A Menagerie of Outspoken Opinions on Science, World Politics, and Geek Culture

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Re-Affirming an Ideological Solution to Terrorism

My apologies for the off days. My dog ate my video card. Well, not really, but the card was most definately defunct, and I didn't get a new one installed, and all the drivers for it and the motherboard, until late last night.

I was going to post something about Space, but contemporary events intrude:


Look at this picture. It should win a Pulitzer; it captures a moment in our history more eloquently and evocatively than any other image I have seen in recent years.

You gaze upon this grieving mother's face, and you cannot help but be there, sharing in her anguish, clutching your own throat in an unconscious and hopeless attempt to try to stem a cataclysmic flood of grief, of horror, of anger.

How could this happen? We are living in the 21st century, for God's sake. We've all but wiped out small pox, polio, tuberculosis and god knows how many more killers of our children. How can we have come so far, only to see this child brought down in a brutal instant?


This answer to this is the answer to the incomparable Bill Whittle's fleeting doubts in "Flight Safety" , and can be found, in part, in the words of the caption beneath the photo:

"A woman grieves over the body of her child killed when Russian troops stormed a school seized by gunmen in the town of Beslan, in the province of North Ossetia near Chechnya, September 3, 2004. Russian soldiers battled Chechen separatists on Friday to end a two-day-old school siege ..."



Reuters is, like much of the world's press, an international mouthpiece for the left. They operate under a bias so ingrained as to immediately evoke terms of moral relativity for any agent with the good sense to stand up to "the man", despite the most horrific of means. They possess a worldview that they cling to as desperately as if it were a lifeboat in hurricane-driven seas. When the lifeboat starts losing air, they instinctively clutch it harder, with the predictable effect of forcing out the remaining air even quicker.

The Leftist ideology maintains that every human action of depravity is explicable by following a tenuous string of emotionally causative factors, and bestowing the mantle of victimhood upon those wielding the grenades, the machetes, the plastic shredders or whatever tool will suit the purpose of carrying out their expression of rage.

Thus these monsters who stormed a school, set explosives so as to make the end result inevitable, and ultimately detonated those explosives and scattered automatic fire into the backs of fleeing children, are called "gunmen" and "separatists".

I have a confession to make:

I am a gunman and a separatist as well. I own guns. And I would prefer to be independent of our current bloated and ineffectual government.

How then is it that I, and millions just like me, don't enter schools and kill innocent children to accomplish this? If I can be wrapped up in the same contextual label as those creatures in Ossetia, who just happen to be Muslim while I am agnostic, how can I not act the same way as them?

So which is more likely:

That the ideology of the American Right is somehow bucking the odds when it doesn't turn out inhumane killers like those "poor" "misunderstood" "fundamentalist" "separatist" "rebel" "freedom-fighting" "gunmen" who happen to be Muslim?

Or that the ideology of the international Left has, despite the lessons of history in the application of it's formula, and despite the lack of supporting evidence in any free society, accurately identified the root causes and proper solution to Terrorism?

How did it come to a school full of children being blown up? I submit that it did in no small part due to entities such as Reuters failing to accept the reality of the world: Bad people do exist, and will commit evil acts without even a pretense of civil discourse.

In the end, regardless of cause and effect of policies past, what remains is the defining of a solution to the problem that faces us.

The Left's proposals on this issue the past 30 years are heavy on pop-psychology platitudes, but are dangerously light on the desired results. Indeed, judging from the words of Osama bin Laden himself in calling the US a "paper tiger", it has been demonstrated that the ideology of the Left cannot help but encourage monsters such as him, in promulgating the idea that these terrorists can be reasoned with, paradoxically if only we don't antagonize those who have chosen to be antagonized merely by our existence.

The Right's proposals have simply resulted in the liberation of 50 million people in the last 2 years.

I occasionally question my ideology as well, as an exercise in keeping myself honest. It is an excellent thing to do, and I have no fear that Bill Whittle's introspection will result in his abandoning the principles of rationalism and empiricism when defining the world in which we live.

UPDATE: On a related issue, from Winds of Change. Concluding point:

What kind of states would be born if they were led by bin Laden, Arafat or the terror masters of Chechnya? Do we want to grant statehood or political power to people whose vision is so clouded in rage and blood?