Egypt on the Brink, Obama Doing His Best Carter Imitation

Friday, January 28, AD 2011

[Updates at the bottom]

Egypt has sent out the army to the streets of Cairo with reports of gun-battles and deaths everywhere.  Media sources are reporting 870 wounded, but this can’t be confirmed as of now.

How important are the events occurring in Egypt today in reference to the United States?  Very important.

Any person of history understands that in the 20th and 21st century, how Egypt goes, goes the Middle East.  The most distinguished Islamic university is located in Cairo and militant Islamic organizations such as Al-Qaeda are off-shoots from the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist Muslim organization based in Egypt seeking to return to the days of Muhammad.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Egypt on the Brink, Obama Doing His Best Carter Imitation

  • Egyptian Sphinx eats American dove . . .

  • It is a bad day when I have to rise to the defense of Obama, but I sincerely doubt there is much that cold be done by any American administration right now. Backing one faction or another could well backfire. Other than making public statements calling for a peaceful resolution and that this is a situation that Egyptians will have to work out, I doubt there is much that an American President can do. You can bet that the Israelis are looking at this closely. They have enjoyed a Cold Peace with Egypt since the days of Sadat. They have no guarantees that the government that follows the present one will keep the same policy.

  • This is looking more and more like Iran ’79.

    You are correct, this is about stability in the Middle East. Although I don’t mean to go into this point too deep, this here is one reason that Iraq was engaged by the Bush Admin. When a powerhouse falls in an Islamic country, it isn’t usually at the hands of peace loving democrats, instead it is often at the hands of the youth that scream for democracy, but handled oh too well by older and more powerful Islamic fundamentalists.

    One point though, I do have to agree somewhat with D. McClarey. It is hard for Obama to do a lot right now. There are reports that there has been some US ties to this ordeal dating back three years.
    If that is the case, we better do exactly what you say and back another more liberal leader, and not let the Muslim Brotherhood take the reins.

  • I do understand what Donald and Joe are saying about the lack of influence that the Obama administration has on the outcome, but they do have influence.

    So Obama’s actions can affect the outcome to certain degrees.

  • This is a fascinating situation to watch unfold, especially with regards to its wider impact across the globe.

    Note to Obama: this should be your lesson that an internet “kill switch” is NOT a good idea under any circumstances.

    Let’s see if Mubarak goes down and if the economic circumstances that ignited these revolts in Tunisia and Egypt spread to other corners of the globe. Remember: in recent times we’ve seen riots also in Iran, Greece, France and the UK. Yes, all these countries have vastly different domestic circumstances, but don’t think that the global economy does not string all these events together.

    Curious: what more will Wikileaks have to reveal?

    Also, Obama might not have a lot he can do right now, but don’t think that our foreign aid support to nations like Egypt does not contribute to the domestic powder keg.

  • President Obama just finished his speech on the situation in Egypt.

    Basically a bunch of nice words, but nothing that puts pressure on Mubarak to make reforms or action of support for the protesters.

    He just split the difference in his speech without making a difference.

    Pretty much ineffectual flowery ‘nothing’.

    Obama is pathetic.

  • There surely is precious little this 40-something, former community agitator (a glib Al Sharpton?) and gangs of aging, hate-America hippies who spent the last 2 years dismantling the evil, unjust United States . . .

  • · I hope people remind Obama that he supports reopening the internet in Egypt the next time talk of an internet kill switch occurs

    · Isn’t it sort of bad diplomacy to admit to the whole world that you spoke with Mubarak minutes after he finished his speech?

    · Doesn’t all of Obama’s talk of government by consent over coercion just sort of reek of contradiction considering our own coercive economic policies, to say nothing of the dubious last 10 years on “human rights,” whether it be on abortion, torture, secret prisons and Guantanamo?

    ·Agreed. This was a nothing speech, designed to make him look like he has some influence over world events. He doesn’t.

  • As usual, Donald sums things up well.

    Also, on an unusually old-world conservative note for me: This underlines that democracy itself is an unmitigated good. Mubarak is certainly a dictator, but he’s willing to keep the peace in the region. It’s entirely possible that a popular government would happily participate in kicking off a regional war in a region which, however “undeveloped” by Western standards could easily stage a WW2 size war in terms of people and technology.

  • Certainly, the Egyptians will heed the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s call for no violence as he conducts two wars in their neighborhood, and listen attentively to the Secretary of State whose husband bombed Serbia and whose Attorney General engineered the massacre of 74 innocents at Waco in 1993. Clearly, the U.S. has the high ground here.

  • I don’t understand. Aren’t we supposed to be ‘pro’ democratic uprising? Isn’t Mubarak essentially a dictator? Or do we only support democracy when we are confident that it will support our interests? Such seems to be the case with our support for the autocracies of Tunisia, Jordan, and Egypt. In any case, I don’t think it’s likely that Egypt will turn into an Iran. Will it be a state friendly to U.S. interests? Likely not. But then, again, it may ween us from our codependent relationship with Israel. Is that a good or a bad thing? Who knows? Augustine’s total political cynicism makes a great deal of sense in these situations. May not too many innocent die, no matter what happens.

  • Daniel Larison has characteristically excellent commentary on the situation here:

  • “I don’t understand. Aren’t we supposed to be ‘pro’ democratic uprising? Isn’t Mubarak essentially a dictator?”

    Oh, he is a dictator alright, a relatively benign one by the standards of his bad neighborhood where dictatorships are the norm, with the exception of Israel, Iraq and Turkey. I will weep no tears for his regime if it is toppled, but many people in Egypt and abroad will weep tears if he is replaced by an aggressive Islamist regime. At this point we do not know what will happen.

    “In any case, I don’t think it’s likely that Egypt will turn into an Iran.”

    Nasser was quite bad enough, and a Nasser II might be the most likely outcome. The Muslim Brotherhood would love to control Egypt as the mullahs control Iran. The Army might step in and take over. Many bad possibilities as well as good ones, and it is too early to tell how it will develop.

    “Will it be a state friendly to U.S. interests? Likely not.”

    Then that is a bad thing unless one subscribes to the isolationist fantasies of a Daniel Larison, who simply refuses to in habit this frame of reality.

    “But then, again, it may ween us from our codependent relationship with Israel.”

    Actually an Egypt hostile to Israel would likely drive the US and Israel closer together and make far more likely a general Middle Eastern war.

    It is too early to see how this Egyptian situation will play out. We should not indulge in either optimism or pessimism. We should watch and wait.

  • Donald,

    You too easily reduce the principled position of anti-interventionism to that favorite shibboleth of the post-Wilsonian: “isolationism.” Isolationism is not anti-interventionism. It does not involve the closing of borders, refusal of trade, abandonment of treaties, etc. It rather embodies a sense of limit and prudence, and recognizes the difficulties that attends involving oneself overmuch in the affairs of other countries. It is the position, more or less, of all of the Founders. One can disagree with this posiiton, of course, but it’s just not intellectually responsible to dismiss it as “isolationism”–this kind of language is name-calling masquerading as thought.

  • “It does not involve the closing of borders, refusal of trade, abandonment of treaties, etc.”

    By that standard WJ no one in American history has been an isolationist. Larison, acolyte for Pat Buchanan, isolationist in chief, is firmly in the tradition of the America Firsters, who they celebrate, who thought America could retreat into a Fortress America before Pearl Harbor. It was a foolish and dangerous policy at that time, and it is no less foolish and dangerous today. What worked for America in the Nineteenth Century, courtesy of the British Empire, will not work for America in the Twenty-First. Anti-interventionism is merely the latest gloss on, in the immortal words of Mel Brooks, “Let ’em all go to Hell, except Cave 76!”. That does not mean that American intervention is called for in all situations. As to the situation in Egypt, for example, I can’t think of anything we could do positive right now. But the idea that the US can simply ignore developments abroad and cultivate its garden here at home is merely a pleasant illusion and not a serious foreign policy.

  • Donald,
    But it’s simply *not true* that the position of Larison and Bacevich–to take two prominent contemporary anti-interventionists–is what you describe it as being: “ignore developments abroad and cultivate its garden here at home.” This is what I meant about your consistent tendency to reduce the arguments of anti-interventionists to the strawman of “isolationism.” As though the only two options were (1) involvement in *every* foreign crisis and (2) blithe ignorance of the goings on of other countries and how they affect our interests.

  • To the contrary WJ, a retreat into Fortress America is precisely the policy advocated by both Larison and Bacevich. That of course is why Bacevich, hilariously, endorsed Obama in 2008, thinking that Obama shared his isolationist predilections.

    “So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

    To appreciate that possibility requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to incorporate Iraq into the nation’s historical narrative will either affirm our post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner course.

    The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda” will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV” will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war” offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.

    Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes. This explains the intensity with which they proclaim that, even with the fighting in Iraq entering its sixth year, we are now “winning”—as if war were an athletic contest in which nothing matters except the final score. The neoconservatives brazenly ignore or minimize all that we have flung away in lives, dollars, political influence, moral standing, and lost opportunities. They have to: once acknowledged, those costs make the folly of the entire neoconservative project apparent. All those confident manifestos calling for the United States to liberate the world’s oppressed, exercise benign global hegemony, and extend forever the “unipolar moment” end up getting filed under dumb ideas.

    Yet history’s judgment of the Iraq War will affect matters well beyond the realm of foreign policy. As was true over 40 years ago when the issue was Vietnam, how we remember Iraq will have large political and even cultural implications.

    As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary, and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the president, we are told, can “keep us safe.” Seeing the war as the debacle it has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a semblance of balance among the three branches of government.

    Above all, there is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements. The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits will remain beyond scrutiny.

    Of all the obstacles to a revival of genuine conservatism, this absence of self-awareness constitutes the greatest. As long as we refuse to see ourselves as we really are, the status quo will persist, and conservative values will continue to be marginalized. Here, too, recognition that the Iraq War has been a fool’s errand—that cheap oil, the essential lubricant of the American way of life, is gone for good—may have a salutary effect. Acknowledging failure just might open the door to self-reflection.

    None of these concerns number among those that inspired Barack Obama’s run for the White House. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama’s habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity for serious realism. His views are those of a conventional liberal. Nor has Obama expressed any interest in shrinking the presidency to its pre-imperial proportions. He does not cite Calvin Coolidge among his role models. And however inspiring, Obama’s speeches are unlikely to make much of a dent in the culture. The next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather than from the Oval Office.

    Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.

    Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail.”

    In hindsight of course this seems all completely laughable, but that is what Bacevich wrote at the time. Bacevich and Larison are isolationists, and to claim otherwise, to use your phrase, is not “intellectually honest”.

  • Nothing you’ve posted from Bacevich answers the objection I’ve raised. Opposition to the Iraq War, and a recognition of its enormous cost in lives, money, and its failure to promote the security for which it was purportedly undertaken–none of this entails “isolationism” as you continue to insist. Bacevich does articulate, briefly in that section, an anti-Wilsonian realism that is more legitimately conservative–a label that I would think most writers and readers on this blog would be proud to claim–than the ridiculous idealism that forms the vocabulary and, at times, the practice, of our foreign policy. That Bacevich was wrong about Obama, who is clearly no anti-interventionist, is irrelevant. One point of agreement that I have with you is that there was never any good reason for supposing that Obama would have the courage or ability to reverse the de facto interventionist stance that has marked the last several decades of our foreign policy. There Bacevich was suffering from an illusion. But I can’t see how that fact has any bearing on the merits of anti-interventionism as a corrective to the default position we are in today.

  • Isolationism has few advocates on the right WJ who are politically signficant. (I do not consider Ron Paul politically signifcant.) Support for a robust American foreign policy abroad has been the norm for the vast majority of conservatives in this country since December 7, 1941. As to Bacevich, he did not just oppose the Iraq war. He also believes that the Cold War was an unnecessary event against a largely illusory foe. He thinks American intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan and Iraq were all mistakes. The man is a thorough going isolationist. I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with much of his writing.

  • A good review of the latest isolationist tome authored by Bacevich:

  • I am aware of Bacevich’s writing, and of his thesis that post-WWII America was unable rationally to reassess the benefits and liabilities to anti-interventionism on account of that War and its reception. We are just talking past each other now, as it seems clear to me that you believe anything *other* than Wilsonianism is “isolationism,” where I believe that one can be an anti-interventionist without being an isolationist, and that such anti-interventionism is, in fact, the conservative position. Eisenhower himself was deeply cognizant of the dangers that Wilsonianism would pose for post WWII America, and he was no isolationist. If you want to believe that any approach other than the largely failed and counterproducitve approach of military intervention is “isolationist,” then I suppose that’s your right. But it is historically unimaginative.

  • I would have bet money WJ that you were not a fan of Mr. Beck, but your use of Woodrow Wilson as a bogey-man makes me doubt that wager. 🙂 I consider both the Cold War and American interventions abroad to stop Communism to have been not romantic idealism but hard headedly realistic, just as I consider the current interventions to be. I think you mischaracterize Eisenhower, you are certainly not alone in this, as anyone familiar with the foreign policy he and John Foster Dulles pursued could not reasonably regard it as in any sense non-interventionist.

    Bacevich does not bring up reasoned critques of American interventions abroad. Reasonable people can an will disagree about particular interventions. His heated verbiage about an “American Empire” is in the best traditions of both Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky. In his world American intervention is ipso facto bad, and America should retreat to its shores and let the rest of the world get along as best it can. If this foreign policy is ever attempted by the US, I think we would not like the world produced by our attempted flight from responsibility and reality.

  • In regard to Bacevich, his transformation into a raging isolationist is fairly recent. Here, in part, is what he wrote in National Review back in 2003 when he supported the invasion of Iraq:

    “Such an approach would use the coming war against Iraq as a vehicle to persuade Arab governments that they themselves have a compelling interest in putting Islamic radicals out of business. In the Arab world, American values may not count for much, but American power counts for quite a bit. Concepts like parliaments or women’s rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, they have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group.
    The promptness with which U.S. forces dispatched the Taliban in the fall of 2001 has already provided an object lesson of what awaits any regime that knowingly harbors terrorists. By dispatching Saddam Hussein in the coming weeks, U.S. forces can provide a second lesson: that any ruler who flagrantly disregards international norms and engages in behavior that poses a threat to the United States— for example, by funding terrorist groups, subsidizing radical Islam, or nourishing anti-American hatred—can expect to share Saddam’s fate.

    Thus, taken in tandem, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and in Iraq will define red lines that a regime will violate only at its peril. In that regard, the message to the Arab world from American officials needs to be explicit and unambiguous: Respect those red lines and we will respect your existing political arrangements; disregard them and we are coming after you, with or without allies, with or without the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

    In sum, what we should demand of Arab Leaders is not ideological fealty, but simply responsible behavior. And this demand is not negotiable. We will not insist that the House of Saud declare its adherence to the principles of Jeffersonian democracy. But we will insist—as the Bush administration has yet to do—that those who rule the kingdom will ensure that Saudi Arabia cease serving as an incubator of suicidal terrorists. On that point, we will be adamant and uncompromising. And on that point, with the examples, of Afghanistan and Iraq showing that we mean what we say, we can expect compliance.

    As it pertains to a post-Saddam Iraq, such an approach would find the United States extracting itself from Iraqi affairs with reasonable promptness. This is not to say that U.S. forces would withdraw in a matter of days or even weeks, but that we would not commit ourselves to a vain effort to remake Iraq in our image, which would require another semi-permanent U.S. military garrison. Once we have established a regime that is legitimate, friendly to the United States, able to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity, and respectful of its people, Washington would do well to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

    A foreign policy based on authentically conservative principles begins by accepting the fact that the world is not infinitely malleable. It recognizes that our own resources, although great, are limited. And it never loses sight of the fact that the freedom that U.S. officials are sworn to protect is our own.”

    [Andrew J. Bacevich, “Don’t Get Greedy! For sensible, limited war aims in Iraq,” National Review, February 10, 2003.]

    Anyone can change his mind, but I always find it surprising when someone of Bacevich’s vintage decides to do an ideological remake in the course of a very short period of time. A debate between Bacevich 2003 and Bacevich 2011 would be amusing if not illuminating.

  • Well, when you consider the lies, distortions, and mismanagement at play leading up to and in the war in Iraq, and you consider further that his son was killed in that war, then this might make more sense to you. But Bacevich was strongly critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the conditions that made that invasion seem responsible well before the death of his son.

  • Your litany is a familiar one from Iraq war opponents Wj, but Bacevich is not simply an Iraq war opponent. In the space of about two years, 2003-2005, he went from being an advocate of both the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq into being the reincarnation of William Appleman Williams. Bacevich was 56 in 2003. I guess we have to assume that he simply wasn’t paying attention the first 56 years, most of it spent either in the United States Army, or as an academic specializing in defense and foreign policy. I haven’t seen such a radical makeover in such a short time since Gerald Naus, formerly of The Cafeteria is Closed, rediscovered his inner atheist, shut down his blog, and left the Church. When such about faces involve someone who is relatively young and inexperienced I find them more understandable than someone who is deep into middle age, and, one would have thought, would have had time and opportunity to better develop their views over the span of most of a lifetime.

  • I guess that one’s child dying for the cause is probably enough to spark introspection at any age.

  • I can’t wait until the democratic reformers in the new Weimar Egypt vote in Sharia.

  • “I guess that one’s child dying for the cause is probably enough to spark introspection at any age.”

    Perhaps Bob, except that First Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich, a 27 year old West Point graduate, was killed in Iraq in 2007, well after the transformation discussed below.

  • When was the young Bakevich first put in harm’s way in the cause of freeing Weimar Iraq from Kaiser Saddam? (I honestly don’t know. The point that one’s own flesh and blood on the altar tests one’s devotion may or may not apply here).

  • He was first sent to Iraq as a platoon leader in 2006. He enlisted in the Army in 2004. (A correction to my earlier entry. First Lieutenant Bacevich was not a West Point graduate. He graduated from Boston University in 2003. He earned his commission through Officer’s Candidate School in 2005.) Bacevich the father has indicated that he was opposed to the Iraq war prior to his son’s enlistment, as articles he wrote prior to that time would indicate, although he supported the war in 2003.

21 Coptic Christians Dead and What To Do About It

Saturday, January 1, AD 2011

A Muslim homicide bomber maimed 97 innocent Christians and killed (and still counting) 21 other innocent Christians at the conclusion of Mass outside a Coptic Church in Alexandria, Egypt.  Of course our impotent President Obama condemned… no one essentially, only the act itself.

First of all we as Christians here in the West should do is pray, pray, and pray more for the victims and perpetrators of this attack as well as our ignorant American president.

Secondly we should demand that President Obama tie foreign aid to countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc., to the protection of Christians in their respective countries.

If said countries sufficiently protect those Christian minorities, then said aid will flow.  If not, cut off all aid immediately.

A simple solution to an allegedly complex problem.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to 21 Coptic Christians Dead and What To Do About It

  • The best favor any Christian who lives in the West can do for any Christian who lives in an Islamic state is to get them a one way plane ticket to the West. The Copts of Egypt have faced this type of casual murder since the time of the Islamic conquest of Egypt in the Seventh Century. Some periods have been better than others, but, at best, the Copts exist as a barely tolerated and despised minority. Their fate is basically the fate of all Christians who live under the Crescent of Islam.

  • Tito, we should also send a lot of missionaries to the Middle East too. They’ll probably have to work underground for years, but we have to start evangelizing the Muslim world to save their souls and our Christian culture.

  • Obama condemned… no one essentially, only the act itself.

    Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do as Christians?

  • Stephen,
    Would you go into such a missionary life? When Isaac Jogues went into Indian territory, there was no TV, nor radios nor pamphets dropped from planes as a possible alternative in preaching the Gospel.. Now there are alternatives to risking your own de-capitation. If Islam was not impressed with Mother Teresa’s work into conversion….then Islam may be the swine Christ forbade us to cast pearls before.
    Let revisit what Christ said while imagining the beheadings that can take place:

    Mat 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.

