Posted on 11/26/2001 2:46:58 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Liberals belong in a cave with Osama
Editor's note: Get Don Feder's entertaining book on today's "real extremists," "Who's Afraid of the Religious Right?" and his "Pagan America," a Jewish conservative's analysis of U.S. cultural decline. Both are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store!© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the destruction of the World Trade Center "a wake-up call from Hell." Not for liberals, who continue to sleepwalk through history.
National security still takes a backseat to a civil-liberties obsession bordering on fetishism. Academia's sensitivity storm troopers are vigilant against "offensive" expressions of outrage over Sept. 11.
The College Republicans at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo have come under fire from the multiculturalist mujahedeen for their patriotic posters.
One shows Osama bin Laden on a flying carpet being chased by an F-16. Another has a five-day forecast for Afghanistan; the fifth day, illustrated with a mushroom cloud, is 4,500 degrees and sunny.
Administrator Patricia Harris e-mailed the group's president, Brent Vann, that she was "appalled" by the posters, which were not only "crude and ignorant" but, by "denigrating an entire people," quite possibly in violation of the school's speech code.
As Vann points out, this is a new low in political correctness "tolerance for terrorists." We wouldn't want Mullah Mohammed Omar not to feel good about himself. How dare these College Republicans malign the noble Afghans, who let a gang of Wahabi whack jobs turn their country into a terrorist superstore?
The Cal Poly mentality was very much in evidence at the Newton, Mass., North High School on Nov. 9. To help children understand the conflict, the school presented Marxist ideologue Howard Zinn. At a mandatory assembly, Ho Chi Zinn told students our bombing of Taliban forces "put us on the same level" as the World Trade Center killers.
Equating American self-defense with mass murder by Third World thugs was typical Zinn. The former Boston University professor has been an intellectual fifth columnist since the Vietnam War. Nor is it surprising that the liberal faculty at Newton North would think this inveterate anti-American was just the fellow to explain World War III to kids as young as 13.
The foregoing is froth on the sea of liberal inanity. To plumb its depths, consider objections to military tribunals to try terrorists.
The American Civil Liberties Union finds the prospect "deeply disturbing" and claims such courts would contravene values "central to our democracy."
Wouldn't it be tragic if bin Laden or one of his henchmen weren't able to invoke the exclusionary rule? (Were they properly Mirandized by the special forces that collared them?)
The ACLU and its allies on the bench have spent decades constructing arcane courtroom rituals by which innocence or guilt is less important than how the game is played. Not to let some slick lawyer get the architects of the Manhattan massacre off on a technicality would threaten the very foundations of constitutional liberty, they complain.
Self-styled civil libertarians can't comprehend that plotting biological warfare and crashing planes into 110-story buildings around 9 a.m. on a weekday aren't ordinary crimes.
That trying suspected terrorists in open court would compromise intelligence sources and turn the proceedings into a media circus doesn't concern them. To their thinking, justice for thousands of Americans who lie buried under rubble and girders, as well as the security of millions of others, is secondary to protecting the procedural rights of alien killers.
When not combating anti-terrorist hate speech, liberals agonize over the post-World Trade Center detention of 1,100 suspects from nations with terrorist ties. "Racial profiling," the fetishists fuss, because those detained are all from the Middle East. (I actually heard a television commentator compare it to placing Japanese-Americans in detention camps during World War II.)
Never mind that the Sept. 11 hijackers were all from the Islamic world. It's so unfair to concentrate on jihadland nationals, instead of arresting random Scandinavians and Fiji Islanders to achieve a comforting diversity.
In a column shortly after Sept. 11, I called liberalism America's homegrown suicide cult and the real threat to our nation's survival. Osama bin Laden isn't the only one who deserves to be hiding in a cave, cowering every time he hears a jet overhead.
Related offers:
Read a Jewish conservative's analysis of U.S. cultural decline; get Feder's "Pagan America"
"Who's Afraid of the Religious Right?" Don Feder answers this question in his entertaining book on today's "real extremists."
