Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Ben Shapiro :: Townhall.com Columnist
"The terrorists have won"
by Ben Shapiro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


In the current war on Islamofascism, no platitude is nearly as ridiculous as the constant harangue that "if we do X, then the terrorists have won." X can be virtually anything. If you're a conservative, the terrorists have won if we don't fine CBS for showing Janet Jackson's boob during the Super Bowl. If you're a liberal, the terrorists have won if we don't enshrine partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage in the pantheon of vital American liberties. If you're a libertarian, the terrorists have won if we continue to prosecute pot smokers or pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If you're Ralph Nader, the terrorists have won if we continue to not vote for you.

It is breathtaking to learn just how wide-ranging the Islamofascist agenda is:

The terrorists have won if the Transportation Security Administration begins searching luggage for toothpaste, said William F. Buckley.

If we ethnically profile travelers, the terrorists will have won, warned former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

The ratification of the Patriot Act means that the terrorists have already won, explained Howard Dean.

If the October 2001 Academy Awards did not go forward as planned, the terrorists would have won, averred Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences then-President Frank Pierson.

If Congress tightens the border between the United States and Canada, the terrorists will have won, stated Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

If Samuel Alito is appointed to the Supreme Court, the terrorists will win, implied Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT).

If we stop going to the ballgame or hanging out or going downtown for dinner, the terrorists win, said Juan Williams of NPR.

If Margaret Cho can't be as horrible and offensive as humanly possible, the terrorists will have won, stated Margaret Cho.

Apparently, Islamofascist terrorists have been praying ardently for the day Americans could no longer pack their Crest Tartar Protection; terrorists pop the cork each time a potential Muslim terrorist is profiled at the airport; terrorists wear little party hats and do the Macarena when their phone calls are monitored; terrorists shout "Allahu Akhbar" when Hollywood celebrities cannot fete each other; terrorists applaud thunderously when Canadians can no longer drive across the American border without their passports; terrorists squeal with glee when a Ruth Bader Ginsburg clone joins the federal bench; and terrorists are hockey and Margaret Cho fans.

This is all very, very stupid.

Terrorists are quite clear about what they consider victory: conversion of all non-believers to Islam and the subjection of the entire world to sharia law. When Palestinian Arab Islamofascists kidnapped Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, they did not ask them to cancel the Oscars, stump for the Supreme Court appointment of Richard Paez or get them tickets to the Laugh Factory. They forced them to convert to Islam at gunpoint.

This is what Islamofascists do. They aren't shy about their goals. Whatever stops them from achieving those goals is what prevents terrorists from winning. Ethnic profiling helps stop terrorists. Monitoring terrorist phone calls helps stop terrorists. Terrorists aren't all that concerned about gay marriage; they don't win if we pass a Constitutional amendment preventing it.

What about the oft-made argument that if terrorists affect our freedoms, then they have won? Pure sophistry. If our enemies affect our freedoms, they affect our freedoms. We may not like our freedoms being affected. Nonetheless, that has no impact on whether the "terrorists have won." Our enemies do not care whether we allow Robert Mapplethorpe to peddle his tripe on the public dime. They hate us either way.

Only if affecting our freedoms allows our enemies to achieve their actual goals have our enemies won. During WWII, they affected our consumption patterns and civil liberties. We won. During the Vietnam War, they made our counterculture into our mainstream culture. We lost.

If the terrorists achieve global sharia, then they will have won. If they erect a mosque on the ruins of the World Trade Center, then they will have won. They will not stop until they achieve their goals. We must not stop until we have shattered their dreams forever.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
If I have to change...
... the tires on my car, the Terrorists will have won.

But if you drive on ...
... on bald tires the Terrorists will have won.

If you...
....own a car, the terrorists would have won.

If Ed McMahon shows up...
wearing a burka and carrying a large cardboard check....then they've really won!

The terrorists always win, don't they?
There is nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do that the mainstream international media will criticize. That media will excuse, ignore, or even support the worst atrocities and massacres if they are carried out by Moslems, and bitterly condemn anything the West or Israel does to protect itself.

Centanni and Wiig converting brings them
closer to a win.

That both mouthed platitudes brings the monsters closer to a win.

If the silence of retraction continues, it will bring them closer to a win.

habeus corpus
Okay, when the U.S. president and attorney general claim that the president has the authority to incarcerate anyone, U.S. citizen or not, without charges or trial, whom the president as designated an "enemy combatant," it may not mean that "the terrorists have won." But it does mean that the Bill of Rights and our principles of freedom are losing. And most conservatives and virtually all "neoconservatives" think that's just fine.

William F. Buckley
When I read Buckley's column the other day I had almost identical thoughts. Except, I think the terrorists would have won if the U.S. withdrew all troops from the M.E. and withdrew all financial, political, and military support for Israel. That, after all, are their stated goals with regard to the U.S.

If I keep laughing at Jimmy, and BrianR
...the terrorists will have won!

Freedom Wronger...
So, Freedom Writer, you claim then that there are Americans and innocents being held by the US without cause? No, hmmm, well how has it affected anyone for whom the Bill of Rights actually applies? (see, non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens) Aside from that, you overlook the way our system works. Some people (usually lawyers) assert their interpretation of the law, some (also usually lawyers) assert their disagreement. In the end, courts decide who was right. HEY, THE SYSTEM WORKED! The courts decided against the administration's assertions and now they'll either fall in line with the courts' decision or appeal. Don't you just love America? Oops, sorry, I mean don't I just love America....

P.S...
...and if we can't put terrorists in jail, they definitely will have won....

If we
drive SUVs to the store to get bullets used to kill terrorist invaders, they will have won!

Just one question: Other than killing them all, what exactly constututes a loss for the terrorist?

As for WFB, I rarely read his stuff or listen to him talk. That patrician style of his just seems so condescending to me and he seems more of a country clubber than a grassroots conservative.

BTW, check out my blog. I have a couple of new posts up.

What hasn't been pointed out
Since Centanni and Wiig rescinded/rejected their coerced "conversion", I have not yet seen any mention that this makes them even more of a target in the future - because in Islam, to reject the faith after conversion, or to become a Christian (Hindu, Buddist, whatever religion other than Islam) makes you worse than an infidel, and thus worthy of death.

Ah yes, the religion of peace strikes again...

Laura Root

PC gone nuts
"If we ethnically profile travelers, the terrorists will have won, warned former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta."

I submit that if we divert attention away from ME/Asian people or those with Muslim names, the terrorists have scored a small victory, because we'll be diverting resources from those most likely to attack. What group do most US terrorists come from lately? Clue: McVeigh and Rudolph are exceptions.

Racial profiling might not be permissible for pulling people over, but checking access to key infrastructure? You betcha. Terrorists don't Drive While Arab/Black/Asian/whatever. Terrorists bomb planes, trains, and automobiles.

Political correctness started out with a point, but it has descended into near-lunacy.

Flagwaver
"As for WFB, I rarely read his stuff or listen to him talk. That patrician style of his just seems so condescending to me and he seems more of a country clubber than a grassroots conservative."

Extraordinary statement. So you judge a man whom you admit to "rarely" reading or listening to?

I did not log in to Townhall to read insulting dismissals of such a man as William F. Buckley Jr., without whom the Conservative movement would still be in the dark ages.

Having extensively read WFB, I can testify to the man's brilliance, humanity, courage and integrity, which shines through everything he writes. Nor did I appreciate Ben Shapiro's dismissal of a line taken out of context from a WFB column, as "very very stupid."

WFB is great. People criticise the great in order to elevate themselves.
James McGrath

JimmyJoe
I have not in any way judged WFB. I have simply stated that I don't particularly care for his style and tone. His past accomplishments in no way immunize him from legitimate criticism.

And if you don't want to see any 'dismissals' of those you like, or put up with opinions you don't agree with you are in the wrong place. There are going to be times that people that I generally see eye to eye with, like Cynewulf, BrianR, and Celtic-Dragon will not agree with me, or I with them. Then we debate the differences we have in opinion and either come to common ground or agree to disagree. If you want lockstep you may need to look elsewhere!

And if my opinion of WFB got your panties in a bunch, hop over to my blog...just click my name to get there...I have some other things to say that might get you blood pressure up, too!

Oh, and that line about criticising others to elevate ourselves...most times people get criticized because they could be wrong. Don't let your blind allegiance to a man color all your perceptions. While WFB may be great, that does not mean he's always right.

BTW, welcome to Townhall. But if you plan to stay awhile you may need to thicken up you skin, chieftain!

Failure
I have read this article and most of the comments. No one seems to get the point! The Radical Islamics are not finished until there are NO non-Muslims left alive in the world. NONE! No Jews, no Christians, no Budists, no one but Islamics. And then they will kill off the Islamics who don't beleive as they do. This is not a war, this is an extermination. We have to decide who will be the survivors.

the terrorists won?
Dang!

