents us from inflicting the necessary damage to their moral, their will, and their infrastructure to further degrade their means of waging war against us.
It is my sincere opinion and belief that if we change our doctrine when it comes to this aspect of the war (of not allowing the fear of killing “innocent civilians” get in the way of what needs to be done to be victorious) it takes away an important weapon the enemy uses against us and this will eventually weed out the truly “innocent civilians” from those that support the terrorists. It will also do more to prevent terrorists from setting up their base of operations within civilian areas and the propaganda value of their tactic will also diminish when they see it is no longer effective.
We need to take the gloves of political correctness off and show them once and for all we mean business!
Liberty or Death on March 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Oy!
“Negotiated settlement!” In other words it’s break out the burkas and jizya, that’s if our new jihadi overlords decide to let us live.
clark smith on March 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
In other words, be willing to drop two nuclear bombs on civilian population centers. I think we need a return to the WWII mindset. I’m not saying we should go nuking everything, just that I found your point to be pretty much exactly the same justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (with which I agree).
fehuq on March 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
One thing about thugs like terrorists is that they will often set up operations without permission, whether they are wanted or not. You can’t forget the likelihood that they have intimidated the civilians, who are ‘cooperating’ only out of fear.
There is no way for us to tell, of course, whether the civilians are willing or not, but other things being equal, ought we not to give them the benefit of a doubt? Of course, they are not often equal, and I agree, if you’re taking fire from a house or apartment, you have to take out the attackers.
It’s another argument, though, for going after the leaders, as our highest priority. Assassination has a bad name, but that’s what the enemy does, too often right in the public square. So let’s go them one better: decapitate them, literally and figuratively.
MrLynn on March 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM
we`re screwed.
ThePrez on March 4, 2008 at 4:19 PM
The majority of suicide bombers are secular. For example, here is a picture of a non-religious Christian suicide bomber:
ssnp.com/new/gallery/shohadaa/Sana_01.jpg
How do these people fit into the “we love death” theory?
dave742 on March 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM
We should give it to them, in abundance.
Buford on March 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
dave you do not understand what the deal is.
majority of suicide bombers are secular? please back this with some sort of empirical information. most terror attacks in the last few decades, and the MOST SPECTACULAR ones have been perpetrated by Islamist groups.
it goes back to the dogmas and doctrines. christianity does not advocate death.
Islam talks of how if you are a pure Muslim ye shall yearn for death.
from Sura Two, al-Baqara:
“Say to (them): “If the home of the Hereafter with Allah is indeed for you specially and not for others, of mankind, then long for death if you are truthful.”
That is what the crux of the issue is. A religion that is obsessed with death, martyrdom and becoming a shahid. These things are not espoused in Christianity. Of course those who died through persecution are martyrs, but Christians are not encouraged to go out and become one, only to stand by Jesus their God in every trial and tribulation, even if the result is death. That is martyrdom for Christians. It is a passive action.
For the Muslimeen, it is ACTIVE. It is an active action. They BECOME martyrs and shahideen through bombs, battles, and war. They actively seek this out because dying for Allah is desired for a truthful Muslim.
blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Furthermore, a Christian cannot justify his harmful actions with textual citations. This is not a problem for Muslim. His operations are perfectly justified within the doctrines of Qur’an, Ahadith, and Sunnah.
An abortion clinic bomber acts, in his mind, in the name of God.
A Muslim who detonates himself on a bus in Tel Aviv is acting under the auspices of ‘allah’s command.
That is the seminal difference between the two, and it is of the utmost importance when trying to understand our situation.
With this sort of textual citation, Muslims have the ability to wage war and violence against Kuffar for generations. They have a continual ideological life line, leading right to the Ahadith, Qur’an, and Sunnah.
Christians, on the other hand, do not have this support, and thus, their efforts will not last a very long time, in an organized, conglomerated fashion. There will always be a few stragglers here and there, but for the most part they will lack a substantial organization and movement precisely because what they espouse is not Christian doctrine.
Muslims do not have this problem.
blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Data on the “majority”, please. Anecdotal evidence points to the majority being members of a certain religion that starts with “I” and ends with “m”.
I got a feeling you can’t back that claim up. Yet, curiously, you feel compelled to post it.
venividivici on March 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »