Top News

Columnist’s glasses too rosy

 ..
..

Ed Smith’s View From Here seems to be through heavily rose-tinted glasses (“Let there be peace on Earth”). ISIS and Donald Trump are the two most dangerous obstacles to peace? Seriously?

If Mr. Smith can quote the mayor of Philadelphia using the word “asshole,” then I don’t feel bad using equally strong language: bullshit!
Can I think of someone who’s done more than Trump to encourage conflict and war? Damn straight I can. All Trump has done is to run for office, argue his case before the populace, and be honest about his position. Such treachery!
Of course, Mr. Smith has to find some way to blame the atrocities committed by ISIS on us Westerners, and what bleeding-heart liberal guilt trip would be complete without invoking the Crusades? Well, I for one refuse to feel guilty because someone who may or may not have been a distant ancestor of mine a thousand years ago behaved the way people behaved a thousand years ago.
The Crusades were not wars of conquest; they were, like the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, attempts to recapture lands that had been invaded by an enemy who was intent on world domination.
The Crusaders may have shed blood in Jerusalem, but the armies of Muhammad conquered the Arabian peninsula in less than a generation; they swept out of Arabia, drove the Christians out of the eastern Mediterranean and Byzantium, conquered the whole of North Africa, and invaded Spain, Austria and Hungary in a little over a century. If Mr. Smith thinks they did that without massive bloodshed, then I have some prime real estate in the Everglades and a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell him. And by the way, the Crusades were a thousand years ago; I’m pretty sure that no Muslim alive today was around to witness them, so the extremists of today cannot justify their barbarities by saying, “Well, you guys started it.”
Yes, atrocities were committed on both sides; or rather, acts were committed that we today would consider atrocities, although at the time, both sides probably accepted them as the normal consequences of warfare. The difference is that we have grown up.
While I am sure that the majority of Muslims today have a modernistic, live-and-let-live attitude to other religions, it is clear that millions of Muslim extremists are stuck a millennium in the past. These fanatics still believe that it is their sacred duty to convert everyone in every corner of the world to Islam, and to eradicate any opposition, by any means necessary: propaganda, social media manipulation, deception, “lawfare,” treason, assassination, mass murder, torture and open warfare.
Smith assumes that the situation today is analogous to the situation in the 1930s, when millions of Jews, Gypsies and others were trying to flee Nazi Germany. But is that a valid analogy?
Imagine, for a minute, that in the 1930s, Britain and the Empire had ignored the plight of the Jews, Romany and other minorities, but thrown their doors open to tens of thousands of young, single, male, ethnic Germans. Is it truly tantamount to a crime against humanity to ask aloud if the situation today is analogous to that scenario?
This is not merely idle speculation. In the 1930s, the French Foreign Legion had an influx of young German and Austrian men with military training. I hope you won’t be shocked to discover that when the you-know-what hit the you-know-what, these Legionnaires sided with the Vichy government and fought as part of the Axis powers.
In April of this year, Muslim and Christian refugees boarded a ship that was to take them to Europe. Though they may all have been “in the same boat” when the voyage started, they didn’t finish that way. The Muslims arrived safely; the Christians were thrown overboard in the middle of the Mediterranean and left to drown — murdered by their fellow “asylum seekers.”
Authorities in Germany have been forced to segregate Muslim refugees from non-Muslim refugees, after the realization that some “refugees” had implemented, and were enforcing, hard-line Shariah law throughout the refugee centres, imposing it on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Did Ed Smith bother to read what Donald Trump actually said? Or did he just rely on the Chicken Little summary?
Yes, it’s wrong to “(unload) total responsibility for world terrorism on the backs of Muslims of every stripe.” But it would be the height of gullibility to argue the opposite — that we must assume all Muslim asylum-seekers are peace-loving and neighbourly. If only one per cent of the 25,000 Syrian refugees that Justin Trudeau wants to bring in are militant terrorists, that’s the equivalent of inviting a full battalion of enemy soldiers to invade us — and having the Canadian taxpayer finance the invasion.
Christian compassion is a wonderful thing. I’m in favour of it. However, letting a young, unwed, pregnant woman bed down in the manger is one thing; letting a starving fox bed down in the henhouse is another.
Let us make sure we know the difference, before we wake up and find nothing but beaks and feathers in our beloved barn.
William R. Lorimer, St. John’s

