Saturday, July 23, 2005

Fighting Terrorism

Ted Lapkin, writing in National Review Online, likened extremist leftist attitudes and responses to terrorism to battered-spouse syndrome. The repeatedly battered spouse can never accept the simple reality that the abuser is evil and will continue the abuse unless forced to stop. Some leftists respond to terrorism the same way:

After each al Qaeda outrage, leftist ideologues are quick to castigate their own countrymen for a catalogue of sins, both real and imagined. With a perverse combination of self-loathing and adoration of the enemy, the radical Leftist mantra preaches that if only we were nicer, the jihadists could not fail to love us. It’s our own fault if Osama bin Laden doesn’t realize what good people we are.

And all the while, these “progressive” academics, pundits, and politicians engage in ridiculous intellectual contortions designed to mitigate the guilt of the terrorist perpetrators. When push comes to shove, some intellectuals believe that Islamism is simply an understandable reaction to what they describe as “Western imperialism.”


That got me thinking. Maybe the Arab Muslim murderers whose fondest wish is to kill us are less hysterical, stupid, and medieval than they appear. Perhaps the relative lack of serious terrorism in the U.S. since 911 is part of their strategy. They may actually be smart enough to know that if they hit us too often or too hard, their soft-headed leftist apologists might wake up and smell the coffee. That might seriously weaken or eliminate one of the most important sources of support for terrorism.

On second thought--Nah. Neither group is that smart.

The reality is that we have to fight terrorism with every weapon in our arsenal, including military power, strict control of our borders, deportation of highest-threat illegal aliens, careful monitoring and control of Arab Muslims who present the greatest threat, and enhanced security controls throughout our society. Some leftists, of course, will oppose every action taken to defend against terrorism. By their nature they're marginalized, and we must simply ignore them. As Lapkin concluded:

This is a war that we did not start, but that we dare not leave unfinished. We dare not because our foes are fanatics who strap explosives to their bodies and fly airliners into office buildings. We dare not leave it unfinished because our antagonists see the destruction of our civilization as a necessary precursor to the expansion of their own culture.

15 Comments:

Blogger Amal said...

Tom,
You said "careful monitoring and control of Arab Muslims who present the greatest threat....", you should have added deport those who are promoting hate, intolerance, and non-integration into American Culture.

As a child, my parents brought me to Canada to escape a civil war in Lebanon. We have integrated without ever losing our culture. If we can do it, so can they!

For those of you who think that it is harsh to deport people who refuse to integrate, look at it this way: Why leave where you came from if you are choosing to live the same way you lived there.

9:56 AM, July 23, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Amal, I would certainly agree that non-citizen immigrants and legal foreign visitors who promote hate and intolerance should be deported. Green cards and naturalized citizenship can both be revoked in appropriate cases, too.

I have no problem with immigrants who come to the U.S. and participate positively in our society, sharing in our freedoms and opportunity and contributing through work and participation. In fact, I admire many of them because I've seen first-hand the hardships and sometimes horrors they've faced in other parts of the world.

11:25 AM, July 23, 2005  
Blogger Esther said...

Great post, Tom. And amal is absolutely on the money! If they're not adapting to this country, if they're preaching hatred and inciting violence, get the hell out of dodge. To those who say deportation is too much -- it beats life in prison, my other option. But I don't want them in prison. There are enough people in there already -- converting the prison population to Islam.

7:55 PM, July 23, 2005  
Anonymous Yash said...

Hello
I think you have a real great site. I always search for this kind of information online and i am glad to have cross your site. I look forward to all the updates. I have found a great web site, go to
http://ibcnews.blogspot.com
Thanks again.

2:52 AM, July 24, 2005  
Anonymous jello said...

this "battered spouse syndrome" analogy from columnists has become a fad. i've seen the same argument used against rank & file republicans who, just like an abuse victim coming back for seconds, continue to vote against their own economic interests.

i've also seen batter spouse syndrome to explain dc dems who fail to stand up to the abuse from republicans.

both angles were used in columns from last year. ted lapkin is not only unoriginal, he's late to the game!

8:03 AM, July 24, 2005  
Anonymous jello said...

The reality is that we have to fight terrorism with every weapon in our arsenal, including military power, strict control of our borders, deportation of highest-threat illegal aliens, careful monitoring and control of Arab Muslims who present the greatest threat, and enhanced security controls throughout our society.

you forgot securing loose nukes and inspecting incoming shipping cargo. two things bush gets an "F" on.

fine, marginalize all liberals. how do you explain conservative critics of bush? i suppose they are secret supporters of al qaeda as well.

8:50 AM, July 24, 2005  
Blogger MaxedOutMama said...

Tom, I think the terrorists are following a closely reasoned, deliberate and centrally controlled strategy.

