In a recent column entitled "Why not bomb Mecca?", conservative pundit Michael Medved excoriates Tom Tancredo describing him as an "unhinged and wildly irresponsible" and a "two-bit demagogue". What was Tom Tancredo's crime you might ask? Tancredo was hypothesizing on how our nation might induce moderate Muslims to rein in their violent co-religionists and then suggested to small group of supporters that perhaps the threat of a retaliatory attack on Mecca or Medina might serve as a deterrent in global war against Islamic extremism. Tancredo's remarks would make him a target for the long knives.
Besides eviscerating Tom Tancredo, much of Michael Medved's 1,944 word screed is devoted to the author's defeatist fantasies where the reader is relentlessly subjected to Mr. Medved's namby-pamby hand-wringing over what might happen if the natives get any more restless than they already are. At the height of Mr. Medved's self-flagellation he compares a retaliatory attack on Islam's holy cities to the attacks and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where he then proceeds to agonize over just how many angry Muslims we will eventually have to kill in order to finally bring about peace. And this is really what encapsulates the overall theme of Mr. Medved's long-winded essay, that our resolve is or should be incumbent on the size and tenacity of our adversaries. To put it bluntly, Michael Medved believes that the cost of freedom under these circumstances comes at much too high of a price.
Michael Medved offers no alternative course of action of his own other than reigning in our freedom of speech out of the fear that we might further anger our adversaries and curling up in a fetal position under the dining room table while we wait with bated breath for the next big attack. While Michael Medved does not come right and and say it, the reader is left with the implication that our only salvation lies in doing everything in our power to make the Muslims happy. While I wouldn't want to distract anyone from "staying the course" and expediting the construction of "foot basins" and special prayer rooms, the entire drama gives me a sense of deja vu.
I'm sure there are many will interpret Michael Medved's sanctimonious sermonizing as a voice of reason and moderation, which of course is something that we are going to be in need of when three or four of our cities erupt into nuclear fireballs. It's comforting to know that Mr. Medved will there urging us to show restraint.
History is replete with individuals like Michael Medved who eventually find their usefulness as an arbitrator, in the years ahead it will be people like Mr. Medved who make sure that our children and grandchildren get put in the "good line".
Besides eviscerating Tom Tancredo, much of Michael Medved's 1,944 word screed is devoted to the author's defeatist fantasies where the reader is relentlessly subjected to Mr. Medved's namby-pamby hand-wringing over what might happen if the natives get any more restless than they already are. At the height of Mr. Medved's self-flagellation he compares a retaliatory attack on Islam's holy cities to the attacks and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where he then proceeds to agonize over just how many angry Muslims we will eventually have to kill in order to finally bring about peace. And this is really what encapsulates the overall theme of Mr. Medved's long-winded essay, that our resolve is or should be incumbent on the size and tenacity of our adversaries. To put it bluntly, Michael Medved believes that the cost of freedom under these circumstances comes at much too high of a price.
Michael Medved offers no alternative course of action of his own other than reigning in our freedom of speech out of the fear that we might further anger our adversaries and curling up in a fetal position under the dining room table while we wait with bated breath for the next big attack. While Michael Medved does not come right and and say it, the reader is left with the implication that our only salvation lies in doing everything in our power to make the Muslims happy. While I wouldn't want to distract anyone from "staying the course" and expediting the construction of "foot basins" and special prayer rooms, the entire drama gives me a sense of deja vu.
I'm sure there are many will interpret Michael Medved's sanctimonious sermonizing as a voice of reason and moderation, which of course is something that we are going to be in need of when three or four of our cities erupt into nuclear fireballs. It's comforting to know that Mr. Medved will there urging us to show restraint.
History is replete with individuals like Michael Medved who eventually find their usefulness as an arbitrator, in the years ahead it will be people like Mr. Medved who make sure that our children and grandchildren get put in the "good line".
If Michael Medved is supposed to be an appeaser just what exactly are you advocating?
ReplyDeleteDestroying Mecca and Medina won't be the end of Islam or the end of the Jihadist movement. Nor, will the threat thereof encourage moderates to rein in the radicals. Neither the moderates nor the extremists are so tightly bound to the physical representations of their faith that it would do anything other than needlessly set off something very, very nasty.
Nor, will the threat thereof encourage moderates to rein in the radicals.
ReplyDeleteBasically you are making an assumption, the same as Medved that well... we're stuck.
The carrot has not worked - there is what a US50 million dollar bounty on OBL - and that has not worked either - maybe it is time to consider the "stick".
I find it irresponsible that Medved would advocate that we remove specific options from the table and on that note I don't think it is wise to show our hand so to speak.
I'm not really a fan of Tancredo, but I do admire the fact that he is at least firing up the national debate in the search for a deterrent.
Lenny wrote: If Michael Medved is supposed to be an appeaser just what exactly are you advocating?
ReplyDeleteMake them invoke "Darura" (Arabic for "necessity"). Darura, with respect to Jihad, says that if the Kafirs (that's us) are too strong, the islamic obligation to wage Jihad is rescinded, until a future time when muslim victory is more feasible.
This is done by showing total spine to anything that even smells faintly like Jihad. Making it clear that earth is a No Jihad Zone, at least in the Infidels' lands.
On the other hand, the hand wringing expressed by Medved and Lenny EMBOLDENS jihadists. While spine DISEMBOLDENS them. Allah gave them the Darura way out, let them invoke it. That is only possible if it is clear that we *will demolish them* if they continue to expand this revival of Jihad we are witnessing.
This means, if they nuke DC and NYC, we'd be willing to nuke their "holy cities", rendering them un-hajj-able.
Nor, will the threat thereof encourage moderates to rein in the radicals.
There is an effective manipulation technique called "good cop/bad cop." This is the politics of moderate muslim/radical muslim, BTW.
The moderate can't/won't deliver peaceful intentions toward Kafirs from the Jihadis.
"Peacefulness" here results from showing you are strong and will take no junk. Then the Jihadis invoke Darura and cease jihad.
And the real beauty is that, even though we should be prepared to maintain that indefinitely, we probably will only really need to until the oil runs out (~75 years or so?)!!!
Nice blog.