Articles

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Immorality of the Moral High Ground

Throughout the War on Terror, liberals have been lecturing us on the virtue of holding on to the "Moral High Ground", which is their way of saying that we should forgo trying to defeat terrorists on a military level, and instead show them up with our superior civil liberties. Yes Abdul, you may have a suitcase nuke, but if we catch you, we'll still  pay for your legal defense. Torture our soldiers if you will, Mohammed, but see if you aren't impressed when we TIVO your favorite team's soccer matches for you in that horrible 19 million dollar hellhole of misery and degradation at Guantanamo Bay.

Of course Mohammed is never going to be very impressed by his free legal team, Halal cooking, volleyball courts and pro bono prosthetic legs, because Islamists don't derive their moral high ground from doing nice things for their enemies. They derive their moral high ground from getting up on a high place and tossing rocks or grenades down at their enemies. A Good Muslim is willing to kill for Islam. The Koran says so explicitly. On the other hand liberals insist that only a Bad American is willing to kill for America. A Good American will believe that Islam is a religion of peace, even while he's having his head chopped off by Johnny Mujaheed. He will eschew any tacky American flags, in favor of Chomsky and Zinn essays that will enable him to understand what a rotten country he lives in, and why the terrorists chopping his head off might have a point. All this really means is that practicing the Moral High Ground is a good way to get beheaded and reading the works of mentally ill Communists is not a good survival strategy.

We can't win the War on Terror so long as we hold to liberal definitions of the Moral High Ground. We can't even begin to really fight it. What's worse, is that not only does this warped understanding of morality result in more American deaths, it results in more deaths of both fighters and civilians on the enemy side. Because where the soldier understand that the most moral way to win a war is, quickly. The bleeding heart liberal thinks that the most moral way to win a war is, never. To a liberal if we must fight a war, we should do it with our hands tied behind our backs, and after a decade of senseless bloodshed, we'll finally come to realize that war is a bad thing.

Putting liberals in charge of determining what soldiers can do in a war is like putting die hard big government advocates in charge of privatizing the government. Not only will they see that the whole thing fails, they'll make sure that it fails as painfully and horribly as possible in order to serve as a lesson to any future government that might flirt with any similar notion. They did it with the War on Terror, intimidating military interrogators with threats of legal action and exposure, while helping the terrorists realize that all they need to do is claim torture in order to be set free. They did it brilliantly in Iraq, subverting the reconstruction in the aftermath of a successful war, from within, until the entire thing collapsed into squabbling factions. They did it on Iran, feeding false claims that there was no nuclear program long enough for Bush to leave office.

Their goal is to break Western civilization. Break it of its exceptionalism. Break it of any notion that it has any worthwhile accomplishments to its name. Break it of any idea that it has a right to exist. That is their real Moral High Ground. National and international suicide in favor of nobler and better Third World creeds that won't be as greedy or as industrially developed, and will build societies based on sharing and caring, and of course the obligatory head chopping. Nothing else matters.

Israel, which has its own hard-at-work left, has something similar called "Purity of Arms" which is Hebrew for the "Courageous Restraint" medal that General McChrystal was thinking of handing out to US soldiers in Afghanistan for not killing terrorists. Purity of Arms is one of the best strategic advantages Israel has ever handed to the terrorists, because it gives the terrorists a free pass to carry out attacks behind civilians, while threatening soldiers with severe penalties if they fire without being 100 percent certain that they're about to be murdered if they don't. The ongoing captivity of Gilad Shalit and the entire Second Lebanon War would probably never have happened, if the IDF weren't constantly trapped in the Purity of Arms madness, as soldiers in a war zone are forced to second-guess their own survival, because Jewish self-defense is bad for public relations.

How many people died in both Israel and Lebanon because IDF soldiers are trained not to shoot, rather than to shoot, thereby allowing themselves to be ambushed by terrorists and turned into hostages and the causes of a war? How many more people will die when Noam Shalit finally gets his way and thousands of terrorists with blood on their hands are traded in for Gilad Shalit's freedom? And how many more will die when the cycle repeats itself. The numbers become more horrifying as you trace them back to their source.

Why does Israel have a terrorist problem, and not Jordan, which has the same Arab population that Israel does? It's not simply because Israel is mostly Jewish and Jordan is mostly Muslim, though that is a contributing factor. A primary focus of Islamists is to take over countries with majority Muslim populations in order to build the Caliphate. The reason is because in 1970 when the terrorists began hijacking planes and declared that a part of Jordan belonged to them, King Hussein sent in the army. He didn't kill a mere 52 Palestinian Arab terrorists, as Israel did in Jenin. Or a mere 107 in Deir Yassin. Not even the 800 or so killed in fighting between Arabs in Sabra and Shatilla. No, according to Arafat, King Hussein's troops killed an estimated 25,000 Palestinian Arabs.

This wasn't some sort of unique event by Middle Eastern standards. When the Islamists tried to stage an uprising in Hama, Syrian troops killed somewhere between 20,000 to 40,000 people. When Arafat sided with Saddam during the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinian Arabs. Why did they do it? Because by 1990, Kuwait had some 564,000 native Arabs, and some 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. So the Kuwaitis began bombing Palestinian Arab neighborhoods, top officials boasted about "cleansing" Palestinian Arabs from Kuwait, and tanks and troops were sent into Palestinian Arab neighborhoods, setting up checkpoints, killing, imprisoning and torturing thousands. There were plenty of atrocities that got brief mentions in the media, before the Palestinian Arabs were gone from Kuwait, and everyone moved on.

Just to grasp the sheer scale of the double standard here, in the same year that the Bush Administration was pressuring Israel to negotiate with the PLO in the name of human rights, President H.W. Bush gave a blank check to the Kuwaiti royal family to do anything they wanted to the Palestinian Arabs in their country. He told the Kuwaiti ambassador, "The war wasn’t fought about democracy in Kuwait" and justified everything the royals were doing, saying, "I think we're expecting a little much if we're asking the people in Kuwait to take kindly to those that had spied on their countrymen that were left there, that had brutalized families there, and things of that nature." The Kuwaiti government newspaper Sawt Al Kuwait, featured Bush's comments under the headline, "We Would Be Asking a Lot, If We Asked Them to Show Mercy."

And that just about says it all. The same Western governments which think it's asking a lot to expect Muslims to show mercy, make those demands of Israel all the time. They make those demands of their own forces, while never expecting Muslims to show mercy.

There are no efforts to indict the Kuwaiti Royal Family or the Assad or Hussein clans for atrocities or war crimes. Bashar Assad is an honored visitor to the same UK, which calls in the Israeli ambassador every other weak, to preach to him about restraint. King Hussein remains widely popular. His wife Raina has a YouTube channel in which she talks about how important human rights are, and how awful the Israelis are to the same people that her hubby's regime rules over, and which his father massacred. The web isn't cluttered with piteous sites about the Black September massacres or the Kuwaiti ethnic cleansing of their Palestinian Arabs or the Syrian massacres at Hama. Aside from a few people who were directly affected by it, no one actually cares.

And who's to blame? The Moral High Ground is. Terrorist groups can only win, if you let them. Their entire strategy relies on drawing you into a conflict, on the understanding that you won't have the nerve to really crush them. If you do crush them, the conflict goes away. But if you try to be Mr. Nice Guy, the terrorists now have you hook, line and sinker. If you restrain yourself, you'll be involved in endless little fights, dying the death of a thousand cuts, until the terrorists and their international backers successfully replace you with a Pro-Appeasement government. And if you recognize the terrorists and make concessions to them, you'll be up to your neck in terror.

The only way the terrorists can win against superior forces is if those forces have their hands tied behind their backs. Governments that focus on "Hearts and Minds" campaigns, and care about posing and primping against the background of the Moral High Ground are the terrorists' best friends. But what is the real Moral High Ground? It's not mercy toward those who show you none. For governments it is about doing their duty by protecting their citizens. For soldiers it is about serving as the protectors of the home front. It is not about sparing enemies, either those under arms or those who aid and abet them. Because that is the surest way to prolong the conflict, and in the long run will cost more lives on both sides.

Not only that, but this false mercy actually kills more civilians, because it turns human shields into a viable tactic. A terrorist who hides behind a civilian, and doesn't get shot, learns that hiding behind civilians is a useful strategy. Other terrorists learn from him that civilians are better than bulletproof vests, because vests won't stop automatic fire, but human shields will. A terrorist who hides behind a civilian and gets shot, is dead, and a warning to other terrorists that hiding behind civilians is not a good way to stay alive. In the long run, the "cruel" act of disregarding a hostage is a much better way to protect civilians in conflict zones.

In the same way, stamping out the first terrorist attacks will save you from engaging in a prolonged struggle. That means doing it with decisive finality. This is a simple truth that every Middle Eastern country, but Israel understands. And a simple fact that every Muslim country understands, but the United States does not. Throw a dart at any major Muslim nation, and you find repression, mass graves and even genocide. Indonesia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Turkey-- it never ends. There's a very simple reason for that. In Islam, force is the only real morality.

Mohammed is not the Prophet of Islam because he offended the Meccans and got killed for it. He's the prophet of a worldwide religion, because he killed everyone in his path. And then his followers killed everyone in their path. And then their followers went on doing the same damn thing for over a thousand years, right into the present day-- where Muslims are still killing and making war on everyone who isn't a Muslim, and refuses to become one. Islam has only one real revelation, death. But it has to be death with a purpose. The purpose is the triumph of Islam. If victory is possible, then the Islamists have plenty of volunteers to die, because they believe in the Islamic paradise and its 72 virgins. If on the other hand, the Islamists get stomped into the dirt, their religious credibility runs at an all time low. When victory is impossible, Islam withers and goes into the long sleep of cultural hibernation to awaken in a more permissive time.

There's only one way to defeat terrorists. To fight them without any more restraint than they impose on themselves. Under such conditions, superior force and technology makes the victory of the civilized side inevitable, and creates an incentive for the uncivilized side to become civilized, or pay the price. The Moral High Ground, the whole idea that restraint toward those who would kill you is the essence of morality, is one of the most perniciously self-destructive ideas ever coined. It is suicide with a slogan. The Moral High Ground is not moral and it is not the high ground, it is the way by which civilians go to their death over the cliff of their own warped ideals.

There is only one Moral High Ground that that can defeat, the moral high ground of standing up for civilization, against those who would drown it in the ichor of their own hate, the stench of their own greed, the lust of their own power and the blood of their endless murders. It is not moral to let your family be murdered, rather than harm the murderers. He who slays those who kill his loves ones, stands on the true moral high ground. The only true Moral High Ground that there is.



(Spanish Language translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)

20 comments:

R_not said...

I think that from what I have heard of those who think they are morally superior is that they don't have a clue as to what islam's texts or laws contain, or its realy history of bloody jihad both past and present, or what kind of a man mohammed was.

I have taken on these types quite often and they don't have a clue. The very most some of them might have in their readings is what some muslim(s) have given them - and we know that is nothing but taqiyya-dribble - or what some other 'useful idiot' has written, such as Dinesh D'Souza.

R_not said...

There is also one thing that is not being mentioned and that is the stealth jihad that is going on in so many countries - including ours. We have their useful idiots (the liberal left) helping them along.

Political correctness has made it so the ones in charge do not declare such organizations that belong to the international terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Fethulah Gulen, etc a terrorist organization and all their groups, compounds, etc be given the boot out of our ihstitions.

We turn a blind eye to their threats/demands, taqiyya, immigration, polygamy, and in some cases - pediphilia, slavery (some Arabs are in prison for that - the ones we caught), etc.

The MSA/MSU is in our schools brainwashing our young with the help of the liberal left wing, MPAC and NAIT demand our TV/media/news become sharia compliant, banks are opening up sharia finance (of which some of the money made off of that is required to go to the violent jihadists as is zakat), etc.

I could go on and on with a list of things they are doing with this stealth jihad - compounds, enclaves, and even training youth to be future jihadists (jawalascouts.com)

Lemon said...

They used to be called bleeding heart liberals.

Jesterhead45 said...

I truly despise those mortally superior types, who believe that the west (and especially Israel) have to be held to impossible "Angelic" (double-)standards.

When I think of those types, I am always reminded of those comic book superheroes that always send the bad guys to jail rather than kill them, only for the latter to predictably escape at some point while plotting revenge. It rather makes you wonder whether the superheroes keep the bad guys alive only to give themselves something to do rather than for the sake of justice like they claim.

When I was younger, I was taught that it is MAN not Angels, who are the superior of the two by virtue of having free-will and being tasked with turning evil into good. (e.g. Murder is bad, but killing your enemies before they kill you is a righteous act as well as killing the descendants of Amalek that continually plot our destruction, etc).

To anyone who is for civilization, those mortally superior (double-)standards, where one has to be All-Good pacifists and maintain the immoral dualistic limbo by not defeating evil are nothing more than dead weight to be discarded.

Islam’s nonce nabi ("prophet") is reputed to have said that “War is Deceit”, so only total war without any self-imposed limits will work, where even their “holy places” (both sunni & shia) are razed.

King Saul-class mercy where one can say to the hostile media of how proud one is of having the most moral and humanitarian army (even helping the enemy) will simply not cut it.

mikeT said...

virtuoso article..well done!
mikeT, jerusalem israel

Anonymous said...

Kol haKavod. This is the first article here that I can agree with without any reservations. By the way, your article also points out why India, Russia, Armenia, Cyprus and Serbia would make better allies by far for Israel than the United States and Western Europe. In the long run, I expect that Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, Georgia and Greece can also be added to the list.


The Western world may be doomed, but the Orthodox and Hindu East is unencumbered by the West's false moralities. Or it soon will be, once it sheds the restraints of westernization and embraces its own traditions.

Anonymous said...

Master analysis. This validates the saying: be kind to the cruel and you will be cruel to the kind. Look what happens in Israel today, arab terrorists are being freed, child killers study for master degrees in our universities, "israeli" arab dissent and flauting the laws are being overlooked, but... on the other hand they through Jews out of their homes, destroy synagogues bash heads in Amona, run over people with horses and arest 13 year olds and keep them in jail for weeks. This is bringing us closer to the self destruction of our country

Anonymous said...

The Western world has been brainwashed with the help of the politically correct doctrine and their most famous slogan: if you kill your attacker you are as bad as he is.
Something must be done to turn around the course of selfdestruction that we are on.

Anonymous said...

so many emotions surface when I read this. This post is so well written, so common sense, so logical, so true and so very terrifying because I cannot imagine our current course being rectified.

Can anyone here...Daniel, or anyone else for that matter, offer up a little hope so that I can get a full nights sleep :)

I personally cannot imagine our 'civilized' society ever reversing course. I feel as though our "touchy feely, ACLU, I don't know my ass from my elbow" culture is to heavy and bloated to be steered back onto the "common sense course." Why is everyone so blind to this problem. Muslims are certainly not sly, clever, charming. They are in your face savage bullys. The kind that I thought would have the whole world unified against them because they are so UN-likable. Hell... I am an animal rights/vegetarian/live and let live Daoist, and even I would personally "help" in this struggle.
Even I, who would not kill another living creature for food, or clothing... am heavily armed and would not hesitate to kill to protect my family from violent invaders of, home, town, state or country.

If this "cancer" is allowed to run rampant through our "earthly body" we will die. Cut the cancer out, efficiently, quickly and completely...before it's too late.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

the people tend to already have a common sense approach, it's the leaders, the media and the educational system that we need to shake up

Shlomo said...

"the people tend to already have a common sense approach, it's the leaders, the media and the educational system that we need to shake up"

I wonder how many in the US for example would agree with you? 9/11 is being blamed on Israel for incitement, though Bin Laden didn't cite that reason. The people do NOT have a common sense approach, in actual fact more and more voices, are gaining tract that are blaming Israel and Jews for terrorism, not the other way round. Israel was blamed by the lefties for the Iraq war, which has become another vietnam. The generals who wringing their hands re: Iraq and Afghanistan, This is already the case in the anti semitic European West, but the US is fast cottoning on. Since 9/11 the trend to educate hasn't worked, it's actually made the atmosphere more conducive to sympathise with Islam as being victims, the media in the US is more conservative than in say Europe and along with their left wing allies, they're winning the media war without trying.

Grim said...

To the Daoist anon, a ray of hope:

Once the current system implodes under the weight of unsustainable socialism and resultant demographic suicide, the inheritor nations of the post-Western world will be about as nice and humanist as the inheritor nations of the post-Roman world. When the nuclear wars are over, Islam will be gone forever. The remaining 10% or so of humanity will then enjoy a future without Islam.

Paul said...

The Sultan is most correct in describing the sense of defenselessness that subverts our will to defend ourselves when we pause and give audience to those who claim to be some voice of conscience when, in fact, they have no conscience at all. We would hope that they are motivated by some sincere passion born out of real sensitivity, however inadequate or ill informed it might be. But the sad truth is that too many who stand in the way of self defense are just lying. They know that lying when they see somebody, anybody, about to direct their attention on their own behalf is an opportunity to attach their own agenda to that person's purposes. Any pickpocket knows the strategy.

More here,

In response to Daniel Greenfield's "The Immorality of the Moral High Ground"

nzuckerman said...

It is wrong to constantly read out of the far gone past and Koran to interpret what you believe is going on today. Deal with today and you may be onto something. Just look at the Old testament and killing non-believers, slavery, extra mates etc! or the Christian bible and how it got used in medieval times.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

we're not talking about just the distant past, but when that ideology is carried on to the present, which it is in Islam

Avi said...

In a nuclear war, (i'm addressing the Grim Said poster) Russia would win. Russia has over, 10,000 nuclear weapons and and the US, the next biggest has just under 9,000. Moreover, Russia is a member of the OIC, probably the most influential group in the UN.The modern day Caliphate in other words, which they formed to defend each other from outsiders, though they fight amongst themselves.

This means that the oil nations would be on her side, along with Europe and China and South America, (an ally of Iran)


in a nuclear war, the US would be finished.

Moreover, whatever population is left of the aggressor side, will be annihilated by those who survive, much like the Nazi's were.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

American weapons are much more likely to launch successfully than Russian weapons, especially considering all that has gone on in Russia since the 90's

not that it's ever likely to come to that

the US would win a nuclear war, but the costs would be rather severe

if a nuclear war did happen, it's a safe bet that everyone else would lay low, particularly countries with no first strike capabilities

Avi said...

Greenfield, you’re right, it’s unlikey to happen, but not impossible. It only takes one nutter, remember that fruitcake in Vienna, who had such delusions.

I totally disagree with the rest of what you say though.

though both countries have nuclear detectors, air, sea, and land, the Russian detection and defences are superior. Russian nuclear launch detection systems are superior to even NORAD (the best the US has). In the Urals the Russians have one other ace nobody else has, a computerised nuclear launcher should the need arise, not only does it detect movements well in advance, but is set up to operate even if Russia is caught by surprise, they set that up during the cold war.

There is absolutely no chance of the US winning a first strike nuclear war on Russia, which is what would happen should it attempt a war on all Moslem countries as Grim Said was saying. Not only would the counter retaliation be devastating but all oil to the US will be cut off, the US is reliant on Arab and Russian oil, China and Russia have a mutual defence agreement, which means, that if the US did go on a first strike on Russia, China who already controls it’s economy would be drawn in. Russia’s military is said to be Moslem majority nearly, like it’s population. Such a nuclear war would also destroy Israel, but that doesn’t matter to the jesus generals who long for nuclear armeggedon in the US, because we are only standing in the way of their rapture. It would achieve widespread devastation at most and it wouldn’t be only Moslems who die, but for USA it would be the downfall. Russia is self sufficient, has oil, and could survive a catastrophe like this, they’re used to hard living, but the US could not.

Even now, by the end of this year, unemployment will be almost 15% in some US cities, the economy suffers with the reverberations of the two failed wars. The Iraq war was the catalyst of the current mess that the US is in, and it’s a downward spiral. It was people like Grim Said who were saying it would be a piece of cake winning Iraq, when the world warned it was a losing prospect, after all those trillions being spent on the Iraq war, now the oil contracts are going to China and Turkey, and mostly Shia Iraq is palling up with Iran to make a new regional power. Russia correctly predicted what the outcome would be then, heck even Zeev Schiff, warned that the US invading Iraq would prove to be it’s undoing. That has proven to be true. Now everyone is looking for a way out of Iraq.

Grim said above thinks that this would destroy islam. It wouldn’t destroy islam, as no religion can be destroyed by weapons but it would destroy the US. The South American countries, would team up with Russia to make sure the US is finished, that is whatever is left of the US, once the oil supply is cut. The nuclear attacks on Japan didn’t destroy their religion or culture, it only ended the Japanese attacks. Grim said, like many Americans doesn’t realise that the US has not won one war, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all failed their objectives, these were wars fought by conventional means, their delusions that might means victory, even when the presumed might is propped up by the outside world is perhaps more dangerous to the US.

In military matters, Russia is way ahead of the US.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Russia tends to derive its technology from the West, and what they come up with is usually second rate. Their military today is a mess, it relies heavily on what amounts of mercs.

What the Russians are good though is at propaganda, convincing everyone of how far ahead they are. The US fell for it during the Cold War.

Not that the first strike scenario is even relevant, because aside from a lunatic on one side or the other, nothing will be fired. Both sets of arsenals exist to maintain a stalemate. Russia will certainly not use them if the US invades one of its own client states. Especially when it didn't use them when it twice invaded its own client state, Iraq.

Avi said...

I am Russian, though now an emigrant and from a military background so I know a little about what i'm taling about. I've also lived in the US, and I think it's fair to say it's the US is good at hyping or rather the media. You don't hear half of what goes on in Russia, military secrets are not openly discussed, as they are in the US. Press there is not the freedom of press you have in the US. It's a wholly different society.

My post was a response to the Grim Said, who said about going to war with a religion, your post is more about what would happen if the US invaded a client state, remember, it's only recently that the Russia joined the OIC with it's stated aim of common defence and sharing resources, that didn't exiist before so Russia had no obligation to show it's loyalty, if you get my take, and i'd say "client state" would probably be the case if it was a joint effort like the Iraq war was. I'd say that was the reason, Russia didn't respond with nuclear fire, and not because Iraq was a client state or because of the Saudi's.

In any case, it would also be detrimental for Israel which concerns me more than the US, a nation built upon the genocide of native Indians who are said to be descended from Jews.

Unlike Israel, the US has created it's own problems, and dragged Israel into them.

Have a good holiday, you and all here.

Post a Comment