Your remark, "When we are finally cornered and must allow our own barbarism to surface to combat theirs head to head, then we must be prepared to live with the consequences, including the agonizing guilt that will ensue--or everything we hold dear, everything we aspire to become, will forever perish from this earth" is quite profouind because it acknowledges what many insist on denying.

Firstly, many refuse to acknowledge that we do indeed have a 'barbarous' side. That is reserved, they believe, for lesser people. They believe they can reason their way out of conflict- even with those who make clear they will not respond to or listen to reason.

The hubris is stunning.

In fact, those who choose not to fight evil as best they can, choose to NOT value the life of others. They are acknowledging that there is nothing worth fighting for.

They are pathetic.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:17 am | #

We either believe islamofacism is pursuing and will utilize nuclear and/or biochemcial weapons to inflict massive death and major economic and social disruption, or we don't. We either believe islamofacism presents a totalitarian threat equal to what we faced with nazi Germany or imperialist Japan 60 years ago, or we don't. If the answer is yes to either or both of the above, then the death of civilians who tacity or directly aid and abet islamofacism becomes just another brutal fact of war. If the choice must be made between the soliders on our side being harmed and/or killed because civilians are involuntarily being used, then that is just too damn bad and it becomes another brutal fact of war. An army that will needlessly sacrifice its own troops is not worthy of support.
goesh | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:32 am | #

It's a false choice to think we have to become "just as barbaric" as the Jihadis to beat them. We don't. Not at all. We WON in Vietnam not by being as ruthless and as disrespectful of innocences as the Viet Cong, but by being more intelligent and discriminating in our use of force to annihilate the Viet Cong!

We're WINNING in Afghanistan and Iraq by KILLING the unjust aggressors, not by joining them in the widespread INTENTIONAL targetting of civilians.

Non of the terrorist attacks in Afghanistan or Iraq (or Lebanon) wins tactical or strategic victories. But our modern military take down of their infrastructure, and yes, systematic killing of their foot soldiers and Command units IS accomplishing tactical and strategic victories - but the MSM is NOT reporting these victories.

I utterly reject the notion that we have to jettison our value system which distinguishes unjust aggressors from non-combatants in order to take down unjust aggressors (and in so doing take the aggression out of others, or take the injustice out of those who would be motivated towards aggression).

We can do a much better job culturally and Psychops wise - starting with pointing out to all these so-called "holy men" that if Allah is "all merciful" they're certainly not showing signs of it, and that if they, these Arab terrorists are so brave and such 'big men' their hit and run or IED tactics sure don't prove it.

Any girly-boy can blow up a crowd of unarmed, unaware civilians. It takes real men to challenge armed soldiers. Knowing the fragil Muslim Psyche and the chips they carry on their shoulders more of that would - by their code of honor - force them away from cowardly sneak attacks and into more conventional stand up and fight like men attacks.

Of course with more MSM reporting that was balanced we could prove beyond all doubt that we'll win regardless of their tactics. Resistence is futile!
John | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:34 am | #

John -

Hate to tell you this, but Viet Nam wasn't a 'win'. We withdrew from the fight, saying we were going to support the South Vietnamese. And we did for a year, until the Democrats pulled the plug on the support.

And the MSM's using the same tactics now as then. They don't want a win - they want headlines and ratings.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:41 am | #

Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaida's No. 2 evildoer, has just called for a worldwide jihad -- Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

In the videotape, al-Zawahri called for the "downtrodden" throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against "tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America."

Cute, huh?
Athenawise | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 10:27 am | #

When are we going to kill that craven coward and his immediate circle of minions.
Athenawise | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 10:28 am | #

That has been one of my worries early on. It just seems to me as a collective decision, we'd rather perish honorably than fight to win. A new "goal post" in modern wars involving the West. Part of the reason Americans are hated and Europeans doing everything possible not involved in one.
always right | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 10:30 am | #

I believe that the middle east have been fighting skirmishes for so long that they consider it a fact of life to have death and fear present all the time now. It no longer bothers the vast majority and they can live with the constant battles and the kids have grown up in it for generations. The only way to stop the cycle is to take it to the level where war is actually horrific to the point where people don't want to fight any longer. That means DRASTIC escalation involving civilians, governments, and structures. How long do you think they would fight and have tacit public support for various factions after having each city leveled to the ground? War isn't horrific enough yet so they won't stop fighting. Precision fighting is workable when the population is indifferent but not when it is part of the problem.
Garvin | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 10:39 am | #

Notice how all these BIG BRAVE Muslim warriors are always wearing masks to shield their identity, just like the Ku Klux Klan. If you believe in your cause, SHOW YOUR FACE!
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 11:31 am | #

Right on cue the death-wishing Zawahri asks for it, and shows the stupidity of any idea that the terrorists are tractable by way of "diplomacy", as well as his own necessary stupidity as one entranced with the love of death: his statements are not tactically rational. Perhaps he has been forced or prodded by circumstances to again reassert his basic nature as Evil. If so, it is the result of the Israeli and Bush Doctrine's wot.

Anyone think there is not a "plan" going on here? I think the terrorists are finally being forced to fight on our terms.

But what Zawahri does get right is that there are many here who actually wish for an end to their self-loathing by an "honorable" death of submission to Zawahri's Evil, or at least a continued "life" as its collaborator. I believe that this form of death-worship is also inherently defective, and it's existence in numbers could actually be a result of civilization's tolerance to the flourishing of such mutant forms. Now they must be at least contained. The wot is a war at home, too.

Likewise the "innocent" human shields have had the choice all along to not be shields for the Evil which wants to destroy Humanity. They have made the wrong choice, and thus have either manifested a death-wish or at least an inability to live up to the current conditions of survival within the World's niche. They lose either way by remaining shields for Evil. Bad choice.

But now I get to make my choice. Survival itself is an ethic, and it is also the mechanism and aim of Evolution. My choice is that my kind is going to survive. Therefore, all who stand in my way, even haplessly as "shields" will die. In my estimation, there's really no escaping it.

My kind will survive also to ensure the survival of free-thought and the ethics which flow from it, which certainly do not include slavery. In my view, the free-thought capacity is virtually a form of life. So it has its own survival as a basic goal and ethic, not its death or enslavement.

And the free-thought capacity is simply more "enlightened". When pushed, free-thought knows what to do. I know what to do, and don't have any qualms at all about doing it. The die has been cast forming the conditions for a showdown between the life-force, including that of free-thought, and the death-force, including the death of thought - between freedom and the freedom to understand, and enslavement involving the attempted death of understanding/the death of self-knowledge/the death of evolution's free-self.

I'm ready to die for the survival of the life-force and that of free-thought, in contrast to an ethic which requires my death in order to promote only more death.

By its very nature, I believe the life-force should have a competitive advantage over the death force. There's just something at work which seems disadvantaged about comitting suicide as a way to survive.

It's strange that those who profess a belief in Evolution do not see this. I think the Christians in effect believe more in Evolution than the Fliberals who malign and attack the Christians. At least the Christians believe in the right of survival and the right to life.

But to win by surviving, the life force and that of free-thought must act. This is a free choice. And it conveys a lot of power to those who make it and to the war on Evil. Nor is there anything honorable about worshipping death.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

I must also thank to infinity the Christians and the Israelis for being at the forefront of this battle, in terms of both time and understanding. I should have seen the war on G-d as telltale a long time ago.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 2:06 pm | #

An excellent post!!! I wish there was a peaceful solution. But that is impossible with violent, ruthless people. I just wish the world would wake up & realize if they don't have a good offense right now - they will soon need a defense against these terrorists!
Greta (Hooah Wife) | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 2:18 pm | #

Doc;

"When we are finally cornered and must allow our own barbarism to surface to combat theirs head to head, then we must be prepared to live with the consequences, including the agonizing guilt that will ensue--or everything we hold dear, everything we aspire to become, will forever perish from this earth"

I love civilization precisely because I AM a barbarian, and I live a life surrounded by barbarians...although most of us don't or won't,realize our capacity for savagery.

You can civilize nearly anyone, as long as you're willing to keep a loaded gun aimed at their heads.
And you have the sand to pull the trigger.

Regards;
Bilgeman | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 3:08 pm | #

"I am confident that we will not lose our values; and that our overall moral heading can be recovered should we need to temporarily deviate from the course of the moral compass that guides us. Because, in order to combat and defeat this new barbarism, we must confront it and be willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it. "

If we deviate from the path set out by the nation's "moral compass" aren't we by definition acting immorally? The argument that anything immoral performed in the service of a greater good is acceptable is one that has been used by the worst people in the world, including communists, facists, and our current enemies. This philosphy is universally condemed by most religions, including christianity.

Do you really mean that the US needs to do "whatever it takes"? Kill milllions with a nuculear bomb? Obviously morality comes into play at some point, as we are not our enemies.
Michael Czeiszperger | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 3:46 pm | #

I don't consider it barbaric to want a peaceful world for my grandkids, if that means blowing the hell out of a few jihadi's, fine, life's full of unpleasant jobs.

to add to John's thought of using more psyops against them, think of creative ways our military could use pigs to aid in a speedy end to hostilities.
Mark | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 3:48 pm | #

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

Winston Churchill

At some point, morality must give way to this simple statement above. It doesn't matter how moral you are if you're dead.
JonBuck | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 4:08 pm | #

I am old enough to have childhood memories of WWII, when our military was required to use considerable savagery to defeat the enemies of civilization of that time. I distinctly remember speculation about a Japanese invasion of the continental U. S. after Roosevelt died. I saw many newsreels at the time of the saturation bombing raids in Europe and the flame-thrower action against Japanese fanatics on the Pacific Islands, culminated by the nuclear destruction of two Japanese cities. We came through that experience with our values intact, and I am confident that we can do the same in this fight. The question is, do we have the guts to do what is necessary when so many such as Czeiszperger are carping from the sidelines? Does this person and his fellow travelers want to live in a world that has lost the fight against this medieval, barbaric enemy? As you may have noticed from the first sentence of this post it won't be much of an issue for me, but what about you?
Capn Billy | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Maybe an admission to our barbaric side will have a healing effect on all this onslaught of unrealistic political correctness. I tend to believe that when we started outsourcing the slaughtering ritual for our food to out of sight factories,we did ourselves a great disservice. Most city folks today would think pulling a chickens head off to be an act of barbarism whereas, our salt of the Earth ancestors viewed it as a neccesity with a sublime natural beauty experience all its own. No wonder we cant stomach the reality of the nature of war. We,ve mistakenly decided that our brand of civilisation should strip us of the creature that we basically are.
steve | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 4:44 pm | #

One of the values that the West is built on, one that we rarely need call on, but have in times of need, is particularly apposite now.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset." (taken from the web, any grammatical errors included)

aka: "Kill them all, God will know his own."

Rendering ourselves defensless in order to protect the victims of our enemies from those enemies just ensures that both they and we are victimized.
Jason Bontrager | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 4:50 pm | #

There is honest speaking here. Our good old Western Civ has a bloody streak, and we have lived with it very well. When--not if--the time comes,I wonder what language the summons will use. Churchill oratory? Patton obscenity?
Maybe it'll be cheerfully homicidal, this in modern idiom:
So now, you that are lazy, lubberly, cowardly dogs, get away and skulk in the hold and bread-room; and you, that are jolly boys, stand by me, and let us give one broadside for the honour of Old England (Roderick Random Tobias Smollett)
Lazy, lubberly, cowardly dogs. Bingo!
armchair pessimist | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 5:33 pm | #

"Maybe an admission to our barbaric side"

We have military hardware and munitions worth several billion x10. Why be barbaric when we have B-2 and F-117 stealth bombers capable of going in unseen?

Strike every known place Irans leaders would be at any given hour in any day. It would be over in hours and the result would be accomplished in a more sophisticated than barbaric fashion.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 5:51 pm | #

Thomas Sowell wrote in his piece "Then and Now" (Realclearpolitics) the same point Capn Billy was making.

Unfortunately, "NOW" we have a population among us who believe we deserve everything we've got (since the 80s' bombings), who believe we should only do things to please the world opinions.
always right | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 5:57 pm | #

Looking back at history it seems to me that war and barbarity have been our lot until very recently, so I don't think the veneer of civilization is all that deep. However, I don't see why we in the West have to suffer some monstrous blow to get us back to the grim business our ancestors knew so well.

The Muslim fanatics have made it perfectly clear they want us dead, converted or enslaved and nothing will stop them in their attempts to make us so. Diplomacy and agreements, truces and "understanding" are useless against such a foe and the bottom line is either we kill them first or they kill us.

Our ancestors did not endure all they did to have our civilization, which allows us the pleasant illusion that we're civilized, to be stamped into the mud by a bunch of twisted, blind throwbacks to the 8th century.


Then we can get back to the business of thinking we are civilized again until the next time we have to take the axe out of the closet.
snowonpine | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 6:42 pm | #

A good offense and defense are the precursors to being able to feel good. Without a good offense and defense you will not be around to "feel" good.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Only the most barbaric of acts will break the will of these barbarians. Remember what Mr Spock told Captain Kirk in the Star Trek (Original Series) episode "Mirror Mirror"

It is easier for a civilized man to pretend to be a barbarian than it is for a barbarian to pretend to be a civilize man.
Shoprat | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 8:03 pm | #

Every day that Israel stays in Lebanon and kills Hezbollah is a good day for humanity and all that is decent.

There are times when the only civilized thing to do is to become a barbarian -- a killing machine. The jihadists are pushing the civilized world mighty close to that threshold. It will not be pleasant, but it may become necessary for survival. Some historical movements -- like Nazism, and now Islamofascism -- are so utterly evil that it would be unforgivable NOT to take up the sword -- or the 20-megaton nuclear device, if that's what it takes.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 8:15 pm | #

INTERNATIONAL LAW...

...says that "perfidy" is one of the most serious crimes. It also says that the group guilty of perfidy is responsible for civilian deaths, NOT the nation defending itself against that group.
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/...ug02/ beres1.htm

So, do officials of the EU, UN, USA, etc., know this?

There are two possibilities...

A. -- They DON"T know, and we are all being governed by ignoramuses; i.e., those we voted for and their appointees, which means that WE are the weak link in that chain.

...or...

B. -- They DO know but don't care; which means that, for all their highfaluten rhetoric about 'human rights'. they are are AT BEST morally retarded.

Of course, since nothing is ever that simple, it is probably a chaotic mix concocted of at least those two along with Kofi Annan's kitchen sink, and/or WC, at the very least.

Oh, yes, and if they do know, are they criminally negligent for not formulating policy in conformity to REAL INternational law, as opposed to what the survey of the weak(intentional) concocts in it's twisted polls?
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:20 pm | #

Every so often,it's a good idea to reread H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine." This should be required reading in high schools, and the key subject should be "decadence."

We should fight the barbarians now, when we can. There are already too many eloi among us, who think that civilization just "happens" because they're so "nice." Michael CZ above seems to be one of those.

My views are much more like Bilgeman's. We can tame the barbarians if we're willing to kill them and they know it.
promethea | Email | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 9:57 pm | #

Wow. I find it amazing the number of people here who can read Dr. Sanity suggest that the only way to fight this evil is to embrace evil and then agree with him!

What happened to true bravery? To fighting evil with good, as God commands in the Bible? To obeying our own laws (hitting civilian populations - even when you're hoping to hit the "bad guys" is a war crime)?

We can never defeat evil by embracing evil because there are always going to be those more willing to embrace evil than you. "You're okay with killing a child in order to shoot the terrorist behind him? Fine, I'll drop a bomb on your city to stop you. You'll drop a bomb on our city in order to stop us? Fine, we'll drop nukes on who populations to stop you..."

It is not naive nor utopianistic to fight evil with good. It is, in fact, the only way to do so.

God have mercy on us all.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 9:34 am | #

Dan Trabue, I worked at a complex in lower Manhattan, called the World Trade Center. If the observation deck was open today, it might be a good place to get some fresh air, and take in the view of the tri-state area. But it's GONE! Now you explain why 19 highjackers are valued as martyrs, by Muslim moonbats? When have you ever converted an Islamo to Christian values?
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 11:15 am | #

Following 9/11, the world was united behind the US, including the Muslim world. The highjackers were "valued as martyrs" only to a very few individuals with a skewed perspective on their Allah.

By fighting evil with evil, as has been suggested here, we've changed that. WE have made the highjackers into martyrs.

