The logic of weakness

The Democrats and the Left seem hell—bent to topple President Bush at any cost.

Ted Kennedy says, boiled down to its essence, that Abu Ghraib prison is now under new US management that equaled that of Saddam. The last I heard, the prisoners are still alive and eating permitted food. Who knows what happened to the prisoners under Saddam?

Thus, the Democrats and the Left have attacked the war unwisely —— a replay of Vietnam.

During the peak of the Democratic campaign, Howard Dean said the US should pull out of Iraq, and so did Dennis Kucinich. It simply cannot be an accident or mere coincidence that the surge in violence occurred when the campaign was in full swing —— a serious charge, but one that is supported by terrorist logic and theology.

For good measure, Ralph Nader, the Reform Party candidate, says the US should leave Iraq.

More about Moore, below.

In an earlier article I argued that, of the five main sources of Islamic terrorism, the ultimate trigger is a twisted theology based on an evil logic. This article focuses on one aspect of the logic of the war against terror.

Apparently, Democrats and Leftists do not understand the mindset of violent religious fanatics. However, it is time for clarity. It is time to take off the gloves because we are in a war for the survival of our civilization. Given the shrill discord in American politics, the terrorists' evil logic goes simply like this:

1. We terrorists believe that if our enemy is weak and discordant, then we have a better chance of winning the war and fulfilling our goal. 

2. We observe that Kerry and the Democrats are wishy—washy, relatively speaking; Kerry's silence on the war is a weakness. Also, a 'law enforcement matter' is an incalculably weaker matter than prosecuting a full war. Discord among our enemies favors our cause.

3. Therefore, we terrorists have a better chance of winning the war and fulfilling our goal over the weaker and more discordant enemy, led by John Kerry and the Democrats.

These three premises can be defended, easily.

1. Terrorists prefer to fight weaker and more discordant opponents and impose their goal on them.

This is so obvious that we don't need to elaborate on it. It is better to fight a ninety—eight—pound weakling than a professional heavyweight boxer. As to discord, a house divided cannot stand. So discord and weakness fit hand in glove.

The terrorists also want to impose an ultimate goal. What is it?

Shari'ah (Islamic law) covers all aspects of life. Thus, after beheading the South Korean Kim Jung—il, al—Zarqawi said that he and his group would not rest until the entire globe is dominated by Islam (which supports my earlier assertion that the terrorists have a twisted theology). Though terrorists take it to extremes, this world view is reinforced by Qur'an 8:39, 9:29, and 9:33. It is easier for them to fulfill their goal if they have to confront only weak leaders.

How much clearer does their goal have to get until we sleepy, tolerant Westerners comprehend it?

2. The Democrats and John Kerry are weak on the domestic war on terrorism and on the Iraq War, and they sow discord.

This is where we will spend the most time, since many may dispute this premise.

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has no positive plan for the war on terror or the Iraq War, except an observation that terrorism is a law enforcement matter. He seems to be delaying any policy announcement on Iraq until the last moment, in case something big happens, for better or worse. But his silence is deafening and deadly.

Too many Democrats and Leftists are unresolved or perversely resolved. It is incumbent on the Vietnam veteran Kerry to step up and offer a strong plan.

What is your plan, Mr. Kerry? For the sake of the US soldiers and the suppression of the surge of violence in Iraq and ultimate victory for the Coalition, what is your plan?

The ultimate signal of discord and weakness is the 9/11 Commission, now irredeemably rife with Democratic partisanship. Conveniently, their final report is due out just before the Democratic Convention in late July.

It is unimaginable that during WWII the opposition to FDR would have set up a 12/7 Commission ('a date that will live in infamy') to investigate the President: what did he know and when did he know it? Did the US intercept a secret cable from the Japanese, forewarning FDR, who refused to notify the military? Did he and Vice President Truman invest in a company that profited from the war, so they wanted the war? What about FDR's mistress in Georgia? Did she know anything?

The opposition cannot bring itself to admit —— or do they refuse to see, for political gain? —— that we are fighting for the survival of civilization. Michael Moore has become a de facto leader of the Left, and his film, Fahrenheit 911, contributes to national disunity. The terrorists must be gratified. Hizbullah has indicated it wants to help the film achieve wide distribution in the Middle East.

Countless fanatics in the Arab world will love this film and conclude, not falsely, that not only the Left's resolve, but also America's resolve, have weakened. Premise (1) says the weaker the opponent, the better the odds of the terrorists winning.

Moore believes that the terrorists are freedom fighters leading a resistance against imperialism. The facts are just the opposite: the terrorists are fighting for religious intolerance, the very thing Moore despises. Al—Zarqawi said so. Is Moore's logic equally twisted? Or is he that unaware and uninformed? Would it be reckless, given our struggle for civilization and his irresponsibility, to call him a traitor?