    Christ seems to be warning us away from your missionary project. The blasphemy law of Pakistan has 60% public support. That’s a lot of non moderate Muslims we are spending billions on as we purchase their clothing in Macy’s. The other Pakistanis can easily access the gospel and dogma online….no need for
    Isaac Jocques to get his fingers chewed off again. If Mother Teresa could not do it, there will only be individual conversions and those can happen by the word…
    Paul…” Faith comes by hearing”. Good Muslims…anonymous Christians…can find the word online.

  • The Faith is built on the blood of martyrs.
    I have heard reports that there are literaly millions of Muslims each year converting to Christianity, and the witness of these people is probably the reason.
    I am not suggesting that this is a desireable thing, but we have to keep in mind the bigger picture, and prayer, and the entreaties of Our Lady to our God – the one whom the Muslims acknowledge as the virgin mother of Jesus, and the one who, as Fulton Sheen told us, will lead the Muslims to conversion.
    Did the English, in the 16th. and 17th centuries give up? No – and the fruits may only be being realised now after the visit by Benedict, and the issuing of Anglicanorum Coetibus.
    These evnts are certainly trajic to witness, and I do not claim to want to be in their place – but we cannot throw the toys out of the cot and give up.
    Prayer and fasting and being obedient in our own lives will be a start, and convincing/demanding our state leaders to speak out is paramount.

  • Don
    In 2006, Georgio Paolucci, the Italian editor of magazine, Avennire (Catholic) and a Libyan journalist, Camille Eid, wrote a book on Islamic converts to Christianity (Christian from Islam) published by Piemme and they were interviewed by Zenit. They spoke of “several hundred converts, from the countries of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia.”
    Be sure to compare actual real world publishing…as in paper books…. on such topics when you read internet claims of millions by small zealous groups on you tube or the net. The latter groups just might never get published by a real publisher…because they would have to produce data and they probably cannot.

  • When I heard of this attack, something changed inside me – yes, pray for our enemies; yes, mortify any desire for revenge; yes, do our Christian duty…but doesn’t our Christian duty call us to succor the innocent who are suffering? Is it not time that we struck at Islam and let them know that we won’t allow their heresy to be used a justification for murdering our brothers and sisters?

    I don’t know what to do – but I do know that Christian men should not stand aside while women and children are butchered.

  • FYI: Osma bin Laden declared war on us in 1996. He killed hundreds of Africans at US embassies; in 2000 he killed our sailors on the Coles; on 9/11/2001 he killed 3,000 of us; . . .

    Muhammadan mass murder: not a question of if, when. Not who, but which one will do it; which will supply the weapons, food, funds, shelter, transport; which one will reconnoiter; which one will assist the scape and evasion; etc.

    Like Bush before him, Obama is not intent on winning the war. Unlike Dubya, B. Hussein actually hates America and our way of life.

    And, there are way too many Obama-worshipping morons. We’re ruined.

  • Bill,

    We should continue to evangelize that is certain.

    Don (McClarey),

    If worse comes to worse, it might be best to evacuate all Christians (if at all possible) and then cut all aid. Then when there is no good left in those Muslim majority countries, we’ll just watch what happens when there is a vacuum, evil will devour evil.

    Don the Kiwi,

    I truly believe that the blood of the martyrs will cause the rise of Christianity, but unlike everywhere else, Christians have been killed in the name of Mohammad for well over 13 centuries and not once have I see a Muslim country turn Christian.

    Is it because it will be on God’s time?

    If so, this surely breaks precedent because there will soon be no Christians left to be killed.

    Maybe the rise of Islam is the chastisement to the Orthodox for breaking from Rome (I certainly believe in this theory to a certain degree).

  • Tito,
    Run that chastisement theory past your favorite priest. Christ (Mt. 5:45) said God makes His rain to fall on the just and unjust. Chastisement happens but even the Church is silent on such matters. We are not Isaiah or Jeremiah. It was Divinely disclosed to them; they did not conjecture it or reason to it as to Israel and the exile….and it was due to something very akin to abortion within Baal worship.
    But run it past your favorite priest. The schism wasn’t yesterday. Punishment that is untimely teaches no one anything.

