The Taliban shoot a 14 Year Old Pakistani Girl in the Head because she is Anti-Taliban and Secular

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2012

Week in Review

After the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi and the assassination of the America ambassador as well as three other Americans President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other members of the Obama administration blamed a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video.  They all dismissed this as an act of terrorism.  Despite it happening on the anniversary of the worse terrorist attack on the Untied States.  9/11.  Because with the killing of Osama bin Laden President Obama had for all intents and purposes said the war on terrorism was over.  And that he won it.  So there was no need to increase security in Benghazi, a hot spot for al Qaeda activity.  Despite the Americans in Benghazi asking for additional security.

President Obama constantly told the Muslim world that they were not our enemy.  That it was only al Qaeda.  And the Taliban.  The president has gone out of his way to appease the Muslim world.  When a Muslim attacked Americans at Fort Hood President Obama refused to call it an act of terrorism.  Calling it a case of workplace violence.  Even though the shooter, Major Hasan, had a growing interest in violent Islamist extremism before the shooting.  Others had even complained about this.  But they were ignored.  To show, it would appear, how far we would go not to show any bias towards Muslims in America.

President Obama was sure the only reason why some in the Muslim world hated America was because of what George W. Bush did.  He inflamed the Muslim world by invading Muslim countries.  And with all of his ‘war on terrorism’ and ‘Islamist extremist’ rhetoric.  President Obama could change all of that by simply being nice to those who would want to harm us.  But the problem is it’s not America they hate.  Or George W. Bush.  They hate the freedom and liberties we have in the West.  Especially the freedoms western women enjoy (see Outcry over Pakistan attack on activist Malala Yousafza, 14 posted 10/9/2012 on BBC News Asia).

An attack by Taliban gunmen in north-west Pakistan that wounded a 14-year-old who campaigned for girls’ rights has caused an outcry in the country.

Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on her way home from school in Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley…

A Pakistani Taliban spokesman told the BBC they carried out the attack.

Ehsanullah Ehsan told BBC Urdu that they attacked her because she was anti-Taliban and secular, adding that she would not be spared.

Malala Yousafzai came to public attention in 2009 by writing a diary for BBC Urdu about life under Taliban militants who had taken control of the valley…

The Taliban captured the Swat Valley in late 2007 and remained in de facto control until they were driven out by Pakistani military forces during an offensive in 2009.

While in power they closed girls’ schools, promulgated Sharia law and introduced measures such as banning the playing of music in cars.

This girl was not an American.  She was not British.  She was a Pakistani who just wanted to do what girls in the West can do.  Go to school.  But for having such ‘unnatural’ desires the Taliban shot her in the head.  More than a year after President Obama ended the war against Islamist extremism with the killing of Osama bin Laden.

You want to talk about a war on women?  This is a real war on women.  Where girls get shot for wanting to go to school.  How does this compare to expecting American women to buy their own birth control?

You can’t make your enemies like you.  For they don’t like you for being who you are.  And that will never change.  Unless we stop being who we are.  And stop enjoying the freedoms and liberties we enjoy in the western world.  As some women on the Left are outraged that they have to buy their own birth control I doubt they’re going to give up their freedoms and live like our enemies would want them to live.  Nor should they.  No, a sign of weakness is not making our enemies like us.  It is only emboldening them.

Let them hate us.  But don’t let them hurt us.  Peace through strength.  The Ronald Reagan way.  It’s the only thing those who want to push others around understand.  Strength.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Killed a Marginalized Osama bin Laden before they Rebuilt the World Trade Center Site

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 7th, 2011

Despite losing the Hearts and Minds, the Violence will go On

Osama bin Laden is dead and gone.  So what is his legacy?  A great Martyr?  Or just a silly old man who lost touch with the Muslim world who did not quite want as an austere life as he thought they should have (see The Osama drama: Is the play over? by Michael Hudson posted 5/7/2011 on Al Jazeera)?

But it was not only the denial of a media platform that marginalised him. It was also his script: to most Arabs and Muslims the idea of a new caliphate enforcing an austere – and not widely accepted – form of Islamic rule was a bloodless abstraction and not very appealing at that. So, while he drew strength by articulating violent resistance against deeply held grievances, he failed to offer, as it were, a “happy ending”.

How galling it must have been for him, isolated in his Pakistani villa, to watch huge audiences across the Arab world following a new and different script. Nowhere in the wave of mass protests that began last December were there banners for bin Laden or calls for a salafi order; nowhere were there chants for violence – even when unarmed protesters were brutally attacked by regime security forces. Osama was upstaged by new actors with a new script and an audience that chose not to sit as passive observers of the political scene – but actually insisted on participation in governance and public affairs.

You can almost hear his lament.  “These kids today.  When I was out there killing people it meant something.  Today they don’t care.  It’s just a little fun for young people who love to whine about the great problems in their lives.  She doesn’t love me.  My parents won’t buy me an iPhone.  While I was trying to establish a new caliphate they just wanted to ‘friend’ others on Facebook.  Whatever that means.  *sigh*  Jihad isn’t what it used to be…Get off of my lawn you snot-nose kids!  Don’t make me come out there.”

It was a battle for the heart and minds of real Muslims.  And apparently, he lost (see Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy by Alia Brahimi posted 5/7/2011 on Al Jazeera).

Though al-Qaeda will be temporarily re-energised by the killing of bin Laden, it will not be enough to build up the sort of momentum and broad-based sympathy that they enjoyed at the height of the US-led occupation of Iraq. Between 2003-2006 in particular, bin Laden’s poetic narrative of resistance resonated even beyond the Muslim world. A German student in my halls at Oxford once returned from a trip home sporting a bin Laden t-shirt. George W Bush’s “war on terror” did not win the struggle for hearts and minds – fortunately, however, al-Qaeda lost it.

Yes, al Qaeda lost their way.  They became ideologically soft in their brutal acts of terrorism.  Violence for violence sake.  Missing the big picture.  Like Uncle Osama preached.  To make everyone live under the most harsh and austere Sharia Law possible.  That’s why the Americans lost the Vietnam War.  They lost the hearts and minds.  The North Vietnamese never lost their faith.  Or their belief in Uncle Ho.  Of course, victory for them included a happy ending.  Which makes it easier to follow someone to the bitter end.  Because the end won’t necessarily be so bitter.

So the violence will go on.  It just won’t serve some higher purpose.

What a Terrible way to Spend a Decade

It took about 10 years to kill Osama bin Laden.  That’s a long time.  A lot can happen in 10 years.  You can build buildings.  A lot of them.  For example, they built the Empire State Building in only 410 days.  That’s about a month longer than one year.  And this during the Great Depression.  Not to mention the fact that it was the tallest building in the world at the time.  Says a lot about New Yorkers.  Even in the worst of times, they’re tough and strong and can do anything you ask of them.  So I imagine the new World Trade Center site should be showing great progress in almost 10 years.  Because some of the best people in the world were there to rebuild that site (see A World Trade Center Progress Report by Bill Marsh posted 5/7/2011 on The New York Times).

It will take much longer than that to heal the gaping wound in the Lower Manhattan cityscape. Blame politics, finances, legalities and the challenge of making the many compromises necessary for such an enormous reconstruction effort. But after spending much time on cleanup and foundation work, progress is ever more visible: The soaring 1 World Trade Center and another skyscraper are rising by about one floor per week; a spacious memorial is to open on the 10th anniversary of the attack this fall.

You know what you call an empty World Trade Center site?  A memorial to al Qaeda.  Rebuilding this site faster would have meant a lot more than a dead bin Laden.  I can’t imagine the frustration of the New York building trades this past decade.  What a terrible way to spend a decade.

A Better way to Spend a Decade

I can think of a far better way to put a decade to good use (see Whiskey is all about the waiting by Jason Wilson posted 5/6/2011 on The Washington Post).

