Home The Open Door to Violence
Home The Open Door to Violence

The Open Door to Violence

The media and the international community has one set of moral rules for terrorists and a second set for those who fight them. While civilized people understand the fundamental moral gap between terrorists and the police and military forces fighting them, the self-proclaimed guardians of our moral high ground repeatedly reverse that gap, damning even the most elementary military tactics and demanding that we respect the civil rights of terrorists -- while excusing the crimes and atrocities of the terrorists themselves as merely "reactions" to our oppression of them.

In other words we can't have the moral high ground, so why bother trying for it?

The liberal definition of moral high ground is dependent on the tactics we use and the originating causes of the violence. The conservative definition of moral high ground is rooted in our purpose and the nature of the enemy.

While liberals concentrate on means and causes, conservatives concentrate on ends and the dualism of good against evil. It's an unbreachable gap for as long as liberals remain indoctrinated in their belief in the fundamentally evil nature of civilization and conservatives remain committed to the defense of civilization.

The attempt to achieve some sort of middle ground by limiting interrogation techniques to waterboarding or providing comfortable conditions at Gitmo and maintaining a legal process throughout has failed utterly, because as usual any government tactic to fight terrorism, no matter how moderate, is immediately compared to Nazi Germany and fascism. It's a pointless argument that can only be won by common sense or a blunt object.

It's not a debate that can be won so there's no point in bothering with it. Defending a nation against the Islamic threat is rooted first and foremost in the right of a people to survive. Today that is a real threat in Israel and Europe which are under relentless attack by Islam, yet too many Israelis, Americans and Europeans are invested in preserving some sort of moral high ground. But our moral high ground comes not from the choice of tactics but from the fact that we are defending our nations and fighting for their survival. The defense of home and hearth is the only moral high ground we need.

All options are on the table for our enemies and that means all options should be on the table for us. We are not merely facing a war, we are facing every sort of atrocity followed by demographic overrun and an eventual choice between eradication and enslavement. In the face of that horror, some flee, some collaborate and some stand their ground.

The first option taken off the table should be any need to comply with some imaginary moral high ground. The media and the UN and the EU have increasingly legitimized the tactics of terrorists while delegitimizing the tactics of those fighting against terrorism. There is no benefit to maintaining a "purity of arms" or to constantly show our moral superiority to the enemy when the cost is so enormous.

The equation for fighting terrorism need not be put in terms of moral superiority but in the basic self-interest of self-defense. If the moral high ground is gone, so much the better. We never needed it anyway. We only need to know what we're fighting for and why. The moral high ground debates bog everything down in the swamp of justification and counter-justification, in arguments over acceptable violence and unacceptable violence.

If liberals and terrorists feel that all violence is acceptable for Islamic terrorism, why shouldn't we make the identical argument in reverse. Take the limits, the boundaries off the table. After all the only real incentive for every moral development in Western warfare was that each side had an interest in protecting itself from the other side by taking a tactic off the table. Muslim terrorists have never been forced to cope with this because we are bound by far more rules than they are. Yet the unrestrained reality of naked force may be the only way to show them why restraint is not only moral but in their own interest after all. They've opened the door to violence but only going through that door can help them learn the need to shut it.


  1. I pray I'll live to see the day when Americans, or Europeans, or Israelis take to the streets - just come out of their houses, and begin to fight back. Ultimately, I think it'll have to go that way - small militias maybe to take care of business. Since our liberties are already being stripped away, we have no choice but to fight.

  2. It might sound simplistic, but I think most things are fairly simple.
    I think that most people excuse evil so that when their turn pops up to be judged, someone will judge them lightly also.
    I think the media etc are afraid of Mohammedanism and are sure they will "win" and want to be "safe" and remembered for "good" when their new leaders come into power. I really suspect this is true.
    Unfortunately their hopes will not come true.

  3. Anonymous16/3/08

    Right on! We can live in peace, but if the enemy can't then the only choice, to me, is to roll right in, take over and start moving in. If you have a problem with a neighboring country shooting missles, invading, or just can't stop attacking you, just use every weapon at your disposal. Hit and hit hard. In the case of the US, I would start by making mexico the 51st state. In Israel's case I would keep pushing the enemy back taking over the land, moving my countrymen in and if so much as a spitball is shot across the border do it again. Then maybe, just maybe, they will learn. If not then keep going, eventually they will learn or just be gone.

  4. Unless and until American leaders gather the moral courage to have an honest discussion with the public about the religion of Islam, the founder of Islam and its violent history, we are in for a long, painful road ahead it seems to me. This president has not leveled with the American people.

  5. I wrote the earlier comment to Gary Bauer. I am waiting to hear back from him.

  6. President Bush and Dr. Rice are up front and public condemning the Jews for occupying and oppressing the "Palestinians," a non-people who have no right to Jewish land. These are jihadist killers President Bush and Secretary Rice defend.

    Why doesn't Mr. Bush speak out against China and her terrible human rights abuses? Where is the United States Olympic Committee?


