Fifty Years of Appeasement Led to Black Tuesday

By Leonard Peikoff

Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The inevitable climax was the tens of thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001—the blackest day in our history, so far. The Palestinians, among others, responded by dancing in the streets and handing out candy.

Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.

This capitulation was not practical, but philosophical. The Arab dictators were denouncing the wealthy egoistic West. They were crying that the masses of their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew all this by means of ineffable or otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer aloud that Americans, rightfully, were motivated by the selfish desire to pursue personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.

The Arabs embodied in extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities and churches, and our own political Establishment, had long been preaching as the essence of virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent wins.

After property came liberty. The Iranian dictator Khomeini threatened with death a British author—and with destruction his American publisher—if they exercised their right to free speech. He explained that the book in question offended the religion of his people. The Bush Administration looked the other way.

After liberty came American life itself—as in Iran's support of the massacre of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the Afghanistan-based assault on our embassies in East Africa. Again, the American response was unbridled appeasement: a Realpolitikisch desire not to "jeopardize relations" with the aggressor country, covered up by a purely rhetorical vow to punish the guilty, along with an occasional pretend bombing. By now, the world knows that we are indeed a paper tiger.

We have not only appeased terrorists, we have actively created them. The Reagan Administration—holding that Islamic fundamentalists were our ideological allies in the fight against the atheistic Soviets—poured money and expertise into Afghanistan to create an ever-growing band of terrorists recruited from all over the Mideast. Most of these terrorists knew what to do with their American training; their goal was not to save Afghanistan.

The final guarantee of American impotence is the bipartisan proclamation that a terrorist is an individual alone responsible for his actions, and that "we must try each before a court of law." This is tantamount, while under a Nazi aerial bombardment, to seeking out and trying the pilots involved while ignoring Hitler and Germany.

Terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of the governments behind them. Their lethal behavior is that of the regimes that make them possible. Their killings are not crimes, but acts of war. The only proper response to such acts is war in self-defense.

We do not need more evidence to "pinpoint" the perpetrators of any one of these atrocities, including the latest and most egregious—we already have total certainty with regard to the governments primarily responsible for the repeated slaughter of Americans in recent years. We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire. We must wipe out the terrorist training camps or sanctuaries, and eliminate any retaliatory military capability—and thereby terrorize and paralyze all the tyrannies watching, who will now know what is in store for them if they choose in any form to attack the U.S. That will be the end of the terrorists.

Our missiles and occupation troops, however, will be effective only if they are preceded by our President's morally righteous statement that we intend hereafter to defend by every means possible each American's right to his property, his liberty, and his secure enjoyment of life here on earth.

To those who oppose war, I ask: If not now, when? How many more corpses are necessary before this country should take action?

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. President Bush must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who seek to kill them.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001

Answers

According to some, the film depicting Pakistinians dancing in the streets was filmed in 1991. -stay tuned.............

(keep this on the down low, we wouldn't want to kill the party)

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 14, 2001.

Does anyone know if the armed forces will take a washed-up 50-year- old ex-hippie chick/Jewish American Princess/flower child?

I'm 'bout ready to go. Seriously.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

How's about this (I understand it was Peikoff's suggestion from an interview)...

Take over the countries mainly responsible for supporting the terrorists; give those countries seven days warning to round up and clean out the terrorists and begin to institute a Western-style civilized government -- with an emphatic public explanation of why. If and when they don't go along with this, bomb them into submission with whatever it takes, then go in and take over.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

I doubt at this stage of the war if the armed forces desire a washed- up 50-year-old ex-hippie chick/J.A.P./flower child, Eve.

But I do. Can I kick the tires and take her for a spin? :)

I know what you mean, Eve. I wrote a couple days ago that for the first time I truly understand that feeling which drove so many young men to enlist in WWI & WWII.

I think Peikoff is more than a bit over the top here. I'm a hawk on this one too, but the U.S. could not possibly accomplish what Peikoff suggests and survive as a country. These herculean tasks would require use of nuclear weapons would they not? This country would fracture like a grenade with its pin pulled.

Peikoff failed to include Iraq in his list of countries to destroy and claim as our own. Wonder why?

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

"Can I kick the tires and take her for a spin? :) "

Oh, yes, Rich! In our army Jeep! And I can picture it all now -- together, our faces thick with camouflage paint, in our combat fatigues and Jeep, with our AK-47s (or whatever it is they might use over there), traversing the hills of Afghanistan...

Back to the issue, I think Peikoff did come across as one very pissed- off dude, but IMO, not altogether unrealistic. For example, if Afghanistan is in the state it claims (lots of it already reduced to rubble from a civil war), the operation shouldn't require a nuclear strike.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

What nonsense.

If anything it was 50 years of interfering in the afairs of other nations that lead to this.

We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire.

So to stop the killing of innocent people Leonard thinks the solution is to kill more innocent people?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Unk, I'm sure it was implied that the killing of innocents would be minimized, but unavoidable in toppling a government. Otherwise, I agree -- it would be nonsense.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Eve,

I am as mad and outraged as anyone else who saw what happened Tuesday. But I am probably alone in thinking that the solution does not lie in nuking the Middle-East back into the stone age. Every time we bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan we only create more poeple who hate us. We bomb them, create more hatred, they hit back at us. We bomb them, create yet more hatred, they hit back at us harder. It's almost Shakespearian in it's predictability.

I am not sure how we can solve this now that it has reached this point, but a course of action that kills people who had absolutely nothing to do with Tuesday's events does not strike me as the right way to go about it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Unk,

The purpose would be not to kill people -- but to topple and replace a government that (directly or indirectly by harboring, training and encouraging murderers) murders people -- one that targets innocents AS AN END IN ITSELF!

And we should replace it as cleanly and surgically as we possibly could -- but replace it; with a free nation. One that respects human life.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Lately our track record at that plainly sucks. Remember the Shah of Iran? Weren't we the ones who created Suddam? Didn't we help the Afganis? The very ones who we hate now?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Lately our track record at that plainly sucks. Remember the Shah of Iran? Weren't we the ones who created Suddam? Didn't we help the Afganis? The very ones who we hate now?

Help them Lord for they cannot even see the causes right in front of their noses.

-- (let@us.pray), September 14, 2001.

Take over the countries mainly responsible for supporting the terrorists; give those countries seven days warning to round up and clean out the terrorists and begin to institute a Western-style civilized government -- with an emphatic public explanation of why. If and when they don't go along with this, bomb them into submission with whatever it takes, then go in and take over.

This plan by Peikoff has us "taking over" the country twice, presumably the second time from ourselves. It also implies we'd have to bomb ourselves into submission in order to accomplish the second take-over. Hmmmm. Good plan.

Unless the first take-over was meant to be agreed apon by their government, which would never happen. This means we go immediately to the second option, because they're being so unreasonable! (I think Peikoff was really hoping for that second option anyway.)

Seriously, "taking over" a country is logisticaly one of the hardest things an attacking force can imagine. Not the destruction of their government - the becoming of their government. It's much easier and better to destroy the military capability and leave the moderate elements of the existing government in place, cowed, with an agreement that they can hold on to power only by following certain rules. Rule number one: if we send you a list of people, ever, you will bring those people to us in chains. No questions asked.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), September 14, 2001.

KoFE, any closer to verification on your rumor?

-- Firemouse (firemouse@mouse.hole), September 14, 2001.

Unk, please step up on this pedestal.

-- helen (vote@for.unk), September 14, 2001.

No Firemouse, but I'm looking....

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 14, 2001.

The word on the street, Firemouse, is that this "dancing" was performed by Palestinian refugees in a camp set up for refugees. Personally, I didn't see it, as much as Stephen claims that CNN showed it several times. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's similar to showing pictures of black folks looting in Watts or L.A. People look at it and say, "See? I told you those people were no good." Of course they then go on to say, "They're all the same, ya know."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

Unk and Bemused -- I hear ya -- logistically it does seem as if it would be very difficult to pull off. But if the money's right I think we might be able to get a permanent group of our very own in there. Or even do it in 2 or 3 year shifts. Or since we seem to have so many supporters on this, get some folks who live closer to the action to do it, or at least to pitch in. You know, corporations do this all the time with their overseas operations, and they generally don't seem to have much trouble manning their facilities. Of course there's a greater risk here, but then you increase the incentives.

Obviously I haven't thought this through, but I think it'd be a fascinating brainstorming session, though. Whaddaya say, guys -- pizza, some brewskis and I bet we'd have it all worked out by dawn. Then the one who can scarf down the last mug the quickest gets to e- mail it off to GWB. :)

And, Bemused -- heh -- that's funny re Peikoff. I think he can come up with some brilliant stuff but sometimes he seems to get really pissed about something and starts shooting from the hip. This time he appears to have come out with something (actually I think the second quote was from an interview, though, so we might want to cut him some slack on that one) that I thought generally made some sense, but in an emotionally overwrought mood -- and it showed.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

"as much as Stephen claims that CNN showed it several times. " I despise Stephen for harboring a Csycho like Cherri, but he told the truth. They did show it NUMEROUS times. You just weren't watching.

-- Betsy Ross (Red White @and .blue), September 14, 2001.

Unk,

One of the reasons why we're talking about serious, sustained military action is because it WILL be different from airstrikes and cruise missiles that appear from nowhere, without warning.

Ground-pounders on the scene won't just be killing the enemy, they'll also be setting up refugee centers and helping the civilian population. In fact, that's going to be a stated part of the mission -- almost Psyops, as it were; to show the people that the Big, Evil Great Satan brings in REAL doctors, REAL medicine, and REAL food.

In fact, it is THIS that the Islamic Fundamentalists fear most of all. They say that they prevent our television programs from entering their airspace because they're "evil," but the REAL reason is that they know that their people (especially their women!!!) will start going, "hey, wait a minnit ..."

Governments who deny freedom to their own people can't let them SEE freedom and the prosperity that it brings, because it will undo their entire program in a fortnight. Thus, the fanatical, almost comically-desperate censorship.

Besides, I respectfully disagree with you on the pure military question, too. Our military has been training in urban warfare and counter-terrorism for many years now (providing no small parcel of fodder for the NWO nuts, incidentally[g]), and they're getting good at it.

Part of the problem in the past is that our offensive against terrorists HAS been limited. We've dropped some bombs and cruise missiles and then said, "there, we showed THEM!" But a full-scale invasion with the classic, stated purpose of forcing an evil government out of power is an entirely different thing.

This article is spot on and what you say sounds so reasonable, too. I *WANT* to believe it myself. But the record of history for the past 100 years forces me to conclude that these people aren't going to be reasonable ANYWAY; therefore, I'm not going to try to negotiate with them.

IT HASN'T WORKED.

Therefore, as Clausewitz put it, we need to destroy their capability to make war (by whatever means). Then they can whine all they want; at least that way, they won't have the capability to hurt me.

Besides, some realpolitick comes into play here: yes, there will be fanatics who are willing to die for their cause, but if you destroy them often enough, they'll finally get the message.

The key ... THE KEY ... this time is, we CANNOT GIVE UP halfway through doing the job. We've got to remain determined to the bitter end.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 14, 2001.

RITE ON STEPHEN,when you destroy a viper-den,you better get ALL of them. time for Americans too stop=partying for awhile-and go buy a gas mask! buuuuut i,m afraid we havn,t =GOT IT yet. if i was a muslim-warrior,i could hardly wait too die=paradise>plus 7 virgins woo hoo!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 15, 2001.

regarding the CNN Palestinian footage, see

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa091101aa.htm

Evidently the charges are false.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 15, 2001.

Stephen,

Where does the invasion stop? I imagine that it would be very tough to invade Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc etc, ALL at the same time, rounding up ALL of the terrorists and their sympathizers at the same time. If we don't get them all at once it will be very hard to stop them from escaping to other nations before our troops arrive to kill them. And we will have to get them ALL before we can leave, without creating new ones in the process. I am not sure how you invade the entire Middle-East, killing tens of thousands of their people without creating more resentment, more people who want revenge on us, but maybe you can.

The logistics are frightening to say the least, as will be the death toll on US troops, the soviets found this out in the 80s I think. Are you sure we can invade Afghanistan with different result than the one the Russians had? I am not so sure myself. And that is just ONE country.

Hey, I am as blood thirsty as the next guy when it comes to killing someone who wishes to hurt me and my country, but I don't know that Americans (in general) are ready to watch thousands of other Americans come home in body bags over the course of many years in a conflict seemingly without end. But maybe they are.

I agree that the past responses by our "leaders" were severely lacking in accomplishing anything to halt these fuckers, but what you are basically saying is that we should go to the Middle-East and kill everyone who does not think like we do...which is pretty much just about all of them.

Hey, what you are saying sounds so good I *WANT* to believe that it will work, I am just not as sure as you seem to be that it will.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Unk,

The invasion stops when all of the terrorist-supporting governments (that's governments -- not the citizenry) are no more -- when they no longer exist as totalitarian regimes. In other words, when they are free.

