I'm always struck by the nihilism of the terrorist mindset, the sheer pointlessness of the whole operation. Yes, they succeeded spectacularly in killing lots of Americans, but on the other hand their attack served no military purpose, brought Al Qaeda no closer to the Caliphate that they desire, and in fact set back the organization and its supporters in the Taliban, as they brought down the might of a focused United States upon them. They lashed out in an angry rage, but the actions seem really ill-considered even for their own cause.
I don't think it's helpful to talk about "evil" when confronting the mindset of the hijackers. I think "twisted" covers it better. Somehow they convinced themselves that what they were doing was not only not evil, but in fact morally just and righteous. Among this subset of radical Islamists, morality has been altered beyond recognition as a way to focus their rage (some of it legitimate) over their station and the relative lack of power of their people. Maybe that's what Evil is, after all.
Anyway, no political statements here. Innocent people shouldn't be made to die for a cause. Any cause for which innocents are intentionally targeted is inherently immoral.
Is it Evil or Stpidity?
ReplyDeleteMuslims are not happy!
They're not happy in Gaza . They're not happy in Egypt . They're not happy in Libya .
They're not happy in Morocco . They're not happy in Iran . They're not happy in Iraq .
They're not happy in Yemen . They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan .
They're not happy in Syria . They're not happy in Lebanon . They're not happy in Bahrain
So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia . They're happy in England . They're happy in France .
They're happy in Italy . They're happy in Germany . They're happy in Sweden .
They're happy in the USA . They're happy in Norway .
They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.
And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM
WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY !!
Mitt’s right: Handouts do win votes
ReplyDeleteBy Howie Carr
Mitt Romney’s only mistake was lumping together all of the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes.
A lot of them are elderly, and many of them are voting for Mitt. And there are some people who work, but just don’t make a lot of money, or who would be working if they weren’t legitimately disabled.
But the indisputable fact is, a huge percentage of Obama’s voters are basically wards of the state. There are millions of them, and they have no intention of voting for anyone who might want them to ever go out and work for a living — “no matter what.”
As Romney said in Boca Raton last May: “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
He’s right. Remember the women in Detroit who were lining up for “Obama bucks” right after the inauguration in 2009. A radio reporter asked them where they thought the money was coming from, and one of them guessed it was from Obama’s “stash. I don’t know. But he givin’ it to us. We love him!”
Who do you suppose those women will be voting for Nov. 6?
Undoubtedly the same candidate as the woman in Orlando who was videotaped at a 2008 rally for Democrats saying that once Obama got in, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.”
This is nothing new. There’s a classic book that’s taught, or used to be taught, in college political science classes. “Democracy in America” — it was written more than 150 years ago by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville. He had the same take as Mitt on what has become the American welfare state:
“A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy.”
Can someone say QE3, the Fed’s third round of so-called quantitative easing?
Anyone who doesn’t think the welfare-industrial complex is trying to increase dependency isn’t paying attention. Last weekend in Arlington, someone handed me a letter from the superintendent of a school system north of Boston that’s trying to get more kids onto the town’s free lunch program.
“In an effort to increase participation in the program,” the superintendent wrote in boldface, “any family that completes a free/reduced lunch application by September 21, 2012, will be entered into a drawing on Monday, October 5 for a chance to win one of two iPads.”
Get on welfare, get a free iPad. It may not be PC to say it, but Mitt Romney is on to something here.