If you recall I wrote several previous articles on the subject of the attacks on our consulates and embassies, including here and here. In it I put forward the position that I believe we should adopt when it comes to invaders, which is:
If you violate our sovereignty with force of arms we will treat that as the armed invasion that it is. We will hunt you down and splatter your viscera all over the dirt where you stand and live upon, as we would do to any invading militaristic force. Politicians often talk about "bringing people to justice"; I instead wish you to know that it will be God who judges you in the present tense and you will then get to learn whether your belief that 72 virgins await you in paradise is real, or whether you are headed straight to Hell.
I admit there's no wiggle room there. But I argue there should not be any wiggle room.
About 100 attackers carried out the "coordinated assault,” intelligence sources said, further discrediting earlier Obama administration claims that the deadly attack was a "spontaneous" outburst in response to an anti-Islam film.
Fox News' sources say the attack came in two waves and involved rocket-propelled grenades, as well as mortar fire, and both the consulate and safe house were attacked seemingly with inside knowledge.
This had nothing to do with a "prophet" being "insulted." It was a military operation, coordinated between the parties, pre-planned and executed to achieve a given result.
Not only that but there is evidence that we released one of the terrorists involved from Gitmo. Yeah.
Qumu, the former Guantanamo Bay detainee, is a Libyan who was released from the U.S. prison in Cuba in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail.
He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2010.
See what appeasement gets you? Death.
So here's the deal. If you want a foreign policy that actually works, you have to make clear that this crap isn't going to be tolerated. We were hit on 9/11 in no small part because we sat on our ass after the USS Cole was blown up. Everyone remembers that, right? That was a military assault undertaken by a couple of Muzzies who came alongside in a rubber raft full of explosives, and only the heroic acts of our singed and hard-of-hearing boys on board (from the fire and explosion) saved the vessel.
And while we're at it let's talk about this "Muzzie" thing too. See, when someone declares war on you, it's useful to have an appellation for the people who just declared that they want you all dead, and are willing to die to try to make that happen. Many people think that "war" is only about clearly-delineated nation-states with nice, neat lines on maps. They seem to forget that an awful lot of wars aren't fought that way and never have been. Like, for instance, The Civil War, which began with a bunch of folks deciding that they weren't part of a nation-state any more.
The point here is that war is often fought between two groups of people who hold ideals and ideas that are so far apart that they just can't figure out how they can live with one another on the same rock -- this rock called "Earth." And since leaving is kinda difficult with our given level of technology, that means that ultimately the one who decides that it's "my way or you die" either has to win by conquest, abandon their silly ideas or be slaughtered, sometimes to the last man. Some of the time those people are formally associated with a thing we call a "Nation-State", but not always, and we must not restrict our definition of "acts of war" to those taken by same.
In short an invasion is an invasion. That is not a criminal act, it is an act of war. Likewise, actual or credible threatened use of a WMD by an affiliated group irrespective of whether a nation-state is behind it or not is not a crime, it is an act of war.
I am finally starting to see myriad editorials pointing out the utter insanity of appeasement in this regard as well. I was early on this, but it looks like opinion among the journalist crowd is coming around to the correct point of view. First, in Bloomberg which earlier in the week opined that our First Amendment was the key item on the table, then in the Wall Street Journal in which it was pointed out that it's perfectly ok to mock Mormons in this country, and now on Fox News, with a similar piece that says:
A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.
So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.
Yep.
But while we're at it I will take issue with calling these Muslim extremists "Islamists", because that implies (if not outright states) that all who practice Islam are murderous bastards who will attempt to chop off your head if you insult their religion in some form or fashion. That's simply incorrect; there are millions if not well over a billion Muslims who aren't inclined to pick up a gun, an RPG or a bomb and "take retribution" for their imagined offense against their "prophet." I know quite a few of them personally. It is for this reason that I believe we need an appellation that clearly delineates those who hold these beliefs from those who do not; ergo, my label of "Muzzies".
The general point raised in all three editorials, however, is not only valid it is what I have advocated all along. It is utterly essential that we in the western world stand up and tell these people we will not submit, we will not capitulate, we will not cotton to that bullshit and our values include the right of free expression which means we can and will ridicule anything we like, including your alleged "prophet" and book.
Further, we must exercise those rights early and often while making crystal-clear that if this inspires certain people to murderous rage we will meet force with force until they cut that crap out or are dead, including but not limited to irredeemably flattening that which they hold most-dear should they go from trying to shoot a few people into playing "collective punishment" with WMDs of any sort.
It's not that complicated folks. We live in an alleged civilized society where insult does not give rise to a right of armed conflict and murderous retribution.
Those who think they're living in the 5th Century where such behavior is considered appropriate need to grow up or expire and our alleged "leaders" need to grow a pair of rocks and explain this in nice, crisp, clean and unmistakable language, backing it with whatever force turns out to be necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment