Saturday, August 12, 2006

Oh, yes. Liberals do indeed "get it"

Supporters of the current administration and its "war on terror" continue to espouse the false idea that "liberals don't get it" and "Democrats are soft on national security" and incapable of waging an effective battle against those who use terror tactics against the US.

I honestly don’t think that I or any other informed person (read liberal) would disagree with the premise that their are "evil-doers out there" who want to kill us. And I think we would also agree that there are some radical Muslims who "hate us for who we are". We even agree that there are those who want to "reinstate the Caliphate" and turn back the calendar 1300 years. (Heck, there are people in America who pretty much want to do the same thing, but that's another post.) However, most of us also realize that these radicals succeed in spreading their hate and recruiting more Muslims by getting them to "hate us for what we do."

Where most liberals disagree with the Bush administration is not that there is a radical Islam movement, not that many of those involved in the movement are rabid killers, not that they want to force their radical Islam beliefs on the rest of the world, and not that they should be eradicated. Most informed people disagree with this administration’s APPROACH to fighting and eradicating the radicals.

There are something like 1.5 billion Muslims today. Some of them, the radicals, are a very serious danger to the world. All informed people, including liberals, recognize that. Many Muslims recognize that, too, for radical Muslims have killed more Muslims than Christians or Jews.

But the danger of radical Muslim's terror tactics is more than just killing Christians and Jews. They use terrorist tactics against the West NOT SIMPLY to kill westerners, but to get the West to react. Why? Because it is the reaction of the West that recruits many more of those 1.5 billion to join the radicals in their movement.

Some people apparently think that the attacks of 911 were carried out merely to kill masses of Americans and make the survivors crouch in fear? I think that is a very simplistic view of the event. And as such, that event would have been a massive failure. I’m not trying to minimize the tragedy of the death and destruction of 911, but only 3,000 out of 300,000,000 Americans were killed and only a few buildings were destroyed and damaged. And only a few Americans, like our friend the Game, are crouching in fear. The rest of us go about our daily business with a heightened awareness of danger, but with little fear.

On the other hand, as a means of getting the US to react, the 911 attacks were a massive success. The invasion of Iraq has recruited many more Muslims to the support of the radicals than we could ever hope to kill. Are we to think that al-Qaeda is so stupid that they didn’t know that the US would react to a homeland attack by invading Iraq? The neocons were writing about it and pushing it for at least a decade before 911. And PNAC virtually assured the world that Iraq would be invaded should a new Pearl Harbor-like attack occur. Should we not think that Bin Laden prayed every day to Allah that George W. Bush would become president of the United States? And did everything in his power to ensure his re-election in 2004?

I don’t believe that 1.5 billion people in this world get born hating civilization and wanting to kill westerners. They have to be taught that, and they have to have a reason to believe in it. You will NEVER stop people from using terror tactics as long as there is a 1.5 billion and growing supply of people to incite and recruit. And the best way to incite and recruit them is to get the West to do the job for them.

You can’t stop terrorism by bombing one fourth of the worlds population into vapor.

So, “understanding” your enemy or "understanding" terrorists has nothing to do with sympathy and has nothing to do with being soft on terrorism. It has to do with knowing what their goals are, what their strategy is, and figuring out how to thwart both through intelligent policies, effective strategies, and competent execution, none of which the Bush administration has been able to offer or demonstrate. The Bush administration has shown no desire nor capability to provide the kind of leadership that would ever give us hope of success against the threat of radical Islam.

That’s why those who truly understand what the “war on terror” is all about are against the war in Iraq, are against the policies of the Bush administration, and are obviously more capable of waging an effective fight to preserve our country, our rights, and our way of life.


Blogger Wasp Jerky said...

The most maddening thing about the "Democrats are soft on national security" logic is it distracts from how little progress the current administration has made in defending this country. Liquid bombs? This isn't new information. It was planned 11 years ago. Why is it suddenly a threat now? Why is it only a threat to airplanes? What about buses? Subways? Trains? Why the fuss over the Mexican border? Sneaking into this country from Canada is as easy as riding in the trunk of a car. As Keith Olbermann said after Katrina, BushCo has proven that they're incapable of protecting us from a biological hazard called standing water. God help us when someone really wants to do some damage again.

8:13 AM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

And that is the whole idea, right?

7:38 PM, August 14, 2006  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"They use terrorist tactics against the West NOT SIMPLY to kill westerners, but to get the West to react. Why?"

You're right on target here. As long as we're dealing with a few radicals committing atrocities such as 9/11, then we're dealing with a few radicals and the world - Muslims included - is united with us in stopping them. AS SOON AS we attack nations unprovoked, kill innocent bystanders, utter phrases such as "Crusade" or "Islamo-fascists," we validate the isolated terrorists and give them a credibility and support they'd never have otherwise.

Likewise with Israel, EVEN IF you believed that it was only a matter of "Hezbollah=bad, Israel=good," it was counter-productive of Israel to go in and start killing innocent Lebanese civilians. That's just what they want, that's why they would hide behind civilians.

"Go ahead, make us martyrs, kill innocent people and unite Muslims against Israel and the West."

Bin Laden's got some kind of ally in Bush and his type.

7:27 PM, August 16, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

I agree. Even if they didn't know how it was going to work before they certainly know it now . They also know the Cheney administration will rise to the bait everytime.

3:55 AM, August 19, 2006  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

I disagree with your premise. Al Qada does not need the USA as a recruiter. They are getting that through the radical Muslim clergy who constantly preach their vitriol against the West, they get it from the Saudi anti-West school books & the Wahhabi schools which indoctrinates their youth.

