- The Washington Times - Thursday, November 1, 2001

Terrorism's record
"Among those who have dreamed of revolution and new world orders, there has always been much faith in what the 19th-century anarchist and theorist of terror Mikhail Bakunin called 'propaganda of the deed.' Johannes Most, a German socialist and advocate of terrorism, was an early proponent of mass public slaughter as a means of inducing a transformative fear. Hitler thought the London blitz would drive the British to their begging knees; Stalin thought his purges would strike such a fear into the hearts of the Russian people that they would never challenge their masters again. The anarchists were wrong, the fascists were wrong, the communists were wrong. The interesting and wonderful truth is, as [political scientist Paul] Wilkinson wrote, that 'the overall track record of terrorism in attaining major political objectives is abysmal.'"
Michael Kelly, writing on "77 North Washington Street," in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly

Reality of war
"Every time a Red Cross depot or Afghan civilian home is mistakenly bombed, it ought not be such big news. That's a reality of war. Is there any question now that Harry Truman was justified in leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?
"Does anyone read history anymore? If so, people would understand that World War II, although sanitized by Hollywood producers and Tom Brokaw, was not a 'clean' war; the Allies killed vast numbers of innocents in their successful effort to defeat the Axis powers. And for all the canonization of FDR, let's remember he was a pragmatic and inspirational wartime president. It's been said before but bears constant repetition as the nation judges President Bush: Just imagine how Roosevelt's, MacArthur's or Eisenhower's image would've suffered if subjected to today's all-day, all-night media coverage.
"Yes, as in any armed conflict, there will be nonmilitary casualties, but the United States did not start this war."
Russ Smith, writing on "The Hangover Sets In," in the Oct. 31 issue of the New York Press

Hating the Scouts
"When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton answered that that's where the money is. When asked why gay activists are so determined to be Scoutmasters, one possible answer is that's where the boys are. That answer may be simplistic or unfair, but Leon J. Podles notes that predatory pedophiles have been a chronic problem in Scouting and that, while there is a necessary distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, the problem is almost always with men who are homosexual.
"Podles writes: ' Almost all men and boys see any indication of homosexuality as a threat to masculinity, and masculinity is the center of identity for almost all men. Homosexual activists hate the Scouts because the Scouts are the biggest organization dedicated to turning boys into men, and this organization rejects homosexuality because it is incompatible with masculinity. Almost all men, including homosexuals, react violently to having their masculinity impugned, and the mere existence of the Scouts' policy impugns the masculinity of homosexuals.'
"Almost all parents want the assurance that nobody is going to mess around with their sons. For reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry, they do not want their sons messed with, and they do not want their sons to be homosexual. If they turn out that way, most parents will still love them, but they pray and do what they can in hope of being spared that duty. And that is why the Boy Scouts and the homosexual movement, each operating by its own values and its own interests, are locked in an uncompromisable standoff."
Richard John Neuhaus, writing on "While We're At It," in the November issue of First Things



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide