As the November congressional elections near, TheSolidSurfer.com would like, once again, to express our support for Republican candidate Van Taylor, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Chet Edwards for the Texas District 17 seat. Earlier this year, we posted an exclusive interview with Mr. Taylor, and now I'd like to call everyone's attention to a series of his campaign ads posted on the You Tube video site. There are ten videos in all, some of which promote Mr. Taylor and others (the more recent ones) that attack Mr. Edwards's record. I have not watched them all, but the ones about Van himself well describe his background, platform, and vision. For more information as well, visit http://www.vantaylor.com/.
And a note on the political race overall: Anyone pay close attention to the specifics of Hugo Chavez's Bush-bashing UN speech? Seems like he ripped his insults straight from the pages of the Democratic party playbook. The politicans who inspired Chavez should be ashamed of themselves.
In other news:
Israel has long been noted as the only key Middle East state without oil, but finally this may be about to change. Yes, many are skeptical, but oil extraction technology has improved so greatly that the prospectors' claims must be taken seriously. Of course, alternative energy remains directly in the mix; both China and India are exploring it and perhaps Israeli technology can help them.
Energy, however, is not the only prominent science emerging from the Jewish state; Israeli scientists recently developed a mosquito-control system to help fight malaria in the developing world. This innovation, if applied worldwide, could save many millions of lives.
Both of these examples, meanwhile, are prominent ammunition against doomsday environmentalist predictions. Just as with the advances in oil drilling technology, human ingenuity has plenty of power to change the status quo.
One part of the world, however, sadly continues to produce little change; rather than reflecting inward, many Muslims violently keep demanding that the Pope apologize for his inflammatory comments about Islam. In reality, though, the Islamic world itself must change, and it is indeed they who owe everyone else an apology.
And lest anyone think that only Israelis would argue this (as per the above quoted article), more and more Americans are noticing it too. Just for starters, Victor Davis Hanson explains why President Bush's definition of our enemies as "Islamic fascists" is highly justified. Furthermore, another American named Gamaliel Isaac (whom I happen to personally know) completely shatters the assumption that the surrounding Arabs wish to live in peace with Israel. For true peace to emerge both in the Middle East and around the world, Muslim jihadists clearly must change their ways.
At least, though, it's great to see Israelis standing together. As the day of Yom Kippur approaches, both religious and secular groups are joining together in prayer. Let's hope such unity can be further projected onto the entire nation.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Rosh Hashanah, Jews and the Democratic Party, Israel
Happy New Year! Nope, it's not January 1st, but starting tonight is the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah. That's right, we are officially about to enter year 5767. The holiday is probably one of the most well known of those in the Jewish calendar, but if anyone wants to learn much more about it, fellow blogger MadZionist has posted an excellent summation on his website.
In other news, some of it related:
Ed Lasky of the American Thinker discusses why the Democratic Party is longer a welcome home for American Jews. This is a very important article that all Americans, no matter political affiliation, should find relevant. It's not just about Democratic vs. Republican support for Israel; the piece delves greatly into leftist goals, potential Congressional committee directions, and anti-Semitism. Read this brief correction from a section of it, too.
The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, meanwhile, analyzes the Pope's recent comments about Islam and discusses its implications for the Jewish people as well. On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, this is a highly inspirational piece.
Want to understand the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict in twenty lines or less? Here it is.
And finally, yet another Rosh Hashanah primer, this one straight from Israel itself. As the word goes in Hebrew, Shana Tova!
In other news, some of it related:
Ed Lasky of the American Thinker discusses why the Democratic Party is longer a welcome home for American Jews. This is a very important article that all Americans, no matter political affiliation, should find relevant. It's not just about Democratic vs. Republican support for Israel; the piece delves greatly into leftist goals, potential Congressional committee directions, and anti-Semitism. Read this brief correction from a section of it, too.
The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, meanwhile, analyzes the Pope's recent comments about Islam and discusses its implications for the Jewish people as well. On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, this is a highly inspirational piece.
Want to understand the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict in twenty lines or less? Here it is.
And finally, yet another Rosh Hashanah primer, this one straight from Israel itself. As the word goes in Hebrew, Shana Tova!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Rabbi Hecht, New Site Poll, More on U.S. and Taliban
Posting this week has been tough, but the cloud does have a silver lining in that material intended for publication has been building up. And I'd like to present much of it in the next few upcoming posts. Before then, though, some quick items:
First and foremost, please join me in wishing TheSolidSurfer.com guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht a hearty Mazel Tov on the recent engagement of his daughter! We are thrilled for Rabbi Hecht and his family, and wish his daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law all the best in their upcoming marriage!
Secondly, the website has been updated. Please feel free to check out our new poll feature, at the bottom of the righthand column (you may have to scroll down a bit to reach it). This particular poll will remain for some time, and I plan to introduce new poll questions in the future.
Also, with regards to a recent previous post, information has surfaced which reveals that the U.S. military's decision to not attack a vulnerable Taliban force may actually have been a sound judgement, and not simply capitulation to political correctness. Bloggers over at The Autonomist (a blogroll link at left) contacted an officer at CENTCOM, who proceeded to completely dismiss the PC/cultural sensitivity theory. This is fantastic to hear, and for our nation's sake, I surely hope it's fully correct. (Hat Tip to Kuhnkat for the link.)
Blog of the Day: Planck's Constant. And the site covers far more than just science.
First and foremost, please join me in wishing TheSolidSurfer.com guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht a hearty Mazel Tov on the recent engagement of his daughter! We are thrilled for Rabbi Hecht and his family, and wish his daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law all the best in their upcoming marriage!
Secondly, the website has been updated. Please feel free to check out our new poll feature, at the bottom of the righthand column (you may have to scroll down a bit to reach it). This particular poll will remain for some time, and I plan to introduce new poll questions in the future.
Also, with regards to a recent previous post, information has surfaced which reveals that the U.S. military's decision to not attack a vulnerable Taliban force may actually have been a sound judgement, and not simply capitulation to political correctness. Bloggers over at The Autonomist (a blogroll link at left) contacted an officer at CENTCOM, who proceeded to completely dismiss the PC/cultural sensitivity theory. This is fantastic to hear, and for our nation's sake, I surely hope it's fully correct. (Hat Tip to Kuhnkat for the link.)
Blog of the Day: Planck's Constant. And the site covers far more than just science.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Jihadist Violence Validates Pope Benedict's Words
As most of us probably have already seen in the news, Pope Benedict recently inflamed Muslims worldwide when, in a speech in Germany, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who declared Muhammad's teachings "evil and inhuman", particularly the command to spread the faith by the sword.
Of course, many Muslims immediately called this a heinous insult, and demanded an apology. The pope, however, has stuck to his guns, expressing regret that the statement caused offense and differentiating it from his personal beliefs, but still stopping short of genuinely repudiating it.
So who is correct? Was the Pope's use of quotation appropriate, or are Muslims justified in their opposition? I'd venture to say that fundamentalist Muslim actions in the event's aftermath largely answer the question.
In response to the comments, jihadist groups have plotted to kill the Pope himself, murdered a nun, bombed multiple churches, threatened entire Christian populations, and begun preparations to wage war on the Western world (something which, to a large extent, has already been happening for years). And that's only what was reported in the news. Just as the Pope strongly condemned Islam's propensity for violence, Muslims themselves have all but confirmed the necessity to do so.
Now do Muslims have a right to be offended? Of course. The Pope's quote did indeed insult their religion; the words were very harsh, and even quite exaggerated, as certainly not all of Islam is evil or inhuman.
But feeling hurt by no means whatsoever gives them the right to act violently and commit murder. This is not remotely debatable; such barbaric reactions to a mere verbal insult can indeed be described only as evil and immoral. And yet fitting the Pope's quote to the letter, many Muslims clearly felt religiously justified in acting as such. Furthermore, most Islamic leaders have refused to condemn the violence, which certainly hints that they silently condone it.
As much as Muslims want to deny Pope Benedict's statement, too many of them have succeeded in validating it. If they truly wish to prove the pontiff wrong, they can begin only by renouncing such violence and responding in a civilized manner. If this were to genuinely occur, I can imagine the Pope would be happy to retract his statement. Otherwise, forget about it.
Of course, many Muslims immediately called this a heinous insult, and demanded an apology. The pope, however, has stuck to his guns, expressing regret that the statement caused offense and differentiating it from his personal beliefs, but still stopping short of genuinely repudiating it.
So who is correct? Was the Pope's use of quotation appropriate, or are Muslims justified in their opposition? I'd venture to say that fundamentalist Muslim actions in the event's aftermath largely answer the question.
