I just received this note from Sagunto, a Dutch reader and sometime commenter at Gates of Vienna:
Geert Wilders has been accused by the ZDF (German public television) of providing the climate of “intolerance” that — one can’t make these things up, you’d say — caused Theo van Gogh to be slaughtered. It happened in a broadcast discussing the success of “extremist”, “far-right”, “populist” et cetera (ad nauseam) political parties at the European.. ahem.. “elections”.
Notice that in the ZDF-special, these so-called “concerned Dutch citizens” whom you see protesting Geert Wilders’ victory are carrying banners manufactured by the “Internationale Socialisten”, no translation needed, I suppose. It’s a radical socialist and anti-democratic organization, hardly a model for citizens who are concerned about democracy. Indeed, those with genuine concerns have courageously, and against all the MSM slander, voted for Wilders’ Party for Freedom.
I’ve watched the broadcast myself, and the message indeed is crystal-clear. Here’s my translation of the transcript that was posted at the German site “Politically Incorrect”:
- - - - - - - - -
Over the last couple of weeks one has gotten used to a fair amount of distortions, manipulations and untruths from the ZDF. But the broadcast that was on offer this afternoon at 16:00 hours, entitled “ZDF-Special, Europe has voted”, represents a new kind of quality altogether. Unbelievable: the ZDF journalist Bernhard Lichte attributes the death of Theo van Gogh to the influence of Geert Wilders!
Literally, he said on the air:
“Before Parliament there are protests against the winner of the elections. Worried citizens are afraid of racism in the land of tolerance. The Party for Freedom led by the filmmaker Geert Wilders has become the second strongest force. Wilders has already faced prosecution for hate speech [“hate speech” is not a perfect translation here: “Volksverhetzung” is a German legal term that is mostly used in trials against Holocaust deniers. — translator]. Four out of twenty-five Dutch seats in Strasbourg go to him. His anti-Islam party wants to ban the Koran, demands a stop on immigration. The Muslim world was shocked by the Islam-critical film Fitna, produced by Wilders with Theo van Gogh. Intolerance with grave consequences: Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004.”
This could very well sound like the usual showcase of bad, uninformed journalism, but is it really?
Sure enough, it’s bad, but this huge German public broadcaster has journalists and correspondents permanently stationed in Holland. They usually are extremely well informed about the political situation over here, and even more so since Pim Fortuyn came to the front of Islamo-realism in the Netherlands in 2002. It is without question that the ones who launched this attack on Wilders know full well that it was Ayaan Hirsi Ali with whom Theo van Gogh made a movie — called Submission, Part I — not Wilders.
Most insulting about this sordid piece of propaganda is the fact that, besides the name of Hirsi Ali herself, it was Wilders’ name that was featured on the death-list that Mohammed Bouyeri “attached” to the chest of Theo van Gogh with a butcher knife. And now the ZDF informs the German public that somehow Geert Wilders, because of his “intolerance”, was retroactively associated with the slaughtering of Theo Van Gogh, who had already lain buried for more than three years when Fitna was released in 2008.
So there you have it.
German “newspeak” or “Neusprache” in the age of Eurocracy and Islamization. You really CAN make it up!
Kindest of regards from Amsterdam,
Sagunto
20 comments:
Geert Wilders has been accused by the ZDF (German public television) of providing the climate of “intolerance” that — one can’t make these things up, you’d say — caused Theo van Gogh to be slaughtered. It happened in a broadcast discussing the success of “extremist”, “far-right”, “populist” et cetera (ad nauseam) political parties at the European.. ahem.. “elections”.
Probably the future generations, our grandchildren and grand-grand children, will look back in history with astonishment and curiosity, trying to understand how it was possible in the XXth-XXIst century that the people whose profession was supposed to be about about providing objective and unbiased information - the journalists - transformed themselves, by their own will, into the first enemies of freedom, logic, good taste and common sense. Seeing these days how the mainstream media developed an obsession about a supposed "rise of extremism and populism in Europe", I'm thinking again that the deprivity and utter idiocy of the contemporay media will be an object of study and bewilderment for the people of tomorrow. I'm sure the MSM will be seen in the future with the same astonishment we look today at witch hunt or the burning of Joan of Arc. The future generations will be puzzled trying to find a reasonable answer to the question: how did it happen? What kind of people were those who did something like that?
We'll be lucky or at least our descendants will be if Armance's imagined future comes to pass. It would mean that enlightenment survived and in a better form, not infected by leftist brain rot. I'm not so sanguine.
