If Kronicaly Bad Speling and excessive use of italiks bothers you, prepare to be bothered.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Bad ideas in the Terror War

One of the problems with war is that you are usually obliged to form ranks with nations or idealogies that are incompatible with your own. We fought WW2 allied to a butcher every bit as heinous as Hitler who was actively sowing our government and society with spies and propagandists. We spent the next 50 years trying to correct the repurcussions.

Many serious thinkers have come to the conclusion that unless moderate Islam comes out full tilt against violence and extremism, the war cannot be won no matter what we do. That may be true. The problem is that 'moderate' Arabs tend to two groups: fascists such as the Sauds and Mubareks, and communist trans-nationalists.

This article (via Andrew Sullivan guest blogger Judith Apter Klinghoffer) gives us an insight into the price the 'moderates' are essentially demanding.

For example, in February 2005, a group of reformists submitted to the U.N. a request that it establish an international court to judge Muslim clerics who incite to violence and bloodshed. The request was examined by the U.N. legal counsel and distributed to the U.N. Security Council.

Cloaked in the veil of reasonableness is a pretty scary precident. This is a suggestion, currently under consideration, to establish a supernational court whos soul purpose is to monitor (and assumedly punish) speech. Now Muslim hate speech is certainly something we need to address, but to anyone who knows anything about the UN its pretty obvious that the real violence inciting hate will be the last thing they concentrate on. There is zero doubt in my mind that just like the International Criminal Court, this court will quickly morph into typical 'get America' mode.

First of all there is no way this court will be confined to Muslim hate speech. That simply runs counter to every politically correct leaning of the transnationalists that infest the UN. They would elect Saddam Hussein the next UN Secretary before encoding (or even recognizing) the fact one cultures extremism is more deadly than another. No. This will be an open ended pervue that will ecompass anything the unelected court considers Hate Speech.

At the end of the day, what does this mean? There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that such a Court would look to circumvent our American 1st Amendment rights (doubtlessly aided by extremist American judges looking to conform to International Law over the Constitutional protections they are sworn to uphold) and try to bring down those they really consider threats: Evangelical Christians, Jews and other Israel supporters, and certainly neocons and other hawks.

Congressman Tancredo would be a perfect target for a court like this. Undoubtedly while claiming to be 'even handed', the transnationalists will spend the resources of this court to silence those who are actually fighting the War on Terror politically. Have no doubt about it, this is a trojan horse.


  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said…

    Right on the money! Let’s remember that the UN was bashing Israel and the United States for being the world’s biggest racists – in Durban, South Africa, just one week before 9/11. We would certainly be called the nation of hate – Islamophobia – and equated with the errand clerics.

    It’s just like the moral equivalence between collateral damage and terrorists targeting civilians in non-war zones.

    We have to fight hate speech with good speech just as we did in the past. In the Cold War we didn't jail those who professed to be communists on those grounds alone. We refuted and condemned communism but we didn't outlaw it's publication or expression. Social sanction was high but legal penalties were not. That's the way hate and vicious ideas need to be fought.

    Keep it in the open and expose it!

  • At 2:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Enjoyed a lot! » » »


Post a Comment

<< Home