Posted on 08/12/2006 1:34:24 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
"As bats' eyes are to daylight," wrote Aristotle, "so is our intellectual eye blind to those truths that are most obvious of all."
He was writing about the savants of Athens in the fourth century before Christ, but he was also writing about the savants of the Western world in the 21st century after Christ. How many innocent civilians will have to be killed in the name of Allah, you wonder, before our savants realize that what we're involved in is a religious war?
Quite a few more, judging from the Canadian liberal media's coverage this week of the Muslim plot to suicide-bomb some 10 trans-Atlantic airliners.
Typically, the Globe and Mail, which regards itself as Canada's New York Times, spread its coverage across five full pages and parts of four more, without mentioning the word "Muslim" more than four times.
Moreover, along with the rest of the liberal media, the Globe has invented the adjective "Islamist" to distinguish those who favor indiscriminate murder in the name of God from the merely "Islamic" who presumably don't.
Globe columnists, completely in accord, remain rooted in the politically correct thinking and assumptions of the '60s. "The Good Guys Will Win This War, Too," says the headline on a column by John Ibbitson. "Chronic wars last a very long time," he writes, "but they do end. Twenty years ago, no one would have predicted the end of the Cold War, [or] the end of apartheid. But they're in the past, and the good guys won."
Note the assumption: Both the Cold War and South Africa's apartheid lasted about 50 years – to Mr. Ibbitson, "a very long time." The war between Islam and the West has lasted 1,400 years so far. Doesn't he know this? Not really. He has unconsciously bought into the delusion of his generation that the only history that matters began about 1960.
Even more deluded is Globe columnist Rick Salutin, an ex-communist whose perceptions are frequently insightful. Not this time. He doesn't see "a primary religious component" even in Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden's is "not a religious war that will outlast our lifetime," for he only "speaks as an infuriated member of the [Middle East] region." Apparently, we are to ignore bin Laden's interminable calls for a "jihad" against "the Jewish and Christian Crusaders," and his declaration after the "triumph" of 9-11, when he vowed: "There will never be another Andalusia." His reference was to the Muslim loss of Spain, only recovered by the Christians 500 years ago, after an 800-year war.
Salutin cannot believe that bin Laden could think this way, because Salutin himself can't; anything that happened before the '60s doesn't matter. To bin Laden – and many others – it does.
"The word 'peace' has gone out of fashion," Globe columnist Lawrence Martin chimes in. "It was a word on everybody's lips in the baby boomers' generation. But new youth and new politicians don't seem to be into it. Today's prevailing ethic is confrontation, and the old values of negotiation and conciliation are missing."
Again, note the assumption: The "values" of the '70s and '80s are "the old values." To the obvious fact that those relatively peaceful times were conferred upon us by people who fought two horrible world wars, followed by a Cold War that we won by remaining fully confrontational and fully armed, he is as blind as Aristotle said.
But this disability is not confined to the media. How many professors of religious studies have for years indoctrinated their students with the vision of Islam as a wholly peace-loving religion, ignoring a) what Muhammad taught, b) what Muhammad did, c) what the early caliphs did and d) what Muslim nations have done or tried to do ever since?
In the Globe's rival, the National Post, however, there appeared one story much at odds with the general Canadian coverage. It reported, and deplored, the comment of London Mayor Ken Livingstone that "no community in London can or should be targeted or blamed because of the actions of people who are pure criminals." It would be "outrageous," a senior police officer had added, "to suggest that the fault lay with Islam, a peace-loving religion that utterly rejected wanton killing." But this, the article added, ignored the fact that the terrorists "perpetrated their missions as Muslims, were inspired by the Prophet, were justified by the Quran and acted in the name of Islam."
That story was reprinted from the London Telegraph, where the blind apparently have begun to see.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
the only clue one has is the person's name: Muhammed, Suliman, Akmed, Abdullah ...
Otherwise, we would never know.
"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
~The Kingston Trio~
San Francisco
1960 A.D.
Well, Repubs, conservatives, and Libertarians of all stripes could affect the MSM by simply cancelling all their subscriptions to these Quislings of the media. Time to really put economic pressure on these liars and stop supporting any of them including PBS. There are many conservative media outlets now that 20 years ago did not exist. Why support any of our national enemies??? And enemies they are.
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.