When someone shouts "Allahu Akbar" and begins wantonly slaughtering people we have a pretty good idea what their motivations are.
"The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam."
— President Barack Obama, Address to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, April 6, 2009, Ankara, Turkey"We're not at war with anyone. We're at war only with people who represent mistruths as truth and that's true of any network whether it's Fox, CBS, or any other network when– when errors of fact are stated or when opinion is offered is fact, we will– we will challenge that."
– David Axelrod, Senior Policy Advisor to President Obama, November 1, 2009, Interview on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Washington, D.C.
While David Axelrod insists we are only at war with media outlets and others who tell the public things the White House doesn't want to hear, the last I checked we still have soldiers who are fighting wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And while President Obama insists the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam that doesn't mean Islam isn't at war with us.
We found this out the hard way on November 5, 2009 when a member of our own armed forces, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shot and killed twelve fellow soldiers and one civilian as well as injuring twenty-nine others at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. It was an act of terrorism pure and simple. If our military is charged with the responsibility of protecting us and if our military bases are not safe from their own ranks then surely the intent is to undermine public confidence in our armed forces. The void created by a loss of public confidence is one filled by feelings of terror.
President Obama can content himself all he wants with false assurances that we ought not to "jump to conclusions" about Hasan or that "we can't fully know what leads a man to do such a thing." But when someone shouts "Allahu Akbar" and begins wantonly slaughtering people we have a pretty good idea of what Hasan's motivations are. When someone praises the murder of Private William Long, an army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas, we have a pretty good idea that Hasan has no place in our military. When someone makes an effort to contact al Qaeda leaders to join their cause as Hasan did we have a pretty good idea that we are dealing with someone who is both a terrorist and a traitor.
Those who would attribute Hasan's actions to some sort of made up on the spot, convenient, instant coffee mental disorder or otherwise make excuses for his actions do a grave disservice to the memory of those who died at Fort Hood. In fact, it does a disservice to all our soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So when we take a moment on Veterans Day to remember those who were lost at Fort Hood and those who laid down their lives before them, let us also remember the words of Osama bin Laden. In the fatwa issued in 1998, he wrote:
We — with God's help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html)
This fatwa was issued during President Clinton's second term. This fatwa was issued nearly three years before big, bad George W. Bush took the oath of office. This fatwa proves Islamic fundamentalists hated America well before President Bush and will hate America no matter how much President Obama might try to appease and satiate their appetites.
We should remember these words because they are in part what motivated the attacks of September 11, 2001. We should remember these words because they are in part what motivated the attacks against our soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. We should remember these words because they are in part what motivated Nadal Malik Hasan to fire upon his fellow soldiers and kill his fellow Americans.
You've made a case that Mr. Hasan was a Muslim zealot, and that his actions are probably best considered 'terrorist' in nature. As the facts have trickled out, that sounds reasonable to me – I've read a number of opinions across the spectrum that are pretty much converging on that. The question is, what does it mean?
Your essay diverges from that obvious question to emphasize that Muslim terrorists hate us, wish us death, and must be vigorously fought. But that's old news, a virtual consensus already.
I'm curious what you (and other conservatives) think the Hasan incident *means* for our internal affairs and foreign policies.
You suggestively quote Mr. Obama: "We are not at war with Islam" (by which he presumably meant, we are only at war with Islam's terrorist religious fanatics, not the bulk of the followers of that religion.
Do you disagree, Mr. Goldstein? Should we consider ourselves 'at war with Islam', as your essay seems to imply? That seems like a bad idea to me.
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but it's hard not to, the way you contrast the quote with the rest of the essay.
Oz
What is missing here is: was Nadal Hasan taking an antidepressant? Perhaps he was self-prescribing.
The Physicians Desk Reference states that SSRI antidepressants and all antidepressants can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, hostility, etc. These side effects can also appear during withdrawal.
Go to http://www.SSRIstories.com where there are over 3,400 cases, with the full media article available, involving bizarre murders, suicides, school shootings [49 of these] and murder-suicides – all of which involve SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc, . The media article usually tells which SSRI antidepressant the perpetrator was taking or had been using.
With whom are we at war?
Are we at war with Islam or are we at war only with Islamic Extremists? How do you separate the extremist from the balance of the Islamic population? One must take a stand. Taking a stand is something now nearly impossible thanks to political correctness, multiculturalism, and non-judgmentalism. Remember, not all Muslims are terrorists; but all terrorists seem to be Muslim.
We, as a nation cannot seem to bring ourselves to the conclusion that any perpetrator, especially one belonging to the 'Religion of Peace', has indeed judged us; and harshly too.
You seldom see any condemnation from the 'peaceful' Muslims when atrocities of this nature happen. For the most part, they shrug their shoulders and mutter; "Some fight Jihad inside, some outside."
While it remains to be seen how this Ft. Hood terrorist act will conclude; there can be no doubt that it was a terrorist act. I say this for one reason. An officer in the US military has an out not accorded to enlisted personnel. He may resign his commission and leave the service. If Major Nidal Malik Hasan was so disenchanted with the present mission assigned to the US Military he could have, at any time, simply turned in his ID card and walked away. Of course, then he would have had a tougher time entering such a 'target rich' environment as a graduation ceremony on a military post.
