Questions that answer themselves
posted at 2:43 pm on December 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Tom Friedman asks in his New York Times column today why we haven’t seen Muslims protesting in the street after the Mumbai attacks:
On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?
After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.
So what can we expect from Pakistan and the wider Muslim world after Mumbai?
I can provide an answer: apathy and rationalization, and not just from Muslims. Deepak Chopra blamed it on the Bush administration and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as if the causation was reversed. While Bollywood condemned the terrorist attacks, some followed Chopra’s example.
Has Friedman seen massive protests in the streets against radical Islamist terrorists in these Muslim countries, ever? Did any of them protest the 9/11 attacks, or the Madrid attack, or any of the large-scale attacks on Western civilians or previous attacks in India at all? Either we heard ululating or deafening silence, punctuated with a few diplomatic missives about solidarity and the occasional criticism on the effect the attacks have on Muslims.
In other words, we can either expect delight or a collective yawn from the Muslim world. It’s been a week since the attacks commenced. Thus far, all we’ve gotten is the latter. Why would this surprise Friedman, given the history?
And what does that tell us about the attitude towards the terrorists among the Muslim nations? They may not endorse terrorist attacks, but they certainly don’t strenuously object to them, either. While we’re wringing our hands over interrogation techniques, and not for bad reasons, they’re indifferent to mass murder. At some point, the world — or in Friedman’s tiresome terminology, the “village” — will have to come to terms with that reality.
Muslims will not care about terrorist attacks until the cost becomes too high for them. The risk-to-reward ratio hasn’t reached that level yet, and probably hasn’t come near it. Mewling about the “village” and asking for a little outrage won’t do it, either.
Update: SANEworks has a few thoughts along the same lines.
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:
And we all know what a world-class thinker Chopra is…
And those folks at Bollywood?
World-class something anyway….
kybowexar on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
crickets…
Viper1 on December 3, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Friedman later espouses repeated condemnation and shaming of terrorist activity as a sufficient prevention tactic!
Yet he is considered a ‘top thinker’ by the mainstream establishment.
Nothing spells prevention like the threat of retaliation, Tom.
vinman on December 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM
“Muslims will not care about terrorist attacks until the cost becomes too high for them. The risk-to-reward ratio hasn’t reached that level yet, and probably hasn’t come near it.”
Make It So! Duh!
Star20 on December 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Another column to file under “I didn’t want to write something like this a year ago in case it made Americans see Bush in a more positive light; but now Obama’s in charge he needs all the help he can get, and it’s time to be realistic about the problem of radical Islam”.
I need to think of a snappier heading.
EnglishMike on December 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM
How do we know if many muslims the world over, especially in places like Saudi Arabia, are even AWARE of the Mumbai attacks?
Not to say that I think they’d run out and protest….I’m just sayin’
bridgetown on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
The Left’s answer to Terrorism: “Stop or I’ll Say Stop Again!”. It doesn’t work while disciplining children, and it sure won’t work on these animals.
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Muslims ARE the enemy!
There, I said it.
If these backwood turds don’t have the Malkins to stand up for human decency, they are cowards.
Not willing to help fix the problem = you ARE the problem
omnipotent on December 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Send the “Vote No on Prop 8″ to Pakistan to show how to demonstate!”
Should kill 2 birds with one stone???
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Best on topic.
Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the students in Tehran did come out in support of the victims, not the perpetrators.
Rest of the Muslim world? Not so much.
rbj on December 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Oh oh oh, I know, I know.
Because India brutally slaughtered the natives.
No, wait.
Because India used blacks for slaves for centuries.
No, wait.
Because India invaded another country.
No, wait.
Gosh, I am sure India must have waterboarded somebody.
/s
Sir Napsalot on December 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I disagree EnglishMike. Spot-on. Being succinct does always equate to snappy but it can be, especially in the case, unambiguous and precise. FWIW….
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Meh………… just like the double standard the Democrats enjoy in the media when they steal elections, cause the financial crisis, and tell tourists to the Nation’s Capitol that they stink……….
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
EnglishMike-
How about?
IDWTWSLTAYAICIMASBIAMPL;BNOICHNATHHCGIATTTBRATPORI…no?
