That irrepressible pixie Ralph Peters is at it again today, slinging more irresponsible attacks at unnamed foes in a FrontPage Symposium on 9/11 with Tom McInerney, Andy McCarthy, and Jed Babbin. What he says is essentially the same as what he said in his execrable New York Post column, but here Andy McCarthy and FrontPage's indomitable Jamie Glazov don't let him get away with one bit of it. Yes, read it all.
The 9/11 Massacre
Never Forget
http://attacked911.tripod.com/
It would good if Ralph Peters would say "sorry" for making a complete fool of himself.
Speaking as someone sweating his a** off in a desert far, far away, chasing the SOBs that we all agree should be killed, I find Peters' wrapping himself in the uniform as a pre-emptive defense pretty damned insulting. On the other hand, he's building a good case for the insanity defense.
Some of you might recall his 25 things a superpower fighting a war on terrorism needs to remember (or some such title), which I posted and linked to here a while back. Number one was learn your enemy, learn everything about your enemy that you possibly can. Ralph has forsaken his first principle, for the sake of expediency, which is exactly what he warns against way down that list.
The question begs itself: Who profits from your little diatribes, Ralph?
It is really amazing how one person out of millions who have served can be so obnoxious. Those of us from military families are embarassed by grandiose types like this. I think the other panel members put him in his place nicely. I only hope he is not invited back again if he continues to regress to childhood.
I have lost all respect for Peters.
My Christian faith and the holy Bible has no similarity with the basic teachings of Mohammed and the Koran.
Jesus was not a warrior, he did not lead armies or order forced conversion or order the murder of his enemies.
Jesus was murdered by his enemies, he forgave them with his last breath.
I maybe a simple man, with nowhere near the intellectual prowess of Mr Peters but I can see the simple truth.
Mohammed was not like Jesus.
Christianity was spread in it's birth by the meek and humble of the earth not the sword.
The use of sword is at odds with Christian principles. Those who have used it act outside of all the New Testaments teaches.
If you use the sword you are following Mohammed's example.
Perhaps Peter's does not understand the faith he professes.
Shame on him, he should know better.
You can tell that Peters' mysterious thought process originates with a strange leftism in his brain. I say that because he defends Bin Laden by attacking Jerry Falwell and suggesting they are both equally nasty people.
Only a leftist could make that argument. And they make it every day.
When you can't stand to hear criticism of islam without answering that criticism by making moral comparisons between mass-murdering terrorists and Christian evangelicals, or between Hitler and Christian evangelicals, you know something is stuck on the far left side of your brain - namely Christian evangelicals.
He is a transparent man. You can see right into him without even looking.
And when Peters says, in defiance, at the end, that he will stand and fight with "innocent muslims" against the islam-haters, you know he has taken sides in this war of civilizations. Indeed, he says so. He says he will take an honorable muslim as an ally long before a Christian evangelical.
The hatred in him is palpable. Everyone has a right to hate what they hate. But at time when his country and his civilization is under attack from a foreign culture, he chooses to defend and protect the moral integrity of the ummah in America and claim the real enemy is Christian evangelicals, as personified by Jerry Falwell, you know this man is not simply deluded or ignorant, he is part of the enemy body politic. And he knows it. And like he said at the end, he will fight with them.
By use of the sword, I mean to impose my faith.
We can take up the sword to defend our Civilization and our children's lives, but we do it with regret and asking forgiveness.
Mr Peters I too have served my country you are not the only one.
Mr. Peters, I hope that Robert Spencer's new book about muhammed is a good sucess because the full truth about islam must come out if civilization is to win.
Interesting symposium and set of view points. Glad to see that none of the other participants stood up for the nonsence that Peters spewed about the 'hate mongerers' who criticize Islam. Funny that Peters should talk about the PC left when he engages in the mother of all Political Correctedness by refusing to acknowledge the link between the doctrine of Islam and the terrorist attacks that muslims commit in mind-numbing regularity across the globe.
Interesting. Ralph Peters takes insult from American preachers like Falwell and Pat Robertson. They can do no right. They are boobs. They are our Bin Ladens; don't you get it: we have are nut jobs too.
