excursions into the pro-war regions of the blogsphere only become
more disturbing with time. Just this week, the supposedly libertarian
blogger Glenn Reynolds
has endorsed the deployment of US death squads intended to target
has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don't understand
why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor
do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an
appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing
radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the
simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat
business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping
on the Iranians' toes hard enough to make them reconsider their
not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been
doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell,
we've done nothing along these lines."
at Unqualified Offerings neatly
captures what Reynold’s proposal indicates about the progress
of the hawks descent into barbarism:
the respected (look, he is, whether readers here like it or
not) law professor Glenn Reynolds is advocating extra-judicial
murder of civilians at the whim of George W. Bush – and Hugh
Hewitt thinks that’s a great idea. As Greenwald documents, these
Bush supporters are embracing a policy Abraham Lincoln
explicitly rejected as barbaric during the height of
this nation’s bloody Civil War.
may be a cliché, but those generally exist because they
are based in truth; more than a few Bush supporters would have
us become the things we purport to hate. We are well down the
road of national vitiation already, but not far enough for Glenn
Townhall.com columnist Keven McCullough has prophesized
that electing a Democratic president in 2008 surely will result
in several major American cities suffering nuclear attacks from
terrorists. Mona, once again, makes
obvious that McCullough’s article is insane. For instance,
he gives the reader no argument as to why it is not the very
acts of American aggression he supports that will not be the
impetus for, rather than a defense against, the horrific attacks
about which he fantasizes. A reasonable person will presume
that launching attacks on strangers is likely to make them more,
not less, likely to be the target of attacks himself. And the
typical hawk come-back – we were just minding our own business
and it didn’t prevent 9-11 – is total rubbish, ignoring the
US overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953, American
support for Arab dictators, material aid given to Israel in
its war against the Palestinians, and the war with Iraq that,
in truth, was still on-going in 2001. There is no way to prove
that there still wouldn’t be Moslems plotting violence against
Americans if those things had never happened, but it defies
common sense to think that they did not serve to motivate many
as is McCullough’s piece, it is even more frightening to peruse
the comments section following it. Here are some samples:
worries me is not that the US can ‘blow up the world 50 times
over.’ What worries me is that our government doesn't have the
guts to even nuke one enemy city after we get hit."
on Medina and Mecca would go along way towards ending Muslim
terror permanently. If you think not, then you obviously haven't
done your homework on the basic tenets of Islam."
March of 2009, and new U.S. Secretary of State Lee Hamilton
is talking to President Ahmadinejad of Iran at Davos. Here's
a partial transcript:
Mr. President, you must realize that if you continue to threaten
the United States and Israel with your nuclear weapons, we will
have to take sterner measures against you.
So what? Allah is our God.
I am speaking of military measures.
Are you even listening to me?
Are YOU listening to ME? I am telling you that, if you fire
one more missile at Israel, no matter what its payload may or
may not be, we will have to retaliate.
Excellent! (smiles) Now we understand each other!
You say, if we destroy Israel, you will attack us. But we intend
to attack you as well. We have enough missiles, and enough warheads,
to scour you from the face of Allah's world. And we will do
And we will use our missiles to erase you from the face of the
Earth if you even try it. You will all die.
That frightens you. It does not frighten us. For we are the
Soldiers of Allah. If we destroy you in jihad, we cleanse Allah's
world of the filth that you are. If you destroy us in the process,
we sit by the throne of Allah for eternity.
makes the basic mistake. He assumes the threat of reprisal and
punishment (with our massive nuke arsenal) will deter the jihad.
In other words, he assumes the jihadis think like he does, with
the same set of values. These people are blowing themselves
up by the hundreds to inflict damage on those they consider
is the recipe for keeping the WOT off our soil: ban all Muslim
immigration, surveil American Muslims like we did the KKK and
the Communists, and aim everything we have at Muslim lands in
the middle east like we did Russia during the cold war and tell
them under no circumstances that will we not tolerate further
attacks and MEAN it. And we must seal our borders.
lets start calling a spade a spade by saying loud and clear
that Americans are DISGUSTED with anyone who admires and old
dead pervert like Mr. Mohammed and such demented folks will
be shamed in this country and NEVER allowed to immigrate here.
Do we permit communists to immigrate here?"
of these is far from being unique to this site. I don’t want
to turn your stomach more than I have, but browsing any war-hawk
site will turn up many similar examples. What I want to note
here is that the logical conclusion of the arguments offered
is that the US must wipe every single Moslem off the face
of the earth. After all, given Moslems don’t care about
dying, what would be the point of nuking only Mecca and
Medina? There would still be plenty of Moslems in the world,
now with one more reason to hate us. By the "reasoning"
these death-lovers themselves use, the destruction of those
cities will have no deterrent effect whatsoever. Those actions
only make sense as the first step in nuking every Moslem country,
and exterminating the Moslems living in the West, oh, perhaps,
in gas chambers?
public voices of the war party are usually careful to qualify
their calls for mass murder by saying their quarrel is not with
all Moslems, only with violent, radical Islam. But their mass
of followers make no such distinction – probably because they
are too dull-witted and filled with hate to do so – and their
leaders do not show up in these discussions to condemn their
followers’ apocalyptic rants. They know the broader American
public is not yet ready to tolerate such views in their newspapers,
and so they bide their time, giving anonymous posters a platform
and time to make these ideas seem commonplace and reasonable.
recall that the Nazi Holocaust did not take place in some savage
land of head hunters and cannibals, but in a nation that was
one of the jewels of Western Civilization, the birthplace of
Leibniz, Bach, Kant, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller, Riemann, Mann,
and Schopenhauer. The Nazis drew support from figures as cultured
and intelligent as Heidegger. The Holocaust could happen there
because decent Germans were unable to believe it could happen
it could happen again today. And the next Holocaust, if we don’t
stop it, is likely to make the previous one seem like child’s