Maybe just BDS…but that’s just me. :-/
Brian on December 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Why is anyone surprised when barbarians act like barbarians? It is what they do for heavens sake.
JIMV on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Muslims will not care about terrorist attacks until the cost becomes too high for them.
The Q is, is this possible? Could it ever happen?
Given their beliefs and thought patterns, I am skeptical.
From Jihad Watch, there’s not a collective yawn, but active obstruction:
INC on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
ROFLMAO!!! – BRAVO TO YOU BOTH!
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Test.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
always equate to snappy but it can be, especially in the case, unambiguous and precise. FWIW….
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
When India bombs terror bases in Pakistan, then we’ll hear the Muslim caterwalling. No sooner.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Does he actually call them terrorists? If so, how did it get past his editors?
Jim Treacher on December 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Muslims will not care about terrorist attacks until the cost becomes too high for them.
And sooner or later someone, not necessarily a nation, is going to present the muslims a bill, to be paid with a gigantic number of muslim lives. There are plenty of people out there who are more than capable of slaughtering muslims en-masse, and it will happen.
Bishop on December 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM
C’mon guys. Everybody knows the Mumbai terrorist’s actions were un-Islamic, and Ed should be chastized for linking to a site that gives credence to these “radicals” by referring to their deeds as jihad.
Once the evil Bush is replaced by Obama, the US miltary stops with the murdering of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians and the US withdraws all support for Israel and admonishes it for the continued unprovoked murderous oppression of the Hamas-lead, peace-loving Palestinians, we all know terrorism will quickly fade into a distant memory.
awake on December 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Wait , they’re still chocked..
the_nile on December 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Wow, how long did it take you to get that down? I’m going to cut and paste that into a doc, and bring it out for every such piece!
Or maybe ‘Post-election nuancing’.
EnglishMike on December 3, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Deepak Chopra should look in a mirror and ask himself why, when confronted by evil, his first impulse is to make excuses for it.
Kenrod on December 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM
And who will provide that cost? Obama says he wants to invade Pakistan, but I don’t see that coming anymore than his bombing Pakistan. But that is what needs to be done. Pakistan and the villagers who protect Osama Bin Laden need to feel the price of their perfidy. We should treat Pakistan like we treated Japan and Germany during World War II. Massive around the clock bombing until they feel the pain.
federale86 on December 3, 2008 at 3:17 PM
It’s really quite simple Jim – when Republicans are in office the bad guys are freedom fighters, or at worst ‘militants’; when Democrats are in office they can safely be called terrorists. I’m sure the Times is busy refining its style book to make similar clarifications regarding Iran, Hugo Chavez, etc.
EnglishMike on December 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM
But Friedman is cool with the dinosaur media in America acting like this is all someone else’e problem?
snaggletoothie on December 3, 2008 at 3:25 PM
ROTFLMAO! …oh, you’re serious. I’m sure the Dalai bama will kiss everyone’s boo-boos and terrorism shall perish from the land.
Wyznowski on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Many muslims did take to the streets to protest the actions of the terrorists.
Go look through the picture galleries in various Indian and Pakistani newspapers from the week of the attack and you’ll see images.
Here is one such image
Just because the NYT and the MSM chooses to selectively report the news, does not mean that that which they do not report does not happen.
Believe it or not, a small % of muslims consists of zealots who want nothing more than the destruction of those with opposing views. The rest want what you and I want, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…
Great Sage on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Better still has he seen massive protest in any country against these Islamic terrorists?
We can start here with the gay protest against the Mormons for supporting Prop 8. Who supported it probably even more—Muslims.
Forget prop 8, Muslims want to hang em. Were there any protests in front of LA mosques? Of course not because the gays like most everyone one else are cowards.
Terrorism works.
Some one here said it best, radical Muslims cut your head off while moderate Muslims watch.
They are cancer cells that we let in this country that will metastasize when they hit a certain number. Until then they play the freedom of religion card. When the time comes they will demand, as they do everywhere else there is a sizable community, sharia and that the state be Islamic. That is mandatory if you are a practicing Muslim—Islam is the state, there is no separation between church and state.
Watch Europe over the next twenty years if you want to see our fate.
patrick neid on December 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM
He’ll just say – “because I’m smart enough. I’m good enough. By golly people like me!”