JudoEd - bring the odds down
You're absolutely correct, however, it is not necessary to "exterminate" anybody.

All we need to do is step up intelligence and enforcement efforts to the point where we have fewer (or none) 9/11's and more cases like where the British catch that latest liquid bomb in airplanes plot.

It's like any other type of enforcement. When the odds of getting caught, tried, and imprisoned go up, crime goes down. Criminals don't necessarily "see the light" and become "righteous", they just decide they'd rather stick to their dead-end job where they're not locked up.

Similar with the Islamofascists -- sure, many are willing to blow themselves up for the cause, but most are not. (I think Osama bin Laden was heard laughing and joking about how most of his 9/11 thugs didn't even know it was a suicide mission.) So when the odds of getting nailed for nefarious plots goes up, the number of nefarious plots will go down.

Why bother buying explosives to blow yourself for Allah if you have a 95% chance of getting caught first, and they'll take your bombs away anyway?

We don't need to convert Islam to Christianity, nor "exterminate" anybody, just convince them with words and actions that attempting to kill us is going to be futile.

They can shout and dance and call for jihad all they want, they're not fools. They're not going to try something crazy if we can bring their chances of success down close to zero.

For MikeR
Yah, didn't you get the memo?

Flagwaver
"I have not in any way judged WFB."

You described him as a "country club" conservative and "condescending".... Your denial of "judging" reminds me of Bill Clinton's "never had sexual relations with that woman" and "depends on what is is"....

From there you presume to get on your high horse and preach about the merits of arguing and debating... fine. My objection isNT to your having a "different opinion," but your false -yes - judgement of someone you DONT "read or listen to." An unnecessary comment.

As for your invitation to your blog, I'll give it a pass, based on what you have written so far, and the style in which it is written. You misjudge me by presuming I have "blind faith" in a man because I defend his good name from fallacious criticism.

You conclude by suggesting I need to "thicken my skin". Because I didnt like what you wrote and said so? Jez.

Your style in referring to my "panties" - to me as "chieftain" - and thinking a post like yours could in any way effect my "blood pressure," is simply rude, overfamiliar, and has nothing to do with any "argument."

How to improve? Let's see. Perhaps... no... yes. I have a solution. Why not join a "country club", perhaps the one that WFB presumably frequents, and learn something of the basics of good manners, and respectful disagreement.
Most sincerely yours,
James McGrath

Flagwaver.. one other thing.
>"Oh, and that line about criticising others to elevate ourselves...most times people get criticized because they could be wrong."<

Nonsense. Any great leader, or person of principle will encounter enormous criticism, and character assassination. Where do you think all the criticism of Ronald Reagan, and his supposed lack of intelligence comes from? Or the criticism of most conservative positions, in main stream media? Because "they could be wrong"??

Fact is that it is almost impossible to take any principled stand on any issue, and not encounter criticism. The last Pope, John Paul II, encountered vast quantities of criticism for being too "conservative" - ie, upholding the values of Catholicism, which by definition, was his job.

I wont put President Bush in that category, but do you think that the villification of his good name over the past number of years was justified? "Bush lied thousands died"????

>"While WFB may be great, that does not mean he's always right."<

Well duh! Finally we agree on something. Of course, I never said/implied/suggested he was "always right." So lets agree on the "great" bit.

It's a JOKE, for crying out loud!
Humor is the best way to deal with stress, so if folks want to try to make a joke out of the phrase, "...then the terrorists have won," let 'em.

The Lampoon notwithstanding, Harvard must drain the sense of humor out of its students.

flagwaver
you state:

"Just one question: Other than killing them all, what exactly constututes a loss for the terrorist?"

Actually, if we kill them all they will have won.

Terrorists and Gay Marraige
You truncated one of your paragraphs ...

"Terrorists aren't all that concerned about gay marriage; they don't win if we pass a Constitutional amendment preventing it." But if they do win, I'm sure that they would take more drastic measures against it.

hogrider
Sounds to me like you've got a plan, how about we make them all winners.

Amen!
"...But it does mean that the Bill of Rights and our principles of freedom are losing. And most conservatives and virtually all "neoconservatives" think that's just fine."

Preach it! You can overturn the Bill of Rights when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

On the plus side, in our history every temporary suppression of rights has resulted in more rights later. The Revolution and Civil War are just two examples.

The Terrorists have won . . .
. . .when American cities are reduced to smoking ruins with millions of US citizens dead or dying.
You know, just like what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II.

The "terrorists" convert people to Islam at gunpoint? I wish Steve and Olaf had turned to the cameras immediately after their release and both stuck their middle fingers in the air, saying, "Here's our relgious conversion, a--holes!"

(I know, the article was tongue-in-cheek to a degree, but we're talking Islamofascism goals here, not "what are your goals when you graduate?")

Gaaaack!
If JimmyJoe and Flagwaver don't stop arguing about WFB . . .

Wingo
That "argument" seems to have ended at 3.44. Your post is at 9.02.... dare I say five hours later? I really dont get your point. Except to say it was more than "just" an argument over WFB...

Sorry
I was busy with other things earlier. Just got around to the column.

How about this one -

If Mike Adams' next column is about homosexuals. . .


JimmyJoe (and wingo)
What in the world has your hackles up? I do not have to like WFB or Pat Buchanan or anyone else. But you are right, I have judged WFB to be IMO a country club republican. I also think that his isolationist stance is wrongheaded in a world that is increasingly interconnected.

The 'panties in a bunch' comment was not in any way a personal attack on you, it is simply an expression used to convey the idea that someone is upset all out of proportion to the situation at hand...as you seem to be on this.

Further, I stated that I rarely read his columns, etc. because I don't like his style and he seems to be a bit condescending; I never said that I never read him or listen to him. My opinion of him is my opinion, you don't have to agree. That's fine, but don't come at me with this idea that WFB is all knowing, all seeing, and the only conservative worth listening to. It is obvious that he was a driving force in keeping the conservative movement alive, but he wasn't in that foxhole alone. Phyllis Schlafly was right there fighting the good fight as well, and I much prefer her writing style to WFB, as it is IMO much less verbose than WFB's, and is more readable.

As for criticism of the great man, it is open season on him just like it is on everyone else. Please don't go into conniptions if your ox gets gored here, because at some time or other everyone gets it. That's the whole point of this type of forum, for everyone to give their opinions on issues and the people that frame the issues. This is the free marketplace of ideas and no none is immune from criticism, even the great WFB.

As for my manners, I simply reacted to your post the way you seemed to react to mine. When I deigned to say something negative about almighty WFB, you reacted like I slapped your mother. You went off on this riff, "I did not log on to Townhall to read dismissals of a man such as Wlliam F. Buckley Jr..." You seemed to take my mild criticism of WFB very personally and IMO reacted very defensively.

I try to treat the other members and posters here with respect whether I agree with them or not. If by calling you chieftain I upset you, or you felt disrespected, then mea culpa. I did not mean to offend you, but I did mean to disagree with you. So I will gladly apologize for any disrespect you felt, but I will not apologize for my opinions about WFB. I think of him what I think of him and we will simply have to have divergent opinions of him.

With that I now end my discussion about this topic, much to the apparent delight of Wingo.

BTW, you are still welcome to visit the blog if you ever change your mind. All visitors are welcome and all comments are appreciated.

JimmyJoe,
Re: Flagwaver's judgement

I went back and read Flag's original post. In it, he uses the word "seems" twice. The use of this word implies that he's admitting that he could be wrong, but that this is the impression he gets. What would have been nice, would have been for you to disavow him of that notion by presenting a case as to why WFB is not condescending nor a country clubber. That was what you had the issue with. Instead you said that you didn't want to hear dismissals of great people on Townhall. Flag responded to that. Do you see how the argument got off on the wrong foot from the get-go? I'd be interested to see how you would defend WFB. You seem to be an avid reader and would know quite a bit about him and could share some of that with the rest of us. Or we could talk about "The Terrorists Have Won."

Brian, Jimmy,
I'm thinking every time I fill said car up with petrol the terrorists have won.

Flagwaver
"What in the world has your hackles up?"

Nothing. Again making a false assumption about my "hackles".

"I do not have to like WFB or Pat Buchanan or anyone else. But you are right, I have judged WFB to be IMO a country club republican. I also think that his isolationist stance is wrongheaded in a world that is increasingly interconnected."

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my original and main point. And as I concluded in my last post, I never "said/implied/suggested he was "always right."

With all due respect, you simply go on to repeat the sermon you have previously posted about arguing/debating, whatever, to which points I have already responded. But let's take an example.

"When I deigned to say something negative about almighty WFB, you reacted like I slapped your mother."

And what was that response? You continue by quoting me directly:

"You went off on this riff, "I did not log on to Townhall to read dismissals of a man such as Wlliam F. Buckley Jr..."

This is a MILD response, is NOT how I would respond if you "had slapped my mother." No Sir. I would beat you to within an inch of your life, before despatching you to a better world.

