Options
No Resolution At All
NCfan
Posts: 945
August 13, 2006
No Resolution At All
Why the U.N. can’t solve the problem of Hezbollah.
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
The U.N. resolution that supposedly will solve the problem of Hezbollah is a perfect example of the delusions inhibiting the West in its fight against jihadist terror. According to the resolution, the current impotent U.N. force — the same one that blithely sat by for years as Hezbollah prepared its attack on Israel — will be beefed up and given permission actually to stop Hezbollah with force. But don’t worry: the U.N. will be supported by the fearsome Lebanese army, which up to now has shown no ability or inclination to prevent an armed gang from high jacking Lebanon ’s foreign policy and unilaterally plunging the country into ruin.
Delusional is too weak a word to describe this resolution. Does anyone really believe that U.N. troops, no matter where the soldiers come from, are going to use force against Hezbollah? I won’t even bother asking that question about the Lebanese army because the answer is too obvious, given the high level of support for Hezbollah among the Shia rank and file. But don’t bet on troops from France or any European country killing jihadists who are admired and supported by European Muslims. The French couldn’t even stand up to punk teenagers protesting a perfectly reasonable law intended to loosen up a sclerotic economy. I can’t see the same government standing up to Muslim rioters angry over the government’s participation in a Zionist-Crusader plot to kill the warriors of Allah.
Once again the diplomatic dance of the seven veils is performed by the West to create the illusion of consummating a solution to the crisis when the whole time no one has enough testosterone actually to do so. I know why the Europeans engage in this charade: they’ve convinced themselves that as long as the jihadists have Israel and the U.S. to hate, they’ll leave Europe in peace. Sound familiar? Just give Hitler the Sudetenland and he’ll be satisfied and we’ll have peace in our time. Europe is so addled by prosperity and multicultural fantasies, all subsidized by American military power, that until the ticking jihadist bomb blows up in its face — and maybe not even then, if Spain is any indication — it’s not going to do anything that gets in the way of afternoon adultery and café philosophizing about unsophisticated cowboy Americans.
But why are we Americans going along with this farce? I’d like to think there’s some clever tactical ploy we don’t know about, but the answer seems to be that we still buy into all the lies endlessly recycled by the self-loathing media and intellectuals. You know the CNN/New York Times/Middle East Studies Association mantra: most Muslims are moderates who just want to get along, but a failure to resolve the Palestinian issue, the on-going war in Iraq, America’s other imperialist depredations, the lack of political freedom and economic opportunity, and post-colonial hangovers have all rendered them vulnerable to extremists who have high-jacked the faith and distorted it to justify murder.
Of course very little evidence supports this fantasy, and mountains of evidence refute it, but it still serves a purpose: camouflaging the moral degeneracy of many in the West who, no longer believing in anything other than pleasure and comfort, have no basis for calling evil by its proper name. It’s much easier to indulge the “all cultures are equally wonderful” lie, or sadly invoke the “cycle of violence” canard, or fall back on “moral equivalence” to avoid making a judgment that might hurt the feelings of those exotic little brown people so beloved by jaded Westerners.
And since we don’t believe there is anything worth killing or dying for, we turn this moral nihilism into a virtue by chanting that “force solves nothing,” and that talk, talk, talk will get at the “root causes” and solve the problem. Except we’ve been talking and talking and talking for fifty years — remember Oslo and Camp David ? — and the jihadists and their millions of supporters still want to destroy Israel and the West, and are perfectly happy to murder innocents to do so. The net result is the current U.N. resolution that treats a terrorist gang like a state actor whose agreement to the terms of the resolution is required. Does no one else see the abject folly of this behavior? But why should we be surprised, when for years we’ve been treating terrorists (e.g. the PLO, now retooled as the Palestinian Authority) like legitimate state functionaries?
And then we have the gall to proclaim, “Terrorism won’t work.” Who are we kidding? It’s been working for decades. How else explain the speed with which the U.N. and the media have fastened on to this conflict, while millions elsewhere ( Sudan , Rwanda , Congo , Tibet ) have suffered and died while the rest of the world basically yawned? How else explain the obsession with the Palestinian Arabs and Israel ’s legitimate attempts to ward off an enemy that wants to destroy it? Anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, imperial and colonial guilt are all factors, but the pervasive threat of terrorist violence is the key element in the West’s selective concern with one small group of aggressors while ignoring countless other victims of genuine tyranny and oppression. And, of course, the jihadists take our fear as an encouraging sign that we deserve to die unless we embrace a spiritually superior Islam.