One also suspects that since he'd been fairly outspoken about his feelings, that he had already reached the conclusion that with political correctness running rampant in the military, it actually offered him some 'shielding' from censorship or discipline.
This is an example of what Arabs in general and Islamic Arabs in particular call a 'weak' horse. A weak horse is the person or idea that does not defend itself. The weak horse is to be taken constant advantage of. Islam sees itself as the 'strong' horse; the idea that endures and wins. It is the destiny of the strong horse to defeat the weak horse.
Read this another way "We are the strong; they are the weak. They lament the slaughter of innocents. We know there are no innocents. Islamic by-standers caught in the cross-fire or explosion are martyrs. All others are infidels. The killing of infidels assures paradise.
You have to understand the mindset here. Even if you win the stand up battle; in the Muslim mind it is OK to sue for peace, and to even maintain peace until such time as they gain enough strength to re-start the Jihad.
Under such conditions there are only two choices, defeat or genocide.
Whether he yelled “Allahu Akbar” or “Death to the New York Yankees”, Maj. Hasan is very scary indeed and in a way the media never seems to mention in connection with terrorists. 13 dead, 29 wounded, Hasan not even shot dead in the process – soldiers taken out, not helpless young children or infirm old ladies – the military students at West Point would tell you that is a very impressive victory in any form of combat. And Hasan didn’t shoot from 300 yards away, he didn’t set a time bomb in order to spare his own life, he didn’t try to escape after only a few shots, he kept blazing away, expecting to die but trying to take out as many Americans as possible – not just American Jews – any living, breathing American within his sight pattern.
Think on the implications of this. A small handful of terrorists kill over 3,000 people using commercial airliners as weapons, a single soldier toting a pair of handguns takes out over 40 people – given the casualty rate among the Americans, it makes you wonder who is actually winning this war. It’s true the Muslims can’t match our stealth bombers, our aircraft carriers, our ballistic missile subs, our attack helicopters or our 60 ton Main Battle Tanks. But isn’t that the point – the Muslim terrorists inflict damage far out of proportion to their numbers or the strength of their military-industrial complex – an American general pointed out you can’t win a war by having your soldiers blow themselves up – or can you?
And where’s the sense of urgency in this war? With Americans, on Tuesday, it’s win the war in Afghanistan, on Thursday, it’s close the China deal, on Friday, it’s off to Aruba on vacation. Deadlines to be met, tasks accomplished on schedule, personal rewards bestowed on oneself. With Muslim terrorists, it’s what’s the hurry, kill a few Americans today, kill a few more next year, don’t expect a personal reward, don’t even expect to live through it but do it anyway. Use simple and readily available weapons on a people who can’t even discuss their own self-defense without $50,000 worth of specialized computers and conference room projection equipment. Seems a strange way to win a war – but as some wise man said, maybe it was Rush Limbaugh: Crazy doesn’t imply stupid.
And where’s the American reaction to this tragedy? We have no secret patriotic societies dedicated to defense of our homeland or capable of carrying out a savage revenge. Or, rather, those Patriot Societies we do have list at least 5 undercover FBI agents on their membership rosters patiently waiting for a Washington politician to arrange a press conference before the News at 6:00 round-up raid and intensely reported prosecution. We have no American warrior tradition to speak of unless you include those among our young men hanging out in their parent’s basement and playing Ultimate War 2 on their X-Box 360’s. We’re such pacifists we spend considerable energy constructing plausible excuses for our resounding defeats and humbly forgiving the enemy combatants. Tell us again, who is winning this war?
Remember, not all Muslims are terrorists; but all terrorists seem to be Muslim.
Well, except maybe these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcoterrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
Or these guys, looking backward a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization
Just sayin'
Oz
Are we at war with Islam or are we at war only with Islamic Extremists? How do you separate the extremist from the balance of the Islamic population? One must take a stand. Taking a stand is something now nearly impossible thanks to political correctness, multiculturalism, and non-judgmentalism.
I'm curious what exactly you mean by 'taking a stand', Bill. If we were unfettered by 'non-judgmentalism', etc, what actions would you propose?
Oz
Couple more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching
Arguably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
Oz
Ozzie,
In answer to your question; "what exactly you mean by 'taking a stand', Bill?" My moral values are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. This philosophy requires that I not only identify evil, but confront it and destroy it. The one common denominator in all your references is 'evil'. It doesn't matter what ideal or excuse the person or persons practicing such violence use to assuage their guilt.
You've provided references to extremists inhabiting the worlds of politics, drug running, and environmental activists. Curious that you did seem to avoid any references to religious extremists. I can only surmise that it is because that is the subject of these postings.
However the political, narcotic, environmental and religious extremists have common elements. They promote the indiscriminate killing of any and all they deem to be not of their 'club'. They are willing to sacrifice any amount of human beings to make their 'statement'; in fact, the more the better. They function in an almost amoral state. I say almost as while they deny any limits on the bounds of their actions; they count on the moral compass of their opponents to provide them with succor; to allow them the civility of a trial and incarceration, instead of execution.
For people and groups such as these there can be no negotiation, no co-existence. Opponents are to be exterminated. Extremists refuse to give any quarter, and should therefore be granted none.
Islamic extremists have been warring with the world and each other for over a thousand years. For the overwhelming majority of that time their ability to destroy has been subject to the limits of technology. As in days gone by, these extremists still pledge themselves to the violence of the sword: But today, that sword is a machine gun, an IED, a truck bomb, poison, and soon a possible nuclear device.
I understand that many say that 'one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter', but these do not fight for freedom. They battle to curtail it. Force is what they understand. Force is what they respect. Force is what they should receive.
Make no mistake; this does not in any way violate my philosophy. The original translation of the Fifth Commandment says "Thou shall not murder", meaning senseless killing, or killing for reasons of coveting or seizing wealth are those considered sinful. We are all duty bound to identify, confront, and eliminate evil.
Does this satisfy your 'curiosity'?
Semper Fidelis!
Does this satisfy your 'curiosity'?
Actually no, not really, Bill.
The reason I gave you all those links is because you said that all terrorists seem to be Muslims. That's not really true, now or historically. Lots of different groups have employed terroristic means. It is, as they say, the tactic of the weak and powerless.
You seem to be saying that political correctness, etc, is stopping us from 'making a stand'. I just wondered what you mean by 'taking a stand' – ie, what do propose that we do to combat this threat that we are not already doing?
We did invade two countries after all, open a couple of torture camps, and have devoted extraordinary attention and resources to finding and fighting terrorists in the last 8 years or so. What is 'political correctness' preventing us from doing at this point, that you'd like to see done?
You go on and on about the evil and amoral nature of terrorists. Fine and dandy. Who disagrees with that? But still, specific measures and targets must be chosen. Sounds to me like you and the essay writer think Islam itself is the enemy that we should go to war with. But maybe I've mistaken your intent.
Oz
A student of the history of warfare would readily agree it’s important to “know your enemy”. With Americans, we’ve made the mistake in past wars of not knowing our enemy. The Japanese were once portrayed as physically weak, small men, with chronically bad eyesight, wearing coke bottle lenses and culturally incapable of mastering modern military technology. Surprisingly, these same coke bottle wearing fighting men flying the most advanced aircraft of their time easily bombed Pearl Harbor and later in the war lived off a handful of rice each day while ferociously fighting the Americans for months on Guadacanal in the Solomon Islands campaign.
Today, Muslim terrorists are considered superstitious, primitive, religious nuts who will eventually give up their activities because the American government shut down their financial pipelines. That’s a comforting thought even if it’s hopelessly naïve. For the Muslim terrorists, it’s hard to know whether they truly understand their enemy or simply disregard any concern for their own lives as they busily draft plans for our destruction. And considering the state of us, their American enemy, maybe we should pause to ponder who is misunderstanding whom.
For example, why is it we can spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours determining what happened after it happens? We know now who Maj. Hasan was in contact with before the attack, we know now he was observed to be what we consider medically “unstable”, we probably even know now when his last bowel movement occurred. That is, we know all these things now – but we didn’t “officially” know anything in time to prevent the massacre. We’ve come to expect a massive government and media investigation after the fact; we have a passion for lovingly reconstructing details of the crime, our nightly television dramas demonstrate as much.
We also have a tolerance for covering our butts when blame is assigned. The FBI denies they knew anything worthwhile before Major Hasan “went Muslim”. They know plenty now, though. The military brass claim they also knew nothing before the fact – they did know some “politically incorrect” things about the Major’s behavior but nothing “politically correct” and which would have allowed them to act. As the fingers begin to point, each day the military brass claim they knew less and less in their version of why Hasan got away with it – and in an attack the military would consider well planned.
For the terrorists, it must be increasingly obvious Americans will go out of their collective way to protect them and their rights before an attack is launched, we’re complete and willing victims of our own beliefs concerning “fairness”. We won’t allow our government agencies to react without months of pre-investigation and a mountain of evidence to obtain an arrest warrant – assuming a judge would agree. We’ll actively prosecute any of our private citizens who might try to intervene – we’re a nation of laws not vigilantes. So, our government will do as little as possible and no one outside government can be allowed to do preventive maintenance either. Towards Americans, terrorists must feel like those hunters about to club baby seals.
Not surprisingly, Muslim terrorists, not Americans, probably have a pretty good bead on their enemy. We’re a large nation and culture with a passion for letting technology solve all our problems. We’re prone to emotional and public demonstrations of concern but only after the fact, we’re not very concerned before the disaster occurs. We believe we know many things while disregarding any and all evidence that what we actually know is nothing. In our self-ascribed wisdom, a Muslim terrorist is a pathetic loner, or he’s a sociable follower who works well together in groups – or an ignorant, superstitious religious nut, but who may also hold advanced education degrees. The terrorist type is simple to spot given their religious garb and suspicious personal manner but also able to blend in easily, attain respectable rank in society and earn a trusted position within our organizations. Yeah, terrorists we know.
