Look at the Canadian MSM response to the arrests of 17 Muslim terrorists in Ontario -- 'they come from a "broad strata" of society'; and 'it is difficult to find a common denominator' among them.
This reaction is so absurd and illogical that it can only be described as an extreme religious dogma at work. Not only is it heresy to point out the obvious, the Left's unshakable faith in multiculturalism has overcome the instinct for survival. Based on this I'd say Leftism is an even more suicidal religion than Islam.
...I have yet to figure out why the Left refuses ... to recognize this.
Here's my theory, for whatever microscopic value it may have:
The left want guaranteed housing for life for everybody, ditto employment (if desired), income, health care, you name it. They want to ban everything that might be dangerous or harmful. They want to preserve every leaf and blade of grass just as it is, in perpetuity. They're obsessed with their health, and food purity, and their goddamn bowels. These are the people who want our troops to stay barricaded in bases, armored from head to toe, until they come home. They'll never know or care about the 5.56 being a lousy cartridge; what fires their imagination is armor! On Marines, on Humvees, you name it. It's just not in them to think in terms of making yourself safe by blowing a bigger hole in the guy who's out to kill you; the only answer they can imagine is to bury oneself under an ever-growing mountain of ballistic plates.
They're pathologically risk-averse. Where the "pathological" part comes in is they refuse to accept the fact that sometimes there are risks you just have to take. When there's a problem that can only be dealt with by facing risk, they retreat into fantasy (e.g. gun control).
Then 9/11 happens. They need to believe that what's happening can be controlled with zero risk. So they have to believe that the US is infinitely powerful, because deep in their murky little subconscious minds, they don't really believe for a minute that the US is genuinely malevolent. It's okay, mommy's still in charge... Therefore, they need to believe that we can buy bin Laden off cheaply and easily; or else that the people responsible for 9/11 are us. They cannot accept the idea that this is a real problem and that there's no easy, safe, guaranteed solution.
Anything they have a hope of controlling, they try to turn into the Teletubbies. The rest, they deal with by retreating into fantasy.
This is why they have all their weird hostile ideas about the police: Because the cops can be controlled with nice safe laws, but violent criminals are fucking scary. So they retreat into a fantasy where cops are the only problem.
Yeah, some problems really are easy, some cops really are evil, we do have the presumption of innocence for very good reasons, etc. And armor is damned nice to have when people are shooting at you. I'm not saying they're always wrong. If you take the SAT and fill in the far left circle for every question, you'll get some of them right.
They also have a childish tendency to take the US, among other things, for granted. They think they can arbitrarily destroy any part of our culture they choose, tax business into oblivion, raise all our kids to be unpatriotic hedonists, and the country will sail along regardless. Like people who think getting married will make them happy, they can't imagine that the US exists only as long as we work at making it so. Or like a kid who at age two develops a cute, harmless habit of kicking his mother, and then keeps it up until he's 21 and kicks her to death, still thinking he's harmless and cute.
So that's my bullshit theory! P. Froward's Festival of Generalizations. Sounds halfway plausible, anyway, after a few beers.
The loony left simply will not understand, or simply will not admit, that appeasement doesn't work. When a ransom is paid, then the kidnapping was successful. When blackmail is paid, then the blackmailer is encouraged. When the response to terrorist acts is, "Don't make them angry, just give them what they want", then terrorism works. And, Sarah, you are right -- such a response is suicidal.
The difference between the loony left of today and the loony left of six decades ago is that Neville Chamberlain eventually admitted that appeasement didn't work, and then he got the hell out of the way. It is a shame that he died soon after, as it would have been interesting to see his reaction to how Churchill handled the problem.
I've asked a simple question of many people I know who are similarly hard over against doing anything. It is, "How many people will have to die as a direct result of acts committed in this country by foreign Islamic terrorists before you will agree that the President, as Chief Executive of the government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, should take the fight to the terrorists without your permission and stomp them into the ground? Here's a hint: any response to my question that isn't a number also isn't an answer."
I have NEVER received an answer. Any answer is also an admission that the principle is correct, and they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that. So, the usual response is dead silence, then an ugly expression, followed by walking away.
