- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Among the Intellectualoids
Guru Malpractice
(Page 2 of 2)
Moreover, as the Chopras personally know so well, Pakistan was born in 1947 in response to furious longstanding violence between Islamic extremists and Hindu fundamentalists in India, 40 years before Reagan was arming the Afghan rebels. Indeed, relatives of both of Deepak's parents were killed in that violence. Despite the creation of Islamic Pakistan out of former Indian territory, Muslim terrorists have continued to attack India in the succeeding decades, particularly in regard to the disputed region of Kashmir, including an absurd attack on the Indian Parliament just a few years ago. Consequently, there is no link whatsoever between "the rise of Islamic militancy in the Indian subcontinent and U.S. activities there the past few decades."
And can we really believe, as Deepak suggested, that deposing Saddam Hussein has converted Muslim moderates into extremists? Saddam was a fascist dictator, who explicitly modeled his regime on Hitler's Nazi nightmare, committed genocide against his own people, and attacked his neighbors. Removing him again provided enormous, incalculable benefits to the people of Iraq, as well as others in the region, not a proposition over which reasonable people can differ. Indeed, it was the Iraqi people who tried and executed Saddam for his crimes, and recently, their democratically elected representatives overwhelmingly approved an agreement with the U.S. to continue the presence of American troops in their country for another three years.
In addition, to equate American soldiers and airmen bravely fighting the brutal armies of fascist dictators, or blasting away terrorist training camps and bases, with terrorist animals who target and even torture innocent men, women and children, reflects a moral idiocy that would well justify not just a vow of nonviolence, but a vow of silence as well. That would also greatly benefit the American people, and many others.
GOTHAM CONCLUDES THE LETTER by defending the American financed "Marshall Plan for Muslims" that his father proposed. Gotham writes, "I think a long-term holistic and strategic plan that helps rebuild the blasted ghettos of the Arab world where so much hatred festers is the only reasonable solution to the militancy proliferating around the globe." The only reasonable response to that proposal is the same that our founding fathers propounded in response to similar proposals at the time: "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."
The cause of Islamic terrorism is not "economic disparity and ideological hypocrisy" or "the supply of billions of dollars into the oil industry, ground zero for which is the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia" or "the even more profitable arms trade that subsidizes all sides of these wars." The root cause is a fervent, radical, extremist commitment to Islamic conquest and dictatorial rule, which is not going to be bought off by a "Marshall Plan for Muslims." There is only one rational, moral response to those fighting for that terrorist goal, defeat them, by decisive, overwhelming force if necessary.
In contrast to the sterile, childish babble of the Chopras, and the rest of the fevered left wing, President Bush, for all his many faults, leaves an historic record of accomplishment in the War on Terrorism. America has won the war in Iraq, smashing the al Qaeda forces there, and replacing a murderous, fascist, Nazi dictator with a now established democracy in the heart of the Middle East, allied with America. It has liberated Afghanistan from the fascist Taliban theocracy. In response, Libya quit its terrorist war plots against the West, and revealed and dismantled its nuclear program. As a result, the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan was exposed and terminated. Syrian troops have also been forced out of Lebanon, with a democratically elected, pro-Western government now in power.
Most of all, President Bush has kept the American people safe from further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Let this be a marker for the Democrat Left now taking over our government: the principal justification for your governmental powers is protection of the security of the American people.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
WendyG| 12.17.08 @ 9:14AM
>>> "As many already know, my father, Deepak Chopra, has taken a vow of nonviolence in all his actions and words. As a result, he's unable to respond aggressively to Ms. Rabinowitz's criticism of his response on CNN and elsewhere to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai."
LOL. What a load. In fact the kooky father wrote a lengthy defense of himself at Huff Post (of course!)
Chopra is just another leftist fool who came to America - reaped all the largesse America can offer - but now slimes America.
Ungrateful creep.
