I would love to hear this elucidated by even our more controversial megaphones, but I don't know if anyone is ready to stand on this particular soap box.
I postulate that the vast majority of liberals owe their philosophy to sex, and the control of it. Guys (particularly in college as it represents those formative, hormone-ridden years, though anyone 16 to 24 is dangerously susceptible to this manipulation) all too easily adopt whatever attitude is required to get in good with the girl (or as many girls as possible) in order to score. Guys want to score. No matter what they're thinking in their own minds, or what answers make sense to them, if a hot (or even moderately attractive) woman sends signals she wants a certain answer, it will be delivered on a velvet pillow in hopes the favor will be returned. Girls have been conditioned to believe it is not only a "man's world" but they can only make it in this "man's world" by controlling a man.
Examining this argument for a moment, let's say it is true. Control through sex manipulation will only work so long as the reward continues to appeal to the manipulated. This leads down obvious roads that either require a woman to do things she simply doesn't want to do (and not because she loves her partner - but because she is prostituting herself) or ends up in separation (because the woman decides, through simple market economics models, that the price for control has become too high). Part of what has happened is that the man has been led to believe that he can have whatever he wants so long as he says what she wants to hear. Whether it be unusual acts, multiple partners, a partner with an "augmented" athlete's body, or simply more of this "good thing" than his partner can stand. When the blessing is denied, the manipulated looks elsewhere, or becomes bitter. Abuse of one kind or another follows.
Examining this argument for another moment, let's say it is false. We would find ourselves in a world where women can support themselves, if necessary, without men. That they can not only do so effectively, but can actually excel. I do not talk about personal fulfillment, but simple economics. This does not mean that a woman must support herself, but she could if she wanted to.
Kind of sounds like where we are: a lot of people have bought into the lie, so we have a high rate of wrecked relationships (all I have to do there is look at my own street) but yet the women in those wrecked relationships are the ones on my street, in nice apartments or homes, with children, driving newer and more expensive cars than the one I bought as a man with income, and going on vacations (I know, because I am often asked to care for pets left behind).
Why did I go through all that? Because I believe young women have been deliberately sold a host of lies that are designed to convince her that she must dominate a man through sex. The pivotal fulcrum is abortion. Whether you support abortion or not, the issue here is that women have been convinced (wrongly) that only one ideology (liberalism) will allow her to make any abortion decision whatsoever, and that this is the ultimate (almost only) leverage that the woman has to control the man. This is achieved by suggesting that the woman is therefore free to use sex as a manipulative reward because if something goes wrong, she can always abort and continue with her life unaffected. (Never mind that women might have to deal with emotional issues if they actually do become pregnant - don't warn them about that, though it is likely to happen - just beat it home that they can have one and "everything will be okay", attempting to preempt this potential life-altering snag).
In addition, men have been manipulated to believe that abortion is their get-out-of-jail-free card. Not only can they have the sex they crave (and it is a serious craving, folks, I am not about to deny that) without fear of the consequences, but they don't even have to be involved in the decision making process - after all it is completely up to the woman only! He has no rights, so why should he bother or worry?
As it is now liberal to have this attitude or approach to sex - and realize I do not mean that conservatives don't approach sex as recreational, we certainly do, we simply don't approach the consequences of sex in such a destructive, ignorant way that leaves people unprepared for reality when it hits them - liberals go further to claim that anyone who wants recreational sex must therefore be a liberal, and with all the other liberal issues attached. Naturally, craving sex goes hand in hand with saving the environment through the destruction of capitalism, raising taxes on everyone (especially the middle class), regulating health care an insurance, deciding banking policies, reducing or eliminating our military, ignoring aggressive nations or institutions, etc. etc. etc. Don't you think? I mean, come on - don't you really think about all those things while you're horny?
Um. No. I tend not to think about much of anything else. In fact it becomes difficult to concentrate at all.
