I must confess to a fondness for, "The War on Tyranny". Since we are, after all, acting in oppostion to tyrants and those who would impose tyranny upon us. The compulsize ideology doesn't really matter.
As Heinrich Himmler once said, "Some of our best recruits are former communists."
Posted by Alan Kellogg at May 11, 2006 9:29 PMI Propose "The Pacification of Islam", since "The Overdue Spanking of the Islamic Squirrel Food" too long.
Posted by C. S. P. Schofield at May 11, 2006 11:16 PMThe continuation link for this article appears to be broken
The requested page could not be found.
Page not found - /mt-archives/000570.html
Compare the news coverage and the popular commentary during WWII with anything coming from the mouths of the fifth column today. I dare you. The contrast is shocking and sickening, and I cannot discover a reason for it that does not include a societal or cultural sickness taking hold from then to now.
There are no standing armies parading before dictators, no voice-overs of grainy film as thousands flee the invasion, no cartoon map showing the stain of imperialism spreading through the pacific, and no popular understanding of the danger threatening the US and her allies. The many thousands of innocents murdered by the army of islam are every bit as dead as those killed in the Pearl Harbor attack. But today is seems that we are to feel sympathy for the attacker and welcome him into our lives to help us grow and better understand the pain he feels. The pain.
The enemy has breached our defenses. Anyone else remember the Vietnam era phrase "Gooks in the wire"?
We are at war. Pick a side.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
Seems that describing it as a "War of Religions" would be a non-starter for old Europe, Asia, Russia and 1/2 of the US. I would suggest that it should rightly be called the "War For Freedom" which would not allow the secular Europeans, Asians and Liberals in the United States to give it the pass they are giving it now........stupidly and at their peril.
Posted by moondog at May 12, 2006 7:37 AMMr V.,
Let’s step outside your rhetorical discussion for a moment and consider a few observations. (I’ll call them “street realities”.)
Let’s put some very basic facts together that form a pretty clear mosaic of what is happening.
An almost cursory observation of this “terrorist” phenomenon and our efforts to deal with it, by anyone who can see through the prejudiced MSM and “Bush haters” on the left along with the warped PC “donkey dust” mentality that attempts to justify, reconcile or otherwise rationalize terrorism, yields the following:
The perpetrators; Muslims (In almost all cases.)
Their religion; Islam
Their origin; The Middle East
Their weapon; Bombs, (worn, placed, driven or flown)…for now!
Their method; Suicide (Get close to a bunch of people and “pull the cord”.)
Their “stated” reason; Jihad (Or, I lost my sense of humanity and want to kill a lot of people and if I - or more likely the weak minded nut cases I can convince to do this- must die in the process, that’s ok.)
The result; Lots of dead people. (Mostly civilians.)
The desired effect; Murder designed to terrorize the Infidels and have us walk away from this war. (Or anyone else nearby. An “equal opportunity“ tactic.)
Their enablers; Power hungry Muslim fanatics, Muslim Clerics, Muslim theocracies, Muslim totalitarian governments, indifferent Muslims worldwide and their all too quiet Islamic communities.
The Islamic motive; Destroy the infidels (Western free civilized cultures.) and their influence on Muslim populations worldwide.
The Muslim Motive; Regain the power and influence once held by Islam.. “the good old days” from about 200 years ago back to the sixth or seventh century.
Why?; Who gives a damn. There can be no justification for a “cult of death”.
In an attempt to sum this up into one simple sentence, I offer the following:
Fanatic Muslim leaders have embarked upon a war for Islamic dominance of the free world.
So, what do you want to call our response?
It’s really that simple! Terrorist suicide bombing is but the opening tactic in this war. For the moment they apparently can’t afford to deliver much more. When will we, as the leader of a number of free Western nations, begin to take them seriously? I doubt that you will ever find a headline like the above statement in the MSM, or such an admission from the left. But so what!
Some one, or a real coalition of powerful nations, needs to deal with them now, before they gain the weapons to do much more harm.
So, what is the real deal with Iraq anyway? It’s the portal into the third battle of this war.
It is truly unfortunate that this war will continue to be fought on a reactionary basis. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting a premise that we are entering a phase of this war wherein western European and Middle-Eastern governments will, in earnest, do what it takes to preempt and stop terrorism. The actions required within their respective countries remain too unpalatable, both politically and among their populations. Those in power have too much to loose. (Unless we can up the ante.) At best, we may just be approaching the end of the beginning of this war. I believe that this war will be a long drawn out reactionary/evolutionary process with mostly unwilling participants. There can be no clear-cut straight-line strategy to win it, and too many talking heads and politicians are against it.
First: WELL SAID RUNNING ROACH!!
Mr V: To call it THE TERRORIST WAR is to describe only the tactic of the enemy. Although this is the first war where that tactic is employed almost exclusively by one of the combatants, it is surely about more than that.
