9/11 of Anno Domini 2012, I mean, when the nation submitted to Dar-al-Islam, the House of Submission, reacting to riots burning our consulates and killing our ambassador not with a Declaration of War (as would be the logical and just and minimally prudent retaliation for such a naked act of war) but instead with the sacrifice of a scapegoat and an apology for our freedom of speech.
America is ended when a full score of stormtroopers (I will not call them police officers) at midnight show up at a free man’s house to punish him for a use or misuse of the First Amendment; and the entire Executive Branch, from the President to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, humiliate and crush the offender, and offer his name and address to the vigilantes of the Dar-al-Islam.
Some imperium may continue for a time occupying the same terrain, and calling itself the United States of America for years and decades to come, but, in truth, the thing is dead when the spirit is dead.
I pass along these opinions to you as an expression, if understated, of my own.
For those of you unable to see this video, allow me to quote the closing lines:
But I would actually like to have a quick word directly with Barry Soetoro, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. In that document, Barry, you will find an addendum called the Bill of Rights; and on that Bill of Rights, you’ll find, right at the top, the foundational idea of this country, the document, and the people that you swore to defend.
You handed that most precious gift in the history of the world, the right to think and speak without fear, a right that has been defended and paid for by rivers of blood, to our mortal enemies, in exchange for enough peace to get your self reelected, so that you can lie under than same oath again.
I pray to God that there is a law of heaven, higher and nobler and sterner than the laws that you trample down here on Earth, because the willful violation of so sacred a trust over the graves of so many patriots and ripped from the hearts of a great and decent people who championed that freedom around the world deserves a punishment far richer than the one you are going to receive this November when those self same people have closed the curtain behind them and finally unleashed their righteous rage on what is without question the most dihonorable, treasonous, self-aggrandizing, evil bastard the office of the President of the United States has ever seen.
To which I can only add that Mr Whittle is too mild and generous in his assessment. I salute him for the courtesy he has done the Tyrant, but believe it to be overly charitable.
Is another war really what America needs right now?
Your words are foolish and cowardly.
Cowardly, because suing for peace is a false-to-facts emotional response when a foreign power has violated your natural sovereignty, insulted your flag, sodomized and killed your ambassador. It is an act of war. War exists as of that moment: the only part of the republic is to recognize and fight it, or accept public dishonor.
Foolish, because it is all the same war. We have been fighting this war since 9/11, since Kobar Towers, since the Cole Bombing, since the fall of Constantinople, since the battle of Manzikert.
By trying to avoid the war and wish it into non-being, you have made it worse.
I mean you, personally. You are jointly and severally liable for acts carried out in furtherance of your craven and foolish philosophy.
It’s not a philosophy, craven or otherwise; nothing that abstract. It’s a desire not to have my husband (and my friend’s husbands) get sent off for the fourth time to a country that we are better off washing our hands of. Leave the country, cut off government aid/interference. It’s not worth a single life.
And since you’ve decided to shift this to a personal level – how many times have you deployed, John? Do you have any sons or daughters in the military? If so, how do they feel about your opinions?
Dear Mr. Wright:
I fully agree with, and share your anger and disgust at the cringing groveling of Barry Obama and his flunkies when the US was again attacked by Mohammedan savages. MY reaction, at a minimum, would have been to missile Libya and immediately cut off all aid, grants, and funds to Egypt. Barry’s weakness and appeasing will merely encourage more and worse attacks by jihadists.
We rightly condemn Neville Chamberlain for his appeasing of Hitler in the 1930s. But Chamberlain, in the end, was big enough to rise above his failures to accept war with Nazi Germany rather than cringe yet again when Germany invaded Poland. I believe Chamberlain a far better man than Barry!
We need to be inspired by heroes like Leo III the Isaurian, Charles Martel, Dmitry of the Don, Don John of Austria, and King John Sobieski of Poland to resist, combat and drive back Mohammedanism!
Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks
Mr. Brooks
I haven’t followed this story as closely as perhaps I should but my understanding is that the Libyan government (such as it is) did not condone or encourage the rioters and has been active in arresting people who are suspected of participating in the attack. Maybe we could give a government that just came into being after decades of a brutal dictatorship a few weeks to determine if they are bad actors before we “missile” them. Gaddafi spent his dictatorship actively tribalizing Libya and destroying any centers of authority other than his own so I suspect that it will be a long and involved process to craft anything like a stable civil society and I would not be terribly surprised to see Libya Balkanize for the short term civil gains that it would incur — at the expense of a likely less stable future. Which, similarly, is why the US has been so adamant in trying to keep Iraq as a single country rather than allowing it to naturally fragment into three-or-so countries.
Hi, Darrell:
I’m sorry, but I disagree. A forceful reaction to the attacks on our embassy in Libya would still have been the right reaction. The jihadists are using precisely that same weakness of the post Qaddaffi regime to hide in plain sight. And murdering one’s ambassador and dragging his body thru the streets remains acts of war. By doing, in essence, nothing, Barry gave the jihadists a victory.
I would not advocate a wanton hail of destruction. I had more in mind Barry immediately ordering the missiling of two official or military sites in Libya. That, along with the immediate cutting off of all aid to Egypt would have made the point that attacking a ONCE Great Power carries COSTS.
Too late now. Barry’s fumbling feebleness has endangered all of us, both here and abroad.
Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks
Mr. Brooks
Your response frankly sounds like the response of a gangster. Much like having a friend murdered at a McDonald’s and then using it as justification to bomb McDonald’s HQ to send a message to your enemies that you aren’t weak.
Reports continue to flow out that terrorists had been planning an assassination of the ambassador for some time and may have used the protest as a cover for their attack. As an advocate for the Libyan people and someone that believed that the new Libyan government could be worked with I can’t imagine that Ambassador Stevens would have approved of assaulting the Libyan government as a misplaced sign of strength. I may have also misinterpreted the photos that I saw of Ambassador Stevens after his death but my understanding was not that he was being “dragged thru the streets” as an act of sadistic glee but that people were attempting to save a man that they thought was still alive.
At any rate, when we had the, for example, LA riots would a prudent response been to bomb the governor’s mansion or send a few missiles into LA police stations? Sometimes people act crazy and the proper response is not to attack sane people who may not have had any real connection to the crazy people. Yes, if we find that the Libyan government was involved in the ambassador’s death then that is tantamount to an act of war and it’s unimaginable that we wouldn’t have a military response but you’ve jumped so far ahead of the horse that you couldn’t possibly see the horse any longer. Instead you sound not that distant from the protestors/rioters — just looking for a pretext.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ambassador-chris-stevens-killed-libya-consulate-attack-believed-al-qaeda-hit-list-article-1.1163574
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/16/BREAKING-Video-Purports-To-Show-Ambassador-In-Libya
Hi, Darrell:
Then no agreement between us is possible. I say we are at war with jihadist Mohamedanism, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood and its spinoffs, allies, and even rivals. I suggest you read Andrew McCarthy’s book THE GRAND JIHAD, to get a better idea of where I stand.
Sean M. Brooks
Mr. Brooks
If Ambassador Stevens is assassinated by a terrorist organization using a misguided act of civilian rioting/disobedience as cover and some local civilians (perhaps part of the civilian mob) then try to save the life of the ambassador and cheer when they think that he is still alive how does this at all equate with a targeted bombing of the Libyan government as a sane response?
Are you saying that all governments with a predominant Muslim make-up are enemies of the United States or just that we need to hit Libya hard to show them who is boss because the baddies are watching? Prime Minister Abushagur is a capitalist with a PhD who spent the majority of his life in the US and was on a Ghaddafi hit list. Is he really our enemy? Would it make sense to topple an already weak government (that is ostensibly friendly towards us) to make the point that we are militarily powerful?
You are right that on yet another topic we are unable to agree.
As a veteran I’m offended over Obama’s failure to defend our constitution, and apologizing for it instead.
Craven and foolish philosophy?
Didnt President Bush always maintain that USA is NOT fighting with Islam but only responding to an unprovoked agression upon her soil?
The linkage you make with ancient quarrels are NOT the official view of the USA and entirely your personal eccentic opinion and it is simply uncalled for you to abuse a person that points out this fact.
The US Govt has been meddling in the internal affairs of Libya and interacting with various miltant/Jihadist groups.
Here one militant group attacked US Embassy while another group protected Americans from the attack.
It is plain hysteria to extrapolate from this to a war against Islam and a call for a new crusade.
And it is plain myopia to assume that the Libyan incident is the only piece of evidence on the table. This is but one tiny drop in a giant bucket of evidence.
The evidence is so over-powering, so absolutely conclusive, that nothing short of stunning ignorance or outright evasion can justify such a view that Islam is not at war with the West. That the aim is the take-down of the West and the establishment of a global Caliphate.
Much like Fritz Thyssen, it will be apparent to most when it is too late, when the murderers are at your door, and in control. And then the war will be only a matter of the removal of your head from your body by a scimitar.
Either in their yard with our planes and bombs or in your living room. That is the ONLY issue on the table.
I have been calling for a new Crusade since 9/11.
What exactly do you mean by that, John?
I mean that it is absurd to label as “hysteria” the statement that an act of war should be answered by a declaration of war, particularly when the accusation is made against someone, like me, who has been advocating (for nigh unto a decade now) a crusade against the Muslim nations harboring terrorists.
By a crusade, I mean declaration by the Church to all Christian nations (if any such can be found these days, which I doubt) to make war against the Mohammedan, whose religion, or so history has proved, cannot be made compatible with Christendom, with Western Civilization, and certainly not with modern Western secular democracies.
I mean a Crusade. I mean Christians should take up arms against those powers who have attacked us and show no sign of relenting, hesitating, or slowing the attacks.
Of course, the Mohammedans would be no threat whatsoever where it not for the ‘useful idiots’ in the West who, with the fall of the Soviet Union, now seek to aid and abet the most vocal and obvious of foes of civilization. Against them no sword need be drawn: it will be enough to use the political process and an appeal to public opinion to obliterate their prestige.
Absent their aid, no crusade would be necessary.
If it horrifies you that I think it better for gentlemen to take up arms in defense of their Church and their civilization rather than see either destroyed by her foes, all I can reply is that I do not see why wars should be fought for any other reason, all of which are less noble and less prudent than existential war in the defense of all the things for which Western history stands.
More than anything, I guess I am curious what the victory condition of such a war would be.
I assure you, this is an honest inquiry. I myself am Catholic, and very like-minded to you in a number of ways (ahem – Catwoman). I dislike leaving such short questions, but I would hate to put words in your mouth.
Victory consists of the defeat of the enemy’s will to resist. In this particular case, victory would mean the funding sources of international Muslim terrorists movements would dry up, Islamic Republics be crippled beyond their capacity to make or threaten war, and the consensus of the Muslim community would repudiate the Jihad.
Victory in World War Two consisted of the denazification of Germany. If the Islamics can rid themselves of their Jihadists, that would be the victory in this war.
What makes this war different from all previous is that is against a decentralized and irregular foe, and the foe has a political program Westerners cannot or will not distinguish from its religious program. Here, the Muslims, not the Christians, will have to make the distinction between Mosque and State, because the armistice between the factions within Christendom which we call “Disestablishment” or the “First Amendment” or “Edicts of Toleration” was based on that distinction.
If that distinction is not made, that is to say, if, on other words, a totalitarian political program of promoting Sharia law globally and erecting theocracies locally is given aid, shelter, and comfort by the religious community, then the religion itself becomes the enemy, and has made itself the source of the threat.
I suggest we treat it as a war, and not as a matter for the police. I suggest we also rid ourselves of the notion that it is a war against a nation state. Like the laws of chivalrous combat, such notions only make sense when both parties to the combat abide by them and expect the other to do so.
So, to return the question to you: when Jefferson ordered military action against the Barbary Pirates, what were the victory conditions? We were not fighting a nation-state then, and the pirate bands did not fly the colors nor wear the uniforms of the petty princes of the North African coast who were funding them. That war ended centuries ago. What made it end?
I wish I were able to answer. Sadly, I know very little of history and nothing of the Barbary Wars.
Thank you for your replies, sir.
I was not asking you for a history lesson. I was pointing out that a well organized by decentralized threat to the United States shipping in the late Eighteenth Century was halted by military action (the “shores of Tripoly” mentioned in the Marine Corps anthem refer to landings made on Barbary terrain) even though the enemy was not in uniform and even though there was no prince nor parliament formally to surrender.
And yet those wars ended hundreds of years ago. Is my point too obscure? This nation, and all nations, are not merely allowed, they are required by their duty, to meet acts of war with war. The confusion that seems to come over all modern thinkers when confronted by decentralized enemy hiding its political totalitarianism under religious language paralyzes the modern thinker, and they seem to be unable to imagine anything useful that the military can do.
I don’t understand the paralysis, nor do I understand the confusion. If you are indeed grateful for my answers, perhaps you will return the courtesy and answer me in return: explain to me the indecision and the incredulity that greets me on the internet when I speak of defending ourselves against an avowed enemy bent on violence against the innocent and weak.
Replying here, for nesting reasons.
Speaking only for myself, you used a term that is not in common usage, so I asked for clarification. I was not seeking an argument.
On hearing your terms, I am in agreement with you.
In years past, I would not have been. I think the reason is that I did not understand the magnitude of the threat, nor the nature of the enemy. It seemed to me that 9/11 was a worst case scenario which, given reasonable vigilance, we could protect ourselves from. So as long as we were willing to be vigilant, the idea of a war on the jihadists made no more sense than a war on central park muggers. It was not in reasonable proportion to the threat.
Further, it seemed to me that a counter-jihad would be strategically infeasible. That is to say, the enemy seemed to amorphous to strike, and any attempt would result in unacceptable civilian damage. You have outlined what seems like a reasonable strategy, but I must admit I still have reservations about the collateral damage that would accompany it.
I fear there is little choice, especially with the spectre of a nuclear Iran looming ever nearer. God have mercy.
Let me put it to you this way: it has been the policy of both the Obama and the Bush administration to fight the violent Jihadists supporting Sharia law, such as Al Qaeda, while supporting, sometimes financially, sometimes with gestures and applause, the less violent Jihadists supporting Sharia law, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or the current Prime Minister of Turkey, Erdogan.
The rise of Shariaists (if I may coin the term) in Egypt and Turkey has been a disaster for Western policy. The West must treat Sharia law as it treated Communism during the Cold War, or as it treated Fascism during and after World War Two.