In response to the comments, jihadist groups have plotted to kill the Pope himself, murdered a nun, bombed multiple churches, threatened entire Christian populations, and begun preparations to wage war on the Western world (something which, to a large extent, has already been happening for years). And that's only what was reported in the news. Just as the Pope strongly condemned Islam's propensity for violence, Muslims themselves have all but confirmed the necessity to do so.
Now do Muslims have a right to be offended? Of course. The Pope's quote did indeed insult their religion; the words were very harsh, and even quite exaggerated, as certainly not all of Islam is evil or inhuman.
But feeling hurt by no means whatsoever gives them the right to act violently and commit murder. This is not remotely debatable; such barbaric reactions to a mere verbal insult can indeed be described only as evil and immoral. And yet fitting the Pope's quote to the letter, many Muslims clearly felt religiously justified in acting as such. Furthermore, most Islamic leaders have refused to condemn the violence, which certainly hints that they silently condone it.
As much as Muslims want to deny Pope Benedict's statement, too many of them have succeeded in validating it. If they truly wish to prove the pontiff wrong, they can begin only by renouncing such violence and responding in a civilized manner. If this were to genuinely occur, I can imagine the Pope would be happy to retract his statement. Otherwise, forget about it.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
America Refuses to Attack Taliban - Awful Decision
Want to know why America still struggles to win the war on terror? This story tells all we need to know.
And yes, believe it - the U.S. military identified a gathering of over one-hundred Taliban terrorists, had the chance to bomb or otherwise attack them, and refused to do so because the men were standing in a cemetery, and this would have violated Afghanistan's cultural sensitivities. A military spokesman confirmed the decision, explaining that our coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
This decision is simply outrageous. It pains me to criticize our armed forces in this war, as they risk their lives daily to protect our freedom, something for which I am grateful and supportive to the utmost. But here, I do feel compelled to speak out, because this instance demonstrates the unfortunate degree to which political correctness has penetrated our society, to our significant civilizational risk.
The men the army spared are enemy combatants, not civilians. They are evil terrorists who fight in order to massacre as many innocents as possible. They have killed American soldiers without mercy, and given the opportunity would murder or enslave every last non-Muslim. Indeed, their vile opposition is the main reason we're still *in* Afghanistan, and attacking them, really, is a matter of self defense.
Refusing to strike them may save their lives, but it places the lives of our own soldiers at much greater risk. This is not moral and ethical, but quite the opposite. A legitimate argument may have been over the method of attack, as a surprise conventional strike might have captured them alive at little risk to coalition troops (assuming they weren't armed due to the funeral), while a bombing attack probably would have killed them. But regardless, to simply let them escape means only to allow them further chances to attack our troops. Doing so, hence, was a colossal mistake. For anyone wondering why the Taliban keeps regrouping, the answer is simple - because we let it.
To put things into proper perspective, would the U.S. have spared a Nazi officer gathering at a German cemetery during World War II? I certainly don't think so. And why? Because they were Nazis and they were evil. If we didn't stop them, they would have continued their mass genocide and their plans to take over the world.
The Taliban terrorists may lack the Nazis' power, but their murderous intentions are just the same. These people cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, only defeated. Letting them escape now will only make the fight against them more difficult down the line.
The military's awful decision has already been made and cannot be reversed. But if America wants to defeat the jihadists, we must learn from such mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future. Our freedom and civilization depend on it.
And yes, believe it - the U.S. military identified a gathering of over one-hundred Taliban terrorists, had the chance to bomb or otherwise attack them, and refused to do so because the men were standing in a cemetery, and this would have violated Afghanistan's cultural sensitivities. A military spokesman confirmed the decision, explaining that our coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
This decision is simply outrageous. It pains me to criticize our armed forces in this war, as they risk their lives daily to protect our freedom, something for which I am grateful and supportive to the utmost. But here, I do feel compelled to speak out, because this instance demonstrates the unfortunate degree to which political correctness has penetrated our society, to our significant civilizational risk.
The men the army spared are enemy combatants, not civilians. They are evil terrorists who fight in order to massacre as many innocents as possible. They have killed American soldiers without mercy, and given the opportunity would murder or enslave every last non-Muslim. Indeed, their vile opposition is the main reason we're still *in* Afghanistan, and attacking them, really, is a matter of self defense.