Leftist media are purposely reversing cart and horse. Muslim fanatic and colonizer self-admittedly inspired by the Koran and his Muslim beliefs ritually butchers European citizen who exercised his rights to create art criticizing Islam. Muslim stabs his manifesto into body of dead victim with a knife (in a perverted resemblance to Martin Luther's hammering his beliefs onto a cathedral door and a perfect capsule of the difference between an evolved and barbaric belief system). Is naturally completely unrepentant.
Wilders and people not bereft of common sense see a problem with importing more of the belief system that inspired this horror. They speak up.
Leftist media says this criticism hurts Muslim feelings and caused the event that came before the criticism and that was explicitly inspired by a 1400 year old book.
This incoherency between cause and effect now violating even the time continuum is all one can expect from the Left these days. They demonstrate on a daily basis that leftism is either a mental disorder or like Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease, slowly rots the brain to the point of dementia.
Armance: ... the journalists - transformed themselves, by their own will, into the first enemies of freedom, logic, good taste and common sense.
This is a point whose gist must remain central to all further examination. These scumbag "journalists" voluntarily joined ranks with those who would warp, twist and pervert truth to suit whatever dystopic reality accorded to their political tastes.
Utterly lost was any quest for emperical knowledge or the pursuit of true enlightenment. Instead, an intentionally benighted and manipulated public is viewed as a primary tool for transforming the political landscape. The comprehensive loss of conscience required to enact such a vast crime against humanity's well being defies belief.
laine: This incoherency between cause and effect now violating even the time continuum is all one can expect from the Left these days.
Nothing exemplifies this better than the way that Liberal and Muslim alike are so predisposed to terminal levels of Cognitive Dissonance.
The Liberal form of this is their belief that by facilitating Islam's sedition Muslims will somehow ignore Leftist support for women's rights and acceptance of homosexuality. Both of these are total anathema to Islam.
Further, Liberals are able to convince themselves that, after their Islamic barbarians have deconstructed the Judeo-Christian foundations of modern civilization, they will magically manage to step into the existing power vacuum without any resistance from their now-ascendant fellow Muslim travelers.
In reality, Liberals (much in keeping with Yuri Bezmenov's assessment of them), will be the first who are led to Islam's chopping block.
Muslims, too, suffer from this same Cognitive Dissonance. The Holocaust never happened, yet they still seek to finish the job Hitler started. The 9-11 atrocity was self-inflicted by America in order to justify a war against Islam but Osama is a Lion of Islam™ for giving the Great Satan a black eye.
This Cognitive Dissonance represents a brain divided against itself. Liberals ignore their willing embrace of those who would slaughter them cheerfully. A poorly armed Islam hurtles into the breach against a much better armed West even though it assures a Muslim holocaust as the result.
Neither side seems capable of imagining the true outcome of their warped dreams. Both are busily sealing their fate.
"The Treason of the Intellectuals" -Redux.
Such a shame that a neo-Nazi killed Theo Van Gogh.
A neo-Nami from the Mecca branch.
Follower of Mohammad's "Mein Kampf", AKA "The Koran".
The media is almost fully in Bizarro Mode, where everything must be reversed before you can understand what they are saying.
The same media that demonized the late Pim Fortuyn ~ an ultra-liberal gay politican~ by calling him "a radical right winger" and " a new Hitler", which helped spur "an animal rights activist" 8into shooting him in the back.
Which is the plan for Wilders.
Anyone who resists the communist-anarchist-leftist-Islamist plan to destroy capitalism and subjugate the West must be made into a media monster, and then destroyed.
Wilders' tight, anti-jihadist security has frustrated their aim, so far.
So the Great Press Lie Machine must be ramped up.
Watch the hysteria mount.
And the Islamist part of the story fade curiously away.
Here's a poser I've got for you: should another Pim Fortuyn arise in New York or San Francisco, will you support him? I mean, before he's dead?
I ask that, because it's as good a yardstick as I can think of to measure your commitment to the anti-jihad versus your own social agenda.
Engineer-Poet --
Who are you talking to? Me or someone else?
I'm a libertarian, which means that I believe that other people's private lives are their own business. We can argue about gay marriage etc. AFTER the jihad has been thrown into the dustbin of history.
Armace,
Yes it will be an object of history buffs who learn the true history, but the Caliphate quite likely will exist by that time.
Zenster, very good points. One must observe that the Leftists are more advanced in their cognitive dissonance than the Muslims at the moment. Leftists are digging their own grave, while Muslims are only serving up double-talk.
