Posted on 09/14/2013 9:05:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Back in 2004, when a NYFD chief reminded the 9/11 Commission that it was never in "anyone's consciousness" that the Twin Towers would fall, he underscored a terrible truth. After 9/11, we entered the Age of the Unthinkable. Seared into our collective consciousness is that the Twin Towers could and did fall. So could the U.S. Capitol, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Superdome. Our children know that which we as children never before imagined -- passenger planes may become guided missiles, and skyscrapers may turn into smoking, twisted rubble. This age of Islamic jihad against the West has indeed expanded our consciousness.
Or has it? Did these previously unthinkable acts of violence and mass murder sharpen our thinking, make us vigilant and more protective of our constitutional liberties under attack?
There was a time when I actually thought this was so. Re-reading my first column written after 9/11 today, one dozen 9/11s later, I find that it forecasts a new era of black and white, good and evil -- a new relationship with countries that were "with us or against us." I guess I have always been a lousy prognosticator. Still, that was the message coming out of the Bush White House early on.
My old column continues: "When an honest-to-goodness battle is joined, there can be no more middle ground. We simply have to know where our friends are -- as well as our enemies. Not that their whereabouts are secret. Long before the smoke had thinned to reveal the scope of the carnage in the United States, there was revelry in the Middle East, from Beirut to East Jerusalem, from Cairo to Baghdad."
I was, of course, talking about the Islamic world - the font of jihad to spread sharia to create a global caliphate. That simple catechism I would learn in the months ahead. Two weeks later, however, while I was still working my way through a copy of the Koran and, luckily found, a copy of Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim," both of which I bought on 9/12/01, it was clear the mood in Washington was already different. The American flags that had instantly spread, flew and bristled in those early days were still everywhere, but "with us or against us" was gone. What was taking shape was something more like: "Who is 'us'?" Whatever that means.
In another column, one written on 9/28/01, I still pondered the need to impose mental order on the recent, unthinkable events, and the need to brace for another.
"As weeks pass, we may yet have to steel ourselves against another kind of blow to the collective brain: this one, only theoretical to date, but no less surreal for being self-inflicted. What Americans may have to come to grips with is the logic-defying notion of fighting terrorism with -- not against -- what might well be called terrorist-friendly nations."
It was happening already -- the blurring of lines that meant the blurring of identity. Our own leaders didn't prize the liberty-based civilization of the West as different from -- and better for liberty lovers than -- the world based in and dictated by Islam. On such denial an "international coalition" would arise. To our leaders, this coalition was always more important than our liberty.
This coalition, I wrote, "identifies the enemy as generic 'terrorists' who commit generic 'terrorism.' By opening the doors of alliance to an array of Arab nations whose embrace of such 'terrorists' ranges from tight, to secret, to (at best) arm's-length, the United States could very well create a broad-based coalition -- but one marked by a grievous moral vacuum that would surely undermine any American-led war effort to save the civilized world from the forces of violence, fear and instability."
A dozen years later, with the Middle East in near-chaos and Europe increasingly under sharia, it seems fair to say it has. Just as FDR pretended 80 years ago that Communism posed no ideological threat to our liberties, so, too, did George W. Bush pretend the same thing about Islam. Similarly, "Islam has nothing to do with Islamic jihad" -- a point of ideological purity enforced inside both the Bush and the Obama administrations.
Which leaves us where? With another grim anniversary behind us, the second president of the post-9/11 era, Barack Obama, has the nation supporting al-Qaida in Syria and contemplating military action on al-Qaida's behalf.
The unthinkable enters our consciousness again. But this time, few seem to notice.
Laugh with God. Or be laughed at BY God.
Don't let those asinine actual Islamic jihadists steal God's glory away from you. It's like you think all "religions" and "faiths" are the same?
You’ve put Rush on a pedestal
*I* didn't say one word about Rush. If you want my take here it is.
Personally I don't much care what he says, he's a just salesman and his product is his own show (not that's there is anything wrong with that). Certain people who listen to him every day and latch on to everything he says are the ones who elevate him to godhood.
I don't much care for the phenomenon. I don't think Sickoflibs does either. You appear to be on a different wavelength than him, or I. We appear to have difficulty understanding one another.
What I jibe at here is the ludicrous accusation that here, I’ve put Rush on a pedestal. Maybe that ain’t you and I shouldn’t put you in the same pea pod as the sicko. But the sicko made the accusation.
I say Rush is *useful* if less so than we would like. Lets see what we can do to make the situation better. Let’s not bend our minds into pretzels about how the glass is half empty when we could be trying to put more water into it.
Like hey. I do think Rush listens to reasoned arguments presented privately to him. That works better than wailing out here in cyberland where he probably never looks.
If there is a problem here, like he is overoptimistic and therefore inadvertently saps the momentum of his listenership... constructive suggestions, like to urge his own audience not to be complacent even when he sees trends as optimistic (and to be sure Rush HAS gotten that way in the past in the face of a clear threat, e.g. in the effort to keep Obamacare from happening, alas in vain) would likely find virtual open ears.
It seems that certain “conservatives” eat their own even worse than liberals do.
Seems like an honest mistake for "the sicko" to make after the way you leaped to Rush's defense when "the sicko" said something critical about him.
I think I get the jist of what you are saying about Rush. I believe "the sicko" is part of the solution in that regard because I've often seen him criticize those that rely on Rush to tell them what to think. It clearly would have been helpful during the election if so many people didn't think Romney was winning.
Encouraging news can cut both ways.
I say let truth be boldly out there. Rush could take a useful hint from past failures and remind his listeners to push, push, push because the Democrats cheat, cheat, cheat.
I did not rush to Rush’s defense, by the way. I rushed to the defense of the portion of truth which was voiced by Rush, that he correctly read the presence of momentum. It was sicko that distorted this into some total encomium, and now you too.