The U.N. resolution will not solve the problem of Hezbollah. It will simply postpone the solution. Meanwhile Hezbollah will regroup and rearm, Syria and Iran will continue to make mischief, and the same old useful idiots in the West will peddle the same old excuses for Islamic dysfunction and Western appeasement.
No Resolution At All
Why the U.N. can’t solve the problem of Hezbollah.
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
The U.N. resolution that supposedly will solve the problem of Hezbollah is a perfect example of the delusions inhibiting the West in its fight against jihadist terror. According to the resolution, the current impotent U.N. force — the same one that blithely sat by for years as Hezbollah prepared its attack on Israel — will be beefed up and given permission actually to stop Hezbollah with force. But don’t worry: the U.N. will be supported by the fearsome Lebanese army, which up to now has shown no ability or inclination to prevent an armed gang from high jacking Lebanon ’s foreign policy and unilaterally plunging the country into ruin.
Delusional is too weak a word to describe this resolution. Does anyone really believe that U.N. troops, no matter where the soldiers come from, are going to use force against Hezbollah? I won’t even bother asking that question about the Lebanese army because the answer is too obvious, given the high level of support for Hezbollah among the Shia rank and file. But don’t bet on troops from France or any European country killing jihadists who are admired and supported by European Muslims. The French couldn’t even stand up to punk teenagers protesting a perfectly reasonable law intended to loosen up a sclerotic economy. I can’t see the same government standing up to Muslim rioters angry over the government’s participation in a Zionist-Crusader plot to kill the warriors of Allah.
Once again the diplomatic dance of the seven veils is performed by the West to create the illusion of consummating a solution to the crisis when the whole time no one has enough testosterone actually to do so. I know why the Europeans engage in this charade: they’ve convinced themselves that as long as the jihadists have Israel and the U.S. to hate, they’ll leave Europe in peace. Sound familiar? Just give Hitler the Sudetenland and he’ll be satisfied and we’ll have peace in our time. Europe is so addled by prosperity and multicultural fantasies, all subsidized by American military power, that until the ticking jihadist bomb blows up in its face — and maybe not even then, if Spain is any indication — it’s not going to do anything that gets in the way of afternoon adultery and café philosophizing about unsophisticated cowboy Americans.
But why are we Americans going along with this farce? I’d like to think there’s some clever tactical ploy we don’t know about, but the answer seems to be that we still buy into all the lies endlessly recycled by the self-loathing media and intellectuals. You know the CNN/New York Times/Middle East Studies Association mantra: most Muslims are moderates who just want to get along, but a failure to resolve the Palestinian issue, the on-going war in Iraq, America’s other imperialist depredations, the lack of political freedom and economic opportunity, and post-colonial hangovers have all rendered them vulnerable to extremists who have high-jacked the faith and distorted it to justify murder.
Of course very little evidence supports this fantasy, and mountains of evidence refute it, but it still serves a purpose: camouflaging the moral degeneracy of many in the West who, no longer believing in anything other than pleasure and comfort, have no basis for calling evil by its proper name. It’s much easier to indulge the “all cultures are equally wonderful” lie, or sadly invoke the “cycle of violence” canard, or fall back on “moral equivalence” to avoid making a judgment that might hurt the feelings of those exotic little brown people so beloved by jaded Westerners.
And since we don’t believe there is anything worth killing or dying for, we turn this moral nihilism into a virtue by chanting that “force solves nothing,” and that talk, talk, talk will get at the “root causes” and solve the problem. Except we’ve been talking and talking and talking for fifty years — remember Oslo and Camp David ? — and the jihadists and their millions of supporters still want to destroy Israel and the West, and are perfectly happy to murder innocents to do so. The net result is the current U.N. resolution that treats a terrorist gang like a state actor whose agreement to the terms of the resolution is required. Does no one else see the abject folly of this behavior? But why should we be surprised, when for years we’ve been treating terrorists (e.g. the PLO, now retooled as the Palestinian Authority) like legitimate state functionaries?
And then we have the gall to proclaim, “Terrorism won’t work.” Who are we kidding? It’s been working for decades. How else explain the speed with which the U.N. and the media have fastened on to this conflict, while millions elsewhere ( Sudan , Rwanda , Congo , Tibet ) have suffered and died while the rest of the world basically yawned? How else explain the obsession with the Palestinian Arabs and Israel ’s legitimate attempts to ward off an enemy that wants to destroy it? Anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, imperial and colonial guilt are all factors, but the pervasive threat of terrorist violence is the key element in the West’s selective concern with one small group of aggressors while ignoring countless other victims of genuine tyranny and oppression. And, of course, the jihadists take our fear as an encouraging sign that we deserve to die unless we embrace a spiritually superior Islam.
The U.N. resolution will not solve the problem of Hezbollah. It will simply postpone the solution. Meanwhile Hezbollah will regroup and rearm, Syria and Iran will continue to make mischief, and the same old useful idiots in the West will peddle the same old excuses for Islamic dysfunction and Western appeasement.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
It did solve it...it invaded Afghanistan. Oh, oops, sorry...
Seriously though, this had me laughing !!
Sound familiar? Just give Hitler the Sudetenland and he’ll be satisfied and we’ll have peace in our time. Europe is so addled by prosperity and multicultural fantasies, all subsidized by American military power, that until the ticking jihadist bomb blows up in its face — and maybe not even then, if Spain is any indication — it’s not going to do anything that gets in the way of afternoon adultery and café philosophizing about unsophisticated cowboy Americans.
Wow, he's even racially slurring the Spanish !! Afternoon adultery?
C'mon man, own up, you're trolling for a fight !!
I think we can solve the problem, but it will take decades to do it by ourselves. If other members of the world community would show solidarity, we could end Al Quada and militant Islamic fundamentalism as a whole.
We have defeated popular fascist movements in the past and we know what it takes. The world is in denial at the moment about the problem, and so we see the Nevile Chamberlainesque response.
No I'm not trolling for a fight with you at all... why would you even think that? Is it becase I simply posted an article that you don't agree with?
I don't see how this is so inflamatory. Thornton didn't slur the Spanish and the adultery comment was a reference to the vast majority of Europeans who don't believe in God.
I don't necessarily think he said it in the most PC way, but I know what he's getting at - and his point sticks becuase it is true. An abcence of religion does not equate to an absence of morality - but the liberalism of Europe speaks for itself.
Religions cause way too many problems to be labelled as "good" and "morals", but to each their own...
By the way, i disagree with you, the USA can't defeat "terror" (synonym of Alquaida/hamas/hezbollah), just as they can't defeat "drugs" or "communism", i don't have any arguments or article to prove that, it's just comon sense...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
So, because people are anti-war, anti-death by bomb or gun, they have lost god. OR is the other way round?
Liberalism equals godlessness?
By the way, if you believe that the USA will only solve Al quaida in a decades or so, with the most powerfull army in the world, why do you expect the United Nations and Lebanon to solve the Hezbollah problem in a year?
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Have you ever been to Europe? OR are you just using the Pat Roberston stereotype version?
FREEDOM FRIES ALL AROUND !!!!
As I was thinking...and of course they will not beat Al Quida in the coming decades the US has been the single biggest contributer to that nutso movement...however that is something people here are in denial of....
Why do you feel you have to be so militant towards me? I don't mean to make you feel ignorant but it is just common knowledge that the vast majority of Europeans are not religious.
Why would you dispute that? Why would you dispute that without even knowing the truth? And most of all, why would you dispute that with a derogatory reference to Pat Robertson and Freedom Fries???
It's unnecessary for me to have traveled to Europe to know this. Here is a link to a dated study done by the Pew Center. It's a few years old, but I have seen a more recent version and the results are actually more telling than these.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/167.pdf
But the big question here is why you address his reference to religion, which was only a small side note to his overall argument. Why don't you try to dispute his thesis with some responsible dialogue if you disagree?
He is an idioit...just trying to rally any more nuts that were created through this because of that fool Olmert and his "reasonable" actions...like I said both are morons and have caused greater strife then was necessary....ready for the viscous circle to begin again and I hope I am very wrong....
Ok, ok, maybe weve got off on the wrong foot, or mayve you're not explaining yourself. Either way, I'll try and summarise what I believe you are trying to say.
You are pushing for a more hardline approach to the "Islamic Fascists," yeah?
You are blaming, which is the gist of the article, "self-loathing media and intellectuals," the liberal media, the liberal European Political community for not showing "solidarity" and joining up, WW2, style, to launch a massive military attack upon "Islamic Fascists." Am I right so far?
