When discussing certain subjects, Ralph Peters does not mask
his passion for what he believes in, and for what he rejects out of hand. You
know what this is, my friend? It is the very definition of fanaticism. And what
Ralph Peters is fanatic about this time is the fanaticism of the people he
names in his latest article.
That article came under the title: “The Joy of Killing for
Allah,” and the subtitle: “Why our 'messaging' won't stop terror.” It was
published in National Review Online on October 27, 2014. The point of the
presentation boils down to this: There is no use talking to some people; they
are evil, and so set in their ways, nothing will move them. The implication
being that the only way there is to deal with these people is to engage them in
battle and eradicate them from the face of the Earth if we can, or neutralize
them to a total paralysis if we can't.
Despite the reference to Allah in the title, which invokes
the thought of the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL,) and the attraction it has on
those in the “West” who listen to its message and become homegrown terrorists,
Peters mentions other bad characters as well. They are the Iranians, Vladimir
Putin and the people who hate each other (with good reason) in Iraq . And
neither does he spare what he calls “the educated, privileged and protected” in
Washington
whose latest vogue is a “bastard, idiot child of liberal parentage.”
He resents the latter because they harbor the conviction of
what he calls the “non-judgmental” Left which believes that better messaging
will help the evil ones (Muslims) see the light, and become as good as
Episcopalians. But this will not happen, he says, because our message cannot
compete against the message of the other side when all that we can offer to our
youngsters is a minimum wage job stocking shelves at Walmart. Against that, the
other side offers acceptance, belonging, structure, an explanation for past
failures, power, purpose, justification for hate and impulses, revenge,
respect, the thrill and ecstasy of killing, fame and paradise, says Ralph
Peters.
By now, he makes it clear that he considers the effort of
the Left to be folly. To give an example, he singles out President Obama
mentioning that beheading was not Islamic. To put that in perspective, he asks
the readers to consider the King of Saudi Arabia saying that Americans aren't
true Christians. And this is where the author shows how much in error his
approach has been. The fact is that Obama did not say that someone – anyone at
all – was not a Muslim. He simply said that an act as cruel as beheading the
innocent was not Islamic. This would be like the King of Saudi Arabia saying
the Holocaust was not a Christian act. In fact, many people in this world would
say amen that.
Moreover, to lend credibility to his own rant, Peters
embraces the response that came from the self-proclaimed Caliphate of the
Islamic State when he mocked President Obama – a mocking he did based on the
same false premise that gripped Peters. Still undeterred, Peters goes on from
there to do something that is even more astounding. Get this, he gives a
mini-lesson on Islam and its variations, ranging from the syncretic Javanese to
the Neo-Wahhabism as they may or may not be understood or practiced by
al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and the rest. Wow! Call him wizard
Ralph Peters, and give him a PhD or two in instant religious self-education.
But then, an inkling of light begins to gleam at this point
perhaps to offer some relief. It seems that our author may have finally
realized how absurd he has been all along. The indication to this effect is
that he begins to turn against himself. Look at this: “All of us associated
with the news business immediately become hostages when word breaks of a
significant (or simply titillating) terrorist event. We in the media … gave the
murderer riveting publicity. [He] got more air time … than any political
candidate facing midterm election paid for.” Self-criticism basically intends
to say: I may have been wrong about everything I said.
And he does not stop here. He elaborates further on how the
media encourages the potential copycats to follow suit by promising them the
reward of fame if they will embrace the message of the terrorists who,
themselves, promise great rewards to those who die for the cause. And what
loser would reject such a pile of promises?
This leads Ralph Peters to conclude that the terrorist
recruit may not be truly irrational. Which is why he should seriously consider
studying what the Europeans were saying about each other during their civil and
cross-border wars … when these had religious and secular undertones. The
savagery of the propaganda as well as the acts that were committed against
civilians and military alike make today's horror look like child play.