“This is the one you should have been addressing on Romney-bots, not me :#34”
You are correct, it was the Romney-Bots who deserved my words, not you. I apologize for the previous mistake.
And sicko is being so intemperate here. Liberals have won so far because they RESISTED the temptation to be intemperate when their darlings disappointed their hopes. We could only wish that they stomped on their problem children with such vigor! They’d be paper tigers then!
And notice that you are jumping into something you do not even understand. You are one more person with no color other than jet black and radiant white in your palette and never do they mix.
“Well, Rush saw momentum. It was your guys’ fault if you thought you could just ride instead of pushing until the end.
You are so focused on the negative yourselves you can’t see the positive.”
Hush Bimbo is a fool who saw the same momentum as the (might as well) LSD users Rove and what’s-his-face. Romney was a sure loser and I knew it, we all knew it, before him being the last man standing caused everyone to go collectively insane. What was the appeal in a Mormon Cult Leader and political opportunist who invented Obamacare? Not only that, but this guy was so slippery that he even had his campaign members telling crowds of “moderates” that Romney really had no intention of messing around with abortion laws anyway, and not to take him too seriously in some of his comments.
Who in their right mind would think that would appeal to conservatives? And why would Hush, with all his might and wisdom, not recognize this himself and do something about it? Instead, I sat there and watched him stay silent when he could have sunk Romney at any time. And then, once there was no choice, the GOPe cheer-leading squad started telling everybody that Romney’s victory was inevitable and that it would be overwhelming... when, really, the exact opposite happened.
Rush has done more for the cause than any of us—and all of us put together.
But his crude lambasting of Fluke was an idiotic faux pas on his part, made worse by his doubling down on it as hard as he did.
He’s always had a blind spot and tin ear about addressing women and “women’s issues” in particular.
Romney if anything suppressed the anti-Obama vote with Romneycare, his Democrat-light take on things, and poorly managed campaign.
But the other, at least somewhat more conservative, candidates than him—Cain, Bachmann, Newt, Santorum, and Perry—were all deeply flawed as 2012 presidential candidates. I wouldn’t be surprised if all of their egos were egged into the race by savvy Democrat/Romney operatives, as they served to split the conservative vote and, in Palin, perhaps keep a more competitive alternative out of the race altogether.
I see you are getting great joy in attacks upon people. This is sad. It is a diversion from the “our enemy is Satan, and potentially every man could be our friend” approach of genuine biblical Christianity.
Even with the crude crack about Sandra’s situation, a better followup than mere groveling would have been possible... the horse is out of the barn now, but there will be other horses in other barns to learn from.
If I could rewrite a sequel for Rush it would be something to the effect of stating that “why of course Sandra isn’t a slut, and I thought everybody understood it. You know, ‘reductio ad absurdam’ is a well respected means of making a point. But she is being a liar and that’s worse.”
to learn from => to learn about how to deal with from this
Romney was an underwhelming figure. His inconsistent mien in his debates and his general weather-vane approach to politics left unharvested enthusiasm out in the field, useless. I will not lie about that at all.
I question deeply if Mitt was even actually Christian, but only God knows. While the theology of the Mormon church insultingly undersells who Christ is and adds a lot of garbage to boot, ultimately as proof one has to look for fruit of the Spirit and that’s questionable here. There were a lot of low-down, lax-fact personal attacks, as you point out, though immature Christians can do that too. Anyhow we had two people giving nominal allegiance to Christ battling in this election. But more were dug in for the Democrats.
Anyhow, my read is that the real God has allowed us to see an underwhelming situation in order that it will dawn on us that we again need a God who overwhelms all evil.
Sarah Palin is still a sweetheart to me, no of course I don’t mean carnally, so Todd need not be concerned about being jealous towards me.
She has genuinely invested her heart in the Lord. When someone does that, the Lord will begin to do what the world would consider monstrously unfair. The Lord will begin to bring daunting challenges the person’s way, trials some of which the person will even fail. These are the drills of a battle school. However even the failures are susceptible of useful post mortems and simply to show that the person needs to stop and bring the matter before the Lord and wait for the Lord to move and to act affirmatively upon His promises.
I am not disheartened by the way she was euchred out of the governor’s mansion through a loophole, to bring up a common objection, because the Master was on duty there and nobody can oust HIM via bogus ethics complaints. I’d rather want to know from her, what did she learn from that about who the Lord is and where the power is?
She’s not the only serious Christian to be in a potential situation to make a bid, but she’s one of them, and I would be happy to see something like a Cruz/Palin team or vice versa. It would help bring on a spiritual sea change, I believe. It would be marked with battle; don’t expect la-la media to make a fawning deal over Sarah’s sincere faith like they did over Jimmy Carter’s barely lukewarm “born again.” But again we should know that this is a battle to be welcomed. Hit back in good cheer, hoping that some day even they might be our friends with Satan ousted, and outlets like Fox will certainly help.
Palin and Cruz are my favored candidates.
They are our only two national-level political figures to speak out against amnesty—both in principle and in the form Congress is trying to ram it through.
I’ve heard some complaints on FR about how Sarah Palin approaches the amnesty issue, and to be frank I hadn’t followed that very closely. I seem to get the picture she suggested some kind of circumscribed forgiveness for certain illegales, but that would be tricky and would be easily misunderstood and distorted. Not that the Lord isn’t greater than even this sort of difficulties. Ultimately the Lion of Judah can roar a lot louder than the “roaring lion” Satan in spite of the latter’s most energetic efforts. Give them anything like even equal footing and God just stomps the devil flat. It’s whom we devote to that matters which way the battle tilts.
Matters which way => matters to which way
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.