Liberal policies reduce or destroy families (welfare for unmarried women, more money for more out-of-wedlock children, but not married women; promotion - instead of simple tolerance - for alternative lifestyles that do not produce children; abortions on whim; etc.) They face a huge problem. Conservative policies nurture and salvage families (tax benefits for families; religion to counsel and help those in need; encouraging adoption instead of abortion; etc.) Political ideology, if allowed to run its natural course, is handed down smoothly from parents to children. The only places where this can be routinely interrupted is when parents and children are separated - which happens mostly through educational institutions. It becomes imperative that liberals therefore attack this section of children's lives. They aren't going to produce enough liberals to keep up with conservatives, therefore they must find ways to steal them.
The irony is that they have chosen the very policies which so dangerously retard their growth to be their champion, their defining issue.
How many men do you honestly think would be liberal if there weren't liberal women willing to sell their sex to manipulate them? How many liberal men would remain liberal if their partner(s) refused to give them sex just to have them toe the party line?
Don't even try to turn the tables on this one. How many conservative women do you honestly believe are using sex to manipulate men into becoming conservatives, particularly for control over their men? Yeah. That one fits. Conservatives believe women ought to dominate men.
Try again. We believe men and women should work together, overcoming the challenges they face, finding mutual support and comfort (yes, that kind of comfort too, often especially) in their relationship. These people, rooted in solid relationships, will not require government assistance programs designed by liberals to keep them in misery and poverty. They will learn from their mistakes, or absorb their challenges, turning them to good, possibly even advancing their own standard of living.
Listen guys, I'm not letting us off the hook here. It's our impatience and insecurity in the first place that enables this whole dangerous, manipulative, destructive cycle. Yes. That means we need to learn to be patient and we must be confident in ourselves. The rewards will follow, and there will be no strings attached - in fact the rewards and the mechanisms for achieving them will be wings strapped to our feet and back. Sounds an awful lot like "seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you" doesn't it?
But that leads down another road liberals can't stand.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Inevitable Iraq
Quite a lot has been said about Iraq, and justly so because it is a defining issue of our times, and a great deal of political hopes have been pinned to it (all across the spectrum). The arguments have been made, and as I am no expert in the field, I cannot refute them, that the Bush Administration succeeded in the military action but did not plan for the aftermath. They fall into one form or another of "win the war and lose the peace" slogans and dialogs.
The fact is, this is the only place where politics can debate on Iraq, because we have gone there and our military was not going to lose that fight. The argument about whether or not we should have gone happened, and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress. Twice, and then several times again. The numbers are staggering that suggest, not only here in the USA but around the world, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with.
Even the latest chicanery by political detractors in an attempt to wildly distort Alan Greenspan's words actually highlights the fact that Hussein was a global disaster actively trying to happen. When people claim he said the Iraq war was for oil, what he was saying was that he advised the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with in order to secure the world's oil supplies or there would be worldwide economic meltdown. So he wasn't saying the war was for oil, but he was certainly making a case that it could be, and that he would have supported it.
So the accusation today (because detractors are fast running out of enemy ground upon which to stand) is that the Bush Administration rushed to war without a plan for securing the victory. That we won military objectives in no time but managed to create a political and social vacuum in which atrocities and terrorism spread. Whether or not we are making some progress now and whether or not Iraq becomes a peaceful, supportive democracy in the future (hopefully near) is beside the point.
The "elephant in the room" (a phrase I happen to love now, despite my general dislike of clichés) is that we had to go in there, and we had to act fast. Whether or not the intelligence reports were correct that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (some were found, but not the hoards that the media expected) or Saddam Hussein was looking to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger (and Joe Wilson's own report claiming that he found no evidence of the attempted deal actually increased non-USA intelligence estimates that Hussein actually was seeking uranium) or that oil was in danger of being globally destabilized (though how you call a resource in the hands of Iran and Venezuela "stable" is beyond me) the votes were in from a huge coalition (larger than World War II) as well as massive numbers here in the USA (especially in Congress) and we had to act.
Just how does one plan to help a country become stable after a war? I would love to hear more about how it was done after World War II. Germany and Japan are amazing countries well worth extolling for where they are today.
First and foremost, in my humble opinion, the problem today is with the immediacy of media and their vapid, rapid need for higher ratings through controversy. In the aftermath of WWII there were journalists, and doubtless on the scene in Germany and Japan, but their ability to affect public opinion with sensational headlines was diminished by the technology of the day. Not to mention there was a Democrat in office during and immediately after the war. Not a modern day Democrat, thank God, but a Democrat nevertheless.
As a result I believe we were forced to appear too nice, too hands off, and there was a powerful microscope watching our every move lest we attempt to turn Iraq into a little mini-USA, or puppet state. Due to this public sentiment, we attempted to turn too much over to the Iraqis too fast. The accusation that we were occupiers was everywhere. Well, we occupied Germany and Japan, and last I checked they were doing pretty well, were very independent of the United States, and certainly did not do whatever the White House told them. Yes, we might have had to control the country for a year or two, and we might have had to appoint people to certain positions, and we might have had to make stronger recommendations about what should and should not be included in their constitution, but the result would have been a stable Iraq faster and more reliably than we have seen.
In short, the Bush Administration was told not to have a plan for the peace, because it could have only been a Puppet Plan, and then was accused for not having a plan when the people of Iraq didn't magically fall into place and create a beautiful, sparkling, model democracy overnight.
Where did peace happen, and quickly? Where there was martial law, or military control over areas. Those places have been handed over more quickly, and with better results, than the places that were told we couldn't help them set up their politics.
Well duh. Maybe it was a little much to ask people who had been oppressed by their leadership for decades to suddenly become elder statesmen. They needed guidance, they still need help, and we're going to be there longer because we "didn't do it right the first time". Why didn't we? Because the decisions would have been unpopular with the people who (politically) needed us to fail.
Will Iraq become a peaceful democracy, or at least a country that isn't hell bent on our destruction? I can't say. I believe so, and I believe we're seeing great progress over there. I do believe the human spirit yearns to be free, to make its own choices, to succeed on its own merits. It may be a bumpy road, but let's face the ultimate fact, people: while we like to believe (and I do) that God created everyone with equal value, not everyone's path is, or challenges are, the same.
The fact is, this is the only place where politics can debate on Iraq, because we have gone there and our military was not going to lose that fight. The argument about whether or not we should have gone happened, and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress. Twice, and then several times again. The numbers are staggering that suggest, not only here in the USA but around the world, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with.
Even the latest chicanery by political detractors in an attempt to wildly distort Alan Greenspan's words actually highlights the fact that Hussein was a global disaster actively trying to happen. When people claim he said the Iraq war was for oil, what he was saying was that he advised the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with in order to secure the world's oil supplies or there would be worldwide economic meltdown. So he wasn't saying the war was for oil, but he was certainly making a case that it could be, and that he would have supported it.
So the accusation today (because detractors are fast running out of enemy ground upon which to stand) is that the Bush Administration rushed to war without a plan for securing the victory. That we won military objectives in no time but managed to create a political and social vacuum in which atrocities and terrorism spread. Whether or not we are making some progress now and whether or not Iraq becomes a peaceful, supportive democracy in the future (hopefully near) is beside the point.
The "elephant in the room" (a phrase I happen to love now, despite my general dislike of clichés) is that we had to go in there, and we had to act fast. Whether or not the intelligence reports were correct that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (some were found, but not the hoards that the media expected) or Saddam Hussein was looking to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger (and Joe Wilson's own report claiming that he found no evidence of the attempted deal actually increased non-USA intelligence estimates that Hussein actually was seeking uranium) or that oil was in danger of being globally destabilized (though how you call a resource in the hands of Iran and Venezuela "stable" is beyond me) the votes were in from a huge coalition (larger than World War II) as well as massive numbers here in the USA (especially in Congress) and we had to act.
Just how does one plan to help a country become stable after a war? I would love to hear more about how it was done after World War II. Germany and Japan are amazing countries well worth extolling for where they are today.
First and foremost, in my humble opinion, the problem today is with the immediacy of media and their vapid, rapid need for higher ratings through controversy. In the aftermath of WWII there were journalists, and doubtless on the scene in Germany and Japan, but their ability to affect public opinion with sensational headlines was diminished by the technology of the day. Not to mention there was a Democrat in office during and immediately after the war. Not a modern day Democrat, thank God, but a Democrat nevertheless.