One of the first rules of war is: know your enemy. Evidently, Leftists like Moore can't even identify who the enemy is, so that they can know them. In case he's wondering, it's not the US or Bush, but the terrorists, and they would like to take away his right to make films like Fahrenheit 911. So he must stop shooting his own army in the back, as they wage war for his and our security and freedom.

Foolishly, it seems the opposition does not grasp that the terrorists do not understand US internal political fights. It is true that they can read election results, as they did in Spain, but they do not understand the intricacies of democracy.

After all, Saddam Hussein actually let Scott Ritter, former UN inspector and an early opponent of the Iraq War, speak before Saddam's Congress. Amazingly, Saddam apparently believed that Ritter's speech could have done him some good back in the US.

It is stunning that Democrats and the Left do not catch on to the world of the terrorists, but instead they play into the terrorists' plans with shrill, cheap language and accusations.

This is not to say that the likes of Ritter or the Democrats have to march in lockstep with the President, but it is to say that their failure to present a specific policy on domestic and international terrorism is deafening and deadly.

Doing nothing but sniping at the President and falsely accusing the Vice President of war profiteering, as Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, did recently, without evidence, only strengthens the terrorists in their war, because they perceive discord and weakness.

If one believes that premise (2) is extravagant, then one needs only to provide evidence that the Democrats are not weak. Where are their plans for victory? Therefore, until substantial evidence is brought forward that firmly and clearly contradicts the premise, the gloves are off and the terrorists' evil logic stands as not irrational: evil, but not irrational.

3. Therefore, the terrorists will have a better chance of winning against Kerry and the Democrats.

The conclusion, though serious, follows necessarily. Here it is, shortened:

1. If A, then B. (If our enemy is weak and discordant, then we will have a better chance of winning.)

2. A obtains. (Kerry and Democrats, our enemy, are weak and discordant.)

3. Therefore, B obtains too. (Therefore, we will have a better chance of winning.)

Of course, the conclusion assumes Kerry and more Democrats will get elected, which brings us to another article in the near future.

The inference, though, as it stands, is shocking, but true and sound. Too often Democrats and Leftists have gone around the bend with shrill language; they've become unhinged. The terrorists must feel that their violence is having an impact and that they are winning, since they see so much weakness and discord in the Democrats right now, thrown out to the world over television.


Jim Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in Southern California. He has also published a book, Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997).

The Democrats and the Left seem hell—bent to topple President Bush at any cost.

Ted Kennedy says, boiled down to its essence, that Abu Ghraib prison is now under new US management that equaled that of Saddam. The last I heard, the prisoners are still alive and eating permitted food. Who knows what happened to the prisoners under Saddam?

Thus, the Democrats and the Left have attacked the war unwisely —— a replay of Vietnam.

During the peak of the Democratic campaign, Howard Dean said the US should pull out of Iraq, and so did Dennis Kucinich. It simply cannot be an accident or mere coincidence that the surge in violence occurred when the campaign was in full swing —— a serious charge, but one that is supported by terrorist logic and theology.

For good measure, Ralph Nader, the Reform Party candidate, says the US should leave Iraq.

More about Moore, below.

In an earlier article I argued that, of the five main sources of Islamic terrorism, the ultimate trigger is a twisted theology based on an evil logic. This article focuses on one aspect of the logic of the war against terror.

Apparently, Democrats and Leftists do not understand the mindset of violent religious fanatics. However, it is time for clarity. It is time to take off the gloves because we are in a war for the survival of our civilization. Given the shrill discord in American politics, the terrorists' evil logic goes simply like this:

1. We terrorists believe that if our enemy is weak and discordant, then we have a better chance of winning the war and fulfilling our goal. 

2. We observe that Kerry and the Democrats are wishy—washy, relatively speaking; Kerry's silence on the war is a weakness. Also, a 'law enforcement matter' is an incalculably weaker matter than prosecuting a full war. Discord among our enemies favors our cause.

3. Therefore, we terrorists have a better chance of winning the war and fulfilling our goal over the weaker and more discordant enemy, led by John Kerry and the Democrats.

These three premises can be defended, easily.

1. Terrorists prefer to fight weaker and more discordant opponents and impose their goal on them.

This is so obvious that we don't need to elaborate on it. It is better to fight a ninety—eight—pound weakling than a professional heavyweight boxer. As to discord, a house divided cannot stand. So discord and weakness fit hand in glove.

The terrorists also want to impose an ultimate goal. What is it?

Shari'ah (Islamic law) covers all aspects of life. Thus, after beheading the South Korean Kim Jung—il, al—Zarqawi said that he and his group would not rest until the entire globe is dominated by Islam (which supports my earlier assertion that the terrorists have a twisted theology). Though terrorists take it to extremes, this world view is reinforced by Qur'an 8:39, 9:29, and 9:33. It is easier for them to fulfill their goal if they have to confront only weak leaders.

How much clearer does their goal have to get until we sleepy, tolerant Westerners comprehend it?

2. The Democrats and John Kerry are weak on the domestic war on terrorism and on the Iraq War, and they sow discord.

This is where we will spend the most time, since many may dispute this premise.

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has no positive plan for the war on terror or the Iraq War, except an observation that terrorism is a law enforcement matter. He seems to be delaying any policy announcement on Iraq until the last moment, in case something big happens, for better or worse. But his silence is deafening and deadly.

Too many Democrats and Leftists are unresolved or perversely resolved. It is incumbent on the Vietnam veteran Kerry to step up and offer a strong plan.

What is your plan, Mr. Kerry? For the sake of the US soldiers and the suppression of the surge of violence in Iraq and ultimate victory for the Coalition, what is your plan?

The ultimate signal of discord and weakness is the 9/11 Commission, now irredeemably rife with Democratic partisanship. Conveniently, their final report is due out just before the Democratic Convention in late July.

It is unimaginable that during WWII the opposition to FDR would have set up a 12/7 Commission ('a date that will live in infamy') to investigate the President: what did he know and when did he know it? Did the US intercept a secret cable from the Japanese, forewarning FDR, who refused to notify the military? Did he and Vice President Truman invest in a company that profited from the war, so they wanted the war? What about FDR's mistress in Georgia? Did she know anything?

The opposition cannot bring itself to admit —— or do they refuse to see, for political gain? —— that we are fighting for the survival of civilization. Michael Moore has become a de facto leader of the Left, and his film, Fahrenheit 911, contributes to national disunity. The terrorists must be gratified. Hizbullah has indicated it wants to help the film achieve wide distribution in the Middle East.

Countless fanatics in the Arab world will love this film and conclude, not falsely, that not only the Left's resolve, but also America's resolve, have weakened. Premise (1) says the weaker the opponent, the better the odds of the terrorists winning.

Moore believes that the terrorists are freedom fighters leading a resistance against imperialism. The facts are just the opposite: the terrorists are fighting for religious intolerance, the very thing Moore despises. Al—Zarqawi said so. Is Moore's logic equally twisted? Or is he that unaware and uninformed? Would it be reckless, given our struggle for civilization and his irresponsibility, to call him a traitor?

One of the first rules of war is: know your enemy. Evidently, Leftists like Moore can't even identify who the enemy is, so that they can know them. In case he's wondering, it's not the US or Bush, but the terrorists, and they would like to take away his right to make films like Fahrenheit 911. So he must stop shooting his own army in the back, as they wage war for his and our security and freedom.

Foolishly, it seems the opposition does not grasp that the terrorists do not understand US internal political fights. It is true that they can read election results, as they did in Spain, but they do not understand the intricacies of democracy.

After all, Saddam Hussein actually let Scott Ritter, former UN inspector and an early opponent of the Iraq War, speak before Saddam's Congress. Amazingly, Saddam apparently believed that Ritter's speech could have done him some good back in the US.

It is stunning that Democrats and the Left do not catch on to the world of the terrorists, but instead they play into the terrorists' plans with shrill, cheap language and accusations.

This is not to say that the likes of Ritter or the Democrats have to march in lockstep with the President, but it is to say that their failure to present a specific policy on domestic and international terrorism is deafening and deadly.

Doing nothing but sniping at the President and falsely accusing the Vice President of war profiteering, as Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, did recently, without evidence, only strengthens the terrorists in their war, because they perceive discord and weakness.

If one believes that premise (2) is extravagant, then one needs only to provide evidence that the Democrats are not weak. Where are their plans for victory? Therefore, until substantial evidence is brought forward that firmly and clearly contradicts the premise, the gloves are off and the terrorists' evil logic stands as not irrational: evil, but not irrational.

3. Therefore, the terrorists will have a better chance of winning against Kerry and the Democrats.

The conclusion, though serious, follows necessarily. Here it is, shortened:

1. If A, then B. (If our enemy is weak and discordant, then we will have a better chance of winning.)

2. A obtains. (Kerry and Democrats, our enemy, are weak and discordant.)

3. Therefore, B obtains too. (Therefore, we will have a better chance of winning.)

Of course, the conclusion assumes Kerry and more Democrats will get elected, which brings us to another article in the near future.

The inference, though, as it stands, is shocking, but true and sound. Too often Democrats and Leftists have gone around the bend with shrill language; they've become unhinged. The terrorists must feel that their violence is having an impact and that they are winning, since they see so much weakness and discord in the Democrats right now, thrown out to the world over television.


Jim Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in Southern California. He has also published a book, Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997).