Archives July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 Recent Posts Michael Dougherty on the Norwegian Terrorist’s Manifesto A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway Norway’s 9/11? Britain’s Other Journalism Scandal Just Deserts for PC Busybodies Meta Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org
GA_googleFillSlot("RightSide3");
A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway Patrick J. Buchanan July 25th, 2011 // Share|“Like a fire bell in the night,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “this momentous question … awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”
Jefferson was writing of the sudden resurgence of the slavery issue in the debate on Missouri’s entry into the Union, as foreshadowing a civil war.
And that massacre in Oslo, where a terrorist detonated a fertilizer bomb to decapitate the government and proceeded to a youth camp to kill 68 children of Norway’s ruling elite, is a fire bell in the night for Europe. For Anders Behring Breivik is no Islamic terrorist.
He was born in Norway and chose as his targets not Muslims whose presence he detests, but the Labor Party leaders who let them into the country, and their children, the future leaders of that party.
Though Breivik is being called insane, that is the wrong word.
Breivik is evil — a cold-blooded, calculating killer — though a deluded man of some intelligence, who in his 1,500-page manifesto reveals a knowledge of the history, culture and politics of Europe.
He admits to his “atrocious” but “necessary” crimes, done, he says, to bring attention to his ideas and advance his cause: a Crusader’s war between the real Europe and the “cultural Marxists” and Muslims they invited in to alter the ethnic character and swamp the culture of the Old Continent.
Specifically, Breivik wanted to kill three-time Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, the “mother of the nation,” who spoke at the camp on Utoeya Island, but departed before he arrived.
Predictably, the European press is linking Breivik to parties of the populist right that have arisen to oppose multiculturalism and immigration from the Islamic world. Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party, but quit because he found it insufficiently militant.
His writings are now being mined for references to U.S. conservative critics of multiculturalism and open borders. Purpose: demonize the American right, just as the berserker’s attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson was used to smear Sarah Palin and Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing was used to savage Rush Limbaugh and conservative critics of Big Government.
Guilt by association, which the left condemned when they claimed to be its victims in the Truman-McCarthy era, has been used by the left since it sought to tie the assassination of JFK by a Marxist from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to the political conservatism of the city of Dallas.
But Europe’s left will encounter difficulty in equating criticism of multiculturalism with neo-Nazism. For Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of Britain have all declared multiculturalism a failure. From votes in Switzerland to polls across the continent, Europeans want an end to the wearing of burqas and the building of prayer towers in mosques.
The flood of illegal aliens into the Canary Islands from Africa, into Italy from Libya and Tunisia, and into Greece from Turkey has mainstream parties echoing the right. The Schengen Agreement itself, which guarantees open borders within the European Union to all who enter the EU, is under attack.
None of this is to deny the presence of violent actors or neo-Nazis on the European right who bear watching. But, awful as this atrocity was, native born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.
That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.
Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.
With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come — from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia — have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.
Norway, too, needs to wake up. From the first call for help, police needed 90 minutes to get out on the island in the Oslo lake to stop the massacre by the coward, who surrendered as soon as the men with guns arrived. Apparently, Breivik wanted to be around to deliver his declaration of European war in person. Yet, if convicted of the 76 murders, Breivik can, at most, get 21 years, the maximum sentence under Norwegian law.
Norway is a peaceful and progressive country, its leaders say.
Yet Norway sent troops to Afghanistan and has participated in the bombing of Libya, where civilians have been killed and Moammar Gadhafi has himself lost a son and three grandchildren to NATO bombs.
As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.
Copyright 2011 Creators.com.
// Share Filed under: Terrorism, World
6 Responses to “A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway” George, on July 25th, 2011 at 6:33 pm Said:Buchanan makes it sound as though conflict is somehow inevitable in the very existence of a Christian region or people, on the one hand, and an Islamic region or people, on the other. But there would be no conflict without (a) the Zionist subjugation of Palestine (and all the violence and oppression it has spawned elsewhere), and (b) mass immigration into Europe of foreign peoples.
Christianity and Islam are irrelevant to what is going on. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to have generated the violence we are seeing across the world, and now in Norway. Conquest, ethnic cleansing, and mass immigration will create conflict regardless of the religion, race, creed of those involved.
Eric D, on July 26th, 2011 at 1:19 am Said:Actually, as Mr. Buchanan has pointed out in other writings, the followers of Islam (as a group, he obviously doesn’t mean every last Muslim individual) don’t need the Zionist occupation of formerly Muslim and Arab lands as a necessary provocation to fight with those belonging to other religions and ethnicities they come into contact with – witness Nigeria, Sudan, India/Pakistan …
In fact, a far greater proportion of the populace, as well as governments, of Europe are not pro-Zionist than you would find in the U.S., but that doesn’t stop the anti-Western animosity that is so prevalent amongst Muslims.
O.L. Johnson, on July 26th, 2011 at 7:51 am Said:George, what about c) the fact that “our” oil is under their land? America has had 40 years to undertake a Manhatta
A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway Patrick J. Buchanan July 25th, 2011 // Share|
“Like a fire bell in the night,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “this momentous question … awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”
Jefferson was writing of the sudden resurgence of the slavery issue in the debate on Missouri’s entry into the Union, as foreshadowing a civil war.
And that massacre in Oslo, where a terrorist detonated a fertilizer bomb to decapitate the government and proceeded to a youth camp to kill 68 children of Norway’s ruling elite, is a fire bell in the night for Europe. For Anders Behring Breivik is no Islamic terrorist.
He was born in Norway and chose as his targets not Muslims whose presence he detests, but the Labor Party leaders who let them into the country, and their children, the future leaders of that party.
Though Breivik is being called insane, that is the wrong word.
Breivik is evil — a cold-blooded, calculating killer — though a deluded man of some intelligence, who in his 1,500-page manifesto reveals a knowledge of the history, culture and politics of Europe.
He admits to his “atrocious” but “necessary” crimes, done, he says, to bring attention to his ideas and advance his cause: a Crusader’s war between the real Europe and the “cultural Marxists” and Muslims they invited in to alter the ethnic character and swamp the culture of the Old Continent.
Specifically, Breivik wanted to kill three-time Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, the “mother of the nation,” who spoke at the camp on Utoeya Island, but departed before he arrived.
Predictably, the European press is linking Breivik to parties of the populist right that have arisen to oppose multiculturalism and immigration from the Islamic world. Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party, but quit because he found it insufficiently militant.
His writings are now being mined for references to U.S. conservative critics of multiculturalism and open borders. Purpose: demonize the American right, just as the berserker’s attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson was used to smear Sarah Palin and Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing was used to savage Rush Limbaugh and conservative critics of Big Government.
Guilt by association, which the left condemned when they claimed to be its victims in the Truman-McCarthy era, has been used by the left since it sought to tie the assassination of JFK by a Marxist from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to the political conservatism of the city of Dallas.
But Europe’s left will encounter difficulty in equating criticism of multiculturalism with neo-Nazism. For Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of Britain have all declared multiculturalism a failure. From votes in Switzerland to polls across the continent, Europeans want an end to the wearing of burqas and the building of prayer towers in mosques.
The flood of illegal aliens into the Canary Islands from Africa, into Italy from Libya and Tunisia, and into Greece from Turkey has mainstream parties echoing the right. The Schengen Agreement itself, which guarantees open borders within the European Union to all who enter the EU, is under attack.
None of this is to deny the presence of violent actors or neo-Nazis on the European right who bear watching. But, awful as this atrocity was, native born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.
That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.
Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.
With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come — from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia — have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.
Norway, too, needs to wake up. From the first call for help, police needed 90 minutes to get out on the island in the Oslo lake to stop the massacre by the coward, who surrendered as soon as the men with guns arrived. Apparently, Breivik wanted to be around to deliver his declaration of European war in person. Yet, if convicted of the 76 murders, Breivik can, at most, get 21 years, the maximum sentence under Norwegian law.
