Nice post. I like your post. However, I can't see it quite as you do. I said the article held something for everyone, and I still see it(not just something for those who believe "the Islamic world neither wants nor deserves freedom and democracy"). When he said
"Suppose they see our liberty as something corrupting to faith and morals"
I think he is speaking of Radical Islam, which he notes is where the threat comes from.
The more I look at the article, the less of any real interest I think he said at all. He said "In their sermons, in editorials in their state-owned newspapers and on television and in the actions of the most radical among them, their objective is clear — to defeat and subjugate all nations and all thinking to their religion and their way." This comment seems to be anti-Radical Islam, but not anti-Islamic in general as you suggest. So I say, he describes Radical Islam, and that is something for those of us who believe in this defensive war.
He appears to criticize our President by saying
"The president asserted that Islam "is consistent with democratic rule," and he listed as examples several countries where non-radical Muslims live (Turkey, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Indonesia and Niger).
These states are not a threat to the United States. The threat comes from states dominated by extremist Muslim militants, especially the Wahhabi brand."
What's his real implied criticism of Bush? Is it that not all of Islam is consistent with democratic rule and Bush thinks it is? Apparently so, but this is not new, not new to President Bush(nor missing from his speeches), and your post adressed the appropriate course of action well(and I see nothing to indicate Cal Thomas disagrees with you). Does he think he's telling anyone anything? Seems so, but he fails, IMO. To me, it seems as if he intentionally appears critical of Bush, but doesn't actually say anything which differs from Bush.
Non-threathening Muslim states denounce Radical Islam. Muslim people, I believe, by and large agree despite massive brainwashing. Does Thomas think Bush wants to force religion and culture down their throats? He doesn't say it, only seems to warn against it. But this isn't new either. The nature of freedom is not rooted in domination, and we don't seek to dominate. Bush seems to be well aware of everything Thomas offers up, judging by our stated intentions in Iraq.
He chided Bush when he said
"To draw a comparison between atheistic communism and radical Islam and to suggest that what happened to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe can be replicated in the Middle East is dangerous,"
yet he offers no other solution. What's missing is an estimation of how dangerous it is to do nothing vs trying to do as we are. I'm not sure Thomas arrived at a worthy point at all, but again, I do think he'd agree with your final assessment, perhaps adding that it will be hard as hell to accomplish. Let him say we should do nothing to counter Radical Islam nor help the citizens living under it, if that's what he means(I don't believe it is what he means).
Dan B. |
