First of all I think at this point we must accept that electing Barack Obama has not done what many people thought (hoped) it would do. It has not placated Radical Islam. In fact, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Jihadism seems to be making a comeback. On U.S. airplanes over Detroit, for example.
There are only two reasonable approaches to this development as far as I am concerned. The Conservative argument is well laid out by Charles Krauthammer and discussed at No Quarter.
The rational "Progressive" (ie Feminist) strategy is being explored by Phyllis Chesler.
As a Feminist, and a Family Scientist ... I gotta tell ya.... I believe Phyllis has the answer. The liberation of Yemeni women and their babies will likely go a long way toward ending the Jihadi hotbed that country is cultivating. But... I also admit that this is a LONG RANGE strategy, wrought with painful lessons about the nature of the "enemy."
First we must deal with today's attackers. Which brings us back to Krauthammer and Bronwyn's piece at No Quarter.
No rational person... no matter how "Progressive" or "Liberal" can reasonably argue that we are helping ourselves, or the "Lonely and Murderous Sons of Allah," by pretending that "isolated suspects" should be treated as if they were American citizens with a right to legal counsel. Any argument that champions the return of terrorist sons, to Yemen (or Afghanistan or wherever,) for more training in Islamofacism is failing the children in ALL countries.
That kind of thinking is not "Progressivism" my friends. And it's not "Liberalism." It is nothing more than Tom Foolery. And by "Tom Foolery" I mean to say that "Tom" is pulling the wool over our (Progressive Feminist) eyes such that "Tom" may maintain power over Neda... the world over.
Think about it!
SYD
H/T to Legal Insurrection for the 2009, Obot "Tweet of the Year."
(Disclaimer: I do not think Mr. Rambo is actually an Obot. Apparently he just does one hell of a parody of them on Twitter.)
Posts
Wow, SYD, thanks for reminding me of all the hype during the 08 campaign that the election of Obama would be sufficient to defuse the attacks of Islamic extremists against the U.S.
ReplyDeleteRemember that hostage situation a while back? Remember that Jimmy Carter guy tried passivist techniques all the way up to his last day in office? Remember how soon the hostages were released once Reagan took office? History teaches us conservatives own this issue, and it will teach us over, and over, until we learn.
ReplyDeleteWell, Epi.... I believe Progressives *could* have meaningful input. If they would get a clue about what it actually means to be "Progressive" about international issues such as these.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton has been clear about this. Her approach is to empower the women, and their children. To break these cycles of poverty and violence.
This idea that we can "change" Radical Islam by bowing to it (both figuratively and literally) is *not* Progressive. Bowing to misogynistic, tyrannical regimes is NOT "progress." It is nonsense. And it is wholly owned by the Obamafied "Democrats" who are failing miserably at it.
SYD
Rev. B,
ReplyDeleteYes... many Obots did claim that Obama was going to heal the rift between Islam and the West. Didn't they?
Simply because of "who he was." (WTF?)
Again. Such miserable nonsense. And such spectacularly squandered political capital in 2008.
I agree that you have to do a combination of improving the lives of the people through economic opportunity and "pounding the chest" apeman stuff to shut down the terrorists.
ReplyDeleteOnce the people have a reason to think they have a future, they won't want the terrorists in their countries and will tackle the issue themselves.
I don't think being a beta male works with terrorists; as much as many people would like to think we should be kinder and gentler to each other, in some instances this simply does not work and dealing with Islamic terrorists is one instance w here it does not work.