(just with an Apu accent.)
kybowexar on December 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Yup.
Bruno Strozek on December 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Only the American left criticizes it’s nations heroes, Muslims never criticizes their heroes.
Someday those interested might notice that the moderates make the sandwiches and give milk money to their best and brightest as well. Unless of course you have listened to Bush, then you are left only in slack jawed wonder and awe at the magnificent Muslims and divine Islam.
BL@KBIRD on December 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Please provide the names of 5 moderate Muslims.
Just 5 out of the millions in the world.
I’m waiting….
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Naw, one or two of the right kind of bombs should settle all this.
mr.blacksheep on December 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I’m sure somewhere OBL is quivering at the thought of being shamed by the NYT.
Angry Dumbo on December 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Because Friendman is a two-bit analyst who’s far too impressed with his mediocre abilities?
irishspy on December 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
According to the WSJ, this entire attack was pulled off by less than a dozen people over a period of days, in a city with a population of 19 million.
Do you think India’s strict gun laws rolled out the welcome mat to the terrorists… knowing that they chances of anyone shooting back were about nil?
How long do you think these scumbags would have lasted in Washington DC… the Bronx… or South-Central LA?
VastRightWingConspirator on December 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM
MB4 on December 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Here’s the deal, the issue is about a contested piece of land called Kashmir. India has it much of it, Pakistan wants all of it. The ISI has connections that go back to the early 80s during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, and will use various proxies in Pakistan to do their dirty work, thus you hardly will see protesting.
The funny thing about Terrorism, is that most of the people killed by Terrorists are Muslim. It just hasn’t reached a proportion like it did in Iraq. They turned on Al Qaeda after the civilian populace endured so much indiscriminate killing, it just has to reach a disequilibrium for people to become fed up.
theboss on December 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Would the names of moderate muslims mean anything to you? We have 2 muslim congressmen, a whole bunch of state legislators, judges and what not, and this is in the US alone…
Great Sage on December 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Only a few decades late to be asking this sort of question. But, I guess that’s what qualifies Friedman as “editorial” rather than “news”.
I didn’t read the article (I won’t click for the NYT) but did Friedman also ask why the MSM intentionally refused to print the stories about muslims cheering on various attacks, including 9/11? Just wondering.
progressoverpeace on December 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
“Moderate” Muslims will not be able to take control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No “moderate” Muslim can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammad himself did. The Koran condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call “moderates” are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Koran. “Moderates” will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be ‘moderates’ in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
MB4 on December 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM
As long as we fight by post-WWII rules, it won’t get too high. Wars truly end only when one side kills enough of the other in a sufficiently-horrific manner that the other side gives up.
steveegg on December 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’m wondering………………..
………………. can President Bush in his last days pass and Executive Order cutting off ALL foriegn aide, everywhere to offset the “bailout” costs, then if Mr. Obama, President Elect, the Office of wants to reinstate giving billions to countries that hold us in contempt, it will be his yoke to carry?
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Based on what we have seen of them in the past 20 or so years, the moderate Muslims are the ones that do not giggle when they cut the threats of children. That’s about as moderate as they get. Their relegion of peace has tought them for centuries that it is their moral duty to kill anyone that disagrees with them, on anything. Wake up folks. You’l eventually have to join them, fight them or die a their hand. Thet don’t leave you any other choices.
MikeA on December 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Friedman and his fellow apologists are fools.
The answer to his silly rhetorical question is, of course, that the Muslim world will not condemn this outrage, like they have not condemned any other.
We’ll see how the already great president-elect handles this little problem with terror, which isn’t the Mulim’s fault even though they commit 99.9% of it.
It is easy to predict that within a few years, the entire country will be begging for the security Bush provided by using responding with actions, not “words”.
notagool on December 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Speaking of deafening silence:
EVERY HOSPITAL IN HAWAII DENIES OBAMA BEING BORN THERE OR HIS MOTHER BEING ADMITTED THERE.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2141909/posts
I am taking off my tinfoil hat now!!!1
allahallahoxenfree on December 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Great idea. Won’t happen. Won’t happen because it is a geat idea. Politics does not do great ideas.
