The anti-War movement in a paragraph
Bookworm on Oct 02 2006 at 9:33 am | Filed under: Anti-war, Islam, Muslim violence
One of the frequent themes I see from the anti-War crowd (including a theme in my own Comments sections) is the belief that Iraq has created terrorism. This view conveniently ignores the fact that the single greatest act of terrorism against Americans happened before the Iraq War, as well as the fact that (thank God) there hasn’t been another act of terrorism on American soil since then — Iraqi war notwithstanding. Instead, Jihadist terrorism has been directed all over the world, often with no nexus to the war (Beslan, Bali, France, Germany, etc).
The NIE document has reignited this whole lunatic debate. That report notes that the war brought the Jihadists out of the woodwork with speed, although anyone who has been watching has known that they’ve been creeping out anyway at an exponential rate since 1979. (And I’ll repeat again that the climax to this slow growth was 9/11, which preceded Iraq.) No one on the anti-War Left wants to recognize the NIE’s other conclusion which is that, now that the War has forced the Jihadists had from under cover, they’re easier to see and destroy. Further, to cut-and-run now would be to hand them the ultimate victory and, like Al Jolson, we’d all be hollering “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
In any event, Alan Nathan gets it, and he’s a good writer, to boot:
Completed in April but recently cited in the New York Times, the NIE reportedly assesses that we’re creating more terrorists by fighting them. Apparently, the alternative strategy is hoping that the enemy will surrender to the relentless blows of our acquiescence. (Emphasis mine.)
You can read the rest here.
UPDATE: Fouad Adjami, in an article about the banal middle class lives the new jihadist terrorists lead (that is, the key killers are not products of abject poverty and despair), has this to say:
There is a strand of liberal thinking that aims to explain the terror and succeeds only in explaining it away. Terror is justified if we drown it in the search for “root causes” or if we insist that the terror sprang from “legitimate” grievances. In this vein, nowadays it is maintained that Islamist terror was fed by the rage over the American invasion of Iraq. This argument is off the mark, the product of naivete or of a determined opposition to the war. We should know better. The trail of radical terror, emanating from Islamic lands and Islamic movements, predates the Iraq war. We have three decades of this kind of terror behind us. Our consolation perhaps lies in the fate that awaited the original cult of assassins [the 11th Century killers, high on hashish, who gave us the term assassin]. In their time, they had fame, and their potential victims feared them. But the world of organized states in the end triumphed, and the fury of the zealots was no match for the determination of mainstream society to shake off the assassins and to defend the normal order of things.
To which I would add, why is it that the liberals and the Left cannot recognize that religion itself is a root cause? This is the perversion of Marxism, which sees people as being motivated only by class and economic concerns, and that is incapable of acknowledging other driving forces.
Email This Post To A Friend
4 Responses to “The anti-War movement in a paragraph”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I suspect the Left’s –and Dem’s–’will to power’ overrides any loyalty to and care for America. These malcontents hate what this country is anyway: they tell us ceaselessly.
Whether THEY pull us down, or Islam. is no great matter to the Left.
One of the frequent themes I see from the anti-War crowd (including a theme in my own Comments sections) is the belief that Iraq has created terrorism
But isn’t that true, doesn’t Iraq create terrorists? Aren’t terrorists designed to terrorize and to make all law abiding citizens tremble in fear of Sha’riah and Islamic retribution? Does not a lawfully abiding society, beholden to JUST laws, create more terrorists as enemies? Good cannot exist without Evil, destroy the one and get rid of the other. Promote the one, and get more of the other. It’s not exactly proportional, but it has its parallels.
This view conveniently ignores the fact that the single greatest act of terrorism against Americans happened before the Iraq War,
While that be true on a metaphysical sense, you do have to realize that if not for Iraq, then there are still plenty of other grievances that the Islamic World has against the US? Everything from immigration, to economics, to Iran to Afghanistan, there is plenty of things other than Iraq, that does as Iraq has done. The point is obviously that American interference and power is what causes terrorism, Iraq is only ONE of the examples. We don’t need it to explain 9/11, after all, you know.
No one on the anti-War Left wants to recognize the NIE’s other conclusion which is that, now that the War has forced the Jihadists had from under cover, they’re easier to see and destroy.
But that would apply to Palestine, when they elected Hamas. You do not seriously believe that electing a terrorist organization in a democracy, is a Good thing?
This argument is off the mark, the product of naivete or of a determined opposition to the war
Why is this argument off the mark? Iraq does enrage the terrorists. Just because people believe that it enrages the terrorists because how evil we, compared to how other people believe that it enrages the terrorists because of how much good the terrorists wish to destroy, does not mean the argument that Iraq enrages the terrorists is “off the mark”.
