Posted on 07/11/2005 1:50:33 PM PDT by narby
The conflict between modern democracies and Islamic terrorists reminds Lee Harris of a blood feud. The idea of a blood feud in turn reminds me of "Fools Crow", a novel about the travails of the Pikunis, a small band of the native American Blackfeet tribe, in 1870.
-- snip --
As Lee Harris might put it, the horse-stealing and scalping are theatrical gestures. They are attempts to humiliate the other band, not to defeat them. Going on a raid is a rite of passage for young members of the tribe. In fact, the title character in Fools Crow earns his name and his honor on one such raid.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
I don't like King's last paragraph, where he implies we should give terrorists some slack. But to his credit, King explicitly says that we should not be passive or tolerant of terrorism. But we should perhaps also push and prod the moderate muslims to get involved, lest the result of this conflict look more like the Indian Wars of the 1870's.
Note to Moose Limbs.
We used to have a bad problem with native terriorists.
We do not have this problem anymore.
Look around, see if you can figure out why this is the case.
One problem with King's 'patience' theory is that American Indian terrorists didn't have WMD.
The other problem is the whole analogy between the blood feud and modern Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorists want to kill us and take over or destroy our societies after having converted us to Islam. That is not analogous to the blood feud, as Lee Harris describes it.
The author says we should give the moderate muslims more time to figure out a way to deal with their extremists. However, we have already given them how much time already?? 1,000 years, maybe longer?? Exactly how much more time do we need to give them??
The Romans who we can blame for some of the better things in Western Civilization, public works, learning and good government had a sure fired way of dealing with "insurgencies." Their approach was to instill the knowledge that their reaction, like military punishment, would be "sure, swift and severe" in the infliction of short lived but spectacular violence. After witnessing the brief carnage it was easy for the locals to choose between good plumbing, fair markets and peace or the absolute worst the Roman Legions could inflict.
As a fine Greek general once intoned, "Those who do not learn from history will be damned to repeat it."
sounds like more apologizing to me. I bet if we REALLY dealt with terrorism like the US Cav did in 1870 we would be much better off
Is he saying we are going to play Cowboys and Muslims
Is he saying we should play Cowboys and Muslims
Put another way: Achmed, you really don't want to play Cowboys and Muslims.
Exactly.
But I think we're long overdue for saddling up the posse.
Unfortunately, I don't think the West in general and the US in particular, have the intestinal fortitude to implement such solutions. Until we do, we will pay the price in blood. Eventually, something will snap.
You must have heard the joke then, eh?
There was am American Indian, a cowboy, and a Muslim on a train.
The Indian looked over at the Muslim and said "There once was many, and now there are few".
The Muslim looked over at the Indian and said "There was was few, but now there are many".
The Cowboy looked back and forth among the two, and said "We haven't play Cowboys and Muslims, yet".
It seems to me that the Muslims have dug themselves a hole that they are unable to climb out of. Consider:
1) Their culture requires them to support any Muslim against any outsider.
2) Their Koran has some sections that advocate peace, others that advocate violance against Christians, Jews, unbelievers, and even other Muslims that don't belive their particular interpretation of the Koran.
3) There is no hierarchy which proclaims "THE Interpretation" of the Koran -- each Muslim selects for himself and then supports the Iman who espouses a particular interpretation.
4) A small but significant percentage of the Imams preach Wahabbism, which exhorts belivers to kill unbelievers to advance Islam.
5) Most peaceful Muslims believe that the "Liberalism" of the West will prevent them from wiping out Muslim populations if they don't stop the terrorists; after all, Muslim nations control a large percentage of the oil production that Western Nations use, and if the West did something really bad, the Muslims would punish them by cutting off their oil.
So ... if you are a Muslim that believes the peaceful interpretation, you are inhibited against turning in someone who belives the extreme version because ...
a) your culture tells you not to turn them in; and
b) you know if you turn them in, one of his buddies may wipe out you and your family.
c) if you don't turn them in, there are no consequences.
So ... terrorists do their deeds, and the "peaceful" Muslims are reluctant even to denouce the actions, and certainly won't turn in the terrorists ... because "IT ISN'T THEIR PROBLEM".
Any effective response by Western Governments must make it their problem. That means:
a) pursuading Muslims to turn in the terrorists, and the Imams who support them; and/or
b) making it painful for Muslims who don't turn them in.
However, the Western Governments are in a similar box -- any attempt to make it painful can be construed as punishing innocents for the actions of the guilty, whether racial or religous profiling (e.g., not allowing any Muslim to enter the country legally), or ... (GASP!!)... destroying Mosques ... or ... using our armed forces to break things and kill people.
No matter what variant of "making it painful" one could propose, the "Politically Correct" crowd will shout down anyone proposing it, calling them "barbarians".
Of course, that didn't stop the US from incinerating hundreds of cities during the past few wars once they decided it was necessary.
I fear that they are making the same mistake that the Japanese made, thinking the US was "soft", and couldn't or wouldn't conduct a war against them, that the US would sue for peace after Pearl Harbor.
Bad Mistake. Bad Mistake.
I will believe that the Muslims are willing to live in Peace with the West when they treat the Imams preaching intolerance in the same way as they treat Imams who advocate homosexual acts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.