MikeA on December 3, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I know. For the life of me, I can’t understand that. He seems to “ponder” a lot, but nothing particularly substantial or revelatory ever seems to come from him. I feel the same about Rick Warren for some reason. Can’t figure out what the big deal is.
Matticus Finch on December 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM
awake on December 3, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Errr, that was not a protest of the Mumbai attacks. Read the captions below the photos.
Sorry for the confusion.
awake on December 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but
morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on December 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
While I agree with Friedman, he could just as easily be asking why we in the West offer such tepid and muted responses to domestic Muslim challenges to western, democratic liberalism.
Where are the counter protests in the West when Muslims seek to muzzle freedom of expression in our own countries?
We all shake our collective heads when Theo Van Gogh was murdered, Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death or cartoons incited death threats and riots.
Mark Steyn was hauled before a Canadian Human Rights tribunal for writing a book!
While we can’t change what others do in other parts of the world we can sure as Hell change how we react in our own back yard.
Pim Fortuyn’s clarion call will become more relevant since his death, not less (and not just for the Netherlands).
moxie_neanderthal on December 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Heck, right now they’re being rewarded – either with pandering and coddling from people like the shameless Bishops in England, or with knee jerk anti-Americanism from shameless morons like Deepak “happy molecules” Chopra – not to mention Leftists around the world who want to see Western Civilization crumble. Not a lot of incentive for Muslims to change.
Buy Danish on December 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Then exactly when will this supposed majority of sane moslems and their governments put a halt to this and jail every imam that orders followers to commit murder?
When does this happen?
Answer: never.
Because the majority of moslems feel that smiting the unbelievers is a good idea, provided they aren’t personally put at risk.
Yes, they like peace and freedom … for themselves.
Kristopher on December 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Protests,or sit-ins for the Muslims,ya right!
What will it take for Muslims to see the ‘Light’!
I don’t think Muslims will ever do a dam_ thing,
if your a(M),and you say a word,then you have become
a problem,and I have no doubt,the problem Muslim
in broad daylight will be dealt with,and an example
made for the rest!
No,Muslims won’t say a word,even if it became an Orwellian
Operation and the ‘Real Muslims” weed out the ‘Unbelievers’
till its too late,like the purification that was going on in
Germany in search of ‘blonde and blue eyed’ perfect Germans!
I think the bottom line is Muslims are scared to death,of
their own,especially the Jihadys,and for the average so-
called Muslims,they don’t have a clue who the ‘militant
muslims’ are and that alone is the real problem!
Me thinks,with the ‘War on Terror’,and the latest attacks,
its like ‘World War Two’,and in that mindset,knowing who
the enemy was,clear cut that is,Germans and Japanese,how
in the world are you going to seperate the fanatical from
the normal!
And,since Muslim’s are the aggressors,its the same style
WW2 mindset,accept with Muslims,it can be any one of them!
canopfor on December 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Islam will not police its own, rather it gives its villains sanctuary. Given that complicity, it is high time to profile and highly scrutinize muslims. I’m not saying we should reopen the Japanese internment camps, but virtually every muslim enterprise in North America needs to be closely monitored. You can do it now, or you can wait for a Bombay USA to occur, and then do it. And now the good news, the Eric Holder Justice Department is tasked with keeping us safe.
Mark30339 on December 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM
The “Bill”? I believe that the leaders in Tehran believe in their little stone hearts, that if they could blow Israel off the face of the map, it would be worth having their country turned into a molten parking lot. It’s just their way.
TimothyJ on December 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM
And where, pray tell, are the condemnations of these “Great Leaders” of the moderate Muslim World? Link them, because if you cannot, then what good does the press serve if they will not print those rejections of violence from such eminent “moderate” Muslims? If Keith Ellison cannot be quoted condemning these attacks, then he is NO Moderate Muslim at all. A Congressman without a microphone? Spare me.
I vote we make a couple of the “costly” events Ed is talking about occur. And soon. Begin with FATA, Peshawar, Islamabad and Karachi. And I’m not ashamed of suggesting so either. Ban me all you wish. Censor the Truth all you can. It is the sighted man who still will not see that is the problem. It ain’t rocket science.