Barrel aging is one of the most noteworthy aspects of whiskey making. It endlessly fascinates me that producers will take a clear “white dog” whiskey off the still at eyebrow-singeing proof, pour it into a barrel and let the liquid sit and mellow inside the wood — sometimes for decades.

Magical things happen inside that barrel in terms of flavor, texture and aroma. Beyond what sort of wood is used, the location of where the barrel sits in the warehouse matters greatly — a barrel sitting at ground level ages differently than one resting on a higher floor. In this way, the warehouse becomes a man-made terroir — similar to a winery, in which grapes from different geographic locations will take on different characteristics.

I’ve previously discussed the importance of aging and blending in the process of making whiskey. The craft of distillation is certainly of utmost importance — if mediocre whiskey comes off the still, it’s not going to get better after 10 years in a barrel. But how whiskey ages in a barrel is just as critical.

I’m sipping a bourbon right now as I write.  It’s not a ten-year bourbon.  But it’s okay.  There’s some texture to it.  And it warms the belly.  But I know what I’ll be buying tomorrow.

In this week’s column, I discuss Buffalo Trace’s new Single Oak Project, which is part of the distillery’s larger two-decade search for the Holy Grail of bourbon…

This happened with the bourbons I wrote about this week. The man who went into the Ozarks to choose the white oaks for the Single Oak Project was named Ronnie Eddins, Buffalo Trace’s long-time warehouse manager. If you go to the Single Oak Project Web site, you actually can see videos of Eddins chatting with the loggers of those trees. Throughout the aging process, he was instrumental in creating these bourbons. Sadly, Eddins died earlier this year. He did not live to see the Single Oak Project bottled and sent to market.

Poor Ronnie Eddins.  He didn’t live to see the day Osama bin Laden paid for his crimes.  To see new buildings rising triumphantly on the World Trade Center site.  Or taste what he so lovingly brought to market.  Rest in peace, Ronnie.  Know that you brought enjoyment to others.  And that we smile as we raise a glass in your honor.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the Arab World backward because of their Women?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 6th, 2011

Europe Pulls ahead of the Middle East in 1200 and never Looks Back

What’s the deal with the Islamic world?  While Western Civilization has reached staggering heights of prosperity and freedom, much of the Islamic world lives as they did during the Middle Ages (see Is Islam the Problem? by Nicholas Kristof posted 3/5/2011 on The New York Times).

A wise visitor from outer space who dropped in on Earth a millennium ago might have assumed that the Americas would eventually be colonized not by primitive Europeans but by the more advanced Arab civilization — and that as a result we Americans would all be speaking Arabic today.

Yet after about 1200, the Middle East took a long break: it stagnated economically, and today it is marked by high levels of illiteracy and autocracy. So as the region erupts in protests seeking democracy, a basic question arises: What took so long? And, a politically incorrect question: Could the reason for the Middle East’s backwardness be Islam?

That great city in Egypt founded by Alexander the Great, Alexandria, held a treasure trove of old Greek texts.  When the Christian Crusaders crusaded into the region, they took some of these books back home with them.  As well as some Arab science and math.  It’s what made Europe dominant coming out of the Middle Ages.  At the time of the Crusades, the Arab world was more dominant than Europe.  More learned.  More advanced.  So it’s a good question.  What happened?  Why did the Europeans pass them by?

Yet one challenge is psychological. Many Arabs blame outsiders for their backwardness, and cope by rejecting modernity and the outside world. It’s a disgrace that an area that once produced outstanding science and culture (giving us words like algebra) now is an educational underachiever, especially for girls.

Perhaps there is a clue here.  Perhaps it’s the human capital of Western women.  It’s just a thought.  When you exclude women from anything reserved for men it basically cuts your human capital in half.  The greater your human capital, the greater your advancement.  If the split between men and women is 50-50, then the Western Civilization has been working with a 100% advantage in human capital.  Perhaps that is a factor.  I don’t know.  It’s just a thought.

The Great Cultural Divide: Bikinis or Veils

Little has changed in the Muslim world.  Education and custom is little changed from what it was back when the Arab world was dominant.  And those who try to change things are not received well by their brethren (see London imam subjected to death threats for supporting evolution by Rowenna Davis posted 3/6/2011 on the UK’s Guardian).

An imam of an east London mosque has been subject to death threats and intimidation for expressing his views on evolution and women’s right to refuse the veil…

A statement from the secretary of the mosque, Mohammad Sethi, that was leaked to extremist websites, said Hasan had been suspended after his lecture resulted in “considerable antagonism” from the community and for his “belief that Muslim women are allowed to uncover their hair in public”.

It is not uncommon to see magazines at the checkout lane in American sores with bikini-clad women on the covers.  You see them so often you don’t give them a second thought.  Compare that to the ferocious outrage directed against someone who said Muslim women should be able to show their hair in public.  That is quite a cultural divide.  And perhaps a reason for the men in the Arab world to hate the West.  Because we let these uppity women to do whatever they please.  Why, we even let them believe in evolution.

Harun Yahya, a popular Islamic creationist scholar from Turkey, begins a UK tour in London on Monday, adding to the debate. Last December Salir al-Sadlan, a senior Saudi-based scholar Salir al-Sadlan, said Muslims shouldn’t pray behind someone who believed in evolution in a speech at Green Lanes mosque in Birmingham.

Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society, said there was “widespread ignorance” about evolution among the Muslim community. “Many traditional imams are grounded in ancient books in Arabic but have very little grounding in science. I find it staggering how they can be so strongly opposed to evolution without reading about it. That seems to be opposite of the very first commandment of the Qur’an, which is to read,” Bunglawala said.

It was interesting to hear the American left argue for that Muslim community center (that included a mosque inside of it) near Ground Zero.  They fought for and defended the Muslim religion.  Even though they attack Christianity tooth and nail over their ‘oppression’ of women and God-clinging rejection of evolution.  Incidentally, a lot of those bikini-clad women on the magazine covers in American stores?  A lot of them are Christians.  And why do Christian women do this in the West?  Pose half-naked?  Because they can.

The Left makes absolutely no logical sense to support a stringent religion (Islam) while attacking a less stringent one (Christianity).  Then again, a lot the Left does defies logical sense.  But I digress. 

Protestant Germany have an Islamic Past?

There’s a lot of Christian history in Germany.  Martin Luther was a German monk who started the Protestant Reformation.  That’s a pretty big movement in the Christian world.  And Germany was smack dab in the middle of the Christian world.  But others would beg to differ (see German Minister’s Comments on Islam Stir Debate by Judy Dempsey posted 3/6/2011 on The New York Times).

Germany’s new interior minister, appointed just last week, has already managed to upset politicians, church leaders and representatives of the Muslim community by saying that Islam is not a part of the German way of life.

“Islam in Germany is not something substantiated by history at any point,” the interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, said at his first news conference in his new job, adding that Islam did not play a major role in German culture…

Lamya Kaddor, chairwoman of the Liberal-Islamic Union in Germany, said that Mr. Friedrich’s remarks were a “slap in the face of Muslims.”

“Such statements are not only politically and historically wrong, I think they are dangerous,” Ms. Kaddor said. She added that Mr. Friedrich’s position would undermine progress between Muslims and Christians that previous interior ministers had encouraged.

I don’t know.  I think the German guy is kinda right here.  It was a Germanic people that conquered Rome and renamed it the Holy Roman Empire.  And the empire moved north.  It became German.  And it was Germanic kings that sent crusaders to the Holy Land.  To fight the Muslims.  To return the Holy Land to Christian rule.  That’s why Muslims hate Christians.  The European crusaders.  Western Civilization.  And Americans.  They say we’re all still crusading against Islam.  And that’s why Muslim immigrant communities don’t want to assimilate into their new countries.  Including Germany.

Germany has been grappling with how best to integrate its four million Muslims into the society at large. The government is pushing for the children of non-German-speaking parents to develop better German language skills.

But in a recent visit to Germany, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged Turkish parents who are living in Germany to teach their children the Turkish language before German.

Mr. Erdogan told a crowd of more than 11,000 people in Düsseldorf that the Turks in Germany should not assimilate, but integrate.

“I say yes to integration,” Mr. Erdogan said. “You should definitely integrate with the German society, but we are against assimilation. No one should be able to rip us away from our culture and civilization. Our children must learn German, but first they must learn Turkish.”

I wonder how many Christian Germans are living in Muslim countries maintaining their culture and civilization.  Or is that a one way street?  I mean, if you want to retain your culture and civilization, why leave the country where your culture and civilization is?  And why expect another country to lose their culture and civilization by refusing to assimilate into your new adoptive country?  It doesn’t seem fair.  And appears that something else is at play here.  The expansion of Islamic fundamentalism?  Perhaps.

Americans Attacked in Germany

So, is there any radical Islamic fundamentalism happening in Germany?  Well, there’s this (see Jihad in Frankfurt posted on 3/7/2011 in The Wall Street Journal).

On Wednesday two American soldiers were shot dead on a military bus at Frankfurt Airport. Arid Uka, a 21-year-old Kosovo native, has confessed to the murders of Senior Airman Nicholas Alden, 25, and Airman First Class Zachary Cuddeback, 21.

German officials say Uka approached the airmen boarding the bus, asked for a cigarette, and struck up a conversation. After one of the soldiers confirmed they were headed for Afghanistan, Uka followed them onto the bus, cried “Allahu akbar,” and began shooting.

Hmmm.  A young man from a predominantly Muslim country shouting ‘God is Great’ before killing two Americans on their way to Afghanistan where Islamic Fundamentalism is fighting to throw the Westerners out.  Why, one could say this young Muslim is simpatico with his Muslim brethren in Afghanistan.  So, yes, one could call this an act of radical Islamic Fundamentalism against Americans on German soil.

No Room for Oprah in the Middle East

I once worked with a guy that proudly told me he didn’t leave the house in the morning unless his wife put on his socks for him.  He was the boss in his house and she did what he told her to.  I sometimes get the feeling that this is what’s going on with radical Islam.  It’s all about the women.  They don’t like the freedom of women in the West.  For Islam is a male-dominated society.  And to maintain this culture and civilization, it is best to keep your country like it was in the old days.  Backwards.  For Muslim women watching Oprah may get ideas.  The wrong kind of ideas.  So it’s best not to have the modern conveniences of life that could bring Oprah into the Muslim living room.  For the sake of that male-dominated society. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Even Obama Can’t Make Them Stop Hating Us

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2010

This just in.  They still hate us. 

President Obama has been trying hard to make the Muslim world love us.  He bowed to a Saudi king.  He downplayed the Foot Hood attack.  He downplayed the Times Square bombing attempt.  He downplayed the underwear bombing attempt.  Gave a confessed terrorist combatant a civil trial.  He abandoned Israel to the point that they’re throwing shoes at his picture in Israel.  And yet they still don’t love us.

James Gordon Meek, Daily News Washington Bureau, writes that they are still plotting against us (see Terror threat to restaurants as Al Qaeda calls for attacks on government workers in D.C. on www.nydailynews.com).  He opens with:

The terror group tied to the Ft. Hood killings and the Christmas Day undies airbomber urge wannabe American jihadis to open fire on crowded restaurants in the nation’s capital to massacre U.S. government workers.

That’s pretty bad.  And scary.  Low tech.  Simple.  A guy and a gun.  Some kid gets dumped by his girlfriend and he’s ready to put a gun in his mouth.  Or go postal.  And what better ideology to be attracted to than a militant one that subjects women?  Of course, not every kid can get a gun.  But he probably can get a car.  Or a truck.  And a lawn mower or two.  For what?

The trucks can be fashioned into “the ultimate mowing machine,” with steel blades welded to the grill to “mow down the enemies of Allah” by running down Americans on crowded sidewalks “to achieve maximum carnage” in a “martyrdom operation.”

Now this is scary.  I mean, they make video games like this.  It would be a very short training curve.

Enemies are not Meant to be Loved

Bush has been gone for almost 2 years now.  And they still hate us.  Want to kill us.  Kill innocent women and children.  Why?  Because we’re Americans.  It doesn’t get easier than that.  They hate America.  They hate Americans.  And they kill what they hate.  Whether George W. Bush is president or not.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

No Love Dividend Yet from the Apology Tour

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 4th, 2010

Add One Part Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter tried detente.  Make nice to our enemies.  Alienate our allies.  He pointed out the human rights abuses our allies made in their fight against communism.  But he said little about our Cold War foe who raised the bar on human rights abuses.  The plan was to love our enemy.  And they would love us.  How did it work?  During the Carter presidency, the Soviet Union introduced a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  Because they were sure their missiles would land before Carter would ever launch ours.  The Soviets, for the first time since the days of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), were planning to win a nuclear war.

Obama said the Arab/Muslim world hated us because of George W. Bush’s overt hostile rhetoric/actions against them.  He would talk to the president of Iran.  He would engage in diplomacy.  He would change the way the Arab/Muslim world felt about America.  And how is that going?  Not good.  Iran has a nuclear reactor about to go on line, taking them one step closer to becoming a nuclear power.  And now Syria and Iran are cozying up with each other.  A united stand against Israel.  And the United States.  And the thanks Obama got for all his nicey nice?  They dissed him.  They said any attempts at an Israeli-Palestinian peace were only a desperate attempt to boost Obama’s poll numbers.  See Reuters’ Syria’s Assad rebuffs Washington by courting Iran by Robin Pomeroy.

It would appear that the lessons of Carter’s economic policies are not the only lessons Obama ignored.  Our enemies don’t like us.  Really.

Add One Part Richard Nixon

When the Vietnam War expanded into neutral Cambodia, all hell broke out.  On the college campuses.  Four died at Kent State.  And an unpopular war grew ever more unpopular.  But Nixon was playing to win.  The Ho Chi Minh Trail fed the insurgency in the south.  And the jumping off point was in Cambodia.  Where LBJ tried to limit the war Nixon tried to win it.  Nixon would ultimately get a peace treaty in Vietnam.  Backed by the might and will of America.  But Nixon was by then so hated that he would be undone by his own paranoia.  Watergate would throw him out of office.  With him went the might and will promised to South Vietnam.  And soon there was no longer a South Vietnam.

Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.  Our ally.  The ‘Cambodia’ of that conflict.  And he’s stepping things up.  (See the Wall Street Journal’s CIA Escalates in Pakistan by Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman.)  The similarities are striking.  But there’s no unrest on our college campuses.  No concerted media attack by the 3 major networks.  And yet included in the Obama administration is Hilary Clinton.  She participated in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  Over in the Senate, John Kerry, the Vietnam War protester, is saying that you have to attack these sanctuaries.  My, how time changes some.  Or the political expediency of the moment.  Nixon’s Cambodian intrusion – bad.  Obama’s Pakistan intrusion – good.  So I guess the lesson here is that if you want to run covert military operations on the wrong side of the border, you better be a Democrat.

The anti-war people in the Democrat Party are fuming over this war doctrine.  This is something that they’d expect George W. Bush to do.  Not their guy of hope and change.  Will Obama try to appease the Left?  Give up on Afghanistan?  Like the Left did on South Vietnam?  Let’s hope not.  Politics is politics.  But Americans shouldn’t die in vain.

Add One Part LBJ

LBJ didn’t want to be the first American president to lose a war.  So he tried.  But with far too many rules of engagement.  For he was trying to win the hearts and minds of the world.  The American people, our allies in Southeast Asia and even our enemies (who were trying to kill us and our allies).  And look where it got him.

LBJ wanted it all.  He wanted to win the war in Vietnam.  And the wars against poverty and racism.  But his policies made Vietnam a quagmire.  There were race riots in the United States.  And his domestic agenda exploded government spending, causing runaway inflation in the 1970s and recession.  We call it stagflation.  It gave Carter a single term.  And he’s still bitter about that to this day.

Johnson was a big liberal.  Obama is a big liberal.  Johnson had an unpopular war.  Obama has an unpopular war.  Johnson had an aggressive domestic agenda.  Obama has an aggressive agenda.  Johnson’s Great Society programs have been abject failures (we are still fighting poverty and racism today.  And we’re still paying the hefty tab on those failed programs).  Wonder what history will say of Obama.

Mix Together for One Obama

On foreign policy, Obama came in young, inexperienced and naive.  Some would even say inept.  His apology tour hasn’t changed the hate.  Our enemies still hate us.  Go figure.  Now Iran will soon have nuclear weapons.  And the world will be less safe.  If you’re nostalgic for Jimmy Carter, here’s your chance to relive those dangerous days.

Afghanistan was the ‘good’ war.  But the Left doesn’t have ‘good’ wars.  They want out.  And Obama is trying.  He even is going Nixon.  Attacking the enemy’s safe havens.  Attack a neutral country?  Hell, I’ll attack an ally.  It’s the right military call but will the Left ever forgive him?  I guess time will tell.  As will the college campuses.

LBJ wanted to give everyone everything they wanted.  Yet they still rioted.  And it hurt.  LBJ could not understand.  Nor could he forgive.  At the end of his first full term he had had enough.  He lost Walter Cronkite.  He lost the American people.  So he said goodbye.  And the hated man faded away.  Obama has had an aggressive domestic agenda.  He gave away a lot of free stuff.  But the people who have to pay for that generosity are not amused.  And the polls show that the Democrats in Congress will ultimately pay for Obama’s generosity.  A lot of them may be looking for a new job.

But it’s not all bad for Obama.  There are some who endorse his Cap and Trade policy initiative.  Some believe in the dangers of global warming.  Osama bin Laden all but said so in one of his latest broadcasts (see Reuters’ UPDATE 1-Bin Laden criticises Pakistan relief mission by Martina Fuchs and Tamara Walid.)  So, the American people may be turning away from him, but some of our enemies still support some of his agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #31: “Islam and guns are a lot alike. And yet when something bad happens, we try to ban one and forgive the other.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 14th, 2010

INSTRUMENTS OF PEACE

Yes, people with guns do kill people.  And, yes, extreme Islamic fundamentalist fanatics do kill people.  But guns keep the peace.  As does less fanatical Islam.

Societies have formed militias (armed with guns) to protect themselves from aggressors who did not wish to cohabitate in peace.   Thomas Jefferson used guns to stop the piracy along the Barbary Coast.  The Allies used guns to stop Adolf Hitler.  The NATO nations used guns to balance the Soviet threat in Eastern Europe.  An American led coalition used guns to first prevent Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia.  They then used guns to force him out of Kuwait.

Islam, and religion in general, provides a code of morality.  Religion can unite an otherwise diverse people.  It is this common faith that lets a diverse people to live together in peace and harmony.

GUNS DON’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

Guns don’t kill people.  And it’s not the bullets, either.  You can place a loaded handgun on a table with the safety off and it won’t do anything.  You can call it a name, sleep with its wife or impregnate its daughter (figuratively, of course) and it will just lay there.  For that gun to do something, a person has to pick it up.  Place their finger on the trigger.  Aim.  And shoot.  Until a person does, a gun will never harm a soul.

ISLAM DOESN’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

You can read about Islam in a book.  You can put that book on a table and it won’t do anything.  You can insult it, profane it and denounce it and it will just lay there.  For this religion to do something, someone has to read the book.  If they cannot read, a person who has read the book has to explain it to the illiterate one.  And then act.  Only when a person makes a conscious choice to commit some action can a religion harm anyone.  And if these people choose peace there will be peace.  If they choose violence there will be violence. 

ZYKLON B DOESN’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

The Nazis used to shoot undesirables (Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc.).  They’d make a mother hold a child so one bullet could kill two.  But as the killing increased, bullets just proved to be inefficient.  And costly.  So they developed the extermination camps.  The death chamber.  And Zyklon B.  This poison could be stored and handled safely.  When it was time, a person would open a canister and pour the chemical into the gas chamber.  If left undisturbed in the canisters, Zyklon B never would have harmed a soul.  It only killed when a person placed it in into an environment where it could.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DON’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

The Kurds are a lot like the Palestinians, only without Jewish neighbors.  After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, everyone in Mesopotamia got a nation-state except the Kurds.  With the new national borders, the nomadic Kurds could no longer move freely through the lands they once did.   And, well, this caused problems.  Conflicts.  And bitter feelings.  The Kurds supported the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.  Saddam Hussein was not amused.  The Iraqis had stockpiles of chemical weapons.  Hussein decided to use them.  On the Kurdish town of Halabja.  He killed some 5,000 Kurds.  Injured about 10,000 more.  Mostly civilians.  If these weapons were not loaded on aircraft, then flown over and dropped on Halabja, they would not have harmed a soul.  But when orders were given, and carried out, by people, they did.

PEOPLE DON’T KILL; IDEOLOGY DOES

Yeah, so it’s pretty clear that guns, religion and chemicals are pretty benign when left alone.  Unless a person gets involved, these things just won’t hurt anyone.  It’s the people.  They’re the problem.

There are a lot of gun owners in the United States.  Few use their guns to hurt others, though.  And Muslims tell us their religion is a religion of peace.  Only a small minority perverts it to harm others.  And there’re many national leaders.  Few have committed chemical genocide.  So it’s not all people.  Just some.  That are the problem.

So what, then, makes some people do these things while others do not?  Ideology.  Some people are passionate about their ideology.  And some are so passionate that they do not permit an alternative ideology.  This is when things get dangerous.  Because they kill for their ideology.

WE KEEP GUNS OFF OF AIRPLANES AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED

The Left wants to take away our guns.  They point to gun violence and say, “See?”  But law-abiding gun owners don’t commit these crimes.  Criminals commit these crimes.  Using guns obtained on the black market.  And denying law-abiding citizens from owning guns won’t shut down the black market.  Just as illegalizing drugs hasn’t made drugs unavailable.  Make something illegal and a thriving black market will develop.  Which will be lucrative for criminals.  So much so that they will use extreme violence to maintain their market share.

Let’s imagine a fictional world where we ban all guns.  Would it be a better, more peaceful world?

On September 11, 2001, Islamic fundamentalists armed with box cutters hijacked 4 commercial jetliners.  Two of these planes crashed into the Twin Towers.  One crashed into the Pentagon.  The passengers on one plane fought back with what weapons they could find.  The plane crashed.  They died.  But they prevented the terrorists from successfully completing their mission.

Since 9/11, some people carry guns on airplanes.  You know why?  Because a gun can stop a passionate ideologue with a box cutter.

DON’T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON ME

Ideology is far more dangerous than guns.  And yet, when something bad happens with a gun the Left wants to enact another level of gun control.  But when a militant Islamic fundamentalist kills Americans, the Left cautions us not to rush to judgment.  Because we may anger the Muslim world.  Who appear only to get angrier however we may try to appease them.  And yet we continue to try.  Even if it compromises our national security.  There comes a point where you have to ask yourself, why?  Why do we adhere to a lose-lose policy?

They don’t like us.  They never will like us.  Trying to make them like us only portrays us as weak.  Which makes them feel more contempt for us.  And emboldens them.  For they respect strength.  And only strength.  Which is something the Left does not understand.  Nor will they ever.  For they think that if you just apologize enough people will like you.

Of course, the Left has no compunction about attacking Christianity.  They have no problem with pornographic films with priests and nuns.  A movie where Jesus Christ has an affair with Mary Magdalene.  Or placing a crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it art.  But they would never, ever, show such disrespect to Islam.  Why?

The Left does not like the Christian Right imposing their values on them.  So they attack Christianity.  And support Islam.  In the name of religious freedom.  Christianity must accommodate Islam.  And we must forgive every transgression of Islam.  Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing extremist.  Intolerant.  And un-American.  The Left couldn’t ask for a better group of people to exploit.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,