Please find current work at the following sites:
Pages
Categories
Archives
(first published in FamilySecurityMatters, June 14, 2010)
Our current crisis of meaning, morals and ethics has been developing for decades. The cause of this crisis is open to debate; but now, because of a resurgent Islam and its doctrinally mandated Jihad expansionism/violence/supremacism/intolerance, the crisis is existential.
Without Islam in the equation this cultural crisis in America would be the subject of debate and often hot discussions but because of Islam, we are in an existential crisis that few apparently can comprehend even after 9/11, Madrid, Bali, hundreds of attacks in Israel, Kenyan embassies, Mumbai (including the horrific murder of the Chabad Rabbi and his wife), London, Fort Hood, the aborted Detroit Christmas attack, hundreds of interdicted Islamic jihad attacks across the country and thousands of completed attacks across the world.
Joseph Heller, a great American writer, published his novel, Something Happened in 1966. The book is a serious and disturbing examination of how someone copes when something impossible has occurred in their life; something entirely unacceptable and painful so that everything has to shift to make life functional and bearable. Something has happened across our culture and the west that creates a debilitating cognitive dissonance and prevents acceptance of the unpleasant truth that the world does not function in the way that we would prefer.
An article by Mr. Charles Jacobs in the June 7th edition of Family Security Matters (also published in the Jewish Advocate of Boston) informing readers of events in Boston around the Roxbury Islamic Center in late May, the cooperation of the governor of that state (Deval Patrick) and one particular local rabbi’s support of the mosque and seven requests/demands made upon the governor (which he acceded to) has come under intense criticism by 75 rabbis of Massachusetts and the New England Region. In fact, the rabbis were so miffed by Mr. Jacobs’ criticism of their colleague that they published an open letter censuring Mr. Jacobs in The Jewish Advocate (Boston-regional) newspaper. The letter is printed in full as a postscript, for your review.
Mr. Jacobs criticized the governor for acceding to the demands of the mosque leadership even though evidence was provided by Mr. Jacobs that showed a number of that mosque’s board of directors are linked with jihad terrorism, and that the mosque’s sponsoring body the MSA (Muslim Society of America) has been identified by federal authorities as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Mr. Jacobs also criticized a Boston area rabbi who was in attendance at this event on May 22nd. Mr. Jacobs even provided photographic evidence in the form of a YouTube video that shows the mosque’s leading Imam recommending violent action to his congregants. This should not surprising as the doctrine of Islam is anti-Jewish and anti-non-believer.
The greatest sin in Islam is non-belief. There is a special kind of hatred in Islam for Jews, this is incontrovertible, but what is so surprising is the response of the Jewish leadership to these facts about the mosque in Roxbury and to Islam in America in general.
The Jewish leaders, all 75 signatories, should be ashamed of themselves. The rabbis state in their letter that Mr. Jacobs launched a “vicious personal attack”, but no such attack occurred. They state that Mr. Jacobs is involved in a “destructive campaign against Boston’s Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths, and unproven conspiracy theories.” This is a bizarre statement because Mr. Jacobs provided video evidence that showed the leader of the mosque espousing Islamic violence. The rabbis, all apparently completely unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine and history, condemn Mr. Jacobs as a fear monger and inciter—none of which is true. Mr. Jacobs calls out the rabbi in attendance at the May event for having ignored evidence. Mr. Jacobs wrote,
Finally, why does Rabbi Gurvis refuse to acknowledge what he has been shown in official documents: that the MAS is a Muslim Brotherhood organization; that the mosque was funded by Wahabbi Saudis, not known to fund moderate mosques; and that the MAS/ISB leaders have invited defamers of Jews and Christians to “educate” the historically moderate Boston Muslim community?
The rabbis, writing “in defense of our colleague, Rabbi Eric Gurvis”, apparently know nothing of the beliefs of their friends at the mosque as they state that “we stand together in our commitment to a community in which neighbors seek to know one another and join together for the common good.” They add in closing their letter that they “refuse to allow Mr. Jacobs to spread his calumnies and paralyze our community in fear.” They do not say however in what way Mr. Jacobs has done these things and fail to acknowledge the evidence he presents (much of which was widely known prior to the May event at the mosque). Jacobs wrote the following:
Also in our film is a sermon Faarooq delivered in a Brighton mosque in March. Faarooq teaches Boston Muslims that they are obliged by their religion to stand up for their co-religionists and urges them to support Siddiqui and Mehana. “If there’s anyone that should be brave, it must be us,” Faarooq said in the sermon. “You must grab onto this rope, grab onto the shovel, grab onto the gun and the sword. Don’t be afraid to step out into this world and do your job.”
The fact that some donors or members were directly involved in terror or planned terror attacks is of no matter to the politically correct signatory rabbis of New England. The rabbis kindly point out that when a local synagogue was defaced with a swastika one of the first supporters to offer a comforting shoulder was a Muslim. “In fact…when Temple Shalom was defaced by a swastika, one of the first calls he (Rabbi Gurvis) received was from Bilal Kaleem from the Muslim American Society.”
The rabbis close their letter of rebuke with a Torah story about “Israelite scouts who were overcome by fear. As a result, they ‘spread calumnies’ among the entire Israelite camp who in turn broke out into loud cries and weeping. Because they succumbed to their fears, God condemned this generation to die in the wilderness.” Mr. Jacobs apparently is a cause of “calumnies” because he provided evidence that the mosque to which Jewish leadership and the governor of the state of Massachusetts offered their support embraces Islamic doctrine (which includes hatred of Jews and all non-believers).
“O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.” (Koran, 3:118)
“O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” (Koran, 4:144)
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Koran, 9:5)
Nowhere in the rabbi’s letter of condemnation is there any counter-argument presented to oppose the assertions and evidence presented by Mr. Jacobs. The letter does not in fact present a contrary position at all to Mr. Jacobs’ evidence of Muslims who embrace their Islamic doctrine, what the letter does instead is criticize Mr. Jacobs for sharing this information at all. The spreading of knowledge has always been foundationally important to Jews, except apparently to the signatories of the letter, all nominal leaders of the New England Jewish community.
This is a critical moment where the messenger is criticized for the content of his message. The 75 rabbis of New England who signed this bizarre and shameful letter do not attempt to refute Mr. Jacobs’ statements whatever; their complaint is entirely with the fact that he has provided this information at all. The brave with warnings have been denied before in Jewish history; this is a theme that must end.
“In July 1942, he, his first wife and their 12 year old daughter lived in the Warsaw Ghetto.
‘I knew what was happening,’ he said. ‘Many people knew, but most of them wanted to pretend they didn’t. I knew for certain because, only ten days before I was finally taken (August 27, 1942), a young man called Friedmann came back from Treblinka hidden under rags. His escape had been carefully arranged so as to have somebody come back to bring us the truth; to warn us. But nobody believed him. It was perfectly extraordinary. But I did.’
(Another source tells how this young man besought the ghetto elders to believe him and how finally they said he was overwrought and needed a rest which they would arrange for him in the ghetto clinic…)”
Gita Sereny, Into That Darkness, p.257, Vintage Books/Random House
(1974, 1st Random House edition, 1983)
Mr. Jacobs’ information shatters the worldview of the rabbis. Their response is to condemn the messenger rather than process the information that Mr. Jacobs provides and act or at least make a serious attempt to understand.
There is much at stake for the rabbis and those whom they lead. The information that Mr. Jacobs provides suggests that the rabbis’ Islamic friends have an ideology that is fundamentally in opposition to the safety and existence of the Jewish people; this is not the message that post-modern, multicultural, moral relativist religious leaders want to hear. The message they prefer is their own—the message of “bridge building” and “interfaith gatherings”—as this is the paradigm that they accept and foster.
The fact that Islamic doctrine involves Jew hatred, jihad, intolerance, misogyny, supremacism, terror, and war is utterly rejected by the signatory rabbis not because it isn’t true, but because it is a message that they find unpalatable.
Such a message that illuminates the doctrine of Islam would mean that 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum and that ongoing jihad attacks against Israel, Jews across our country and the world, Christians and unbelievers everywhere, homosexuals, apostates, and Muslims who aren’t quite Muslim enough are motivated by a universal Islamic understanding of what adherents know Islam to mean because it is specifically mandated in the foundation doctrinal texts of Islam, Koran, Sira, and Hadith. The signers of the letter are in denial.
The rabbi’s letter is a denial of the verifiable truth of Islamic doctrine and focuses only on themselves and their desire for neighborliness. Stop and take a statistical look at the ignorance upon which this unfortunate letter is based. Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is found in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). Islam has a significant doctrine relating to the Jews.
Overall, the Trilogy devotes 9.3% of its text to Jew hatred. If we use Mein Kampf as the standard of Jew hatred, we find that it devotes 7% of its text to Jew hatred, less than the Islamic doctrine. (The Trilogy is Koran, Sira and Hadith. The Meccan Koran is the early Koran, the Medinan Koran is the later Koran.)
The rabbis show no awareness of Islam’s doctrine of the Jew. They have all heard of Mein Kampf and condemn all Nazis and Nazism. But in reference to Islam it is just a “handful” of people who cause problems; the rabbis assert that there are no problems with Islam and condemn those who, with facts and substance, say otherwise.
The rabbis believe that Bilal Kaleem is their friend because he made a phone call about an anti-Semitic event. It is likely that this sympathetic friend did not mention in his phone call that there are 12 verses in the Koran that state that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir (non-Muslim) and that a Jew is a Kafir. Here is one verse out of the 12:
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (Koran 5:51)
The rabbis need to send out their own Israelite scouts into the land of Islamic doctrine and have them bring back some actual facts and data and, when they come back to present their evidence, the rabbis must listen intently.
The long tradition of Jewish debate, critical thinking, and learning and knowledge built on the Socratic-style method of question and answer is over (at least across New England); 75 New England rabbis have declared that it is dead, at least within their limited purviews.
Their choice to condemn Mr. Jacobs as an inciter and rabble rouser rather than respond to the evidence he presents shows that the signatories of the letter do not want to participate; they do not want to engage in any debate or discussion; this is authoritarian thinking on their parts and contrary to Jewish tradition of learning, debate, and the embrace of knowledge.
The foundations of Jewish culture have always been about learning. Torah, and Jewish culture built upon it, have always shown great respect to learning, scholarship, debate, proofs, and convincing exposition. The letter of the rabbis is not convincing; it is a failure of the intellect and a victory of wishful thinking fantasy over evidence and debate. What course in rabbinical school did these rabbis take that taught them that effective, legitimate debate involves ignoring the arguments entirely of the opposing side? There are no such courses.
We live in a difficult world in which our culture is in crisis. This crisis began long before the present resurgence of Islam, but Islam now brings our domestic crisis of meaning to a new level.
If our leaders choose to ignore evidence that is presented by bell-ringers such as Mr. Jacobs, then we learn nothing. The condemnation of Mr. Jacobs by the signatories of this unimpressive and unfortunate letter denotes a failure of leadership and paves the way for a very unpleasant future.
Humans are not good at learning from their history; history is clear on this point. The Jewish community in particular of late appears particularly adept at this non-learning.
When presented with the doctrine of Islam that is overtly loaded with hatred of Jews, when we see jihad against Israel and the United States and unbelievers across the world, and understand that Islamic hatred of Jews and all unbelievers is a foundational component of Islamic doctrine the world is no longer a friendly place. 9/11 and subsequent events are understandable only within the context of Islamic doctrine.
The signatory rabbis of New England living their fantasies of “Interfaith dialogues” and “friendly neighbors” know nothing apparently of what motivates the adherents of Islam. This failing on their part is disastrous.
In the not-so-distant past when Jews were under siege the leadership failed. They failed not because they did not understand but because they preferred not to believe what was happening. Wishful thinking and fantasies are the foundations of modern liberal politics. Realities are all old hat and now overturned with the new modern approaches of multiculturalism, post-modernism, radical equivalence, moral relativism, and über-tolerance. But we have learned nothing from history. This is a tragedy.
The philosopher Karl Popper wrote in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945):
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
We look to our leadership for guidance, direction and wisdom in times of difficulty and unpleasantness, conflict and war. We want and require leadership based on courage and knowledge. When the leaders fail and when the bell-ringers of warning are turned away as inconvenient and tiresome, then we all will suffer. We must learn the lessons of history or fall.