One flaw in your analysis is that you say "A poorly armed Islam hurtles into the breach against a much better armed West even though it assures a Muslim holocaust as the result." Not so. Islamists (the smart ones) can rationally calculate that as long as they stay "peaceful" (and maybe even if they don't[!!])There will NOT be a total war waged against them, much less a holocaust-- At least, not until and unless the Left is completely blown out of cultural power in the West.
The problem for the Left is like this. Socialism fails to achieve utopia, and the Left must find and explanation as to why it has not brought utopia already [other than the FACT that it is all wrong and lies]. The Left believes that socialist utopia is prevented from occurring is because of "Western Imperialism". Since the fall of the USSR, the Left's focus has shifted from capitalism to crushing "Western Imperialism". You see, Leftist dogma states that when these "poor, 'psychologically primitive' [religious], oppressed, misunderstood minority peoples tell us that they are no longer under the JACKBOOT OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM, THEN socialist utopia will commence."
REMEMBER-- WESTERN IMPERIALISM PERPETUATES CAPITALISM, DESTORY WESTERN IMPERIALISM, and then SOCIALIST UTOPIA WILL BE ACHIEVED.
Of course, islamists will tell us that the JACKBOOT OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM has been AT LAST removed when they have established the EURABIAN CALIPHATE, but leftists won't believe that even when you tell it to them. Thus, islamists can TELL THE TRUTH AND GET AWAY WITH IT.
Baron: I should perhaps have taken a tip from the Southerners I have worked with and said "y'all", but as a Michigan boy that would have been seriously out of character for me.
I bring up the idea of an American Fortuyn-figure as an example of what it might take to break the image of the counter-jihad as mere religious intolerance from the Christian right. That stereotype has to go before the idea gains mainstream traction, but it can't go as long as people's actions support it. Once you have common cause (not just grudging tolerance) between the counter-jihad and gay rights, things are going to change in a big way. And, as much as it creeps me out, perhaps not until then.
Something else to keep in mind is that Wilders wasn't active like he is now when van Gogh was murdered.
He was just another MP in a major party, few people had ever heard of him.
It was things like the murder of van Gogh that woke him up to the danger Islam poses to western society.
Our journalists are unelected creatures supposed to drive the truck they do not own to certain destination with a load they might own in theory, but under given circumstances do not really.
Our job is to feed their families.
I did not buy any newspaper last 10 years.
Engineer-Poet,
"Here's a poser I've got for you: should another Pim Fortuyn arise in New York or San Francisco, will you support him? I mean, before he's dead?"
Pim Fortuyn was not a homosexual so much as he was a pederast. An American equivalent would have to dodge being placed on the national sex offenders register and might do more harm than good.
I might support a homosexual anti-jihadist depending on what their platform was. They'd have to be serious about immigration restrictionism for a start. I couldn't support anyone who wanted to lower the age of consent to 14 (as Fortuyn aimed to).
Watching Eagle: Zenster, very good points. One must observe that the Leftists are more advanced in their cognitive dissonance than the Muslims at the moment. Leftists are digging their own grave, while Muslims are only serving up double-talk.
Here, we begin to find some middle ground. This is where your observation about Liberalism's threat assumes its proper dimensions. The Left is truly delusional, while Muslims merely are so mired in deceit that they have a hard time keeping their narrative straight.
One flaw in your analysis is that you say "A poorly armed Islam hurtles into the breach against a much better armed West even though it assures a Muslim holocaust as the result." Not so. Islamists (the smart ones) can rationally calculate that as long as they stay "peaceful" (and maybe even if they don't[!!])There will NOT be a total war waged against them, much less a holocaust-- At least, not until and unless the Left is completely blown out of cultural power in the West.
And here is where we continue to disagree. While the "smart" Islamists are doing their best to keep the conflict at a low enough level of intensity so as to avoid Total War, that is not enough to prevent it.
Again, I must remind you that the "smart" Islamists─while outnumbering the true radicals─cannot sufficiently restrain Muslim fanatics in order to avoid the triggering of Total War. That trigger will be some form of WMD attacks upon the West that demands Response In Kind (per Western military doctrine).
This is why I continue to maintain that Islam must be fought now─in order to prevent catastrophic damage to Western civilization─while any purging of the Left's truly anti-social elements can be left until later. No one in the West should have to experience a thirty-year economic retardation─along with cultural devastation as well─as a price for misjudging the more imperative enemy. Islam is that immediate foe. The Left can wait its own richly deserved turn in the dock.