Lastly, we know how we and, more importantly, our government will react to prevent terrorist attacks – and, apparently, Muslim terrorists do as well.
Mr. Skurka – you write, "We have no secret patriotic societies dedicated to defense of our homeland or capable of carrying out a savage revenge."
You say that like it's a bad thing. What are you picturing, a Ku Klux Klan focused on Muslims?
If "savage revenge" actually worked, then Israel would be as peaceful as Omaha by now. I'd much prefer targeted, focused responses, as well as political, social, and economic measures designed to erode the support for the terrorists. I read about how, back around 2002, Pakistan asked for personnel and money to help 'de-Islamicise' their schools… and we said 'no'.
…given the casualty rate among the Americans, it makes you wonder who is actually winning this war.
Actually, when you add up Iraq and Afganistan, the U.S. death total is quite a bit less. Civilians, far less.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0731/p06s15-wosc.html
Even back in 2007, the figures claimed over 19,000 insurgents killed in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_insurgent_casualties
Of course I'd prefer to see a 0% casualty rate for U.S. & coalition civilians and troops, and the same for Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Plus a 100% casualty rate for terrorists and insurgents. However, I don't think that's possible, and I assume you'd concede that.
What would you take as a reasonable casualty rate that would qualify as "actually winning this war"?
Mr. Skurka – "We know now who Maj. Hasan was in contact with before the attack, we know now he was observed to be what we consider medically “unstable”, we probably even know now when his last bowel movement occurred. That is, we know all these things now – but we didn’t “officially” know anything in time to prevent the massacre.
Well, the part of the FBI that was investigating Hasan was not allowed to communicate with the one getting reports on his buying guns:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/11/is_the_nra_partly_responsible.php
Looking at the various roles played in this tragedy, Japanese Noh theatre where the performers never rehearse together comes to mind. Analyzing Maj. Hasan’s role, he plays “the terrorist” and the role of the terrorist is simply to spread terror, to undermine our faith in the government’s ability to protect us. Killing unarmed soldiers, we are told, is really no different from killing folks standing in line during lunch hour at a crowded McDonald’s – but yet his ability to carry out his attack under the noses of our military on a military base sends an emotional, if illogical, chill down our spines. Apparently, the military can also be easy targets – the mind says: “why is that more significant?” but the gut says: “oh wow, even our soldiers aren’t safe in the States”. Hasan played his role well.
The media’s role is to ferret out every scrap of information, relevant or irrelevant, to feed the public’s passion for all the details. What’s the significance in media reports of Hasan giving away a bag of frozen broccoli or peas just before the attack – read into that action what you will – he knew he might die and hated to waste food – or – giving away the food should have tipped us off? The media’s prime opponent is the government, what information aren’t we, the media, being given – who knows something and is holding out on us? The media’s role is to throw out massive information, let the public determine what it all means – if it means anything.
The government’s role is to assure us everything is under control – it may not look that way, but it actually is under control. The FBI downplayed their investigation of Hasan in 2008, he was in contact with a known Al Qaeda player, Anwar Al Awlaki, it turned out to be nothing really and there is no evidence of a greater conspiracy. Other than the families of the victims who might not be comforted by the knowledge there wasn’t a conspiracy, the rest of us are expected to feel relief from that admission – at least a major conspiracy didn’t escape the attention of the JTTF – this is one of those “lone gunman” attacks, regrettable but certainly not the government’s fault. If a citizen wishes to trade email recipes for baba ganoush with Osama Bin Laden, that doesn’t make you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the FBI.
Another of those private watch dog groups also had a role. The NEFA foundation (Nine Eleven/Finding Answers) compiled a dossier on Al Awlaki, none of it encouraging to Americans, but the FBI couldn’t find anything unusual in Maj. Hasan contacting Al Awlaki, they dismissed it as part of his medical research efforts. The media uses these watch dog groups as a counterpoint to portray the FBI as bumblers, a favorite theme. The watch dog groups, in turn, have no authority to issue public warnings, carry out intrusive and currently illegal snooping into the lives of suspicious citizens or insist on deeper follow-up investigations by government agencies. Like Cassandra, who had a curse placed on her by Apollo which ensured none of her accurate predictions would be believed, the private watch dog’s role is one of frustration and impotence.
The greater public’s role, other than that of potential targets, is to play out the three stages of response: Initial shock, then frantic fact gathering and finally rationalizing the tragedy to conclude that we and our families are safe. The massive information barrage, the “official” denials, the warnings from private watch dog agencies, the existential significance of frozen food giveaways – all this detail forms a rich stew leading to a perpetual state of confusion and uneasiness on the part of the public. We, the public, play our role well.
Ozzie,
Al-Qaeda is at war with western democracy, but the all the 'Nations of Islam' tolerate their continued violence against innocent men, women and children. Even against the innocents of their own societies
You ask; "What do propose that we do to combat this threat that we are not already doing?"