Something happened. It’s not clear when this “something” happened, but it seems clear that our leadership and our leading citizens will not directly respond to issues that they find unappealing, unpleasant, or difficult to accept.
The signatory Jewish leadership in New England has failed in their mean-spirited criticism of Mr. Jacobs, a patriot. They have learned nothing from history and from the warnings all around them. This failure is indefensible.
This is a failure of intellectualism and a triumph of anti-knowledge and authoritarian thinking. In this situation, the rabbis are angry because 1., Mr. Jacobs presents information that does not fit into favored, pre-conceived but unsupportable beliefs, and 2., The evidence presented by Mr. Jacobs suggests an Islam of Jew hatred and violence that, while entirely provable by current evidence and the doctrine of Islam itself, is unpleasant in the extreme and must therefore be denied and the messenger condemned.
The “something” that has happened is the rise of Islam. Some have studied its doctrine and the bitter, hateful, violence that its adherents do on account of this doctrine while others choose to ignore it. Ignoring facts is an indefensible position for any leader to take; it is intellectually dishonest and in these times of war and terrorism it is existentially dangerous.
Something has happened, something that prevents many of our leaders and our people from accepting an impossible to accept but true assertion nevertheless—Islam is not a religion of peace.
In our country, populated almost completely by welcoming, tolerant, decent, law-abiding people, the truth of Islam is almost entirely unpalatable. The difficulty of Islam is not that it is anti-Jewish, anti-women, anti-non-Muslim, violent, hateful, supremacist, expansionist, and cruel; the difficulty is that our people refuse to believe that this can be so. Denial is not an effective civilizational response to existential challenges.
Our focus is on the state of Massachusetts, the state that gave us Senator Scott Brown and once gave us John Adams, and John Hancock. The American Revolution has its roots in Massachusetts; the Suffolk Resolves written by John Adams were the foundations of the later essential documents of the new United States. We look to Massachusetts for its inspiring history of democracy and bravery, and for leadership. In the former it never disappoints but in the latter it has been wanting.
The signatories of the rabbis’ letter of Massachusetts and New England should apologize to Mr. Jacobs and accept his heartfelt warnings based upon facts that he presents to them and to us all. If the rabbis have fact-based arguments with which they can refute his assertions, they should provide these to the public.
We live in a world not of our making, a world in which Islam and its adherents are motivated to violence and brutal hatred by their unchanging perfect doctrine. The denial of the rabbis of the doctrine of Islam, of Islamic jihad, history, and current events and their rejection of the truth rings as hollow as Neville Chamberlain’s promise of “peace in our time”.
Dr. Bill Warner is founder and director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and noted scholar. Dr. Warner’s website is PoliticalIslam.com.
DL Adams is an analyst and historian. His writing has appeared in Family Security Matters, American Thinker, New English Review, and elsewhere. Mr. Adams is a Contributing Editor at Family Security Matters, and New English Review.
====================
Letter of the New England Rabbis – The Jewish Advocate, June 10, 2010
An Open Letter to the Jewish Community
We write in defense of our colleague, Rabbi Eric Gurvis. Rabbi Gurvis leads Temple Shalom of Newton, is the past president of the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis (MBR), Boston Area Reform Rabbis (BARR), and currently serves as the president of the Newton Clergy Association. He is a distinguished teacher and respected community leader.
We were shocked and appalled by the vicious, personal attack written by Mr. Charles Jacobs and printed in the Jewish Advocate. We denounce this attack, and call upon Mr. Jacobs to discontinue his destructive campaign against Boston’s Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths, and unproven conspiracy theories. We call upon members of our community to reject the dangerous politics of division that Mr. Jacobs fosters.
Rabbi Gurvis stood with a number of us at a recent interfaith press conference, denouncing the inappropriate words of a gubernatorial candidate who implied that addressing a large group of Muslims was “pandering to terrorists.” Just as we rabbis would expect Christians and Muslims to stand with us Jews if we were unjustly held accountable for the actions of a handful of our people, Rabbi Gurvis stood with our Muslim neighbors. In fact, he pointed out that when Temple Shalom was defaced by a swastika, one of the first calls he received was from Bilal Kaleem from the Muslim American Society.
During these difficult times, Rabbi Gurvis, along with other courageous religious leaders are attempting to foster a different kind of politics. We support his commitment to interfaith dialogue and cooperation. We stand together in our commitment to a community in which neighbors seek to know one another and join together for the common good.
We write these words following the week in which the Torah portion was Shelach Lecha. It tells the stories of the Israelite scouts who were overcome by fear. As a result, they “spread calumnies” among the entire Israelite camp who in turn broke out into loud cries and weeping. Because they succumbed to their fears, God condemned this generation to die in the wilderness. We refuse to allow Mr. Jacobs to spread his calumnies and paralyze our community in fear.
We the undersigned rabbis support Rabbi Eric Gurvis and walk together in faith.
(institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)
Rabbi Thomas Alpert
Rabbi Stephen Arnold
Rabbi Lev Baesh (B’nai Or, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Alfred Benjamin (Rabbi, Temple Shalom, Milton, MA)
Rabbi Joseph Berman
Rabbi Allison Berry (Temple Beth David, Canton, MA)
Rabbi Herman Blumberg (Emeritus, Temple Shir Tikva, Wayland, MA)
Rabbi Carey Brown (Temple Isaiah, Lexington, MA)
Rabbi Sharon Clevenger (The Rashi School, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Joe Eiduson (Congregation B’nai Shalom, Westborough, MA)
Rabbi Lisa Eiduson (Temple Beth Avodah, Newton Centre, MA)
Rabbi John Franken (Temple Ohabei Shalom, Brookline)
Rabbi David Freelund (Cape Cod Synagogue, Hyannis, MA)
Rabbi Ronne Friedman (Temple Israel Boston)
Rabbi Neal Gold (Temple Shir Tikva, Wayland, MA)
Rabbi Robert Goldstein (Temple Emanuel Andover, MA)
Rabbi David Gordis
Rabbi Art Green (Hebrew College, Newton, MA)|
Rabbi Neil Hirsch (Temple Shalom, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Sandi Intraub (Chaplain Resident, Hebrew SeniorLife )
Rabbi Howard Jaffe (Temple Isaiah, Lexington, MA)
Rabbi Shira Joseph (Congregation Sha’aray Shalom, Hingham, MA)
Rabbi Dan Judson (Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Randy Kafka (Temple Israel South Shore, North Easton MA)
Rabbi Daniel Klein
Rabbi Margaret Frisch Klein
Rabbi David Kline
Rabbi Stephanie Kolin (Temple Israel, Boston, MA)
Rabbi Neil Kominsky (Emeritus, Temple Emanuel, Lowell, MA)
Rabbi Jonathan Kraus (Beth El Temple Center, Belmont, MA)
Rabbi Claudia Kreiman (Temple Beth Zion, Brookline, MA)
Rabbi Judith Kummer
Rabbi Stephen Landau (Congregation Tikvoh Chadoshoh, West Hartford CT)
Rabbi Karen Landy (Hebrew Senior Life, Dedham, MA; Havurat Shalom, Andover, MA)
Rabbi Michele Lenke (Temple Beth Shalom, Needham, MA)
Rabbi Allan Lehmann (Vice President Massachusetts Board of Rabbis)
Rabbi Greg Litcofsky (Temple Shir Tikva, Wayland, MA)
Rabbi Natan Margalit ( Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Todd Markley (Temple Beth Shalom, Needham, MA)
Rabbi Daniel Medwin
Rabbi Bernard Mehlman (Emeritus, Temple Israel, Boston, MA)
Rabbi Rim Meirowitz (Temple Shir Tikvah, Winchester, MA)
Rabbi Joseph Meszler (Temple Sinai, Sharon, MA)
Rabbi Laurence Milder (Congregation B’nai Shalom, Westborough, MA)
Rabbi James Morgan
Rabbi Jeremy Morrison (Temple Israel, Boston, MA)
Rabbi Beth Naditch
Rabbi Michelle Pearlman (Temple Shalom, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Barbara Penzner (Temple Hillel B’nai Torah, West Roxbury, MA)
Rabbi Jay Perlman (Temple Beth Shalom, Needham, MA)
Rabbi Jonah Pesner (Director, URJ Just Congregations, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Ellen Pildis (Jewish Studies Director, The Rashi School, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Elaine Pollack (Newton Lower Falls, MA)
Rabbi Victor Reinstein (Nehar Shalom Community Synagogue, Jamaica Plain, MA)
Rabbi Rachel Saphire (Temple Beth Elohim, Wellesley, MA)
Rabbi Talya Weisbard Shalem
Rabbi Lawrence Silverman (Congregation Beth Jacob, Plymouth, MA)
Rabbi Jodi Seewald Smith(Temple Chayai Shalom, Easton MA)
Joel Sisenwine (Temple Beth Elohim, Wellesley, MA)
RabbI Toba Spitzer (Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, West Newton, MA)
Rabbi Keith Stern, (Temple Beth Avodah, Newton Centre, MA)
Rabbi David Thomas (Congregation Beth El of the Sudbury River Valley, Sudbury, MA
Rabbi Van Lanckton, (Temple B’nai Shalom, Braintree, MA)
Rabbi Andrew Vogel (Temple Sinai, Brookline, MA)
Rabbi Moshe Waldoks (Temple Beth Zion, Brookline, MA)
Rabbi Jeffrey Wildstein (Temple Beth David, Westwood, MA)
Rabbi Julie Wolkoff
Rabbi Sara Zacharia (Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Rabbi Elaine Zecher (Temple Israel, Boston, MA)
Rabbi Henry Zoob (Emeritus, Temple Beth David, Westwood, MA)
Rabbinic Students
Joel Baron (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Rogerio Zingerevitz Cukierman (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Margie Klein (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Lev Meirowitz Nelson (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Suzie Schwartz, (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Lila Veissid (Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Professor Judith Kates (Hebrew College, Newton, MA)
Originally published on Family Security Matters.
Despite endless calls to desist from the post-modern international community, Israel continues to cause consternation and confusion by defending itself. Most recently, after numerous calls to turn back from the blockaded Gaza coast and assurances that the “peace flotilla” of “peace activists” would not be allowed to dock, the Israeli Navy landed commandos on the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara, one of the main vessels in the so-called “aid flotilla”. Upon boarding, the Israeli commandos were immediately attacked by the “peace activists” aboard the vessel.
According to reports in Haaretz, Israel’s left-leaning newspaper, the naval commandos were viciously assaulted as they arrived on the final ship from helicopters, prompting live fire self-defense measures from the Israeli soldiers.
“One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and several were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck, forcing them to jump into the sea to escape.
‘They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle,’ one of the commandos said. ‘I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot.’”
Haaretz, May 31, 2010
In our post-modern world in which Israeli self-defense is viewed as aggression and in which the existence of Israel itself is considered sufficient provocation by many for violence, the self-defense response of the Israeli commandos is now widely condemned. Without the false filters of post-modernism and equivalence, however, the actions of the Israeli forces in defending themselves were appropriate and necessary. (Video of “peace” activists attacking Israeli commandos.)
Soldiers of every nation have a right to defend themselves when attacked; every nation has a right to defend itself when attacked – except, in our confused world, Israel. The standard of non-response to aggression, non-response to border breaches, non-response to rocket fire and terrorism, non-response to attempts to break naval blockades is applied to one country on this planet only, Israel.
Al-Jazeera TV documented the atmosphere on the “Peace Flotilla” yesterday, as the passengers on at least one ship were shouting chants of Khaybar. The mood onboard the “peace ships” was nothing short of preparation for war and murder.
‘[Remember] Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!’
Palestinian Media Watch, May 31, 2010.
Here is the core tragedy—there appears to be no one in power in America or Israel who understands what this war cry means. It goes to the heart of the matter—the doctrine of political Islam that comes from the Koran and Mohammed. It was 1400 years ago that Mohammed crushed the last of the free Jews in Arabia at Khaybar. It was 1400 years ago that Muslims declared war on the Jews and enslaved, exiled, murdered, raped and ethnically cleansed them. The first judenrein territory was Khaybar.
The real offense of Israel is that it is not a dhimmi state, subservient to Islam. The Jews’ very existence in the middle of the Islamic world is the core of the problem.
