Is History Repeating Itself?

[Adam's Apple]

This article touches on posts by NATO Air and Kathianne about the murder of a young French Jew by Islam radicals, but Glick's focus is entirely different. It give you a glimpse of the turmoil that is going on inside Israeli politics. You can also read this article at The Jerusalem Post's website, but it has a different title. Don't remember right off the top of my head what the title was, but it starts off with the name of the murdered French Jew, Ilan Halimi.

From 1933-1945, The Enemy Was Nazi Germany. Today, It's Political Islam
By Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post
February 27, 2006

As was the case in World War II, today the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is being targeted for annihilation by an enemy bent on world domination. Ilan Halimi's monstrous murder is just the latest sign of this disturbing reality. Today, as seventy years ago, the Jews are disserved by poor and weak leaders who refuse to see the dangers.

But if we learn from history and we assess our options, we will see that history needn't repeat itself. It is within our power to reverse the course of our all too repetitious past.

for full article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/glick022706.php3

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This article touches on posts by NATO Air and Kathianne about the murder of a young French Jew by Islam radicals, but Glick's focus is entirely different. It give you a glimpse of the turmoil that is going on inside Israeli politics. You can also read this article at The Jerusalem Post's website, but it has a different title. Don't remember right off the top of my head what the title was, but it starts off with the name of the murdered French Jew, Ilan Halimi.

From 1933-1945, The Enemy Was Nazi Germany. Today, It's Political Islam
By Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post
February 27, 2006

As was the case in World War II, today the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is being targeted for annihilation by an enemy bent on world domination. Ilan Halimi's monstrous murder is just the latest sign of this disturbing reality. Today, as seventy years ago, the Jews are disserved by poor and weak leaders who refuse to see the dangers.

But if we learn from history and we assess our options, we will see that history needn't repeat itself. It is within our power to reverse the course of our all too repetitious past.

for full article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/glick022706.php3

Jews have been asleep at the switch too, so to speak. Democrat jews still believe their biggest enemy is christian fundamentalism.

 

[Annie]

This article touches on posts by NATO Air and Kathianne about the murder of a young French Jew by Islam radicals, but Glick's focus is entirely different. It give you a glimpse of the turmoil that is going on inside Israeli politics. You can also read this article at The Jerusalem Post's website, but it has a different title. Don't remember right off the top of my head what the title was, but it starts off with the name of the murdered French Jew, Ilan Halimi.

From 1933-1945, The Enemy Was Nazi Germany. Today, It's Political Islam
By Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post
February 27, 2006

As was the case in World War II, today the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is being targeted for annihilation by an enemy bent on world domination. Ilan Halimi's monstrous murder is just the latest sign of this disturbing reality. Today, as seventy years ago, the Jews are disserved by poor and weak leaders who refuse to see the dangers.

But if we learn from history and we assess our options, we will see that history needn't repeat itself. It is within our power to reverse the course of our all too repetitious past.

for full article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/glick022706.php3

Great article. I might add though that the illness of Sharon, the election of Hamas, and the looming problem with Iran have left Israel shell-shocked.

 

[Mariner]

His stated terrorist purpose was to unite Muslims against the Judeo-Christian West. Any time we play into this type of giant global us v. them thinking, we're playing into his hands.

This week's New York Review of Books looks at "The Osama bin Laden I know: An oral history of al Qaeda's leader," by Peter Bergen. Bergen fleshes out bin Laden's history and politics. Bergen's perspective is that Osama does not in any way represent Islam, and is seen as a caricature by most Muslims. However, his extreme views do have some resonance based on an honest feeling among Muslims that the US and the West have often oppressed them. The examples given include "Winston Chruchill's use of poison gas against the Iraq rebels in the 1920's; a million martyers of Alegeria's war of independence against Frances... invading Iraq but not North Korea... [supporting] Russia's war in Chechnya... [ignoring] China's harsh treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang." Bergen and the reviewer both agree this type of list leaves out many instances of the West helping Muslims; nevertheless, it plays well to Muslim ears.

Concerning Iraq, Bergen writes, that is "is what bin Laden could not have imagined in his wildest dreams: The United States invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden had long predicted is the "Crusaders'" long-term goal in the region."

Bergen believes if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda may have fizzled out on its own, as most Muslims recognized that its ideology was a twisted and ridiculous form of Islam, and condemned 9/11. Muslim opinion turned the other way after our invasion. Also, recalling the Fukuyama history of neoConservativism that I posted last week, it's easy to see where Muslims might get the idea that the Iraqi invasion was a Jewish plot--the early neoConservatives were indeed Jewish.

I'm looking forward to reading his book--supposedly, he is the single most knowledgeable journalist about bin Laden, having studied him from long before 9/11. I'm not saying I agree with how Muslims see all these things, but as I've argued here many times, it behooves us to try to understand Muslim opinion rather than simply condemning it all wholesale. This book seems a step in that direction.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

His stated terrorist purpose was to unite Muslims against the Judeo-Christian West. Any time we play into this type of giant global us v. them thinking, we're playing into his hands.