I believe that Dr. Wafa Sultan words, "It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality." apply to the issue of putting a name on this conflict.
How about THE WAR TO SAVE CIVILIZATION? Or, THE BATTLE AGAINST BARBARITY? Or, THE WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC ATROCITIES?
Some say 90% of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, but they are too frightened to stand up to the violent 10%. Maybe it should be called THE WAR TO SAVE TRUE ISLAM? Would that encourage the non-violent Muslims to stand up together against their barbaric brothers and join in the fight?
This is also a battle to free Muslims from the tyranny and oppresssion of sharia law. It might be dubbed THE WAR TO FREE MUSLIMS? Same question: Would that encourage the 90% to rise up?
We are the ones being assaulted by an enemy who thinks they can defeat us because we are soft and don't have "true beliefs" to sustain us. Maybe it should be called THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM?
There are other ideas, but I confess none of mine seem terribly appropo. I do think it would be a great idea if there was a name that would unite all the West to take this war seriously and mobilize to bring it to a merciful and speeedy end.
Posted by Jimmy J. at May 12, 2006 1:12 PMI think you made a typo:
homosexuals would be a dominant force with their enfranchisement only a moment away
Perhaps you meant to say "right to marry each other legally"?
Posted by Linda F at May 12, 2006 4:36 PMI have to point out that this is not a war between two religions, but rather between religion and reason.
That Islam animates the elite strike force prosecuting the overt operations in this war does not limit its scope to mere Mohammedanism. The policy priorities of the so-called "religious right" here at home are no less alarming than the nonsense emanating from Mahmoud Ahmadenijad or Muqtada al-Sadr. What liberal democracy has succeeded in doing for over two centuries is to amplify the distinction between science and superstition, and superstition has simply had just about enough.
Sure, we can -- and should -- engage the enemy in the Middle East, where its soldiery is so concentrated and its leadership so belligerent. But let us not neglect the home front.
My proposal is for the Diagnostic Statistical Manual to define Acquired Cultural Delusional Syndrome, complete with protocols for diagnosis and treatment. Let the forces of science and rationality use the weapon most suitable to counteracting the foremost weapon of its enemy; illumination.
The simple truth is that faith -- unwavering belief in that which cannot be demonstrated to exist -- is a mental illness ranging from mostly harmless (and even arguably beneficial) to severely destructive. It is time to stop pretending that it merits any tolerance in the deliberations of the mentally sound.
Let it become the ordinary practice in our society that when the august senator from the bible belt presumes to justify policy with scripture, that the member be gavelled into silence and removed from the chamber and confined for psychiatric evaluation. This will not, of course, bring fanatical attacks on innocents to an end, but it will help to sharpen the boundaries between "them" and "us".
Posted by Alan Chamberlain at May 12, 2006 10:36 PMThere will be peace when the surviving Muslims repudiate Jihad and dhimmitude.
This is the Jihadi War.
Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 at May 13, 2006 10:50 AM>Following a second attack at a level equal to or exceeding September 11, any political opposition to pursuing our enemies with all means at our disposal will be swept off the table.
I disagree. Each political party and its adherents will blame the other for 'letting the attack happen', rather than rallying behind the President.
Young American men will not go to the recruiting offices in overwhelming numbers, as in 1941. Many will, but just as many will stay home, unwilling to risk life and limb.
Our 'allies' will be missing. Great Britain is paralyzed from within by her islamic 5th column and is no longer a world power. No other country will lift a finger to help us.
If 'the terrorist war' does come, we will be on our own.
And we are fresh out of Trumans.
Posted by barry at May 13, 2006 11:39 AMWell, as they say, history will tell.
Posted by Vanderleun at May 13, 2006 12:47 PMAlan C.-
Faith--is a mental disease?
SO, you want to ban faith? How absurd!
Suppressing freedom of Religion, an essential liberty, and supplanting it with faith in your own religion, secular humanism is foolhardy.
Who made you G-d? You did.
Pardon me if I choose not to worship you, or practice your religion.
Faith is not a hinderance to fighting terrorism.
Faith doesn't "make" people evil, people choose to do evil, regardless of faith.
Sorry, sailor, but I do not want to ban anything. I just want irrational belief systems taxonomized as such. Believe what you wish; just keep it out of my civic deliberation.
>Pardon me if I choose not to worship you
Frankly, I'd prefer you worship nothing. But do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law. Whatever floats your boat.
>your own religion, secular humanism is foolhardy
I have no religion, and secular humans have impressed me with neither their judgment nor their character. I do profess a reasonable confidence in the discrimination of the scientific method, and the internal consistency of empirical imperatives, but I don't believe in anything without proof. Got any?
>Faith doesn't "make" people evil
No one said it does. But religion is a fundamentally wicked institution. That evil and faith are frequent fellow travellers should not surprise.
Posted by Alan Chamberlain at May 15, 2006 8:35 PM