Now, to be sure, there are different brands and toxicities of Shariasm just as there are differences between Mussolini Fascism versus Hitler Fascism, or between Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, South American and Hollywood Screenwriter versions of Communism. But each member of the genus agrees on a core value. All Shariaists agree on the supremacy of Seventh Century theocratic law governing every aspect of human life, public and private. They may disagree on means to be used, and may disagree on whether the Umma follows the Sons of the Prophet versus the elected leaders of the congregation. But if they believe in Sharia Law, they are totalitarians who cannot live in peace with Western Democracies, and whose religions requires and demands and rewards them for intolerant hatred even to the point of suicide-murder of innocent bystanders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other pagans.
There is a small, disorganized, and silent group of Muslims who are not Shariaists, and who are willing to forswear Jihad and live in peace and alliance in mutual toleration of other religions and other legal systems in the context of a modern Western democracy. They are not the enemy. However, until and unless they can stir the consensus of Muslim opinion against Sharia and toward a civilized version of Islam, they are also meaningless, as meaningless as the non-Nazis in Germany during World War Two, as meaningless as the non-Communists in Russia during the Cold War. They may from time to time be of small use in intelligence gathering, and they may, if the spirit moves them, begin to move the center of balance of the consensus in the Dar-al-Islam away from Sharia Totalitarian Theocracy. With them, if they beg us, we can make alliance. So far, the entire policy of the West has been to do overemphasize both the power and the importance of these liberal (I mean the word in its original meaning) Mohammedans, and to mistake the nonviolent Shariaists for them.
I am as worried about collateral damage to innocent Mohammedans as I am worried about collateral damage to German women and children during World War Two. It should be minimized except in cases where the Shariaists take advantage of our civilized squeamishness to hide behind them and mingle among them. In that case, they have the duty to distance themselves from the Shariaists among them and to cease providing cover and concealment for them. Otherwise, damage to them is laid at the feet of the Shariaist enemy they shelter, not at our feet.
I say we need a Crusade, because Islam cannot be tolerated as a political power. Islam can, if it reforms itself, be tolerated as a disestablished religion, but “Islamic Republics” must be smashed, if for no other reason than to protect the Christian minorities who lived in those nations since before the rise of this most violent and vile of heresies in the Seventh Century.
All those lands were once Christian, and should be placed under Christian princes or parliaments or republics again.
I am not advocating forced conversions: that is against Christian faith and was not what the original Crusades were about anyway. The original Crusades were about the political force of Christian princes of Christendom against the political force of Caliphs of the Dar-al-Islam to make lands groaning under Islamic oppression return to the bosom of civilization, and for the protection of pilgrims and travelers.
Again and again, when the common sense notion arises that we should treat our enemies like our enemies, the same suicidally stupid objections arise: just today another boneheaded troll was accusing me of advocating genocide because I do not advocate the preemptive surrender of civilization to barbarism.
The only real objection is that the enemy is irregular, that is, not in uniform, that the enemy has no centralized command structure, and that the enemy is motivated by a religion which our current laws and customs do not allow us to expel from the nation absent more.
These objections are the same as those raised against efforts to defeat Communism, and raised by the same parties and for the same reasons: because the objectors are fellow travelers to the enemy. They are in sympathy with the enemy’s goals and means, even if they are not in the enemy’s pay, and even if the enemy, given a chance, would saw off their heads.
These objections are not serious. One can make war against a decentralized enemy, as the actions by marines against Barbary Pirates or US Cavalry against Red Indians shows. One can halt religiously-motivated acts of war and acts of crime and terror without outlawing peaceful exercises of the religion: the worship of the Aztec gods in America is legal — no law forbidding verbal prayer to Tezcatlipoca would be Constitutional, for example — provided one does not commit human sacrifice. Collateral damage can be minimized.
But the war is upon us, like it or no. Living in peace is not an option. The options are denial, which is tantamount to preemptive surrender, and fighting.
Therefore let us fight. We have so much to fight for.
The state of war is a fact. For at least four centuries, the assassination of an ambassador or the invasion of an embassy have been internationally recognized as acts of war. A declaration of war lays claim to our right to take hostile action in response and obliges all nations under international law to recognize that right. A hostile response may be interdiction of the enemy’s supplies, blockading the nations supporting the enemy, covert action, and any number of things short of sending in the troops.
Whatever the response, a declaration of war makes plain to the nations of the world that either they support us or keep out of the way lest they become part of the enemy. In light of the U.S. capacity to destroy any enemy, that should strike fear and loathing in those who entertain the idea of defying us. Of course, no one will fear that capacity if they don’t believe we have the will to use it. Not recognizing that the enemy has made war against us is a good indication that we lack the will, and only invites further attacks.
War is upon us. It’s amazing how the Left has convinced people that you can “choose” not to be “at war” without consulting the other side, the aggressor, who is murdering your people on a daily basis with no intention of stopping.
