Mark Steyn: The last youth standing -

Western Standard - Canada ^ | November 20, 2006 | Mark Steyn

[Lurker]

"I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers." Sec. of State Rice

And that is why Dr. Rice will fail.

L

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Yes, they do. You aren't the only "smart" one in the world.

[dsc]

"I've had this 'right to my opinions' discussion with more than one person. As I said, they have a right to an opinion but they don't have a right to their own facts."

I'm really tired right now, and the argument is still in development, so this is going to be cursory.

I don't agree that people have a right to an incorrect opinion. We -- and God -- accord people the freedom to be wrong, but there can be no right to be wrong.

That is an important distinction, because in saying that people have a right to an opinion, we accord opinions legitimacy just by virtue of the fact that they are someone's opinion, even if they are grossly mistaken, or even evil.

It is much better to say that people are free to be wrong.

As for the rest of your post, can't disagree. Wish I could, but I can't.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

That's quite a word bomb you dropped. I would love to hear all your explanations of why you believe that. Could it come from your indepth studies or do you find it easier just to parrot what you read?

[Lurker]

For further proof, check out the thread I just pinged you to.

Those idiots at State are going to be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people before this is over.

L

[Lurker]

Sicily was once ruled by the Arabs

Wrong. Sicily was once ruled by the Moors. The Moors were African, not Arab.

L

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

I would call it self-delusion. The State Department (at least the Near East Department) is a collection of Arabists who believe that through the last two centuries, the Arabs are the wronged party and must be compensated for the great injustice done to it by Western imperialism (for them that still continues) and colonialization (for them that still continues). The "blacklash" (diplomatic speak for the current war on terror) has its origins and roots in our policies.

Rice is a Russian specialist and not a Middle East specialists. So, she gets her briefings and her understandings from the Arabists, who can produce long, long scholarship (some good but the most garbage) that shore up their contentions.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

No, let's not give him/her a break. That post of his/her had all the depth and subtlety of a bumper sticker. Let's encourage him to use his/her great intelligence to delve into the situation and come to understand the conflict past sound bites, political commentaries, and one liners.

Let's not let him/her post that the administration is "completely and utterly incompetent" without back up.

Where as I do not agree with this Administration's Israeli policy (check out my home page to find out why), this administration has done more to fight, combat, and win over Islam than all other administrations put together. That is hardly "complete and utter incompetence".

Furthermore, the President gave Israel all the international cover it needed to destroy Hizbollah it could have wanted, but Israel lacked the will to kill its soldiers in order to destroy its enemy.

Now, I am all up for a debate on how to fight the war. Whether a limited war with huge political safeguards is the correct way to go about it. Or should we unleash total war and just get it done. The debate should be made.

But, total war means all Muslims are our enemies. It means that all Muslims are "jihadists" and all Muslims want our deaths. That is simply not true. And it is the use of the one broad paint brush in international affairs that I strenuously object to. Teenaged Conservative used it. Let's not let such sloppy thinking be encouraged.

[TAdams8591]

Marking.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

If it were true that leaders have not learned anything since 9/11, we would not be engaged in the war on terror (that we are winning) and the enemy would not be dead by the thousands with their safe havens destroyed, their money networks disrupted, and their leaders dead or captured.

We would have run away from the fight (like Reagan in Lebanon), we would have coerced our ally (Israel) into feeling like she had no choice but to make her own peace with the Palestinians (Oslo Accords), or we would have changed the whole truth of Islam terrorism from state sponsored terrorism to a nameless-faceless shadowy group that we can only prosecute when we have enough evidence (Clinton).

This administration has not done that. Since 9/11, they have been on the offensive.

[wildcatf4f3]

I believe that I will see the destruction of the USA in my lifetime and I'm in my late 40s.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

There are times that I fear for the republic as well. Mark Steyn said that a civilization that believes it is not worth defending is dead already. I have the opportunity to mix with young graduate students every day and they absolutely feel that this great nation is the reason for all the ills of the earth (and are backed up by the academia they are so enthralled with). And when I hear that, I think...this great nation will be gone before I am reach old age.

[monday]

"Yes, they do. You aren't the only "smart" one in the world."

I see no evidence of that. There really aren't enough that understand to make a difference.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

"There really aren't enough that understand to make a difference."

Where aren't there enough that understand to make a difference.

I'm sorry, but your post is rather unclear.

[monday]

original post: "It doesn't seem to me that very many people have even a glimmer of awareness of the threat that Islam itself represents to civilization."

you said: "yes they do". Which is a somewhat odd reply in my opinion.

I said: "not enough to make a difference".

The where would be anywhere.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Well, I wouldn't want to bore you with anymore of my odd answers, so thanks for posting to me. Have a nice day.

[chasio649]

Condi '08 !!



Haven't seen those folks for a while... ;)

[Maynerd]

You speak vaguely and therefore without clarity. The choice is not pc war vs total war on all Muslims. The choices are much more varied. You failed to address any of my specific criticism regarding Bush's conduct. I like Bush but let's not deify the guy.

this administration has done more to fight, combat, and win over Islam than all other administrations put together

True but silly. Of course he has. 9/11 occured during his administration. FDR did more to fight facism than all prior administrtions. So what.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Wow...I'm vague, not clear, silly, and deifying the President.

Nothing in your response that would interest me in carrying the conversation any further.

Feel free to ignore my posts in the future.

[dsc]

"But, total war means all Muslims are our enemies. It means that all Muslims are "jihadists" and all Muslims want our deaths."

Aha! Thank you very much. That is the error I've been trying to identify.

No, there is no requirement to believe those things. One must only understand that Islam, by its very nature, will periodically spawn Jihadists...that, in fact, Islam was designed to do just that.

Certainly there will be a number of innocuous Muslims at any given time, but as long as Islam is allowed to exist, the world will always be faced with the prospect of Jihad.

Islam itself is the enemy, regardless of the numbers of innocuous Muslims.