Category Archives: Terrorism

Update III: The Unbearable Lightness Of Being Frum

Iraq, Just War, Liberty, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Terrorism, War

Neoconservative David Frum writes in Newsweek: “I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect).”

Like, whatever.

In 2007, 17,430 Iraqis died in violence. In 2008, 6,772 people were killed. The first two months of 2009 saw 449 die, the lowest official toll since the invasion.”

All in all, the documented civilian deaths from violence are: 91,131 – 99,510.

Murder makes David “feel silly.” Kind of like a school girl. I like totally get that, although, I’m not sure Iraqis are feeling as giggly. In fact I know they’re not.

Friday was the anniversary of the March 20th American invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Click “Iraq” to read my archives.)

Update I (March 21): A reply to Fanusi’s comment. If you’ve read my archives, you also know that I’m persona non grata among the chattering class–the idiot elites who monopolize discourse in this country, despite having a 100% error rate. Therefore a debate between myself and Hitchens will never happen.

Were the gormless gladiators of (so-called) conservative cable to stage a debate, it would be between a popular bimbo and his highness Hitchens (a very intelligent man, in my opinion, and a fabulous writer). That’s the level of debate they cultivate–and are comfortable with. (Besides, I’m a writer, not a circus animal à la Coulter. I’m quite happy to be left alone—and out of the nation’s TV vomitorium.)

As to Fanusi’s “argument”: By “Baghdad being home to men like Abu Nidal and Mr. Yasin” I presume he means that there were terrorists living in Iraq, ergo, we were justified in invading a country that did us no harm and posed no threat to America.

What about all the “Islamikazis” who call America home? What about the 9/11 mass murderers who relied for their plans on Condi and Bush’s sneering indifference to their Constitutional duties?

I’m afraid that the logic of Fanusi’s “argument” must lead us to invade Germany or The Netherlands as well. The latter probably have less of a handle on Islamic subversives than Saddam had; his interests were inimical to the goals of the jihadis. But neoconservatives haven’t yet grasped that simple fact, because, like, “dem Arabs are all the same.” Or as I put it, “McCain can’t tell Shiite from Shinola.”

We are incapable of defending our own borders against Mexican narco-terrorism. No need to look for monsters to destroy beyond our abysmally porous borders.

Update II: For those who’re interested, here are articles from the Frum Forum:

Neocon Deluxe, David Frum, Damns Rush

SON OF UNCLE SAM

FRUM’S FLIMFLAM

To be fair to Frum: I find him to be a fine writer. His first book was certainly very good–that was before he took to neoconing.

I never read Kristol and Brooks. It doesn’t get duller than those two. Ditto Krauthammer and Will, although the latter can write and the former has written one or two good pieces about the eco-idiots.

When Coulter is good she is very very good, but that’s twice a year, when she tackles the law or the gangreens. For the rest, she is actually a colossal bore: “liberals that; liberals this; Bush brilliant; B. Hussein Obama a bastard.” Insufferable stuff.

The last of her good pieces was “Olbermann’s plastic ivy,” about which I blogged.

But we’re straying.

Myron captures the soul and strategy of Frum: 1) America has changed. 2) In the New America, certain principles are obsolete. 3) If it wants to lead the principles-bereft America, the Party must adapt to this reality.

I don’t want to wade into the Republican fetus fixation. I’ll say only this: As a libertarian who owns her own body, I have no problem with reversing “Roe v. Wade.” Such a reversal will do no more than remove the issue from federal jurisdiction and discontinue that source of funding.

A woman has the right to pay for an abortion; she does not have the right to compel those who find her choice repugnant to pay for it. So, I have no idea what Frum is talking about when he says he is pro-choice (his wife is a “conservative” feminist). Leave it to localities to fund or not to fund.

Update III: I owe David Frum an apology. Mr.
Frum writes:

The sentence you quoted from my Newsweek article reads:

“I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton.”

By truncating the sentence in the way you did, you turn its meaning upside down.

If you cannot make a polemical point without deceit, you should reconsider the validity of your polemical point.

David Frum

[SNIP]

Mr. Frum is correct. I made a mistake.

To accuse me, however, of an intention to deceive because I made an honest, if hasty, mistake is wrong.

Supporting an impeachment over a lie about a sexual peccadillo is certainly silly, but failing to expiate for the role one played in an unjust war is way worse than silly.

Public expiation is owed for the war. It was not forthcoming. The sentence that followed mention of the invasion of Iraq seemed so frivolous, that, yes, I saw red, and misread.

For that I, once again, apologize.

Mr. Frum, however, has yet to apologize for a transgression far graver than my minor mistake: providing “intellectual” justification for that war.