That’s well put.
Well to be technical, you can choose to not be at war. It’s just then it stops being a war and becomes more of a slaughter.
Or a surrender. If the Europeans are gone from the Middle East, the Jihadists will happily turn to slaughtering insufficiently orthodox members of their own faith for a season, massacring the Jews, driving the Christians out of the land, and agitate in Europe for more civic recognition of Sharia compliant laws and regulations. It would not be a war. It would not even be de jure Dhimmitude; just de facto.
The coming economic collapse, however, will dry up both their petrodollars and our ability to project force globally. It will be interesting to see how a starving China will expand her hegemony over the Eastern Hemisphere, and maybe the Western.
This is well-known among muslims who are not exteme hanbalis.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQQoizh_DRmaU_vWO_DzVSg6sZ7w?docId=CNG.a002cbee78dd0fb030a5a366e75800bc.3c1
Even the tomb of Muhammed’s mother has been destroyed in the Hijaz. So too many old mosques in the Balkans when Arab fighters came to “help” the Bosnians and Albanians. (The latter said, in effect, Thanks but no thanks.)
This is my first post here, although I’ve been reading for quite awhile. First of all, thank you for the insightful blog. That said, this administration is unbelievable; we are living in a dystopian science fiction story. The biggest tragedy is that fifty per cent of this country is ignorant enough to still vote in this guy’s corner.
The news, both on the rightwing and leftwing channels, these last few days has been preoccupied with either attacking or defending a rather unexceptional statement by Mitt Romney, that 47% of the voters are addicted to the government teat and the cult of victimhood, and it is not worthwhile to seek their votes.
I would not have even wagered that the Left found this statement objectionable, except that they seem to object to all true statements just on principle. I am flabbergasted: I honestly thought they would be pleased, and would have parades to celebrate the day when all men were beholden to the government. Everything for the state, nothing outside the state: that is the motto and the operating principle of the Left. Don’t the communally-minded collectivists rejoice to hear the news that the collective has grown ever greater and stronger? Where is the insult? What part of the obviously true and truly obvious statement does anyone have any objection to?
It astonishes me that commentators and pundits whose opinion I otherwise respect also find the statement objectionable or coldhearted or somehow ungood in some unspecified way. Some think it needs explaining or explaining away: others were actually, for some reason unclear to me, offended by it.
I don’t get it.
Why is anyone discussing that instead of discussing this? That I do get: it is a sign of severe and radical civilizational decline. It is the Romans in the final days bickering and gossiping about the latest trivial scandal among the Patricians while the Goths are putting ladders up against the walls of the Eternal City.
Someone should say to NPR and the other Marxist tools, “Well, if these 47-49% are not dependent on the State, then there should be no problem cutting the spending programs and bringing the debt under control.” or something like that. But our leaders are also radical liberals and would never think of saying anything like that.
Wait a minute.
The way I heard the story, is that by creating and uploading the video, Mr. Nakoula was potentially in violation of the terms of his parole, and as such he was questioned voluntarily and then released.
So how has America submitted to Dar Al-Islam?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-nakoula-basseley-innocence-muslims.html
I am a lawyer. I have never heard of dispatching 20 officers to a man’s house at midnight to question him voluntarily about possible parole violations. Such things are handled usually by a parole officer when the parolee comes in weekly during daylight hours.
This is utterly unheard-of. So therefore there is no possible way in Earth or under heaven that the story you hear can be true, or anything close to the truth.
So what do you think the truth is? Why dispatch so many officers at such a late hour? Why this parole violation and not a zillion others?
What was the point of the act? Why was it handled in this way?
You know far more about the law than I do, John.
Anyway, as far as why it was handled this way–I think it was because of the reaction to this video. Because of the conflagration it has caused.
The optics are not ideal, but I just can’t see the motives being an decision to submit to Islam and hand the filmmaker over to the horrid people who killed our diplomat.
When you say “a reaction to the video” what do you mean? Do you mean that the parole violation was not the main concern here? If so, what was the main concern?
Why did the Pentagon call this man?
It is high time for a new Crusade. I mean that literally.
Amen. St. James Matamoros, pray for us.
Dear Mr. Wright:
Amen! I need to remember to add St. James Matamoros to my list of the heroes who fought Mohammedanism.
Sean M. Brooks
The only apology I’m aware of came from embassy staff, and was disavowed by the administration. Perhaps I’m behind the news; has the White House made any further statement? What is the specific quote that you condemn as apologising for freedom of speech?
As for acts of war by foreign powers, which power did you have in mind? The Libyan government does not seem to be responsible. If it is unable to control its own territory then it may, under classical international law, be disregarded and any necessary measures taken to pacify the area it nominally rules. Up to and including herding every inhabitant of the area into the biodiesel vats; “and call that peace”.