  • Mark Noonan,
    Yes, this is a difficult problem. But I, for one, think that we’ve been patient too long. To quote St. John Chrysostom–“That person who does not become irate when he has just cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices; it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.”

    Indeed, I’ve been considering enlisting in the armed forces myself. It’s just too much to stand by and watch this sort of thing happening.

  • Tito.
    Christians have been killed in the name of Mohamed for well over 13 centuries and not once have I seen a muslim country turn Christian.

    All Muslim countries were once Christian. What about the Reconquista of Spain? – Muslim occupation started in the 8th century and it took till the 13th century to finally recover Spain for Christianity. Things are happening – Albania, and Egypt to a lesser extent. I saw on the news this evening the Coptic Chritsians of Alexandria mounting a very large protest at their govt. for not protecting Christians – not only Orthodox but Coptic Catholics as well.
    And I can’t agree with your thought that this is a chastisement on the Orthodox – Ours is a God of compassion, and these people have been persecuted on and off for centuries – I don’t think our God is directing it, all Christians are suffering in these regions.

  • There might be another side to the story. Of course, one could say it is damage control, but this side of the story, sometimes, turns out true (USS Liberty, never forget).

    Seems some are saying it was a set up by Mossad:

    A coalition of Egyptian lawyers accused Israel of being behind an terror attack in Alexandria that killed 22 members of the Christian Copt sect attending midnight mass on New Year’s eve, Army Radio reported Monday.

    “The Mossad carried out the the operation in a natural reaction to the latest uncovering of an Israeli espionage network,” the lawyers accused at a rally in memory of the victims, organized by the Egyptian Bar Association, according to the report.

    Now, of course, some will say “never.” But I know Mossad, and I can see this being done for such a purpose. I am not saying it was, but it is easy to forget that Israel is often causing trouble, and persecutes Christians too.

  • Henry,

    Sorry, I don’t buy that at all. What would Israel possibly have to gain by doing this? Sounds like the usual reflexive blame game practiced in most Middle Eastern nations.

    I am aware of the USS Liberty incident; that occurred during the Six-Day War and was most probably an attempt to prevent the ship from interfering in Israel’s war operations or gathering intelligence. I also am aware of Mossad’s “you don’t ever want to mess with them” reputation. But, how on earth are Copts attending a midnight Mass any threat to Israel’s security?

  • Well, considering that some Egyptians have blamed the Mossad for shark attacks,,

    I can understand why they also seek to blame the Israelis for this latest example of the 1300 year old game in Egypt of kill the Copts. Why anyone outside of a looney bin would take such an accusation seriously is another question.

  • Elaine

    What does Israel have to gain? Many things. The argument by the lawyers is revenge. But we must remember, Israel has a history of attacking even its allies, and trying to make it look like others were to blame. Israel likes to make more storms so as to garnish sympathy and support, all the while doing things to punish those they feel are going against their wishes.

    Do I accept it? I don’t know, I would have to be shown the evidence. But I do know that it happens.

    Oh, and Donald, so because some people think shark attacks happened because of Israel, Israel never does wrong? Talk about jumping the shark with a fallacious response!

    Remember the USS Liberty.

  • Don’t forget the Rand Corporation and the reverse vampires. Anybody could have been behind these attacks.

    But probably it was a whacked out Muslim.

  • Karslon, let me shorten your comment for you: “I blame the Joos!” I do appreciate however that you haven’t yet cited The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  • I’m not sure how killing innocent Copts garners sympathy for Israel, even if blame is deferred to Muslims, but let’s say that is satisfactory motivation, and that because of the USS Liberty incident 40 years ago that they are capable of doing such a nasty thing. It seems, based on recent history that Muslim groups and individuals have been responsible for the vast majority of these attacks, especially in Muslim countries. We also know that certain Muslim groups call for the killing of Christians and Jews and that they act on it. We also know from experience there are Muslims who may or may not agree with such means but nevertheless blame Israel. They also tend to blame Israel for every unfortunate thing that befalls them or those they identify with.