If this is how you "treat other members with respect," then your non-apology for "offense felt" means exactly that. Nothing. No big thing, either way. Just cool it.

Apologies to Wingo, but I couldnt let this one slide.

Cynewulf: As I pointed out to Wingo a number of posts up, it wasnt "just" about WFB.... As for my "defending" him, with all due respect, I see no reason why I should have to on Townhall. Partly for the very reason that he speaks for himself on that very forum, and partly because it is the last place I would expect I should have to "defend" him.






Victory
I, too, am sick of the hair-on-fire claims that the terrorists have won.

The terrorists will not truely win as long as we have the will to fight. Nor will the terrorists ever admit defeat.

According to their faith, they are fighting a win-win battle. They kill or subjugate the infidels, they win. They die fighting against the infidels, they win. As an avowed infidel, the latter sounds like the only reasonable choice.

I was wrong
The WFB debate continues.

The terrorists have won.

ROFL
I posted my comment before I left the house at 8 AM for work. I just got back, and you guys are great! I was laughing out loud at some of the great comments.

Who says conservatives don't have a sense of humor?

Though I am scared of Ed McMahon showing up in a burqua.

BTW, IMO, Cyne, Flag, and Celt all have great blogs; you should check them out. I have them all on my Blog Roll.

"Dizzy" Dean

Gol-LEE, "Dizzy" Dean, don't you listen to your own president? He has claimed, and his attorney general claimed for him, that he has the right to detain anyone , INCLUIDNG AMERICAN CITIZENS without charges if the president has designated that individual an "enemy combatant." And that doesn't bother you?

And are you really quite so sure that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens? It doesn't say that. It makes no mention of citizens or citizenship. It says, among other things, that "no person" shall be denied "life liberty or property without due process of law."

Sometimes it helps to read the text. But then I'm afraid not many conservatives today, especially those of the Bush-worshiping neo-nuthouse variety, bother to read the Constitution they claim to revere.

JimmyJoe,
"As I pointed out to Wingo a number of posts up, it wasnt "just" about WFB.... As for my "defending" him, with all due respect, I see no reason why I should have to on Townhall. Partly for the very reason that he speaks for himself on that very forum, and partly because it is the last place I would expect I should have to "defend" him."

I hear you. We do a lot of defending on these boards (hordes of lefties out their; well Phly seems like a horde sometimes), but their isn't a columnist here we won't defend one day and then criticize the next if we disagree with them.

JimmyJoe (and wingo)
How about we call a cease-fire on the whole Buckley thing? I have a feeling that we probably agree on more issues than we disagree on, just not on this one. We don't have to see eye to eye on every issue, and since we as conservatives believe in thinking for ourselves, we can surely agree that we don't need to be in lockstep on every issue that comes down the pike. Lets just agree to disagree on WFB, okay?

And since you hold WFB in such high regard feel free to explain to me why you feel the way you do about his place in the conservative movement as my mind is not closed on the matter. Maybe you can change my mind about him, and maybe you can't. But it profits us nothing to go around and around about it all night.

As for my apologies, you can take them or leave them...it's your choice. I have apologized to you for any disrespect you may have felt and I'll leave it at that.

And Wingo, I promise that this is the last you'll hear from me about WFB on this thread.For the life of me I just don't know how it got to be this involved.

Ok, JimmyJoe,
My post should have read:

I hear you. We do a lot of defending on these boards (hordes of lefties out there; well Phylo seems like a horde sometimes), but there isn't a columnist here we won't defend one day and then criticize the next if we disagree with them.

D@mn gremlins.

Cynewulf and Flagwaver
Cynewulf:
Fair enough. But you seem to have missed the point of issue. I have no issue with your "criticising" ANYone.. even he-whose-name-I-will-not-mention from here on in! My difficulty is in HOW that criticism may be expressed.

Flagwaver:
If you judged that my "hackles" were somehow "raised", then the LAST thing you should said was something as insensitive as "slapping my mother." What image does THAT bring to mind, even though it is obvious you didnt literally mean what you said?

For that and that alone, should you apologise. Not for any "offense I MAY have felt", (the previously referred-to "non-apology") but for offense actually CAUSED. Or dont apologise at ALL. Accept responsibility for going too far in the heat of the moment. No big thing.

As for he-whose-name I-cannot-mention. I do agree that we get nowhere going around and around all night. And I will try to explain, KNOWING that you need not accept my explanation, nor agree with the sentiments expressed.

But let me take an example from the last column he wrote here.