Nonetheless, let us remain accurate in terminology: It does not seem that any sovereign power has engaged in war against the US; rather, bandits and rebels have struck at its interests and citizens. The correct response is to demand that Libya deliver the heads of the bandits, with or without bodies attached. If Libya fails to do so, the US should either pacify the territory itself, or withdraw its citizens and trade from the area, depending on the costs and benefits.
The Jihadists attack us, and all the West, and all the world over and over and over again. They are not in uniform, they have a decentralized command structure, and while they are funded by Middle-Eastern nations, they are not part of a national army. So, to you, who assume Western categories of warfare, there is no enemy, because there is no sovereign prince nor parliament sending them marching with trumpets and ensigns to a designated battle field.
Your categories of warfare are as artificial as the ceremonious surrounding a tourney of jousts. Such things only apply when both parties can be relied upon to follow the rules of war. When one part repudiates the rules of war, then the artifice fails. It does not become “not a war” because the enemy is not in uniform.
The frog’s eye will not see food unless the bug vibrates in a certain way at a certain rate. The frog can either starve, or learn to see reality as it is.
So, by all means, let us remain accurate in terminology. The Church — and there is only one — is under attack by the heretics of the sect of Mohammad, which is a totalitarian political movement as much as an antichurch. The Western civilization nurtured and inspired by the Church is under attack, as is Eastern civilization, and all the world, since the sect is intolerant that any rival to its satanic power should exist. It cannot be compromised with, negotiated with, and it will neither surrender nor accept surrender. The means of attack are exclusively “psychological” warfare, or, to be more precise, spiritual warfare. Non military targets of merely symbolic value are attacked in order to produce a mass-media led reaction, and spread fear, terror and uncertainty. The same mechanisms used by communism to attack Western democracies are used here, namely, seeking legal and propaganda victories, finding useful idiots and fellow travelers, with occasional outbreaks of violence, enough to keep the useful idiots in a continual state of fear and gift-giving.
Ah, but no, I did not say that. Quite the opposite: I said that the forms of declaring war were inappropriate, since there was no sovereign power involved; rather we should use the forms suited for suppression of banditry. Let me draw your attention to the specific remedy I proposed:
When I suggest that genocide may, if necessary, be used as a means of pacification, I feel that you are a little off the mark in accusing me of not seeing an enemy.
Bandits and rebels, marching under no sovereign flag, are not a new problem; the west has ancient methods for dealing with them. Those methods have fallen into disuse, because they were enormously successful: For at least three centuries wars have been almost solely between sovereign states. That does not mean that our law does not recognise the problem, and provide a remedy. But it does mean that those remedies are not properly given the name of ‘war’.
I humbly apologize. I entirely mistook your meaning, and read into it the opposite of what you said. In embarrassment, I retract my comment.
You’re apologizing to someone who advocates genocide. You’ve lost your mind.
I am apologizing for having misunderstood what he said, and arguing against a position he did not hold.
Perhaps you should do the same, since you also misunderstood what he said.
“Up to and including herding every inhabitant of the area into the biodiesel vats; “and call that peace”.”
Seems pretty clear to me. You’re ok with “herding every inhabitant of the area into the biodiesel vats”?
Oh, and I forgot this one. Rolf: “I suggest that genocide may, if necessary, be used as a means of pacification”
I said nothing either for or against what Dr Andreassen said. I apologized because I misunderstood him, and wrote against a position which I attributed to him, but which he does not support. This is the informal logical error of ‘straw-man’ argument. I hold making such errors to be immoral. It was also rude of me not to read, ponder, and understand what he wrote before flying in rage to my keyboard.
You have made the same error here, with me. You are accusing me of something I made no comment about.
You took the time to reread his statement. He is proposing that rounding people up and turning them into fuel is a justifiable course of action. Your first instinct is to apologize for misunderstanding his argument.
I think your lack of comment to the genocide suggestion is telling.
That is why you are a barbarian, sir. You cannot even imagine being polite to someone with whom you disagree; you cannot distinguish exaggeration from reality; you crave making accusations, accusations, accusations, so much so that your volume of comments, at least that you have made here on my blog, if you subtract the accusations, is nothing.
So shut your contemptible mouth. Your remarks are worthless. You are seeking some means to accuse me because there is nothing inside you.
Tell me: if I tip my hat to a lady, and that lady is a murderess, am I a murderer? Is my lack of comment on her homicide in such a case telling?
You comments are beyond the pale. Although you will not give it, for form’s sake, I demand an apology.
Or is being polite to someone with whom one disagrees unthinkable to you? That seems to be the source of the dispute.
Is so, think I have had a great insight into the nature of Lefty psychology!
You and yours are so ashamed and so afraid of being accused of ungoodthink, that any act of courtesy or decency to those who count as your enemies (such as the Republic, the Constitution, the Military and Police that protect you, the Church set as your moral guide and guardian) must be met with the most vile eructation of base and slanderous accusations, lest you yourself be accused by your own Thought Police for Laodiceanism. To be polite would be to appear lukewarm in your crusade for the world revolution again everything.
You dare not appear in public to be less than red-hot in your zeal for whatever fashionable nonsense is in fashion among the politically correct this season, because you know that you, like sharks, turn on and rend your own number without mercy or scruple. So you must always be at peak volume, always accusing, always holier-than-thou, always and always and always accusing and accusing and accusing. You can never pause to be courteous, to treat the foe with chivalry or respect, never act like an adult, never be civil, never be civilized.
I get it now. You are a barbarian.
A barbarian reacts to a demand for an apology with incredulity, since, in his simple, childlike mind, the barbarian thinks apologizing is tantamount to a total affirmation or justification of everything and anything the wronged person ever said or did. Barbarians think such things have magical powers. He cannot imagine looking at a dispute objectively, as if he were not part of it, and judging his own behavior by a standard that he may or may not meet.
So I expect you will react to my demand with incredulity, and with a torrent of accusations, accusations, accusations.
Please disappoint my expectations.
I am not advocating genocide. I am saying that, if genocide turns out to be necessary to pacify an area not under effective sovereign control, then genocide it is. In the past, less draconian measures have been successful, and they should by all means be tried first. In the case of militants attacking an embassy under cover of rioting, for example, a strong Marine guard ought to be sufficient.
The European colonial powers ruled these areas for two centuries with forces about one-tenth the size of the current US army. That was because they were willing to shoot and hang rebels, bandits, and rioters. You get riots because someone thinks they are an effective and low-risk means of political pressure; but since mobs are not, in fact, capable of overcoming organised military forces, they are only effective so long as regular armies stand aside. Once or twice read the Riot Act and follow through on the threat, carpeting the street in bodies if necessary; and we’ll see the riots subside. Pour la canaille, la mitrailleuse, to bring Wellington up to date.
If you state that genocide is a justifiable course of action, then you are advocating genocide. Your choice of words ‘biodiesel vats’ betrays any sense of rationality you attempt to portray. Genocide’s always have some moron behind them who has a ‘rationale’.
Very well said, Doctor, and sums up the whole thing to boot.
I think, through your explanations, Oscillon is being obtuse. There are lots of justifiable courses of action – depending on the context – that is not the same as advocating the action sans context.
If we as a nation and a culture were 1% of what we were only a few generations ago, this discussion would never have occurred.
9/11 would never have happened because Tehran would have been leveled in 1979 and de-Islamified.
Even 1979 would not have happened because we would have never let them steal our oil fields from us to finance their jihad. They would still be riding around in the dirt and being pathetic.
Very well. Lets all be explicitly clear. Is genocide a justifiable course of action in any context?
I invite you, John, and Rolf answer the question in clear and simple language.
No
Genocide properly so called is never justified under any circumstances whatsoever. Not all acts of war, however, constitute genocide. Not all inflated war-talk, even when one hears expressions like “wipe out the filthy Huns to the last man!” is advocating genocide, the extermination of an entire race.
Banning a troll, however, is justified. Would you care to apologize to me for daring to ask me this question? I would like to think you are not so stupid as to believe your own cheap rhetoric; but if you do not believe it, you must therefore be aware of the wrong you are doing.
In fairness, many a comment appears more earnestly serious in print than in person. That is why literalists so often get things wrong in theology, among other things. They react only to what they see in text at the present moment and do not refer to con-text, such as the character of the author, his history, his well-known use of hyperbole, etc.
I will echo our host: Genocide properly so called is not justifiable. What I mean by this is to deliberately set out to kill an ethnic or religious group on the grounds of their ethnicity or religion.
However, I can imagine circumstances in which it is justifiable to kill, for example, every human in a particular city, or country, or continent. For example, if a city is being used as the base for bandit raids, and its nominal sovereign is unwilling or unable to suppress the bandits; then by clear international law, the victim of the raids is at liberty to pacify the city itself. Now if, hypothetically, it turned out that every inhabitant of the city was ideologically committed to their banditry, and refused to surrender, but continued to throw rocks even when under the muzzles of the machine guns – then the occupying force would eventually shoot them all, in perfectly justified self-defense. Biodiesel vats optional.
This is, of course, a remarkably unlikely scenario. As a general rule, punitive expeditions have been sufficient to keep banditry to a tolerable level, and machine guns have suppressed rioting. The city full of fanatical zombies, determined to resist pacification to the last, is purely hypothetical. Humans do knuckle under to superior force. We can defend our embassies any time we have the will to give them a strong guard; no genocide required.
Fair enough; I accept your apology.
I agree that there are useful distinctions to be made between piracy, insurgencies, and nations as to whether, in any particular situation, armed force or courts of law are the appropriate response. I do not agree that declaring war requires the enemy to be a sovereign nation.
As it happens, it is difficult to imagine any banditry operating without either directly controlling an area as the effective sovereign or receiving the support of a sovereign entity. Indeed, “bandits” on the scale of the Jihad do not operate without the support of sovereign nations. Even if that were not the case, a declaration of war is required to put all on notice that the U.S. will dispose of the enemy by military rather than judicial means.
