Yazidi Killings Show Demonic Muslim Fundamentalism
Of the bombers who killed between 175 and 500 Yazidis this week (estimates vary), Saeed declares, "Their aim is to annihilate us, to create trouble and kill all the Yazidis because we are not Muslims."
This is an accurate characterization of the Islamic fundamentalists who against one group after another, have been extending their depredations through the Middle East. (The Islamic state of Iraq, an Al Qaeda front, distributed warning leaflets a week before the bombings declaring the Yazidis deserved it because they were "anti-Islamic)".
Contrast the old man's succinct and accurate view of what happened with the muddled lack of comprehension and unwillingness to assign responsibility where it belongs that we see in the lead L.A. Times editorial this morning.
"Identifying the killers by sect or affiliation does not help us comprehend the incomprehensible: What kind of nihilistic monsters see a benefit to murdering and maiming hundreds of innocent men, women?," the editorial asks. "No historic wrong, no ideological right, no religious calling could ever justify such crimes. Yet they do serve one purpose: to shatter trust and faith in human decency and so make reconciliation almost impossible.
"After nearly five years of war, we cannot accurately count the Iraqi dead...We do not know how many were killed by fellow Iraqis, by U.S. forces or by Al Qaeda zealots. Nor can we apportion responsibility for the deaths caused by the havoc unleashed by the U.S-led invasion."
Shame on the L.A. Times! Shame on it, if it is unwilling to identify the bombers this week as fundamentalist Muslims, and shame on it for being so confused that it does not know who is responsible for the carnage in Iraq - us or the enemy.
It is indeed shameful that these moral nihilists who write the Times editorials and all too many reports in American newspapers throughout the country are unwilling to confront the Nazi successors who for many years now have been engaged in terror attacks in the Middle East. Their weakness invites a further spread of the terror.
And one thing more is clear: The forces that bomb Yazidi villages, that kill innocent Kurds, that murder Roman Catholic priests in Turkey, that attack Christians in Gaza and Lebanon, that avow their intention to destroy the state of Israel, will not hesitate, if they ever obtain nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, from using them against American and other populations who live in the great cities of the West.
How dare the Los Angeles Times lump our gallant soldiers fighting in Iraq and other fronts of the War on Terror with the terrorists! No contempt is too great for these editorial writers who cannot distinguish good from evil.
It is not only the L.A. Times this very morning which falls into this moral abyss. There is a remarkably muddle-headed New York Times editorial on U.S.-Iranian relations which criticizes moves by the United States toward identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for what they are -- terrorists.
This editorial begins, "The dangers posed by Iran are serious, and America needs to respond with serious policies, noit more theatrics. Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization -- as the State Department now proposes -- is another distraction when what the Bush Administration needs to be doing is opening comprehensive negotiations with Tehran, backed by increasing international economic pressure."
The fathers and grandfathers of the New York Times editorial writers did not propose negotiating with Hitler or Tojo. The present-day editorial writers though have continually proposed that we go to Iran hat-in-hand to beg them to stop attacking us, at a time when Iranian-made bombs are killing our soldiers in Iraq and when Iranian nuclear development threatens the whole world.
What we might recall are the words of Duff Cooper in the 1938 debate in the British House of Commons, on the Munich agreement: "The prime minister (Neville Chamberlain) has believed in addressing Herr Hitler through the language of sweet reasonableness. I have believed that he was more open to the language of the mailed fist."
The New York Times stands with Chamberlain, believing that we can temporize with present evil and use "the language of sweet reasonableness" with the enemy.
Thank God, at least for now, we have an Administration headed by President George W. Bush which is willing to defend America, even if sometimes he makes mistakes.
No wonder the confidence so many have had in our newspapers is vanishing, day by day. These newspapers are not worthy of the American people. They can, and must, do better.
I am, however, glad to see the L.A. Times' editorial critique this morning of the service mess at Los Angeles International Airport. The accurate subtitle of this editorial says, "Systems failure at the airport are symptoms of a dangerous pattern of neglect." Better late than never.
Labels: Terror attacks