History Misunderstood

Not to beat a dead horse, but can anyone explain - in all seriousness - how in the Nine Hells this man got to the pinnacle of political power without understanding the most basic of historical facts?

Hanson has the right of it (again) in his latest article (Our Historically Challenged President). I can understand the slight misunderstanding about the deeds of a great-uncle in the midst of World War II, however, to misconstrue the history of one's heritage is a bit much (especially in the light which President Obama has here in regards to the Abolition of Slavery in America). And the further point that a system of government should not be imposed upon another is completely unfounded! Hanson points this out, though he only cites the instances in modernity. If one looks at the histories of our race, you can't but see instance after instance of the victorious cultures forcing their views upon those whom have been conquered (Roman history is overflowing with instances of the victorious legions sweeping through smaller 'civilizations' and "introducing" the inhabitants to their way of life).

Another issue is this whole idea of a tolerant Islamism - one which our current president seems more and more drawn to each time something comes to the forefront concerning the terroristic tactics which are utilized in this culture to dominate those who are opposed to their way of life. For someone who does not seen the necessity of one culture imposing its views upon another, President Obama sure seems lenient of his pet religion's checkered past. Alexiev makes a beautiful show of this (found here at Obama's Fantasy Islam) and even goes to show that this attitude has become equivalent to the president's recent comments concerning the bloody path through history which this religion has created.

The Mumbai Situation

As many might have read this morning, the deaths of American hostages within the borders of India at the hands of the terrorist organization which decided that it would be a great idea to move into the region has sparked what could be the last fuse to the ignition of a war that will encompass the whole of the Middle Eastern regions of the world. The Chesler Chronicles put it beautifully:

Islamic fundamentalists have declared a major, global war against the West and against non-Wahabi Muslims. To date, the world has refused to treat the Islamic/Islamist assault as the full-fledged religious war that it really is. No, it is not a traditional war which means that we will require non-traditional, as well as traditional means to fight it.

A further point made by David Altman is something that we will need to seriously consider before starting up the war engines, however. As presented (ironically) in the infamous work Patriot Games, this political writer brings out the deadly edge that any well-organized terrorist organization has over that of the more conventional nations:

Today, a new, different terror army, with several branches is being developed. This army includes all the elements of a military, but exploits the approach of the terrorist. The terror army enjoys the advantages of feeling exempt from any international law or convention, and of being exempt from international pressure or accountability. In addition, they handicap the power of their opponent through exploitation of the claims of internationally accepted values of human rights, correct treatment of prisoners of war, and prevention of harm to civilian populations - though none of these values apply to them, but only to their opponent.

And I'll leave this very open (and, I admit, slightly controversial) topic open with the following quote:

“We want to eradicate Britain and America,” Ay’atulah Mahsoud, the emir of the Pakistani Taliban, has said, “and to shatter the arrogance and tyranny of the infidels. We pray that Allah will enable us to destroy the White House, New York and London.”