Overwhelming Israeli support of Gaza op

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, Terrorism

Israeli Jews are overwhelmingly liberal. Yet they sanction an operation other lefties around the world call barbaric. Let me hazard a guess: For westerners sitting comfortably and safely in their abodes, it’s hard to imagine what living under a barrage of “harmless” rockets is like. Perhaps we too would want the state to step in and perform its one legitimate function: stop rockets from landing on our heads.

On the other hand, I could be wrong and Jews simply seek to colonize Gaza, and then conquer the world.

Reports the Jerusalem Post:

“The Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza enjoys the overwhelming support of Israeli Jews despite the loss of civilian life in the Hamas-run territory, a survey released Wednesday showed.

A whopping 94% of the public support or strongly support the operation while 92% think it benefits Israel’s security, according to the Tel Aviv University survey.

The poll found that 92% of Israeli Jews justify the air force’s attacks in Gaza despite the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip and the damage they cause to infrastructure.”

Updated: Israel and Hamas: Who Is To blame? By Tibor Machan

BAB's A List, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Terrorism

Hamas has embroiled Israel in a vortex of terror and counterterror. BAB A-Lister Tibor Machan has a way of clarifying complicated matters. In the following column, Tibor untangles the jerry-built justifications for Hamas terrorism.

The sequel to “Israel and Hamas: Who is to blame?” follows hereunder. Scroll down to read “Terrorism: Inexcusable,” also by Tibor Machan.

Israel and Hamas: Who is to blame?
By TIBOR R. MACHAN

When one is bombarded with information about events on which the history is ancient and so complex that hardly anyone commenting makes sense of them, it is tough to judge. That’s how it is with me and the current upheaval between Israel and Hamas.

The news reports at the beginning said Israel took military action after hundreds of missiles were being launched at it from Gaza. So to rid the Gaza Strip of the missile launchers, Israel began to target various areas from which the missiles were being launched, presumably centers where Hamas had most of its personnel and equipment located.

Further reports, especially on CNN International, observed that Israel’s response to the initiation of aggression by Hamas was disproportionate to what Hamas did to Israel. Still, as with most fights, this one had to start with someone throwing the first punch, as it were, and that seems to have been Hamas this last time. (Last time, Hamas supposedly kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, another situation that was bizarre from the start.)

The Israelis claim that all they want is for the missile launching to stop, and Hamas spokesmen on CNN say they will only stop if Israel stops its aggression. But this is confused since Hamas clearly started the launching of missiles out of the Gaza Strip and isn’t disputing this. So how could Israel be the aggressor? To aggress is to begin a fight, not to respond to one being initiated.

As I was watching report after report on CNN, while attending a conference — and getting no sleep — in Mexico, I noticed that the reporters of this news network kept repeating the claim, made by Hamas leaders and others who support Hamas and oppose Israel, that Israel is targeting innocent civilians. Yet it is nearly impossible to tell who is a civilian in the Gaza conflict, judging by the footage showing various groups of young people and adults shooting whatever weapons they have at hand and throwing rocks in the direction of the border between Israel and the strip.

Unfortunately, the reports fail to include any discussion of how one is to tell the difference between Hamas civilians and Hamas militia. I have never seen any footage showing Hamas soldiers, if they exist; Israel, however, does distinguish between its civilians and its army by way of their garb.

After about five days of the hostilities, CNN’s reporters had some Gaza government official on the air and posed some pointed questions about who is the victim and who the aggressor. It was immediately clear that the official wanted at all cost to dodge the issue of who had started the current hostilities. When the CNN reporter asked about Israel officials’ claim about the missiles that had been launched at Israel and to which Israel was supposedly responding, the spokesman was so obviously evasive that I couldn’t believe it. Who sent this person to speak for Hamas? He replied to the CNN reporter by saying “I have always been known as an opponent of violence.” So what? Why is that an answer to “Israelis say they are responding to your aggression, so what is your answer to them?”

When one is bombarded with selective, nearly haphazard information about events around the globe, events that are one’s only source of understanding of who is doing what to whom and how it is all justified, there is not much one can do but listen very carefully and determine who is making logical mistakes — who is equivocating, who is being evasive and vague, who is being clear and answers relevant questions directly, without obfuscation.

By that criterion I have to say that my provisional assessment of what is reported from the Middle East leaves me with the impression that Israel is less responsible for the recent mess than Hamas. That’s as well as I can do with the immediate information at hand. Maybe more detail, more history will lead me to alter what I think about the matter, but for now I am pretty sure that Hamas is the bad guy here, while Israel, as so often in history, is the victim.

