1
   

Fanaticism

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:26 pm
In the face of growing sympathy for the terrorists, sometimes it is good to be reminded of some things.

Up against fanaticism
By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor
The New Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too.

This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims.
Some readers didn''t like it.

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don''t want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That''s just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can''t get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims. We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more than 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeline Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resented the Crusades. Well, Madame Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let''s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland.

Sound familiar?

Let''s consider the concept of a ""long war."" Last time it was 200 years, give or take.

Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn''t fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That''s the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims -- some live here -- but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on ""diversity,"" we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we''re so addled on Ritalin we wouldn''t know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn''t take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.
Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.
Like it or not, that''s the way it was and that''s the way it is.

But many Americans don''t get it.

That''s why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it''s a start.

http://www.newsherald.com/viewpoint/phillucas/040404.shtml
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,841 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:32 pm
Foxy, here is an account of how our brave "Christian Soldiers" are countering the horrible Islamic horde.
Kill em all, after all, they aren't human....
Quote:
Remember Falluja
By Orit Shohat

During the first two weeks of this month, the American army committed war crimes in Falluja on a scale unprecedented for this war. According to the relatively few media reports of what took place there, some 600 Iraqis were killed during these two weeks, among them some 450 elderly people, women and children.
The sight of decapitated children, the rows of dead women and the shocking pictures of the soccer stadium that was turned into a temporary grave for hundreds of the slain - all were broadcast to the world only by the Al Jazeera network. During the operation in Falluja, according to the organization Doctors Without Borders, U.S. Marines even occupied the hospitals and prevented hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical treatment. Snipers fired from the rooftops at anyone who tried to approach.

This was a retaliatory operation, carried out by the Marines, accompanied by F-16 fighter planes and assault helicopters, under the code name "Vigilant Resolve." It was revenge for the killing of four American security guards on March 31. But while the killing of the guards, whose bodies were dragged through the streets of the city and then hung from a bridge, received wide media coverage, and thus prepared hearts and minds for the military revenge, the hundreds of victims of the American retaliation were practically a military secret.

The only conclusion that has been drawn thus far from the indiscriminate killing in Falluja is the expulsion of Al Jazeera from the city. Since the start of the war, the Americans have persecuted the network's journalists - not because they report lies, but because they are virtually the only ones who manage to report the truth. The Bush administration, in cooperation with the American media, is trying to hide the sights of war from the world, and particularly from American voters.

This week, for the first time, the Americans permitted pictures to be published of the coffins of dead American soldiers being sent back home. Until this week, such pictures were forbidden. Therefore, it is no wonder Bush's poll results are better than ever, even though the number of Americans killed in Iraq in April has reached 115.

Is the occupation of Iraq hindering terrorism, or inflaming it? Will the number of dead soldiers - in contrast to the number of Iraqi victims - prompt a reassessment? It is clear that the American war crimes will not reach the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Today, America sets the world's moral standards. It alone decides who will be judged, who is a terrorist, what is legitimate resistance to occupation, who is a religious fanatic, and who is a legitimate target for assassination. That is how four Iraqi children, who laughed at the sight of a dead American soldier, merited being killed on the spot.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:33 pm
"Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?"

Good question.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:35 pm
Well, it sure beats Janet Jackson's tit. I might say that Vietnam first opened up America's eyes to the real horrors of war, being the first televised war and all, but Americans have short attention spans, and unless it's on CNN or Fox, fuggedaboutit.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:37 pm
Falon Gong vs. Chinese Government
Shining Path vs. Peru
Wacko Christian Milleniealists vs. Reality
Most sub-Saharan African conflicts
ETA vs. Spanish Government
McGEntrix vs. Intelligent thought or Behaviour

Just a few that caem immediately to mind. But to be fair, you do disgust me, so that probably makes you feel better.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:38 pm
I've been looking McG and so far haven't come up with any. We need to be careful here, however, as all Muslims are not militant.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:39 pm
"It doesn''t take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions."

Nope, it doesn't take a Darwin, but perhaps a fan of Anglo-Saxon. 'Qvick', 'Quick', meant 'alive', but lest we forget, this addition to our language came from a brutal race of conquering Vikings. The arguments here going on about the war, and who's right and who's wrong quite frankly amaze me in their narrowness of thought and vision.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I've been looking McG and so far haven't come up with any. We need to be careful here, however, as all Muslims are not militant.

No, but it is beginning to look like all right wingers are retarded!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:45 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Falon Gong vs. Chinese Government
Shining Path vs. Peru
Wacko Christian Milleniealists vs. Reality
Most sub-Saharan African conflicts
ETA vs. Spanish Government
McGEntrix vs. Intelligent thought or Behaviour

Just a few that caem immediately to mind. But to be fair, you do disgust me, so that probably makes you feel better.


Awwww... You mentioned me in your post. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:46 pm
But Cav, if one is not convinced of the rightness of his/her cause, one should not engage at all. The debate of right vs wrong has to happen.

I maintain that the terrorists are the enemy, not those who think it worthwhile to resist them. I think some, if honest, would admit that their fury is felt much more toward those who resist the terrorists than toward the terrorists themselves.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But Cav, if one is not convinced of the rightness of his/her cause, one should not engage at all. The debate of right vs wrong has to happen.

I maintain that the terrorists are the enemy, not those who think it worthwhile to resist them. I think some, if honest, would admit that their fury is felt much more toward those who resist the terrorists than toward the terrorists themselves.


I choose option three, a more creative approach to the situation.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:49 pm
Well lay it out there. I'm certainly open to suggestions.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:49 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But Cav, if one is not convinced of the rightness of his/her cause, one should not engage at all. The debate of right vs wrong has to happen.

But inability of a leader, or group of leaders to evaluate the efficay of their plans, and make needed changes is far from laudible behaviour.

Quote:
I maintain that the terrorists are the enemy, not those who think it worthwhile to resist them. I think some, if honest, would admit that their fury is felt much more toward those who resist the terrorists than toward the terrorists themselves.

Congrats on yet another straw-man arguement.
Just out of curiousity, is anyone who dares to disagree with US poolicy a terrorist?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well lay it out there. I'm certainly open to suggestions.


Now that is a question for your President. I am but a humble chef, not the leader of the free world. :wink:
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:57 pm
cavfancier wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Well lay it out there. I'm certainly open to suggestions.


Now that is a question for your President. I am but a humble chef, not the leader of the free world. :wink:

And most importantly, you don't have little voices in your head telling you what to do, or Dick Cheney with his hand up your bottom manipulating your jaw.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 02:57 pm
Okay Cav. I can appreciate not having an answer but knowing there surely must be one.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 03:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I maintain that the terrorists are the enemy, not those who think it worthwhile to resist them. I think some, if honest, would admit that their fury is felt much more toward those who resist the terrorists than toward the terrorists themselves.

I think that some, if honest would admit Iraq had little to nothing to do with the terrorist problem, and if they were truly honest, they would admit that the Iraq invasion has significantly lessened our security.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 03:56 pm
I don't agree with that at all Mesquite. I can post again at least 50 quotes from members of the previous administration, the present administration, Congress, FBI, CIA, 9/11 hearings, etc. etc. etc. that would suggest otherwise, but they are already posted all over A2K so I won't here. I'm sure you've probably seen them anyway.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 04:08 pm
I hate to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you believe that the Iraqi invasion has made the USA more secure?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 04:12 pm
Mesquite, I don't know the answer to that. I think huge mistakes have been made and, while not meaning to minimize them, huge mistakes have been made in every war we have ever been in.

I do know we're in it, and I do believe we are in it for all the right reasons. And, I think unless the American people force whoever the administration is to pull the plug prematurely, we will see a free and democratic Iraq and I think that will make it all worth it and will make the world safer.

I am convinced that appeasement of terrorists will not make anyone in the world safer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fanaticism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 10:39:24