Collective(ist) suicide
I was about this far from flat-out endorsing him anyway, and now, well…Fred Thompson for Prez!
Besides coolers and mattresses, protesters (Code Pinko ratlings camped out at Blinky Pelosi’s joint – ed) have brought along a giant paper mache statue of Mahatma Gandhi, who is pretty much the symbol of the anti-war movement. Code Pink was founded on his birthday, and when Saddam Hussein was being given a last chance to open Iraq to U.N. weapons inspectors, posters appeared around America asking “What would Gandhi do?”
And that’s a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?
It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
Gandhi probably wouldn’t approve, but I can live with that.
We can all live with that, sir.
But on the other, weaker hand, I’d say this just about tears it: responses from the anti-American Left to KSM’s confession:
Wow, this guy was a tough nut to crack. It took them 3+ years to torture a confession out of him. Did he confess to sinking the Titanic? Wearing women’s underwear? Dealing coke to Bush in the 70’s?
so do they try him in a court of law (the pre-9/11 mindset) or in the kangaroo court in Cuba (the apparent post-9/11 mindset)? My guess, the latter because while he would have bragged about it anyway, too much 24 caused his ‘interrogators’ to beat it out of him.
Confessions under torture are not admitting to doing something. Maybe he did mastermind, but they shouldn’t torture anybody. It is wrong. Morally wrong. Get it, Fascists?
So what? When will our former president, and current unremoved traitor George W. Bush confess to misleading America into an unnecessary war on false pretenses, solely to profit the war cartels and the oil cartel?
Of course he was responsible for all aspects of 9-11. How old is he again? Maybe he killed JFK as well. Anything to keep the light of day off of who was really responsible.
Wait … this guy is the “mastermind” of 9/11? That’s the worst picture of Dick Cheney I ever saw!
And then we have America’s Sweetheart, Rosie O’Dumbass:
In the segment prior to what we originally posted, Rosie defended Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s “humanity”, remarking terrorists aren’t treated like “humans” but instead “treated like animals.” O’Donnell also raised a picture of KSM and commented he “doesn’t look very healthy after three years in captivity.” Note to Rosie: that picture was taken when he was captured 4 years ago in March 2003. Moreover, Rosie does not mention KSM’s terrorist ties and blood relation to Ramzi Yousef.
Say it with me: not antiwar. ON THE OTHER SIDE. With “friends” like these, who needs enemies?
Anyone who thinks we have the slightest chance of winning any so-called War on Terror (not that we’re currently involved in anything of the sort anyway) when fully half the country is so idiot-minded it can’t even make up its mind who to root for is, quite bluntly, nuts.
There is simply no reason — none — that American military personnel should risk so much as a hangnail fighting for ingrate simpletons like these. The America-hating Left is currently in the process of getting their long-running program of collectivist destruction back on track, and when their latest jacklegged experiment in manipulating the booboisie (“Islamic Terrorism is America’s fault! Killing terrorists only creates more terrorists! More diplomacy, less fighting back!”) blows up in their faces — and it always, always does — idiot liberals are going to be casting about, looking for someone to blame for it. We all know just who and what that will be, and the neverending cycle will then begin anew.
Well, this time, maybe we should stop resisting, sit back, and let them get what they so richly deserve, without lifting a finger to help them when they finally do figure out what the phrase “emboldening the enemy” really means, and that it does in fact have a practical application. After all, in this policy disagreement there’s more at stake than just who controls the doling out of federal budget largesse or who gets more face time on C-Span; now there’s an excellent chance of staggering numbers of feckless morons actually being wiped off the face of the earth forever — by the very slackjawed religious fanatics the stupid liberals are betraying their own country to defend, in a Darwinian irony so monumental as to be actually stupefying.
Maybe it won’t be too late for ol’ Fred to come in as President, and he can then help the other grownups pick up the jagged shards of what was once a great nation, while the blue-state brats squall in the rubble and rub their chubby fists in their teary eyes, trying to figure out how it could possibly be that weakness, cowardice, and appeasement didn’t work out any better at deterring our enemies this time than it did any of the others.
