This surely gave me a headache just thinking it up so I thought I’d share with you.
Let’s skip the absract for a bit and put this entire Neo-Islamo question into blood and guts terms. Apologies if this seems simplistic or naive, but it seems to me this is where we’re headed if we’re not there already.
A muslim woman and her daughter have been captured by Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while trying to flee from her abusive husband and life to the West and a better life.
Charles Johnson gets wind of this and sets out to rescue woman and child.
Along the way he encounters Pam Gellar, off on his own way to do battle with Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad. Se knows nothing of the woman and child, she just wants to beat and bloody the bad guys.
They choose different paths through the forest and meet Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad on the field of battle.
Swords and knives fly. Blood guts and gore. All four protagonists are wounded, Ahmadinejad mortally (I really hate that guy) and he is out of the fight.
During the melee Johnson manages to grab the woman and child and is holding them close with one lizard arm while still weilding a defensive sword with the other.
Gellar, however, has been knocked down and her sword knocked away. She is now on her knees, head down, panting and gasping, as Nasrallah begins to raise his sword over her neck.
Johnson, who still has a little fight in him, now has a choice. He can either attempt to attack and kill Nasrallah and save Gellar, risking the possibility that both he, the woman the child and Gellar could all be killed. Or he could flee now to a certain and assured escape, leave Gellar to her fate and Nasrallah to fight another day.
What does he do?
No. I don’t have the answer.
And what is the woman’s name?
28 comments:
Reversing the scenario doesn't work, by the way. Were Johnson on the ground, DeWinter would not be holding that woman and child based on statements we've seen. But he would almost certainly try to save Johnson, then leave the woman and child behind.
Was she clutching her qur'an?
That would make a difference. If she maintains her faith, leave her behind to reap the fruits of her belief.
If she keeps her belief, Johnson better keep his super-hero suit pressed and ready to rescue her again.
Not an option, Anon, or Johnson would not have set off in the first place nor grabbed her away when he had the chance.
So, it's either certain death for DeWinter, or possible death for all four.
I don't know why (my brain must be slow today), but I'm not getting this.
Help me, please.
:)
I think CJ should attempt to kill Nasrallah. Nasrallah will surely be replaced by some other firebrand Jihadist thug, but he must be prevented from ordering the killing of more innocent people and be punished for his crimes of the past. The two Muslims CJ saves will be a tiny victory in comparison to the innocent Jews, Christians, and Sunni Muslims that have suffered immensely under the policies of Nasrallah and will certainly continue to in the forseeable future. CJ should first have his Komodo Dragon sick 'em and then proceed to beat that Jihadist turd to death with his Iguana side-arm.
Pasto -- Johnson has just rescued a Muslim woman and child who say they are trying to escape to the West and a better life. They were being held by Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad.
In doing so, DeWinter was also helping fight N & A, but for different reasons.
A is now dead, but DeWinter wounded and about to be beheaded by Nas.
Johnson has the choice now of saving the woman and child by fleeing and leaving DeWinter to his fate, or of engaging Nas, possibly saving DeWinter but also facing the very real possibility that DeWinter, Johnson, the woman and child will be killed.
So does he with certainty assured save himself and the woman who claims to be fleeing for a better life or does he risk all 4 of their lives?
To take it back to the abstract, Johnson & DeWinter stand for the West but 2 different political stances. The woman for muslim immigration. (If you need to know who Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad stand for then clearly you need a vacation.)
So, knowing he risks possible defeat, does Johnson still defend someone like DeWinter and possibly lose the woman and child -- and maybe himself and DeWinter along the way. Or does he abandon DeWinter, and not try to finish off Nasrallah when he has the chance? Knowing he may face Nasrallah again.
Ok, I get it now.
I have no clue what Johnson would do.
And, part of the problem with this allegory is that it is, I believe, that it is wrong in it's premise. DeWinter doesn't even make a pretense towards actually wanting to prosecute the war against the international Jihad.
It seems to me, from having read of the VB platform, that they are Paleocons in the Pat Buchanan mode (other than their support for Israel), and that they would therefore be isolationist in foreign policy. They are opposed to the Islamization of Europe, however.