You continue with; "We did invade two countries after all, open a couple of torture camps, and have devoted extraordinary attention and resources to finding and fighting terrorists in the last 8 years or so."
I don't think you've mistaken my intent at all. There is a commonly used expression accorded to George Santayana; " Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it." Let's review two historical events, shall we?
In the Philippines in 1911 General John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison that was battling the Islamic Moro terrorists. After an engagement with these indigenous Muslim terrorists; General Pershing reportedly had the Moro fighters who were captured tied to stakes. They were forced to watch as US Army troops slaughtered a group of pigs and dipped their bullets in the blood of the animals. The prisoners knew if their bodies were contaminated with the blood of those animals, they would be forever denied Paradise. A moment of clarity, so-to-speak.
The captured Moros were then executed with these bullets. They, along with Moros killed in the battle were then buried in a mass grave — along with dead pigs, their entrails, and the pigs' blood. One Moro fighter who survived was made to watch the whole process, released, and told spread word about what had happed to the others. Guess what? No more Islamic violence. In fact, there was not another recorded Islamic Terrorist incident in the Philippines until the 1960's. As I know you favor references snopes.com can neither confirm or deny the source of this report.
Let's explore another example that doesn't carry the same amount of possible ambiguity
First documented in 1896, but believed to have already existed for hundreds of years, this religious code spawned one of the most militaristic, savage, brutal societies in the history of mankind. The 'religious' philosophy was called Bushidō; the practitioners were the Japanese. By the middle Nineteen-Thirties, adherents of this code equaled nearly 100% of Japan's military. Beginning with the invasion of China in 1937; the Japanese military wreaked havoc upon most of Asia and the South Pacific for over eight years. They finally involved the US by pretending to negotiate a treaty in good faith while actually planning an attack that was executed on December 7th of 1941.
All during 1945 and well past the time that the Japanese High Command had acknowledged to themselves the impossibility of winning the War in the Pacific, they continued to order suicidal attacks. Reference the Battle of Iwo Jima; where it was believed that 18,000 Japanese troops were dug in. 216 were eventually taken prisoner; a causality rate of 98.8%.
The Japanese were planning the same type of defense of the Main Island in August of 1945. They intended to have their own population fight from street to street, hand to hand, but ended by surrendering on September 2nd of that year. Why? A nuclear device was deployed against Hiroshima on August 6th causing 140,000 outright deaths and obliterated the city. Once again on August 9th another nuclear device was deployed at Nagasaki killing 80,000 and destroying that city as well. With these actions, the Bushidō experienced a moment of clarity: Surrender or die. Capitulate or be exterminated.
Over the next three generations these people have become one of the most peaceful, industrious, affluent members of our global society. All it took was that crystal clear moment of clarity.
You ask; "What is 'political correctness' preventing us from doing at this point, that you'd like to see done?" We will have to agree to disagree on the point of 'torture camps'. Regardless of what the current Administration, the current majorities in the Houses of Congress, and the delicate sensibilities of you and your fellow progressives, nominal discomfort is not torture. There's a distinct difference between the momentary belief that you are drowning and being forced to witness the slow drowning of five or ten other compatriots as you are interrogated (reference the first historical example above).
In answer to your original question; I believe from the body of your last comment that you were not at all pleased with the manner in which George Bush prosecuted the War on Terror after September 11th 2001. Here Ozzie, believe it or not, we've found common ground as I also firmly believe that George Bush made a grave error after 9/11. On October 7th instead of announcing the beginning of the military action in Afghanistan, I believe President Bush should have said the following:
"It has been proven that an Islamic extremist group named al Qaeda is responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th. While we hold al Qaeda responsible for this specific atrocity, we hold the Nations of Islam accountable. It is they who allowed the birth of this virulent, violent, form of religious extremism. It is they who have nurtured and allowed this twisted, diseased, form of religion to flourish. It is they who will now expunge this sickness from the earth. The Islamic nations have 30 days to begin rounding up, locking up, and completely dismantling these groups. If this is not done, consequences will be dire."
Then during the Laylat-al-Qadr, the 'Night of Fate' in November of 2001, the US should have deployed a 20 mega-ton nuclear device against the City of Mecca. As the mushroom cloud was still advancing into the upper atmosphere, the President should have been back on international TV; announcing the strike, and revealing the next series of targets if the subsequent 30 day moratorium did not yield much better results.
The current level of 'political correctness' in our society precludes us from providing to the Muslim world that same 'moment of clarity' we were able to provide to the Bushidō. As long as this level of intellectual dishonesty exists, we will continue to be the 'weak' horse; and we will continue lose innocents to the voracious, violent appetite of the so-called 'Religion of Peace'.
To quote snopes.com about the 'swine cure for terrorism': "The desire for simplistic solutions to complex problems has spawned several widely-circulated messages of late which seek to transform a fight against terrorism to the easily-manageable level of a horror film or a comic strip. Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is Armed pig to a vampire — simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine… Islamic reference books say the body of a martyr who dies for the faith is so pure that it does not need to be washed before burial, in contrast to the usual Muslim practice."
