Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Muslims’

No, not all Muslims are terrorists.  And not all Muslims in the US are terrorists.  Clearly, very very few are.  But we don’t know which are which, and the non-terrorists have a bad habit of relativizing, sympathizing with, providing aid and comfort to, and otherwise showing more concern for themselves and their tribe than the broader community.

Equally important, the non-terrorist side of the ledger adds very little to our common and collective life.  We could do without any more such immigrants, and we should work to encourage self-deportation among those already here who are not firmly rooted.

Don’t expect to hear this from the Marco Rubio wing of the Republican Party any time soon.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Some Marines in Afghanistan pissed on a dead Taliban.  And the Marines’ leadership is pissed off about it.  As they say, it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on.

These kinds of things are clearly not good, but they are also somewhat predictable.  Let’s not get carried away in our condemnations.  Americans, like our enemies, have done things like this before.  Eugene Sledge recalled with some horror how Americans pulled gold teeth from dead Japanese on Pelelieu.  American “ear necklaces” and trophy photos were not unheard of in Vietnam.  The pissing incident  is pretty mild and spontaneous in the historical scale of mutilating the dead.

The tone of the leadership is lacking all proportion. General Amos said the wrongdoers would be prosecuted to the “fullest extent.”  Defense Secretary Panetta described their actions as “deplorable.”  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she saw the video with “total dismay.” The corrupt Hamid Karzai uttered some words of condemnation.  And, as usual, we’re told this incident will inflame Muslim feelings.

Moral judgments must be intelligent, nuanced.  Even when there is an objective moral wrong–a violation of the law of war and a violation of Christian principles about respect for the dead–in every case there is also the question of culpability.  Here that question hinges on the mitigating effects of an extreme situation:  namely, a war against a brutal and uncivilized enemy that has no regard for the laws of war.

These Marines had likely just completed a fight for their lives.  They are young men whom we want to be aggressive and who spend the better part of boot camp being trained to kill enthusiastically.  It is quite a bit to expect these 19 year old, testosterone-fueled, scared, tired, stressed out, and angry young men also to behave exquisitely when they complete a firefight and discover, to their elation, that it is the enemy Taliban who are dead rather than themselves.

Plus, let’s not forget there are many worse war crimes, like mistreatment of civilians, looting, killing prisoners, mutiny, and other atrocities, atrocities with living victims.  To me this pissing incident is worrisome less for the harm of the underlying offense than its suggestion of a breakdown in discipline.  We do not want an undisciplined force for our own selfish reasons.   But even so, we recognize–or at least we should recognize–that military discipline is working against ordinary human instincts in wartime, such as aggression, thankfulness to be alive, hatred of the enemy, and contempt for this terrorist enemy in particular.  Our concerns for discipline must be realistic.

In other words, as in the civilian world, the law should take into account extreme emotional states and provocation in determining punishment and meting out justice. Obviously certain crimes go beyond mere misplaced aggression and suggest a psychopath; such individuals clearly must be identified and punished. This is not such a crime.  This is one of ordinary men committing ordinary human offenses under conditions of extraordinary stress and privation.  From our military and political leadership, some balance is called for.

The leadership outrage is not only excessive, but such occasional pirouettes of outrage are highly selective.  Is there equal outrage for the fact that this unlawful enemy tries every day to kill our troops and their own countrymen who may support us?  Will we condemn the widespread fraternization, adultery, and screwing around that occurs as a result of putting women in a combat zone? Or how about the crimes that thuggish guys in uniform sometimes commit at home, like the rape murder of a Marine couple that occurred in San Diego?   Will our leaders condemn with equal fervor the lawless attack on our airpower by Pakistani border guards?  (No, it is we who apologized to them.) Finally, will we note the relative scale of war crimes here, as it is the Taliban that ran a totalitarian state worthy of the Khemer Rouge before our arrival and who today sexually mutilate women who will not go along with their Satanic program?

