Below you will find our Seattle neighbor (travel guy) Rick Steves opining on all we need to understand about Islamo-Fascist terrorism. Oh, how I would love to debate him, point by point, on this little essay from (of course) the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The fundamentalist views of liberals are incredible to me. We can only hope that Bill O picks up on this - then some rhetorical justice will be done. Update: justice is being done - as in this eminently superior posting on Steves's article at Seattle Sense - on my short list of must-read blogs; and now from Brian Crouch on Sound Politics; and finally on Rosenblog as well. There is justice in this world, after all. Didn't the Dan Rather 'Memogate' story get 'outed' after a thorough fisking by bloggers in just this same manner?
As it stands, Steves lays out a Clinton era fallacy, inartful to the point of doggerel, that would only bring on more of what was: the sudden rise of Islamo-Fascist terrorism during the 1990's. Steves is unfortunately like those three little monkeys, neither seeing, hearing or speaking (he says) in ways to inflame Islamic passion. This brand of diplomacy was an invitation to let loose the dogs of hell, in myriad ways - as we saw with genocide in Africa and (even) Bosnian Europe during the 1990's. And the misguided (and some say borderline evil) Clinton policy of wave-after-wave of cruise missiles, which was a major tipping point in motivation for the 9/11 attacks, Steves has conveniently forgotten.
No doubt Steves will be up for peace prizes from the Left (just after Patty Murray gets hers for having 'broken the code' on Usama bin Laden). Patty and Steve - keep it up, we need you... this is the kind of rhetoric upon which to further consolidate on Republican victories in '06!
__________________________
Saturday, December 4, 2004
Can we fight terrorism constructively?
By RICK STEVES
SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Editor's note: Filling in for David Horsey this week is Rick Steves, author of the "Europe Through the Back Door" books and host of the popular public television travel program, "Rick Steves' Europe."
On Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers collapsed and angry clouds of dust chased U.S. citizens through the streets of New York City. The world was outraged. And the United States was outraged. So much so that -- three long years later -- many Americans still refuse to even dignify the attack by asking, "Why did they do it?"
But we must understand the enemy to combat them. Let me play the role of one of the thousands of Muslim parents who've named their babies Osama in the past year and look at the situation from the point of view of these devout Muslims offended and threatened by the reach of U.S. power.
Who was actually being attacked on that terrible day? The targets chosen were not symbolic of average Americans (say, a shopping mall or sports stadium). They weren't symbols of the freedoms that this country stands for (Statue of Liberty). Rather, the 9/11 hijackers went straight for the institutions of U.S. might in the world: international corporations (the Trade Towers), the U.S. military (the Pentagon) and -- had the fourth plane reached its likely goal -- our commander in chief (the White House).
So, why did they do it? Because "they hate freedom?" Come on -- that's ridiculous.
A billion Muslims throughout the world have three serious concerns: Palestine needs security and self-respect; they want the American military out of Islam; and they want control of their natural resources (to charge whatever they like for their oil). These are three basic foreign policy questions that any U.S. president could address without compromising the security and interests of America or Israel.
The United States' overwhelming global dominance is unprecedented in human history. Many Muslims fear the Americanization of their culture. In addition, the United States declares natural resources (such as oil) in Muslim countries "vital to its national security." And our immense military -- as big as the rest of the world's combined and unfightable by means other than terrorism --defends U.S. access to markets and natural resources throughout the globe.
It's clear that maintaining our dominance by force is costly in civil liberties, our moral standing in the world, tax dollars and human lives. So my Burning Question is:
Could we more effectively fight terrorism by understanding what motivates it and then taking away the source of the anger? Wouldn't it be cheaper and wiser to just face our enemy, ask "Why?" and respond constructively?
No comments:
Post a Comment