Sunday, June 19, 2005

Pointless Violence

I am not nor have I ever been a pacifist. Pacifism is dangerous and allows those less noble to win via compromise or collaberation,

My problem with liberals as a moderate is a consistent refusal to adress evil head on. Marxism and Jihadism are Nihlistic insults to humanity. Falwell and Bin Laden are not equivalents . Bush and Saddam are not equivalents. The problem is moral relivism on the part of some liberals.

The problem with Marx and Jihadism is they seek to reshape the world. The problem is that you and I are expendible parts in their quest. The problem we face is Nihilism via Jihad or Marx.

I could not shoot school kids in the back . I could not behead a peson in a demented religious fervor. I could not smack jetliners into office towers and incinerate life for nothing. The problem is nihlism and the devaluation of human life. When life has little or no value all of humanity suffers.

We can sit and pretend like ostriches that the terror threat doesn't exist. My problem is I have been through this twice and it is real to me.

To the good liberals I implore you kindly step away from the commies. Are we going to rehabilitate Nazism next and say true Nazism hasn't been attempted yet. Maybe these yokels will rehabilitate slavery. 100,000,000 dead is enough proof Marxism is evil. 1300 years of colonialism , slaverey, ethnocide and genocide are the legacy of jihadism. Using a moraly neutral compass is bad logic and will get us killed.


Always On Watch said...

Pointless violence is the operandus modi of all nihilists. Always has been, and that pointless violence is what disrupts civilization.

Robert Bayn said...

The problem with Marx and Jihadism is they seek to reshape the world.

Is'nt that exactly what we are doing right now?

I heard ann coulter even say, she wants us to attack every middle eastern country and make them christian nations.

My point is'nt to say terroist are right, but it is to say, our policys arent exactly that much diffrent.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ain't nothing wrong with reshaping the world. The world's in need of reshaping. Do you realize there's people on the other side of the planet that don't wet themselves when someone says "America is mad at you?" This insolence must stop, and for the small cost of scrapping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else cherished by liberals, we could build a massive robot army to deal with disobedient nations.

beakerkin said...

Rob if your definition of reshaping the world includes removal of cancers like Saddam and fixing the mess in Afghanistan , then yes. Both countries suffered from benign neglect for too long. The problem on your side is the culture of low expectations. We can no longer define deviancy down after 9-11. If you haven't noticed
the forces of Jihad are not exactly
lining up for another 9-11. The message has been sent.

Warren said...

My point is'nt to say terroist are right, but it is to say, our policys arent exactly that much diffrent.

Your statement is much more telling than any policy.

And what policy would you impose?

Always On Watch said...

Ann Coulter does not set U.S. policy. Much of what she writes is hyperbole and hugely sarcastic satire.

Good question. We know what policy the jihadists and their ilk desire to impose.

Jason_Pappas said...

Yes, this moral equivalence is really a major problem. I used to post to one online group of mostly leftists and there were times I could get them to agree that Islam is horrid. But they insisted that I say the same thing about Christianity. As people here know, I’m not religious. Still, I explained what I see as the vast differences between the two religions but they wouldn’t accept one iota of moral differentiation. A few came around for a day or two but they’d relapse into relativism shortly after. This relativism is really deeply ingrained.

Esther said...

Excellent post, Beak.

Robert Bayn said...

Of course you know al queda works in a slow process, first attack on american was in 93, and not another attack until 2001, we are just now fighting back, but our borders are still not being protected, checmical plants go on guarded, we are still at risk, even if SOME think having a war makes them feel more secure.

beakerkin said...

Rob no offense but I know better then most about Al Queda . The days of defining deviancy downward are over. Our acceptance of barbarism is a problem.

Warren said...

I ask you again, Mr Bayn, what policies would you impose?

A Queda, would have struck again just before or after the elections if possible. The type of extremists that blow themselves up are decimating themselves in Iraq at present and every real measure for tighter border security is opposed by the left as an infringement of "human rights" and in the present administration at higher levels. Your tighter border security would never be possible under a leftist administration. The left even opposes voter ID.

As far as chemical plants, (et. al.), you have no idea what measures have been taken and they are not going to be advertised.

Quite frankly, I doubt that you have any ideas for substansive policy that aren't pure appeasement and do not involve hiding your head in the sand.

You should try to study history and see where policies of appeasement always lead. And yes, some of us do think this war will make us safer. WE have attention spans greater than that of a gnat and a better grasp of what has been happening in the Middle East.