Security can not come at the cost of innocent lives. We must stand up to and fight those few who would commit terrorism, but when we start killing innocents, then the opposition to us will (and, in fact, has) spread. It is a backwards way down the wrong road to security.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 11:32 am | #

Dan Trabue:

"It is not naive nor utopianistic to fight evil with good. It is, in fact, the only way to do so."

Care to suggest some specifics? Speaking in moral generalities makes for good speechifying, but I'm a fairly pragmatic guy...ergo, I'm more interested in the nuts n' bolts of the policies based on your ideals.

"Security can not come at the cost of innocent lives."

I would observe that we are no longer at dire risk from German Nazism or Japanese Imperialism, and certainly THAT security cost a very great number of innocent lives, did it not?

"We can never defeat evil by embracing evil because there are always going to be those more willing to embrace evil than you. "You're okay with killing a child in order to shoot the terrorist behind him? Fine, I'll drop a bomb on your city to stop you. You'll drop a bomb on our city in order to stop us? Fine, we'll drop nukes on who populations to stop you...""

And yet, it was PRECISELY this philosophy, codified as the Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, that prevented a thermonuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the Free World for 50 years.

You see, by us holding a loaded gun to the Soviets' heads, we civilized them.
By them holding a loaded gun to our heads, they civilized US.

But it only works if the side(s)doing the civilizing are ready, able, and willing to fire for effect.

IOW, this is not a game that favors those who bluff.

You are writing in English to a largely American audience here, and while your private ideals may do you credit, trying to have them adopted as public policy has the effect of turning us into a polis that has an OBSCENE amount of weaponry, but an insufficient amount of the will to USE those weapons.

And that, friend, will be the death of us all.

So, with all due respect, if you wish to be a martyr for your personal ideals, then "vaya con dios".

But I'm not signing up to play sacrificial coolie extra to YOUR Mahatma Gandhi schtick, see?

Regards;
Bilgeman | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 2:32 pm | #

You're okay with killing a child in order to shoot the terrorist behind him?

It's interesting to me how the Left always uses this as an indictment of us and never as an indictment of the terrorist using the child (the hospital, the UN outpost, etc) as a shield.
Radish | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Who says I'm the Left? I hold my values for reasons that are at least as Conservative as they are Liberal.

And the reason some folk will use that as an indictment of us, is that it is OUR behavior that I'm responsible for. I'm opposed to terrorists or anyone endangering innocent bystanders, but I'm responsible for MY country's behavior, not for Iraq's or Lebanon's.

Bilgeman, I'd be glad to point to some sources that tell how to fight evil with good. Here's a link:

http://www.fcnl.org/ppdc/

Non-violent Direct Action has rarely been used on a national or international level. But when and where it has been used, it's done relatively well. Has it brought "Peace for all ages"? No. But neither has war.

I'll be glad to offer more, but I hestitate to take up a bunch of space at someone else's blog.

As Joan Baez has pointed out: Non-violent resistence as a solution is a complete failure. The only thing that has failed worse is war.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 4:04 pm | #

Dan, Joan Baez's head would be resting on her backside, if these folks got a hold of her; and you know it!
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 6:37 pm | #

Have you read about Non-violent Direct Action, Tom? Are you aware of how and why it works?

I'm sure you're a reasonable person and no reasonable person wants a war, so surely you'll agree that it is important for ethical people to learn about ALL the tools at our disposal for stopping evil?

I know that war and NVDA both pose risks. The difference is not that one works and the other doesn't. The difference is that one doesn't demand that we embrace evil and the other does, as the good Dr. is suggesting.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:09 am | #

Dan Trabue:
Wow. I find it amazing the number of people here who can read Dr. Sanity suggest that the only way to fight this evil is to embrace evil and then agree with him!

Wrong. Using violence to fight evil is NOT evil. Honestly, I don't know where you get that.

How exactly would non-violent direct action work against a psychotic serial killer? One who kills because he enjoys killing.

You rely on your non-violent direct action, and I'll rely on the U.S. military, JDAMs, and if worse comes to worse, my own personal .45 loaded with hollow points. When the dust settles, we can compare notes.
rickl | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:58 am | #

Rick said:

"Using violence to fight evil is NOT evil. Honestly, I don't know where you get that."