As a result I believe we were forced to appear too nice, too hands off, and there was a powerful microscope watching our every move lest we attempt to turn Iraq into a little mini-USA, or puppet state. Due to this public sentiment, we attempted to turn too much over to the Iraqis too fast. The accusation that we were occupiers was everywhere. Well, we occupied Germany and Japan, and last I checked they were doing pretty well, were very independent of the United States, and certainly did not do whatever the White House told them. Yes, we might have had to control the country for a year or two, and we might have had to appoint people to certain positions, and we might have had to make stronger recommendations about what should and should not be included in their constitution, but the result would have been a stable Iraq faster and more reliably than we have seen.
In short, the Bush Administration was told not to have a plan for the peace, because it could have only been a Puppet Plan, and then was accused for not having a plan when the people of Iraq didn't magically fall into place and create a beautiful, sparkling, model democracy overnight.
Where did peace happen, and quickly? Where there was martial law, or military control over areas. Those places have been handed over more quickly, and with better results, than the places that were told we couldn't help them set up their politics.
Well duh. Maybe it was a little much to ask people who had been oppressed by their leadership for decades to suddenly become elder statesmen. They needed guidance, they still need help, and we're going to be there longer because we "didn't do it right the first time". Why didn't we? Because the decisions would have been unpopular with the people who (politically) needed us to fail.
Will Iraq become a peaceful democracy, or at least a country that isn't hell bent on our destruction? I can't say. I believe so, and I believe we're seeing great progress over there. I do believe the human spirit yearns to be free, to make its own choices, to succeed on its own merits. It may be a bumpy road, but let's face the ultimate fact, people: while we like to believe (and I do) that God created everyone with equal value, not everyone's path is, or challenges are, the same.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Frogs and Voters
There was an assertion made, when I was in high school (I don't know what the official label is now, but most people still know what high school means), that a frog does not notice water is getting dangerously hot if it is heated slowly. Apparently, my grizzly friends assured me, the frog couldn't tell the water was too hot until it died, boiled to death (though this implies that it can tell after it dies, but let's not get into grammar, this was a biology lesson - another reason I'm glad I never took biology). Just what the point of the biology lesson was supposed to be (if it was indeed factual and not an urban legend dreamed up by kids sleeping in boring biology classes) I couldn't tell you, but I am glad I heard it. The principle applies so well in other parts of life.
As a side note, I must confess I believe most of my teachers would be shocked and dismayed that I was able to take practical, conservative value lessons out of a grizzly biological lesson that no doubt is part of the underlaying Hollywood assertion that they can make movies based on nothing but disgusting gore "because that's what we want".
So, what is this wholesome goodness that comes from such an icky concept?
The idea was that a frog's natural instincts were to avoid other dangers. They could see motion and jump away from it. They could feel direct or sharp pain and try to avoid or evade it. They had survival instincts and could live in water or near it (probably better than we can). But if you came up on them slowly, if you increased the danger a step at a time, they were incapable of recognizing their peril until it was too late. Patience and small steps won the day (at least if you wanted boiled frogs-legs for dinner)
It seems to me our politicians (and I will not spare any other country, though I am speaking mostly of my own - the United States of America) have figured the basics of this principle out. They had been, for ages, able to simply strong-arm us into whatever agenda they wanted to push. Unfortunately, the more success they had in pushing their agenda, the easier it was to see not only what that agenda was, but the horrible, misguided effects of that agenda could be, and furthermore that most of us did not want those agendas or their effects.
To wit, the politician's new tack is to ratchet up the heat slowly. Some might argue (and I hope they are right) that politicians are reduced to no other power - that we have successfully disarmed them from major movements (by proving that they are, actually, held accountable - at least enough of them that the rest can't accomplish their radical agendas) and therefore all they have left are smaller movements.