Or maybe it is……
Subsunk
Subsunk on December 3, 2008 at 5:39 PM
The only reason they appear to be “moderate” is because they have not reached critical mass yet. I ask you oh great sage where in the world with a sizable Muslim majority or minority is there not violence if Islam is not the State or where sharia has not been demanded.
Just to keep it simple as you search, where is there not violence of the most beastly kind wherever there are Muslims in great numbers. Where?
They are active cancer cells. Their religion, a totalitarian political movement, demands it.
patrick neid on December 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM
With all this talk of bombing Muslims into submission, I think that people are missing the point. It is possible to bomb a state into submission, but not the ideology itself. The bombing of Japan was successful because it made the right people realize that their belief in the Emperor was misguided, and a danger to their homeland. Islam doesn’t care about such things, and their faith will only be strengthened by the belief that their writings are correct in its assertion that we are the enemy, proven by our actions.
There is only one way to remove the evil of Islam, and no-one is going to do it. Our only viable chance of continued existence is separation. Physically remove them from our locales, then we would need to go into their turf to suffer their ways. That is about the best “peace” we can hope for, when dealing with an implacable enemy.
OldEnglish on December 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Europe is the canary.
patrick neid on December 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I think you are missing the point. No one I know has ever talked seriously about bombing them into submission. They are not capable of submission in the sense it would take to stop this lunacy. The bombing would be to end their existence, not their beliefs. We in the West have failed over and over again to grasp that these barbarians are not something to talk out of their centuries old rage. We always stop short of doing what needs to be done, because we think we can scare them into stopping their evil against us. That has not happened in the past 1500 years and it won’t in the next 1500 either. They will need to be killed until at least their numbers are reduced enough to be manageable by the idiots among us that want to try one more time to save them from the consequences of their own inability to coexist with humans.
MikeA on December 3, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Agreed. That’s what I stated in my second paragraph.
OldEnglish on December 3, 2008 at 7:32 PM
OK, I see that in there. You just tried to nuance it and I said it outright. The only solution is to kill them off.
No one seems to be willing to discuss the hard realities involved with a culture that is hundreds of generations old in which every aspect of the populations existance favors the individuals who are the most unstable, violent and prone to doing evil things for unimaginable reasons. The reason they can’t be changed for their path is because their culture has deeply affected their genetics to the point that they are what they are for the same reasons a pitbull is what it is. It would take another 1,000 years to reverse that breeding.
MikeA on December 3, 2008 at 8:01 PM
For the same reason the attacks themselves surprised the airhead MSNBC anchor last week, and why Michael Moore couldn’t believe the Sept. 11 terrorists attacked two cities that voted for Al Gore in 2000 — Tom thinks the terrorist see the world through the eyes of a partisan Democrat, and can’t believe they don’t understand that America elected Obama last month, and it’s time to stop the rage against the West.
Friedman’s actually ahead of the curve here compared to other big media print and TV pundits and reporters. Expect others to start realizing that Muslim fundamentalists have no idea and don’t care what the 2008 Red State/Blue State map looks like over the next year or so.
jon1979 on December 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Actually, Mike, I think that the genetic angle existed prior to the advent of Islam. Historical and Biblical writings seem to bear out that fact. Naturally, that made it easier for them to formulate the Koran in its mantra of violence to non-believers. I believe that the Koran was edited and modified over several centuries, reflecting an ever hardening of stance. You’re right, of course, elimination is the only permanent solution, if they cannot turn themselves around.
OldEnglish on December 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Some of us don’t think he was a prophet.
Tzetzes on December 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Brian
“DWTWSLTAYAICIMASBIAMPL;BNOICHNATHHCGIATTTBRATPORI…no?”
Brian, are ya hanging out in a bar in the PI?
DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Wrong.
Islam will change when they begin to see extreme consequences to horrible actions on their part, and because of their inaction and deference to evil people. Civilized conduct has rules. When they ignore those rules, they need to collectively reap the punishment. They have had more than ample chance to remove this cancer from their midst. All excuses are gone now. When wholesale slaughter is wrought in revenge of attacks just such as 9-11, Madrid, London, Bombay, and especially as seen in Iraq, then moderates will wake up because they will see they will be exterminated along with the bad if they don’t do something first. The Grave of the Hundred Head by Rudyard Kipling exemplifies what happens all too well when you have the backbone to exact punishment (not unfocused murder, but retribution against innocent and evil alike simply because the innocents tolerate the evil in their midst.)