And then there's the idea of nuking Mecca. As H.L. Mencken's supposed to have said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
A 'moment of clarity'? Really? Let's turn it around for a second. A whole lot of Christians are against the current 'war on terrorism' on religious grounds. But imagine if the Vatican were nuked. Do you really suppose that even Protestant Christians would not be slavering for 'payback', let alone the Catholics who, following the Vatican, had opposed the Iraq war?
No, nuking Mecca would simply turn essentially every Muslim on Earth into a radical jihadi. I think we can safely assume that Pakistani nukes would suddenly become available to al Qaeda in such circumstances…
Raymond,
So the problem is insoluble. As they work through every possible legal, extra-legal, illegal, and violent means to re-establish the Caliphate; we acquiesce and hope they slake their thirst for the blood of infidels before we are personally confronted. Or we resist, which angers even more of them and they battle even harder to eliminate us from their world. You have, in effect boiled this down to its essence; our own moment of clarity. Fight or die. Fight that you may chance to live, or surrender and be surely killed. You may expect no succor from such people. We know this from overwhelming evidence.
Apparently; some of us have already surrendered the planet and the future of humanity. Infidels will be exterminated, and the battle will continue between the sects until one sect of Islam dominates. Then the family rivalries will, in turn, be fought to their bloody conclusions. The cycle is endless.
This is the existence you describe. We know they cannot be corrected, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be contained, they cannot be fought, and they cannot be criticized. Any perceived insult to their religion, culture, or politics is reason for slaughter.
We watch helplessly as they destroy civilization as we know it to satisfy their bloody prophesy. We shake our heads in disbelief as fathers cut down their daughters for wearing skirts to school, or for talking to boys in the hallways. We wonder aloud why a wife would subject herself to repeated beatings dealt under the guise of 'correction'. We do not protest the genital mutilation of women and young girls; or the execution of gays. We struggle to comprehend why one sect bombs another sect's Mosque. But the Shiite just looks at you and says; "Because they are Sunni." as if that explains all. If Shiites kill Sunnis just because; what chance does anyone outside the club of Islam have?
We will vocally savage the Christian Religion but remain strangely silent on the humanitarian shortcomings of Islam. Why is that? Is it because Catholic Priests don’t issue fatwahs? Is it because the Baptists won't send an assassination squad to your home for any perceived insult?
This is the dark place no one wants to look into; no one wants to admit this place exists. "If we could just talk longer; if we could just find the correct presentation, if we prove our sincerity by a (small) acquiescence now. They will respond. They will stop. They will change." No they will not. THey haven't alterd perspective in over 1,000 years. This is insanity defined, repeating the same overtures again and again, but expecting a different result.
From a world of limitless opportunity you have reduced us to none. Refuse to surrender and die. Or surrender; and die a little later. How sad.
Bill reveals his plan, which I agree is unfettered by political correctness:
On October 7th instead of announcing the beginning of the military action in Afghanistan, I believe President Bush should have said the following:
"It has been proven that an Islamic extremist group named al Qaeda is responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th. While we hold al Qaeda responsible for this specific atrocity, we hold the Nations of Islam accountable. It is they who allowed the birth of this virulent, violent, form of religious extremism. It is they who have nurtured and allowed this twisted, diseased, form of religion to flourish. It is they who will now expunge this sickness from the earth. The Islamic nations have 30 days to begin rounding up, locking up, and completely dismantling these groups. If this is not done, consequences will be dire."
Then during the Laylat-al-Qadr, the 'Night of Fate' in November of 2001, the US should have deployed a 20 mega-ton nuclear device against the City of Mecca.
I do admire your willingness to lay your cards on the table: there are 1.3 Muslims in Mecca, all of whom, innocent or guilty, you are willing to obliterate if the Muslim world doesn't 'round up' enough terrorists for your satisfaction.
Yours is a plan that calls less for a geopolitical critique than for a diagnosis. But I'll play along anyway, for a moment.
The obvious problem with your analogy to Hiroshima, of course, is that while Japan was small, isolated, with a central government and conventional military, the Muslim world is scattered, and decentralized, and comprises close to a quarter of the world's population. It has no central authority to do the 'rounding up', and has already developed capabilities for endless asymmetrical warfare. And great numbers are cheerfully willing to die, and watch millions of their comrades die, before they would surrender. In fact, your plan would be giving an historically unparalleled gift to the terrorists: their entire strategy, as I assume you know, is predicated upon forcing the powerful (the US, the Israelis) to over-react and kill innocent Muslims, thus attracting new converts to their cause.
Bill, there are some problems in the world that the mere application of group punishment and overwhelming force cannot solve. It is not 'political correctness' that prevents us from implementing your plan – it is wisdom, a sense of proportion, and sanity.
