Published on April 10th, 2015 | by Rick Robison0
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe most Americans have any idea the truly dark nature of the enemy we face, or the trouble these fanatics will send our way in the name of their God. I have a friend who greatly admires Mahatma Gandhi, the renowned Indian pacifist. Awhile back we talked about the war against tyranny and terror, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Our discussion went something like this:
“John, the problem with this War On Terror is that I hate war so much,” he said.
“So do I,” I said.
He shook his head, discounting my words. “No, you don’t understand. I really hate war. This is why I love Gandhi so much. He had a better way. You’re different, John. You’re a ‘militarist,’ you see a world of threats that must be neutralized. I don’t. People are basically peaceful. We should help them be peaceful and avoid war at all cost. No matter how you try to explain it, the necessity of fighting these terrorists just sits badly in my gut. You don’t solve anything with bloodshed. Gandhi defeated the mighty British Empire, driving them out of India without firing a shot. He would not have hurt anyone, yet he accomplished his goals without violence.”
“Yes, he did,” I said. “He was a renowned peacemaker, yet he was assertive, even aggressive, in his own genteel way. And he did what even the American Patriots in 1776 were unable to do—get the British to turn over power to the people of India and let them run their own affairs, and he did it without taking up arms. Gandhi was an amazing leader of men. Millions admire him as a hero.”
“Exactly,” my friend said. “But what we are doing in the Middle East is not that. We are fighting and killing thousands. Gandhi wouldn’t have done it that way.”
“Again, you are right,” I said. “But let’s look closer. Perhaps we are making unfair comparisons. Would Gandhi have been successful standing as he did against the Ayatollah dictators of Iran? How about against Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union? Or even resisting the Taliban in Afghanistan? How would Osama bin Laden respond if challenged by Gandhi?”
My friend sat thinking for a moment. He was smart enough to realize that the British and the Taliban or even al-Qaeda or ISIS were, and are, totally incomparable. They are worlds apart.
“I’ll answer my own question,” I said. “In Osama bin Laden’s ‘Caliphate,’ his hoped for Islamic Empire (which ISIS believes they have established in Syria and Iraq) which al-Qaeda is fighting to establish in the Middle East, bin Laden murdered tens-of-thousands of Muslims, as well as Christians, Jews, and others, hoping to terrorize his enemies into submission. How would our friend Mahatma Gandhi have fared against Osama (or ISIS) today? We both know the answer. Mahatma would not have lived beyond the first day of his famous ‘hunger strike against oppression’ before feeling the caress of the Blade of Islamic Justice on his narrow throat. In Iran, the Ayatollahs would have no patience for Gandhi’s ‘effeminate passivity,’ as these Persian dictators would view it. In the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin would have arrested Gandhi the first time he protested and no one would have heard from poor Mahatma again. Under the Taliban’s thumb he’d have died in obscurity in some Afghan hellhole, scratching his sad legacy with his own blood on cold, dank walls.”
The discussion went something like that for some time. Yet, in spite of my best efforts at cold realism, my friend would not be swayed. He apologized, blaming his passivity on family influence and background, and on his education (in essence, his brainwashing). And while I admire him for his convictions, it is fortunate for him that others are willing to pick up arms to protect his life, and the lives of his wife and children. Under the Ayatollahs, or in Nazi Germany, or in Idi Amin’s Uganda, my fine, loving friend, if he had stood to protest tyranny as all true men must, he would have simply been arrested, tortured, then shot, first witnessing the rape and torture of his family. Such atrocities, in the mind of the dictator, are designed to show the world he was “not a man” but an effeminate weakling, his death not a crime, but a mercy killing. And his horrible, searing treatment also a focused lesson for others.
Such is the method of the tyrant. Such is what we face today.
“Code Pink” and other professional pacifists and war protestors have shouted in demonstrations outside President Bush’s Texas ranch-house: “What would Gandhi do?!” Well, history tells us precisely what he would do. At the height of WWII against Hitler and Nazi Germany, Mahatma Gandhi sent a letter to the people of Britain advising them to surrender to the Nazis, to “stop the massive killing.”
Later, when the horrific Nazi concentration camps were discovered, along with the grisly remains of millions of murdered Jews and countless others, Gandhi criticized the Jews for fighting back as they had in Warsaw and other Jewish towns and cities. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” Gandhi said. He claimed that “collective suicide would have been ‘heroic.’”
I guarantee you that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Iran would be ecstatic if more Americans believed as Mahatma Gandhi and Code Pink. In the real world, however, dictators are terrorists. They’re experts at it, as was Saddam Hussein. They intimidate, torture, and murder to seize and hold power, otherwise a more brutal tyrant-terrorist steals power from them.
Gandhi was lucky that he dealt with the benign and always proper British, rather than Adolf Hitler. Calling on Mahatma’s trademark method of passive civil disobedience to resist the tyrant, such men as Ghengis Khan, or ISIS strongman al-Baghdadi, would have simply snatched Gandhi and placed him in chains. Then, while propped on a mountain of pillows and enjoying a noon-day meal, the tyrant would have our passive hero beheaded, or torched, or pulled apart by horses, or devoured by vicious dogs, while the tyrant lounged, chewing on a shank of lamb and accompanied by his harem of shackled 12-year old brides.
AMERCA’S NATIONAL DECLARATION OF UNITY
Today we find ourselves once more swept up in a desperate struggle. Everything is on the line, though you wouldn’t know it if you listen to our President. If we shrink, however, we abandon millions of innocent people to death or subjugation, people who want to believe America stands for more than iPhones, Big Macs, and confused Hollywood icons.
If we fail to destroy this terrorist cancer, and punish the tyrants who back them, we will not get a second chance short of sacrificing millions of lives in the not-too-distant-future when the militants follow us home with devastating new weaponry and the newfound skill to use it, as they have promised their God.
Thousands, indoctrinated in radical Islamist schools, and in terrorist training camps, have made blood-oaths, “holy” covenants they cannot break short of guaranteeing themselves eternal torture, hellfire, and damnation. More ominous, rogue nations and tyrants within those nations have stepped up backing these surrogate assassins, sensing America’s vulnerability and waxing weakness. Of course, they are primarily keying off our President, considered by the world’s despots as a wimp and weakling.
In essence, America has two alternatives: Embrace submission and defeat at the hands of the Jihadis and terrorists, or stand behind our military with a non-partisan “National Declaration of Unity,” putting the enemy on notice that even if they attack us for a thousand years to come, America will never surrender to tyranny and terror.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a freedom-issue, it’s a matter of survival. It involves us all. And only if we are unified will our allies trust us enough to stand with us. Only then will peace and liberty have a chance to prevail.
“O young people of Islam: Follow the orders of Almighty God and His messenger and kill those people (Americans)…. Death is better than living on this earth with the Unbelievers amongst us.”
– Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda Warlord
“…(We) see it in our power to make a world happy—to teach mankind the art of being so—to exhibit on the theater of the universe a character hitherto unknown.”
– Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776), American Founding Father