Still, I seriously doubt the VB would have any policy aimed at helping to fight the International Jihad beyond their own borders.
Which, by the way, only goes to make Bruce Bawer's question of "why is it that the VB has become a litmus test in the anti-Jihad movement" even more pertinent.
Why is it that a seemingly isolationist party in an inconsequential nation (inconsequential in terms of relative economic or military power) has become so important? It's not like the VB is promising us anything in return.
Pasto -- I see what you're saying. Gimme 5 minutes to make a change and then revisit. I think it will make more sense.
Or maybe not :)
Sorry to shoot down your idea. It is a great idea.
Ok change made.
As for why VB has become so important? Is it VB itself or that they stand for so many others like them? Taken as individual groups they might not be much. But as a whole they could become a movement, and a formidable one.
Personally, unless something absolutely catastrophic happens, I don't think a movement like that could take hold in the U.S. Our politicians, checks and balances wouldn't let it get a firm footing. They may make alot of noise but actually influence major policies I, myself, don't think so.
In the event of something absolutely catastrophic, it probably won't matter anymore anyway.
Europe is another matter. They may slide into the Islamization Abyss. Or they may go wholly the way VB et. al. prescribe.
So how much does that really matter to us? Are we the Guardians of Western Culture, obliged to help Europe, again, with problems they themselves allowed to happen? Is Europe a springboard for Islamization here? Or do we tackle it ourselves and say the hell with Europe. you're on your own this world war, we will deal with it in our own way? Your leaders got you into this mess, let them get you out.
Pasto -- "Sorry to shoot down your idea. It is a great idea"
No no. I didn't take it that way. I made a change. Just trying to get folks to look at this from a different angle, put a face with personal blood and dying consequences to it since it seems to be the topic du jour lately.
The choices are more clear this way, but I still have no idea what Johnson would do, especially considering his dislike of Pamela. He might trade Pamela for the woman and child for all I know.
;-)
Another question, how are we supposed to know the woman's name?
Let's use potential for the woman's name. The potential to be a great benefit to society if she assimilates. Or the potential to do great harm if she is not being truthful about her intent.
Johnson, or you, or Epa, or I, don't know her heart. No one can. But we say give her a chance. She has stated her intentions and shows no sign of anything but.
Pamela, or DeWinter, or Griffin etc. would deny her that chance.
The problem, of course, is the inherent compulsion carried within this woman's ideology. Islamists continually seek to force non-muslims to accept their carefully honed myth that the islamic prophet was not an evil man. In essence to ignore history and jettison common sense.
They imagine the West will capitulate to this farce because they do not place a particularly high premium on either. Nuts.
And no one actually ever knows what CJ is going to do from one minute to the next.
What the heck have you people been smoking? I'm away for a day and when I get back it's "The Wizard of OZ Meets The Twilight Zone on The Road to Ishfahan".
How did De Winter get dragged into this? His name isn't mentioned in the original scenario.
If the woman is married to an Imam then here name is Fatima. If not, I haven't the foggiest.
Revere -- just ignore this whole post. First it was Griffin, then I changed it to DeWinter, then settled on Gellar.
Let's just say it was an experiment that didn't work out quite as planned :)
I think that posing the question was worthwhile. Had anyone hear every considered where the VB actually falls on the American political scale (minus the whole debate on Ethnic Nationalism)?
No, I don't think we had.
Now that I have considered it, I have come to the conclusion that the VB is like a hardcore isolationist party, and therefore can not be counted on for anything, which, as I said, only makes Bawer's question all the more pertinent.
See, I would not have thought of that, if you had not posed this question.
Yeah, I know. Just an awfully confusing way of getting there ;>)
I agree about VB, though. We're really burning too much time and ink on them. And others are far worse than us.
I guess you're right.
Well, I thought that article about the sudden alignment of Wilders and DeWinter was noteworthy. That's actually a historical development.
Oh that post was definately noteworthy. And ominous. But more for Europe I should think.
The counter-jihad will go on, the war against Islam will be won or lost not dependent on whether Wilders aligns with DeWinter or not.
If I may be brutally arrogantly ugly American honest about it, the War against Islam will be won or lost By America and more specifically in Washington D.C. and who we put there.
