« September 11, 2001 - Tara Yvette Hobbs | Main | More 9-11 »
September 12, 2006
Ralph Peters is Right
Mostly right, anyway.
In a post the other day I wrote that I thought he was right when he wrote in a column that Islam-haters were another "enemy within" that true conservatives should not tolerate.
I've several right-wing (I won't call them conservative) sites in which the authors and commenters are convinced that Islam is a religion of hate, violence, it is evil, unreformable, the whole bit. Anyone who dares to disagree is a dhimmi. Once I see where the comments are going I usually don't chime in, as there's no point.
Anyone who's read more than this post knows that I believe that Islam as it is currently practiced by all too many Muslims has a problem with violence. Far too many Muslims are completely hypocritical on the issue of military force, unable or unwilling to understand the difference between direct attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets where civilians are killed as an unfortunate byproduct (hmm, many Western liberals are confused there too). They excuse terrorism with weasel words. Abuse of women and total lack of civil rights are the hallmarks of most Islamic societies. I could go on but you get the point.
But I, like Peters, am making very careful and precise arguments. What we are arguing against is the view that Islam is innately evil, not that it doesn't have problems, which it most certainly does.
Peters doesn't name names, but I will.
I do not regard Little Green Footballs as "anti-Islam", for example, but as anti-radical Islam. Ditto Michelle Malkin and the staff of National Review. I listen to a lot of conservative talk-radio, and the only one I'd consider to be an Islam-hater is Michael Savage(which is why I won't listen to him (btw, it while listening to the Laura Ingraham show that I first heard about Peter's editorial. She had him on as a guest to discuss it). There's also people like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, but I think they're off the reservation anyway.
It's Mainly Bloggers
Peters doesn't name anyone in his column, and from what I can tell he's mainly going after small-time bloggers and people who send him email. It's easy to sit behind your computer and use an anonymous and untraceable handle while you write the most extreme stuff and denounce your opponents. I've fallen for that trap myself a few times. But before you write something, the question you ought to ask yourself is this: Would I say this in front of a CNN news crew if I knew my name and face would be blasted across the globe? If not, don't say it.
The Reaction from the Right
I haven't followed much of it, and don't have time to search around. Michelle Malkin got all bent out of shape, as did Mark Levin. What's interesting is that neither seem to have actually read his column, or if they did, just assumed he was talking about them. Levin links to a few absolutely unhinged articles to "prove" his point.
Peters took part in a 9/11 symposium with Lt Gen Tom McInerney (Ret), Jed Babbin, and Andy McCarthy, hosted by FrontPage Magazine. The debate got a bit over heated, and both sides seemed to be more talking past each other, and in more than one part Peters went too far. Otherwise it's worth the read.
They say that family fights are the worst, and this is no exception.
And In Case You Think Peters is a Dhimmi
Consider that in July he wrote an editorial titled "Kill, Don't Capture"
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
He discusses the " oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions" and how they do not apply to terrorists. His conclusion is that
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
Ouch. Even I have a bit of a problem going that far.
One Reason for the Reaction
It's no excuse, but so many liberals are so blinded by political correctness that they refuse to see that there are any problems at all within Islam. Either that, or they start trying to draw comparisons between radical Islam and "radical Christianity", as if the latter has spouted any terrorist groups of substance.
Or maybe it's just because we have to listen to idiots like Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), that we tend to get carried away on the right. Now remove all throwing objects from your reach before you read this:
In remarks before the Arab American Institute today, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold called on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic fascists," an offensive and misleading term. The administration has used this phrase increasingly when talking about al Qaeda, its affiliates and its sympathizers. Feingold says the use of the term "Islamic fascists" actually hurts our efforts in fighting terrorism globally because it alienates peaceful Muslims around the world whose support we need in fighting terrorism."I call on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic fascists", a label that doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't help our effort to build a coalition of societies to fight terrorism," Feingold said. "The President has often correctly referred to Islam as a religion of peace, but this reckless language, much like his prior reference to the fight against al Qaeda as a 'crusade,' completely cuts the other way. Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam."
Now there's a real dhimmi for you.
Posted by Tom at September 12, 2006 7:57 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/745
Comments
Tom,
I read that debate over on Front Page. Ralph Peters overstated his case, engaged in a lot of self-righteousness and made a non-sensical argument about how people who support war should enlist their children. I understand where Peters is coming from. But Peters didn't seem to muster the vocabulary to make his case.
What he could have said was that there is a difference between Islam the religion and Islam the culture. He could have agreed that Islam the religion is unformable because of the Koran and Islam's history of being spread by the sword, Mohammed's role as a warrior/head of state.
But then he could have pointed out that Kurdish Iraq is an example of how an Islamic culture can be opposed to radical Islam and can even be stridently pro-American.
Posted by: AngelM at September 13, 2006 12:31 AM
Tom, It seems the far left would like to hug them all (all Islamics) into understanding and the far right would like to kill them all, where both sides are painting with a very large brush. Islamic radicals are the truly dangerous ones. They are the ones who would kill us all.
A similar situation here on the homefront is illegal immigrants. The far left wants to open the borders and let everyone in and the far right would like to deport all Mexicans (thus being called racists). I personally want those breaking the law to be punished under the law and I would like our borders sealed. I don't care if the illegal is from Mexico, Germany, Russia, China or wherever, they broke the law and they should be punished!
I guess my point is that both far sides need to open their eyes and see the middle.