Oz
It was bound to happen sooner, if not later, and yesterday the L. A. Times published a piece identifying Maj. Hasan as “evil” and a “man of science” who gave in to ancient racial hatreds. The eastern, old-line media outlets like the N. Y. Times identified Hasan’s problem as “stress” related, never saying specifically what caused this “stress” – presumably his coming deployment to Afghanistan in a non-combatant role. He started acting flaky long before he was notified of the deployment and his psychiatric colleagues did claim to notice he was disturbed when he began ranting about jihad during a medical lecture – apparently these other men of science could do nothing for him or find a way to relieve this alarming “stress”.
But “evil”? That’s a little over the top and very unscientific as an explanation – surely we can provide a better rationalization in this day and age? Or, it might have been poetic license by the Jewish writer – Jews have a sneaking suspicion that when choosing whether to slaughter a Christian or a Jew, the Muslim terrorist will choose the Jew 9 times out of 10 – and the ugly truth is the Jew is probably correct in that assumption. But another explanation for flinging about the term "evil" is that terrorists raise certain atavistic fears among Americans that can only be explained by invoking the supernatural, the Devil, the forces of evil.
The terrorist strikes without a civilized warning, the terrorist has no preference as to location or method as long as many Americans die. No one is apparently exempt from the slaughter, children and women aren’t innocent non-combatants, except perhaps for any and all American Muslims in groups easily identified as solely Muslim.
The terrorist functions well as he goes about his business, rationally planning his actions, there’s no “an irresistible impulse made me do it” excuse to offer. And the terrorist willingly gives his life to carry out his mission – something that always frightens Americans to their core. During the Okinawa invasion late in WWII, American sailors were treated for combat fatigue due simply to the fear of impending kamikaze strikes – there’s something eerie, and definitely un-American, about accepting deliberate self-immolation in order to kill your enemy. Science can’t explain this strange behavior – so why not offer “evil” as the explanation?
Invoking mystical forces is nothing unusual in periods of great fear when the terrorized realize any resistence may be futile. Stalin invoked defense of Mother Russia, the mysterious root motivation of the Russian psyche when the Germans were conquering the Soviet armies with childish ease. He knew loyalty to the “science of Communism” would provide very little motivational force toward saving his life and that of his regime. Stalin also encouraged the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church within the Soviet Union; in the event appeals to Mother Russia didn’t work, appeals to God might stop the Germans.
In a much earlier era, the Mongols were also considered evil incarnate. In point of fact, the Mongols did lose some battles and chose to avoid others. They weren’t military supermen, but they did employ military technology and superior tactics to a great advantage. However, the apparent ease with which they conquered provided them with a reputation for invincibility ascribed to supernatural forces. Their ruthless savagery when the enemy refused to surrender added to their reputation as evil and sometimes surrendering didn’t stop the slaughter of the conquered when a killing mood was on the Mongols.
Americans will keep offering various scientific explanations like “stress” to avoid acknowledging our well founded fears of terrorist invincibility and ferocity, but “evil” works as well as the next explanation to explain the unexplainable.
Americans will keep offering various scientific explanations like “stress” to avoid acknowledging our well founded fears of terrorist invincibility and ferocity, but “evil” works as well as the next explanation to explain the unexplainable.
I don't think 'evil' works very well to explain anything (if that is what you are trying to say – I'm not quite sure which side you are arguing). It works fine as a descriptive term that we all understand, but it sheds little light.
I wouldn't agree that terrorism is 'unexplainable' at all. There's some pretty good science on it already. As far as I know, scientists aren't offering 'stress' as an explanation for terrorism in general, although it might play a role in some cases of course.
Oz
With apologies to Al Gore, there are several Inconvenient Truths already obvious and many more yet to come out of the Ft. Hood massacre. We can be physically safe from terrorists if we carefully study the pattern of previous attacks. For example, one very sensible precaution is to hang out at a local Mosque whenever possible – if you’re a Christian or Jew, you might claim to be considering conversion – if you’re an agnostic or atheist, how're your acting skills? Or consider moving to Dearborn, Michigan or Fremont, California – those are geologic terrorist safe areas, kind of like moving to Kansas to avoid major hurricanes.
Don’t go running your mouth about retaliation against Muslims – it could land you in jail. The professional media and Washington politicians are convinced Americans will take post-massacre violent action against American Muslims (they understand how we “typical” Americans think) and desperately need vindication of their suspicions and a concrete reason to warn us against future thoughts of revenge. Unless some fool takes deliberate action and soon, they media will have to lower the bar on their suspicions and demand your arrest for merely talking about retaliation or even thinking about it. So watch yourself.
Modern Medicine has its work cut out discovering how “stress” caused Maj. Hasan to “go Muslim”. Many medical doctors, without personally examining Maj. Hasan, have rushed their diagnosis onto the internet – PTSD or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is to blame. As Ann Coulter pointed out recently, Hasan hadn’t experienced any trauma yet so it may actually have been Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder. But Coulter, while often technically correct in her facts, has a penchant for stating the obvious with sarcastic or sardonic undertones – it’s hard to tell if she’s being serious and Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder could actually be a new form of mental disorder. Unlike Franchesca Velez, a pregnant soldier killed by Hasan and who had completed a tour of duty in Iraq without exhibiting PTSD, the trauma may affect different individuals differently.