Norway is a peaceful and progressive country, its leaders say.
Yet Norway sent troops to Afghanistan and has participated in the bombing of Libya, where civilians have been killed and Moammar Gadhafi has himself lost a son and three grandchildren to NATO bombs.
As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.
Copyright 2011 Creators.com.
// Share Filed under: Terrorism, World
6 Responses to “A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway” George, on July 25th, 2011 at 6:33 pm Said:Buchanan makes it sound as though conflict is somehow inevitable in the very existence of a Christian region or people, on the one hand, and an Islamic region or people, on the other. But there would be no conflict without (a) the Zionist subjugation of Palestine (and all the violence and oppression it has spawned elsewhere), and (b) mass immigration into Europe of foreign peoples.
Christianity and Islam are irrelevant to what is going on. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to have generated the violence we are seeing across the world, and now in Norway. Conquest, ethnic cleansing, and mass immigration will create conflict regardless of the religion, race, creed of those involved.
Eric D, on July 26th, 2011 at 1:19 am Said:Actually, as Mr. Buchanan has pointed out in other writings, the followers of Islam (as a group, he obviously doesn’t mean every last Muslim individual) don’t need the Zionist occupation of formerly Muslim and Arab lands as a necessary provocation to fight with those belonging to other religions and ethnicities they come into contact with – witness Nigeria, Sudan, India/Pakistan …
In fact, a far greater proportion of the populace, as well as governments, of Europe are not pro-Zionist than you would find in the U.S., but that doesn’t stop the anti-Western animosity that is so prevalent amongst Muslims.
O.L. Johnson, on July 26th, 2011 at 7:51 am Said:George, what about c) the fact that “our” oil is under their land? America has had 40 years to undertake a Manhattan Project to invent a green, self-reliant energy system. But that would have smacked too much of (the wrong kind of) Socialism. Our leaders prefer to pour America’s blood & treasure into the military-industrial complex and endless war. They thought it would demonstrate the full spectrum dominance of American corporate capitalism. Instead America is left a ruined nation on the rubbish heap of empires.
George, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:20 am Said:Eric D,
You appear to be mistaken. The key fact is that Muslims do generally need *a provocation* in order to become violent against other groups. 9/11 was retribution for just such provocations (aggression against Palestine and Iraq and the occupation of Saudi Arabia). Likewise, the bombings in London and Madrid were retribution for Britain’s and Spain’s aggression against Iraq.
Name me a single act of violence by a Muslim group against a Western government in which the Western government didn’t throw the first stone.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example "“ Sweden?
No, we fight because we are free men who don’t sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
–Osama bin Laden, 2004
George, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:31 am Said:O.L. Johnson,
I take it you are saying that American thirst for oil resources would be another factor that would bring it into conflict with Muslim countries. If what you say is true, it would also undercut Buchanan’s insinuation that there is something inherent in “Christianity” and “Islam” that puts us inevitably on the path toward a world conflagration.
Having said that, what evidence can you point to to support that claim that what is motivating our rulers in their decade-long slaughter of Muslims is a desire to “demonstrate the full spectrum dominance of American corporate capitalism.” Like the Zionists, have the chieftains of Exxon and other oil companies been lobbying Congress to be hostile toward the Middle East, writing op-eds, getting on the airwaves? Pretty much all I see is Zionist agitation. It is important for us to proceed on the basis of facts, so I am open to any that you can bring. Also, if oil = hostility, why haven’t we invaded Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, or Venezuela? Why are we bombing Yemen and Somalia, but not Iran? Why are we going after Pakistan? Yes, we are hostile to Hugo Chavez, but I think that has more to do with our dislike of his political independence and we haven’t launched a full scale military invasion of that country. If this is about oil, or capitalism versus socialism–rather than Israel–why not start with Venezuela?