I get the same profound silence when I ask an antigunner "If you don't want people to carry handguns at all, what exactly would you have them defend themselves with when confronted by a violent predator, if the police aren't nearby or there's no opportunity to flee"
Thank you all for the sanity. I do think that whacking one is like stomping on one ant. Now kick ingopen the nest and pouring gas on them, that works, but stomping one at a time is a slow way to get the job done.
Trackback message
Title: Democrats Claim Zarqawi’s Death a “Stunt”
Excerpt: Never satisfied with any American victory, the ever predictable Fifth Column already attempts to tarnish the events yesterday with their vile slander.
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu M...
Blog name: justbarkingmad.com
I saw a yard sign today that said:
"End The War - Bring The Troops Home"
As if the war with radical islam didn't begin until WE sent troops overseas to fight them.
As if those who swear our violent and painful deaths, daily, will somehow be appeased and go back to a peaceful life of tending sheep and goats once we pull our troops home.
"And armor is damned nice to have when people are shooting at you." Yes, but you have to remember that all armor can be penetrated if you let them keep on shooting at you. You've got to shoot back. Better yet, shoot first, and eliminate that chance of a lucky shot that hits a weak spot in the armor with the first round.
I have three quotes to ponder. Two are old and classic, one not so old, all are truisms and on point.
---------------
First from the 1984 movie "The Terminator" to me it is the best description of a terrorist:
“Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”
-------------
Next the poem "Dane Geld" by Rudyard Kipling, an excellent explanation of why appeasement NEVER works:
"Dane Geld"
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
-------------
Finally the poem "Every Man Should Have A Rifle" by Australian poet Henry Lawson. It speaks to preparedness and ignoring the bleating voices abhorring the call to arms:
"Every Man Should Have a Rifle"
So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.
No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!
Yeah, after they're dead, they generally stop shooting at you. "Nice to have" isn't the same as "all you need".
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/06/but-but-its-not-religious-war.html (10 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Look at the Canadian MSM response to the arrests of 17 Muslim terrorists in Ontario -- 'they come from a "broad strata" of society'; and 'it is difficult to find a common denominator' among them.
This reaction is so absurd and illogical that it can only be described as an extreme religious dogma at work. Not only is it heresy to point out the obvious, the Left's unshakable faith in multiculturalism has overcome the instinct for survival. Based on this I'd say Leftism is an even more suicidal religion than Islam.
...I have yet to figure out why the Left refuses ... to recognize this.
Here's my theory, for whatever microscopic value it may have:
The left want guaranteed housing for life for everybody, ditto employment (if desired), income, health care, you name it. They want to ban everything that might be dangerous or harmful. They want to preserve every leaf and blade of grass just as it is, in perpetuity. They're obsessed with their health, and food purity, and their goddamn bowels. These are the people who want our troops to stay barricaded in bases, armored from head to toe, until they come home. They'll never know or care about the 5.56 being a lousy cartridge; what fires their imagination is armor! On Marines, on Humvees, you name it. It's just not in them to think in terms of making yourself safe by blowing a bigger hole in the guy who's out to kill you; the only answer they can imagine is to bury oneself under an ever-growing mountain of ballistic plates.
They're pathologically risk-averse. Where the "pathological" part comes in is they refuse to accept the fact that sometimes there are risks you just have to take. When there's a problem that can only be dealt with by facing risk, they retreat into fantasy (e.g. gun control).
Then 9/11 happens. They need to believe that what's happening can be controlled with zero risk. So they have to believe that the US is infinitely powerful, because deep in their murky little subconscious minds, they don't really believe for a minute that the US is genuinely malevolent. It's okay, mommy's still in charge... Therefore, they need to believe that we can buy bin Laden off cheaply and easily; or else that the people responsible for 9/11 are us. They cannot accept the idea that this is a real problem and that there's no easy, safe, guaranteed solution.
Anything they have a hope of controlling, they try to turn into the Teletubbies. The rest, they deal with by retreating into fantasy.
