Lest We Forget

Jameson's picture
Submitted by Jameson on Fri, 2009-09-11 07:55


Fear + loathing = hatred

Frediano's picture

"A crucial thing to keep in mind regarding foreign attacks and terrorism: why are they attacking? To regard the events of 9/11 as a hatred for freedom is both naiveté and biased nationalism."

My answer to that was formed ten years ago on the ground in Bangladesh, by asking educated islamic naval officers the question, "Why does the Muslim world hate the West?" They corrected me; "The Muslim world does not hate the West; the Muslim world fears and loathes the West. We are taught from an early age that the West is led by America, and America the state is an officially godless thing, led by no morality." A powerful state that is led by no morality is something to be feared and loathed. This is what is daily taught in their political context, just like what is taught daily in our political context is an understanding of our own First Amendment. The same 'truth' in two much different political contexts. Which view will we accede to?

The Old Men In Robes(OMIR)selling this in their de facto and actual theocracies have it exactly right; "It is us or them." We in the West, with our secular bias, don't believe that for a second. They with their theocratic bias, in their theocratic political context, are exactly right; "It is us or them." The sooner we understand that, the sooner we recognize what is at stake in compromising with and/or appeasing them.

And, capitalism hating radicals in our own political context ride this Real Politik hatred of secular values like a tiger, naively believing they can ride this tiger a kitchen fire shy of full Sharia law to radical change, revolution by proxy. (This includes radicalized muslims, educated in radicalized Western universities; aka, useful idiots for the OMIR.)

You can ask, what is the difference between 'hatred' and 'fear+loathing.' In practice, not much. But, hatred is totally irrational. In their political context -- de facto and factual theocracies -- they have an in-context rational basis to fear and loathe 'American freedom' as codified in our 1st Amendment. In their political context, they are exactly right: "It is them or us."

And, that is why the only thing the OMIR want from America is endless footage of it bleeding from its a$$ on CNN.

That is not all of the muslim world, but it is all of the fundamentalist theocratic muslim world. The moderates do not run the street, they are fearful of the street, precisely because it is so fundamentalist nutcake irrational and easily led around by the nose by the OMIR, desperate to cling to their local gig at the top of the local crap heap.

BTW: The only concept nuttier than effective US action in Pakistan is effective US action in Bangladesh. They may hate our guts, but we actually have bases in Pakistan. We have nothing in Bangladesh...and they still hate our guts. I could think of no more secure fortress from where to operate, if I was Bin Laden, than Bangladesh. Westerners operating in Bangladesh stick out much more obviously than Westerners in Pakistan. We have nothing in Bangladesh, barely even an embassy.

I'm trying to imagine, how badly would you need to screw up to be assigned to duty at the Bangladesh embassy...

We're in Afghanistan...because we can be. Nobody has remotely ever talked about going into Bangladesh, and nothing in the world keeps Bin Laden and AL Qaueda from long having moved their base of operations to Bangladesh, and even running their ops from there. They would be all but untouchable there.

Meanwhile, all these now many years nonsense about the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan, chasing ghosts...

Ross: well said

Frediano's picture

re: "Mystics chanting God is Great while they aim high technology into high architecture."

Well said. Aiming high technology developed by others, into high architecture developed by others. What the Mystics did was the intellectual equivalent of running downhill. Any fool can run downhill. It is what rocks do.

Destroying is not building. When have these dark agers ever run up hill, against the gravity gradient? They long after the glory days of the dark ages.

The gravitas of that day was provided by those who built the planes and the towers; their destruction was a feeble declaration of impotence by mere destroyers.

I'm afraid this is just plain wrong...

Marcus's picture

"Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people."

Those two countries had extremely bloody histories pre-communism.

Millions were slaughtered over the years through purges by Tsars and Chinese War-Lords.

I'm not sure about the Japanese, but they had a Samurai culture previously that definitely was not pacifist.

I get the point that article was trying to make, but frankly the premise is absolute crap.

It shares the same ideological roots as the bleeding heart Liberals that will tell you all indigenous cultures were so peace-loving until the ruling imperialists turned up and corrupted their poor innocent souls!

For the record, mankind has never known long stretches of peace before the promotion of reason, capitalism and individual rights in the west.

That article had a good intention, but the argument is flawed!

That's an excellent essay

Callum McPetrie's picture

That's an excellent essay you posted there, Kasper. I hope as many people receive it as possible.

What people (such as Riggenbach and other assorted leftists) seem to be forgetting/ignoring, is that this is an ideological war. After all, WWII, as almost everyone will say, was a war against Nazism (as well as Japanese imperialism); no one says it was a war against Germans or Japanese.

