1
   

Will the West Survive?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:27 pm
I lifted this from Townhall as I could find it faster there than digging through the George Mason University or Williams' website.

Sooner rather than later, we all are going to be called on to vote on how the War Against Terror should be conducted, and on who is our strongest candidate(s) to conduct it. And those choices I think will depend a great deal on how much we honestly believe it is our most important concern.

Will the West survive?
Walter E. Williams (archive)
June 23, 2004


The Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. We have the military might to thwart them. The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation? Their intent is clear, but let's refresh our memories with a bit of history.

At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000 injured. Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton murders of innocents, including the recent barbaric beheading of two innocent men? They were all Muslims.

You say, "Williams, you can't make an indictment of a whole people and their religion!" I'm not, and let me clearly state: By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Muslim atrocities, and the collective Muslim response to those atrocities, might be better understood knowing their belief system as spelled out by a few, among many, passages from the Quran: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12). "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8). "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam), until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).

Phil Lucas, editor of the Panama City, Fla., News Herald, in his April 4, 2004, editorial "Up Against Fanaticism," asks, "Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?" Lucas says, "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."

My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame.

History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040623.shtml
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,519 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:27 pm
no
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:28 pm
no . . . as in, here we go again with that hoary old "moral decline and fall" chestnut that Gibbon created, and which conservatives love to tout . . . what utter horseshit . . .
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:09 pm
This may be the seed of a new thread, but there is an interesting phenomenon happening in conservative America. That is the legacy of the Roman empire.

Rome was a brutal dictatorship. They ruled harshly and commited far more atrocities than Saddam is accused of. They were also famous for horrible Hedonism and excess.

In the 50's and 60's those fighting the Roman empire were the heroes in popular culture. How many movies celebrated heroes rebelling against the harsh rule of the evil empire. We had Christians and slave heroically resisting.

All of a sudden, Rome starts to be idolized. Harsh treatment of subjugated people, excess luxuries and strict rule are somehow in vogue.

This article is a good example of this trend.

How far will this go? Ya think we should bring back crucifixion?

If I were alive in the time of Rome, I would have proudly stood by my brave noble Germanic ancestors against the evil imperial forces.

I'm Sparticus!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:20 pm
sparticus and jesus were crucified for the same reasons, and not one minute too soon.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:24 pm
The author of this article has it wrong.

The threat is not from Islamic extremists, It is from the American ones.

The terrorists destroyed buildings and lives, but they didn't damage our democracy or our values. Terrorism is a real danger, but to say it is threatening the existance of Western civilization is ludicrous.

Osama can only kill and destroy buildings. He does not have the ability to destroy our Nation by giving up the values of liberty and justice she stands for.

Only we can do that.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:33 pm
Quote:
The terrorists destroyed buildings and lives, but they didn't damage our democracy or our values. Terrorism is a real danger, but to say it is threatening the existance of Western civilization is ludicrous.


I am not so sure about that. The crucial difference is that terrorists are not afraid to die. In fact, they have been sold a bill of goods that they will become martyrs. I think that makes them much, much more dangerous than a conventional army, whose soldiers are doing their best to stay alive.

Yes, they destroyed buildings. But I think that 9/11 was a fluke. I don't think that they expected to cause the havoc that they did. From what I have read, the expectation was that the WTC would be damaged, not destroyed.

Since then, they are becoming more sophisticated and emboldened. If the terrorists were to acquire either nuclear or "dirty bombs", and set them off all over the western world, IMO it would cause enough havoc to be a real threat to western civilization.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:03 pm
I agree with

Setanta wrote:
no


Besides, I think, "Will the West Survive" is really quite a bit uppity:

- ever heard of terrorism in Asia (= e.g. former USSR states),?
- why aren't those terroristic in Spain/France, Italy, UK mentioned as an attack against democracy?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:08 pm
ebrown writes:
Quote:
Rome was a brutal dictatorship. They ruled harshly and commited far more atrocities than Saddam is accused of. They were also famous for horrible Hedonism and excess.


Emperors, citizens, and soldiers of Roman Empire did some brutal, unjustifiable things by modern standards, but they were not any more savage than most other cultures of their time, and in some ways were far more civilized. Even in pre-Christian times, though the Emperor was at times afforded title of 'dictator', he was ever conscious that he served with the consent of the Senate and by the good will of the citizenry. On any large scale, it was the closest thing to a democracy as had yet appeared on Earth.

By the time Constantine came to the throne in the 4th Century A.D., he served with a co-emperor and did his best to unify an ununified empire and fight off the 'barbarian hordes' crowding his borders to the north. But the citizens were too focused on their own concerns and creature comforts and there were too many different cultures to assimilate. The empire did not fall with a crash but with a whimper over time as other cultures, including Islam, overwhelmed it and bent it to their will.

Williams can easily draw a legitimate comparison by substituting 'hordes of militant Islamic terrorists' for barbarians, and the west for the Roman Empire. Does anybody believe the terrorists do not intend to wear us down bit by bit until they can bend us to their will?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:10 pm
Quote:
Does anybody believe the terrorists do not intend to wear us down bit by bit until they can bend us to their will?


Um. I don't believe that.

I don't think that the terrorists have a grand, 20-year strategy of world domination.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:16 pm
The West survived Eastern Bloc-style communism.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:30 pm
Foxfyre, you have made a series of statements about Rome which will not stand up to historical evidence. I venture to say that you really don't know much about the history of the empire:

Foxfyre wrote:
By the time Constantine came to the throne in the 4th Century A.D., he served with a co-emperor and did his best to unify an ununified empire and fight off the 'barbarian hordes' crowding his borders to the north. But the citizens were too focused on their own concerns and creature comforts and there were too many different cultures to assimilate. The empire did not fall with a crash but with a whimper over time as other cultures, including Islam, overwhelmed it and bent it to their will.


That entire statement is not an historical summary, it is historical superstition. Your description of Constantine is completely false. Here is a statement which i prepared earlier, and hadn't time to post then:

Earlier, I wrote:
Two things here . . .

As i noted years ago (literally) at AFUZZ, this whole specious moral decline boondoggle is based upon an assumption of initial republican virtue--both in Rome and the United States. History does not support such a contention either in the Rome or the United States.

Which leads to E_Brown's comment about Germans. Gibbon's silly thesis (in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) is centered around a particular event, the sack of Rome in 410 CE by Alaric and his Goths. Alaric was a Roman officer; his Goths were foederati, that is, tribesmen admitted to the empire under specific conditions of settlement in return for military service. Alaric contended that they had been cheated, and he and his tribesmen had wandered about the Greek peninsulas and in Illyria ("Yugoslavia") for years before arriving in the Italian peninsula. The administrative capital of the western portion of the empire at that time was in Ravenna, not Rome-which was much more militarily defensible situated behind its surrounding marshes. And Alaric could not come to grips with the Romans, so he marched to Rome and sacked it. It was symbolic only, and only in the mind of Alaric. Ironically, another federated Roman officer of German extraction, Stilicho, was the Magister Militum who opposed, and effectively dealt with the Goths, without either a pitched battle, or then necessity of destroying a vast tribal migration, the members of which could still be useful to the empire. The Roman empire fell in May of 1453, more than a thousand years later, when the emperor Constantine II died at the head of his household troops (mostly Anglo-Saxon and Russian) in the streets of Constantinople, fighting the Osmanli Turks. The entire concept is specious, and a product of Gibbon's profound ignorance of the "barbarian" period of the empire's history. J. M. Berry, who, until his recent death, was considered the greatest living expert on the barbarian invasions, places the disintegration of the western portion of the empire with the federation of the Lombards in the seventh century, when the ordinary formula of one third of the lands being made over to the German tribes was changed, and the Lombards demanded and got two thirds of the land in what is now Lombardy and Tuscany. The administration at Ravenna was emasculated, and the new "Emperors" of the west were now Lombard "Kings," who would not have had that authority strictly on the basis of German tribal custom.

One problem of drawing examples from history always arises when the political agenda of the author trumps their "knowledge" of history-which usually proves to have the same relationship to historical evidence as superstition does to scientific evidence.


Constantine prepared for his succession by appointed two Augusti and two Ceasars to administer the empire in two parts, east and west. Each Augustus was the equivalent of the Emperor, and each Caesar was to be the successor to the Augustus in that portion of the empire. The tradition of having two chief Magistrates in the Empire dates back to republican times--after expelling the Tarquins, the Senate established a magistracy system which elected two Consuls to serve in each one year term. What Constantine did was to rationalize the administration of the empire, and to provide for the orderly and peacable succession of the magistrates--ending a tradition which had grown up of the Praetorians or the Legions "appointing" emperors at the point of the sword. The system of admitting tribes as foederati into the empire dates back at least to Iulius Caesar.

Foxfyre, you here demonstrate as fuzzy and incomplete a knowledge of Roman history as the author of your piece, and all those who put forward a childishly simplistic statement of Roman history in order to draw a comparison (an invalid one) with the United States, in order to give a false gloss of historical legitimacy to a partisan agenda. You don't do it very well either.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:33 pm
Set were you a history major in school or are you just the worlds most knowledgeable history buff?

Either way, DAMN. You da dog......
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:36 pm
The term "barbarian" was invented by Rome to demonize any group that dared to defy them.

Of course other peoples, including Jews and Germans had perfectly fine functional cultures that didn't involve the systematic brutality of the Roman civilization. They were denigrated by the Romans as "barbarians" because they weren't Roman.

Do you remember Christians (at the time a nascent Jewish "cult") were fed to the lions in mass public specticals? The Romans justified these acts of brutality because Christianity was a barbaric religion. The irony of calling those being fed to the lions "barbarians" by those doing the feeding was appreciated even by some of the Romans at the time.

I don't want to be compared to the Romans. You may have a point that your comparison is valid ... but I won't press it if you won't.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:38 pm
Geesh, I've been upstaged by Setanta again!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:41 pm
ebrown I certainly find you to also be well informed and one of the posters whose knowledge I admire most here....but I guess at the core.........I'm a dog person. Laughing
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:43 pm
common ancestors, have bears and dogs.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:45 pm
Yes, Bear, i was a history major (double major in History and English Lit.)

No intention to up stage you EBrown--in fact, your remark about the Germans flipped the switch for me for the description of this hoary old chestnut by Gibbon about the moral decline of the Romans leading to them being overrun by barbarians. It just ain't so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:46 pm
EBrown ain't bad . . . for a cat . . .
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:49 pm
It's hard for this 10th grade high school dropout to keep up with you brainiacs I can tell you that......
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. » Will the West Survive?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 01:34:54