Although Islam has a special hatred of the Jews, based upon Mohammed’s doctrine, if every Jew in Israel were replaced by a Hindu, nothing would change. How do we know this? Look to Kashmir in India where the same battle between political Islam and kafirs (non-Muslims) is being waged.
The word Khaybar goes to the DNA of the war between Islam and all kafirs, particularly the Jews. The outcome, based upon previous reruns, is that bluster and defense will go back and forth and the real reason for the war will go unnoticed, except for all Muslims. The reason that 1.5 billion Muslims can keep a secret is that they can yell it at the top of their voices and no one can hear.
There are now the unsurprising calls for “inquiries” and “explanations” and threats of retaliation and “consequences” from a number of countries against the state of Israel. This event is now the newest flash point in the demonization of Israel. But where will this event lead? Perhaps the Islamist forces have overplayed their hand, and the truth of the matter will sway more levelheaded observers.
Among the passengers on the flotilla it is possible that some were unaware of the violent purposes of some of their fellow travelers. If there were such people of good will on those vessels will they speak the truth of what they saw? Such people of good will, if there were any on the “peace flotilla”, may now have their own positions against Israel challenged by the violence that their fellows have caused – and they may suddenly realize that they have been played. This is unlikely, of course, but it is possible never the less.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, explained that the soldiers defended themselves.
“Netanyahu says Israel wanted to check the cargo to ensure it contained no weapons.
He says this was done successfully with five ships, but the sixth did not cooperate.
He says hundreds of people on board that ship beat, clubbed and stabbed soldiers, and there was a report of gunfire. He says that forced soldiers to attack.”
Boston Herald, May 31, 2010
The evidence at this early stage is overwhelming that the soldiers were attacked without provocation and fired in self-defense. It also shows unequivocally that the “peace” flotilla was nothing of the sort.
Every state has the right to self-defense; this is the foundation of international law and the concept of the nation-state; Israel alone has long been the exception to this rule. This event is so clear that perhaps some who otherwise would be fooled by the propaganda and falsehoods from post-modernists and Islam apologists may see the truth. The use of anti-Jewish Islamic war cries aboard the vessels, and the attack on the Israeli commandos shows that Israel’s insistence that the flotilla turn back was justified.
When does moral and ethical confusion get overturned and clarity return? It can only return when context is understood, and when events are seen as they occur without the cloudy filters of post-modernist equivalence and anti-intellectualism interfering. We must understand the context of this struggle between Israel and the Arab/Islamic world and see it in the Islamic doctrinal context in which it truly originates; there is no compromise that Israel can make with the Islamic world short of non-existence.
The post-modernists of the West, ignorant of Islamic doctrine and its profound importance in the Islamic world are more often than not confounded by the entire situation because they know nothing of its true character and foundations. The Khaybar reference is specific to Islamic doctrine and the Sunna of Mohammed. The conflict in Israel is not political or based on land issues; it is entirely founded on Islamic doctrine and the importance of this doctrine in the Islamic world.
The conflict has never been resolved between Israel and the Palestinians because the nature of the conflict itself has always been mischaracterized by those in the West who claim to want to assist in bringing peace to the region. History shows that peacemakers who know nothing of the nature of the conflict they are trying to resolve can be nothing but failures.
In our world of moral and ethical confusion, in which peace is war and war is peace, rarely has such a clear illustration of falsehood, confusion, and the truth been on display.
Dr. Bill Warner is founder and director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and noted scholar. Dr. Warner’s website is PoliticalIslam.com.
Sometimes events occur that produce a reaction of rejection, revulsion and horror across the political and cultural spectrum. Such events illustrate that even amidst bitter political disagreements and differing concepts about the direction that our society should take there remains a core of agreed upon concepts of decency and correctness that most reasonable people can unite in supporting.
“The AAP has no business brokering cultural procedures, even those that may support future revenue streams for some of its members. In this time of reduced resources, more than ever, it is imperative that medical organizations such as the AAP focus on what matters most—promoting the safety of our children, and working to eradicate—not condone or justify—harmful, non-beneficial, unethical practices such as FGC and MGC.”
Please continue reading this article on New English Review.
by DL Adams
[The article first published on Family Security Matters, with the title "Why Are American Soldiers Dying so Iraq and Afghanistan Can Remain Sharia Law Nations?"]
With great fanfare but little grit or talk of victory President Obama announced at West Point last month that 30,000 additional American soldiers are going to Afghanistan. If the mission in Afghanistan is two-fold, the defeat of the abysmal Taliban and the creation of a stable, democratic state it would appear that we are not doing well.
The same could be said of “nation building” in Iraq where violence of late appears to be diminishing in comparison to the bloody mountains and valleys of Afghanistan. While the reduction of violence in Iraq is comforting the diminishment of violence is not the definitive measure of the success of nation building.
The true measure of our efforts in both beneficiary countries should be based upon an examination of the foundations of these countries that we have created with the blood of our best and treasure. When such an examination is made the result can only be horror.
The constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan for those who love democracy, freedom, and liberty, are failures. If the constitution of a new nation is a failure, what kind of nation can be built then upon it?
After the US military (with our allies) drove the Taliban out of Kabul we endeavored to create a new Afghanistan based upon Constitutional law. Neither the Constitution of Iraq nor of Afghanistan are structured on the secular American model of the state subordinate to the will of the people. This concept is the foundation of American democracy given to us by Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, and Hamilton; this is tragically not the foundation of our failed nation building strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan are both Islamic states (specifically stated as such in their constitutions). The people of both beneficiary states are therefore in service to Islam (the state is Islam and Islam is the state); this is not any form of “democracy” that most Americans can countenance nor reasonably support.
After WW2 Douglas MacArthur remained in Tokyo to oversee the creation and passage of a new American-style constitution on the defeated Japanese; one which entirely rejected the previous system of government/society. The new Japanese constitution removed the power of the Emperor and created an American-style democracy in which the people have power over the government through the constitution. This approach completely overturned the old order of Japanese totalitarian empirical rule.
In announcing the new constitution in Tokyo MacArthur said that “the Japanese people thus turn their backs firmly upon the mysticism and unreality of the past and face instead a future of realism with a new faith and a new hope.” Regarding the Emperor, MacArthur said in a public statement that the new constitution “leaves the throne without governmental authority or state property, subject to the people’s will, a symbol of the people’s unity.”
