It is fairly certain that other than a few very large bloggers who seem to tread softly in an attempt to not offend their much bigger audiences not many people are horrified at Rep Tancredo’s statements. Indeed when you watch the comments 0 when they are allowed, the ratio of support for Rep Tancredo far outstrips those who like Hugh Hewitt find it abhorrent. So it is easy to understand that Hugh would love to be able to have someone like Robert Spencer 3agree with him. In fact he points to an article Robert Spencer wrote which in fact does agree with Hugh regarding not bombing Mecca, what Hugh fails to mention is that Robert Spencer views Islam in a far different light than Hugh does. This difference is where my argument with Hugh lies, as he actually seems to agree with President Bush that Islam is the “Religion of Peace”. Robert Spencer simply does not, which makes them farther apart than Hugh lets on to.
Robert Spencer’s arguments make a good deal of sense though I believe there are some flaws to his thinking. Hugh’s entire position revolved around two specious arguments that Robert Spencer would not be seen touching with a ten foot pole.
His first point seems to be that Islam is a faith just as Christianity is a faith and that both are equals in deserving respect. This is moral equivalency at its scariest and it is a real shame to see it coming from someone as bright and effective as Hugh Hewitt. It is an unavoidable fact that while there are millions of terrific people who are Muslim that Islam itself is to put it lightly a corrupting influence on civilization. This is something that both Rep Tancredo and Robert Spencer agree on and that Hugh Hewitt will never admit.
Indeed I believe that soon he will follow the President’s lead and cease to address the war we are fighting as being waged against Islamic fundamentalists. Islam has had some of its strongest defenders amongst the Right Wing, witness Grover Norquist bringing known terrorist supporters to meet President Bush. Though I only mention Grover to show how easy it is for us to lose our way. Hugh Hewitt is a stalwart defender of this country who simply does not understand all the forces we face. We can disagree about the particulars while agreeing that this country is worth defending. Grover Norquist seems to have sold his soul to the devil and the very disconcerting part of that sad journey is the White House was so naive about Islam that it allowed Norquist to bring Terrorist sympathizers 1into the very symbol of our Nation, the White House.
The second point worth mentioning because it is so wrongheaded is that Muslims have been right by our side condemning terrorism. This is simply false, every single time a Islamic organization has stood up to “condemn” terror it has been accompanied by a list of qualifiers and exceptions so long as to be incomprehensible. But it is apparently enough cover for those like Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed to hide behind when making the assertion that Muslims stand right by us in fighting terror. I wish. Four years later no Muslim Imam has stood up and declared that Bin Laden is an apostate for murdering the innocent, why? Because they themselves do not believe us to be innocent. Each and every time some “fatwa” has been issued supposedly against terrorism it has been proved to be mere window dressing for a religion that still holds to the same beliefs that caused it to make war against the West for over 1,400 years. It is simply wishful thinking to believe that Islam has discarded the belief that drives it to convert Infidels by the sword, it may not use the sword when it is weak but when it is strong the sword is the first tool used.
Even in this latest response by Hugh he points to the organization Free Muslims Against Terror . He may honestly believe that this organization is the sort of outfit he can point to as being on our side. But it is only so because he gives it the same sort of shallow look as he does Islam itself. He desperately wants to believe that Muslims are on our side in this war against, Extremism 1(Example of the Bush administration going wobbly)but again using Robert Spencer as my source one can easily see that this outfit is simply another front for the same old line from Muslims. I am comforted somewhat by some of the articles coming 0from Islam right now but I note with disgust that those articles did not come when 3,000 of my country men died but after Muslims were murdered. Those articles did not come after the same thugs who murdered my fellow citizens promised to murder millions more, but only after some of their Islamic brothers were murdered. Never unequivocal in their denunciation of terror the leaders of Islam have earned my suspicion and disgust until they prove different.
This constant attempt to portray Islam as something it is not, is disturbing. Why would we do this? It is not bigoted to simply believe what is written in the Koran and what has been done in its name. It does us no good to say, completely reasonably, on one hand that we cannot go to war against 1 billion Muslims so on the other hand we must close our eyes to the designs of their religion. In this day of mind bogglingly powerful weapons we simply cannot live with a religion which believes it has a God given right to convert us by force. On the other hand we cannot murder every single Muslim to achieve peace. But to win an ideological battle one must be absolutely clear eyed about ones opponents philosophy. Believing soft headed pap about a religion because one is scared of either being called a bigot or worse facing the monumental heights we must climb to win will lead to defeat.
Rep Tancredo did not say that he wanted to murder millions of Muslims. He simply said that taking Mecca off of the target list should not be done. He rightly understands that mainstream Islam has still to this day, four years later, not declared that those who destroyed the WTC murdering 3,000 people in the process are apostates and face hell. That is a simple fact that all the pontificating by those who engage in boatloads of wishful thinking cannot respond to.
Robert Spencer disagrees with Rep Tancredo in two ways. In the first place he says we cannot decide to murder innocent civilians because we would lose our identity as a nation should that occur. This is an odd thought considering that Rep Tancredo’s statement about allowing for the possibility of bombing Mecca comes after we have lost a city to a Nuclear weapon. I suspect that after such an event we might be a touch different than the day before.
In addition wars are waged by the people who support them, anyone who supports the terrorists even in thought is waging war against us. We are in a ideological war, thoughts count. In WW2 we bombed civilian targets as much to destroy their will to fight as to destroy their material ability to fight. And as can be seen by Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroying an enemies will to fight is possible if you hit them hard enough. Somehow we must convince Muslims as a whole that supporting those Imams and Terrorists who wage war against us is very bad for their health. I hope as a Christian that we can do this using President Bush’s democratic method. But I will not stand by and allow my country to be destroyed simply to avoid being thought of badly. I have said it before and it bears saying again, I will lose my morality to gain life for my children. After a nuclear weapon goes off in this country the war becomes not one of opinions but of sheer survival and in that case Islam has picked the wrong fight.
Robert Spencer has another point that bears responding to, understanding that I believe his case to be a very good one. I did not believe that of Hugh’s arguments against Rep Tancredo.
Mr. Spencer says that nuking Mecca, which Btw Rep Tancredo never advocated, would be pointless because Muslims love death. He cites the Koran which states: ?Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful? (pretty moderate eh Hugh?). This may be true of their young but we know for example that their leaders don’t love death as much as their think their young subjects should. Another words we won’t see Osama wearing a suicide belt anytime soon.
Furthermore to believe that death cannot convince a person of the wrongness of their views is simply naive. While it is obvious that if you kill someone you cannot change their mind, if you kill enough of his friends and family eventually he will question his views. The Japanese who had never been defeated in War and who were far more fanatical than the Muslims gave up after we brought so much death and destruction upon them that only insane people would have continued. We don’t wish to bring such a tribulation upon Muslim people as a whole but whether that restraint would be still there as we buried perhaps millions after a nuclear attack on this country is not something that were I a Muslim I would bet on.
Hugh Hewitt: July 24, 2005 - July 30, 2005 Archives
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds
Stumble It!
BlogoSquare
One Comment