American Left Adopts Taliban Tactics in Destruction of Historical Icons
As the American left targets historical icons for removal and/or destruction, one is reminded of the way the Taliban destroyed centuries-old Buddhist statues and the Islamic State’s ongoing violence against Christian churches and landmarks.
In short, the American left, the Taliban, and the Islamic State (ISIS) hold two things in common. First, an inability to appreciate the whole of history as it happened, which includes good times and bad. And secondly, a tendency to express this lack of appreciation via violence and destruction.
For example, on March 12, 2001, the Telegraph reported that “the world’s two largest standing Buddhas – one of them 165ft high – were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan.” The statues were 1,700 years old, yet the Taliban “drilled holes into the torsos of the two statues and then placed dynamite charges inside the holes to blow them up.”
Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said, “We do admit the relics were the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, but the part that contradicts our Islamic beliefs we would not like to have them any more.”
In a similar vein, following the toppling of the Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina, Workers World Party member Qasima Wideman said, “If the people decide they want to remove such a statue, that should be their right,” according to CNN.
And National Geographic shows that the tactic of destroying history has been a big part of the Islamic State’s method of operation. The Islamic state destroyed the ancient ruins of Palmyra–consisting of “colonnaded avenues and impressive temples.” This included one temple which had endured for 1,900 years, only to be blown to bits in August 2015. National Geographic also reported that Islamic State destroyed the Roman-trading city of Apamea and the Greek settlement of Dura-Europos.
Dura-Europos was located on the Euphrates River and was home to “the world’s oldest known Christian church.” It is now home to “cratered landscape.”
Nineveh, located on the outskirts of Mosul, Iraq, had a cultural history that flourished between 900 and 600 BC. But when the Islamic State conquered Mosul in 2014, they raided the artifacts, destroying statues and looting much of what they did not destroy. Eventually, Mosul University Library was burned and the city’s central public library “was rigged with explosives and razed, together with thousands of manuscripts and instruments used by Arab scientists.”
The similar motivations between all these various destructive tendencies–especially the targeting of libraries–begs a question that radio talk host Laura Ingraham has already asked. Real Clear Politics quoted Ingraham saying, “What else will be subjected to [the American left’s] eradication and enunciation? … What about books? Are they going to start burning books too?” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/american-left-adopts-taliban-tactics-destruction-historical-icons/
In short, the American left, the Taliban, and the Islamic State (ISIS) hold two things in common. First, an inability to appreciate the whole of history as it happened, which includes good times and bad. And secondly, a tendency to express this lack of appreciation via violence and destruction.
For example, on March 12, 2001, the Telegraph reported that “the world’s two largest standing Buddhas – one of them 165ft high – were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan.” The statues were 1,700 years old, yet the Taliban “drilled holes into the torsos of the two statues and then placed dynamite charges inside the holes to blow them up.”
Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said, “We do admit the relics were the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, but the part that contradicts our Islamic beliefs we would not like to have them any more.”
In a similar vein, following the toppling of the Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina, Workers World Party member Qasima Wideman said, “If the people decide they want to remove such a statue, that should be their right,” according to CNN.
And National Geographic shows that the tactic of destroying history has been a big part of the Islamic State’s method of operation. The Islamic state destroyed the ancient ruins of Palmyra–consisting of “colonnaded avenues and impressive temples.” This included one temple which had endured for 1,900 years, only to be blown to bits in August 2015. National Geographic also reported that Islamic State destroyed the Roman-trading city of Apamea and the Greek settlement of Dura-Europos.
Dura-Europos was located on the Euphrates River and was home to “the world’s oldest known Christian church.” It is now home to “cratered landscape.”
Nineveh, located on the outskirts of Mosul, Iraq, had a cultural history that flourished between 900 and 600 BC. But when the Islamic State conquered Mosul in 2014, they raided the artifacts, destroying statues and looting much of what they did not destroy. Eventually, Mosul University Library was burned and the city’s central public library “was rigged with explosives and razed, together with thousands of manuscripts and instruments used by Arab scientists.”
The similar motivations between all these various destructive tendencies–especially the targeting of libraries–begs a question that radio talk host Laura Ingraham has already asked. Real Clear Politics quoted Ingraham saying, “What else will be subjected to [the American left’s] eradication and enunciation? … What about books? Are they going to start burning books too?” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/american-left-adopts-taliban-tactics-destruction-historical-icons/
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
one is reminded of the way the Taliban destroyed centuries-old Buddhist statues
I'm more reminded of this. Orwell on the dystopian society.
2 plus 2 is four, 2 plus 2 is four, 2 plus 2 is four, 2 plus 2 is four!!!!!!!!
Enter the rats. Rats can be most persuasive!!!
2 plus 2 is five. I understand now sir, Please forgive me, Mr. Smith.
So when a Minority insists that the only way is their way, what is to be expected, they have not the Numbers, nor the evolutionary evidence, so the only option is?
1. Generally speaking , no one wants to destroy confederate statues. Usually they are moved.
2. These statues are nothing more than a tribute to the "Lost Cause" pseudo history of the civil war era that misrepresents the cause of the war and the nature of slavery.
3. I wonder if the people of Palmyra and other ancient communities destroyed any statues of their own?
08/17/17 08:20:03PM @johnrussell:
So much for the " scientific Methods " of " we learn more from the mistakes then the ... "
or " Those that forget the past .... " shhhs say nothing of errors and mistakes lets just Raze them
American Taliban strikes Chicago:
An Abraham Lincoln was damaged and burned in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood late Wednesday, Ald. Ray Lopez said.