I may have a more jaded, cynical point of view when it comes to politicians - particularly those whose opinions and agendas are so far removed from the average American. I think they've just come to realize that we won't go for sweeping, massive liberal changes any more. Yes, liberalism used to be the core of American freedom and conservatism was associated with monarchy, theocracy, and other totalitarian concepts. The reversal has been stunning and complete.
Another side note: I believe this is why they cling so desperately to abortion, it is the last issue upon which they can rest any claim to offering choice, even if it is a horrible one.
Anyway, it takes some sharp eyes and connect-the-dots mentality now (sometimes leading down the dark, frightening road of conspiracy theories, and I am not guiltless there) in order to uncover the true agendas behind seeming innocuous legislation, rulings, or actions. You have to think several steps ahead - to when the water is uncomfortably hot or even scalding as opposed to hot-tub warm - to see the ghastly effects of these agendas.
Their outright stated concepts are boiling water. Their hidden double-speak is the slow raising of temperature. Be careful that you're an informed voter and not a frog.
As a side note, I must confess I believe most of my teachers would be shocked and dismayed that I was able to take practical, conservative value lessons out of a grizzly biological lesson that no doubt is part of the underlaying Hollywood assertion that they can make movies based on nothing but disgusting gore "because that's what we want".
So, what is this wholesome goodness that comes from such an icky concept?
The idea was that a frog's natural instincts were to avoid other dangers. They could see motion and jump away from it. They could feel direct or sharp pain and try to avoid or evade it. They had survival instincts and could live in water or near it (probably better than we can). But if you came up on them slowly, if you increased the danger a step at a time, they were incapable of recognizing their peril until it was too late. Patience and small steps won the day (at least if you wanted boiled frogs-legs for dinner)
It seems to me our politicians (and I will not spare any other country, though I am speaking mostly of my own - the United States of America) have figured the basics of this principle out. They had been, for ages, able to simply strong-arm us into whatever agenda they wanted to push. Unfortunately, the more success they had in pushing their agenda, the easier it was to see not only what that agenda was, but the horrible, misguided effects of that agenda could be, and furthermore that most of us did not want those agendas or their effects.
To wit, the politician's new tack is to ratchet up the heat slowly. Some might argue (and I hope they are right) that politicians are reduced to no other power - that we have successfully disarmed them from major movements (by proving that they are, actually, held accountable - at least enough of them that the rest can't accomplish their radical agendas) and therefore all they have left are smaller movements.
I may have a more jaded, cynical point of view when it comes to politicians - particularly those whose opinions and agendas are so far removed from the average American. I think they've just come to realize that we won't go for sweeping, massive liberal changes any more. Yes, liberalism used to be the core of American freedom and conservatism was associated with monarchy, theocracy, and other totalitarian concepts. The reversal has been stunning and complete.
Another side note: I believe this is why they cling so desperately to abortion, it is the last issue upon which they can rest any claim to offering choice, even if it is a horrible one.
Anyway, it takes some sharp eyes and connect-the-dots mentality now (sometimes leading down the dark, frightening road of conspiracy theories, and I am not guiltless there) in order to uncover the true agendas behind seeming innocuous legislation, rulings, or actions. You have to think several steps ahead - to when the water is uncomfortably hot or even scalding as opposed to hot-tub warm - to see the ghastly effects of these agendas.
Their outright stated concepts are boiling water. Their hidden double-speak is the slow raising of temperature. Be careful that you're an informed voter and not a frog.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Holy War over Schools
I have been hearing a lot about possible terrorist attacks on children, using our school system. The general idea is that Muslim extremists wish to cause a holy war because "their side" is not fired up enough, they don't have the support they need in order to win against the infidels. Their concept is to do something so horrific that the people of the United States will over-react, causing such division between Muslims and Infidels that they cannot avoid a world-wide holy war.
What is this horrific act? Apparently it has to do with hijacking and/or blowing up school busses packed with children, taking over elementary-level schools and doing the worst things you can imagine to the boys and girls before killing them, and even blowing up entire schools or releasing poisons or chemicals near the hijacked schools because people will "come to watch" and will be added to the death toll.