Joe the Plutocrat, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:35 am Said:Pat, your attempt to spin this is uncharacteristic of your usual cogent analysis. The bottom line is; this is business as usual. The nationalism v. multicultualism, Islam v Christianity, or progressive liberals vs conservatives are merely the “line” set by bookies to draw the unwashed masses into the casino. Every once in awhile a “true beliver” (of modest intelligence) hears voices (usually coming from some sacred book or document) and acts accordingly. If Brevik (or bin Laden, or McVeigh, or Hitler, or Stalin) is ‘evil’ let’s ask ourselve about the ‘evil’ that led us to war in Iraq. And whom gets to define “evil” (God, Allah, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, Michael Moore, Pat Buchannan)? Be careful throwing aroun words like “delued” and “evil” because. From where I sit; there is no difference. Might as well opine about the righteousness of “less filling” vis a vis “tastes great”. Sure it makes for spirited banter, but consider that regardless of which side you take in the debate; Miller Lite is the ultimate winner. Don’t mean to mix metaphors, but it’s also like the debt ceiling debate; now that “gay rights” are fading as a third rail issue, the shameless politicos have to find a new “remember the Maine” battle cry to rally the troops. And remember, those doing the “rallying” usually profit from war, while the “troops” usually die.
Leave a ReplyName (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
« Norway’s 9/11? Michael Dougherty on the Norwegian Terrorist’s Manifesto »
Copyright © 2008 The American Conservative var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-11577341-1"); // Cookied already: pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} st_go({blog:'7739249',v:'ext',post:'14033'}); var load_cmc = function(){linktracker_init(7739249,14033,2);}; if ( typeof addLoadEvent != 'undefined' ) addLoadEvent(load_cmc); else load_cmc();
“Like a fire bell in the night,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “this momentous question … awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”
Jefferson was writing of the sudden resurgence of the slavery issue in the debate on Missouri’s entry into the Union, as foreshadowing a civil war.
And that massacre in Oslo, where a terrorist detonated a fertilizer bomb to decapitate the government and proceeded to a youth camp to kill 68 children of Norway’s ruling elite, is a fire bell in the night for Europe. For Anders Behring Breivik is no Islamic terrorist.
He was born in Norway and chose as his targets not Muslims whose presence he detests, but the Labor Party leaders who let them into the country, and their children, the future leaders of that party.
Though Breivik is being called insane, that is the wrong word.
Breivik is evil — a cold-blooded, calculating killer — though a deluded man of some intelligence, who in his 1,500-page manifesto reveals a knowledge of the history, culture and politics of Europe.
He admits to his “atrocious” but “necessary” crimes, done, he says, to bring attention to his ideas and advance his cause: a Crusader’s war between the real Europe and the “cultural Marxists” and Muslims they invited in to alter the ethnic character and swamp the culture of the Old Continent.
Specifically, Breivik wanted to kill three-time Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, the “mother of the nation,” who spoke at the camp on Utoeya Island, but departed before he arrived.
Predictably, the European press is linking Breivik to parties of the populist right that have arisen to oppose multiculturalism and immigration from the Islamic world. Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party, but quit because he found it insufficiently militant.
His writings are now being mined for references to U.S. conservative critics of multiculturalism and open borders. Purpose: demonize the American right, just as the berserker’s attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson was used to smear Sarah Palin and Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing was used to savage Rush Limbaugh and conservative critics of Big Government.
Guilt by association, which the left condemned when they claimed to be its victims in the Truman-McCarthy era, has been used by the left since it sought to tie the assassination of JFK by a Marxist from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to the political conservatism of the city of Dallas.
But Europe’s left will encounter difficulty in equating criticism of multiculturalism with neo-Nazism. For Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of Britain have all declared multiculturalism a failure. From votes in Switzerland to polls across the continent, Europeans want an end to the wearing of burqas and the building of prayer towers in mosques.