This week's New York Review of Books looks at "The Osama bin Laden I know: An oral history of al Qaeda's leader," by Peter Bergen. Bergen fleshes out bin Laden's history and politics. Bergen's perspective is that Osama does not in any way represent Islam, and is seen as a caricature by most Muslims. However, his extreme views do have some resonance based on an honest feeling among Muslims that the US and the West have often oppressed them. The examples given include "Winston Chruchill's use of poison gas against the Iraq rebels in the 1920's; a million martyers of Alegeria's war of independence against Frances... invading Iraq but not North Korea... [supporting] Russia's war in Chechnya... [ignoring] China's harsh treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang." Bergen and the reviewer both agree this type of list leaves out many instances of the West helping Muslims; nevertheless, it plays well to Muslim ears.

Concerning Iraq, Bergen writes, that is "is what bin Laden could not have imagined in his wildest dreams: The United States invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden had long predicted is the "Crusaders'" long-term goal in the region."

Bergen believes if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda may have fizzled out on its own, as most Muslims recognized that its ideology was a twisted and ridiculous form of Islam, and condemned 9/11. Muslim opinion turned the other way after our invasion. Also, recalling the Fukuyama history of neoConservativism that I posted last week, it's easy to see where Muslims might get the idea that the Iraqi invasion was a Jewish plot--the early neoConservatives were indeed Jewish.

I'm looking forward to reading his book--supposedly, he is the single most knowledgeable journalist about bin Laden, having studied him from long before 9/11. I'm not saying I agree with how Muslims see all these things, but as I've argued here many times, it behooves us to try to understand Muslim opinion rather than simply condemning it all wholesale. This book seems a step in that direction.

Mariner.

Yeah. I guest we must do nothing and foil his evil plot.

 

[Mariner]

nothing?

If we'd committed the resources to hunting down bin Laden that we've committed to Iraq, Osama wouldn't still be a free man.

Did you see the amazing notes uncovered by a Freedom of Information Act request? Paul Krugman reported them a few days ago. They indicate that Rumsfeld's immediate orders following 9/11 were to seek a way to link Al Qaeda with Iraq. The note-taker felt this would be difficult.

Just one more of the dribbling bits of data that confirm we were duped into this war:

The New York Times
Op ed piece by Paul Krugman

... At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time — not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?"

* * *

Krugman points out that having sown a general confusion about "good" vs. "bad" Muslims, it's now hard for the administration to argue that UAE is an ally on the ports deal. Krugman thinks Bush is right on the issue, but that he's getting what he deserves for the confusion he sowed.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

nothing?

If we'd committed the resources to hunting down bin Laden that we've committed to Iraq, Osama wouldn't still be a free man.

Did you see the amazing notes uncovered by a Freedom of Information Act request? Paul Krugman reported them a few days ago. They indicate that Rumsfeld's immediate orders following 9/11 were to seek a way to link Al Qaeda with Iraq. The note-taker felt this would be difficult.

Just one more of the dribbling bits of data that confirm we were duped into this war:

The New York Times
Op ed piece by Paul Krugman

... At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time — not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?"

* * *

Krugman points out that having sown a general confusion about "good" vs. "bad" Muslims, it's now hard for the administration to argue that UAE is an ally on the ports deal. Krugman thinks Bush is right on the issue, but that he's getting what he deserves for the confusion he sowed.

Mariner.

Krugman is a fool. This war is greater than bin laden. Is the only thing we can do without "playing into bin laden's plan" is hunt Bin laden? Krugman supports the port deal. This isn't suprising; libs have been wanting to destroy america for sometime now. It must be encouraging to know BUSH really is on your side, isn't it mariner?

 

[dilloduck]

Krugman is a fool. This war is greater than bin laden. Is the only thing we can do without "playing into bin laden's plan" is hunt Bin laden? Krugman supports the port deal. This isn't suprising; libs have been wanting to destroy america for sometime now. It must be encouraging to know BUSH really is on your side, isn't it mariner?

Why do libs continue to try to frame the war on terrorism to ONLY those somehow connected to 9/11? Other Muslim terrorist are off limits or not a threat ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why do libs continue to try to frame the war on terrorism to ONLY those somehow connected to 9/11? Other Muslim terrorist are off limits or not a threat ?

Cuz they don't really want to win this war.

 

[dilloduck]

Cuz they don't really want to win this war.

I guess it's up to them--they kept the protests to a minimum in Afghanistan and things are calmer there. It's scary how they control our success or failure in wartime.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I guess it's up to them--they kept the protests to a minimum in Afghanistan and things are calmer there. It's scary how they control our success or failure in wartime.

The idiotic left wing self hatred has taken root.

 

[dilloduck]

The idiotic left wing self hatred has taken root.

They hate themselves or they have convinced people to hate America?