Oh yeah, the author of this mess is some spineless, dickless momma's boy named Nathan Gardels (big surprise that he works for the LA Times) - apparently, Nathan took time out from participating in a pro-Hamas rally and modeling the latest fashion of the drag queen crowd in San Francisco to write this slop. Here's some of the details of how Nathan Gardels wants America to hunker down onto a islamic prayer mat, from the HuffPo article:
See, this is what tools like this Nathan "I'm a surrenderist faggot" Gardels get into their pea-sized brains that Hamas just wants a little state to govern - wrong Nathan. Hamas has one goal and in fact Nathan, if you'd bother to pick up something to read other than a gay men's magazine, that Hamas goal is spelled out in Hamas' charter - the destruction of Israel. Hamas doesn't want Israel to give them some land for a state, they want Israel destroyed, gone.
And as for the Taliban...I'd like to ask Nathan what indication he has that the Taliban has EVER said that they demanded ANYTHING other a full return to power in Afghanistan. The LA Times and The Huffington Post are notorious for allowing this kind of flimsy propaganda and lying to grace their pages and websites...this article is perfect proof that they haven't changed a bit.
The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.Did you see that? Hamas has a legitimate claim to Palestinian statehood? The Taliban has a legitimate claim to some fucking idiocy called "Pashtu power?" Tell me Nathan, WHO told you that Hamas has a legitimate claim to power? Hamas? Jimmy Carter? You're father the anti-semite?
Dealing with Hamas or the Taliban doesn't mean that if Obama talks to them they will roll over. It means that the use of force alone cannot work. It means that ignoring them won't make them go away.
Above all, it means de-globalizing the jihad. Rather than treating all Islamists as alike, it means identifying the legitimate aspects of their claims (Palestinian statehood, Pashtu power) and separating those into a political process that deligitimizes terror as a counter-productive tactic and marginalizes extremists.
See, this is what tools like this Nathan "I'm a surrenderist faggot" Gardels get into their pea-sized brains that Hamas just wants a little state to govern - wrong Nathan. Hamas has one goal and in fact Nathan, if you'd bother to pick up something to read other than a gay men's magazine, that Hamas goal is spelled out in Hamas' charter - the destruction of Israel. Hamas doesn't want Israel to give them some land for a state, they want Israel destroyed, gone.
And as for the Taliban...I'd like to ask Nathan what indication he has that the Taliban has EVER said that they demanded ANYTHING other a full return to power in Afghanistan. The LA Times and The Huffington Post are notorious for allowing this kind of flimsy propaganda and lying to grace their pages and websites...this article is perfect proof that they haven't changed a bit.
Obama Should Quit War on Terror, Talk to Hamas and Taliban
Of course, I agree with my passionate friend, Bernard-Henri Levy, who writes elsewhere on this page that Gaza cannot be allowed to become an "advance base for total war against Israel."
But for the current Israeli government to think it can prevent that by blowing up the whole of Gaza is the same old mistake. The shock and awe attack, meant as a "deterrent" against Hamas (and Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the Islamists who are shifting the power balance in the Middle East) won't work any more than the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld demonstration of America's overwhelming military might in Iraq, which enhanced the very forces it was meant to deter and defeat.
Deterrence works between powers with more or less equal capacities -- for example the US and the Soviet Union. But the use of disproportionate force against an utterly weak -- even though menacing -- enemy does not create deterrence. It saps the legitimacy of Israel's cause among honest human rights icons from Nelson Mandela to Shirin Ebadi and engenders widespread antipathy and hatred among Muslim publics expressed at its most bloody edge by terrorism. If terrorism is the weapon of the weak, suicide bombers are the weapon of the weakest.
Israeli's leaders, the last practitioners of the Bush doctrine, might want to consider another course more in line with a key inaugural theme of President Barack Obama:
"Power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please, " Obama declaimed on the Capitol steps. Instead, "our power grows through its prudent use, our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."
(That, by the way, is pure Reinhold Niebuhr, the American theologian to whom Obama credits his worldview. His reflections on the use and limits of American power offer a better clue to where Obama is headed than any immediate policy decision which will necessarily be constrained by actions already set in motion by the previous administration.)
The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.
Dealing with Hamas or the Taliban doesn't mean that if Obama talks to them they will roll over. It means that the use of force alone cannot work. It means that ignoring them won't make them go away.
Above all, it means de-globalizing the jihad. Rather than treating all Islamists as alike, it means identifying the legitimate aspects of their claims (Palestinian statehood, Pashtu power) and separating those into a political process that deligitimizes terror as a counter-productive tactic and marginalizes extremists. This, after all, is exactly what the General Petraeus did in the past year in Iraq, separating Sunni fighters who want a stake in Iraq from the foreign intrigues of Al Qaeda, which has no enduring local base. This is what Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposes in dealing with Hamas.
The best thinker on this subject is Olivier Roy, the French expert and author of "Globalized Islam." His recent article, "Memo to Obama: Leave War on Terror Behind and Talk to Hamas, Taliban" can be found here.
1 comment:
Shark,
Couldn't have said it any better than your idea of giving these bleeding hearts a true dose of islam. Two weeks in Iran and these pukes would be here picketing to nuke Tehran the next day.
:Holger Danske
Post a Comment