I do agree that the Left has refocused away from capitalism and fixed upon Western Imperialism as a whole. It is what has finally revealed modern Liberalism to be anti-life in general.
Of course, islamists will tell us that the JACKBOOT OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM has been AT LAST removed when they have established the EURABIAN CALIPHATE, but leftists won't believe that even when you tell it to them. Thus, islamists can TELL THE TRUTH AND GET AWAY WITH IT.
Again, here is where our viewpoints reconverge. That locus lies in Liberal delusions as to who will assume the reins of power once the Left's pet barbarians are through demolishing Judeo-Christian Western civilization.
Your final point is superb. Islam's delusions of adequacy seem so outlandish that they are dismissed out of hand as deriving from that "extremist fringe" which, supposedly, does not represent "true Islam". In reality, these maggots are, indeed, telling the truth and it is up to sane minds to take seriously the Islamic quest for global domination.
It is a deadly combination wherein the Left provides a smoke screen for Islam's well camouflaged assault upon us all, Liberals included. In the end─again as with Yuri Bezmenov's observation about how Liberal true believers will be first to go to the wall─only the Left will be caught by surprise. But by then, it will be too late, for them as well as us.
Zenster,
Perhaps I can add some explanations and find more common ground. Question-- What would the West do if the circumstances were the same (Muslims threatening and planning to take over the West), but the Western culture was as it was 50 years ago (before the Western Cultural Revolution [1963-1979])?
Answer-- We would KICK OUT or JAIL ALL "MIGRANTS" SUSPECTED IN THE SLIGHTEST OF disloyalty to our society, and invade the Middle East, capture their oil fields, topple their governments, and replace the "Way of Survival" (Shariah)WITH LAW BASED ON WESTERN VALUES (Traditional common law- based law, not the "human rights" radical secular gobbledygook). We might use nuclear weapons, but we might not find it necessary. Check out The West's Last Chance, by Tony Blankley, for some insight on how we handled war in WWII.
Okay, this is what we would have done, if we thought the way we did in the past. Keep in mind, however; that in the 1950's , pace Syed Qutb, Muslims where trying to westernize and admired much about the West, Westerners controlled to a large extent the oil fields, and Dar al Islam was or had been until recently under colonial control-- THE WEST HAD THE SOLUTION TO ISLAMISM IN PLACE THEN. Unfortunately, most people’s reference of Islam is between the 1920’s and 1960’s—Which is when (out of ALL 1400 YEARS OF ISLAM’S HISTORY) ISLAM was the weakest it had ever been (geopolitically) since the days of Mohamed. We are simply seeing a reversion to the mean, and westerner’s view is warped by an abnormal time frame in history.
(Continued)
Now, we move to the issue of foreign policy. Zenster, I do not know if you are an American or not (your English is most good, so I have no way to assume that you are a foreigner), but I like you either way. However, since there are non-americans that do read this blog, I will explain some things about U.S. foreign policy that even well-informed foreigners would not be able to easily know. Remember that European countries have not HAD real world power policy since the end of WWII. Thus, the U.S. has been the nation that the West depended upon for military action.
First, let me tell all that I agree that there WILL be some sort of WMD attack by violent jihadists against some Western city in the foreseeable future (sooner or later). You say "That trigger will be some form of WMD attacks upon the West that demands Response In Kind (per Western military doctrine)."
WHAT DOCTRINE?
In U.S. foreign policy, there is practically a new foreign policy/military doctrine for EVERY new president—Suffice it to say, U.S. foreign/military policy has not been the most consistent, coherent, or even strategically good over the past decades.
Another question--Why did Osama Bin Laden attack on 9/11/2001? What did he think would happen? He thought (from the Clinton policy [1st WTC bombing {1993}, African embassies, USS Cole) that the U.S. reaction would be “a change in foreign policy, protests and consultations with the UN and the ‘international community’, and the search for appropriate resolutions to deal with this unfortunate incident (9/11 [!!!]). Which IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IF Al Gore OR ANY DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE DURING 9/11.
Another President would not have done what Bush did in response to 9/11. Jacques Forbes Kerri (the Democrat candidate in 2004) is now a leading appeaser of Islamists in the U.S. Senate. Finally, witness BHO’s speeches about Islam. Is BHO a Muslim? Well, he has professed to be an apostate, but these speeches prove not that BHO is a Muslim, but HOW DEEP the Islamist political influence is in the Leftist political class.
If there was a WMD attack in a (Latin American or European) country other than America, do you think that the U.S. would launch a total war, let alone a nuclear strike? A President like Bush MIGHT, BUT NOT A LEFTIST LIKE OBAMA. Islamism’s strategy is to build political influence in Western countries by supporting Leftists WITH A GOAL TO BEND LEFTIST PARTIES TO SHARIAH (WITHOUT THE LEFTISTS RECOGNIZING IT).
In a few years, I don’t know that even if a WMD went off in an American City, a Leftist President (like Obama) would respond with a total war against Islam (much less a nuclear strike).
“This is why I continue to maintain that Islam must be fought now─in order to prevent catastrophic damage to Western civilization─while any purging of the Left's truly anti-social elements can be left until later.”
My answer is, the left will NEVER, EVER, ALLOW THE KIND OF MILLITARY PROGRAM TO PUT JIHAD ‘BACK IN THE BOTTLE’ TO OCCUR UNLESS THEY ARE RENDERED POWERLESS. If this is hard to understand, check out the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Vietnam, or the war in Iraq.
THE LEFT MUST BE DEFEATED IF THE ISLAMISTS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.
I agree with Eagle. When the unimaginable insult and wound that was 9/11 subdued the Left for mere days and weeks before they crawled out of their holes trumpeting the enemy's manifesto that Americans deserved a civilian massacre on their own soil and had "provoked" it, what would it take to shut their yaps entirely? Nuking their poster city San Francisco? Would that do it?
Leftists are sick with a corrosive hatred for their own country and conservative countrymen that they do not mount for a declared enemy who despises their beliefs.
They are likely incurable, but the mushy middle might wake up if the shock is big enough and out vote them along with us.
@ Duckman: First of all, Wilders was known enough to have his name next to that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the letter of the murderer of Van Gogh. And that was no surprise. Wilders has been very active and cursed by the left the minute he entered parliament in 1997. He was the one who confronted the govenrment many times on among others, the issue of fundamentalist islam. In parliament, in December 1999, he even proclaimed muslim-extremism "one of the biggest threats" for the upcoming ten year. He then also warned for the terror to pass over to Europe. The parliamentarians were mad at him and called his warnings "an excentric hobby" … Wilders was well known for his stand against Islam and subsequently started to receive threats those days. — I hope I have been able to inform and convince you a little that Wilders' struggle did not come out of the blue in 2004.
Watching Eagle: ... Westerners controlled to a large extent the oil fields, and Dar al Islam was or had been until recently under colonial control-- THE WEST HAD THE SOLUTION TO ISLAMISM IN PLACE THEN.
Much as I dislike imperialism, if it must exist, then let it be Western imperialism. To further agree with you, America's pseudo-colonization efforts with respect to petroleum extraction in the MME (Muslim Middle East), were far more benign than much of Europe's previous colonial track record.
We are simply seeing a reversion to the mean, and westerner’s view is warped by an abnormal time frame in history.
While, perhaps, overly generous in terms of making so few demands upon modern historical intellects, your analysis is acceptable.
I do not know if you are an American or not ...
As you probably can tell, I am a deeply concerned American.
You say "That trigger will be some form of WMD attacks upon the West that demands Response In Kind (per Western military doctrine)."
WHAT DOCTRINE?.
The doctrine in question was originally known as “Response in Kind”. It dictated that a CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or High Energy) attack─then known as a NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) strike─could be retaliated against with similar or greater force using the same or (possibly), different category of weapons. Response in Kind formed the core of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), a quasi-functional operational plan that proved sufficient against a nominally rational foe like the USSR. Around 1960 this strategy was replaced with a new version known as “Flexible Response”. This revised doctrine allowed for retaliation in a situation that required “credible means to match non-nuclear escalation”.
This more resilient and option-rich doctrine allowed for a wider variety of replies to more varied forms of initial attack. Even such a supposedly more viable approach has since required further modification due to international terrorism's arrival upon the global stage. There has now evolved a “new” response doctrine. It must obligatorily deal with the prospect of nuclear terrorism and other stateless or proxy-based methods of attack.
In U.S. foreign policy, there is practically a new foreign policy/military doctrine for EVERY new president—Suffice it to say, U.S. foreign/military policy has not been the most consistent, coherent, or even strategically good over the past decades.
I beg to differ. My own personal belief is that America's military has a creditable and much more far-reaching institutional memory than you may give it credit for. Any slack attitude or lack of prompt and appropriate response in kind could just as easily earn a sitting president the bum's rush out of the Oval Office. Few other forms of inaction, save that of unresponsiveness against a CBRNE terrorist attack, could appropriately justify a well-deserved coup d'etat.