If Mr. Smith can quote the mayor of Philadelphia using the word “asshole,” then I don’t feel bad using equally strong language: bullshit!
Can I think of someone who’s done more than Trump to encourage conflict and war? Damn straight I can. All Trump has done is to run for office, argue his case before the populace, and be honest about his position. Such treachery!
Of course, Mr. Smith has to find some way to blame the atrocities committed by ISIS on us Westerners, and what bleeding-heart liberal guilt trip would be complete without invoking the Crusades? Well, I for one refuse to feel guilty because someone who may or may not have been a distant ancestor of mine a thousand years ago behaved the way people behaved a thousand years ago.
The Crusades were not wars of conquest; they were, like the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, attempts to recapture lands that had been invaded by an enemy who was intent on world domination.
The Crusaders may have shed blood in Jerusalem, but the armies of Muhammad conquered the Arabian peninsula in less than a generation; they swept out of Arabia, drove the Christians out of the eastern Mediterranean and Byzantium, conquered the whole of North Africa, and invaded Spain, Austria and Hungary in a little over a century. If Mr. Smith thinks they did that without massive bloodshed, then I have some prime real estate in the Everglades and a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell him. And by the way, the Crusades were a thousand years ago; I’m pretty sure that no Muslim alive today was around to witness them, so the extremists of today cannot justify their barbarities by saying, “Well, you guys started it.”
Yes, atrocities were committed on both sides; or rather, acts were committed that we today would consider atrocities, although at the time, both sides probably accepted them as the normal consequences of warfare. The difference is that we have grown up.
While I am sure that the majority of Muslims today have a modernistic, live-and-let-live attitude to other religions, it is clear that millions of Muslim extremists are stuck a millennium in the past. These fanatics still believe that it is their sacred duty to convert everyone in every corner of the world to Islam, and to eradicate any opposition, by any means necessary: propaganda, social media manipulation, deception, “lawfare,” treason, assassination, mass murder, torture and open warfare.
Smith assumes that the situation today is analogous to the situation in the 1930s, when millions of Jews, Gypsies and others were trying to flee Nazi Germany. But is that a valid analogy?
Imagine, for a minute, that in the 1930s, Britain and the Empire had ignored the plight of the Jews, Romany and other minorities, but thrown their doors open to tens of thousands of young, single, male, ethnic Germans. Is it truly tantamount to a crime against humanity to ask aloud if the situation today is analogous to that scenario?
This is not merely idle speculation. In the 1930s, the French Foreign Legion had an influx of young German and Austrian men with military training. I hope you won’t be shocked to discover that when the you-know-what hit the you-know-what, these Legionnaires sided with the Vichy government and fought as part of the Axis powers.
In April of this year, Muslim and Christian refugees boarded a ship that was to take them to Europe. Though they may all have been “in the same boat” when the voyage started, they didn’t finish that way. The Muslims arrived safely; the Christians were thrown overboard in the middle of the Mediterranean and left to drown — murdered by their fellow “asylum seekers.”
Authorities in Germany have been forced to segregate Muslim refugees from non-Muslim refugees, after the realization that some “refugees” had implemented, and were enforcing, hard-line Shariah law throughout the refugee centres, imposing it on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Did Ed Smith bother to read what Donald Trump actually said? Or did he just rely on the Chicken Little summary?
Yes, it’s wrong to “(unload) total responsibility for world terrorism on the backs of Muslims of every stripe.” But it would be the height of gullibility to argue the opposite — that we must assume all Muslim asylum-seekers are peace-loving and neighbourly. If only one per cent of the 25,000 Syrian refugees that Justin Trudeau wants to bring in are militant terrorists, that’s the equivalent of inviting a full battalion of enemy soldiers to invade us — and having the Canadian taxpayer finance the invasion.
Christian compassion is a wonderful thing. I’m in favour of it. However, letting a young, unwed, pregnant woman bed down in the manger is one thing; letting a starving fox bed down in the henhouse is another.
Let us make sure we know the difference, before we wake up and find nothing but beaks and feathers in our beloved barn.
William R. Lorimer, St. John’s

Recent Stories