A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Michael,
The politically correct mythology abroad about Americans is that they only know their own history, but not anyone’s else’s. From what you are saying the American Left doesn’t even know their own history, yet presumes to know everyone else’s. Is that a fair evaluation? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
It seems also that the Left yearns for the authority to implement the utopian plans of foreign powers, yet have a problem respecting any authority – the most visible authority being the authority of their own governments. What do they think the “authority” of Al Queda cells is like? Le dejeuner sur l’herbe?
As for drugging, indoctrinating, and strapping bombs on children; and as for raping women then stoning them for adultery: I agree that the Left would not stoop to doing these things. Why? Because they have a disproportionate sense of entitlement and privilege; delicate sensibilities. They live vicarious, ideological lives seldom taking off the white gloves.
OBL, for some, is a Romantic figure; a “freedom fighter” akin to Che, Chavez, Fidel. While not participating directly in the untoward actions mentioned above, the Left will defend those actions by spindoctoring them as “reasonable” responses to American foreign policy. Those actions are seen as deterministic cultural blips and glitches – not major moral inconsistencies.
But, if the immorality of an action does become unavoidable, then it is never, in the eyes of the Left, the perpetrator’s fault. According to the Left, the violence in the world is America’s fault. Or – even richer – Dubya’s fault. And therefore Gitmo, in their eyes, must be emptied.
One reason for the inability of the Left to see the difference between the deliberate slaughter of innocents by terrorists and the killing of unlawful combatants with its commensurate collateral damage by Coalition forces is once again the problem of the Left with authority. This Modern problem with authority translates into a Post-Modern aversion to reading source documents.
Someone’s opinion ten-times-removed from the source document is OK among the Post Modern Left; but the source document itself is taboo. Specifically: the definition of unlawful combatant; the Geneva Convention; the Just War Doctrine; the Principle of Double Effect; the Resolution to go to War; the money trail to Saddam; OBL’s Fatwa; Conplan 8022.
All cries in the wildnerness. How many times have we posted links to these documents here? If, fortuitiously, we can get some folks to acknowledge one of those documents – which happens occasionally – then what do we see?
Either a unilateral re-interpretation of the document to accord with the doctrines of the Left or – if that is too much trouble – then an outright evasion of the topic being discussed or – predictably – a complete change of focus from ideological commentary to personal commentary which ranges from anecdotal to ad hominem.
This thread is about a guy who owns a restaurant and who is proud to offer it to a soldier for a re-enlistment ceremony. Patriotism, military service, the contribution of the ordinary citizen to the defence of democracy: who would have thought that the commentary subsequent to the original post would have drifted so far afield from these worthy attributes?
Was the anecdote about the restaurant owner not personal enough?
The politically correct mythology abroad about Americans is that they only know their own history, but not anyone’s else’s. From what you are saying the American Left doesn’t even know their own history, yet presumes to know everyone else’s. Is that a fair evaluation? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
It seems also that the Left yearns for the authority to implement the utopian plans of foreign powers, yet have a problem respecting any authority – the most visible authority being the authority of their own governments. What do they think the “authority” of Al Queda cells is like? Le dejeuner sur l’herbe?
As for drugging, indoctrinating, and strapping bombs on children; and as for raping women then stoning them for adultery: I agree that the Left would not stoop to doing these things. Why? Because they have a disproportionate sense of entitlement and privilege; delicate sensibilities. They live vicarious, ideological lives seldom taking off the white gloves.
OBL, for some, is a Romantic figure; a “freedom fighter” akin to Che, Chavez, Fidel. While not participating directly in the untoward actions mentioned above, the Left will defend those actions by spindoctoring them as “reasonable” responses to American foreign policy. Those actions are seen as deterministic cultural blips and glitches – not major moral inconsistencies.
But, if the immorality of an action does become unavoidable, then it is never, in the eyes of the Left, the perpetrator’s fault. According to the Left, the violence in the world is America’s fault. Or – even richer – Dubya’s fault. And therefore Gitmo, in their eyes, must be emptied.
One reason for the inability of the Left to see the difference between the deliberate slaughter of innocents by terrorists and the killing of unlawful combatants with its commensurate collateral damage by Coalition forces is once again the problem of the Left with authority. This Modern problem with authority translates into a Post-Modern aversion to reading source documents.
Someone’s opinion ten-times-removed from the source document is OK among the Post Modern Left; but the source document itself is taboo. Specifically: the definition of unlawful combatant; the Geneva Convention; the Just War Doctrine; the Principle of Double Effect; the Resolution to go to War; the money trail to Saddam; OBL’s Fatwa; Conplan 8022.
All cries in the wildnerness. How many times have we posted links to these documents here? If, fortuitiously, we can get some folks to acknowledge one of those documents – which happens occasionally – then what do we see?
Either a unilateral re-interpretation of the document to accord with the doctrines of the Left or – if that is too much trouble – then an outright evasion of the topic being discussed or – predictably – a complete change of focus from ideological commentary to personal commentary which ranges from anecdotal to ad hominem.
This thread is about a guy who owns a restaurant and who is proud to offer it to a soldier for a re-enlistment ceremony. Patriotism, military service, the contribution of the ordinary citizen to the defence of democracy: who would have thought that the commentary subsequent to the original post would have drifted so far afield from these worthy attributes?
Was the anecdote about the restaurant owner not personal enough?
