December 27, 2007
The Proof Is in the Terrorism
There's a faith-based assessment, on the Left, that war cannot but breed more terrorists, as Professor Gene Perry expresses here:
Liberals whom I know are just as concerned to combat terrorism as is Mr. Rowley. The question is how best to do it. Are frontal assaults with tanks and rockets an effective approach to combating global terrorism? It seems to me that George W. Bush’s policies in the Mideast have only created more terrorists by confirming the worst imaginings that Muslims have about Western materialism.
Leaving aside the question of what Western materialism has to do with Western militarism (apart from its perhaps being the main reason the Left believes the West deserves to be attacked by terrorists), Mr. Perry offers no evidence — or even what sort of evidence one should expect — to support his "it seems to me." It seems to me that the measure of an anti-terrorism policy is in the amount and trends of terrorism, and by that measure, previous policies of appeasement and squishiness clearly led to increases in the frequency and audacity of terrorism against the United States.
I can't say for sure, but perhaps it's actually helpful for those who reside in terrorism's fertile ground to watch us topple the leaders who oppress them and then — great-Satan status notwithstanding — not subject them, as if they were rightfully won chattel, to oppression ourselves. It could be that folks such as the professor believe our materialism to be insidiously worse, but time will tell whether people who used to have their fingers chopped off and their children stuffed and fed to them for dinner will agree.
I've heard the argument that our military in Iraq and Afghanistan has actually created more terrorists by confirming the worst Muslim views of the Western values.
For this to be true, there would be Muslim's that were either ambivalent or on the fence as to whether to become a terrorist and then the war against Iraq and Afghanistan would push these people over the edge.
While there may be examples of this, I think these are far outnumbered by those who terrorists that have either been caught, captured or have run away as a result of the increased effort to stop them.
I think the only way Professor Perry's logic makes sense is to assume that terrorists are like bees. That they won't harm you if you don't harm or offend them. That they are not aggressive in nature and just want to peacefully co-exist with others.
I don't buy that.
Posted by: msteven at December 27, 2007 1:02 PMJust one more ignorant opinion from an educated idiot. After all, it is so much easier to be a coward than to do the heavy lifting of actually removing the impediments to a free people.
I just love these sniveling liberals that promote the rights over responsiblities nonsense in the US, yet when viewing how woman are treated in Muslim countries their schfincter tightens right up. Not what you'd call real men, that's for sure. But that's the liberal way - living the big fat lie.
Anyone but me capable of seeing that (1776-) when America was a nice conservative, god-loving country that MINDED ITS OWN DAMN BUSINESS the quarter of the world that was Muslim didn't do a single thing to us?
Only the advent of Clinton/Bush style fantasies of world domination and globalism hegemony changed that.
We invaded them. We imposed brutal corrupt dictatorships on them. We attempt to impose our toxic, secularist world view on their traditional cultures.
A few of them have decided to fight back.
Big surprise.
I don't blame them a bit.
Ron Paul
Restore freedom
Dismantle the empire
So assassination and political violence wouldn't exist, if it weren't for the evil, corrupting influence of the United States on the rest of the world?
But then, at least you are up front about Ron Paul's blame-America-first ideology being what attracts you to his candidacy.
Posted by: Andrew at December 27, 2007 9:20 PMMike must be missing the page in his history book that tells the tale of the nineteenth century Muslim leaders who sought to weaponize anthrax and unleash it on the United States by crashing a jet into a building.
What? It wasn't a technological possibility back then? Well, I guess that doesn't have any relevance to our blame game.
Posted by: Justin Katz at December 27, 2007 10:12 PM"From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of" ... where was that again? Oh, yeah, Tripoli. I suggest Mike read The Six Frigates which chronicles the depredations of Muslim city states that led up the US Navy actions at the very beginning of the 19th century. There were also overland actions against the Barbary pirates sailing out of Tripoli,Tunis and Algiers. We were minding our own damn business when all this happened. That didn't stop the piracy and the enslavement of American merchant sailors.
Posted by: chuckR at December 27, 2007 10:52 PM