That's what the majority of intellectuals choose to ignore about the War on Terror - where the Islamofascists have the upper hand, because they do recognize it for what it is. Like before WWII, the West seems to be putting the nails into its own coffin.

9/11/40

Jameson's picture

"In this hour of your martyrdom I send you this message. The battle which we in Britain are fighting today is not only our battle. It is also your battle, and, indeed, the battle of all nations who prefer liberty to soulless serfdom. It is the struggle of civilized nations for the right to live their own life in the manner of their own choosing. It represents man's instinctive defiance of tyranny and of an impersonal universe."

Winston Churchill speaks to the people of Czechoslovakia ~ September 11, 1940

Apeasement (from a circular email)

Kasper's picture

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.
A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans,Japanese,Chinese,Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.
Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Sharon

Leonid's picture

"I don't know of any reason why a terrorist would attack a peaceful DRO-based society"
The reason, Sharon, is that your peaceful DRO-based society belongs to Dar-ul-Harab. From your post I understand, you are not familiar with this particular concept. So let me explain. This Islamic fundamental concept divides the world in two parts. Those countries that are ruled by Muslims constitute Dar-ul-Islam or the land of peace. Those that are ruled by non-Muslims constitute Dar-ul-Harab or the land of war or the enemy countries. They must be subdued and converted into Dar-ul-Islam. The obvious question is how to subdue and to convert them? Holy Qur'an, thanks Allah, provides clear answer.

Ayat 5 of para 10 of Sura 9 says: "Then when the sacred month bath passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them (captive) and besiege them and prepare for their ambush. But if they repent and establish worship (i.e. become believers or Muslims) and pay the dues, then leave their way."
And that exactly what happened on 9/11. It is suicidal naive to accept Obama's "holistic approach" to islamofascists and morally degrading to accept unearned guilt as you do when you claim "Terrorists around the world are interested in infiltrating and attacking America because of the government's policies: intervention, espionage, murder, foreign market/political manipulation, etc."
If you don't understand or evade the nature of Islam then read that:

"According to the daily paper, Al Alam, King Hassan II of Morocco, who is also the imam of his country, presented the following state of affairs before a human rights commission on May 15, 1990:
"If a Muslim says, 'I have embraced another religion instead of Islam,' he -- before he is called to repentance -- will be brought before a group of medical specialists, so that they can examine him to see if he is still in his right mind.
After he has then been called to repentance, but decides to hold fast to the testimony of another religion not coming from Allah -- that is, not Islam -- he will be judged."
Do I have to elaborate to you that in such a case only one judgment is possible-death sentence.
That what your peaceful DRO's based society will face if you continue your self-blaming policy of evasion. Such a society most probably would be quickly exterminated since you never paid attention to the question what you are going to use for military force.
Do you seriously believe that modern military defense could be based on the principle of free market? If you do, please explain how?

No truer a word said,

Richard Wiig's picture

No truer a word said, Leonid.

Obama is trying to make sure of the opposite:

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Great post Glenn. It doesn't

Mark Hubbard's picture

Great post Glenn. It doesn't take much thinking before the significance of these two photos hits home, again and again.

The question for you again,

PhilipD's picture

The question for you again, Sharon: Are you saying that because there were embargoes the Japanese were entitled to attack?'

Or is there something else that you had in mind that justified the Japanese blitz?

Never forget, never forgive

Leonid's picture

Never forget, never forgive.
Today 11 September and we all are Americans. We have to make sure that 3000 victims of islamofascists didn't die in vain.

Isolationism meant not

PhilipD's picture

Isolationism meant not becoming directly involved in wars. That didn't mean that the US chose to ignore world events or that it didn't seek to look after its economic interests. The series of popular Neutrality Acts showed where the US was at pre-Pearl Harbor.

A closer look at the enemy

Richard Wiig's picture

The U.S.

Brant Gaede's picture

The U.S. did not have an isolationist foreign policy until Pearl Harbor.

Scrap iron embargo

Oil embargo

Provocations in the North Atlantic

The Atlantic Charter

Lend Lease

That's just off the top of my head. I learned this stuff over 50 years ago while still a teenager.

--Brant

Sharon, how many years has

Richard Wiig's picture

Sharon, how many years has it been? You are so fucking dumb or fucking lazy, one or the other. Go and start educating yourself about Islam.

Ah, JR...

Ross Elliot's picture

..."Might as well cut to the quick, boys and girls, so as to make this love fest of jingoistic nationalism as short as possible."

Lights up a room, then leaves. Arrow

Philip...Psssft

sharon's picture

"Might as well cut to the quick, boys and girls, so as to make this love fest of jingoistic nationalism as short as possible."