Muslims will stop killing others when those they oppress strike back each and every time that we are struck.
It worked all through civilized history so. And it would work today as well. Those who deny it are fooling themselves. It isn’t coincidence that the Bible and the Koran are both based on an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Once many of us are blind and toothless, our children will be able to live in Peace. But not before one of us is victorious and the other is vanquished. I intend to see Freedom be Victorious.
Subsunk
Subsunk on December 4, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I couldn’t agree more, Subsunk, as the first line in my quoted paragraph attests. Where I differ is on the backbone bit. I don’t see it happening, in my lifetime, at least.
OldEnglish on December 4, 2008 at 1:05 AM
When will Muslims protest terrorist attacks carried out by their co-religionists?
When will Islam joim the civilized world?
When will liberals get a clue?
Basilsbest on December 4, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Good questions Bb. Logically Islam will not join the civilized world until after liberals get a clue?
When you are granted cultural equivalence even if you engage in dark ages practices there is no need for self-examination and without self -examination there will be no progress in Islam.
So Friedman needs to look in the mirror if he wants to get some understanding as to why Islam is so backward.
So libreals, rather than blame The Great Liberator for the excesses of Islam put the blame where it really belongs- Muslims and those without the courage or the wisdom to confront the excesses of Islam.
Basilsbest on December 4, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Subsunk, I can’t dispute anything you say above, but even in this you point out the historic aspect of the Islamist propensity to retreat in the face of force, only to be a temporary thing. They do that out of a strong sense of self preservation, so they can live to fight again another day.
That same history tells us that they always do come back to try again, as soon as they are allowed to recover from their wounds and regroup. And that is because their enemies, of which we are only the current version, always stop short of destroying them when we get them on the ropes. There is no reason to expect anything to change on their side, and so far I don’t see anything changing for the better on our side. We keep getting more inclined to give them one more chance.
One of my more visceral resentments of President Bush the first, is the failure to finish off the beast of Saddam in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War. Leaving him alive then was stupid. I said that day that a lot of our people would end up dying for that mistake, and it turned out that I was right. Anytime you have a unrepentant murdering thug in your sights, for God’s sake pull the damned trigger. That goes for murdering thug individuals or murdering thug nations, or murdering thug civilizations.
I still think we need to isolate the foundations of Islam, go to those places where it breeds and kill the breeders, grind their bones to powder; and poison the wells, and the land and make certain the cancer is completely destroyed cell by malignant cell. When there is nothing left to come back from , then we can believe it will not come back. A good place to start would be to vaporize Mecca.
MikeA on December 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM
If the isslamists hit NYC itself would the NY Slimes grow a backbone? ….oh wait.
ex-Democrat on December 4, 2008 at 1:01 PM
yup…let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on December 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Unfortunatly, our side just voted for a large step in the other direction. By voting for the new incoming US administration the people of the United State have ensured that millions more people will likly die to feed the beast long before we wake up to the fact that feeding it only makes it stronger. I would however, like to point out to the radical left that is not going to get its way, when you watch those deaths around the globe occur, it is you collectivly and individually who seald those poor people’s fate. Watch and cringe and understand that this was of your design, because you wanted to prove your make-love-not-war nonsense would convert the beast. It won’t and people will die because you wanted to prove something that is not provable.
MikeA on December 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.
ex-Democrat on December 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Yes, except this time we are watchinhg the play live on TV as the world rots. Those of us who see it for what it is may noy be able to stop it, but we can damned well make sure the loonytunes left is forced to accept ownership of it. I for one will never allow them to just whine and cry that they didn’t mean for it to happen when the millions of innocents die in the next decade because their appeasement emboldens the beast. And that includes all the various pathologies that opted to grind their particular liberal axe at the expense of reason; the militant gays, the Code Pinkos, the wacko environmentalists, and the pro-drug, anti-Christian crowd. If you voted for Obama and his leftist minions, it is you who needs to wathc closely as the beast grows in front of your very eyes. That is what you traded your soul for.
MikeA on December 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Comment pages: