Victor Davis Hanson: The Waiting Game. Do we really need further convincing of the threat we face?

NRO ^ | September 1, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Pinging 2 Ping Lists

Nailed It! Moral Clarity BUMP ! This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.

Victor Davis Hanson Ping !         Let me know if you want in or out. Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson  His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

 

[listenhillary]

"Do we really need further convincing of the threat we face?"

Sad to say, but yes 50 to 60 percent of the USA population needs further convincing. It's too bad it could result in the death of those that don't need convincing.

[mainepatsfan]

The victim analogy is an excellent point.

[Graymatter]

If there is another attack on the scale of 9/11, and I believe there will be, it will not result in a stiffening of American spines, much less enlightenment about the nature of Islam.

What it will do is, give Democrats ammunition against George Bush and his administration. We still have two and a half years. If they think they can destroy him, they will gladly try, even at the risk of American security.

[Edgerunner]

bttt

[mikeus_maximus]

Do we really need further convincing of the threat we face?

Yes, we do. Liberalism is deification of Self. They are content that what happended in New York didn't happen to them personally. They will make no sacrifice for others. Liberals don't act until their own safety and possesions are immediately threatened. Then they act ruthlessly.

[sonic109]

You hit it right on the head pal. I don't need convincing yet I'm in NYC all the time working . Be real sad if I had to get blown up to convince the wacko Liberals of NYC.

[Dark Skies]

If there is another attack on the scale of 9/11, and I believe there will be, it will not result in a stiffening of American spines, much less enlightenment about the nature of Islam.

I believe Americans are made of tougher stuff than that.

All over the western world, there has been a slow but discernable shift to the right in politics. Just as in WWII, it took time for the world to awaken to the threat. It is happening again and just as slowly...but the world is awakening to the need to fight the dangerous element of islam.

[maica]

Meanwhile, we in the West who worry about all this are told to fret instead about being “Islamophobes.” Indeed, a debate rages over the very use of “Islamic fascism” to describe the creed of terrorist killers — as if those authoritarians who call for a return of the ancient caliphate, who wish to impose of 7th-century sharia law, promise death to the Western “crusader” and “Jew,” and long to retreat into a mythical alternate universe of religious purity and harsh discipline, untainted by a “decadent” liberal West, are not fascists.

@@@@

If our media wanted Americans to understand this simple concept, they would sell these very words day after day. Somehow, a drunk Mel Gibson's words are a 2 week media frenzy; a killer in Seattle who says "I did it because I hate Jews" or a killer in San Francisco who called himself a terrorist, do not get any more than the merest documentation in mass media, then are dropped from the news cycle forever.

[Gritty]

Since this war has progressed, oil has gone up from $25 a barrel to over $70, now adding an additional $500 billion per annum to the coffers of Middle East dictatorships

More moral clarity from Victor Davis Hanson!

[VOA]

We're funding the guys who want to murder us.
(and the Israelis).
At least one writer sees it.

Bump!

[Tench_Coxe]

"If there is another attack on the scale of 9/11, and I believe there will be, it will not result in a stiffening of American spines, much less enlightenment about the nature of Islam.

What it will do is, give Democrats ammunition against George Bush and his administration. We still have two and a half years. If they think they can destroy him, they will gladly try, even at the risk of American security."

I'm not so sure. Look at the plane in Britain where the passengers walked off because they weren't sure about the Muslim passengers. A data point, and anecdotal. But it illustrates that while the media and politicians play games (in the case of the US media, an active siding with Islam because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'), there appears to be a realization sinking into consciousness, no matter how dim.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, there was an uneasiness in the American psyche about events. An when Pearl harbor occurred, it took some time for the import of what happened to sink in, along with the occasional news about atrocities occurring from Japanese and Nazi occupied areas. But once the realization took hold, it was Katy-bar-the-door.
I think the well intentioned 'Religion of Peace' bit was an attempt to quell the immediate emotional reaction. It was unfortunate in one point, since it clouded the issue and provided a way for the libs to exploit for purposes of gaining power.
I think, if another attack occurs, the average person is going to get pretty angry. And it won't just be the muslims who have to worry, but the libs as well. And, if the groundswell really starts sweeping, politicians will cower and try to run to the front of the crowd as it marches.

[Jason_b]

"We're funding the guys who want to murder us."

Think about it.

There is crank literature out there that alleges international bankers (joooos?) financed both sides in the U.S.' War between the States; and WWI. Maybe at some level encouraged the conflict. The idea is that whichever side wins gets the spoils and can pay the war debts for both, with interest.

Then I read what you wrote: "We're funding the guys who want to murder us." Where do our funds come from? Our central bank perhaps?

How is that different from what the crank literature alleges? Cui bono? Who benefits from conflict between the islamic world and the West? The military industrial complex perhaps?

I'm not charging anything nor promoting any conspiracy theories. I'm just asking, why are we funding those who want to kill us? Is there a better answer than the conspiracy theory? If you have one, let's hear it. This is strictly devil's advocate, so spare me the flames.

[sonic109]

" All over the western world, there has been a slow but discernable shift to the right in politics "
I see the just the opposite my friend .

[sonic109]

why are we funding those who want to kill us?
Simple survival I imagine.

[sonic109]

TRUE. The next time we are hit half the country will use it as an excuse to slam Bush for not protecting us. They hate Bush much, much more then they hate Islamic terrorist. Islam will get a pass and the unwashed masses will call for Bush's head

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[Jason_b]

I don't understand. Whose survival are we concerned about, ours or theirs?