  7. same place it was under Bush Sr and Clinton

    the PRC is a valuable trading partner for corporate America so it gets most favored nation status and aside from a few lines in the SD's annual report, the human rights stuff gets sidelined in favor of engagement

  8. The love of money really is the root of all evil. Not money, the love of it. That's why Bush won't offer any criticism of China on human rights violations or the oppression of Tibet.

    And the massacre of those Yeshiva students was hardly a blip in the international media.

    A sick state of affairs, indeed.

    As for torture, I get sick of hearing people say resorting to torture makes us no better than the terrorists. They're mostly uncaring snobs who wouldn't care if unless it were their child getting gunned down or their relatives jumping to their deaths to escape the intense heat and air hunger of the World Trade Center.

  9. Sultan, I did not realize this low-life, scumbag is a Jew. Did you report on and condemn this Jew who is an embarrassment to our people? Don't you live in New York?


    I see, Debbie Schlussel wrote that ambulance-chaser, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is defending him but I don't remember her stating this scumbag is a Jew.

    Where is the outrage?

  10. Elliot Spitzer is intermarried and has attended Church, so I don't consider him a Jew but where's the outrage? The media has been talking non-stop about Spitzer for a week now in great detail. I have more important priorities than trash like that. I'm satisfied Spitzer's political career is over and hopefully Giuliani will run for Governor of New York against the black radical currently in the spot

  11. Anonymous16/3/08

    Defending hearth and home comes first. I agree that people are afraid for being labeled "racist" when trying to discuss the state of affairs. Let's not take any options off the table. Bullies only understand one thing-pushing back and hitting harder.

  12. moral relativism..ah yes the poison of choice...........after all whos to say Barak Husseins' hatemonger , anti semite preacher is wrong eh?..pfffttt!

  13. Spitzer was always a tough prosecutor and he knew the deck was stacked against him and bowed out without a lot of pathos. He stated that he won't be involved in politics anymore. End of story, end of career.

    I hope Guiliani runs for governor, too. This blind liberal governor is a nutcase. He wanted to introduce legislation requiring cops to shoot suspects only to stop them, not kill.

    Shooting to stop and scare is dangerous and no law enforcement agency teaches it.

  14. yes it's really not feasible outside of the movies

    hitting a broad target such as the chest is hard enough when the suspect is moving, absurd ideas like shooting to wound is unreal unless you're wild bill hicock

    this is why tasers were issued, for non-lethal situations

  15. Exactly.

    Sigh. I should have listened to cops when they told me they were against Spitzer because of his running mate Patterson but I was too caught up in all of the anti-Semitism being hurled by politicians who were against Spitzer.

    Not to mention that in my eyes Spitzer was the tough prosecutor who could do no wrong.

  16. Dear Sultan,

    Can you please explain to me what high moral ground the IDF was taking when they obliterated Jenin?

    The whole world can see the atrocities commited by Israel and try as you might to distort the picture the facts on the ground remain immutable.

    I would also like to mention that terrorism was a declared policy of jewish organizations during the British mandate in Palestine. Explain that.

    Q. Do you agree that Israel is occupying Palestinean land?

  17. Can you please explain to me what high moral ground the IDF was taking when they obliterated Jenin?

    the moral high ground of protecting its citizens against terrorist attacks, such as the suicide bombing in a hotel at a passover seder

    nor was Jenin obliterated, you should gotten the memo on jettisoning that piece of propaganda

    Q. Do you agree that Israel is occupying Palestinean land?

    There is no Palestinean or Palestinian land. It's all part of Israel and had the Arabs living there really wanted it, they might have agreed to the UN compromise, avoided starting two wars or actually taken the deal Bill Clinton offered them

    instead the goal of Arab and Muslim fascism is to commit genocide against Israel and the Jewish people

  18. Anonymous18/3/08

    In my opinion it's many faceted cowardice. Fear of being considered racist, or reactionary but most of all fear for one's own hide. Outside of the military there is a dearth of individuals willing to fight and die for what they believe in - for what is right. That means we are in trouble because the enemy is serious and committed. You know the story about the ham and eggs, right? The chicken is involved but the ham is committed.

    What does the wisest man, King Soloman say in Ecclesiates?

    "A wise man's mind (tends) to the right, while a fool's mind (tends) to his left."

    ~Ecclesiastes 10:2


  19. Dear Sultan,

    I am quite bewildered at the notion of higher moral ground being somehow related to an occupying force (ISRAEL). i find that funny and somehow sad at the same time. excuse my sarcasm but i honostly I don't know where to start putting your argument to rest. It wouldn't be a difficult task as i am sure you know. Instead, i'd like to ask you a few questions and maybe through your answers you can see the paradox posed by your argument(s).

    Q1. Is Israel occupying Palestinean lands NOW?

    P.S. I read your quote above " There is no Palestinean or Palestinian land".... seriously go ahead and answer and no need to elaborate. YES/NO will suffice.

  20. the occupying force in the middle east would be the bedouin

    since there is no Palestinian state and there never was one, Israel cannot be occupying its territory, any more than it could be occupying the territory of the kingdom of the strawberry pancake land

    but isn't it about time Turkey ceased occupying Cyprus and Sudan ceased its genocide

  21. In 1914 there were only 70 - 80,000 Jews in Palestine and over 800,000 Arab Palestineans living there for many many generations. Some of the 80,000 jews were new immigrants (1st and 2nd generation).