The flood of illegal aliens into the Canary Islands from Africa, into Italy from Libya and Tunisia, and into Greece from Turkey has mainstream parties echoing the right. The Schengen Agreement itself, which guarantees open borders within the European Union to all who enter the EU, is under attack.
None of this is to deny the presence of violent actors or neo-Nazis on the European right who bear watching. But, awful as this atrocity was, native born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.
That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.
Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.
With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come — from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia — have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.
Norway, too, needs to wake up. From the first call for help, police needed 90 minutes to get out on the island in the Oslo lake to stop the massacre by the coward, who surrendered as soon as the men with guns arrived. Apparently, Breivik wanted to be around to deliver his declaration of European war in person. Yet, if convicted of the 76 murders, Breivik can, at most, get 21 years, the maximum sentence under Norwegian law.
Norway is a peaceful and progressive country, its leaders say.
Yet Norway sent troops to Afghanistan and has participated in the bombing of Libya, where civilians have been killed and Moammar Gadhafi has himself lost a son and three grandchildren to NATO bombs.
As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.
Copyright 2011 Creators.com.
Share Filed under: Terrorism, World
6 Responses to “A Fire Bell in the Night for Norway” George, on July 25th, 2011 at 6:33 pm Said:Buchanan makes it sound as though conflict is somehow inevitable in the very existence of a Christian region or people, on the one hand, and an Islamic region or people, on the other. But there would be no conflict without (a) the Zionist subjugation of Palestine (and all the violence and oppression it has spawned elsewhere), and (b) mass immigration into Europe of foreign peoples.
Christianity and Islam are irrelevant to what is going on. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to have generated the violence we are seeing across the world, and now in Norway. Conquest, ethnic cleansing, and mass immigration will create conflict regardless of the religion, race, creed of those involved.
Eric D, on July 26th, 2011 at 1:19 am Said:Actually, as Mr. Buchanan has pointed out in other writings, the followers of Islam (as a group, he obviously doesn’t mean every last Muslim individual) don’t need the Zionist occupation of formerly Muslim and Arab lands as a necessary provocation to fight with those belonging to other religions and ethnicities they come into contact with – witness Nigeria, Sudan, India/Pakistan …
In fact, a far greater proportion of the populace, as well as governments, of Europe are not pro-Zionist than you would find in the U.S., but that doesn’t stop the anti-Western animosity that is so prevalent amongst Muslims.
O.L. Johnson, on July 26th, 2011 at 7:51 am Said:George, what about c) the fact that “our” oil is under their land? America has had 40 years to undertake a Manhattan Project to invent a green, self-reliant energy system. But that would have smacked too much of (the wrong kind of) Socialism. Our leaders prefer to pour America’s blood & treasure into the military-industrial complex and endless war. They thought it would demonstrate the full spectrum dominance of American corporate capitalism. Instead America is left a ruined nation on the rubbish heap of empires.
George, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:20 am Said:Eric D,
You appear to be mistaken. The key fact is that Muslims do generally need *a provocation* in order to become violent against other groups. 9/11 was retribution for just such provocations (aggression against Palestine and Iraq and the occupation of Saudi Arabia). Likewise, the bombings in London and Madrid were retribution for Britain’s and Spain’s aggression against Iraq.
Name me a single act of violence by a Muslim group against a Western government in which the Western government didn’t throw the first stone.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example "“ Sweden?
No, we fight because we are free men who don’t sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
–Osama bin Laden, 2004
George, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:31 am Said:O.L. Johnson,
I take it you are saying that American thirst for oil resources would be another factor that would bring it into conflict with Muslim countries. If what you say is true, it would also undercut Buchanan’s insinuation that there is something inherent in “Christianity” and “Islam” that puts us inevitably on the path toward a world conflagration.