Refusing to strike them may save their lives, but it places the lives of our own soldiers at much greater risk. This is not moral and ethical, but quite the opposite. A legitimate argument may have been over the method of attack, as a surprise conventional strike might have captured them alive at little risk to coalition troops (assuming they weren't armed due to the funeral), while a bombing attack probably would have killed them. But regardless, to simply let them escape means only to allow them further chances to attack our troops. Doing so, hence, was a colossal mistake. For anyone wondering why the Taliban keeps regrouping, the answer is simple - because we let it.
To put things into proper perspective, would the U.S. have spared a Nazi officer gathering at a German cemetery during World War II? I certainly don't think so. And why? Because they were Nazis and they were evil. If we didn't stop them, they would have continued their mass genocide and their plans to take over the world.
The Taliban terrorists may lack the Nazis' power, but their murderous intentions are just the same. These people cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, only defeated. Letting them escape now will only make the fight against them more difficult down the line.
The military's awful decision has already been made and cannot be reversed. But if America wants to defeat the jihadists, we must learn from such mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future. Our freedom and civilization depend on it.
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
K-Swiss: Political Insider Report from Washington
News from the Middle East has recently dominated headlines, both in the general media and here at TheSolidSurfer.com. But at the same time, our own national political affairs remain highly pertinent. To cover such developments, we turn once again to our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", who checks in for a brief discussion.
Solid Surfer: What is the political climate in Washington like at the moment? Have the recent thwarted airline terrorist attacks changed the mood there?
K-Swiss: The climate is still as bipartisan as ever. The Democrats are focused on all negative aspects of the American strategy in Iraq as a means of taking over the Congress, whereas the Republicans are focused on keeping the voters thinking about the war on terrorism, rather than Iraq, and staying in power.
Solid Surfer: Who do you see coming out on top in the November congressional races - Democrats or Republicans?
K-Swiss: Polls have shown that Democrats have a much better chance at taking over the House rather than the Senate. However, I believe that at the end of the day, the American voter will realize that appeasement does not work, and hence the Democrats focusing their campaigns on the Iraq War will not win over enough voters to replace Republicans. I see the Republicans staying in control of both the House and Senate.
Solid Surfer: Who wins the Connecticut race - Lieberman or Lamont, and why?
K-Swiss: Lieberman. Many Republican voters sympathize with Lieberman, and traditionally during primaries, the fringe left for Democrats and the fringe right for Republicans are overrepresented. It would truly be a shame if Lamont were to win, and his victory would show how far left the Democratic party has moved. Allowing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stand on the podium behind him during his primary victory speech should be enough to turn the average Connecticut voter away from Lamont.
Solid Surfer: What do you see the U.S. doing in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment?
K-Swiss: I think President Bush's recent, more aggressive language toward Iran has been positive. But the EU's typical call for more negotiations shows that the Europeans remain in the business of appeasement. I do not believe Iran will ever agree to halt its nuclear weapons program, regardless of any sanctions against it. So at the end of the day, it appears Israel once again will be forced to do the world's dirty work, and will attack Iran.
Solid Surfer: On a similar note, knowing that Iran and Hezbollah are gearing for more attacks, what should Israel's next move be?
K-Swiss: Continue the air and sea blockade until the kidnapped soldiers are released. If Lebanon continues to violate Resolution 1701, I think Israel will be forced to re-enter and finish the job. Next time, Israel should pursue not just Lebanon, but also Syria. Arabs understand force and strength, and so Israel needs to send a signal to Lebanon that the "divine victory" allegedly achieved by Hezbollah was not so divine after all.
Solid Surfer: Looking forward to 2008, who do you see each party's presidential nominees being? Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani? Russ Feingold vs. John McCain?
K-Swiss: For the Democrats sake, I hope it is not Hillary. And I think Feingold has about as good a chance of being nominated as I do. He isn't nearly as popular as the media makes him out to be, and being twice-divorced badly hurts his image among social moderates. I think the nominees will be Evan Bayh vs. McCain...but of course a lot can happen in the next two years.
Solid Surfer: K-Swiss, thank you for the perspectives and analysis. Barring an unlikely Dick Cheney change of mind, 2008 will be the first presidential race in 80 years to feature no incumbents (president or vice president). The implications of that race, as well as the upcoming congressional elections, will largely shape America's direction over the next few years. Let's all hope it turns out well.