    I do not believe it is reasonable to suspect to Israel in any way given the information we have. One would be no further from the truth to blame Dick Cheney or the Dali Lama at this point.

  • The only possible thing Israel would have to gain from such an alleged act might be further antagonism of the West directed at Muslims leading to some sort of mid-east crackdown directed against its Arab neighbors. But this type of act will be excused/explained away by those who sympathize with Muslims, and those who don’t do not need further provocation. I find it really hard to believe it was a Mossad act, when Muslims do this rather frequently, and this is most likely just what it appears to be – another typical Muslim on Christian attack.

  • President Mubarak’s cold peace is the best that the Israelis can expect from the Egyptians. Why would they undermine his postion and turn the strongest Arab nation against themselves? Without the Egyptians to threathen Israel from across the Sinai; Syria, Hizballah and Hamas mean little to the Israelis in military terms.

  • When Christ commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, he not only meant it, but then showed us what such love looks like: the cross. Two solutions were offered in this thread: missionary work and warfare. Only one looks like a cross.

    I take solace in the fact that Islam is doomed by its own fundamental error. Like secular humanism, like the idols of Rome, Greece, and every ancient kingdom (still waiting on the Hindus), the god of Islam will inevitably fall and be forgotten.

    The greater danger to the Church is not Islamic violence, but Islamic lies. To the extent that we response as Muslims would respond (death-dealing), we give in to their lies. To the extent that we respond as the Church and the Gospel and Jesus Christ teach us (“love of enemy constitutes the nucleus of the Christian revolution”), we shatter their lies.

  • 1. Muslim terrorists commit atrocity against their Christian neighbors–check.

    2. Fellow Muslims reflexively engage in conspiracy-theorizing and deflection tactics to avoid facing the atrocity and what it says about Muslim civil society–check.

    3. Select Westerners reinforce and nurture infantilization of deflecting Muslims–check.

    Must be a Monday.

  • Christ….the actual one…said this….Mat 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.”

    Catholics whether liberal or conservative do not quote the whole Christ. The Christ who said the above is warning you that He has rules about which crosses you choose. Cross is not an intrinsic good.
    Christ casts pearls before swine only…only….. when it was their day…” Jerusalem, Jerusalem…if thou hadst known IN THIS THY DAY the things that are for thy peace…”
    Every country now has a government unlike when Isaac Jogues was a missionary. If a Muslim government protects Christians, missionaries should go because Christ’s words about not casting pearls and being torn by swine is honored in virtue of Muslim police protecting missionaries. But if Muslim police in another country are not going to protect missionaries, then missionaries are not honoring Christ if they seek a cross that Christ warned against in Matthew. So no one here is going into danger anyway…..but to urge others into danger is to ignore the swine warning of Christ and is simply to ignore the real Christ who does not will each and every imaginable cross. He forbids a particular cross in the swine/tear passage.
    He actually wants safety not adventurism for his missionaries.

  • I am delighted to report that deflection and paranoia is not the only Muslim response to the massacre and overall increasing brutalization of the Copts:

  • Saudi Arabia has just arrested a vulture for being a Jewish spy.

    This is all beginning to make sense.

    Many of my SSPV and independent Catholic chapel friends have flow charts detailing how the Free Masons, in coalition with the Illuminati, have been orchestrating attacks such as those on the Copts for years.

    It seems, through a combination of George Soros, the Rothschilds, and various other insidious Jewish families, have been funding Al-Qaeda, which is actually a puppet organization of the Free Mason-Illuminati.

    This plus orchestrating Hurricane Katrina and the dead-birds-falling-and-dead-fish-washing-on-shore phenomenom’s, I caught a clue when Kirk Cameron was claiming that the end wasn’t near, just the that the Rapture was imminent.

  • “Remember the USS Liberty”

    I say it was the Spanish. Remember the Maine!

  • I’ve never understood the conspiratorial perspective about the USS Liberty incident. Israel is in the middle of an all out war for its survival with several surrounding states decides to launch an unprovoked attack on an ally nation which is also one of the most powerful countries in the world. I thought the stereotype was that Jews are supposed to be really smart.