I must say, I’m especially tired of hearing about how this will affect the enemy and his feelings.   Muslim feelings are already inflamed against America, let’s not forget.  Before Abu Ghraib and the death of bin Laden and the Koran burning pastor, we had the 9/11 attacks.  Before, during, and after this incident, Muslims have tried abroad and at home to kill our countrymen.  They likely will do so as long as we try to transform their backwards societies, and they will probably still hate us from afar even when this task is abandoned, because we are wealthy and powerful and, most importantly, because we are not Muslim.

As I said above, this kind of crime suggests a breakdown in discipline.  It needs to be punished for that reason, but that punishment should fit the crime.    It certainly does not deserve any jail time, the stupid video notwithstanding.

One might think that the video has necessitated extreme punishment because of diplomatic considerations.  I think that is only part of it.  There is a domestic agenda that these men and their unbridled warrior aggression threatens.   The video suggests their confusion, their youth, and their immaturity in more ways than one.  The men involved are especially unwise to forget the politically correct military whom they serve, a military whose leaders did cartwheels to defend diversity after Major Nidal Hassan killed 13 fellow soldiers, a military that has fallen over itself to integrate gays, and a military that has declared its traditional core of white males obsolete  in order to pursue the sacred goal of diversity, a military that is impossibly trying to “win hearts and minds” while deliberately ignoring the impact of totalitarian Islam.  I find these things 100 times more offensive than whatever a bunchy of lance corporals did to some Taliban corpse.

Read Full Post »

Military tribunals make perfect sense for members of al Qaeda.  These individuals are non-citizens, their prosecution often depends on sensitive intelligence, and their presence in American courtrooms would be disruptive and a security risk.  In war, military tribunals have been used from the Revolutionary War forward, and their streamlined procedures, ability to hold proceedings in secret, and capacity for swift justice recommend them over civilian procedures designed for ordinary crimes.  Of course, the  years-long delays in trials for Guantanamo Bay prisoners and the failure, since 9/11, to execute huge numbers of al Qaeda members in our custody suggests the “swiftness” part is not taken seriously enough by the executive branch.  By contrast, in World War II, Germans using American uniforms to infiltrate allied lines and disrupt American units during the Battle of the Bulge were summarily executed.  But, even so, these tribunals are preferable to the alternative, even if their potential efficiency has not bee employed to great effect.

So it is with a mixture of happiness and schadenfreude that I learn the Obama adminsitration is going to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a military tribunal down in Guantanmo Bay.  Recall that Obama and many of his supporters preened self-righteously about the demerits of preventitive detention, the need to accord al Qaeda detainees full POW status, the evils of military tribunals, the inhumanity of drone attacks and much else during the 2008 campaign and before.  That is, the left didn’t only rail against the War in Iraq, where they had a point.  They also railed against every aspect of the war against al Qaeda. 

On both fronts–preventitive war and the use of cedures for terrorists–Obama is in retreat.  He is realizing that most Americans don’t really give a fig about terrorists, they want them killed or captured, and simply have the minimal humane concern that innocent goatherders be returned to their families if they can be reliably identifiied.  We all know, and Obama and his buddies forgot, that the burdens of proof are shifted in wartime and that we must err on the side of safety, particularly as we face a foreign, ruthless, and uncivilized enemy that deliberately hides among civilians.  It is not America’s fault that the innocent Afghanis and al Qaeda terrorists appear similar; it’s al Qaeda’s, with their ragamuffin appearance and terrorist tactics. 

I’d like to think this decision is a sign of Obama growing in office, but it appears more like simple triangulation.  Just as he dropped his lifelong obsession with gun control once he became president and realized it was political dynamite, it’s obvious that his views on foreign policy and the law of war were mostly campaign props, instincts developed from years in liberal Hyde Park, rather than well thought out positions.  Here he has been temporarily burdened by the incompetent Eric Holder’s “true believer” implemntation of these principles, but Obama’s political instincts are not so terrible than a guaranteed loser–such as a face off with 9/11 Families in NYC–is going to be pursued to the bitter end. Even on his signature issue, race and American identity, he left his pastor of 20 years when it became a problem. 

We are reminded from all this and much else that Obama is not a man of high principle; his chief principle is his love of self and his interest in political survival.  And thus all that “hope and change” rhetoric is now quite obviously a bunch of gliterring genrealities uttered by a thoroughly ordinary politician.

Read Full Post »

Spontaneous Muslim Violence

It turns out the attacker (Arid Uka) of our troops transiting through Germany was a Albanian Muslim from Kosovo.   Apparently the West’s concerted attack on Christian Serbia in 1999 on behalf of the terrorist KLA earned us few rewards among the worldwide Muslim community.  The 9/11 attacks, this attack, and countless other spontaneous attacks by Muslims ranging from Maj. Nidal Hasan (spree killer at Fort Hood) and Sgt Akbar (turncoat fragger in Kuwait) to Abdulhakim Muhammad (Arkansas military recruiters) and John Muhammad (DC Sniper) continue apace, one every few months it seems,  all spawned by the spontaneous and deeply rooted notion of obligatory violence known as “jihad.”

As in other patterns that defy liberal expectations, expect this attack too soon to go down the memory hole, dismissed as a lone whackjob or as the “act of a tiny minority” defying the peaceful essence of Islam.  Muslim attacks are becoming about as humdrum and common as black on white crime in the legacy media.  And our political and cultural leaders, particularly on the so-called right wing, are doing very little to correct the dominant narrative on either score. For a “religion of peace” an awful lot of Muslims (a) commit violence (b) in the name of their religion (c) to the applause of their less courageous coreligionists (d) with ample textual, scholarly, and popular justification of their violent acts as legitimate expressions of Islam.  This is bad, of course, but it’s also a reality we can address, by cordoning off most of the Muslim world, preventing immigrants into our lands, and dealing with them, at most, in an arms length way to acquire useful natural resources like oil.  Otherwise, let them stew in their backward juices and keep to themselves.

While Obama and Bush both claimed to be at war with terrorism, we are more at war with reality itself.  By way of analogy, it’s as if we were fighting World War II and declaring the Nazi Party–which ruled Germany, controlled its industry and military apparatus, and enthralled a great majority of its people–as a tiny clique that was not expressing the freedom-loving and peaceful desires of the real Germany.   Further, it’s as if the deliberate and highly ideological mass killings of Slavs and Jews and Communists by the Nazis in the name of Nazism were treated as an aberration, to which any deep inquiry into Nazi ideology would yield little insight.

Our media and politicians are a complete  joke, and the joke is costing lives on a daily basis.  It cost lives on 9/11.  It costs lives every time a Muslim in the West goes on a killing spree.  And it costs lives as we impossibly try to shove western freedoms and democracy down the throats of proud, backwards, and violent Muslim tribesman in Afghanistan and Iraq.   Precisely because Islam is inherently violent, prickly, proud, and xenophobic, we do ourselves no favors by showing up in their lands with an expeditionary force promising “freedom,” which, in reality and correct Muslim perception means the export of western values, attitudes, and practices which are anathema to Muslims.

We must deal with reality as it is, and an honest inquiry into reality makes it plain that Muslim extremists are not that rare, their supporters even less rare still, and a cursory review of the Koran and Islamic history find ample justification for the use of violence against “infidels.”  After all, this was once widely known as the “Religion of the Sword,” before George W’s indifferentist and self-deceptive description of Islam as the “Religion of Peace.”  As bad as this is, at least he didn’t talk about Islam being “revealed” on the Arabian peninsula, as Obama heretically did in his famous Cairo speech.

Bush pretended to fight Islamic terrorists but, in the process, concealed the reality of Islam out of his big tent and moronic belief that everyone everywhere wanted to live like Americans and be governed like America.  Obama, by contrast, hates America, doesn’t think anyone truly wants to be like us (nor that they ought to), and revels in using his office as American president to subvert symbolically American values and prestige by engaging in ritual obeisance to Islam and the Third World generally . . . hence Islam was “revealed.”

And today, as a result of the confusion of so many western leaders, media figures, and ordinary citizens, more Americans have died as martyrs to the Western commitment to open borders, diversity, indifference to religion, and other suicidally liberal ideas.  A war on terrorism, this is not, because the terrorism we fight is a tactic in a broader campaign to Islamicize the world and the west.  Once that is understood, the far less costly and necessary changes to our immigration laws, hairbrained democratization efforts, and other policies become self-evident.

Read Full Post »

Something did not sit right with me when General Petraeus weighed in on the controversy just down the road (in Gainesville) regarding the well publicized Koran burning.  For what it’s worth, I do not like such gestures; I find them atavistic, and I recognize that religion is indeed a sacred thing to those who believe.  For every Muslim who is out there seething and hurling bricks, many more are simply respectful of the religion of their forefathers, scared of western influence in their lands, and are getting from this event the wrong impression of Americans, who have no natural disrespect of other people’s religious practices.

There is no reason for either our government or ordinary Americans to sow conflict with Islam, and the best solution, as I’ve said before, is deliberate separation both at home and in foreign policy with a long run and realistic goal of containment.  This too would be offensive to some, but it’s better than the perpetual conflict we have now as we intermingle both at home and abroad in the name of liberal ideas of universalism.

All the same, it is a storied and treasured right of Americans to express themselves, ridiculously if they choose, and it is quite predictable, quaint even, that an old school fire and brimstone preacher would act in this way. It’s a very American eccentricity at work here.  And it has served an important purpose in showing that Islam, far from being a religion of peace, is filled with people that may, at a moment’s notice, become violent.  Further, it has shown the hypocricy and cowardice of the American politically correct establishment.

General Petraeus has suggested that this Koran burning hurts the war effort.  Isn’t that interesting?  What other things that Americans take for granted hurt the war effort?  Wouldn’t the recent push for same sex marriage or five minutes of MTV or women wearing bikinis at the beach also offend Muslim sensibilities?  Didn’t our protection of the Saudis from Saddam offend Muslim sensibilities, simply by allowing Americans to set foot in an Islamic land?  Doesn’t our presence now in Iraq and Afghanistan deeply offend Muslims, not to mention the numerous civilians killed accidentally (but inevitably) by airstrikes and drones and scared shitless 19 year old American soldiers.  Indeed, much of our country and its practices, some good and some not so good, are deeply offensive to any traditionally religious person.   Nonetheless, none of these things have typically been up for debate as part of a “hearts and minds” campaign halfway around the world.  Recall the Danish cartoons, which were eminently defensible, also caused similar mass Muslim rioting.  While uneasy with Koran burning, I see that there is something valuable in Terry Jones’ provocation simply for revealing so many people’s true colors, and this was, in fact, one of his stated reasons for this event.

As for the General, there is something altogether gratuitous about Petraeus’ words.  He undboutedly knew they’d be looked on kindly by Obama, in a way that a condemnation of equally problematic pacifist protests would not.  Where was General Petraeus when the Abu Ghraib photos were plastered all over Time Magazine and anti-war protests?  And what of the demoralizing “Bush Lied, People Died” canard?  Petraeus is hardly taking a courageous or conistent stand here; he is simply saying what he thinks the boss wants to hear.  And it is a problem when the military pursues its own (or the President’s) anti-democratic agenda in a free society; the military is supposed to be the instrument of the elected, political branches of government, and those branches (and the people to whom they are accountable) have varied opinions and views on what Islam means, how it should be addressed, and how that view should be expressed by private citizens. And, lest I remind the general, he took an oath to the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment.

A just war preserves a people and a way of life.  I have not forgotten that Petraeus, ever the politician, let the cat out of the bag sometime ago when asked by Senator John Warner (R-VA) if the war made the US safe, responding “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”  Indeed.  The current war now has a logic all its own, nearly completely separate from domestic security, which can be easily vouchsafed by capping Islamic immigration and pressuring those here to Americanize or go home.  The idea that to win a war American citizens must be cajoled by uniformed military men to show respect to an alien religion shows the ultimate impossibility of the current nation-building strategy, which aims impossibly and unprecedentedly to reconcile western institutions with an ancient, anti-western religion.   This war, animated by ideological principals of universalist liberalism and multiculturalism, threatens as it drags on to degrade the society it ostensibly is being waged to protect.

Read Full Post »

One notable aspect of the defense of the Ground Zero Mosque is the claim that defending the rights of these Muslims it is part and parcel of living in accord with our traditions of property rights, free speech, and religious freedom.  But this is, frankly, the theory of America.  Yes, these are important and hoary legal rights.  But they were instituted by our Founders and still valued for practical reasons:  we value our own right to worship, we do not want our neighbors policing our worship, we do not want to contribute to the worship of others, with which we may disagree, and we do not want the kinds of violent contests over religion that have characterized much of European history.  In our past, and even now, there were practical limits on the range of expression of speech or religious freedom owing to our common heritage.  Likewise, and with similar practicality, we value democratic institutions because we believe it limits government excess, allows our interests to be filtered through the political process, and prevents the concentration of power in a king or oligarchy.  But, we also knew until recently among whom we were living, voting, and choosing representatives and presidents.  These were not third world rabble on the whole.  We were not going to face violent reactions in either politics or religion if the outcome–conversion or a lost election–were not a desired one.  Once again, experience rendered the theory a practical and beneficient one.

But for liberals–whether neoconservative or “out of the closet” left-liberals–the procedures are often valued without regard for their practical outcome.  And among left liberals in particular, negative practical outcomes are embraced in the name of theories because these outcomes undermine traditional power structures, habits, and people.  Such rhetorical appeals use our honor and contempt for hypocricy as the very means by which our collective happiness will be undermined.  Thus, free speech for Muslims is championed while draconian prosecutions for “hate speech” among our peers in Europe and Canada are greeted with indifference.  Democracy that yields a ban on gay marriage is struck down by the courts, even as it is championed in Iraq to accomplish Sharia or in South Africa to expropriate property from farmers.

If I may paraphrase something I wrote earlier on Bush’s policies on Iraq:  he acted on the assumption that we’re winning in Iraq by turning Iraq into a democracy, but he was mistaken insofar as he believeed “democracy” is a substantive policy outcome and not an interim procedure that could lead to any number of substantive results both for us and the Iraqis.

Procedural schemes in government are justified to the extent they lead to some long-run practical benefit. Procedures and rights are inventions to achieve practical and final ends like safety, commerce, and order. In both foreign and domestic policies, there should be no purely idealistic procedures, if they would likely lead to some abhorrent practical outcome, such as a society’s destruction.

With Bush and his inner circle, the supporters of a deontological and idealistic foreign policy deluded themselves into thinking that they’re the good ones and that their opponents simply lack sufficient commitment to the cause, instead of recognizing that they’re thoroughly ideological in outlook and merely hoping that a positive outcome will result from the unknown nature of Iraqi public opinion as expressed through elections. This was dangerous and irresponsible, considering the stakes.

Similarly, blind supporters of free speech and religious freedom for Muslims in America do not recognize that the lack of commitment to free speech and religious freedom among this subgroup renders that expansion of freedom short-sighted, unwise, and self-destructive in the long-run, or, at the very least, carries some countervailing risks.  What good is “religious freedom” that results in subordination to Sharia in the name of a suicidal consistency and unwillingness to look beyond theory to practice and outcomes?

As Burke stated in reference to another self-destructive experiment in consistency, “Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it, and exist in much greater clearness and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection; but their abstract perfection is their practical defect. By having a right to everything they want everything. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom.”  Indeed.  While rights and legalities are of high importance, they are not of supreme importance.  They are means to an end, and if they clearly do not serve that end because of some changed circumstance, they must be modified, amended, or in some other way adjusted to deal with reality.

Read Full Post »

Almost every society has a ghetto of some sort: a typically urban area of high crime, high poverty, and alienation. In France, atypically, these areas obtain an official status. While all nations have poverty and crime, the expansion of these “no go” ghettos within Paris and other cities points to the rapid Arabization and Islamification of a nation that is losing its way–indeed, this in a nation whose gallantry once inspired all of Europe during the Crusades.

Rick Darby reports:

Bordeaux. Aix-en-Provence. Arles. Nice. Paris, City of Light and all that. How they capture the imagination. History, architecture, wonderful food and wine, civilization and its refinements.

Only, they and more than 700 other cities and towns in France include what are called Zones Urbaines Sensibles (ZUS). No, not “sensible urban areas.” Sensible translates more accurately as “sensitive.” That is, n0-go areas for police and non-North African, non-West African, or non-Muslim French people.

Read Full Post »