The new constitution represented a complete and total shift in approach to government in Japan and most importantly, the relationship of citizen to the state.
Declared by its terms to be the supreme law for Japan, it places sovereignty squarely in the hands of the people. It establishes governmental authority with the predominant power vested in an elected legislature, as representative of the people, but with adequate check upon that power, as well as upon the power of the Executive and the Judiciary, to insure that no branch of government may become autocratic or arbitrary in the administration of affairs of state.
MacArthur’s Announcement of Japan’s New Constitution, March 6, 1946
Japan’s post-war constitution specifically identifies the constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. This is the same structure of constitutional democracy that exists in the United States as delineated in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Constitutionalism is ensconced in Japan by the 98th Article.
“This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity.”
The new constitution reiterated the overturning of the old empirical order; the Emperor was now legally powerless and subordinate to the constitution.
The Emperor or the Regent as well as Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials have the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution.
Article 99, Constitution of Japan
We have taken a tragically different course in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Article One of the constitution of Afghanistan states that “Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.” Article 2 of the constitution of Iraq states that “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” Both states identify Islam as the bedrock of the state and also the law of the land.
No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
(Article 2, A; constitution of Iraq.)In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
(Article 3; constitution of Afghanistan.)
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are Islamic states as codified in their new American-supported constitutions. Sharia Law is the law of Islam. Islamic law supersedes any laws in the constitution that are not Sharia law-compliant.
Any review of the implementation of Sharia law anywhere in the world (or of Sharia itself ) shows it to be brutal, cruel, misogynist, anti-homosexual, anti-free speech, supremacist, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom of religion among its many unpleasant qualities. Even in Afghanistan as late as 2006 a Muslim Afghan convert to Christianity was sentenced to death for leaving Islam. Only American outrage prevented the implementation of the Sharia death penalty.
Under Sharia Law, leaving Islam is not permitted. It is considered a crime worse than murder and is punishable by death. A Sharia judge on the case commented at the time, “We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law. It is an attack on Islam.” The inherent contradiction between democracy and Islamic law did not go unnoticed by everyone, however.
But, while democracy is taking root in Afghanistan, the country’s constitution is not a truly secular document.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Sharia law is derived from Koran, Sira, and Hadith, the three foundational documents of Islam. Sharia law therefore has the authority of both Allah and Mohammed as it is the codification of their commands, and the words, deeds, and example of the prophet. American support of this barbaric “legal system” anywhere on this planet is folly.
Sharia law is antithetical to American concepts of freedom and democracy. What can be the reason that we have created two Islamic states founded upon American blood and treasure? Why did we take such a radically different approach to Iraq and Afghanistan than we did with Japan after WW2?
There is no overlap whatever between American concepts of decency and justice and Sharia law. Among the horrors of Sharia are death for criticism of Islam, death for leaving Islam, dhimmitude for those who are non-Muslims living under Sharia, the near impossibility of rape victims to prove rape, wife beating, child marriage, unequal rights for women, no legal rights for non-Muslims, and the subjugation of women. The list of Sharia’s horrors is lengthy and disturbing. An illustration of Sharia from the definitive book of Sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller, is illustrative.
The following are not subject to retaliation:
a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim (o1.2(2))
a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O:because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences); (o1.2(3))
a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offsprings offspring (o1.2(4))
Under Sharia law there is no “retaliation” by the Islamic state against a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim for whatever reason. Can there be a more barbarous “legal” system that is more overtly opposed to our own concepts of right/wrong, good/evil, decency/barbarism, and justice/injustice? This is the system of “law” for which we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? This is folly.
No American who loves our Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed under it should accept Sharia Law anywhere in this country or actively support it elsewhere. How can it be countenanced that American soldiers are told that they fight and die for “freedom” in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact our soldiers fight to prop up two Sharia law states?
Why did we free the Japanese people from the backwardness, totalitarianism and aggressive warfare of the empire of Japan but chose to co-operate in imposing the anti-human injustice and brutality of Islamic Sharia law on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? The blame for this disaster must be spread across two administrations. We have failed in that we did not create a society based upon justice, secular law and constitutional democracy in the American model as we did for Japan.
Sharia law is horrific and anti-human and should be opposed by decent people everywhere. Our “allies” across the Islamic world implement Sharia law to varying degrees but every Islamic state must acknowledge their Islamic obligation to implement it.
The goal of Islamic expansion everywhere is the implementation of Sharia law in countries and cultures where it is not now enforced. This expansion is fueled by jihad. Jihad is required of all adherents of Islam.
What can be the purpose of the United States (the “great satan”) in creating new Islamic states? The answers are not forthcoming because the question is rarely (if ever) asked.
We now fight a war around the world and at home against Islamic brutality against us (our so-called “war on terror”) motivated entirely by the doctrine of Islam yet we fight two wars to create and prop up two new Islamic countries bound to the same doctrine; folly.
What can be our war aims when the result will be the creation of two countries that are ideologically opposed to our existence? It would appear that we have been fooled, or worse. Our mistakes carry a staggeringly high cost; to bring any value or meaning to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq we must admit that our course has been tragically in error and quickly make the necessary corrections.
In this important article an active US Army officer criticizes a national opinion leader for his mistaken notions about the motivations of Islamic terrorists. He criticizes and with good reason those who speak ignorantly about Islam but know little about it, particularly opinion makers in the national spotlight.
It is important that Americans understand Islamic doctrine as this is the motivator of jihadists. We have seen many times, most recently at Fort Hood when a self-identified jihadist attacks unbelievers and explains/justifies his/her actions in a doctrinal context. The context of jihad and attacks on non-Muslims by adherents of Islam is the doctrine of Islam, Koran, Sira, Hadith. To deny this linkage is to deny reality and suggest that ideology is not a motivator even when the perpetrators of these atrocities say specifically that it is.
Disturbingly, our leaders continue to minimize or actively denythat Islamic doctrine or Hasan’s Muslim identity had anything to do with his murders, treason, and betrayal. People who believe such absurdities are in denial with devastating consequences for all Americans.
The author convincingly shows that knowledge of the doctrine of Islam is our first line of defense. Without this essential knowledge, we cannot defend ourselves.
This article appears in Human Events and is re-posted here with permission by the author.
A video appears at the end of this article that is complimentary to the message of the author and to this site. A former terrorist discusses his motives, and why the West is hated. The man in the video is now a defender of the West and of Israel. For those having difficulty accepting the the truth of the unpleasant ideology of Islam and the dire threat that it presents to us have only to listen to this brave and knowledgeable man. He speaks with the knowledge of experience. Ignoring this man and his message is a fool’s choice.
-DLA
Over eight years since 9/11, it is amazing that a prominent conservative would not understand the fundamental motivation and doctrine driving those who have and continue to attack us. This is not rocket science.
Raymond Ibraham’s analysis in his invaluable book, the Al Qaeda Reader, best summarizes it. On page xii he explains that radical Islam’s war with America and the west is not finite and limited to political grievances real or imagined but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in [the Islamic] faith.
Pat mentions only half of al Qaeda’s binary worldview in his article, the dar al-Islam (the land of Islam). By failing to even mention the dar al-Harb (the land of warfare), he fails to acknowledge that Islam, by doctrine (Koran 9:29), views the entire non-Muslim world as a land that must be subdued under Islamic rule (read sharia law). This is explained in the primary text of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Travelerby Ahmad ibn Naquib al-Misri (page 605).
What Buchanan also fails to mention, is taqiyya- the Islamic doctrine of deception, the understanding of which is fundamental to understanding the threat. Muhammad himself said war is deceit. (See “Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari” by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, p. 614) Here again, Mr. Ibraham has done yeoman’s work analyzing and explaining the doctrine of taqiyya and its impact on jihadist terrorism in his article, “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War.”
As we learn from Reliance of the Traveler, by Islamic law there are things Muslims are required to know and there are other things we, as non-Muslims, are allowed to know. In fact, Islamic law requires lying at times (it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.) (See pages 8-14, 732 and 745).
As a result of their binary world view, al Qaeda has two main audiences: the Muslim world (the ummah) and the non-Muslim world, consisting of the United States and the rest of the Western world. As such, it uses markedly different approaches to address each group.
When speaking to America and the Western world, al Qaeda turns statements made by what Lenin called the “useful idiots” into popular propaganda. They frequently cite Michael Moore, William Blum and other liberal commentators.
In contrast, when speaking to their constituents — the Muslim World — bin Laden and Zawahiri instead use formal Islamic theology and sharia law as levers to enforce Muslim compliance. Those who don’t comply are labeled apostates, who, by sharia, must be killed and will inhabit hell. (See “Reliance of the Traveler,” pp. 595-98 and 848).
Written for Muslim audiences, they [al Qaeda’s Islamic theological treatises] are rarely translated into English or disseminated to a non-Muslim public. This is unfortunate since they reveal much more about al Qaeda’s ideology than the more famous political [propaganda] speeches. In these theological tracts, al Qaeda gives Muslims reasons why they should hate and fight the West that differ from those they give in their political speeches. (“Al Queda Reader,” p. 2)
There’s a difference between reciting the enemy and knowing the enemy. Buchanan confuses the two concepts. Which is why his cry for appeasement is misguided. He implies that if we packed up and came home (from Iraq, Afghanistan and all other Muslim countries), and adopted an isolationist foreign policy, then they would stop attacking us. Wrong.
Not only would this hand them a strategic victory, but they’d simply find another reason to continue to attack us. Islam cannot be appeased. (Koran 9:29). Not to mention the moral bankruptcy of abandoning the Afghan people and leaving them under the repressive rule of the Taliban.
Buchanan writes as if the Taliban were a legitimate government. The Afghanis know we are not the Russians or some other malicious occupier. But they are realists in a hostile land with a legitimate concern about our staying power and what will happen after we leave. Pat’s argument doesn’t help our cause.
Buchanan states that this is their war (the Muslim world’s war) and suggests that if we stayed out of it they would leave us alone. Even if this were true — and it is not — it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.
Americans are not being killed, as Buchanan retorts, for the propaganda reasons he repeats, but rather for who we are and what we believe. Not one American died in Iraq in December because the Iraqis finally saw the bankrupt ideology al Qaeda was selling and they helped us eradicate them.
To bin Laden and his ilk, we are the Great Satan. They hate us more than they hate Israel.
As for Hamas and Hizballah — which Pat paints as if they have benignly left us alone — they are here in the United States — actively pursuing a strategy of non-violent jihad that is arguably a more dangerous threat than the challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia.
I can understand his sentiment and aversion to war. As a career soldier, I know too many Gold Star parents to be cavalier about war.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. – John Stuart Mill
As a parent, you’ll not hear me utter the unfatherly expression, Give me peace in my day. Rather, I will always say — as the real Thomas Paine said in 1776 — If there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace.
It’s time we start to know our enemy.
As for Mr. Buchanan, it’s encouraging that he’s started to learn the enemy’s vocabulary. I hope he’ll stop repeating the enemy’s talking points and blaming us for the enemy simply executing their own offensive, totalitarian doctrine.
It takes many hours to read and study books such as the ones I have mentioned here. But unless more Americans do — especially opinion leaders such as Mr. Buchanan — we cannot understand the true nature of the enemy.
| Thomas Paine is the nom de plume of an active-duty Army officer with two combat deployments to the Middle East and almost two decades of service. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. |
Several days ago a reader posted an extensive comment on New English Review in response to “Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics.” The commenter’s insightful essay merits a wider audience and is presented here in its original form.
The author provides historical background by way of explanation for the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves. The linkage with Vietnam and our current embrace of radical tolerance, multiculturalism, post-modernism and a loss of faith in the value of our own society are clearly discussed. The role of Vietnam and the societal upheavals that occurred here at home in opposition to it has not gone entirely unnoticed by the author and other acute observers.
It is clear that we must return to our long held acceptance, now recently lost, of our own American exceptionalism; a concept widely embraced for generations. As we are now engaged in a very old war against civilization now renewed with a vigor it is critically important to come to an understanding as to how we got here. According to the author we have lost sight of what is that we are fighting for which is our own identity.