The statue was found burned near 69th Street and Wolcott, authorities said.
"What an absolute disgraceful act of vandalism," Lopez wrote on Facebook along with an image of the charred structure. He encouraged anyone who has information on what happened to contact police or his office "immediately."
Police did not immediately have information on what happened.
So because someone does something stupid it negates the worth of removing confederate statues?
You are grasping at straws Sean.
It means that its not going to stop at Confederate Statutes, or Confederate memorials in cemeteries.
That's at least two Lincoln monuments that have been defaced with as well now over the last few days.
The movement is obviously about a lot more than just confederate monuments.
Oh is that the new talking point, theyre coming after Abraham Lincoln?
theyre coming after
Joan of Arc? (LOL)
The phrase "Tear it Down" was hastily sprayed in black paint across the base of the golden Joan of Arc statue on Decatur Street in the French Quarter sometime earlier this week. It has since been removed, with only the vaguest traces of the paint remaining.
The "Tear it Down" tag would seem to relate to the debate surrounding the city's ongoing removal of four Confederate monuments . But the statue of Joan of Arc, a 15th-century military leader, martyr and Catholic saint, hasn't been mentioned in the controversy to this point.
Amy Kirk Duvoisin, the founder of the annual Joan of Arc parade that ceremonially pauses at the statue on the first day of Carnival season, says she's confused by the vandalism.
"Surely, people realize she's not related to American history," she said referring to the French icon.
Oh is that the new talking point, theyre coming after Abraham Lincoln?
Personally, I don't care about talking points. Where do you draw the line? Are all statues fair game?
The Confederate States Of America was OFFICIALLY a white supremacist nation. It was in their constitution that no CSA state or territory could ever unilaterally outlaw slavery.
If you think that is the same as "all statues" that is your problem.
I'm honestly curious John, where do YOU draw the line. Is the Lincoln just acceptable collateral damage in the war on confederate statues?
I draw the line at vandalism. If the community decides to move confederate statues, so be it. I've always thought they were a bit weird anyway. But vandalism is a shame. I'd rather see people involved in the decision making process, attending public meetings and being engaged in their community.
With these people there will always be something else. If all the statues are destroyed, they'll go for memorials. It will move into other things after all the things you can possibly think of today is destroyed.
It is misunderstood by too many today who are being used to promote this agenda. They'll go for the churches because different religions are not innocent of atrocities in their past.
The objective is to destroy the country, but too many don't see or understand that at this time.
I'll just take a soma and be happy.
There is no worth in removing confederate statues and historical relics from the civil war. It was a part of history and those advocating the removal of our history are just as bad as the taliban. It wasn't confederate generals who targeted civilians and burned their homes and cities as they foraged and occupied territory.
There is no worth in removing confederate statues and historical relics from the civil war.
Except many of these statues were not "historical relics". Many were erected in the early 19th century, during the Jim Crow era. You've got three guesses why and your first two don't count.
Pat is correct. I would add that the statues are connected to the pseudo historical romanticizing of the civil war era by southern revisionists.
Petitions call for removal of Confederate memorial , street …
The petition calls for the removal of the “ Lost Cause ” obelisk that stands prominently outside the historic courthouse building on the Decatur square. The …
Confederate memorials removed from Madison cemetery
The Lost Cause was a movement to sanitize the history ... and never able to be comparably replaced!” The Forest Hill memorials were not …
pseudo historical romanticizing of the civil war era by southern revisionist s.
Full essay "On Bullshit"
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern , or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves.
I'm sure you have a point somewhere in your own mind.
April 28, 2017
On Monday, Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) announced the removal of the Battle of Liberty Place Monument, an obelisk honoring hate.
Death threats were made against the contractor. David Duke , that paragon of tolerance, took to Twitter to decry the company "willing to take shekels to tear down priceless New Orleans & American history." The work is considered so dangerous that the people involved in the removal hid their identities and wore flak jackets while under the protection of police.
"First statue erected to honor members of white supremacist organization who killed New Orleans' racially integrated police force," reads the top line of the press release from Landrieu's office. Landrieu was even more blunt when I talked to him on Wednesday about removing Confederate memorials.
"They were put up during a very narrow point of time, four years of our formal 300-year history, as though they reflect the whole history of the city of New Orleans," Landrieu told me. "In effect, they were put up by people, the same group of people called the 'Cult of the Lost Cause.' And the Lost Cause was the cause of the white supremacy in the South. Those monuments don't reflect who we ever have been."
The statues that are the property of the localities that display them and it is their call as to whether or not to remove them. That is a political process that should be followed and not a "street process". When a statue becomes a rally point for the sheet heads then that is a good reason to remove them.
Statues in confederate cemeteries and at historic battlefields should never be removed.
We have laws addressing vandalism. These people are breaking them. No one is above the law except the dear leader and republicans seem to keep making allowances for him.
He kept "quiet " control of his empire while ruling and his family and friends the republicans allowed with waivers placed in positions of power help consolidate his power.
Yeah trumps above the rest of us when it comes to skirting the law.
But He who has the Gold always has made the rules.
OOPs off topic.. sorry
Yeah "lock em up !"