‘Liberals’ and the ‘War on Terror’

Last week, Roger Simon at Pajamas Media blogged that he supports the war against fascist Islam because he believes in liberal social causes:

Those of us concerned about human rights, about the separation of church and state, about gay rights and women’s rights, about democracy itself, have bigger fish to fry — the War on Terror. … I never cease to be amazed — and perhaps it is my own myopia — that my former colleagues on the Left can be blind to this situation. They act as if the threat is not real and is only a blip caused by a post 9/11 overreaction by George Bush, thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800, not to mention the overwhelming demographic changes of recent decades. … The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law — gays, women, freethinkers — are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it. What we have on our Left is a culture of denial equal to, if not exceeding, the German Jews of the 1930s and one that has taken the canard about all politics being local to an almost ludicrous extreme. … (I)f we lose and fall under religious law, there not only will be no gay marriage, there will be no women’s rights, no freedom of the press, no basic human rights, not even — as in the case of Iran — any music.

When you get right down to it, people opposed to “the “War on Terror” all think their own freedoms aren’t threatened. I suppose it’s one thing for “those people over there” to be oppressed, but why would “liberals” care about such things? (And I wonder, would an open borders policy make it any easier for fascist Muslims to bring the war here once Iran is in control of Iraq and Kuwait?)

Opposition to the fight against fascist Islam is often driven by political cynicism: “Drumming up anti-war sentiment might get us back in the White House.” A person may be opposed because he has adopted a bumper sticker and sound bite approach to foreign policy: “Bush lied.” But the real story will be how self-absorption and naivete weakened us to the point that, when the enemy arrived on our doorstep and we finally found the will to fight, we no longer had the strength to defend ourselves.

(Hat tip: Gene Edward Veith at Cranach)


About Mark Kelly

Jesus follower, Bible reader, husband/father/son/brother/uncle, rider, hiker, snapshooter
This entry was posted in Mark Kelly / The truth is .... Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to ‘Liberals’ and the ‘War on Terror’

  1. Albert says:

    You should mention the fact that in Iraq, we have found chemical facilities (which CAN make WMDs), or how Saddam WAS funding, arming, and training terrorists, or how there WAS an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq (19,000 dead Al-Qaeda fighters in just a few years is good proof.), or how 10,000 people were killed by Saddam Hussein…

    Liberals say Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or our fight against Terrorism. Well, taking out a mad man–Saddam– who was supplying terrorists is a GOOD IDEA. Liberating a nation and making it into a democracy which stands against all the values terrorists advocate IS A GOOD IDEA. Why? If you take out the major suppliers of teerrorism: Saddam, Taliban, and Iran’s government–You in effect render the enemy unable to fight. When you take out their influence: Iran government, Taliban, Al-Qadea leaders, and Saddam–you in effect destroy the very logic of the enemy, and within time the movement will die out…
    Over all, Iran may have been a better target, but Iraq was ALSO a GOOD choice…

  2. David says:

    So is it a ‘War on Terror’ or a war on Islam?

    • Admin says:

      It would be a war on whatever segment of Islam believes Muslims have a duty to subjugate non-Muslims and kill any who refuse to submit to the “religion of peace.” You tell me how much of Islam falls into that category.

      • David says:

        A very small percentage, I’d say. Would you differentiate between Muslims who sympathise with extremists but don’t actually perpetrate or support acts of violence in any direct way, and those who are in fact engaged in violent pursuit of their goals? And if it’s really a war, do you think the authorities in Britain would be justified in using the tactics of war against jihadists in this country; e.g. attacking and capturing militant-jihadist cells by force and holding them captive indefinitely as PoWs? (I.e. we’d have a British Guantanamo.) And should those same tactics be used against mere sympathisers, as opposed to direct protagonists?

        The point of these questions is to interrogate the rhetoric: are we talking about a real war, who is the enemy, what are we actually prepared to do to fight it, and what would the consequences be for the ‘terrorists’ and for society as a whole?

      • Admin says:

        It is a real war, but not a conventional one. I suspect that fact challenges the traditional categories in which we tend to think about war and moral issues related to it. But it would be the height of folly to fail to defend freedom against radicals who not only have declared the war but graphically demonstrated their commitment to prosecute the declaration.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s