Solid Surfer: What is the political climate in Washington like at the moment? Have the recent thwarted airline terrorist attacks changed the mood there?
K-Swiss: The climate is still as bipartisan as ever. The Democrats are focused on all negative aspects of the American strategy in Iraq as a means of taking over the Congress, whereas the Republicans are focused on keeping the voters thinking about the war on terrorism, rather than Iraq, and staying in power.
Solid Surfer: Who do you see coming out on top in the November congressional races - Democrats or Republicans?
K-Swiss: Polls have shown that Democrats have a much better chance at taking over the House rather than the Senate. However, I believe that at the end of the day, the American voter will realize that appeasement does not work, and hence the Democrats focusing their campaigns on the Iraq War will not win over enough voters to replace Republicans. I see the Republicans staying in control of both the House and Senate.
Solid Surfer: Who wins the Connecticut race - Lieberman or Lamont, and why?
K-Swiss: Lieberman. Many Republican voters sympathize with Lieberman, and traditionally during primaries, the fringe left for Democrats and the fringe right for Republicans are overrepresented. It would truly be a shame if Lamont were to win, and his victory would show how far left the Democratic party has moved. Allowing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stand on the podium behind him during his primary victory speech should be enough to turn the average Connecticut voter away from Lamont.
Solid Surfer: What do you see the U.S. doing in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment?
K-Swiss: I think President Bush's recent, more aggressive language toward Iran has been positive. But the EU's typical call for more negotiations shows that the Europeans remain in the business of appeasement. I do not believe Iran will ever agree to halt its nuclear weapons program, regardless of any sanctions against it. So at the end of the day, it appears Israel once again will be forced to do the world's dirty work, and will attack Iran.
Solid Surfer: On a similar note, knowing that Iran and Hezbollah are gearing for more attacks, what should Israel's next move be?
K-Swiss: Continue the air and sea blockade until the kidnapped soldiers are released. If Lebanon continues to violate Resolution 1701, I think Israel will be forced to re-enter and finish the job. Next time, Israel should pursue not just Lebanon, but also Syria. Arabs understand force and strength, and so Israel needs to send a signal to Lebanon that the "divine victory" allegedly achieved by Hezbollah was not so divine after all.
Solid Surfer: Looking forward to 2008, who do you see each party's presidential nominees being? Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani? Russ Feingold vs. John McCain?
K-Swiss: For the Democrats sake, I hope it is not Hillary. And I think Feingold has about as good a chance of being nominated as I do. He isn't nearly as popular as the media makes him out to be, and being twice-divorced badly hurts his image among social moderates. I think the nominees will be Evan Bayh vs. McCain...but of course a lot can happen in the next two years.
Solid Surfer: K-Swiss, thank you for the perspectives and analysis. Barring an unlikely Dick Cheney change of mind, 2008 will be the first presidential race in 80 years to feature no incumbents (president or vice president). The implications of that race, as well as the upcoming congressional elections, will largely shape America's direction over the next few years. Let's all hope it turns out well.
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Misleading Statistics and the War on Poverty
Statistics can be very misleading. According to numbers newly released by the Census Bureau, the U.S. poverty rate stands at 12.6%, a virtually unchanged number from last year, and an increase from the record-low 1973 rate of 11.1%.
So does this mean Washington has utterly failed at its long-term efforts to reduce poverty? The numbers sure appear so, but in reality, that's the absolute wrong conclusion. Rather, as political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains, the material lives of the American poor have been bettered dramatically.
Yes, 12.6% of the populace may be considered poor, but the definition of "poor" has greatly changed from 1973 to today. Today's poor may earn lower incomes compared to others, but the overall standard of U.S. living has risen so highly that even most people under the poverty line have plentiful food, sizeable homes, televisions, telephones, dishwashers, computers, microwaves, DVD players, motor vehicles, access to quality health care, and so on. This is a striking difference from 1973, when even many affluent people could not access certain of these items.
Now that's not to say poverty has been eliminated; there are indeed many people out there who, sadly, still need help. But we shouldn't let statistics mislead us into believing that nothing has been accomplished. America has been winning the war on poverty, and as our capitalistic economy continues to grow, our success should only increase.
So does this mean Washington has utterly failed at its long-term efforts to reduce poverty? The numbers sure appear so, but in reality, that's the absolute wrong conclusion. Rather, as political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains, the material lives of the American poor have been bettered dramatically.
Yes, 12.6% of the populace may be considered poor, but the definition of "poor" has greatly changed from 1973 to today. Today's poor may earn lower incomes compared to others, but the overall standard of U.S. living has risen so highly that even most people under the poverty line have plentiful food, sizeable homes, televisions, telephones, dishwashers, computers, microwaves, DVD players, motor vehicles, access to quality health care, and so on. This is a striking difference from 1973, when even many affluent people could not access certain of these items.
Now that's not to say poverty has been eliminated; there are indeed many people out there who, sadly, still need help. But we shouldn't let statistics mislead us into believing that nothing has been accomplished. America has been winning the war on poverty, and as our capitalistic economy continues to grow, our success should only increase.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Terrorism, Stockholm Syndrome, and America
Stockholm Syndrome appears to be a serious disorder, among those victimized both as children and adults. Recently, news came to light of an Austrian girl who still sympathizes with a man who kidnapped her at age ten and held her prisoner for eight years. As strange as this may sound to those unfamiliar with the condition, it is apparently quite common among such traumatized victims. This is truly a sad story, and we should all hope and pray that the girl fully recovers from her ordeal and resumes a normal life.
At the same time, Fox News cameraman Olaf Wiig and correspondent Steve Centanni, who were kidnapped and help by Palestinian terrorists for 13 days last month, also sympathize with their captors. On a recent Good Morning America interview, Wiig admits that despite the kidnapping, he will not condemn the terrorists and indeed finds great sympathy with their cause and actions.
I hope too that Centanni and Wiig recover from their ordeal. And as disgusting as Wiig's words sound, I won't at this point criticize someone who has undergone such a horrendous episode.
But Wiig's experience should be a huge warning sign to the civilized world about the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Too many people, when faced with a terrorist threat to their very existence, will likely respond similarly - by defending the terrorists' evil actions and sympathizing with their twisted causes. And as long as the threat continues, the Stockholm Syndrom will still remain, as the victims use such sympathy as the only defense they can muster against a clear existential danger. Even worse, furthermore, this Stockholm Syndrome can engulf entire societies.
We should recognize, hence, that unless checked, repeated terrorism can psychologically hold a society captive. Even if the terrorism causes little actual physical destruction, the damage to its victims' psyches and resultingly to the functioning of the larger society can be far, far worse.
If we want to win the war against Islamic fascism (yes, President Bush was absolutely correct to use the term), we must end the terrorist threat as quickly and as efficiently possible. That means not giving up in Iraq. Not yielding to Iran's nuclear desires. And not allowing Western Muslims to be influenced by fundamentalist Saudi teachings. America has the ability to accomplish this entire lot. We just need to demonstrate the will.
At the same time, Fox News cameraman Olaf Wiig and correspondent Steve Centanni, who were kidnapped and help by Palestinian terrorists for 13 days last month, also sympathize with their captors. On a recent Good Morning America interview, Wiig admits that despite the kidnapping, he will not condemn the terrorists and indeed finds great sympathy with their cause and actions.
I hope too that Centanni and Wiig recover from their ordeal. And as disgusting as Wiig's words sound, I won't at this point criticize someone who has undergone such a horrendous episode.
But Wiig's experience should be a huge warning sign to the civilized world about the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Too many people, when faced with a terrorist threat to their very existence, will likely respond similarly - by defending the terrorists' evil actions and sympathizing with their twisted causes. And as long as the threat continues, the Stockholm Syndrom will still remain, as the victims use such sympathy as the only defense they can muster against a clear existential danger. Even worse, furthermore, this Stockholm Syndrome can engulf entire societies.
We should recognize, hence, that unless checked, repeated terrorism can psychologically hold a society captive. Even if the terrorism causes little actual physical destruction, the damage to its victims' psyches and resultingly to the functioning of the larger society can be far, far worse.
If we want to win the war against Islamic fascism (yes, President Bush was absolutely correct to use the term), we must end the terrorist threat as quickly and as efficiently possible. That means not giving up in Iraq. Not yielding to Iran's nuclear desires. And not allowing Western Muslims to be influenced by fundamentalist Saudi teachings. America has the ability to accomplish this entire lot. We just need to demonstrate the will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)