If this is not just a crackpot conspiracy theory, then the Muslim extremists are quite right: much of America will go completely animal. The extremists aren't actually targeting the young boys and girls who will be direct victims of brutality we would like to think doesn't exist in the world. They're targeting moderate Muslims. They're targeting those of Islam who actually believe it is a religion of peace. Those on the fence who are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians, but who won't come out and condemn these acts. They want enough of those Muslims killed by wound-up Christians (not to mention atheists) that the rest of the moderates will join the holy war for their own protection. They aren't counting how many American children need to be raped and killed, they're counting how many Muslims need to be beaten to death by vigilante parents.
This scenario, again if it isn't just total mind-blanking fear tactics (and let me tell you I am afraid due to some things I will outline below), has three possible outcomes, two likely and one unlikely. The unlikely outcome is that infidels will cave in, implode and Islam takes over the world. The likely outcomes are not so good for the Islamic Extremists.
Outcome One: the lesser of two evils. I call this the lesser of two evils because in order for this to happen, the Extremists must have actually carried out such an unthinkable horror that nothing associated with it can actually be called "good". In this lesser of two evils case, the terrorist-extremists have finally crossed a line which the rest of us believe they crossed long ago: they so alienate their own Muslims that they lose all support and are hunted down by Muslims who see the possibility of Outcome Two. I admit I do not have much of an opinion of "moderate" Muslims. They should have spoken up long before now. They are either living in fear, which should make them question their own faith, or they are secretly supporters of these terrorists, which makes them extremists in sheep's clothing.
Outcome Two: they get the holy war they want. This will not go well for them. The world has a mistaken impression of the United States. Beyond that, Muslim Extremists have a mistaken impression of the non-Muslim world outside the United States. If there were one way to unleash, to actually remove all restrictions and inhibitions this country has against retaliation, it would be to attack our children. Not just attack them, but abuse them in the most horrifying ways first. The result would be genocide. And it would not be the elimination of the Christian faith. Mecca would be 20,000 degrees for 56 years. Medina? Gone. Islam would be eradicated from the world. If they actually succeed in igniting a holy war, it will be their complete and total end. Nobody but their own deluded selves could possibly believe they could win that war. Some of them are, actually, seeking the "end of the world". I do not believe they would get it, but I do believe an entire religion would be completely and violently erased from the face of the earth.
Please, Muslims, please wake up. Please pay attention to what is being done in the name of your religion. Yes, there were horrible things done in the name of Christianity, and there are places in the world where that is still a battle cry. There is a major difference: Christian nations and peoples denounce and work actively against those horrible religious crimes, and we shook off the dark ages. Please, please shake off your dark ages. Please wake up. It was hard, bloody, and often called for martyrs and sacrifices, but we managed to do it. Please, don't drive us down the path to Option Two.
Why am I actually afraid about this?
The Innocuous Beginning: "Foreign Nationals" (is that an oxymoron?) getting involved in bussing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html
An alarmingly written article telling us not to worry while stating it is a threat
http://www.safehavensinternational.org/SchoolBusTerrorism.php
School busses and school bus radios stolen - but don't worry, the drivers are being trained to watch out for suspicious behavior
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2007/08/27/school-bus-thefts-concern-houston-authorities/
And this one is the Mac Daddy of the concept:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_id=54975
Think about yourself. If you got a call saying your child's bus or entire school had been taken over, the children had been raped and brutally murdered by men proudly proclaiming to be middle-eastern terrorists, all of whom were Muslim, what would your reaction be? How about if you only heard that the bus had been taken over - how would you react as you were forced to pay attention to the story? I suspect here in Texas there would be civilians with high-powered rifles trying to snipe the terrorists themselves, then shooting anyone with a tan or scraggly mustache/beard who looked 'Muslim enough'.
I sincerely hope they're not stupid enough to mess with our kids. We might kill atheists/Christians simply for opposing retaliation. The world would find out we're not 'bullies', we can be enraged bulls when our children are in danger.
What is this horrific act? Apparently it has to do with hijacking and/or blowing up school busses packed with children, taking over elementary-level schools and doing the worst things you can imagine to the boys and girls before killing them, and even blowing up entire schools or releasing poisons or chemicals near the hijacked schools because people will "come to watch" and will be added to the death toll.
