We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way....
The[se] grievances ... are unappeasable, one of many reasons why the jihadists will lose.
They demand the impossible - the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision. Plainly, we cannot surrender.
July 9, 2005
Unappeasable grievances.
Christopher Hitchens on why there is not a political solution for the grievances raised by the Islamist terrorists as there was for the grievances raised by the IRA:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Hitchens so brilliantly argues this -- who can disagree? And yet just yesterday "The Guardian" called for a political solution. A respected liberal publication called for a political solution.
But they don't want a political solution -- because there's none to be had. They want us to lose.
That Hitchens is one insightful caveman!
All I've got to say relative to the necessary response to the jihadists is: "What he said."
So why has the IRA stopped using terror tactics (outside a a few local incidents) for the past 4 years? Did the IRA finally get what it wanted?Did the Brits start torturing their IRA captives after years of kid glove treatment? Did the IRA recoil in horror when they saw terror used in the extreme? Did the tacit support for terror tactics evaporate? Or did the money?
peter hoh: this
may give you part of your answer.
Gerry Adams, president of the political affiliate of the Irish Republican Army, is scheduled to talk to several House members, meet with the national news media and attend the annual Ireland Fund gala during his visit to Washington. But his traditional St. Patrick's Day pilgrimage to the nation's capital will not include two stops that he has grown accustomed to in recent years: an audience at the White House and a meeting with longtime supporter Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
This is an asault on everything represented by classical western civilization. How do you negotiate with people who believe that you are fundamentally evil and that to eradicate your civilization is an act blessed by God?
We are not all Londoners now; we are all Jews. And as the wise man said, "We will all either hang together or we will assuredly hang separately."
Hitchens is correct to a point.
The appeasement of terror/murder groups is just that - appeasement. Didn't work for Chamberlain, and it won't succeed for Chirac. Who says the English and French have nothing in common? 21st century French leadership smells like 1930s Britain.
There is a political solution when the nationalist struggles within the Arab world are resolved in favor of centrists. This move to the middle would need to be the result of popular will within Arab countries.
The interesting question is whether "globalism" will include the permeability of the closed societies of the Arab world to notions of political tolerance.
The grievances that Hitchens refers to are the result of demagogic influences and, as he said, totalitarian vision.
Popular will, with Western support, can change the unchangeable.
Post a Comment