The Left and the Attack on Paris

The left's reactions to the terror attack on Paris are in keeping with its tradition of getting almost everything wrong.

Take Bernie Sanders, for example. At the Democratic presidential debate, one day after the Paris attack, the democratic socialist candidate made this observation about al-Qaida:

"I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely, and led to the rise of al-Qaida and to ISIS."

That a U.S. senator, let alone a man running for president of the United States, believes that the American invasion of Iraq led to the rise of al-Qaida should automatically disqualify him from serious consideration. It is a testimony to how many on the left twist reality to force-fit it into their ideology.

For the benefit of those too young to recall 9/11 -- and who probably haven't been told in school that Muslims in the name of Islam attacked America that day -- it was al-Qaida that attacked America. In other words, al-Qaida, founded in 1988, preceded the American invasion of Iraq by 15 years.

"This is an attack not just on Paris, not just on the people on France, but an attack on all humanity and the universal values we share."

At best, this is classic left-wing naivete; at worst, it is just nonsense produced by left-wing thinking.

This was not an "attack on all humanity." It was an attack on Western liberal values. And it wasn't an attack on "the universal values we share," since there are in fact few universal values that humanity shares. If humanity shared universal values, there wouldn't be wars, or hundreds of millions of subjugated women, or theocratic and secular tyrannies.

"We're going to do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice."

This notion of "bringing terrorists to justice" is in keeping with the left-wing denial that we are in a war -- specifically a war on Islamist terror. In war you defeat -- which usually involves killing -- your enemy. You don't bring them to justice; you bring domestic criminals to justice. But for the left, all the world's Islamist terrorists are isolated criminals who by amazing coincidence happen to be Muslim.

In a column of breathtaking self-righteousness, Bruni wrote that he "felt sick" over the fact that people were saying anything about the Paris attack other than offering condolences to the French people.

One of the allegedly egregious examples he cited was that of former New York Times correspondent Judith Miller, who tweeted:

"Now maybe the whining adolescents at our universities can concentrate on something other than their need for 'safe' spaces..."

Her tweet was in fact entirely apt. She asked that the spoiled immature brats who complain about not having "safe spaces" in their universities, understand what real evil is and come to appreciate how incredibly lucky and safe they are.

But to Bruni, this was just an example of how "anything and everything becomes prompt for a plaint, a rant, a riff."

"I felt sick," he wrote. "For a few hours, even a few days, I'd like to focus on the pain of Parisians ..."

On Jan. 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, Jared Loughner murdered six people and gravely wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. That very day, based on nothing, Bruni's New York Times colleague Paul Krugman wrote that the murders were a result of hate-filled rhetoric that saturates conservative and Republican life.

Did Bruni feel sick? He should have. Not only did Krugman not focus on the pain of the congresswoman and the murdered, but he lied about Republican rhetoric influencing the murderer.

British photographer Roger Hicks, author of 30 books on photography and a biography of the Dalai Lama, commenting in The New York Times on Bruni's column, wrote:

"What struck me was the hypocrisy of President Hollande who, if I heard correctly, described the attack as a 'declaration of war on the French state,' which has been waging war against Islamic State for months..."

Get it? Hollande is a hypocrite for describing the attacks as a declaration of war on France, since France had already been warring on Islamic State.

And then there was the Iranian-American professor and best-selling author, Reza Aslan, on CNN:

"Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is gonna be violent."

Another profundity from the left. There is no difference between Islam and any other religion today in terms of producing violence. It's just that murderers are more attracted to Islam than to any other religion.

Finally, let's not forget what is perhaps the most important of the left's responses to Islamist terror: bringing millions of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa into Western countries. Thanks to Angela Merkel of Germany, Europe will be welcoming nearly a million, and thanks to Barack Obama and John Kerry, America is bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees into America next year. Regarding which Hillary Clinton said in her debate the day after the Paris atrocities:

"The [Obama] administration originally said 10 [thousand]. I said we should go to 65 [thousand]..."

And U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that America will accept 85,000 refugees next year, most of whom will be Syrians.

Just another week in the life of the left. It is doing nonviolently and internally what Islamist terror is seeking to do externally and violently -- dismantle Western civilization.

Actually, there is a theory floating around out there that if Sadaam had been left in power, along with other recently deposed Arab leaders, the middle east would be much more stable.

Saddam got a good spanking for invading Kuwait. I think that was enough.

Liberal leadership (Bush & obama) has not necessarily had the best of results in eliminating terror.

It’s a sobering realization that Saddam and his counterparts in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Libya were the old guard of pre-terrorism dictators that were the best weapon we had against these groups.

If nothing else they had established nation-states with a structure that was important enough for them to preserve to the point where any ISIS type of organization would have had their leaders disappear in a sand dune before they managed to even rob a bank. Or at least they would have herded them in Israel’s direction where they would have disposed of them.

The proper US action in Iraq and one designed to pacify the region and prevent Russia from moving in and Iran from becoming inordinately powerful would have been for the US to carve out a large permanent military base in Iraq with links to a similarly occupied and fortified military port in Basra to be paid for by taking Iraqi oil. When Bush II went in there I thought, still believing Bush to be a clear sighted leader of the USA, that he just might do that. He had said that we were in it tor the long haul and that is the only sensible way to do "long haul." Then he started talking hearts-and-minds stuff and I knew it would all dribble away into failure. I didn't foresee just how failed it would be because I did not anticipate that we would elect a president chosen by our enemies in the Middle East.

My thoughts are very well explained by post # 3.

I never felt comfortable with Bush II going into Iraq the second time. The ruse was WMD. Being a good Republican I just shut up and supported him, much the same way I voted for Mitt when I knew better. Time has shown in both cases that they are both Unparty types. There is nothing conservative about them. The only thing separating obama from that pair is obama is very open and obvious to all that he is a corrupt marxist.

Am I new here? No. My first time here was 98 or 99 where I was a very active member.

I recall a Uniparty forum called Free Conservatives run by some Texas airline stew. I was a member there. I made efforts at mentioning Bush II was a lib, that got me run off.

Am I agreeing with the Times? Occasionally a blind squirrel finds a nut. If Saddam had stayed in power, along with the others we just simply would not have had this mess we have today.

Our best chances is to get rid of Bush and Clinton trash and get someone like Cruz or Trump in.

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.