Indelible's blog

**Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:53 pm

Quote:

Mon, September 11, 2006

Sept. 10 people wrong
Projecting liberal values onto Islamic fascists mistaken

By Ezra Levant

Are you a September 10th person or a September 11th person? September 10th people think the world hasn't fundamentally changed since the terror attacks of 9/11. September 11th people know it has.

When September 10th people hear about a jihadist attack -- like last week's firebombing of a Montreal Jewish school, or the attack the week before in San Francisco, or the month before in Seattle -- they say it is a random crime, not related to a global struggle between Western civilization and Islamic fascism.

September 11th people know even if such terrorist acts aren't centrally controlled from Iran or Pakistan, they are part of a larger movement, and that Islamic fascists use the motto "think globally, act locally."

September 10th people look at Islamic fascists and project their own liberal values onto them. They wonder what we did wrong to provoke such rage; they wonder how we could split the difference with our attackers and buy peace, for that is what reasonable people do. If only we can sit down and reason this thing out together.

Jack Layton is a September 10th person. He thinks we can negotiate with the Taliban, to tackle the "root cause" of their alienation. Maybe he'd bring Dr. Phil along to really get a good discussion going, have a good cry and walk away as friends.

September 11th people are more culturally aware. They know liberal ideas -- like allowing a difference of opinion, like peaceful resolutions of disputes, like a belief in the innate worth of every man and woman -- are not shared by all men. In fact, liberal values like tolerance of dissent and freedom of religion and speech are the "root cause" of terrorism; it is that liberty the terrorists seek to replace with abject submission. The concept of compromise itself is anathema to the perfect truth the terrorists claim to represent. It is liberal arrogance to think they can negotiate true believers away from their true beliefs.

September 10th people serve up Western-sounding excuses for terrorists (they're poor; we have not treated them fairly, it's all Israel's fault). September 11th people actually listen to what the terrorists say when they explain themselves: they are on a holy mission to make the entire world submit to Islam's sharia law. September 11th people take the jihadists at their word. September 10th people find that too terrifying to contemplate.

September 10th people want to believe multiculturalism has no limits, and that all cultures are equally valid, equally moral, equally good. September 11th people respect some differences and tolerate others. But September 11th people have breaking points; they take Western, liberal values seriously, like equality of the sexes and non-violent solutions to problems. And when those Western, liberal values collide with illiberal values, September 11th people are not afraid to say: "Our values are superior, and you must accept them if you come to live with us."

September 10th people are torn between their belief in our Western, liberal values, built up at great cost over centuries, and their new fad of political correctness towards minorities. And so a September 10th person who would noisily criticize a Catholic priest's moral prudeness, and invoke the separation of church and state, sits quietly as Muslim imams propose the invocation of sharia law and censorship of dissidence -- including children's cartoons of Mohammed.

September 10th people have a role model. He was pleasant and fashionable and well-meaning and wrong. His name was Neville Chamberlain. September 11th people have a role model. He was curmudgeonly and hard-nosed and right. His name was Winston Churchill.

should i be shocked at reading yet another piece of neocon filth? not really, considering who he writes for. but yet, i still get annoyed and frustrated when i read trash like this. sure, he has an opinion and has every right to express it, so i feel like responding with my own opinion.

i think most people who post in the forums here at this site know already what my political leanings are and what my opinion is of war. in this column, "september 10th people" and "september 11th people" is nothing more than a thin veil for "lefty" [enter whichever slur against left-leaning people here] and "right" [enter conservative, good guy, victim here], respectively. he says that lefties see 'islamofascists' and project liberal values on them. is this not also done by conservatives? they vow to fight, kill and destroy, because that's the right thing to do. sorry, mr neocon, it's not that easy. things in the real world aren't black and white. conservatives quickly dismiss any other ideas but their own. in the column, ezra levant says "They wonder what we did wrong to provoke such rage; they wonder how we could split the difference with our attackers and buy peace, for that is what reasonable people do. If only we can sit down and reason this thing out together. Jack Layton is a September 10th person. He thinks we can negotiate with the Taliban, to tackle the 'root cause' of their alienation". i'd like to point out that osama bin ladin has yet to be found, 32 canadians have died (thankfully, it's not more) which is more than those who perished in the 9/11 attacks in the first place. so why do conservatives reject different options and go gung-ho for military action? i think we should at least TRY doing things both ways. but then again, i can't see that happening any time soon. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that our soldiers died in vain, because that's not true at all.

anyway, onward to the next paragraph of ignorance:
"September 11th people are more culturally aware. They know liberal ideas -- like allowing a difference of opinion, like peaceful resolutions of disputes, like a belief in the innate worth of every man and woman -- are not shared by all men. In fact, liberal values like tolerance of dissent and freedom of religion and speech are the "root cause" of terrorism; it is that liberty the terrorists seek to replace with abject submission. The concept of compromise itself is anathema to the perfect truth the terrorists claim to represent. It is liberal arrogance to think they can negotiate true believers away from their true beliefs."
right, conservatives are more culturally aware. yeah, that's a good one. anyone who doesn't have their heads up their own asses knows that not everyone shares the same belief in those "liberal" values. so now tolerance of dissent, freedom of religion nad speech are the cause of terrorism? well we'd better stamp that shit out right away! :roll:

i can't believe i'm actually reading this. you're saying that if we were a police state without freedoms that would take away the motivation for terrorists? so i guess the solution then for the war on terror is to beat the terrorists to the punch. maybe conservatives have some new different ideas after all. if it is liberal arrogance to think they can negotiate true believers away from their true beliefs, then it is certainly conservative arrogance to think that the world is safer by being the biggest dog in the yard, and that the solution lies in taking away freedom, and that we will "win" by killing all the "terrorists".

"September 10th people serve up Western-sounding excuses for terrorists (they're poor; we have not treated them fairly, it's all Israel's fault)." what an assinine blanket statement. i won't even dignify this with a response.

"And so a September 10th person who would noisily criticize a Catholic priest's moral prudeness, and invoke the separation of church and state, sits quietly as Muslim imams propose the invocation of sharia law and censorship of dissidence -- including children's cartoons of Mohammed."
well, guess what? i'm going to break your stereotype. i believe very strongly in the right to religious freedom, meaning that no one, while free to practise their religion, can force anyone else to follow their code. perhaps this isn't worded in the best way, but it's what i can think of right now. like it's been said before, the purpose of 'separation of church and state' was to prevent the state from interfering with the church, but recently lying people have turned that around to mean that the curch should have no influence on the state. once again, i am going to break the stereotype. in it's true meaning, separation of church and state is a good thing. it's a principle, not two clashing institutions. this principle is what guarantees the freedom of religion. until the second coming happens i think it's foolish to say that the church ought to be the state, given our human nature. perhaps, though, if we allowed a little more moral thinking from people of faith into the way we govern ourselves things would run a little more smoothly.

all in all, i think this piece shows us clearly how ignorant it is to say "i'm right because i'm conservative and left is wrong" and use the terrible events of 9/11 to back this opinion. rejecting other people's ideas as invalid because they don't fit inside a war-loving 'kill-'em all' box is dangerous. it leads down a path we've fought against before, and it leads down nearly the same path we are fighting right now.