I got it from the good Doctor, herself. It is the gist of this post that we need to give up our traditional values to fight this evil.

In the words she quoted:

"The brilliance of the new barbarism is that you cannot fight it without destroying your own value system into the bargain."

And in her own words:

"I am confident that we will not lose our values; and that our overall moral heading can be recovered should we need to temporarily deviate from the course of the moral compass that guides us."

Dr. Sanity has the good sense to recognize that the sort of killing of civilians that is happening in Lebanon and Iraq IS INDEED an abandoning of our values and an embracing (even if temporary) of the tools of evil.

As to your psychotic killer illustration, we use the police and public to stop him. And possible restraint, even violence, even deadly violence as a last resort.

But that is not the comparison the Doctor made. She was talking about killing innocent people as a means of stopping evil. We would be wrong to bomb the neighborhood we suspect the psychotic lives in. That would be embracing evil in a panic of fear in an attempt to overcome evil.

And it would be wrong.

If we become that which we abhor in order to stop it, we have only fanned the fire, not put it out.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 3:22 am | #

Actually, Dan Trabue, I said that we will have to do exactly that in order to defeat this enemy. If we were dealing with--one or even a few--psychotics hiding among innocent people there would be other options that don't involve that morally repugnant level of violence. But our enemy is making sure that we cannot deal with them humanely and we will have to make a conscious decision to fight them on the level they have chosen. It is abhorrent; it is vile; it is degrading; it is inhumane. But that is how it will be. What I said was basically that if we have no other choice to defeat them, then we will have to go that route. And that is why I hate the islamofascist monsters so much. Their behavior cannot be controlled by humane, rational efforts. They cannot be appeased; they cannot be deterred. They will kill us because our value system values their life. I would therefore have no hesitation killing them--just as I would have no hesitation in shooting dead someone who threatened my daughter or spouse. The personal consequences to me would be very bad. I am not a violent person and the thought of taking a human life is terrible. BUT I WOULD DO IT TO SAVE THAT WHICH I VALUE AND LOVE EVEN BEYOND MY OWN LIFE -- even if it destroyed me personally.

Do we value America enough to save her from those that want to destroy her? Will we do what is necessary to defeat this evil that is rising? Or will we let it destoy everything we believe in? War is hell, but if we transform it into a humanitarian, lovefest and an opportunity to prove our "tolerance" then we are doomed to be vanquished. I do not advocate embracing evil tactics in a panic of fear--I advocate doing it coldly, deliberately, and as ruthlessly as necessary to halt the advance of the enemy who wants to destroy us. They have chosen the level on which I will respond.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 9:55 am | #

Dan--When I see you out in front of the advancing "Non-violent Direct Action" activists going into Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan to successfully confront and tame Hezbullah, Hamas, Taliban or Al-Q terrorists with your moral truths then I 'll believe your philosophy isn't just patent nonsense that is going to get a lot of people killed.

Philosophical and moral debating positions are one thing, some Islamic fanatic who has been told his religion demands that he kill you--a filthy, inferior unbeliever--and wants to take your head, is quite another.

P.S. Try reading some of the weekly sermons from the main mosque in Mecca and other major Mosques from around the Muslim world and other documents that MEMRI translates and posts, they're very enlightening. I particularly liked the list that,the late Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Shi'ite Muslims made listing the "ten unclean (najlis) things"--infidels were ranked behind dead bodies, feces, blood, dogs and pigs --he helpfully also explained that not only was an infidel (Kafir=ungrateful i.e. having heard the call of Islam, the infidel does not accept it and is, therefore, ungrateful) unclean but his hair, nails and any bodily excretions including sweat were also unclean. I don't think your aproach, however noble and civilized you think it to be, is going to work with these guys.
snowonpine | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 10:22 am | #

Dan Trabue;

"Non-violent Direct Action has rarely been used on a national or international level. But when and where it has been used, it's done relatively well. Has it brought "Peace for all ages"? No. But neither has war."

Y'know Dan, I've got a lot of respect and regard for the Friends, but I would not EVER elect one as a war leader.

No offense, but if I was in a firefight, or standing by to repel boarders on pirate watch,(and yes, I've done that more than once), a Quaker is the LAST person I'd want by my side.