And the Bible has evil acts of war like the Koran. So, we're all the same, and I'll die defending moderate Muslims in the US before I get in with the hate Islam crowd. UBL is amongst the fringe, tiny elements of extremists who infest all great religions.
Did I get that right? Is that the thesis of Mr. Peters? That and don't dare argue with me because I faught in the military. Well, I was a major. Well, I was a general, so I'm right kind of arguement!
Why is it interesting? It is dhimmitude; dressed up and spruiced up behind "I'm a warrior-so I have a right to talke about it." Interesting as well because he does name names. He has no problem blackballing Falwell and Robertson for a few dumb comments in the past: 911 and abortionists, but last time I checked, Pat and Jerry haven't advocated wholesale murder, genetial mutiliation, honor killings or killings of homosexuals.
I tilt towards the liberal side of the social spectrum on many issues that might offend many traditionalists. I don't agree with Falwell and Robertson on their stance. But never once have they advocated murder, and many times they advocated loving the sinner-not the sin or preaching the redemptive message of Christ: not stoning your victim, throwing him down a mountain, or hanging him for being gay in a Tehran jail.
The traditionalist Christians I have met have tried to convert me. But not with deception as in the case with another religion of peace, but with love and respect. When I decline, I still have a head on my shoulders, still practice medicine in a town that is overwhelmingly Christian in nature, still am treated with love and respect. Any differences with Islam?
Peters smears by naming names when he can--it's easy to make fun of Falwell and Robertson--they have opened the door by a few bad comments(as if any of us havene't). But going after somebody like Robert Spencer takes a bit more moxie; Peters won't go there except by the broad smear approach.
The final 'interesting' I had was Peters desire to almost fall into place for the enemy. He's rash and heatedly takes on(with personal invective)any American who debates him(ascribing the worst possible motivations), while giving the Muslims--moderate and not-so-moderates a wide bearth. You can detect more than a hint of outright admiration between his script. He is loathe to offend them, while offending Falwell and company occurs without thought and with evident relish. Ralph Peters meet General Aoun, or is that too harsh? But, I wonder how Peter's 'mentality' would change if Christianity were a minority in the US?
What's hilarious is that Jamie Glazov takes him to task and Peters' first response is that Glazov has twisted his words. Of course he never mentions how his words were twisted.
This debate about moderate Islam really stems from a single difference. If you believe that religious texts don't actually "say" anything but can be manipulated in whatever manner the followers of the religion say, then you tend to be on Peters' side. Since most Muslims don't blow people up, Islam is peaceful and therefore it is just a finge element. If however, you believe that regardless of the actions of the belivers a religion actually has core beliefs, you tend to fall on the "Islam is the problem" side of the equation. It doesn't matter if every Muslim on the planet is peaceful because there is always the risk that they will decide to return to the violent texts of their religion. I know there are people who don't fit that mold. However, that is the general dividing line.
It doesn't matter if every Muslim on the planet is peaceful because there is always the risk that they will decide to return to the violent texts of their religion.
Posted by: Terrahawk on September 11, 2006 11:18 AM
While there may be peaceful muslims there is no peaceful Islam. Islam, at its very core, demands complete submission to the will of Allah as laid down by Muhhammad. There is no spirit of compromise within Islam. It is, and always has been, convert or be killed. All muslims, even the most avowedly peaceful ones, are part of the problem since by basic definition they subscribe to the ideology of Islam.
Posted by: Terrahawk
What's hilarious is that Jamie Glazov takes him to task and Peters' first response is that Glazov has twisted his words. Of course he never mentions how his words were twisted.
yes, that was amusing. ;-)
Indeed.
Hats off to Jamie Glazov.
The symposium with Ralph Peters was interesting in that he wants the West to get serious about killing terrorists. He calls bigots those who see Islam as the source of terrorism.
It seems strange that someone throwing around the "bigot" label would also have a strong interest in killing people! Meanwhile, those who see a problem with Islam itself are not interested in killing people, but want to keep discussions between infidels and with Muslims on the intellectual level. For that they are being called bigots! Something seems amiss.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24313
[snip]
Blanket condemnations of Islam are stupid and counter-productive. We've got enough enemies in the Middle East (and we need to get a lot more serious about killing them). Why make other enemies unnecessarily?
[snip]
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. There's no difference between condemning Islam in its entirely and damning Christianity or Judaism in its entirety.[snip]
Terrahawk writes:
That's an excellent point, and I would add one more thing:
The view that no religious texts have core values and they can be endlessly interpreted and re-interpreted to mean whatever the current clerics think they mean, is a modern view, even in the West, which means it's far from a universally held view. A Christian of the Middle Ages or a Jew two thousand years ago wouldn't have believed that. It's an illogical attempt at extrapolation from just two data points: the emergence of the Christian Reformation and the emergence of Reform Judaism. And the emergence of Reform Judaism happened only 150 years ago, after thousands of years of Orthodox Judaism.
It is therefore illogical to conclude that just because Christianity and Judaism have been reinterpreted that all religions, including Islam, can be reinterpreted.
now that Robert is more closely related to fronmtpagemag. In what capactiy, I dont know. It seems the Symposium moderator is Robert Himself.
Is this true Robert? Some of the arguments made under the "FP" heading are near yours almost word for word.
Tell me please, what has Ralph Peters said that Dubya, Condi, Oreilly and Limpballs haven't said.
All of them have attacked "Islam haters" and
Do you guys get it. I watch conservative (cable) news, and "conservative" pundit and pol line up one after the other to mouth the refrain that the "terrorists have perverted or twisted Islam"..So why don't you guys hold your "conservatives" feet to the fire as well.. maybe a massive write in campaign to the likes of Sen. Kit Bond, Oreilly, Limpballs and every other pundit and pol that echos George W. Bush's statements that the terrorists are falling a misguided distorted version of Islam (which incidentally is the Saudi position)..
So Ralph Peters, a retired military officer is guilty of what? Following in lockstep behind his commander in chief, I imagine he knows who can and will butter his bread, certainly not liberals.
And by the way the New York Post is the Most reactionary and conservative paper printed in the City..no cute names for the NYP?
Terrahawk has framed the issue perfectly.
This debate about moderate Islam really stems from a single difference. If you believe that religious texts don't actually "say" anything but can be manipulated in whatever manner the followers of the religion say, then you tend to be on Peters' side. Since most Muslims don't blow people up, Islam is peaceful and therefore it is just a finge element. If however, you believe that regardless of the actions of the belivers a religion actually has core beliefs, you tend to fall on the "Islam is the problem" side of the equation.
A relative of mine is an immigrant from Turkey. He is not religious and neither are his relatives (who still live in Turkey). But if they were asked their religious affiliation, they would say, "Islam," even though they do not attend Mosque or fast during Ramadan or veil the female members of their family and so on.
Perhaps a more realistic goal for the West (led by the United States) would be to secularize the Islamic world rather than encourge "Islamic reform" (because the religion of Islam is so fundamentally hostile to the ideals of liberty that it can not be reformed).
Secularization can occur under dicatorship or under democracy. But the challenge of secularizing Iraq and Afghanistan while adhering to democratic principles is that the majority of voters hold illiberal attitudes and are unlikely to support candidates who would allow for their society to secularize.
Personally, I hope that democracy can secularize Islam over time because I do not believe that Americans are willing to support the toppling of foreign dictatorships only to replace them with "pro-Western" dicatorships. Sure, the United States has made and does make alliances with dictators all the time. But these tended to be dictators who were already in power and the United States simply accepted what was available. That's quite different from establishing one through direct military action.
9/11 IS JUST THE START AND THE NEXT ATTACK WILL WIPE OUT 10 TIMES MORE INFIDELS ALSO THE JEWS WILL BE EXTERMINATED.... ALLAHUAKBAR
Avatar,
No, I was not the moderator of this syposium. FrontPage editor Jamie Glazov was. It may be that he was influenced by material I have written, but he is, of course, a superb writer and thinker who needs no help from anyone.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Mr. Peters seems to have come unglued. He is angry, defensive, combative, irrational and almost incoherent. Casting aspersions on an unnamed "fringe of bigots and haters" reminds me of CAIR's fabricated list of hate crimes against muslims.
I'm completely baffled as to why he had to drag Falwell, Roberts, Christianity and the Bible into his jeremiad, but that makes about as much sense as fulminating against a shadowy group of bigots. Maybe he should read "Truth is not Bigotry."
Peters has written some good things. For example, who can disagree with this?
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/04summer/peters.htm
"Consider our enemies in the War on Terror. Men who believe, literally, that they are on a mission from God to destroy your civilization and who regard death as a promotion are not impressed by elegant maneuvers. You must find them, no matter how long it takes, then kill them. If they surrender, you must accord them their rights under the laws of war and international conventions. But, as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless, left-wing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo, you are much better off killing them before they have a chance to surrender."
"And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. This is sophomoric nonsense. The surest way to swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance. Success breeds success. Everybody loves a winner. The clichés exist because they’re true. Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror, no matter what we do. But it’s far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they’re allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond. Far worse than fighting such a war of attrition aggressively is to pretend you’re not in one while your enemy keeps on killing you."
Peters has written many sane things about war, and about the formulation and execution of our present war policies. And that's why I'm stunned that not just does he defend his previous incoherent column, but he doubles down that bet.
Very strange.
I think that Peters may have been hit of late with accusations of racism for his statements urging a genuine war effort. Recall that CSPAN interview I reminded readers of, where it was HIM getting accused of racism and Hitlerite brutality. I think that may have unnerved him, or rattled him.
And thus his column, and his bizarre performance in that symposium.
I was impressed by Glazov. He handled himself well.
As for Peters, he was wild-eyed. He tried a rhetorical gambit, where anyone disputing his positions, was in the same bed as Robertson and Falwell. And those two aren't pleasant political soul mates. But Glazov not just defended himself, skewered Peters, HE WENT ON TO ACTUALLY DEFEND Robertson and Falwell. And in today's world, that takes some moxy, and not a little skill.
His idea of carving off enemies from the core enemy was interesting. But how precisely are we to do that, and what if the attempt to achieve that policy goal means holding fire on Damascus and Tehran, what then.
Steven L.
The view that no religious texts have core values and they can be endlessly interpreted and re-interpreted to mean whatever the current clerics think they mean, is a modern view, even in the West, which means it's far from a universally held view.
That's a good point. It is a Western and relatively recent view.
Not knowing much about Reform Judaism, I can't comment on it. However, being an evangelical, the Reformation in the Protestant view is that it was a return to the actual Biblical texts and principals that the Catholic Church had distorted through papal decrees and tradition. This is why when people say that Islam needs to have a reformation I want to scream. Islam has been somewhat dormant up until the past 30 years or so because the West had ruled it for about 100 years and had toned down it's teachings. A "reformed" Islam is what we are already facing.
Nariz:
So why don't you guys hold your "conservatives" feet to the fire as well.
First, I've seen plenty of complaints about conservatives on this site. If it makes you feel better, McTierny and Babbin don't provide much beyond the "Islamic moderates will have to do something" trope.
Glazov and McCarthy at least realize the problems inherent in Islam itself.
An excellent read where Peters played the useful idiot perfectly.
thaz.. America has'nt been attacked by you try-hards since 9/11/2001...
Ralph Peters says, "And, by the way, we'll win. No question about it. None. Zip."
Well, this didn't make it into his NY Post article. It explains a lot. He is complacent. He is so absolutely certain that militant Islam will be defeated that he feels no urgent need to shore up defense against it.
Something like the following must be going on inside of him: 'Heck, let's even start sniping and back-stabbing among our own; we can afford to because there is no doubt we'll win anyway. So let's be pretty about it and not call people names or criticize the religion which is inspiring those poor people to lash out. After all, Islam doesn't have anything to do with it. I know a lot of Muslims and they're good people,' ... blah blah blah.
It is coming from his complacent certitute that we will win no matter what anyway, so why get in a huff over it?
It's not enough that we have to continue sounding the alarm about militant Islam, even after 9-11 astonishingly enough, but we also must battle this kind of complacency even among those who are our nominal allies in this struggle. A shame.
9/11 IS JUST THE START AND THE NEXT ATTACK WILL WIPE OUT 10 TIMES MORE INFIDELS ALSO THE JEWS WILL BE EXTERMINATED.... ALLAHUAKBAR
Posted by: thaz at September 11, 2006 09:36 PM
More love and compassion from the religion of peace, eh?