Friday, July 15, 2005

A little historical perspective for the Moslems...

staghounds: A little historical perspectve for the Moslems...

At the risk of seeming Politically Incorrect, I am going to digress from my usual non-judgemental, quiet, unassuming and universally inclusive style.

A fellow who blogs under the nom de plume of Staghounds commented on my Wednesday article about "Assault Weapons".

I thought he had something interesting to say, so I wandered over to his website (which I will eventually add to my sidebar links) to see what ELSE he had to say.

There, I found an article which he had posted on July 8 ... the day after the terrorist assault on the London Tube.

The perspective he provided was something that I hadn't read anywhere else. I thought somebody ought to give him a resounding "Ooh-RAH!" The comments I added to his post were, I thought, inadequate. Maybe he can pick up a slightly different audience here. Surely, his thoughts deserve more exposure.

You should go read the whole thing, of course, and some of you may not agree with him. But here's the Money Quote:

We are nice and kind fat and soft and ridden with unearned guilt. We also have a history of savage bloodshed that makes the earth blanch.

We are horrified by what our own civilization did as recently as 1914-18 and 39-45. But we DID do it [ . . . ].

Forbearance and measured response are still what we are doing, but we might decide they aren't effective.

[ . . . ]

We are crazy. Maybe ought to not fuck with us too much.
I would never have said that. But maybe, just maybe, the reason why Western Civilization is being hammered by barbarians is because they see the "nice and kind fat and soft" side and have, like children, forgotten our bloody history.

One of the primary difficulties of fighting The War On Terrorists (note: NOT "the War on TERROR") is the difficulty of grappling with a Chimera.

It was a lot simpler in WWII. Japan bombs Pearl Harbor? Okay, we take four years to work ourselves into a position where we have access, and then we bomb them. We firebomb Tokyo, we NUKE Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not nice, but at least we had a clearly defined target and it certainly resolved all of that imperialism nonsense.

This isn't an option in the current contretemps. We don't HAVE a clearly defined target. As the London bombings prove, we're not dealing with nations; we're suffering the Death of a Thousand Cuts, we're being driven away by gnats, we're being eaten one small bite at a time by ants. (But unlike John Leiningen, we can't seem to fill or fire our moat.)

Carpet bombing of capital cities and major industrial areas is clearly NOT an option. We're not being attacked by a nation; we're being attacked by an idea. The idea is that a group of individuals have the will to impose their theological mandates on the rest of the world.

That is to say, "extreme Islamists" want us to embrace their imaginary friend. If we don't, they'll kill us. They'll kill people who have nothing at all to do with any kind of dialogue ... which, I might point out, is NOT happening. They'll kill members of their own religion if the beliefs of these fellow Muslims aren't as extreme in their beliefs. And they'll even kill their own if there is any suspician that the committment isn't as great.

There is no way to deal with these people. We can't talk, we can't negotiate, we can't understand them. I'm not sure they understand themselves.

Maybe it's time that we quit trying "forbearance and rational response." Maybe we should accept a more aggressive stance.

We did that once before, over 200 years ago, and it turned out fairly well.

Because the true national symbol of America, rather than the carrion-eating Eagle, is truly and properly the Rattlesnake.


(image courtesy of Gadsden.info)

We might consider adopting Benjamin Franklin's "Don't Tread On Me" flag. (I think I'll buy me one of these.) It could be flown, just below the American Flag, at all public buildings. Most especially, it should be displayed at the United Nations building.

Of course, then we would have to act in accordance.

Well, nothing else we've tried has worked all that well.

What do YOU think?

4 comments:

Mike in Eugene said...

Given that traditional responses are not effective, then how do we take a more aggressive stance and act in accordance with Don't Tread on Me?

Jerry The Geek said...

Is this Mike P in Eugene?

Never mind, the answer is the same.

Mike, the article is intended to evoke thought and provide you with an opportunity to decide how YOU think the U.S. should respond to the present crisis. I am hoping that you have a few ideas of your own.

However, taken out of context, MY comments just show that there are people 'out there' with ideas of their own ... you can take or leave them as you will. I happen to think that the U.S. and other Western countries have been so concerned with not hurting anybody's feelings that we haven't provided any kind of reasonable action to terrorist attacks.

The least we can do is say "Enough! No more! Continue to attack us at your own peril!"

Because the terrorists obviously consider us no more than a paper tire, this certainly won't be enough to stop the attacks. But it might serve as a reasonable warning that our patience has been tried sufficiently that we are no willing to suffer their slings and arrows.

Rep. Tancredo today said that we should consider dropping a Nuclear Bomb on Mecca, if the terrorists explode nuclear bombs within United States territory.

I'm not ready to accept that extreme extention, because the people in Mecca are not the people who are attacking us.

I think.

Until it is proven that they ARE our attackers, I'm unwilling to accept such an extreme 'solution'.

As far as I can tell, Tancredo suggested that as only a 'hypothetical' solution. I don't think it's justified at this time, but I have no idea how I would feel if Islamist Extremists exploded a nuclear device in American territory.

Do you?

Jerry The Geek said...

Part II:
Sorry, Mike in Eugene ...
I posted before I completed the thought.

The value of the "Don't Tread On Me" option is perhaps slight, but it serves notice that the American People are no longer willing to endure egregious assaults upon our home territory. We owe them that much, if only because we choose to portray ourselves as a civilized nation ... whether we end up looking like one or not.

And a correction to a typographical error:
In the sixth paragraph, the sentence:

"Because the terrorists obviously consider us no more than a paper tire ..."

... should read:

"Because the terrorists obviously consider us no more than a paper tiger ...

Mike in Eugene said...

Yes, it is indeed Mike P.

I think we've actually hurt a lot of people's feelings, at least if world opinion of the US can be used as a barometer. Probably for the wrong reasons; if you're gonna brass (on topic shooting reference) people off, it may as well be for something that promotes the greater good, safety, health, etc., of all US citizens.

It seems like suicide bombings are something that are not going to go away, and it is probably inevitable that they will eventually happen in the States.

I don't lay awake at night worrying about it, but it does concern me. If we can't prevent thousands of impoverished workers from sneaking in to the country to try to make a living, how do we have any hope of preventing *every* well funded and trained terrorist from getting in?

I don't have any answers, but I'm willing to listen.