“The Church — and there is only one — is under attack by the heretics of the sect of Mohammad”
And does the Pope agree?. Is it the Church policy to respond to attack by the force of arms?.
It must be the greatest of the erros to confound the Church with a particular state and in particular USA which is a secular nation controlled by anti-Church Progressives.
While the Muslims have no capablity to defeat West, the Progressives both fully intend and are fully capable of burying the Christian West.
They are already defeating us! You greatly underestimate the enemy. Already they have erected thousands of mosques across the west even as they destroy churches in their own lands. They control large parts of many Western cities and they are still growing in numbers and power. Millions of them are inside the gates already. They have loud political voices in Western countries and have silenced the natives almost completely. They have made it very clear that they intend to murder, convert, or subjugate every last one of us. They murder our ambassadors, rape our little girls by the thousands, and many of us, including our corrupt, idiot leaders, call for more toleration of this “religion of peace.”
So… It’s not just the rights of Catholics/Christians that are to be trampled. This administration doesn’t care about anyopne’s rights, I think, but only power. I am not nearly the writer that all of you are but here’s my small contribution to the fight…
http://www.corsanctum.com/song-a-week-xvi-we-will-not-comply/
God bless.
I think that is true. People make a mistake when they try to label our leaders of the past few decades as Marxist, Muslim, et cetera. It’s a mistake because our leaders have no discipline to stick to any particular doctrine they will not sacrifice anything themselves. They love the power, they love the money, and they want to use the force of the state to extract it from us. Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama, it doesn’t matter, the outcomes are the same. If one is looking for a label, it’s safer and more accurate to call them liars and thieves.
And we ourselves are not far from that, having the power to stop them but doing nothing.
Speaking as one who just yesterday took the oath and became an American:
I have been somewhat concerned that I waited too long, that the Republic is on a downward slide that will prove difficult at best to reverse.
Yet, there are those who’ve sung America’s dirges before. Yes, the New Deal did change things for the worse long term in many respects. Going back further, Christian women cried after Jefferson became president.
However, the cynicism, moral ambiguity and sense of personal isolation of the postwar 40s evidenced by ‘film noir’ and paintings like Nighthawks gave way to the optimistic patriotism and family-centeredness of the 1950s and early 60s. Despite the uphevals of the 60s and 70s, Ronald Regan was elected twice, and America found itself on an upswing again.
My point is not to get out the rose colored glasses, but to not lose hope. Perhaps Mitt isn’t the one; perhaps Ryan is. However this plays out, I’d suggest that despair is most assuredly not the way to play. Running away isn’t an option (where to?). Nor, really, is circling the wagons or turning the family farm into a monastery; not in the age of the internet and Google Earth.
Have real hope, and work towards it. Ignore the bullies, fight them in ways that have been proven to work, and perhaps truth will get another chance to win out. If indeed this filmmaker’s was the dooming blow to freedom that the commentators suggest, then we have an opportunity to overthrow the government this November without firing a shot or spilling a drop of blood. And if we do so soundly enough, we could punish those who’ve done this wrong strongly enough that we can prevent further abuse.
Pray. Work. Inform. Vote. That’s what this brand-spanking new American plans to do.
Nobly spoken! I was not advocating despair, but I do not place my faith in princes. Rather, I was hoping to shame the shameless out of their obsession with triviality. One price we pay for being a free people is that our press revels in the petty.
Welcome, brother and citizen. The republic needs men like you.
The Pope has regretted and condemned the pornographic blasphemy and has asked people not to denigrate the Islamic symbols.
Typically, the Church takes a balanced position between opposing fanaticism.
One one side, the fanatics that would supress any speech
On another side, the fanatics that celebrate the freedom to create pornography and blasphemy under the Progressive interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
It is curious that some Americans would rally behind a person, who in a wartime when USA is engaged in multiple war in Islamic lands, with delicate alliances with Islamic States, that would endanger the country’s troops and diplomats, not to mention the native Christian populace.
It is certainly a questionable act, perhaps a deliberate provocation, and what is bizzare that Americans would not think about these aspects and would simplisitically cry 1st Amendment,! 1st Amendment!
Conservatives and Catholics should remember that the Progressive America supports the freedom of Piss Christ and Madonna in Dung
by the same 1st Amendment and this is nothing to rejoice in. It is a perversion of the true freedom of expression that lets in blasphemy and pornography.
Bishop Welcomes a New Mosque:
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-bishop-welcomes-new-mosque.html
The following comment in the Wall Street Journal webblog regarding the ads aired by the US government in Pakistan:
What’s funny is that there was a South Park episode about this years BEFORE this incident.
The reaction of the press in part 2 is hilarious and sadly prophetic I fear.
Part 1
Part 2
“Sir, what was your administration thinking when it came up with this ‘first amendment’?”