He's talking to you. Eye

the answer...none

sharon's picture

I asked: "What effects, if any, did this have on the US?"

Philp answered: "So your policy is appeasement?"

Ah, they were going to march down Main St USA soon enough. So a QUESTION makes me an appeaser? Nice logic chopping. And nice logic leaping as well.

The Real Question . . .

jriggenbach's picture

. . . for the historical ignoramuses on this thread, as well as for those who are so collectivist in their thinking that they imagine "the West" can do things and undertake initiatives, is this:

Is there any act which the West has undertaken that is not righteous?

Might as well cut to the quick, boys and girls, so as to make this love fest of jingoistic nationalism as short as possible.

JR

"the least interventionist nation ever"

Robert's picture

So far...

A qualifier I add because it is also true that the US has (in recent times at any rate) been at its MOST interventionist when there was a Progressive/Socialist or Socialist-lite (i.e. Bush & Nixon) in the White House. And seeing we only have such weasels to pick from at present, I predict that the US will become more interventionist as time goes by.

Note that I do not count retaliatory acts as 'intervention.' Nor would I count Iraq '03 as one. Saddam should have been taken out the first time around. The 2003 campaign was the last battle of the '91 war.

'I am not an expert

PhilipD's picture

'I am not an expert historian.'

Clearly.

I'm taking aim at your quick 'its the US to blame again, silly,' exercise on Pearl Harbor.

Again: The US had a isolationist policy before Pearl Harbor; the attack changed that. Are you saying that because embargoes were in place because of Japanese aggression that they were entitled to attack?

'What effects, if any, did this have on the US?' So your policy is appeasement. Check out how Japan ran through Asia- you think that they would have stopped there?

Philip

sharon's picture

"And the reasons for the embargoes, Sharon? That might have had something to do with Japanese aggression in China, Malaya and increasing in Southeast Asia..."

I am not an expert historian. What effects, if any, did this have on the US? Are you claiming that the states were retaliating?

'For example, the Japanese

PhilipD's picture

'For example, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US was vigorously demolishing the economy of Japan through embargoes and asset seizures.'

And the reasons for the embargoes, Sharon? That might have had something to do with Japanese aggression in China, Malaya and increasing in Southeast Asia don't you think?

The US had a isolationist policy before Pearl Harbor; the attack changed that.

Ross

sharon's picture

Well, it was called the American *experiment* for a reason. It was lofty. I can say that much.

And that is it...

Ross Elliot's picture

...the Founders were not Anarchists.

It's easy to contend that they were not Anarchists because they were stuck in time. Yet they understood that the Articles of Confederation were not enough to guarantee their rights. They shied away from anarchism to secure rights, to provide for a common guarantee. Was that a function of their time and place? No. If anything, anarchism would have been easier in those days than now. Rothbard wrote a wonderful history of American individualism yet seems to have missed this.

Ross

sharon's picture

Believe it or not, I have a certain respect for the Founding fathers: they were thinkers who built upon the ideas of even greater thinkers—philosophical ideas pertaining to man and rights. But the Founders made many tragic mistakes (as you grant, but perhaps of a different sort than what I would identify). You would argue that they weren’t minarchist enough. I would argue that the state cannot be a guarantor of rights.

But...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you understand that I'm a minarchist, even more proscriptive than the Founders. I have the benefit of their mistakes.

Further, don't mention the Founders to me. You must, as an Anarchist, dismiss the Founders. They represented the state.

It's as I said: the Declaration of Independence, in all its glory, cannot hold any place in your heart because it admits the state as a guarantor of rights.

Isn't that right?

Callum

sharon's picture

This can be acknowledged: US interventionism (pain in parts of the world’s ass) and religious fanaticism (murdering rabid mystic dogs) as a motivating factor are not mutually exclusive.

"...is there any act which

sharon's picture

"...is there any act which the West has undertaken that is righteous?"

Jazz music.

"This goes to my previous contention that Anarchists cannot attribute any good action to the state, no matter how justified, simply because it is perpetrated by the state."

Ross, Ross, Ross…what "state" are we talking about? The American government? This country derailed a loooong time ago from the principles of the Founding fathers—short of a hundred years of the country’s founding! Maybe way less. So, whatever criticism I have would pretty much be aliened with your freedom loving Objectivist, or so I would think. It would seem, though, that my remarks become suspect and inflammatory merely because it is known that I am a market anarchist.

Sharon...

Ross Elliot's picture

...is there any act which the West has undertaken that is righteous?

This goes to my previous contention that Anarchists cannot attribute any good action to the state, no matter how justified, simply because it is perpetrated by the state.

Sharon: you need to remember

Callum McPetrie's picture

Sharon: you need to remember that throughout the course of world history, the United States has been the least interventionist nation ever to claim the role of superpower.