First, it is no coincidence that we see the strikes in Egypt, Iraq and England at the same time.

Second, I believe that the terrorists are working hard to try to get all of Europe to declare themselves neutral in this war. They have not attacked again in the US because they believe it would reinforce the international position and influence of the US.

They will continue in England until they either win (and get England to officially disassociate itself from any further anti-terrorist military movements) or until they come to the conclusion that they can't influence England to do that.

In any case, once they believe they have isolated the US as far as possible they will again attack here. And this time it will be the big one. We are running out of time and need desperately to roll up the headchopper brats and their resources in the US.

2:29 PM, July 24, 2005  
Blogger Kevin said...

Tom,

I agree that the liberal position on many social issues really reinforces that terrorists worse stereotypes of the west. We may win each and every battle, but as long as half the population fights against us in the court of public opinion then we will not win the war.

I would have to agree with jello about not every critical thing in the US is secure, but it took much longer than 6 or 7 years to get this position and will require as long to get out. It requires every citizen to defend our country, those lapses in security are just as much the fault of joe taxpayer as the president.

I will have to tell you that this is a war of culture long brewing and will take decades to resolve, especially if half the population can not see the forest for the trees.

2:07 AM, July 25, 2005  
Blogger Hiker Hobo said...

"I'm afraid. The sky is falling. Help me, W. Help me!"

you idiot !

6:15 PM, July 25, 2005  
Blogger Fred said...

Jihadit #1: "Mustafa, Tell me that joke again, the one about the black eyes."

Jihadi #2: "You liked that one, Habib?"

Jihadi #1: "Yes."

Jihadi #2: "What do you tell an infidel with two black eyes?"

Jihadi #1: "Nothing! You already told him twice!"

Jihadi #2: "Hahahahaha. Mustafa, you are too funny. Too. Fun. Ny."

Jihadi #1: "."

Jihadi #2: "."

Jihadi #1: "Sh."

Jihadi #2: "You hear something?"

Jihadi #1: "."

Jihadi #2: "Tanks."

Jihadi #1: "Ours?"

Jihadi #2: "."

7:57 PM, July 25, 2005  
Anonymous jello said...

It requires every citizen to defend our country, those lapses in security are just as much the fault of joe taxpayer as the president.

are you kidding me?? it's not joe taxpayers' fault that bush's republican congress has blocked ammendments trying to secure chemical factories and nuclear facilities.

chlorine gas for example, killed thousands during ww2, and yet factories that produce this are left unsecure in this country.

we spend $5 billion a month in iraq ($8.8 billion of which are "missing") and yet leave ourselves sitting ducks in the homeland.

i take that back, it is joe taxpayers fault this country is left unsecure. they keep voting republican.

11:49 AM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Anastasia said...

In Australia, currently, all our Muslim religious leaders have publicly deplored terrorism and they have made it a point of doing so and some of them are Arab.

Recently we've had a visitor to our shores here, he's not an Arab, and yet he's been giving talks that are extreme: that Muslims should not associate with non Muslims and similar things and he was from the United States.

We do have a couple of extremists here, but the majority of clerics oppose terrorism.

In every religion there are extremists, the same type of extremists that are also found in Christian denominations who think they are doing right by shooting abortionists and things like that, that's also terrorism, albeit not to the same level (in terms of numbers) but it's still extreme.

11:20 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Kevin said...

I guess, my question to jello is what are you doing besides complaining about it?

You see that problem really is that complaining about something is not doing something; it is just talk. And we all know what speaks louder than words.

I'll give you a hint....actions.

11:29 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

I don't understand why liberal bashing is deserved of front page news on this blog.

That's the entirety of this Lapkin piece.

I've taken it apart here.

What Lapkin fails to notice is that the "war on terror" isn't working. Attacks are escalating, not going away. There are more terrorists now than ever before. This is the opposite of what the "war" was supposed to achieve.

The objective fact is that this can't be won using a "war". It might make conservatives feel good about themselves to bash liberals..but it's not solving terrorism and it certainly isn't making the world a safer place.

3:12 PM, July 27, 2005  
Blogger eeore said...

There is a problem with the use of 'leftist' in this context.

The left and right idea of politics comes from the French Revolution, with those opposed to the status quo being on the left of the king, and those in favour on the right.

In todays world in fact those that seek understanding and in doing so display their own self loathing, are in fact on the right of politics, since they seek to uphold the status quo... whether it be in such outdated terms as 'Black Africa' or 'an Arab country'.... since it was my belief that we were supposed to be in a multicultural world.

These people have no place on the left politics. Since socialism has always be about upholding the dignity of the human spirit and working toward a better future.

This concept is totally alien to the backward barbarism of the Jihadists and the bombers friends who would ask us to understand.

5:49 PM, July 31, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home