Another question--Why did Osama Bin Laden attack on 9/11/2001?
While all answers can only be based upon sheer speculation, I'll give you the best reply there is available. It is the one provided by this web site's owner. Islam was poised to overrun the Gates of Vienna in Austria during the year 1683 on September 11th. I doubt there can be any better explanation for Osama bin Laden's choice of dates. Feel free to argue otherwise.
In a few years, I don’t know that even if a WMD went off in an American City, a Leftist President (like Obama) would respond with a total war against Islam (much less a nuclear strike).
I will maintain my faith in America's most respected institution: Namely, it's military.
Lack of appropriate response in the form of an unanswered CBRNE terrorist assault─successful or not─on domestic soil, should result in an eviction so swift that everyone occupying the Oval Office would hear a sort of “popping” sound when air rushes back in to occupy the space that America's (now incompetent), Commander in Chief once occupied.
Another President would not have done what Bush did in response to 9/11.
Which, despite my intense dislike for the man, still earned him my grudging respect. Please remember that Iran and Iraq fought for eight long years only to reach a blood soaked stalemate with a million Muslims dead and many others wounded or maimed.
Now, consider how the United States rolled up Iran's sidewalks in three short weeks. This was the exact right message to send the MME. More's the pity that a continuous stream of similar messages did not follow.
Is BHO a Muslim? Well, he has professed to be an apostate, but these speeches prove not that BHO is a Muslim, but HOW DEEP the Islamist political influence is in the Leftist political class.
Muslim or not, BHO may as well be one for the way he sends every wrong signal possible to our enemies. Some people I know think that BHO is merely extending an olive branch so Islam may impudently swat it aside. I find it difficult in the extreme to credit BHO with that much guile. His “soft power” approach is one of the surest ways of inviting renewed terrorist attackes upon American soil.
In a few years, I don’t know that even if a WMD went off in an American City, a Leftist President (like Obama) would respond with a total war against Islam (much less a nuclear strike).
Again, I don't think the Joint Chiefs of Staff would give him much choice. I would even hope they might launch an unauthorized WMD retaliation and dare Obama to reprove them for it.
My answer is, the left will NEVER, EVER, ALLOW THE KIND OF MILLITARY PROGRAM TO PUT JIHAD ‘BACK IN THE BOTTLE’ TO OCCUR UNLESS THEY ARE RENDERED POWERLESS. If this is hard to understand, check out the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Vietnam, or the war in Iraq.
Again, I must differ with you. Our military is able to proceed with some small degree of internal latitude and they use that wiggle room to continue killing top terrorist field commanders. Let us all be glad there is no acceptable way for the executive branch to disapprove openly of such eliminations.
I also think you underestimate the Israelis. Their elimination of Yassin and swift removal of Rantissi has left Hamas and Fatah at each others' throats and effectively hamstrung any large-scale assaults upon Israel by those two terrorist organizations. Our own military is well aware of this model and will continue to refine it with their use of ordnance carrying drones, as we have seen in Pakistan.
THE LEFT MUST BE DEFEATED IF THE ISLAMISTS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.
I am still am obliged to argue otherwise. There is no possibility of purging the Politically Correct elements from America's body politic in sufficient time to avert any terrorist WMD attacks during such a necessarily distracting episode. It is far better to do what we are doing here and continue to educate America blog by blog until there is a much wider reaching consensus as to the threat posed by Islam.
Geert Wilders did this with his movie “Fitna” and it provided the necessary lever for him to begin shifting public opinion in Holland. We need to do the same here in The United States so that our nation becomes less tolerant of Islamic sedition and finally moves to eject its Muslim colonists and notify the MME that future terrorist atrocities will see whole cities in that region razed like the slums they are.
laine: ... but the mushy middle might wake up if the shock is big enough and out vote them along with us.
While we usually are very much in agreement, this is one premise I simply cannot accept and find repugnant in the extreme.
No degree of frustration or impatience with meddling by America's Left can possibly justify the position that only a large-scale terrorist atrocity will awaken America.
We must all struggle to avoid any such outcome. It is morally reprehensible to sit back and await such a devastating blow to our nation.
laine, from your writing, I can see that you are more proactive than that. Still, I truly wish you would abandon such a deeply cynical and counterproductive mindset.
Over the last year, your own writing style has grown some 100% such that I will now challenge you to begin contributing essays here at Gates of Vienna. I believe you have sufficient style and depth of knowledge to make a difference and now say that you should consider this a glove cast down.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.