If this is not just a crackpot conspiracy theory, then the Muslim extremists are quite right: much of America will go completely animal. The extremists aren't actually targeting the young boys and girls who will be direct victims of brutality we would like to think doesn't exist in the world. They're targeting moderate Muslims. They're targeting those of Islam who actually believe it is a religion of peace. Those on the fence who are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians, but who won't come out and condemn these acts. They want enough of those Muslims killed by wound-up Christians (not to mention atheists) that the rest of the moderates will join the holy war for their own protection. They aren't counting how many American children need to be raped and killed, they're counting how many Muslims need to be beaten to death by vigilante parents.
This scenario, again if it isn't just total mind-blanking fear tactics (and let me tell you I am afraid due to some things I will outline below), has three possible outcomes, two likely and one unlikely. The unlikely outcome is that infidels will cave in, implode and Islam takes over the world. The likely outcomes are not so good for the Islamic Extremists.
Outcome One: the lesser of two evils. I call this the lesser of two evils because in order for this to happen, the Extremists must have actually carried out such an unthinkable horror that nothing associated with it can actually be called "good". In this lesser of two evils case, the terrorist-extremists have finally crossed a line which the rest of us believe they crossed long ago: they so alienate their own Muslims that they lose all support and are hunted down by Muslims who see the possibility of Outcome Two. I admit I do not have much of an opinion of "moderate" Muslims. They should have spoken up long before now. They are either living in fear, which should make them question their own faith, or they are secretly supporters of these terrorists, which makes them extremists in sheep's clothing.
Outcome Two: they get the holy war they want. This will not go well for them. The world has a mistaken impression of the United States. Beyond that, Muslim Extremists have a mistaken impression of the non-Muslim world outside the United States. If there were one way to unleash, to actually remove all restrictions and inhibitions this country has against retaliation, it would be to attack our children. Not just attack them, but abuse them in the most horrifying ways first. The result would be genocide. And it would not be the elimination of the Christian faith. Mecca would be 20,000 degrees for 56 years. Medina? Gone. Islam would be eradicated from the world. If they actually succeed in igniting a holy war, it will be their complete and total end. Nobody but their own deluded selves could possibly believe they could win that war. Some of them are, actually, seeking the "end of the world". I do not believe they would get it, but I do believe an entire religion would be completely and violently erased from the face of the earth.
Please, Muslims, please wake up. Please pay attention to what is being done in the name of your religion. Yes, there were horrible things done in the name of Christianity, and there are places in the world where that is still a battle cry. There is a major difference: Christian nations and peoples denounce and work actively against those horrible religious crimes, and we shook off the dark ages. Please, please shake off your dark ages. Please wake up. It was hard, bloody, and often called for martyrs and sacrifices, but we managed to do it. Please, don't drive us down the path to Option Two.
Why am I actually afraid about this?
The Innocuous Beginning: "Foreign Nationals" (is that an oxymoron?) getting involved in bussing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html
An alarmingly written article telling us not to worry while stating it is a threat
http://www.safehavensinternational.org/SchoolBusTerrorism.php
School busses and school bus radios stolen - but don't worry, the drivers are being trained to watch out for suspicious behavior
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2007/08/27/school-bus-thefts-concern-houston-authorities/
And this one is the Mac Daddy of the concept:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_id=54975
Think about yourself. If you got a call saying your child's bus or entire school had been taken over, the children had been raped and brutally murdered by men proudly proclaiming to be middle-eastern terrorists, all of whom were Muslim, what would your reaction be? How about if you only heard that the bus had been taken over - how would you react as you were forced to pay attention to the story? I suspect here in Texas there would be civilians with high-powered rifles trying to snipe the terrorists themselves, then shooting anyone with a tan or scraggly mustache/beard who looked 'Muslim enough'.
I sincerely hope they're not stupid enough to mess with our kids. We might kill atheists/Christians simply for opposing retaliation. The world would find out we're not 'bullies', we can be enraged bulls when our children are in danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)