When moonbats converge

Al-Zawahri has emerged has the newest spokesman for the “Bush lied, people died” meme.  Frankly, if I were a major party during a time of war, I’d kind of prefer to distance myself from the enemy’s rhetoric and I’d be deeply disturbed to find that the enemy is echoing mine.  In fact, moonbats are probably proud that they’ve got their “America is losing the war” message across so convincingly, it’s now coming right from the horse’s mouth.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ravana.wordpress.com ravana

    If something is true, does it become any less true depending on who says it?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Give the Democrats a little more time, Book, and they will be jumping up and down, saying “see, see, we were right. Al Qaeda says so”. Islam means submission. They have already submitted. Chumps, all of them.

  • mamapajamas

    Ravana… that depends. Is what is being said true? I seriously doubt that. I’m not going to get into it all over again… that’s for another forum… but the fact is that the last Japanese sniper from WWII was found and returned to Japan just last year. And, yes… he knew the war was over. But he gave in because he is so old.

    There are going to be terrorists for as long as there are hard-headed people who believe in the cause still alive. I think we’re stuck with them. But you can NOT “deal” with terrorists. The only thing you CAN do is fight with them.

    To paraphrase President Bush, although the terrorists claim that our presence in Iraq is the cause of their outrage, the fact is that we were NOT in Iraq on 9/11. Or in Afghanistan. So that CAN’T be the “cause” of their little problem.

  • jg

    Ravana,
    “If something is true, does it become any less true depending on who says it?”

    Are you then saying terrorism is the truth, ravana? I find it odd you cling so eagerly to those who are killing innocents, particularly Muslims, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Perhaps you don’t find the massacres that offensive. You are consorting with the killers and haters of this world.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Speaking as a Christian, I find it rather weird that so many professed Christians (including and especially in my own church) appear to think that there is a moral virtue in trying to see the world through the eyes of the truly evil. It is as if these “Christians” assume that they gain absolution and salvation through their ability to empathize with those who willingly slaughter the innocent, “rising above” feelings of vengeance, hate, etc.. As others have put it, this is moral vanity. It is not a moral dichotomy between “love” and “hate”, but one between absolute right and absolute wrong. Self defense doesn’t have to spring from a sense of hate or vengeance, and is only immoral if one devalues God’s gift of life to oneself. Those that make common cause with the Islamo-fascist terrorists must accept that they, too, have blood on their hands as enablers of those that commit evil against our common humanity.

  • mamapajamas

    Danny, ” It is as if these “Christians” assume that they gain absolution and salvation through their ability to empathize with those who willingly slaughter the innocent, “rising above” feelings of vengeance, hate, etc.. As others have put it, this is moral vanity.

    I agree fully, but this is not merely moral vanity, but IMHO, but morally reprehensible, and, mental-health-wise, extremely questionable.

    If a job applicant displayed to me an inability to tell the difference between a terrorist and, say, a Marine, I would absolutely NOT hire that person. I would find such a person to be of questionable intelligence and completely lacking in morality, and I not want to have to put a 24-hour guard on my computer equipment.

    People who can not differentiate between soldiers accidentally killing innocents in a combat action and terrorists deliberately hiding behind children have absolutely NO moral bearings and really should not broadcast to the entire world that they lack those bearings. It is a thing to be ashamed of.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    If something is true, does it become any less true depending on who says it?

    Comment by ravana | September 30, 2006

    Yes, because the truth can never be manipulated by deceivers, unless the truth becomes a deception.

    If the truth is 100% exact to the lies told by someone else, either it wasn’t the truth to begin with, or the terrorists aren’t lieing and telling falsehoods.

    Why would terrorists speak the truth, they thrive on deception, strife, and illusion. The illusion of paradise, the illusion of salvation, the illusion of satisfaction through hate and honor killings. What would terrorists use truth for except to reshape it into a lie?

    So if the Democrats said a true thing, then the terrorists would modify it into a deception. The terrorists would not repeat what the Democrats said. If the terrorists do repeat what the Democrats say, then either the Democrats are deceivers like terrorists, or the terrorists are telling the truth like Democrats. Since the former means the Democrats are not on America’s side and the latter means that terrorists are on America’s side, which do you think is more plausible? That Democrats are not on America’s side or that terrorists are on America’s side of truth and justice?

    Deductive logic clears most of the deceptive and ambiguous manipulations up.

    Speaking as a Christian, I find it rather weird that so many professed Christians (including and especially in my own church) appear to think that there is a moral virtue in trying to see the world through the eyes of the truly evil.

    Turn the other cheek danny, turn the other cheek. I find it amusing that any religion based upon Moses’ siege of Jerinhold and Moses’ military march from Egypt, could ever be anything akin to “pacifism”. Ah, the vagaries of 2,000 years, much can change over that time.

    “rising above” feelings of vengeance, hate, etc..

    We got to keep the moral high ground, ya know. After all, if Jews slaughter Palestinians, wouldn’t that make everything the Germans did to the Jews, justified? People have to worry about their souls, you know.