    ISRAEL/Jews could have been anywhere? Uganda, Argentina ..... or still scattered all over the world.

    If it wasn't for the attrocities commited by the "West"(the west you so cautiosly cling to) there would not be ISRAEL today.

    Back to the moral high ground issue. So you're saying that "defending Israeli Citizens is the moral high ground" but in your article you said that respecting their (the terrorists) civil rights is the moral high ground. assuming that what you're saying is coherent i can clearly deduce that the actions taken by the IDF in Jenin were in no way violating any civil rights. So what if i prove you wrong?

  22. Re: 1.33AM

    But the bedouins were there before EU jews in Palestine even learned how to speak Hebrew.

    So if i say...aaaaaahhh i'll make it a turkish/ottoman protectorate will you leave?

    Who are the indigeneous ppl of the land my friend?

  23. if they were living there for many generations, you wouldn't have had to cite 1914

    and considering there were less than a 150,000 in the 1800's, they weren't there for generations, for the most part they were migrants who went where the work was

    the EU is recent, it certainly didn't exist in the 19th century

    as for Jenin, you need a new tune. That scam fell apart a while back,

    we're the indigenous people and we're back again and you might want to watch out if plenty of other people who were native to the region don't get sick of your little tinpot bedouin monarchies and tyrannies

  24. Anonymous18/3/08

    Moral high ground, occupation, indigenous -- all key words, used to elicit a knee-jerk, emotional reaction. Why did you leave out apartheid?

    Israel is no more occupying the land than any other nation created or won in battle in recent or distant past. Do some reading and educate yourself.

    Why is Israel the only country who, forced to fight and win land already belonging to it, called an occupier? Israel was attacked by all surrounding nations in 1967 and won -- that is the core of the matter -- the real pebble in the shoe of every Muslim and European Jew hater.

    The Holocaust silenced the Europeans for a while. But after the Six Day War and the onset of political correctness, identity/victim politics and Liberation Theology it became almost mandatory to talk about the 'brutal occupation' comparing Jews to racists Nazis. Palestinians were the poor brown underdog holding a stone and Jews were the rich white oppressor driving a tank. This concept was wholeheartedly embraced by Europeans because it absolved them of their guilt and freed them from the chains of restraint of pretending they really cared about the slaughter of over six millions Jews. They didn't even have the decency to halt the 1972 Olympics after the massacre of nine Israeli athletes by our partners in peace.

    But let's talk about recent history, shall we?

    Israel has been held to an unreasonably higher standard than ANY sovereign nation would allow to itself to be held to. There is no nation now, or has there ever been a nation, who would make concessions of land over and over again to an enemy whose signature on a peace agreement was made with disappearing ink.

    No other nation except the Jewish Nation transfers their own people from their homes again and again, surrendering land, only to be attacked for it.

    There is no nation who is expected to free the very people who murder their children in some sort of cock-eyed prisoner exchange. And let me add something here. I'm constantly hearing the useful idiots compare the large number of Palestinian dead to the Israeli dead. I say this to you: You yourselves have determined what the worth of one Palestinian is by your "demands" and what I have learned from you and incidentally known all along is that 400 Palestinian criminals do not equal even one dead Jew. Thanks for admitting that to the world for me ;-)

    There is no other Nation on earth expected to receive blow after blow from kassam rockets, Grad missiles, sniper fire, and recently the slaughter of 8 unarmed Yeshiva boys mowed down with holy books in their hand - but Israel

    There was no massacre in Gaza. There was no massacre in Jenin. No massacre. The UN is willing to concede to that after a lengthy investigation and yet you are still unwilling to accept the truth.


    “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”

    ~Thomas Mann

  25. Indigenous people of the area there in the middle east were the Canaanites . G-d told the children of Israel to destroy the Canaanites , and this command is well known. Israel led by Yehoshua after the death of Moshe entered and took the land as their inheritance as promised to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.

    In the 1800's Brigham Young and also Mark Twain among others went to Israel and reported aside from colonies of Jews in some areas and migrating bedouins passing through, the land was virtually empty. No "Palestinians" were there.
    2000 years ago the land was known as Judea after the Jews who lived there . It was at that time a Roman occupied area.


    A U.N. report released Thursday found no evidence to support Palestinian claims that Israeli forces massacred up to 500 people in the Jenin refugee camp, but it criticized both sides for putting civilian lives at risk.
    The long-awaited report accused Palestinian militants of violating international law by stockpiling weapons and putting fighters among civilians in the densely populated camp. It in turn accused Israel of delaying critical medical and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and raised questions about the massive destruction of homes and buildings in the camp that left 17,000 people homeless.

    Israel, which had repeatedly denied any massacre took place, praised the report. The Palestinians called it "an important step."

  26. Notice that so called Palestinians have a place for a nation now, but do anything but build it!
    Gaza is a mess. They tore the place apart all by themselves.They are doing nothing to create a nation or build it up.They want welfare and others to do it for them.
    Other nations built on their own.
    It is sad.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like