-DLA
by Victor Hertz
(posted with express permission)
This article is absolutely superb, but unless I missed something, it does not mention the root historical catalyst of the political/cultural phenomenon that has spawned the likes of Obama: Vietnam.
In this war, we were supporting an admittedly corrupt and undemocratic government against an even worse adversary. This was not unlike Korea, except that the South Koreans had more motivation to defend themselves, and the North Koreans lacked a military leader with the singular genius of General Giap.
While we wring our hands over the corruption we see in the Karzai government of Afghanistan today, for example, many forget that South Korea was an authoritarian dictatorship for decades after the war, before evolving into the democracy they are today. Chiang Kai Shek ruled Taiwan with brutal repression, until similar changes ultimately occurred there. This is not to say that we should turn a blind eye to the abuses of dictators who would be our allies, but neither should we expect Jeffersonian democracy overnight.
In the case of South Vietnam, after the battle of Ap Bac in 1963, perhaps a good case can be made that we should have walked out and redrew our local Cold War defensive perimeter at the Thai frontier. But for a variety of reasons, some more noble than others, we decided to stay and fight. By any reasonable measure, we should have won. We nearly did. But we were undone, because while we concentrated on the clash of arms in a two-dimensional sense, General Giap expanded the battle to include a new dimension of media-driven impressionism combined with utter cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Everything that is being done to Israel today, was done to us in Vietnam. This is no coincidence. Yasser Arafat traveled to Hanoi in the late 1960s to get advice on how to defeat a materially more powerful foe. Giap’s writings on this subject have been translated into Arabic and are widely circulated among the Palestinians to this day.
Only today, the Arabs have greatly expanded on what Giap had devised, having petrodollar funding and a compliant media that he only could have dreamed of. But I digress.
Back to the original point, in Vietnam, we were fighting an utterly ruthless totalitarian enemy who used child warriors, suicide bombers, and civilian-clothed terrorist/combatants who hid among the general population so as to deliberately increase casualties among the same so as to give us a black eye in world opinion, and who very deliberately manipulated the media and academic circles in the U.S. and the West generally so as to turn public opinion against the war in these societies. Sound familiar, everybody?
We trounced the Viet Cong in the wake of Tet in 1968. They were ready to sue for peace, until they saw the fruits of their disinformation efforts among the Western media as to how this battle was reported. We pretty much pummeled them into nothing during the two Linebacker campaigns of 1972, especially the second one, but even after the peace that ensued, they counted on our broken will to ensure that we would do nothing when they flouted the agreement and invaded anyway. And they were right on the mark.
Despite what impressions some may have, the counter-culture student left in the U.S. was never really that big. Many may have adopted the costumes, but the hard core believers were small in number. But their views appeared to be validated by our defeat in Vietnam. For, in the singularly innocent American psyche, the “good guys” are supposed to win in any war. Since we lost, we could not have been the “good guys”. We deserved to lose. It logically followed then, that the murderous bastards in Hanoi must have been the “good guys”. We simply could not accept, as a nation, that we were in the right – at least more in the right than our opposition – we could have won, and we walked away anyway. So, in order to digest the indigestible, we had to make the North Vietnamese regime in Hanoi into a somehow noble “David” that defeated the American “Goliath”, we turned black into white. In the wake of this, even the political right in this country could not and even today cannot come to grips with what happened in Vietnam; even as they refuse to concede that the Hanoi regime represented the “good guys”, they retreat to the almost equally delusional position that even if our goals had been noble, we were fighting an “unwinnable war”.
And, by the way, that the U.S. “pig empire” was the villain in all of this is what the hippies who worshipped at the altar of Saul Alinsky had been saying all along who now looked so vindicated in the eyes of their generational peers who had mostly sat on the sidelines through the whole thing; wondering who was right, dumbfounded when our helicopters were perched on top of our embassy in Saigon. I was only 13 years old at that time, but even I knew that our country would never be the same. Suddenly, 2+2=5. Once you have done this, anything is possible, anything can be rationalized.
Fast forward to the present. Obama becomes positively indignant when supporters of McCain suggest that he could not really have patriotic credentials on a par with those of the Senator from Arizona. Objectively, such critics of Obama could not have been more correct, but in the upside-down political culture of post-Vietnam America, among a certain segment cut from the cloth of Barack Obama, to hate America – or what most of us take as that which America has traditionally stood for – is somehow a kind of special patriotism unto itself. Indeed, it is superior to the kind of more “traditional” patriotism of someone like John McCain; that is for squares, chumps, and neanderthals. Obama’s is a more “sophisticated”, “postmodern” patriotism.
And who will question this? Absurd as many may feel in their gut that this may be, well, such people as Obama’s teachers were “right” about the misguided nature of our “imperialistic” war in Vietnam, so perhaps they are right about Obama as well. Those who question this can easily be painted as “racists” and “reactionaries”.
This is where the power has come from, that has given rise to the disciples of Alinsky who occupy the halls of power today in Washington (and elsewhere). In addition to winning on the battlefield as we had – if we had also won the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public, and thus maintained the psychological will to prevail in SE Asia as we could have and should have done, the Alinsky types like Obama would today still represent no more than an insignificant fringe, not unlike the “beat” movement of the 1950s, with little credibility or influence.
We need to return to the principles espoused by Mr. Adams. We need to rediscover what we stand for, what we are willing to fight for. In short, we need to return to the level of civilizational self-confidence, if you will, that prevailed in this country circa 1964. We need to finally, truly recover from our “Vietnam Syndrome”, whose flower now sits in the Oval Office.
We fight an adversary today, in the form of Islamist fundamentalists, over whom we have every advantage save one: we don’t know what the hell we are fighting for, and they do. And until we figure out something worth defending about ourselves besides being fat and comfortable, as long as we keep making excuses and maintaining a state of bullshit PC denial about what our adversary is about, then we are going to keep getting hit. How many of our innocents are going to have to die before we galvanize something resembling genuine national will, before we can clearly perceive Obama and his ilk for the traitorous frauds they are, I have no idea. I am afraid that it will be many.
Bad Behavior has blocked 109 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Koranic Sources of Intolerance – A Concise Guide
concise_guide_to_koranic_intolerance_and_hate_speech
Right click to download the PDF document, or click on the link to launch the PDF document in your viewer.