While we’re awaiting the deluge, Crittenden has something to say too:
All stirring and wonderful, reasonable. It’s all a matter of language and perspective. We’re really just the same. Until you remember that virtually all his intended targets in the Twin Towers were civilians. Every one of his intended targets in Bali and Mombasa was an innocent vacationer. All his targets on all those airplanes. It is inequivocably murder carried out not to achieve any military objective, rather for whatever political or symply psychological advantage and economic damage might be achieved by terror and chaos. He did it to impress people. He wraps himself in history and distortion and calls it war. It is revolting, and it is bullshit, but it is his right. He is allowed to speak and say whatever he wants in advance of the judgments that await him. And we can look at this vile filth, and consider it for what it is worth.
So we’ve had it, this initial legal step in the establishment of Mohammed as someone who can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant, and possibly, as someone who can be punished for his role as an unlawful combatant in the murder of thousands of innocent people, and the intended murder of untold thousands more.
All well and good, but I strongly suspect that this “first step” will be the last. And I know for certain that the Left will do everything in its power to see that it is. I only wish I could believe that America any longer has the will to mete out the stern vengeance this monster so unreservedly merits. Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence points the other way. Expect KSM to be enjoying healthy, nutritious halal meals from a cushy cell for a long, long time to come, once the ACLU and other bleeding heart groups get him safely and legally shielded by the blanket of their undiscerning concern.
It’ll happen. You wait. They’ll do the same for Osama when and if his time comes. After all, everyone knows that Bush is the real criminal here, right?
*spit*
- Entries
Actually, Mike, I'm not sure I agree. More and more I'm coming to think that this is a phenomenon of what I call the "adult teenager syndrome."
It goes like this: Whenever some teenage wannabe anarchist revolutionary type goes out and protests against "capitalists" and "corporations" and "globalization", all while sleeping safely at night in the shelter of his parent's 4 bedroom home, he's engaging in a particularly safe kind of "rebellion."
He can "rage against the machine" all he wants, knowing, at least on a subconscious level, that the "machine" is what gives him the affluence and the free time to do all his "raging." And also knowing that despite all his "raging", the "machine" not only considers him less bothersome than a fly, but that the "machine" will still be there after graduation when he cuts his hair, takes out his piercings, covers up his tatoos, puts on a suit and goes straight to "the machine" for his 50k management trainee job.
And all the while, as he's doing his "raging" he can posture as a dashing and dangerous revolutionary hero-of-the-people, (and score some primo hippie-girl poontang while he's at it.)
These protesters are the same way. It's actually a kind of backhanded compliment to the government and the military that these people are so convinced that Uncle Sam will always be willing and able to protect their sorry asses that they feel comfortable demanding that he lie prostrate, secure in the knowledge that it will never happen.
And meanwhile, they can indulge in their hippie wannabe look-at-me-I'm-such-a-revolutionary role playing game, secure in the knowledge that the people that they claim to champion will be defeated by the people they claim to despise.
"Throughout his career, Chesterton was a vigorous enemy of pacifism. What he did believe in was the right, or the duty rather, of self-defense and the defense of others.
Chesterton was also a vigorous enemy of militarism. Both ideas, he argued, were really a single idea -- that the strong must not be resisted. The militarist, he said, uses this idea aggressively as a conqueror, as a bully. The pacifist uses the idea passively by acquiescing to the conqueror and permitting himself and others around him to be bullied. Of the two, Chesterton thought the pacifist far less admirable. In fact, the pacifist, for him, was "the last and least excusable on the list of the enemies of society."
"They preach that if you see a man flogging a woman to death you must not hit him. I would much sooner let a leper come near a little boy than a man who preached such a thing."
Teddy Roosevelt:
"In the next place, the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises. There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is the right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be, "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong."
Gandhi was a putz. What he suggested was not merely stupid, but evil. He faced only the British, who were open to moral suasion. They were certainly not out to wipe out every Hindu as the Nazis were with the Jews.
Rosie and the Nutsacks have completely forgotten the thousands of KSM's victims--what about their "humanity"? Weren't those victims the ones who were really "treated like animals"? They don’t "look very healthy" after years in their graves, either. Idiots.
And that, right there, is why I've viewed a second Civil War as not only necessary but on some levels desireable.