If you’re in the military at present, stay close to armed civilians like Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who shot it out with Hasan, was wounded 3 times but no doubt prevented additional murders of unarmed soldiers. “Today’s Army” doesn’t put much emphasis on violent action, they’re more into giving our young folks useful training for future well-paying careers in the civilian world – so staying close to armed female police officers isn’t a bad idea. It’s also obvious the military no longer puts much emphasis on “integrity” as one of the cardinal virtues sought after in officers and as stated in their Officer’s Manual. After observing Hasan’s jihad rant during a medical lecture, his medical colleagues and fellow officers didn’t take any action; they weren’t sure of the impact on their careers in this sticky situation involving ethnic politics and Army procedure.
For those nascent terrorists out there, Americans remain the same ditzy enemy as always and hunting season is permanently open plus there’s still no active prohibition on the taking of does and fawns as well as the big males. Already, the crazy Americans are arguing over procedural mistakes in the handling of Maj. Hasan’s arrest and his future prosecution could prove to be complicated. Without a doubt, procedural mistakes involving Hasan’s rights were made and Lawyer John Gilligan, Hasan’s defense attorney, has already voiced a protest involving the manner in which Hasan was charged with a crime – another blot on American justice.
Congress is presently looking for answers and the taxpayers will fund another set of formal precautions and corrective actions, no doubt involving millions of dollars and new positions created within the federal bureaucracy. The Inconvenient Truth here is that as terrorists find new ways to kill Americans, Congress will rush forward to plug another gaping hole in our defense. Already the NRA is being blamed for Ft. Hood, it’s obviously a mistake to allow anyone to carry a loaded weapon on an Army base. But we also know that any corrective action proposed will involve the necessary overkill we feel compelled to enact in order to demonstrate our adherence to “fairness”.
We can legally search 82 year old Chinese grandmothers trying to pass through airport security in our efforts to remain non-judgmental toward any specific ethnic group. We’ll spend the considerable sums necessary to have adequate security, with special training and more than enough security officers to avoid slowing the boarding tempo. It isn’t that we believe old Mrs. Ling is actually a terrorist, but demonstrating “fairness” constitutes some sort of psychological talisman against every form of mindless terrorism. Seeing the same future application of fairness resulting from this incident should be instructive and no doubt will involve considerable ingenuity in its design and implementation.
Mr. Wavering – The "problem" is not "insoluble". If the problem were the existence of Islam, that would be unsolvable, but it's not. The actual problem is the ability of Muslim extremists to do significant harm to us or our interests. "Not nuking Mecca" isn't the same as "they cannot be fought".
The first thing to note: 'significant harm' is not the same thing as an existential threat. It's not "fight or die". It's "fight or be hurt". 9/11 was terrible, but killed about one tenth of the people who died in traffic accidents that year. It's certainly worth the effort to secure against terrorism, but only to the point where the benefits in risk-reduction outweigh the costs. Reinforcing the door to the airplane cockpit does far more than all the searches in the terminals… leaving aside the demonstration the fellow passengers of Richard Reid gave us that the barn door's closed on that horse, anyway.
Then there are the things like helping to "de-Islamize" schools in Pakistan. Not all Muslims are radical jihadi terrorists – not even most of them. The ones that are definitely present a problem, but while we're dealing with the capacitt of terrorists we shouldn't ignore efforts to reduce the supply… and encouraging a less radical educational system isn't 'appeasement' or anything, it's just good sense.
One thing that few people seem to appreciate is the strategic advantage of reducing our (and our allies) dependence on oil. Less oil getting bought translates to less funding for Islamic extremists. It also destabilizes the thugocracies that currently dominate the oil production. How much uranium could Iran afford if they didn't have fat revenues from oil? Islam in its current form can't support a technological society – their education and engineering advances are mostly imported. If we cut down on their ability to import, their progress will be correspondingly slowed… until and unless Islam can change to accommodate scientific progress. And those changes will also make it less radical.
(Speaking of the possibility of terrorists with nuclear weapons… we haven't put nearly as much effort and money into helping to secure old Soviet stockpiles as we should.)
So, we have all these options and more along with military action. I've said before that our invasion of Afghanistan was warranted, and our military did very well there for as long as they were given the necessary resources. But then the decision was made to invade Iraq, too…
Mr. Skurka – Too late. Some fool already took "deliberate action". (Though maybe he's a member of "secret patriotic societies dedicated to defense of our homeland or capable of carrying out a savage revenge".)
Oh, and the NRA isn't getting some blame for the Ft. Hood shooting because "it’s obviously a mistake to allow anyone to carry a loaded weapon on an Army base". Actually, the military very carefully regulates firearms on base. If anyone tried to impose those kinds of rules in civilian life, the NRA would flip. No, the reason the NRA comes up here is that, thanks to their lobbying, the part of the FBI that knew about Hasan's purchase of a firearm with a 20-round magazine wasn't allowed to pass that information on to the other part of the FBI that was investigating him.