Both books are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store!
And how could we have known this training would be used against us? I can't see how "their" behavior or choice to accommodate bin Laden and Al Qaeda is the fault of Americans just because we helped them resist the Russians?
What the ACLU hasn't figured out is that OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS do not belong to foreigners - especially those who kill, maim, rape, and pillage as a way of life.
Of course. That's why I look with a critical eye on the policies of the US government. Americans are responsible for the domestic bloat and foreign misadventures of the federal government. Ultimately, we pay for the actions of government.
We'll never know. However, the Northern Alliance is allied with the Russians. So, in a sense, current US policy is the reverse of the earlier US policy. It's not the first time the US government has done a flip-flop when its actions backfired.
And how could we have known this training would be used against us? I can't see how "their" behavior or choice to accommodate bin Laden and Al Qaeda is the fault of Americans just because we helped them resist the Russians?
I don't excuse the Taliban for their misdeeds. However, the Afghans are not primarily responsible for them. The mujahideen, and subsequent Taliban rulers, were imposed on Afghans by foreign powers. As we've seen, the hard core of the Taliban are foreigners, not Afghans.
The only thing "deeply disturbing" is the ACLUBUMP!
Actually, they can't. It takes conservatives to point these things out to them...;-)
What an absolutely great comment or comeback for those who support and defend the terrorists!
ROFL...thanks fer the heads-up, JH2, I love Don Feder's work; although I disagree with his down-grading of "...a civil-liberties obsession bordering on fetishism." Personally, I do not believe that retention of our Civil Liberties and National Security are mutually-exclusive goals.
FReegards...MUD
Exactly...Osama bin Clinton and his Brain-Dead Lib'ral Sycophants and Defenders on the Left are every bit as dangerous to the long-term vitality of America as the Taliban itself...no, more, much more!!
RE-IMPEACH. CONVICT. DETHRONE.
DISBAR. DE-PENSION. DE-LEGITIMIZE.
INDICT. CONVICT. IMPRISON. DISCARD KEY.
Quite Sincerely...MUD
Truer words were never written! These people and their totalitarian ideas are our real danger. If we don't prevail over them, it will make no difference if we prevail over the terrorists.
Bump for the VP, cardinal4! He's a good man!
I should email this one to Administrator Patricia Harris, hehehe.
Sigh.
Chomsky would be proud. You're using the exact same thought process to come to your absurd criticism of US foreign policy: acting like the US was the only player on the world stage and did not react to outside stimuli in formulating it's actions.
Here's a quick refresher: during the early 80's, the US and its allies were locked in a vicious cold war with a determined and agressive ideological and military opponent. Failure was NOT an option, as the victory of the USSR would have sentenced the world to communist darkness.
One of the theaters of conflict was Afghanistan, which the USSR had invaded in 1979. The fear was that this was a precursor to other incursions, all with a design on a warm water port for the Soviet Navy. To resist this agression, the US armed and supported a nativist resistance. They succeeded in tying up the Soviet Army for the better part of decade and forcing their eventual withdrawal. Far from being a "failure", US policy in the early and mid-80's was a complete success, when assessed in light of geo-political realities at the time extant.
Today, some of those warriors are a part of the Northern Alliance. Some may be in the Taliban. But my suspicion is that most are anti-taliban, since the Taliban is Pakistani in its origin, and it's principal intellectual support is still from Pakistan, while it gets most of it's financial and military backing from outside Afghanistan.
And, since the Taliban is largely a religious fundamentalist movement, I fail to see how the US is responsible for it's creation. It's only with the addition of al Quaeda, and it's murderous irrationality, that the US has been forced to confront the evil of the repressive Taliban.
In sum, this shit about the US being responsible for the Taliban because of our support of the 80's mujahedin against the USSR is just a pantload.
BTW, some of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist skills were acquired courtesy of the CIA. He was one of those mujahideen fighters.
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.