What the Heck was I Thinking!?

George Soros buys an ad writes an opinion article for the Bost Globe on the Hezbollah - Israeli conflict. He attempts to use this situation to attack the war on terror. He’s got a few logic problems in his opinions:

 

"However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage."

 

Oh, really! Are the Lebanese not responsible for the behavior of those whom they’ve invited into their country? Are the Hezbollah not responsible for the way they acted?

Next:

 

"Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority."

Israel was "wrong" to just do what the Palestinians had been demanding all that time, and they were wrong to just pull out of Lebanon. They should have announced their impending departure -that would have been the diplomatic approach. What utter nonsense! And, 

"The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates “us" from “them" and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.

It’s OUR fault (either Israel or the US - they’re probably interchangeable in Soros’ mind) they behave the way they do. If we didn’t egg them on, they’d never behave so badly.

And as for that differentiating "us" from "them," I want that differentiation to be clear. Israel and the US may have caused civilian casualties in the war against these islamo-fascists, but it’s because the terrorists hide behind women and children, and even sometimes kill them themselves only to blame it on us.
It is all our fault:

 

"When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, allowing an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt; and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands. None of the six points was implemented."  

Let’s face one clear fact. The Palestinian authority has been taking almost $5 billion per year and hasn’t done a single thing with that money except line the pockets of corrupt officials, and buy guns for thugs. They and their buddies in southern Lebanon don’t want to do anything beneficial for the people they live among. They just want to kill jews and destroy Israel. Israel, on the other hand, has developed the least hospitable land in the middle east, save for the desert, into the most productive. They have done this without the huge bankroll of oil that the muslim countries have had.

As David Gutmann writes in a post at FrontPage Magazine:

"The Arab world is suffering a crisis of humiliation."

The Gates of Vienna blog has posted several thought provoking articles recently on how to consider radical Islam and Islam in general.

One thought that repeats itself to me when I’m reading posts like this is how the upside down thinking of the Left in the US and Western Europe can get. They hate the US for what they consider our imperialistic goals (ignoring that we’re the one country in the world that has invaded many places and occupies as an empire NONE of them). At the same time, they are sympathetic to the aspirations of the Islamic Fascists, who propose not only an ideology that undercuts all the individual right the Lefties love, but actually want an elistist empire run by muslim clerics. To quote Dymphna from Gates of Vienna,

"Socialism, in some of its forms, shares a vision with Islam of elitist imperialism: the common many, ruled by the wise and benevolent few."

Conjecture 3 states that the current "war on terror" is the last chance to avoid catastrophic war with people who can only be stopped by being killed.

Quite a chilling post. 

Gates of Vienna: Empire and Apocalypse

The Belmont Club posted on "The Three Conjectures" associated with the attainment of nuclear weapons by Islamo-fascists. Conjecture one contends that the threshold to nuclear war is lower now, because we know the intent of the islamo-fascists. Their willingness to use any weapon available removes any doubt.

Conjecture two - that attaining these weapons will destroy Islam builds on the first conjecture and adds the following component to the equation:  

"Under these circumstances, there would no incentive to retaliate proportionately."

Any time an article or post starts with the sort of absolutist logic as,

"Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much,"

you have to know the author plans to perform several seemingly impossible feats oftwisting logic.

Instapundit pointed me toward another interesting post. Interesting to me because of the upside down logic applied throughout it. 

The post by Russell Shaw,  "I Hope And Pray We Don’t Get Hit Again-BUT….." at  The Huffington Post demonstrates some interesting twists of logic.

 

"Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;"

is juxtaposed with,

 

 

"…everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment."

There’s that fascinating twist of logic - supporting abortion rights will save the lives of hundreds of thousands of women, as will opposing capital punishment. No mention of the more than a million per year deaths of those thingies that cause the pregnancies - No, I don’t mean the guys who impregnated the women, the fetuses.

 

In addition, the number of executions under the reinstated capital punishment laws is an outrageous 60 per year. But wait, you say, the true number should be that huge list of hopeless victims of imperial power who have been condemned to death, not just those actually executed. That number is way higher - 3,500, except when you compare it to the number of homicides per year - 15,000 or more over the past 20 years.

There’s more of this upside down logic in his post. Read it for the entertainment value, or to see how bereft of good thinking some lefties are. Don’t look for well thought out logic.

James Lileks posted over at Newhouse News Service on the difficulties of getting people to like some parts of Western culture.

One interesting comment illustrates the upside down logic of the leftist cultural elites especially well:

"The artists seem more concerned with a culture that won’t let gays marry than one that won’t let them live."

Daily Kos, a site I almost never read just to avoid the frustration some most of the comments generate, had a post (BIG h/t to Black Five) that must be read.

These heros deserve the few minutes of your time it takes to read of their dedication, the impact they’ve made in just a few short years on others’ lives, and the sacrifice they made for the greater good of our communities. 

 

I saw this post at Dr. Sanity. My comments are inserted in Bold text. The concept of a culture that is different than ours is fascinating to me. To see how this difference plays out in reactions to specific things is even more fascinating.

EVERYDAY DELUSIONS OF A SHAME CULTURE

For anyone who desires real peace in the middle east, it must be extremely disheartening to see thugs like Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and Assad assert that they have achieved a great victory over Israel with regard to the current UN-brokered ceasefire. On TV, the scene abruptly shifts to the explosion of joyous fireworks over Beirut that proclaim an historic victory for Islam as women and children dance in the streets; when days before we were shown by the same media the pathos of dead children’s bodies pulled from wrecked buildings; and the suffering of horribly victimized Lebanese (( my comments: This is the difficulty in fighting a total war. The islamo-fascists are too weak militarily, so they add two other groups which are individually not stronger, but collectively generate total war: 1) military - gives the cause a governmental cachet; 2) militias or terrorists - asymetrical tactics and engagement of the non-military elements of one’s enemy; and 3) the civilian population - this provides cover for the terrorists and militias, supporters to provide infrastructure to aid the army, militias and terrorists, and "innocent" shields, some of whom are in fact truly innocent, others of whom are supporters, terrorists or militia masquerading as innocents.)), defeated and dispirited by the vicious bombs of the Israelis.

Let us put aside for the moment a discussion of whether the claims of victory have merit, since I believe it is far too early to be able to assess what may yet happen in Lebanon and how the situation will unfold. The ultimate victor and loser remains to be seen and a case could be made at this moment for either outcome.

Instead, let us consider how a shame culture–like the Islamic states and terror groups involved in this conflict–deal with success and failure.

For a typical shame culture the most important issue–indeed the issue that trumps truth or reality every time–is what people believe. ((my comment: this means it is the outward appearance, regardless of inner facts, see my comments above about "innocents".))

What others believe to be true has a far more powerful impact on behavior than what any particular individual believes; since the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else, is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This need to avoid shame motivates the individuals in the culture to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

It also motivates them to do whatever is necessary to give the impression that honor has been preserved. ((my comment: this is especially so if the actions to be taken are know and generally acknowledged to be bad))

As long as others in the culture believe that honor has been preserved, then neither the individual or the group have to experience either guilt or shame. It is not surprising therefore, that a great deal of effort and planning goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty); your victimization (even if you are the oppressor); and your victory (even if you are the loser).

Since shame cultures work best within a collectivist/totalitarian framework, it is often fairly easy to manipulate appearances in order to avoid shame and claim honor has been preserved. ((my comment: I see it as a reverse situation: For those in this kind of culture, control over things is crucial. There is a strong incentive to adopt collectivist/totalitarian political form to control the information flow - censorship, manipulation, coersion of civilian pop. A shame-based regime must channel the emotions outside the regime to survive.)) When you control the media and/or the social structure; have unlimited ((OIL)) money and sophisticated tools for the development and dissemination of propaganda, then it is even easier.

It is an absolute cake-walk if you also happen to have a bunch of useful idiots managing the media of the enemy you hope to shame and give the appearance of defeating. ((my comment: Useful idiots or useful fools. Those who aren’t the fools are really the 5th column. ))

Remember, in this kind of culture, nothing is more important than making sure you do not experience feelings of humiliation and shame.