    Other people prefer worrying over innocent people’s lives, and not their own personal souls, but that is not everyone. Not all humans share the same motivations and conduct.

    Self defense doesn’t have to spring from a sense of hate or vengeance, and is only immoral if one devalues God’s gift of life to oneself.

    People doubt themselves. They worry about, “am I doing the right thing”, and “how do I know that I am strong enough to contain this hate in my heart”. They worry about losing control, they were taught by American civilization to follow the law, to be peaceful, to not be a vigilante. To suddenly become a warrior, a protector of individuals you don’t know, is to encounter foreign belief systems and behaviors.

    America is not a warrior culture, it is not even an honor culture. Our laws handle our grievances, not our hate or our emotions. So people do not have an ability to understand or control their emotions, to use those emotions to further the cause of justice and righteousness. So like all things that people fear and have no knowledge of, they seek to contain those emotions, and what better way to contain those emotions than to follow the path of righteousness and Jesus Christ?

    They are only following the dictates of civilization and society, to do no violence, to commit no crime, and to obey the law. Just because they cannot surpass their limits, does not make them bad people. But of course, it doesn’t help me if I’m in a war of survival.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    There are two paths to enlightenment as I see it. The martial path of the warrior-monk or the religious/spiritual path of the priest. The priest seeks to be objective, to seek divine inspiration and goodness. He seeks to be above the petty squabbles and hatred amongst humans, to bring harmony to disorder. The priest obtains self-discipline and self-confidence from his faith and his loyalty to his god.

    The warrior-monk, however, lives by a different philosophy. Instead of focusing his rage, hatred, and fears unto a god for his god to purify, he focuses them inwards. Using them to construct fortifications inside of his soul, mind, and body. His emotions, his will, become the expression of his action and the outer casing of his protective faith. While warrior-monks are true to themselves in the service of their gods, priests are true to their god, doing their god’s commands.

    The martial arts, after, do not teach self-discipline by teaching you to follow a god. It teaches inner-balance, and the power of your own body, mind, and spirit. Which god you perform services for, is your decision, but knowing yourself is far more important a priority in martial arts than knowing your god is to a priest.

    Ultimately, those who follow a god and rely upon that god for self-discipline, strength, power, and faith will have to make a decision. What will they do when the barbarians are at the gates, and god isn’t there to help the priests? Will the priests fight, express the rage and fear of life and death fight? Would this not be a betrayal of their promises to God, to bring harmony and peace upon God’s subjects? This conflict seems to be a natural extension of the priestly path of enlightenment.

    What I’ve said isn’t someting new under the sun. The Knights Templar were of course, the martial wing of a church and faith. Clerical orders. But not many people obtain any path of enlightenment, regardless of the institution they are a part of. They do say that hell is paved with good intentions, and probably littered with the corpses of failures as well. Or those who died because of other people’s failures.

    It does make sense in a way, you know. Danny mentioned that some people refuse to fight, refuse to defend themselves if it means inciting the rage and fear. This is not a problem for the US military, because after all, the military is purely of the martial branches. The military is true to themselves, and serve the US Constitution after all. If the military has a god and patron, it would have to be the US Constitution. They would no more betray their oaths to the Constitution, then priests would start preaching the beliefs of another god. Individuals vary, but individuals who have achieved enlightenment, are different than your average bloke who deserts.

    The US Marines is not pure hearted, in the sense that they are not priests or saints. They aren’t plaster saints as Kipling once said, via his Tommy poem. But they serve the path of righteousness, who would doubt that when looking upon the stories of Marine angels saving the lives of Iraqi and Afghanistani children? The stories of Navy relief teams flying in from US Carriers to deliver hope and supplies to Pakistan?

    In the military, they are supposed to teach you that aggression is a tool, so long as you control your hate and rage, it will serve the cause of discipline and the good. The mission and your compatriots. I do not believe they teach that in priest school or the School of Moralities you might find in Eastern philosophy.

    The military is not afraid to defend themselves, because their purpose and their path is not the same as the path of the priests or civilians.

    How do you get civilians and priests to defend themselves? That’s like asking, what can change the nature of a man. I know not the answer, many things perhaps. The nature of civilians is different than the nature of soldiers. The nature of priests, different from the nature of warrior-monks. That is all I know.

  • jg

    Y. interesting reading. I really don’t know enough about Christian warriors of the past. Such are pretty well sanitized in today’s history books. We see only part of their lives, and none of their faith. Interestingly the Founding Fathers saw establishing their rights as free men by force inextricably linked to the hand of God.
    One could maintain that such has always been the case for America. We can see that the ‘
    Battle Hymn of the Republic’ is not a pacific anthem.

    One milblog’s motto is: strong men keep the peace.

    A elite college acquaintance once professed horror over seeing Evangelicals hoist the flag within their sanctuaries.
    His was today’s post modern Christianity.
    But America’s parents and grandparents were anything but post-modern and pacific during the first part of the 20c. That’s why American exists today free, for the moment.