July 22, 2006

Everyone Must Read This Story

Hatched by Dafydd

Hugh Hewitt read this post by David Bogner on the air Thursday, and I thought it was one of the best parables I've heard in years. I urgently urge y'all to read the whole thing; it's not that long, but it will stay with you for the rest of your life.

It's from a blog called Treppenwitz, which I think I should start reading regularly now. Here's the opening:

When I was in the Navy, I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish Marine and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship.

All evening the Marine had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine... figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the Marine sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this poor man's mutilated ear.

Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this Marine, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.

Each punch opened a cut on the Marine's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows.

Nobody moved. Not one person....

...But you'll have to click the link and read the original to find out what happened, what was really going on, and how it relates to the Global War on Jihadism.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 22, 2006, at the time of 4:17 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1015

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Redhand

To be sure, it was a good story. Only problem is that, as we have learned in Iraq, beating an insurgency isn't a stand-up fight.

I think the Israeli Army is going to have as much difficulty as we've had in Iraq. Still, they have no choice but to go in and try to clean out the rats' nest, "collateral damage" be damned.

I am sooooooooooooo tired of these effing, murdering jihadists.

And the worst problem remains unresolved: IRAN.

The above hissed in response by: Redhand [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 5:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 6:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

monkeyboy said:
Not sure I follow the logic here.

If there was no threat of retaliation from western powers...the Muslims would just nuke Tel Aviv and Haifa and Israel would be finished...

Does this guy have a death wish for Israel?

No threat of retaliation? The very fact that most of the civilized world including U.S. has for the last 10 days made little on no condemnation for what amounts to that small sailor pumping head-shots at the big bully. And although it is an ugly beating, many don't care for it to stop until the Hezbots say "we've had enough".

That original "sucker-punch" amounts to over a decade of lobbing rockets into Isreal indescriminatly tearing bodies apart of men,women, and children with the full intent of extinguising an intire country. Isreal must be allowed to finally beat these terrorist to a pulp.

And it is Isreal that have the Nuke capabilities, not their enemys. The "death-wish" is in the Hezbollah's hands monkeyboy, not Isreals.

Try this logic on for size.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 6:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

I think Israel asking the civilized world to turn its back on the Eastern Mediterranean shore for a few weeks would be a rather large mistake for them.

OK, I'll bite. I'm curious to know what you would suggest Isreal do? Return to their boundry and wait to be attack? Again? What military force do we put in harms way to prevent this travesty from repeating itself? UN peace-keepers? A NATO force? or heaven forbid U.S. soldiers?

Let Abdul Aziz take a decade of missles into Saudi Arabia and see what he says.

You want the protection of the civilized world...you play by its rules.

I think you have under-estimated the strength of Isreals military, and can you please explain to me how Hezbollah has played by any rules?

Do you really know how many "civilians" are reportedly dieing in this conflict? These same "civilians" who store rockets for the tyrants.

Bushie and Boltie are trying to rectify the errors of the Clinton dissaster, which we are still paying for with such a pacifist attitude.



The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 7:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Israel does not have the 'protection' of the civilized world... they have protection in the form of an ally in the United States. But to say that they have the protection of the Civilized World would be to say they have the protection of say, France, Lebanon or Turkey. That idea is laughable on it's face... France supported it maybe 50 years ago, but no more. Some in the elected leadership of Turkey may share with the Israelis an enmity for the tyrants in Iraq and Syria, but that does not extend to actual support. And Lebanon?

Or maybe you do not include France, Lebanon or Turkey as part of the civilized world?

So your quote:

You want the protection of the civilized world...you play by its rules.
could easily be corrected to:
You want the protection of the United States...you play by the Bush Doctrine.
For a refresher on the Bush Doctrine outside of the slanders of the left, read up on it at Wikipedia.

"military pre-emption, military superiority ("strength beyond challenge"), unilateral action, and a committment to "extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions".

Looks like Israel IS playing by the rules. The problem you have Monkyboy is that you don't agree with the rules. Look inside yourself and see if you really want a terrorist group like Hizbollah and it's supporters in Lebanon and Syria to be the ones defining 'peace' in the world. They have a plan. Do you accept it?

The United States does not.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 10:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Civilized world? Would this be the same civilized world that watched 750,000 people die in Rwanda and did nothing to stop the mayhem? One question was asked..can we blame this on the US or Israel? No? Well then who cares.

I saw this posted in the comment section at Captains Quarters by Carol Herman. It is a good parable.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 11:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: David Bogner

Thanks for the mention... and for the link. Much appreciated.

The above hissed in response by: David Bogner [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 12:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

David Bogner:

And thank you for the story: it's not only much appreciated, it's much needed!

And thanks for going after Hezbollah, too. (And Hamas, but that's more local.) I think the US will do what we can for as long as we can to hold back the people trying to stop the fight... but please tell Olmert not to dilly-dally but to get about it: grind them up while you've got the floor.

From what I can tell, we're slow-walking any "diplomatic solution" (that is, international demands that Israel stand down and let Hezbollah win) as much as George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Bolton (our U.N. ambassador) can do... but we can't stop it forever.

So -- faster, please!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 1:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

And how many successes were there from pandering to terrorists and sucking up to dictators?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 2:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

monkyboy:

Armchair generals? And what are you?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 2:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

...which should we choose?
Well, since you are putting the decision in our hands, I say we choose the Bush Doctrine, since it has liberated millions who had been suffering under a set of brutal dictators, and use Pandering as a cautionary tale to educate people like yourself who cannot even begin to have the judgement to determine whether death for millions or freedom for millions is a proper path for our leaders to take in the future.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 3:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dana Pico

In World War II, the Germans lost somewhere on the order of six million soldiers and two million civilians killed. The Japanese lost, in very broad terms since no one really knows, almost three million soldiers and over a million civilians. Those countries were successfully occupied and controlled and rehabilitated, because the Allies defeated them utterly, destroyed almost all of their infrastructure, and killed most of their fighting age men.

We went to war in Iraq, and did our best to keep casualties low. We defeated the government of Saddam Hussein, but we never defeated the country of Iraq. the vast majority of the fighting age men remained alive.

The same holds true in the Middle East: the Israelis won several battles, and their enemies were granted cease fires, but while the Israelis won battles, they never won a war -- and the Arabs certainly never surrendered. The Israelis occupied lands populated by the Arabs, and the vast majority of the fighting age men lived on, seething with resentment, rearing another generation to hate, but always available to fight again another day.

There will be a lot of people appalled by this comment (and I'm pretty appalled by it myself), but it's necessary to face the fact that occupying countries in which the majority of the fighting age men have not been killed is a prescription for disaster.

The Israelis should have forcibly expelled every Arab from Gaza, Judea and Samaria in 1967, pushed them east of the Jordan River, and set up shortened, more defensible borders. Because they didn't do that in 1967, they are dealing with the impossible consequences of trying to live with a captured people, of almost their own population and a much higher birthrate, living inside of the lands they control.

Until Israel addresses that issue, there can be no peace.

The above hissed in response by: Dana Pico [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 4:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: d_Brit

"Not sure I follow the logic here." monkeyboy

It's very clear to the rest of us that you don't follow the logic in Bolger's story.

Reread the story with this in mind:
It is a 'modern' parable, yet it's lesson is older than the Bible.

It is a lesson that every pacifist needs to learn, yet most will misunderstand the lesson.

Many will think it simply advises violence as an answer,(as you clearly do) and thus will miss the deeper lesson, which is understanding the nature of the bully. One cannot truly respond appropriately to the bully if one does not understand the bully. The sailors words to the bully, as he hit him is proof that he understood.

Pacifists see that the bully perpetrates violence against those who either cannot or will not fight.

Most fail to understand that it isn't really a fight per se that Bully's seek, its domination, usually through physical intimidation and humiliation of the victim...

The bully will never stop until forced to do so because they seek to achieve falsely through outward means what they cannot achieve inwardly; self-esteem.

They redirect their self-hate outwardly, lacking the courage to face themselves. The bully seeks to live with the lie by outwardly 'proving' their 'superiority' to others. Since their 'proof' is a lie, they must continually 'prove' it with fresh victims, as if enough victims conquered will somehow prove the lie to be a truth. By definition, the behavior must continue as long as they are able.

The bully 's psyche is already destroyed, he simply won't face it and as long as no one forces him to confront the truth, he will continue the behavior.

The bad man attacking the good man is really not that hard to understand.

Psychologically destroyed by Islam's restrictions, Islamist fanatics seek to 'prove' the superiority of their religion through force. Bullies one and all, in their heart of hearts they know the truth. That is why the bully always yields to courageous confrontation.

And that is why we can beat them. Just as we did the Nazi's. It will not really be guns, planes and bombs that will defeat Islamic Fascism. It is the courage in men's hearts to confront evil with the force necessary to subdue it.

If monkeyboy with all this in mind and after rereading the parable you still don't get it, then your difficulty in 'following the logic' is not the bully's behavior.

It is your moral cowardice and you then belong in the 'camp' of the natural victims. Dhimmitude is your natural state simply because you value simple survival over freedom and dignity.

The above hissed in response by: d_Brit [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 5:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: d_Brit

Dana Pico at July 22, 2006 04:06 PM

Many people do understand and many more are starting to understand the truth of what you say and once again the truth shall set us free.

The above hissed in response by: d_Brit [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 5:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

monkyboy, the pathetic banned troll from CQ:

Believe the crap you post here you might, but the value of the crap you post here is less than zero.

What, exactly, is the value of their oil if they can't sell it? And, who is supplying us with credit (since US dollars only have exchange value here in the US and any assets here held by belligerents can be confiscated)? BTW, we have more than enough oil here to supply ourselves. What we lack is the political will to crush the watermelon's political blackmail paid by weak leftists using extortion. I will state it clearly in small words so that you will grok it. No one can destroy us economically except our own politicians. Market economies adapt rapidly to changing conditions. Command economies can't and don't.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2006 10:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

From My Right Word

Some Convincing Advice

This is going around (although it has been around for a while):-


What do you do when you have a conversation where somebody says that he does not believe in violent retaliation for a terrorist attack?

1. Ask if he accepts military intervention.

2. When he says no, ask why.

3. He will most likely say something like "It will cause more harm to innocent people, and will result in further escalation and violence..."

4. In the middle of his speech, punch him hard in the face.

5. When he tries to hit back, remind him that it will result in further escalation and violence.

6. When he agrees, hit him again, even harder.

7. Repeat steps 5 - 7 until he understands that sometimes you must hit back.

(kippah tip: LK)

The above hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2006 6:44 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved