Posts
As the summer of 2006 drifts towards fall, Jules Crittenden of the Boston Harold takes stock of where we are globally. As usual, this weekend delivered numerous powerful pieces by our side of the political spectrum in newspapers around the nation and in Great Britain (I particularly liked Mark Steyn’s piece in the Chicago Tribune - see below). To me it is clear; the more a person gains an understanding of History and then stays up to date, the more likely that person is to join our side of the aisle. The opposite seems also true; if you think that history began yesterday and you tend to follow Hollywood entertainment more intensely than the real world, and take main-stream-media at face value then surly you are more likely to be susceptible to the shallow ratings of our friends on the left.
Hizbullah's Worrisome Weapon
Why abduct us? We cede our values for free
HOPING ISRAEL CAN BE DEFEATED
The U.N. can't possibly stop Iran
Five years on, this war must intensify
CAIR’s Twisted Stand on Academic Freedom
Tags: Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, G-8 Summit, Hezbollah, Fox News, CNN, Media
Larwyn’s Linx: Blasey-Ford Hoax 2.0: Matt Gaetz and Political Retribution
Disguised as Justice
-
*Send us news tips! Sponsored by My Private Journal*
Bug-Zapper Indoor Outdoor - Blue Tech
Nation
• Blasey-Ford Hoax 2.0: Matt Gaetz and Political Retri...
6 hours ago
From the Telegraph article :
ReplyDelete"In the conflict between the terrorists who wish to impose their vision of a "just and righteous society" by force on the rest of us, there is nothing to talk about: they are not interested in compromise or negotiation, and there is no common ground between their vision of the future and ours. The terrorists themselves have stated their position clearly: "We are not," one of them has insisted, "trying to exact concessions from you. We are trying to eliminate you." -(excerpt from the article)
And that is exactly how the so called "Terrorists" see us too. We cannot deny that (as much as that article tries in it's "Gotta keep soldiering on"). So this gung ho uncompromising stance will continue, and will get us nowhere but deeper and deeper in. Changing our habit of invading countries and installing puppet governments, is "not" capitulating to Terrorism. It is looking at "why" there has been a massive infuriated Jihadi response that is ever growing around the world, to what people see as a western global movement hell bent on shaping the middle east to embrace it's values,it's pseudo democracy,and the puppet rulers it installs,while leaving thousands upon thousands of dead in it's wake as "collateral damage".
If all this is being justified as "Defeating terrorists", then it's a monumental flop and we damn well know it. We are creating an entire generation of young Jihadis ready to die in glory for eternal fame now. We have already agreed that it only takes a small group of people to attack and wipe out a huge amount of people back in the west. Messing around with other nations won't stop these people. It is actually helping "create" them (IMO). So while I agree for the most part that we can't negotiate "with" people like Zawahiri (because they are not interested), we can take a look at why new people are joining this Global jihad in ever increasing numbers, when they hadn't been moved to do so prior to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuing to ignore that, is at our peril.
I would suggest going to a local mosque and hearing the hate sermons that are given there in many of them. Many of the new jihadist are and have been indoctinated from an early age. Would you agree that, that is at least part of the problem. The thing is, that until the Arab world gets past its hatedred of Judism, and the West in general there will never be an open door for understanding on either side.
ReplyDeletePropaganda against the west in some Islamic schools certainly exists and it is a reality. Mostly it is has always been a 'cultural' propaganda that is basically of the - "Islamic values are so much better than the immoral west" kind though. We have our own version of it in our cultures too. Having been to a few Islamic countries, I know that some folks have indeed picked up some really bizzare concepts about western culture and what we get up to. Most of it is laughable but harmless gossip mongering, and I put them straight on things whenever I can (and they are always open to being told the truth). Global Politics is something else though. Yes there is real anger about western Government policy globally. As we agree that there is anger and "Hate sermons" in some circles, what is your theory on "why" that hate speech is occuring. As an example, put yourself in the shoes of Iran for a moment. If you were America developing Nuclear Power and Iran was a world superpower that came along threatening you with "Consequences" if you didn't down tools and never use Nuclear options because of what else you "might" use that power for, how would you react? Would you obey them? Or would you say - "Just who the hell do you think you are"?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we just have to look at western media to see how it is screwing around with the minds of it's own citizens. For example, the Yahoo News headline this evening - "Iran to discuss nukes with EU official". No, I think Iran will be discussing "Nuclear Development" with EU officials this evening. Not "Nukes". Nukes is still something only existing in the terrified imagination of the U.N and United States Government at the moment. Iran simply sees what is going on. Both the U.N and U.S don't want to discuss anything, really. They want Iran to stop Uranium enrichment full stop....for ever...end of story. Iran knows where this is going. So why should it stop it's program in the 'meantime' when it knows what the outcome of this will be? "Either stop or face sanctions". Once again, the Islamic world will see hypocrisy. The largest nuclear arsenal in the world is now the U.S Government (as far as I'm aware) and doesn't exactly have a good record when it comes to peace with other nations. Yet, it feels "Iran" is a threat to the world, and assumes the moral high ground?
ReplyDelete