Posted by: Anna at September 14, 2006 11:54 AM
Mark
I'm somewhat in agreement with you. On the one hand, Peters is the most optimistic of the bunch. He dismisses PC denials that we are in a clash of civilizations. He also doesn't have any illusions about the failures of Islamic civilizations. And I think he's right about avoiding blanket condemnations. On the down side, he got way too testy with his collegues, especially given their initially gentle disagreement with him. There's no excuse for that when you're debating among friends.
It is true that Islam was spread by military conquest, while Christianity was spread peacefully by missionaries. But you can't ignore the Old Testament. Check out the books of Joshua and Judges someday. The Hebrews are leaving Egypt, and God says to them I've got some land for you, but since there are people living there now you'll have to take it from them. So they attack and kill or chase out everyone there. If you go on through Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (and more) you'll find people getting killed on every page, with huge battles on every other. It's tough stuff.
Anna
Ditto to what you said.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at September 14, 2006 9:06 PM
On the topic of "Islam haters", it has been interesting to watch the recent reaction to the pope's statement about Islam. At first it seemed to me to be like another overaction (like the cartoons). However, the strongest denunciations have come from Turkey - a moderate and modern democracy. As such, it seems like these statements have driven a wedge between moderate Islam (Turkey is one of the best examples of moderate Islam with a decent democractic system), and of course will rile up the hardliners. Losing the confidence of moderate muslims is very bad, as their noticable lack of presence in the media may now change as they join the radicals in denouncing the pope. I guess this is one thing the Sunni and Shi'ite in Iraq can agree on. Maybe they will take a short break from killing each other in Iraq to protest the pope, then go back at it. In the broader war on terror, this event unfortunately serves to widen the gap between the west and the islamic world. Everyone can be emotional about their own personal faith, and insulting another person's religion (or even rationally criticizing it) will usually stir up a passionate response, which is why I suppose so many wars have been fought over religion.
----while Christianity was spread peacefully by missionaries.
Tom, this is a nice case of selective/revisionist history. Let's look at the real, recorded history of Latin America (where a large population was converted to Christianity under the 'ecomineda' and the 'requerimiento' systems). In the Battle of Cajamarca, Pizarro and Friar Valverde offered Atahualpa a Bible in the expectation that he and his people would immediately convert to Christianity, or be considered an enemy of the Church. Of course, the heathen king refused and was massacred along with the other 4,000 natives. The conquistadors used the 'requerimiento' to warn natives to convert or die. Since most people didn't speak spanish, there was much bloodletting.
From the Wiki definition of "Econminenda"-
The conquistadors regarded plunder, slaves, and tribute as the just deserts for men who forced pagans to accept Christianity and Spanish rule. After all, the conquistadors scrupulously adhered to the Spanish law of conquest by reading the requerimiento, which ordered defiant Indians immediately to accept Spanish rule and Christian conversion. If the Indians ignored this order, they deserved the harsh punishments of a “just war.”
In many cases in Latin America, Christianity was not spread "peacefully through missionaries." While I fully recongnize most missionaries were and are pious, good people who do genuine and good work, it is incorrect to state all conversions were peaceful.
Posted by: jason at September 15, 2006 4:20 PM
So jason, to find an example you have to fast forward 1500 years after Jesus!
Yes I know about Spain and Latin America, but come on. We're talking about how each faith was initially spread, in the first few hundred years of each. And the fact is that Christianity was spread peacefully throughout the Roman Empire until Constantine was more or less forced to recognize it. Islam, on the other hand, was spread by the sword from day one.
But that's all ancient history and not particularly relevant to our situation today. My points in the post were 1) that we on the right should not paint with too broad a brush when discussing Islamic fascism and tar all Muslims, and 2) that dopes like Sen Feingold have it wrong from their side too.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at September 15, 2006 11:50 PM
Islam -as it now exists- IS an evil manifestation of religious zealotry. No western civilized society can accept the brutal treatment of women (beatings, stoning for being a rape VICTIM, honor killings,
forced marriages, being raped or killed to retaliate against the male members of a clan or familiy, and on and on). The totally illogical reaction to any criticism , or even to cartoons, with violent actions being perpetrated against any reachable target that is remotely identifiable with the alleged cause of the offense, the demands that people convert or die- these are all evidence of a religious and cultural insanity that is totally out of control. This is evil, and it is a threat to all of us in the civilized world.
Does this mean that all followers of Islam are evil ? No. (But we have a real problem at present in seperating those who are good and trustworthy
from those infected with the evil violence meme.)
Does this mean Islam cannot be changed, reformed
into a sane religion that can be trusted to share the earth peacebly with others ? Unknown.
That is a problem which must be addressed by the so called "moderate Muslims" - IF they actually exist in numbers sufficient to matter.
We cannot at present trust anything said by Muslims- as they are specifically permitted to lie and deceive unbelievers. We can only count on their demonstrated actions- hate of all Western values, willingness to die for Martyr status,
and illogical reactions to any who do not submit to their will.
The best evidence that Islam is in a state of cancerous and self destructive meltdown is the
absolute willingness of the Sunni and Shia to kill
each other as unbelievers- not to mention other splinter sects of lesser size. Western Christian religions seem to have gotten beyond this point several hundred years ago. Now, we may smirk about others being damned for following false teachings, but we are willing to let God provide the judgement and punishment. The followers of the RoP apparently have little faith in their deity's judgement.
I strongly suspect that the followers of Islam willmanage to strike again in this country- and if they manage to hit us with a radiological or biological attack that runs up a large death toll,
I and many others will lose our last vestige of patience and tolerance. It is very likely they will manage to invoke the kind of killing anger that they have been so willing to demonstrate,
and in that event, all of us who survive will have been diminished.
Posted by: Gray One at September 24, 2006 3:45 PM
