Posted on 09/13/2006 9:00:08 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700725/posts
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think (David Warren nails Islamofascism's 5th column)
Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | September 13, 2006 | David Warren
Posted on 09/13/2006 10:43:18 AM CDT by GMMAC
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think
Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2006
COMMENTARY: DAVID WARREN
Listening to President Bush speak, on Monday's anniversary of 9/11, after a day of distastefully sentimental memorials, my question was not what have we achieved in the last five years, but rather, what have we learned? Bush and Blair -- the captain and vice-captain of Team West in the war against "the terrorists" so far -- are both now in the twilight of their political careers. Both have recently broken with habitual discretion, and made attempts to name the enemy. This has, if anything, added to their unpopularity, for when they mention that the enemy presents himself as Islamic, there are shrill cries not only from radical Muslims, but across the spectrum of the Left in the West.
Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two, has now retreated from his use of the term "Islamofascist" -- which as I said in a previous column, is a fairer label than "Islamist" for an enemy that spreads a palampore of traditional Islam, over a stuffing from the Western-bred totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. As I wrote Aug. 27, from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri, we hear rhetoric that uses an Islamic vocabulary and crude grammar, but animated with a syntax that owes more to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, than to the Prophet and his traditional interpreters. The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".
Mr Blair gave an interview worth reading to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, published Monday. The editors present characterized it as "sombre". The British prime minister was still going through the motions of advocating the "peace process", and the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, without (according to me) any real conviction that it could work. It is just something Western politicians do to please the figurative "Arab street", and it does not please anyone, any more. With much more conviction, he said leaders throughout the West have grasped that we are in a truly "global struggle", for which the people of the West are not prepared. The politicians have failed to explain to us how much is at stake, and how much will be lost if we are not resolute in defence of Western values.
For all its uncharacteristic awkwardness, Mr Blair's answer to a question about British home-grown terrorists donged the bell:
"It's not necessarily what have we done wrong, because part of the problem of what you have in Western opinion is that Western opinion always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a sort of, you know, grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. Now, that warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."
I frankly admire both Bush and Blair, as courageous politicians, with open minds, doing their best within the limits of what is politically possible in their respective spheres. They are both towering figures, in comparison to the little men who oppose them. We won't know what trouble is, until the little men replace them.
I continue optimistic about what can be done, should we summon the will to do it. I have written repeatedly that a robust and unified Western response to "Islamofascism" could fling it quickly onto the trash-heap of history, to join Nasserism and Baathism and other earlier manifestations of Arab nationalism and socialism. Smack it hard, without apology.
My pessimism is founded in the fear that this robust and unified response cannot be mobilized. We have a huge fifth column in the West, and it is not the Muslim immigrants. They become radicalized only because our "victim culture" encourages them to nurture their grievances. Yet most, despite temptation, remain good, decent people, doing their share of the West's work.
Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.
See #365
I understand your position, and respect it FRiend. Everything you said is true. I just don't want to look in the mirror and see them. However, if they had blown them to kingdom come, I wouldn't have any problem getting over it.
"You've got it Unrep...and you will find my definition of torture a little more vague than current PC. If they leave with all their appendages......"
Well, I'm not about to criticize my people for doing their job as they see appropriate, and I'll be more than happy to back 'em up until the last cat gets hung.
PC?
If I had a contract that paid me a million dollars a minute for political correctness, I wouldn't take home enough in a year to make change for a plugged nickel.
BTW, if they manage to leave with all their appendages, do we get extra credit if they're still attached? Or only if still attached AND functional?
I was actually thinking more about some on-site research into the shark and barracuda population........I recall seeing some awfully big Tiger Sharks in the Gulf back in the day.
Why is Novak suddenly coming clean? I'm glad he is, but does Novak give any explanation for his silence?
Great Article. It really is one of the under addressed problems of our times. Our totally out of control Judicary. Tyrants in black robs.
IIRC, Fitz asked him to say nothing. Now that Armitage has opened his yap, all bets are off.
That kind of forward thinking will be the hallmark of my administration.
Let's see how long Fonda's radio show lasts.
Rush:
"They have been morally banrupt since the start"
Probably as long as her vegetable oil-powered bus tour.
Haven't read it yet, but the title's priceless, lol.
Uh, 1 billion seconds is 31.71 years.
She should take note of Air Amerika.
Yeah. Reminds me of that old Drew Carry episode where he saw Mimi in a bar or something, saw that she was dating a married guy, and he said "geeze if he's cheating with her, I wonder what he has chained up at home???" THAT always cracks me up. I guess we know, if JD really IS married, what her husband has chained up at home. He MUST have some sugar on the side. Something. Or lots of crank. :) Ok, really gone for really real this time. :)
Heads Up! New York Freep... let's do it.
D.C. we need your help.
Welcome to New York, Pres. Ahmadinejad
When he comes to New York City for the United Nations meeting, President Ahmadinejad is in for an example of American-style free speech. The New York Sun reports:
President Ahmadinejad will also be met with a large rally on September 20 outside the U.N. at noon organized by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, and the UJA-Federation of New York. The rally, in support of Israel, calls for implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for disarming Iran’s proxy army Hezbollah. It also calls for supporting the war against state sponsors of terror, including Iran. The executive vice chairman of the Conference, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us yesterday that he’s received requests from as far away as Texas, Arkansas, Ottawa, and New Hampshire to participate in the rally.
A replay of the conference call with Malcolm Hoenlein that discusses Iran and the importance of the rally can be found on the One Jerusalem Website. We owe the propreitors of that website a hearty thanks for including American Thinker on the call and for all the great work they do. The rally will occur at noon (though organizers are asking participants to show up at 11 AM) at the Dag Hammarskgold Plaza at 47th Street and 2nd Avenue
Ed Lasky 9 13 06
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6098
Thanks. Ok, obvious next question, why did Fitz do this??
Teaching them to cook bombs?
So they realize they've lost the feminine. Praise God!
I've reconsidered Rudy since a smart FReeper (I forget who) pointed out that the president's primary job will be to lead us in the war against Islamofascism. I agree with that, so I could live with a social liberal (much as I'd hate it) if he's a great wartime leader.
As for McCain, if he's the GOP nominee I'll have to be helped from the polling booth after uncontrollable projectile vomiting, but I'll still manage to fill in the circle next to his name rather than see Miss Hillary or any other democrat elected.
Roc is kinda old.......LOL
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.