D. O'Brien| 12.17.08 @ 10:09AM
Chopra is perfect fit for Larry King freak show, but what motivates Sean Hannity to invite him? Shame on anyone giving air time to this fake to sell his books. I heard him on "Morning Joe" telling us that Jesus was just another teacher. Not a peep out of Scarborough. Now we also learn that America is to blame for all terrorism (theirs and ours). Is this man a citizen. Can't we deport him.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 10:55AM
If 'President Bush kept us safe since 911', then I guess Bill Clinton kept us safe between the WTC bombing of 1993 and 20 January, 2001. Or, is it more likely, given our open borders and the fact that muslims resident in the USA have traveled as far as Somalia to conduct terror attacks - that the terrorists, themselves, have not decided to conduct another attack upon our soil? Yet.
Given that virtually everything else President Bush has touched has turned to ashes, I believe that we should reserve judgement on his conduct of the war on terror. From my vantage point, deep in the heartland, it would appear to me that President Bush is as inept a commander-in-chief as he has been in every other endeavor.
Michael C. Murray| 12.17.08 @ 11:47AM
We had more attacks on US interests than just the WTC in 93 under Clintons watch. The embassy bombings, the USS Cole to name 2. Clinton did nothing and that caused the escalation in attacks. Bush replied with force, that caused caution in our enemies. Though they may attack under an Obama administration to see what he will do, they full well know what Bush will do and so have decided the best course of action is to wait until the election and then attack perhaps.
Dustoff| 12.17.08 @ 12:11PM
I guess Havoc has been living in a cave for many years.
I should respond to him, but why. People like him can't see the truth if hit him in the face.
But sir, you just keep on believing in this trash. The rest of us, will just laugh at you.
megapotamus| 12.17.08 @ 12:13PM
We already see that Barry agrees much more with Bush's conduct of the GWOT than he does with the Leftwing dupes that got him the nomination. Does anyone really think that the Obies will hesitate to waterboard when the responsibility for national security falls to them? It is much like the widely hailed Kerry plan for Iraq, only on the odd moment you could get him to illucidate, the Kerry and Bush plans were nearly identical. The simple fact is that war in Iraq and Afghanistan were the only viable course open to us at the time for security reasons and prescribed by simple decency. The Al Gore of the Clinton years would have done the same except for the nation building. Thank you President Bush for your determination. Not so much for a lot of the other stuff.
rad| 12.17.08 @ 1:14PM
In the 1400s in India, well before America, during Akbar's (moderate muslim) rule, Islamic terrorists opposed him. 2 generations later, Aurangzeb ascended to the throne through domestic terror (killed all his siblings) and then unleashed islamic terror on the continent. All this was before America, before partition, before 9/11, before Iraq war, etc.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 3:56PM
Michael C. Murray -
There were no more attacks on US soil between WTC 1993 and 20 January, 2001 - so, was President Clinton 'keeping us safe', too? I think not; and cannot credit GWB with doing so since 911. Quite simply, our enemies have not chosen to attack, again, within our borders - yet.
Remember, our benighted C-in-C still mumbles on about the 'religion of peace', and 'ordinary muslims moms & dads', yada, yada, yada. He truly is a moron - the one who traded Sammy Sosa.
Dai Alanye| 12.17.08 @ 4:41PM
"Quite simply, our enemies have not chosen to attack, again, within our borders - yet."
Brilliant analysis, Havoc. Now you have only to determine WHY they have chosen not to attack. Might have something to do with our offensive operations, don't you think? When considering this, note that after Midway and Guadalcanal the Japanese also chose not to attack Pearl Harbor again--yet.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 5:07PM
Dai Alanye -
Yes, I think so, too.
The problem with President Bush's 'strategy' is that it leaves the enemy in the field, ready to attack again at a time of his choosing. In WWII, the Japanese were not able to mount another attack against the USA because we destroyed them, en masse wherever we found them. We also destroyed any Japanese infrastructure of economic value.
Except for the fact that they were either dead or starving, the Japanese would have attacked again.
PS: Perhaps, your book is better reasoned than your recent ejaculations. But, that's not the way I would bet.