As my mother, who lives in Europe and went through the mid-century disasters there, said to me a while ago, “Why don’t they leave the Israelis to live in peace?” Frankly, I am mystified myself. And it is also puzzling why so many Western academics seem to get on board with the anti-Israel stance. No, I don’t call it anti-Semitism because I don’t know the motivation behind their position. I do know that they nearly always favor Israel’s enemies and consider America’s official pro-Israel stance something wrongheaded, based not on considerations of justice but on the so-called influence of the Jewish Lobby.

I don’t care about any lobby. I am only concerned that when fights break out, those who start them be identified, and that their reasons and motives be objectively evaluated. That is the only way I personally can make some bit of sense of these kinds of situations of which I receive such spotty information. That is, unless I become a specialist, and for that I would need to return to school and get a graduate degree in Middle Eastern studies.

Part II: Terrorism: Inexcusable
By TIBOR R. MACHAN

In discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict one often comes across disturbing defenses of anti-Israeli policies by such organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah. One such line of defense I have encountered, for which even some of my colleagues in philosophy have shown sympathy, is that given the desperate situation of Arabs, say in the Gaza strip, one must accept their resort of terrorism, including, of course, the indiscriminate murder of people, many of them children and thus indisputably innocent of anything that might plausible justify killing them. And often this line of defense is put in terms of what Israel has done to Arab citizens in Gaza, placed them into desperate situations by cutting off the flow of supplies, starving them, etc.

Without going into whether the claims against Israel are true or accurate, or who is ultimately responsible for the conditions in Gaza–it is crucial to realize that even if those claims were all true, they would fail to justify terrorism, the murder of innocent people for political purposes and the like.

Say I am starving and say I believe that this has been caused by various adults around my neighborhood. Would my situation justify my recklessly lobbing bombs around the homes in this neighborhood, never mind who is being killed by my actions? Am I justified in my state of desperation to inflict violence on those who have had nothing to do with what I am experiencing? No, not at all. All one might say is that I have completely lost control over myself and am now simply flailing about madly, caring nothing about the consequences; about whether my conduct is remotely just. And in that case I need to be pacified!

It is one thing to show some understanding of the dastardly conduct of certain people in dire straits. It is something else entirely to claim that this conduct is just or justified. And over the last decades it is difficult to deny that on the whole, apart from the early terrorist actions of certain Israelis, the overwhelming majority of indiscriminate, often suicidal, killings have been done by anti-Israeli partisans.

For some reason that escapes me, quite a few people who would ordinarily be appalled at deeds of cruelty toward the innocent seem to find what these anti-Israeli parties are doing acceptable. I cannot see how the fact that Israeli policies are imperfect, disputable, sometimes over the top, serves in the slightest to justify these anti-Israeli policies.

Again, I confess that a full grasp of what is happening between Arabs and Israelis escapes me. But I seriously doubt that anyone has that grasp, given how it is tied up with a very long history, many religious convictions based on faith, and, most of all, collectivist or tribal thinking. Some of the arguments that are propounded by many who contribute to the debate, especially on the anti-Israeli side, seem also, to be linked to manufactured historical events and religious claims that are wholly unprovable.

At times simply abstaining from forming any conclusions about these matters is acceptable. But that is near impossible to do in a democracy where one is called upon to approve or disapprove policies of one’s government vis-à-vis foreign governments. Even if the entire situation in, for example, the Middle East is basically irrational and beyond hope of sorting out fully, one is simply left with a need to take a stand so as to be able to assess with some measure of competence what one’s government is doing (even in circumstances that are tainted with confusion and a history of mistakes).

I am certainly only in the process of coming to grips with the issues, not by any stretch of the imagination at the point of having formed a fixed, stable position on them all. But just as Socrates, who confessed not to know very much at all, continued to search, along with all of his pupils, for what is true, perhaps some attentive, if incomplete, reflections on the Arab-Israeli situation can help advance not only one’s own understanding, but that of others too.

Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University’s Argyros School of B & E and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford). He advises Freedom Communications. His most recent book is The Morality of Business, A Profession for Human Wealth-Care (Springer, 2007). E-mail him at TMachan@link.freedom.com.

Hamas Uses Human Shields (Dah!)

Iraq, Islam, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda, Terrorism, The West

The liberal mindset infesting the West cannot comprehend what the hopelessly left-liberal Israel is up against.

A picture paints a thousand words:

Here Gazans, acting as an Ummah, casually describe the practice of galvanizing warm bodies behind which their warriors can cower. And Terror TV reports the protocol straight faced, with embellishments. What liberals—the far left as well as the far-gone libertarian and paleo factions—don’t get, is what Hamas’s Ismail Haniya explained quite clearly.

Having figured out Israel’s Achilles Heel some time ago, Haniya once snorted to the Washington Post: “Palestinians have Israelis on the run, because they have found their weak spot: Jews love life more than other people, and they prefer not to die.”