We'll never get all of the terrorists. But the ones we don't get and the governments who support them will know the consequences of future terrorism. And that's why, while there may be more anger and resentment, not only the death of more terrorists but the certainty of the loss of entire supporting governments will serve as a check on any future terrorist actions. They'll have to ask themselves that as a result of a planned action if it is also Allah's will that yet one more supporting government will become a free one. Because that's precisely what will happen.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Eve, and all,

Make no mistake, if this is the course of action that Bush decides to take I will support him and our troops 1000%. I have the American flag flying on my home, and on both of my vehicles. I waited for seven and a half hours to donate a pint of blood on Tuesday night. I want to see terrorism end as much as any other sane person.

Time will tell if the course of war was the correct one to take.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Unk,

None of these, in and of itself, will solve the problem. But if we do them all together and STICK WITH IT, terrorism will be contained.

1. Increase security. Our borders are completely open. I personally think the ID thing is a waste of time (too easy to duplicate), but we have got to have better security on our borders.

2. Freeze the assets of known terrorists. It's very difficult to be a Jet Set Terrorist without money. This won't stop them, but it's step in the right direction.

Switzerland, Luxemburg and Monaco need to take a hard look at providing protected accounts to known killers who are the enemies of freedom. Yes, they'll object strongly. But if the entire free world tells them that this is the 21st century and it's time for a change, they'll get the message.

(Thus the reason for Bush seeking allies. Hold that thought. We're not doing this alone, though we would -- and COULD -- do it if we had to.)

3. Target terrorist training camps -- forget the cruise missiles; B52's dropping Daisy-Cutters in a grid pattern would utterly obliterate them. When new ones appear, repeat this step. If we get to strike Three, they're out: we use small tactical nukes to sow radiactive fallout to make their chosen hidey holes off-limits for about a century.

4. Step 3 has been difficult because foreign governments have sheltered these terrorists. (That's why we used stealth bombers and cruise missiles in the past, so the we could sneak in before these governments could react.) Put these governments on notice that we'll give them so many days to do the job themselves. If they don't, we'll do it for them (again, see Step 3).

If they try to fight us, the Alliance will make full scale war against them with the classic goal, NOT of harming civilians, but of destroying their capability to make war and forcing a change of government.

Yes, that will be expensive (in lives AND money). But Unk, WE'VE GOT TO DO IT. It is only a matter of time before these maniacs are armed with nuclear weapons! We need to do it NOW, before they get that capability.

We have been putting it off for 50 years, hoping that diplomacy, compromise and reason would eventually make terrorists "see the light." It hasn't worked. Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way that when you're dealing with insane fanatics, appeasement is NOT the answer. Raw, brute force is the answer.

(Oh, and by the way ... said fanatics will STILL hate you. But if you kill or imprison every single one of them, the problem sortof goes away ...)

I doubt seriously Afghanistan could long stand against a concerted NATO effort if we come in full tilt boogie with the whole kit. NATO's military cabilities eclipse those of the Soviets.

Yes, there will be collateral damage among civilians. That breaks my heart. But do you know who bears the blame? THE TERRORISTS. These cowards DELIBERATELY try to hide among the general public JUST SO they can have glorious footage of dead women and children when we hit them.

(By analogy, remember how Sadaam Hussein sheltered his jet fighters in historical monuments, just so we'd be reluctant to hit them? He didn't care a FLIP about those ancient Babylonian treasures, anymore than he cared about his people.)

There is a historical precedent for this: Japan. With the sole exception that the Warriors of Bushido wouldn't normally attack civilian targets, there are striking parallels, from people willing to die for their religion to fanaticism to you name it.

I am a student of WWII history, and believe me, I could find you a dozen experts who were saying that Japan would NEVER surrender. They did after we showed them that their fight was hopeless.

Remember that key phrase: if you demonstrate to a fanatic that his fight is hopeless, he will lose heart.

We then went into Japan and forced a representative government and democratic constitution on them. IT WORKED.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 15, 2001.

Unk,

Let me amplify on #2. By international agreement, anonymous accounts should be outlawed.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 15, 2001.

"if you demonstrate to a fanatic that his fight is hopeless, he will lose heart."

Wrong. Look at Cherri, al, KOFE and Doc. Mostly when you fight a fanatic it only fans their flame.

-- Betsy Ross (Red White @nd .blue), September 15, 2001.

wow, so i,m a fanatic???ooooooobetsy what are you,,neener. betsy boss,do you ever floss???

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 16, 2001.