Having said that, what evidence can you point to to support that claim that what is motivating our rulers in their decade-long slaughter of Muslims is a desire to “demonstrate the full spectrum dominance of American corporate capitalism.” Like the Zionists, have the chieftains of Exxon and other oil companies been lobbying Congress to be hostile toward the Middle East, writing op-eds, getting on the airwaves? Pretty much all I see is Zionist agitation. It is important for us to proceed on the basis of facts, so I am open to any that you can bring. Also, if oil = hostility, why haven’t we invaded Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, or Venezuela? Why are we bombing Yemen and Somalia, but not Iran? Why are we going after Pakistan? Yes, we are hostile to Hugo Chavez, but I think that has more to do with our dislike of his political independence and we haven’t launched a full scale military invasion of that country. If this is about oil, or capitalism versus socialism–rather than Israel–why not start with Venezuela?
Joe the Plutocrat, on July 26th, 2011 at 8:35 am Said:Pat, your attempt to spin this is uncharacteristic of your usual cogent analysis. The bottom line is; this is business as usual. The nationalism v. multicultualism, Islam v Christianity, or progressive liberals vs conservatives are merely the “line” set by bookies to draw the unwashed masses into the casino. Every once in awhile a “true beliver” (of modest intelligence) hears voices (usually coming from some sacred book or document) and acts accordingly. If Brevik (or bin Laden, or McVeigh, or Hitler, or Stalin) is ‘evil’ let’s ask ourselve about the ‘evil’ that led us to war in Iraq. And whom gets to define “evil” (God, Allah, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, Michael Moore, Pat Buchannan)? Be careful throwing aroun words like “delued” and “evil” because. From where I sit; there is no difference. Might as well opine about the righteousness of “less filling” vis a vis “tastes great”. Sure it makes for spirited banter, but consider that regardless of which side you take in the debate; Miller Lite is the ultimate winner. Don’t mean to mix metaphors, but it’s also like the debt ceiling debate; now that “gay rights” are fading as a third rail issue, the shameless politicos have to find a new “remember the Maine” battle cry to rally the troops. And remember, those doing the “rallying” usually profit from war, while the “troops” usually die.
Leave a ReplyName (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
« Norway’s 9/11? Michael Dougherty on the Norwegian Terrorist’s Manifesto »
Copyright © 2008 The American Conservative var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-11577341-1"); // Cookied already: pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} st_go({blog:'7739249',v:'ext',post:'14033'}); var load_cmc = function(){linktracker_init(7739249,14033,2);}; if ( typeof addLoadEvent != 'undefined' ) addLoadEvent(load_cmc); else load_cmc();
Buchanan makes it sound as though conflict is somehow inevitable in the very existence of a Christian region or people, on the one hand, and an Islamic region or people, on the other. But there would be no conflict without (a) the Zionist subjugation of Palestine (and all the violence and oppression it has spawned elsewhere), and (b) mass immigration into Europe of foreign peoples.
Christianity and Islam are irrelevant to what is going on. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to have generated the violence we are seeing across the world, and now in Norway. Conquest, ethnic cleansing, and mass immigration will create conflict regardless of the religion, race, creed of those involved.
Actually, as Mr. Buchanan has pointed out in other writings, the followers of Islam (as a group, he obviously doesn’t mean every last Muslim individual) don’t need the Zionist occupation of formerly Muslim and Arab lands as a necessary provocation to fight with those belonging to other religions and ethnicities they come into contact with – witness Nigeria, Sudan, India/Pakistan …
In fact, a far greater proportion of the populace, as well as governments, of Europe are not pro-Zionist than you would find in the U.S., but that doesn’t stop the anti-Western animosity that is so prevalent amongst Muslims.
George, what about c) the fact that “our” oil is under their land? America has had 40 years to undertake a Manhattan Project to invent a green, self-reliant energy system. But that would have smacked too much of (the wrong kind of) Socialism. Our leaders prefer to pour America’s blood & treasure into the military-industrial complex and endless war. They thought it would demonstrate the full spectrum dominance of American corporate capitalism. Instead America is left a ruined nation on the rubbish heap of empires.
Eric D,
Read Full Article »