Now...as I perused the link you provided, their lead para jumped out at me. As it properly should...it's their "message":

"The practical instruments of negotiation, aid, and development assistance, the psychological instrument of respect for human dignity and equality, and the political instruments of human, juridical, and civil rights provide a more effective, just, and moral answer."

And that's all very well. As I said in my first reply to you, good speechifyin'.

Problem is, and I'll make this short and sweet, is that Prevention, on a socio-economic and cultural scale, is going to need a an alien governmental tyranny so vast, deep and absolute, that it would be FAR worse than any war you could possibly imagine.

I would offer Stalin's Empire as the premier example...yes, he kept the peace in Eastern Europe and among his subordinate peoples in the USSR, but at what cost?

And this is the central argument I have with the Friends.

There are worse things, FAR worse, than war.

Regards;
Bilgeman | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 11:15 am | #

I stand with the Doctor and the wonderful commenters above. I wish you all lived on my street. But how many people think likewise? None visible around me. There is no sense of the danger we face. More and more, I spend my life in an online bubble of like-minded souls, and I'm fearful of self-delusion. How many are we. Who, in power, advances these ideas? Civilization is nearing it's past-due date. Who will take the neccessary lead? Our grandchildren are doomed in a thousand ways and this generation will be cursed forever, or forgotten entirely if we don't act now. You cannot win a war with self restraint. I pray we let slip the dogs, but fear we won't. It's all so maddenly suicidal. Oh crap, I'll shut-up now...
Hector Cowpie | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 1:12 pm | #

Dr. Sanity said:

"Will we do what is necessary to defeat this evil that is rising?"

Yes, we ought to. But we must not make the assumption that there are only two options: Oppose the enemy with evil means or surrender to the enemy. There are always options.

I've mentioned a great example of NVDA in action at other blogs, you may have seen it but I'll offer it here again.

NVDA works on the assumption that the majority of people are acting in their perceived best interests. So, while a group of people may not care a whit about making peace with anyone, they will not act against their own best interest.

In Nicaragua in the 1980s, the Contras were the rebels trying to overthrow the Sandinistan gov't. They were accomplishing this by committing terroristic raids on villages where Sandinista supporters lived.

The Contras were able to do this with financial and other support from the US.

Concerned US citizens (and others around the globe) looked at this situation and realized that the Contras would not take actions to threaten their funding - it would be against their perceived best interests. And so, we sent witnesses from the US and abroad to the villages under attack in Nicaragua.

While the contras wouldn't have cared about killing another person - whether a villager or a US citizen, they realized that killing US citizens would further threaten the moneys they depended upon. And so, they would leave alone the villages where the non-violent witnesses were visiting.

So, yes, to snowonpine - who asked for us to lead the way - we've done so and it has worked. Not perfectly, but war isn't perfect, as you well realize.

There are other means that we must pursue. And breaking our own laws is not going to be the way to end terrorism.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 3:15 pm | #

Quoting Ayn Rand: You do not owe morality to the ones without morality
hl | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 4:40 pm | #

... And quoting a SciFi book: Boiling the bodies/leftovers of terrorists in pig's fat quickly took the wind out of the terrorist movement ...
hl | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 4:51 pm | #

"And breaking our laws is not going to be the way to end terrorism". Dan, THE MUSLIMS COULD HAVE BLOWN UP YOURS TRULY AND HARLEY IN THE PARKING GARAGE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993! They knew then, as they know now, what they can get away with, always call for a public defender, and cry "Discrimination against Islam". There are evil people in this world, and no number of Joan Baez's will rid us of them! We are not the problem, they are!
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 4:58 pm | #

So, forget our values and laws? Shall we break our own laws?

Will you mind if those of us who disagree with you demand prosecutions for breaking our laws? I suspect the majority of the US still wants us to obey our own laws.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 11:50 pm | #

Dan Trabue;

"Will you mind if those of us who disagree with you demand prosecutions for breaking our laws? I suspect the majority of the US still wants us to obey our own laws."

You seem quite enamored of man's law.

Since you want prosecutions of those whom you charge are lawbreakers, I'd like to remind you that the Society of Friends was once what you might today call a criminal organization.