Besides, it is an odd twist that we are to be blamed for their recruiting because we respond to their terror attacks. What would you have us do?

btw, we went into Afghanastan before Iraq.

Those who criticize Bush do only that. They offer no alternative to how the USA should proceed in the war on terror. Okay - you are President - what would you do? How would you proceed to fight these radical Muslims & terrorists?

7:19 PM, August 19, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...


I agree with you that the Wahabis in the Madrassas do plenty of recruiting, but I also believe that US reactions to Muslim terror acts also aid the recruitment effort.

So I can agree with you to some degree until you come to the big lie. The big lie: "Those who criticize Bush do only that. They offer no alternative to how the USA should proceed in the war on terror."

That's a big lie. Many, many critics of the president's war have offered several practical alternative ways to proceed in the war on terror.

But the Republics and Bush supporters repeat over and over and over and over that critics have no plan.

It's a big lie. Big, Big Lie.

10:07 PM, August 19, 2006  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

hmmm - How do we respond to Muslim terrorist attacks then without causing further recruitment? Shrivel like Spain did? I'd be interested in your ideas.

4:27 PM, August 20, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

You don't need my ideas. Leading Democrats have proposed many practical, effective, and competent ideas. John Kerry has, Wes Clark has, Joe Biden has - pretty much every leading Democrat has.

The problem is, none of them involve invading another country, so all you hear is Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Cheney, McCain, Mehlman, Allen, Giuliani, et al saying the Democrats don't have any ideas.

That's the Big Lie.

9:57 PM, August 20, 2006  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Enlighten me then please to John Kerry, et al's ideas for responding to Muslim terror attacks without causing further recruiting. Not being sarcastic - just not heard of their ideas on how ya respond without enhancing recruitment.

For instance, what would the leading Dems have done after 911 in way of a response to the attack - without causing further recruitment? A reponse without making them mad - interesting problem. But the Dems got the answer, right?

Even if the only action we did was to arrest the terrorists responsible, it would still be a recruiting tool for the Islamo-facists.

No matter how benign our response, they hate us my friend & they will find reason enough to get on with their recruiting. You Dems don't seem to understand that. We cannot worry or hedge our response because of concerns they will recruit more radicals.

9:52 AM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

We had the support of the world including many of our arab allies when we attacked Afghanistan after 911. But we still haven't caught the planners.

9:35 PM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Francis, as this post notes first we must stop helping them get recruits. When people discover that only those who do us or mean us harm die the others may come to our side. If they think they are dead no matter what they are probably join the people that they think may fight for THEM. Duh..It is basic human nature.
A full blown rushed alternative energy and conservation program so we can quit helping them finace the their efforts against us might be another idea. Maybe securing our ports and borders and chemical factories...just a few thoughts. There is much we can do but until we get you and yours out of the stone age of the fight against terrorism we are marking days to failure.

3:26 AM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Whoa, Ron, whoa. Striking back at them for attacking us is helping them get recruits? So we should just not respond to those who attack us because, gosh, more recruits are coming if we do? Kinda contorted logic. What do we do instead, just suck it up? That's a sure way to getting more attacks coming your way.

But yet your comments are contradictory: "When people discover that only those who do us or mean us harm die" implies we attacking the terrorists, ipso facto, we recruiting.

You also suggesting a massive defensive posture for us, what with your suggestions for alternative energy, tighter borders, etc. Then they can't strike at us I assume. But they will still find a way. And you know what that means? Back to the old stone age fight against terrorists - killing them & recruiting them so we can kill more of them.

I think you misunderstand the likes of Islamo-fascists & terrorists. If we kill a bunch, the others are not gonna come to our side. These are deeply dedicated crazy people whose fanatism drives them against all reason - you cannot make nice with them. They mean to see that Islam rules the world. Nothing else matters, & that end justifies any means they carry out to reach their goal. You cannot negotiate with them, nor reason with them.

They are a hate cult - they hate the West, hate Chrisitanity, hate Judasim, hate all other infidels. They are the religion of the perpertually outraged. While you're securing our borders & feeding your car ethanol, they are plotting the next attack.

These are truly evil people & Dems seem to not appreciate that fact.

btw - I owe you a DUH.

9:39 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

Francis said:

These are truly evil people & Dems seem to not appreciate that fact.

So are you talking about eliminating all Muslims from the earth? What exactly is your goal? What is victory?

10:11 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"Striking back at them for attacking us is helping them get recruits?"

No, striking back at them would receive support globally, including in the Muslim world and that's what most progressives support.

Striking back at Iraq, at Lebanon, killing civilians not related to the terrorists, THAT'S what is world-class stupid. THAT's what will help recruit "terrorists."

EVEN IF you think "the terrorists" are evil monsters and not humans who've come to their belief system by some normal process.

And I suspect that I can prove that what they're doing will help recruit terrorists by your own testimony, Francis.

Suppose Hillary Clinton is president and you hate her policies. Think she's a communist or traitor or whatever. If we were invaded by Canada and innocent children in your neighborhood were killed, will you support Clinton in attacking back at Canada?

As soon as innocent people start getting killed in your community, people will nearly always unite behind a leader - even a bad leader - to strike back. It's human nature.

We need to be both wiser and more moral than those we consider terrorists if we hope to defeat them. One can never win a guerilla war where the guerillas have popular support. Never.

8:42 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

francis, don't mind them, they are silly

4:05 PM, August 27, 2006  
Blogger Jim said...

Warning Game, here you debate or you don't post.

9:12 PM, August 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home