Case in point: Britain has been involved in Middle Eastern politics for a century and a half now, more if you include the British Raj in Pakistan. Yet throughout that entire time, there were no large-scale jihads* declared in the name of Allah against the British Empire, because they knew that Britain would come down on them with a heavy fist. Although there were a number of smaller insurrections, nationalism was the key factor, not religion, and none threatened world stability - the residents of London would never have to be on constant alert for possible attacks against their soil by Islamic extremist groups.
______

Also, Islam has traditionally been a very imperialist religion - it spread across to Spain, France and into the depths of Africa, to the gates of Vienna, and even into China and Indonesia. Most of its territory was gained by conquest, not voluntary conversion. Coupled with the national interests of the Turks, it managed to destroy one of the greatest Empires in history. You cannot rule this out in the modern day, I'm afraid.

(*-The Ottomans during WWI actually tried to incite a large-scale jihad against Britain during WWI. It was unsuccessful.)

Oh, well...

Ross Elliot's picture

...then I'm excused, I guess, maybe, sort of.

I'll repair to Sinatra who may clear my mind.

Mr. Perigo

sharon's picture

It is a sensible idea to ask why someone would attack if they *weren't provoked*. For example, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US was vigorously demolishing the economy of Japan through embargoes and asset seizures. Yes, the Japanese government was evil--don't get me wrong. But these attacks don't just come out of the clear blue sky. The US goaded Japan in the hopes that they would declare war on the US thus pulling the US into the European war. There are usually larger issues beyond the surface…or, at least, beyond what we care to know.

"Everything the state says is a lie and everything it has, it has stolen." ~ Nietzsche, from "Thus Spake Zarathustra"

Because ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"No more oppressive" is not the same as "much less oppressive" or "not oppressive at all, but freedom-inducing."

That was a lapse into weasel-words which I'll put down to too much Sinatra. Eye

Exactly

Ross Elliot's picture

"Jesus, Ross! No more oppressive?? Give me the hegemony of the west over what came before any day."

How could you interpret my comments any other way?

Yes, go lie down.

Oh dear oh dear

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Terrorists around the world are interested in infiltrating and attacking America because of the government's policies: intervention, espionage, murder, foreign market/political manipulation, etc.

Sharon! Just when you were doing so well with your Al Jolson. The terrorists are attacking you because they're filth and they love death as you love life. Osama himself said so dear! Unfortunately, there's not nearly enough intervention, espionage and murder by your lily-livered government.

Bear this in mind: the recent history of the Middle East is sordid, but the hegemony of the West has been no more oppressive then what came before.

Jesus, Ross! No more oppressive?? Give me the hegemony of the west over what came before any day.

I think I'll have to lie down.

We should salute George W Bush...

Marcus's picture

... for the fact that there has been no repeat attack on US soil!

And the terrorists in the last few years seem to concentrating on easier third-world targets, such as India and Pakistan - because they are on the run from the west.

Neverthelss, Obama not-withstanding, eternal vigilance is needed.

You said it

Ross Elliot's picture

"...unless they really hated atheists that much."

I have no doubt that the "if we hadn't fucked with them, they wouldn't be fucking with us" argument is partly true.

But truth has a funny way of requiring context. We could debate--and I'm happy to--the Middle East degringolade, but they who have never argued for, or expected rights, and instead have cleaved to mysticism, and who then vent their existential frustration upon others, have no right to claim quarter.

Bear this in mind: the recent history of the Middle East is sordid, but the hegemony of the West has been no more oppressive then what came before.

Keeping it real on this day.

sharon's picture

A crucial thing to keep in mind regarding foreign attacks and terrorism: why are they attacking? To regard the events of 9/11 as a hatred for freedom is both naiveté and biased nationalism. Terrorists around the world are interested in infiltrating and attacking America because of the government's policies: intervention, espionage, murder, foreign market/political manipulation, etc. I don't know of any reason why a terrorist would attack a peaceful DRO-based society*, unless they really hated atheists that much. Of course if so, they'd be attacking many more European countries. Just trying to bring this down to reality.

*No, I am not high-jacking the thread. My remarks are congruent with the thread.

Kill the Filth ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... wherever ye find them.

How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled -the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Damn straight, Glenn

Ross Elliot's picture

Mystics chanting God is Great while they aim high technology into high architecture.

I remember not being able to sleep, in a motel in Twizel of all places. I grabbed some water and turned on the TV to see the first tower falling. No going back to bed now. It really was like a movie. Impossible to believe. But there it was.

Never forget.

Glad to see NZ firefighters honoring the NY dead today. Kia kaha.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.