To wit, the Quakers operated quite a few "stations" on the Underground Railroad, receiving and transporting runaway property from their lawful bondage.
In direct violation of Federal Law.

So...still want to call the fuzz?

Or can you admit that sometimes, the laws made by mankind are in opposition to the laws mandated by the Almighty?

Regards;
Bilgeman | Email | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 9:18 am | #

The NVDA crowd are like spoiled trustfund babies who don't want to get their hands dirty doing what the Old Man had to do. =parasites.
For the rest of us, let's put the best face we can on what we must do. Being hang dog, half hearted and apologetic about it will only prolong the awfulness.
armchair pessimist | Email | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 11:00 am | #

Yes, there comes a time for breaking unjust laws. The difference, I suspect, between we anabaptist and Quakers and you is that when we break human laws, we are quite willing to abide by the punishment for breaking said law. (That's one difference, the other is that when we break laws, we do so non-violently, to promote justice and life, not injustice and death.)

Will you gladly stand up and support war crime convictions for those that have broken the law?
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 3:43 pm | #

"NVDA works on the assumption that the majority of people are acting in their perceived best interests"
How does this apply when you opponents "best interest" is martydom?
Peter | Email | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 7:05 pm | #

There are a very limited number of Muslims anxious to die to go to paradise, just as there a limited number of Christians anxious to die to go to heaven. Don't confuse the actions of a few with the reality of the human condition.
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Dan Trabue;

"Will you gladly stand up and support war crime convictions for those that have broken the law?"

Absolutely.

"The difference, I suspect, between we anabaptist and Quakers and you is that when we break human laws, we are quite willing to abide by the punishment for breaking said law."

I'll see you and raise you. I would be willing to commit what the law labels a war crime if I deemed it necessary for victory.

You would be more than welcome to arrest and try me by the relevant United States Code...but AFTER we had won.

Because I would FAR prefer to be judged by my countrymen according to OUR laws, than condemned by Mullahs and Imams according to Shar'ia.

Just out of curiosity...have you ANY experience of the Atab/ Muslim world?

I have.

"Yes, there comes a time for breaking unjust laws"

Quite. So, given that ALL of man's laws are inherently imperfect, can we not allow that SOME of man's laws are MORE unjust than others?
And therefore, would it not then be a moral good to resist against a set of laws that are less just to preserve a law code that is more just?

You might struggle non-violently, I would not quail to wield the sword, but would we not then be allies?

Regards;
Bilgeman | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 9:18 am | #

It is time we take these Islamic fanatics at their word and admit we're at war with Islam, NOT Terror, but ISLAM itself. Just because our side is not fully engage doesn't mean there isn't a war going on.

We need to untie the hands of our fighting forces and let them go to town. We cannot value their mosques and their civilians more than they do themselves.

You Quakers need to review the Bible. Which says there is a time to fight and a time to make peace. Nowhere in the Holy Book does it say "Peace at any price."

BTW, I'm Catholic of Polish extraction. It was the Polish Catholics who routed the Turks at the Gates of Vienna. We are not bound by our religion to practice the iodicy called pacificism. So, to quote a fine Christian philospher, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
Michelle Simon | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 11:23 pm | #

Bravo, Michelle! And, I believe, it was on a Sept 11 that the Poles whupped their turbaned arses. They do have long memories, don't they?
armchair pessimist | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 9:28 am | #

My husband and I have been discussing the Middle East situation intensely ever since the current war -- for that is what it is, make no mistake about it -- started. He thinks that Nasrallah and Co. aren't serious, that they're only piling on the rhetoric. I remind him that a lot of people didn't take Hitler seriously either, and look what happened there. It's frightening to think that these Foaming Bronze Age Savages (copyright Mark Shea) mean exactly what they say -- they want Israel wiped off the map, and then they'll come after the Christians. Oh, I forgot, they've been doing that already. As Ann Landers used to say, we should all wake up and smell the coffee. I hope and pray that Israel continues to kick major Hezbollah ass, and I'd like to get the biggest Israeli flag I could get & put it up in the front yard. In the meantime, I continue to remember all the people of the Middle East in prayer.
Patricia Gonzalez | Email | Homepage | 08.09.06 - 8:17 pm | #