Hamid Karzai Eviscerates an Anti-American Fifth-Columnist

Afghan President Hamid Karzai was at a press conference with President Bush today, expressing a touching gratitude towards how much individual Americans have sacrificed to make improvements in his country.  It truly is a treat for any patriotic American to hear. 

Then, a fifth-columnist reporter sought to get Karzai to say that he opposes the Iraq War, or that it has increased terrorism.  Nothing is particularly new about such stunts, except whom she posed the question to.  Hoping for something to use to undermine the War in Iraq, she instead got a look from Karzai that revealed his utter astonishment that someone in such a high-paying job, a female living in New York no less, could be so opposed to fighting something that is plainly and obviously a direct threat to her own life. 

We should be grateful for Hamid Karzai.  In the War on Terror, he is truly one of the few in that part of the world who does not draw upon moral equivalence and double standards in determining which side is the one that contributes positively to humanity.  Those Americans who want to win the War on Terror have done a poor job of making use of leaders like Karzai, where we should be finding ways to get his words as much media exposure as possible.  More than anyone else, this man is a symbol of one key victory in the war. 

It must be extremely demoralizing for Karzai to see that some (not all) members of the American media are so bent on rooting for him and others like him in Iraq to fail.  Will Karzai's articulate speech get this reporter to change her opinions to the tiniest degree?  There is about as much chance of that as there is of an Al-Qaeda operative deciding to renounce his ideology and join a boy band. 

There was a time when it would have been considered strange for some people to openly oppose measures that may prevent themselves from getting killed by terrorists.  As a wise man once said, a society is decadent when apathy is dominant, and the absurd seems normal.  A decadent society has to make a conscious effort to improve, or otherwise decline. 

I have been giving some thought as to why 8-10% of the human population is so bent on self-destruction, and perhaps the answer is Darwinian.  In nature, many species have natural predators to weed out the weak or defective members.  Since humans have no natural predators, nature had to adapt in order to continue the filtering process.  Nature responded by programming some members of the human species to weed themselves out voluntarily, by taking active action.  This manifests itself in the behavior described above, as well as in suicide bombings, etc.  Perhaps Darwinian natural selection has become natural self-selection. 

Perhaps this is the true key to understanding the threats we face. 

Related :

Zarqawi and the Anti-American Fifth Column

An Easy Way to Expose Concealed Anti-Americanism

Who Hates America

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008

Comments

[Tushar D]

GK,
The same self-selection could be the reason why cities like NY, San-Francisco and Seattle have more pets than children.
Expect moonbats to get into a frothing frenzy over this post.

[GK]

Tushar,

Yes. Thanks for understanding the concept.

Notice how abortion has reduced the number of left-wing voters greatly from what it may have been (60-80% of aborted babies probably would vote Democrat at voting age, based on the voting record of their mothers, their counties, etc, and of these, a disproportionate amount would be far-left). This affects Presidential elections on the order of millions of votes, and is growing as more 'missing' leftists cross what would have been their 18th birthday.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

The AP reporter is unlikely to change her views. Her husband worked way up in the Clinton Administration as an environmental consultant.

As to the Darwinian selection. I would attribute the lack of understanding more to the immediate payoff of social approbation on the left. I have long contended that leftism's attractions have a large social component, which explains the natural inclination of celebrities to the left.

I suppose that sort of short-sightedness is indirectly selective.

[Bingo Bango Boingo]

Yeah, but his answer doesn't really go to the heart of the question. Bush and Karzai mention the Cole, Kenya, etc. to make the point that the West was a target before Iraq. This is absolutely right. The question now, though, is whether the Iraq war makes the West MORE of a target. Agencies of the United States government seems to think 'yes'. The next question ought to be: 'is/was there a better way to defeat our terrorist enemies than conducting a war in Iraq' and, if the answer to that question is 'no', then 'How could we have conducted that war better?'. There's a lot of glossing over these issues at the moment.

Also, it seems that supporters of the Iraq war want it both ways: on the one hand they say 'Trust our intelligence/defence community to keep you safe by waging war in Iraq', and on the other hand they say 'The NIE report, which says that the Iraq war has encouraged terrorism and makes us less safe, is rubbish'. Which is it?

[GK]

AVI,

What you are referring to is the 'fashion sheep', the everyday people who spout leftist soundbytes based on watching 10 minutes of the MSM per day. That is not the same group as the hard fifth-column.

The fashion sheep merely talk about hating Bush because it is fashionable. In the 90s, they didn't talk about politics at all. After 9/11, they waved flags as that was fashionable for a while, but now they are anti-Bush, never remembering their prior actions.

But they are not the fifth-column. The Darwinian phenomenon described above is seen in those who heavily devote their lives to ruining the society they live in, even at the cost of their own life. Depending on which culture these individuals are born in, they become suicide bombers, supporters of partial-birth abortion and gay marriage, opponents of the Patriot Act, etc.

You would think that supporting gay marriage would have nothing to do with opposing tax cuts or. You would think supporting gay marriage would imply support of the Afghanistan War to topple a regime that beheaded homosexuals. But no, this group have uniform positions, even if contradictory, on these issues. The glaring common theme is self-destruction.

[CT]

"The NIE report, which says that the Iraq war has encouraged terrorism and makes us less safe, is rubbish'."

The MSM cherry picked the NIE findings (which was leaked anyway--surprise surprise). Many in the blogosphere have debunked the MSMs lousy reporting on this (a report done back in April, by the way, and a lot has changed since then).

AJ Strata has a good round up of the NIE conclusions:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2567

The NIE is here (PDF file):
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments_092606.pdf

(sorry for the link dump.)

[JG]

I like the idea of human self-selection from the gene pool, kind of like a political Darwin Awards.
My take on evolution is that it's primarily adaptive rather than progressive, & I believe if organisms can't adapt quickly enough they go extinct.
So in a more martial world, riven by terrorist strife, if a person doesn't adapt to the more warlike policies required to preserve civilisation they fully deserve to perish at the hands of terrorists.
As this blog has proved, the more adaptive, cleverer people will be more successfully materially & will support the tradional right-wing politics that engenders this approach.
Also consider the amplifying effect of sexual selection in which females generally select the more successful (& intelligent) males - success breeds success. This coupled with the reduction of potential leftists due to abortion policies makes for increasing liberterianism (even though I am extremely uncomfortable condoning abortion in any way).

[Josh]

Notice how abortion has reduced the number of left-wing voters greatly from what it may have been (60-80% of aborted babies probably would vote Democrat at voting age, based on the voting record of their mothers.

Indeed. Because everyone knows political affiliation is hereditary.

I'm beginning to suspect this blog is some sort of elaborate parody.

[GK]

Josh,

Not hereditary, but the corelation is certainly not zero.

Blacks vote 90% Democrat. Thus, if we select a pool of black children, there is a very high probability that most will vote Democrat. Not a 100% probability, but very high.

A white person born in the South to a deeply Christian household has a high probability of being a conservative. The probability is not 100%, but it may be as high as 80%.

Surely you grasp probabilities, even if they are not absolutes.

[JG]

And the logical extension of the assertion/correlation "60-80% of aborted babies probably would vote Democrat at voting age" is that more blacks have abortions.
More abortions, less democrats & less blacks.

[asdffdsa]

The first poster forgets that the birth rate in developing countries, and notably Muslim countries, is far higher than in developed countries.

So being white, middle class and successful i.e. high powered women with careers & education, being more likely to be in a position of power, strongly correlates to a lower birth rate whether said high powered women are attractive or not.