The trail of radical terror, emanating from Islamic lands and Islamic movements, predates the Iraq war.
But that’s not the point. The question is whether it predates American interference and injustices.
As an additional bulwark to the Left, who can’t come up with a good argument if their lives depended upon it, I’ll forward this thesis. Knowing your enemy will allow you to defeat him. If you discard their grievances, legitimate or not, you mask your own perception fields with illusion.
It’s not about justifying terrorists, it is about finding their weaknesses. Finding how terrorists see the Philipino guerrilas fighting Americans in the dawn of the 20th century, is not defeatism. It is finding historical lessons to power current strategy.
It is true that you cannot trust the Leftists to do such strategizing, because after all, the Leftists couldn’t make a good argument if their life depended upon it. Obviously when your life depends upon it, it is not exactly going to work out for you if you depend upon the Leftists and fake liberals. True liberals, do see the root causes and wish to extirpate the problems. Even I, who forward arguments in defense of the Left, cannot truely give any fake assurances that the fake liberals will see to the heart of the enemy and strike with critical finesse.
Seeing to the heart of the enemy, has some particular consequences, some of it bad. For example, I could not defend Islamic Jihad or the Left, even with the best of arguments, because I would know that those arguments would be false. It is very hard to produce propaganda when you know that EVERYTHING in it is a lie. It is one thing to exaggerate and extrapolate, but it is another thing to say something that you know is not true at all, and in which serves no purpose at all as well.
The best I can do, to construct arguments for the Left, is to create a sort of pseudo true liberal on the Left. Someone who wishes to fight and who wishes to see to the truth of things. Since the Left ain’t fighters, but lovers, and are propagandists instead of truth seekers, it is very hard to portray them in a good light. The Islamic Jihad at least has vitality, barbarian vitality but still vitality, as well as a pure and honest righteousness. At least they think it is pure and honest, and by all accounts, they act with purity of heart and honesty of intentions. When they say they hate the West, they act it out. When they say they hate Republicans, they will kill Republicans. They aren’t passive-aggressive, fake in all as fake can be, as with the Left and the Communists after all. You may feel some respect for true believers, even if fanatics, for simply doing what they say they will. They at least, are enemies worthy of execution. You may not admire the Islamic Jihad, you may not even like them or think of them as honorable enemies, but they are the Real Deal, unmistakably.
So to answer your question, Bookworm. The Left does not see religion as a motivation to the Islamic jihad, because the Left is not the Real Deal in any sense of the word. They are caricatures, strawmen breezing in the wind, beholden to the hurricane of disbelief. They act as believers in Marx, but will they die for Marx, will they die and kill for their beliefs? No. They are not true believers in any faith or creed, but amateurs masquerading as crusaders and righteous paladins. The best I can do is come up with some plaster, to fill in the gaps of the Left’s sullen disposition and sticklike figure. It is only a temporary solution. If I could not have the Angel of Death on my side, at least let me have the Angel of Compassion instead of the Angel of Cowardice. At least let me have that. The Angel of Compassion may be a bit useless in wars of survival, but at least she has some redeeming values.
Answer me this, if you would Bookworm. How would an atheist, someone who believes in nothing except his own self-aggrandization, ever ever understand the motivations of a true believer? It seems impossible does it not? How do you understand the soul of battle, when you do not even know what battle is? It is a foreign system of belief for many Leftists, Western Decadents, Hollywood actor stars, that anyone heavenly reward would be great enough for people to kill or be killed for. Obviously those with private jets and what not, would only understand the despair of the downtrodden in the prism of their own experiences and lives. Obviously if someone is enraged, it is because they were not given a booking at a five star hotel! Because there are no five star hotels, the Amis bombed them all!!
I can do little to portray such apathetic beings in any really good light. The Islamic Jihad is superior at propaganda because their actions support their lies, if only at a surface level. The Left believes in their own propaganda, yet does not do anything about it amazingly enough. If the Left believes America is the greatest evil in the world, the master blaster satan man, why then do they not act as the Islamic Jihad has, and take the fight to us with blood on the streets? Are they afraid of something perhaps or do they just not believe, do they believe in their own lies because so long as they believe in something that is not true, they need do anything about it? Contrasted with the true belief of terrorists, and you will see that terrorists act “logically” based upon their own premises. If the US is the Great Satan, then obviously no small evil should prevent the destruction of the GS.
Sorry for the typos, but I’m not on my computer or using my keyboard. Keyboards without a gauze over it to prevent dirtiness and sticking is not… optimal to say the least. so long as they beliee in something that is not true, they need do nothing about it, is the right phrasing.