You then link this liberalism with religion, or rather the lack of it, "An abcence of religion does not equate to an absence of morality - but the liberalism of Europe speaks for itself."
So, because Europeans do not, in general, worship false gods, we've gotten over that a LONG time ago, that is the source of diplomacy and liberalism?
Hence, if the people of Europe, and their governments, dropped their liberlaism, if they, in your words, took on board God and religion, they would be more willing to show "solidarity" and attack the enemies the US percieves to have?
Ill stop there, and see if we are on the right tracks.
Thanks for the link, intersting reading. BUT, maybe we can address this report, too.
The headline of which, on the front page, reads...
AMONG WEALTHY NATIONS...
US STANDS ALONE IN ITS EMBRACE OF RELIGION.
Maybe, as 21st century people, we should be asking WHY, do Americans require religion? Are the rest of the world wrong, or is AMerica wrong, so rotten that its peoples have nothing to turn to but the God of consumerism or the God of religion?
ALSO, hate to be a stick in the mud an' all, but its intersting, too, that you link that project into a discussion on the middle east, as the project was chaired by, and the survey shaped by, Madeliene Albright, a person not exactly renowned for her care or respect of the peoples in the Middle East.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
No, you are not on the right track at all. I never said, nor did I ever hint at the notion that Eurpopeans need to "take on board God and religion". I don't care if Europeans are religous or not.
The article was just pointing out that Europeans are extremely liberal, and some of the values that underpin their liberalism are also preventing them from being true partners against Islamic Fascism.
Europeans believe more in non-violence, multiculturalism and moral equavalence. These beliefs are putting the world in danger. That is what I'm saying.
but this liberalism stems from a lack of religious conviction, no?
And if they had this religious belief that the Americans are so empowered by, they would find it easier to wage war perhaps?
I don't get some people.
Thank you for the clarification.
I think what you call for is NO multicultarlism then, NO integration, NO moral equivalence between the white Americans and the darker rest of the world.
I heard South Africa had a system like that once...
Man, Martin Luther King Day must really make you cringe.
Martine Luther King said anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Do you still support him and his holiday?
LOL, I believe it is Europe who has the larger problem assimilating its minorities - not America.
But anyways, you don't understand what multiculturalism means. It is the belief that one culture is just as good as another. I don't believe that. I believe that culture of radical Islam is a disease to the world and it must be stamped out.
It has nothing to do with integration at all, that is unless you want to integrate fanatical muslims into your community... be my guest.
Only my opinion is correct.
Europeans are whinny stupid cowards who enjoy hating God and sleeping around on each other. But I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything.
Liberalism is the base cause of all the world's problems. But I'm not trying to pick a fight with Liberals or anything. I'm just stating fact. Liberals have a problem with facts - like the fact that all Liberals are a problem. But no antagonism intended.
Ignorant, hateful, meanspirited comments can be passed off by saying, "well, it might not be P.C., but if you look at what the author is trying to say....."
Lack of religion is a problem. Islam is a problem. Contradictory? Not if you accept the fact - yes fact - that only Christianity is a religion. Islam is a cult. No fights, though - nope, not picking a fight at all.
All responses dealing with the implied can be passed off with a "I don't see where it said that" or something similar. There is no such thing as context. Literalism, people - not Liberalism. Take your "implied" bullshit and sell it to those IslamoCommie/Fascist/whatever you all love so much.
Multiculturalism should be a crime - but it's only the Islamics that have that fascist streak. If someone believes whole-heartedly in their own culture/way of life, don't try to prove them wrong through example. Tell them to fuck off, or maybe shoot at them.. That'll learn 'em.
Have I got the hang of this now? I want to know, 'cause I'd really love to hang with the Strong crowd for once.
Whoa, easy there.....
All I am claiming about Europeans is that they are taking a soft approach to Islamic facism. They are basically appeasing radical muslims rather than standing their ground. They are doing this because they believe in non-violence, mulitculturalism and moral equivalence.
i never said anything about European lack of religion as being a problem at all.... in fact it doesn't matter if they are religious at all.
Liberalism is not the base of the world's problems, far from it. In fact I would argue that conservatism is more a source of conflict than liberalism. I'm just saying that Europeans are taking such a liberal approach to this problem that they are trying to tolerate people who want to kill them. That is foolish in my eyes.
"This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's
homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody
battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be
reconciled with wisdom, justice and love: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.