The Creeping Threat
This Mark Steyn column may be a little on the hysterical side, but I think his larger point is valid.
He recognizes the larger enemy we are fighting, Islamofacism, and recognizes the small incremental gains it is making. The cartoon wars we have been talking about are one part of the larger fight. The fact that the MSM has caved and not shown the cartoons is one example of how the US is having to live under Sharia. It's not against US law to show pictures of the prophet.
He recognizes the larger enemy we are fighting, Islamofacism, and recognizes the small incremental gains it is making. The cartoon wars we have been talking about are one part of the larger fight. The fact that the MSM has caved and not shown the cartoons is one example of how the US is having to live under Sharia. It's not against US law to show pictures of the prophet.
posted by hurtleg at 9:39 AM
3 Comments:
hurtleg: "Steyn may be a little on the hysterical side, but I think his larger point is valid"
Please clear up for me what about Steyn's "larger point" isn't an hysterical reaction.
Was it Steyn's graphic depiction of that Jewish guy getting his eyes gouged out that makes his reaction so distastefully "hysterical"? Hey man, this is a War! I would like to think its supporters were made of stronger stuff.
Steyn: "A lot of folks are, to put it at its mildest, indifferent to Jews...But what a tragedy that those peace-loving Iranians have been provoked into launching nuclear armageddon by those pushy Jews." [last part there obviously sarcasm]
Steyn and other blame-the-victim types stridently complain about an "absurd equivalence" when it comes to Israel and its wacko neighbors. They then turn around and insist that any UN resolution condemning (for example) Israel's clearly illegal targeted assassinations include language about suicide bombers that brought them to such a "response." Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Steyn: "The I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmonee crowd have always spoken favorably of one-worldism..."
Aha. I believe we've found the REAL common ground you and Steyn share: a contempt for those who - in the true spirit of the enlightenment values that secular states such as the US and Israel supposedly embody - seek diplomatic, non-violent solutions to conflicts.
"I believe we've found the REAL common ground you and Steyn share: a contempt for those who - in the true spirit of the enlightenment values that secular states such as the US and Israel supposedly embody - seek diplomatic, non-violent solutions to conflicts."
It's not contempt of those who seek diplomatic, non-violent solutions to conflicts, its the recognition of the limits of the effectiveness of this method. There are times when talking stops working and action is necessary. The Europeans bent over backwards talking to Hitler in the 30's and that didn't work out so well.
In the case of Iran, the window to act to prevent a larger crisis is rapidly closing. We must act in the next 12 months or so, or Iran will have a nuke. As I have said before, I find this unexceptable.
I wished that peaceful means could always work 100% of the time. I wish I lived in that world. Back on planet earth where there are bad people with bad intentions not everyone can be talked out of there bad behavior.
I don't advocate violent action in response to every irritation we face, despite your insinuations. I think we should continue to engage China and prevent another cold war situation from developing. I think there is a high likelyhood this will work. Hugo Chavez is a pain in the ass, but I don't think we should attack Venuzuala. Castro has annoyed the US for over 45 years, but I don't advocate force there. The French are an arrogant bunch but I don't think we should occupy Paris to teach them a lesson (as the Russians and Germans have several times in history).
Upon further review, I will admit contempt for the UN. It is so corrupt and ineffective that I am shocked anyone still puts any value on what happens there (the security council in particular).
Countries vote there own interests (I wouldn't expect any less), but the US must act in its own interest. Their individual interests may not be what is best for the world, as those believers in the noble mission of the UN would like to believe. In theory, the UN is a nice idea. The problem is that human nature does not allow it to work in fact as it should in theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home