We see hints of the profound reservoir of shame ((my comment: especially as Israel has done so much more for their people with hardly any natural advantages - this shames the neighboring regimes.)) that already exists within the culture in Nasrallah’s references to humiliating defeats in both the near and distant past of Islam’s history; and his insistence that this time, they have achieved an "historic victory". It is this reservoir that is the psychological motivation that drives the continual denial, delusion, paranoia and projection of the culture, and which keep it mired in a medieval time-warp. ((my comment: Is this time time when they last had any really great success - the expansion of the caliphate?))

In a true shame culture, the goal is not necessarily to win a war, particularly since maintaining conflict with the traditional enemy–i.e., the "Jew"–is part of what is perceived as an "honorable" way of life, and should never really end. The primary goal of Hezbollah (and Hamas)is very simple: to impose shame on Israel.

As long as they do that, then they have "won" by their standards. Faking photographs to demostrate the evil of their enemy; hiding among women and children to force the enemy to kill those same women and children; transforming every loss of personnel into a condemnation of Israel for attacking "innocents"–all these tactics serve the purpose of shaming the enemy and inducing guilt.

Thus, by these standards, the new barbarians of the Islamic world, know they cannot lose in any conflict with the west–no matter what the reality is.

By these standards, all that is required for them to proclaim victory is to avoid shame and make their enemy feel it instead.

By these standards, they will ALWAYS–always– be psychologically empowered, encouraged; and reinforced in their delusions of grandeur–not to mention in their violent, aggressive and barbaric behavior– by any compassionate or concerned humanitarianism on the part of their despised enemies; by any cessation of conflict before they are utterly and complete defeated; or by any attempts on the part of the west to negotiate a real and lasting peace.

Such are the everyday delusions of a shame culture.

My additional comments:

Shame based:
- emotion-based; you feel shame
Guilt-based:
- intellect based; are you guilty (what are the facts?)

War is both intellectual and emotional. The militias, gangs and terrorists all operate predominantly at the emotional level, not at the ideological/intellectional level

Tom Barnett points to a post at The Coming Anarchy. While the post is interesting (I don’t buy the specific logic proposed in it), One of the comments caught my eye: 

 

(Quoted from the post) "This solution would require renouncing the state’s monopoly on violence by using Shiite and Kurdish militias as a counterinsurgency. This is similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980’s and Colombia in the 1990’s.

Michael said: "I wonder if this would also work with the American public in our homeland defense. I’m thinking of the Army of Davids vs. the Jihadi’s loose network"

The thought that popped into my head about this was the difference between an Army of Davids and the militias proposed as a solution to sectarian violence. The Army of Davids presumably has a shared goal and one that is shared with the populace at large - suppresion of the terror event and the restoration of peace and order.

 

A militia as envisioned doesn’t have the populace’s-at-large  interests in mind. They want their area to be protected from an incursion or uprising of a minority. The militia likely won’t care of the central government lives or dies as a result of the actions they take.

Tom Barnett wrote in his weblog that:  

"Immigrants: fish or cut bait This may come as crude and insensitive, but if you’re truly confused about competing identities when living in an adopted country, you should go home immediately."

My title for this post shows that I view the influx of non-asimilating migrants only slightly differently. Either you ARE home, or you’re here for a different, potentially more insidious purpose.

Mr. Barnett also points out some of the effects of political correctness, "And the more "tolerant" you let the system seem, the more losers you’re gonna attract."

Mr. Barnett is responding to this article on a poll taken of British Muslims. As he states in his blog, this is something to be worried about. If the group’s identity is so divided, then some of the people will either be a 5th column, or at the very least unreliable.

Reading through Wizbang Blog, I found another post that discusses the issue I raised in this earlier post. Infinite hatred or winning the hearts and minds…do we seek to appease or do we earn respect from others?

 

Infinite hatred? - Wizbang we are "losing respect and credibility around the world." I noted a long time ago that the world tends to only like America when we’re on our knees. as long as we’re reeling from an attack or begging for their forgiveness and tolerance, we’re one of the most-liked nations on earth.