C.Marshall| 12.17.08 @ 5:39PM
Havoc-
Thank you for unwittingly elucidating Bush's strategery. He has endeavored to destroy the enemy en masse where he has been able to, particularly in that hellhole called Iraq. Except for the fact that they are hunted or dead, pinned down or have given up, they would attack again. It's called being on offense.
And quit discussing other people's ejaculations.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 7:03PM
C.Marshall -
President Bush's 'strategy'? He can neither comprehend nor pronounce it. He certainly hasn't practiced any. If he had done so, there would be no ragheaded morons in dirty nightshirts above ground in the Middle East.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 7:37PM
Chopra is all peace 'n' love until his interests are threatened, and then Larry the lawyer sends you a letter.
The night Matthew Shephard got killed i called up a radio talk show and said "all of a sudden liberal gays are all for capital punishment-- what happened?"
Then soon afterward a guy calls up and says "you tell Alan that us gays want to kill those goddamned bastards!"
Gotham| 12.17.08 @ 10:33PM
"Son of" gets google alerts and was intrigued to see his name appear in American Spectator...
Needless to say, I disagree with the majority of what is said here, but admit that I am most relieved by the fact that it clearly no longer represents the mainstream.
If it's easier to dismiss me as simply being part of the "family biz" that's too bad, because I quite enjoy the debate.
Meanwhile - agree with you characterization of Saddam the Fascist. The thing is he was already that when the CIA plucked him from exile and installed him as President in Iraq in '79. After he gassed 200k Kurds in the 80's, I believe there was some debate whether US should cut the 1.2 billion in aid that was going his way. As I understand it, a report between the State Department and Whitehouse concluded it wasn't necessary since "Human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq." Mr. Ferrara - were you in the Whitehouse then?
gc
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 11:23PM
hey gc,
India's foreign policy is pretty um, unsoiritual too.
Lets open India's foreign policy and defense files to have a look at what India has done since its divorce from Britain over 60 years ago
In those 6 decades what has India done in its own self interest comparable to mideast policies of US and NATO?
How can we say until we see the entire archives of India's govt's foreign & defense ministries?
At least America isnt an asian crony capitalist state.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 11:26PM
i just don't see it that Indians are morally superior, or as spiritual as they claim to be.
Gotham| 12.18.08 @ 12:27AM
Alan -
Never claimed that India had any moral or spiritual superiority. India's political apparatus today is rife with corruption and moral decay, a travesty to the notion of being the biggest democracy in the world....
Btw - I am an American - born and bred - and a proud one. This is not a blame game but instead a necessary exercise to understand how we are where we are so that America once more can live up to its great idealism.
gc
alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 1:02AM
okat, but we all know about the bad things America has done, dont you think other countries are too hard on what America did during the cold war?
it wasnt until Soviets invaded Afghanistan they began changing their tune-- and then just a little.
Arab nation knew Russian imperialism was a threat.
you cany just isloate our relationship of convenience with Sodomm hussein, you have to look at the big picture.
just like you make mistakes you cant DO OVER, so did America. hindsight is 20/20
btw who said you werent born in america. i just dont think your dad is any more spiritual than mine was. he was... a liberal.
alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 1:04AM
sorry for spelling errors but im in a hurry tonight.
PLEASE be as fair to America as you are to your dad.
Nick M.| 12.22.08 @ 1:06PM
What a load of nonsense is this article?!
Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.20.09 @ 7:33PM
Presidents are rarely remembered for their domestic policy; foreign policy drives the histories, especially after 1860.
My prediction on Obama: he will, under pressure from a Democratic Congress (I have an idiot named Oberstar as the rep from my district, for example) start repealing Bush's defenses against terror.
As a result, in 2010, a WMD attack will occur. 5 obvious targets: New York, Washington, LA, to hit media, governmental, and financial centers; or Chicago or Honolulu, to hit Obama where he lives, and crack his will.
I'd put the money on Honoloulu. Easiest to hit, as New Zealand has very poor plane security controls and non-stop flights all the time. In addition, it is quite hospitable to terrorists and hostile to the US (I lived there awhile.).
Oh, well.
links of london| 9.10.09 @ 10:22PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！