This is why they have all their weird hostile ideas about the police: Because the cops can be controlled with nice safe laws, but violent criminals are fucking scary. So they retreat into a fantasy where cops are the only problem.
Yeah, some problems really are easy, some cops really are evil, we do have the presumption of innocence for very good reasons, etc. And armor is damned nice to have when people are shooting at you. I'm not saying they're always wrong. If you take the SAT and fill in the far left circle for every question, you'll get some of them right.
They also have a childish tendency to take the US, among other things, for granted. They think they can arbitrarily destroy any part of our culture they choose, tax business into oblivion, raise all our kids to be unpatriotic hedonists, and the country will sail along regardless. Like people who think getting married will make them happy, they can't imagine that the US exists only as long as we work at making it so. Or like a kid who at age two develops a cute, harmless habit of kicking his mother, and then keeps it up until he's 21 and kicks her to death, still thinking he's harmless and cute.
So that's my bullshit theory! P. Froward's Festival of Generalizations. Sounds halfway plausible, anyway, after a few beers.
You're all three right.
I'll throw in another two cent's worth.
The loony left simply will not understand, or simply will not admit, that appeasement doesn't work. When a ransom is paid, then the kidnapping was successful. When blackmail is paid, then the blackmailer is encouraged. When the response to terrorist acts is, "Don't make them angry, just give them what they want", then terrorism works. And, Sarah, you are right -- such a response is suicidal.
The difference between the loony left of today and the loony left of six decades ago is that Neville Chamberlain eventually admitted that appeasement didn't work, and then he got the hell out of the way. It is a shame that he died soon after, as it would have been interesting to see his reaction to how Churchill handled the problem.
I've asked a simple question of many people I know who are similarly hard over against doing anything. It is, "How many people will have to die as a direct result of acts committed in this country by foreign Islamic terrorists before you will agree that the President, as Chief Executive of the government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, should take the fight to the terrorists without your permission and stomp them into the ground? Here's a hint: any response to my question that isn't a number also isn't an answer."
I have NEVER received an answer. Any answer is also an admission that the principle is correct, and they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that. So, the usual response is dead silence, then an ugly expression, followed by walking away.
DJ,
I get the same profound silence when I ask an antigunner "If you don't want people to carry handguns at all, what exactly would you have them defend themselves with when confronted by a violent predator, if the police aren't nearby or there's no opportunity to flee"
Thank you all for the sanity. I do think that whacking one is like stomping on one ant. Now kick ingopen the nest and pouring gas on them, that works, but stomping one at a time is a slow way to get the job done.
Trackback message
Title: Democrats Claim Zarqawi’s Death a “Stunt”
Excerpt: Never satisfied with any American victory, the ever predictable Fifth Column already attempts to tarnish the events yesterday with their vile slander.
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu M...
Blog name: justbarkingmad.com
I saw a yard sign today that said:
"End The War - Bring The Troops Home"
As if the war with radical islam didn't begin until WE sent troops overseas to fight them.
As if those who swear our violent and painful deaths, daily, will somehow be appeased and go back to a peaceful life of tending sheep and goats once we pull our troops home.
These people are delusional to the point of denying the decades of history of Islamic terrorism.
"And armor is damned nice to have when people are shooting at you." Yes, but you have to remember that all armor can be penetrated if you let them keep on shooting at you. You've got to shoot back. Better yet, shoot first, and eliminate that chance of a lucky shot that hits a weak spot in the armor with the first round.
I have three quotes to ponder. Two are old and classic, one not so old, all are truisms and on point.
---------------
First from the 1984 movie "The Terminator" to me it is the best description of a terrorist:
“Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”
-------------
Next the poem "Dane Geld" by Rudyard Kipling, an excellent explanation of why appeasement NEVER works:
"Dane Geld"
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
-------------
Finally the poem "Every Man Should Have A Rifle" by Australian poet Henry Lawson. It speaks to preparedness and ignoring the bleating voices abhorring the call to arms:
"Every Man Should Have a Rifle"
So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.
No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!
markm,
Yeah, after they're dead, they generally stop shooting at you. "Nice to have" isn't the same as "all you need".
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>