"Dr. King did not live to see the day, five years later, when the United States pulled out from Vietnam the last of our flags. That was in 1973. And he did not live to see the day, two years later, when Saigon fell and the communist victors killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and forced more than 1.5 million into re-education camps, causing 2 million others to flee Vietnam."

In three superb sentences, he turns the "percieved morality" of America's involvement in Vietnam on its head. Silences the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of this world, and their cheap and easy moralising. And this is from a man who opposed American involvement in the gulf.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but that first sentence is a perfect sentence - deliberate, slow, moving, and stylized and from another age. Surely we "conservatives" can appreciate that.
And the third follows like a giant gas-guzzling V8, driving home the point so there is nothing further to say.

In the sense of pure craftsmanship, he is a superb wordsmith, and has a sure touch on issues of morality. I accept that style is something on which people may validly differ. But do we have to be "in your face" ALL the time? He is a breath of fresh air in this latter respect.







William F Buckley
... says the terrorists have one.

Freedom Wronger...
Again Freedom Butthead, you miss the point. I did enjoy the typical tack of calling people you don't agree with stupid, how original. First of all, if those american citizens are combatants in a foreign land against america, then I don't give a sh*t about them. What do you think, that GWB is just going to start throwing americans in jail? If so, why hasn't he? The only people they have in custody in this fashion are terrorists, period, and none of them americans. Even that piece of crap Massoui got due process, so spare me the ACLU line of garbage.

If americans are killed over the namby-pamby details you mention, it's not worth it.

By the way, Mr. post-modernist, I have read the constitution, I just don't think that the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens. That's called an opinion and I think it still says I'm entitled to one. So shove off..

UncaAlby sez ...
... that if the terrorists have one, we should get two. Maybe three.

Hah! That'll show 'em!

The Reason for the Cognitive Dissonance
...is that the terrorists ARE going to win, by our standards, even though they are NOT going to win, by theirs.

There is exactly zero chance that, within the next hundred years, I doubt very much that the majority of the world's population as a whole will be either Muslim or subjected to dhimmitude. That would be a "win" by the Islamists' standards, and there's no chance of it happening.

But...

...there is also no chance that (given the imminent success of Iran's nuclear weapon program and the inevitable regional proliferation which will follow as Sunnis rush to counterbalance the presence of a "Shia bomb") the United States will avoid a nuclear detonation in a major U.S. city within the next hundred years. (No, no chance at all. Get used to it: Millions are going to die; the best long-term real-estate buys are going to be those NOT in or downwind from target cities. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Phoenix, Charlotte...and that's just in the U.S.; don't even ASK about Tel Aviv.)

It is absolutely true that the goal of the jihadists is the worldwide imposition of Islam. But the goal of the West is, at the moment, entirely defensive. We want to not be bothered with the problems of the Middle East; we want to be safe to pursue our own interests and to regard berobed sheikhs from Arabia as Hollywood set pieces: Good for harmless native flavor, fit to amuse the tourists.

Since that is our goal, success depends on preventing Islamists from interrupting this pleasant scene overmuch. Hence the various quotes in the article stating that "the terrorists have won if...." The quotes, taken as a whole, sum up as: The terrorists win if they deny us our goal of living our lives unmolested by their existence, even if their own goals are not achieved in the process.

In that sense, the quotes are (to varying degrees) correct. Or, it might be more correct to say, "Well, the terrorists won't have won, exactly...but WE'LL have lost, which is the part we care about."

Thus the predictable outcome is more or less as Dan Simmons (http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm) has shown it. The momentum will not change in favor of the West until everyone who is not Islamist -- Europe, Russia, China, the American Left, the Western Media -- become at least as aggressive as G.W.Bush was in the early days of the war on terror, before carping and obstruction from the aforementioned quintet ground the advance of democracy to a halt. When that quintet's loud insistence on the superiority of compulsion-free religion and democratic reform, and the inferiority of Islamism and sharia, out-shouts that of Ann Coulter, then the tide will turn.

Until then, expect that mix of impotent fury and somber resignation you had at the end of the movie "Black Hawk Down" to become increasingly, depressingly, familiar.

Correction...
The phrase "I doubt very much that" was insufficiently strong, and I meant to remove it from Paragraph 2 of the preceding post. Sorry for the error.

The terrorists HAVE won because...
...we have to investigate every stray bullet that just happens to chip a piece of plaster off the holy dome over some holy rock somewhere.

But most of all, the terrorists have won because they love death, and we're accomodating them.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.