Posted on 09/01/2006 7:11:35 PM PDT by bnelson44
Hezbollahs black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile, consider Hezbollahs spiritual head, Hassan Nasrallah the current celebrity of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the mans own self-confessed defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on record boasting: The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.
Irans Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor, maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to wipe Israel off the map.
The only surprise about the edition of Hitlers Mein Kampf that has become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title translated as Jihadi as in My Jihad confirming in ironic fashion the moderate Islamic claim that Jihad just means struggle, as in an inner struggle as in a Kampf perhaps.
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Every time I hear that 'we will win because you love life and we love death' crap, I recall that it was answered decades ago by George Patton:
No son of a b***h ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other son of a b***h die for his country.
When push comes to shove, we can certainly be obliging and give them what they profess to love.
Good post. Thanks. I guess I am in company because like the author of this article I am always wondering when the next attack will come and what we will be able to do about it.
Please think about this for a moment. If we would use overwhelming force AFTER a jihadi slaughter of perhaps one-hundred thousand Americans, why not use that force BEFORE such an attack occurs? There is only the need to decide if the jihadis are serious in their intentions, then we may as well use overwhelming force before it is a retaliatory event. Why will this not happen? Because the democrat party has so succeeded in dividing the sovereigns that we will not be united in fighting this evil. And what will that means when one-hundred thousand Americans are slaughtered and the mooselimbs world-wide rejoice? It will mean we will not even then use overwhelmng force agaionst these demonic bastards. We live in an America characterized by fantasy not reality, and the people are so ill equiped to understand the realities of this enemy after our demise.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Ask the folks who are opposed to the war, ask the Bush administration, don't ask me.
I merely observe that in extremis it will become not merely technically and militarily feasible to obliterate militant Islam and cow the remains of Islam, but politically feasible as well.
bttt
Our Iraq presence derives from U.N. and Congressional resolutions mandating removal of Hussein for material breach of international obligations, and from Clintons 1998 resolution requiring U.S. promotion of democratic government for Iraq. Colin Powell testified and David Kay confirmed material breaches included ongoing support for international terrorism. Consequently, persevering with the Iraqi people for victory is vital to winning the War on Terror. Only then can we begin rebuilding credibility among societies fighting against, or infected by Islamic Fundamentalism. These now independent African/Oriental/Asian cultures demand allies who consider diplomacy as war without bloodshed, and war as diplomacy with bloodshed. They are disheartened when the U.S considers war the accidental consequence of miscarried diplomacy.
They understand terrorism we how abhor was neglected through 27 years of failed encounters. Under Carter we failed to defend the sovereignty of our Iranian embassy. Under Reagan Marine guards were forbidden to load their weapons to protect their barracks, and Hezbollah killed 260 in Beirut. Under Bush #1 Arabs around Basra revolted with U.S. encouragement, and then were abandoned to Husseins retribution. Under Clinton we fled Somalia after 18 Rangers were killed, and allowed Hussein to eject U.N. inspectors. These instances and 12 other significant terrorist attacks produced spiritless, pathetic responses.
Now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad perceives he can defy without consequence the U.N. Security Council and United States. Now potential allies for the War on Terror rightly question whether we possess the requisite vigorous, martial character to succeed in their harsh diplomatic climate.
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.