In that respect Wilders matters very little. In America he has become a cult figure or hero, not a great moving force. But folks are trying to make him seem that way.
That is not to detract from what he says or does. But really, if Wilders were arrested or silenced (no violence against him, please) ask yourself what real effect that would have on decisions made in D.C. regardless of what party is in power? Would we sever ties with The Netherlands? Stop speaking to Britain, or Europe as a whole? Because of Wilders?
Of course not. And quite frankly if we did so what? How much real help, how much blood and treasure has Europe contributed to the fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, compared to what we have?
We are still the superpower, if we don't piss it away. We still have the ability to destroy the Muslim world entire with a fraction of our arsenal and continue to practice M.A.D. against the Russians. Can Germany say that? France? The Netherlands?
And Europe will go the way it goes regardless of what we do. In that respect, Wilders is important there. He is a focal point. A rallying cry all himself.
But not here. Not where the decisions in the next 5, 10, 20, 30 years will be made that will decide this thing.
What we do need to guard against is a DeWinter type rising up here and worming his way into D.C. In that context our discussions are absolutely necessary. I don't think America would go for it but you never know.
To continue warning about that danger, especially the way we have these last few weeks with the Western Civ posts, is essential.
To become mired in this VB, BNP debate is spinning our wheels. It really matters little here when we should be spending far more time dealing with the threat itself and what the hell our Commander in Chief is or is not doing about it.
So says I, anyway.
But what the hell do I know ;>)
Good points, MR.
I guess I'm stuck in this old paradigm that Europe matters.
A long time ago, back in 2004 when I was first blogging, I wrote a series of posts called "Grandma Europe" where I compared Europe to an old doddering lady ambling around her apartment, liable to set herself and the whole building on fire.
Thing is, that's my Grandma. In a way, I am a first-generation American. My mother is English.
And, I sincerely lament the apparent passing of Europe into history.
You may notice I often post on things UK. There's a good reason for that. That's where my family lives and where my heart lies.
I can't stand the thought that our grandparents don't matter anymore.
I hope for a resurgence of Europe.
The DeWinter/Wilders development seems just one more nail in the coffin to me.
Very sad.
Pasto that's sentimentality and though I agree with you (I'm only 3 generations away from my Polish ancestors immigration) even you would admit sentimentality has no place in a war.
Consider this. The best friend, the strongest ally we had in this mess, didn't come from Europe.
It wasn't Tony Blair or Merkel or Sarkozy or even Berlusconi.
John Howard. From a country that, once upon a time anyway, understood freedom similar to the way we do. Vast expansive raucous rambunctious and rowdy down there. Just like here. (what ya expect from a former penal colony and a nation of revolutionaries).
That's the kind that will win the War on Islam. Not the Wilders of the world with speeches and rhetoric. But those with an attitude that just cannot be subdued.
Yep.
But, I have met a lot of people from the UK, Ireland, and Scotland who do have balls.
Big balls.
And, I like balls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGiPpFG4PY
Europe. 1914 they allwoed themselves to slide into darkness and we pulled them out. 1939 they allowed themselves to slide into darkness and we pulled them out. In the 40s 50s 60s 70s and 80s they allowed themselves to slide into darkness and we pulled them out.
And each time the wolf was at our own door. And each time he was pushing that door a little further in.
Well now the wolf is within our door. Why the hell should we give that much a fig and spend too much time reporting on cars burning in Paris when we've got Ahemd's Mosque and Gun Emporium down the street. Mohammed's Shady Rest and Jihad Center in the Appalachians.
Europe, I feel sorry for what's happening but, right now, I got a problem here. Leave a message and I'll get back to you once I have this sorted out.
Have balls -- no doubt. I agree. But right now, we need to worry about our own.
This is not isolationism. This is survival.
It sucks to say it but if we lose Denmark, we lose Denmark. If we lose Germany, we lose Germany.
If we lose the United States, we lose the world.
That may piss alot of non-Americans off to say but you know it's true.
America loses and it's game over.
America loses and it's game over.
Yep. We're the ones who insure international free trade by keeping the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, and other areas open.
However, you know, we're not just losing to encroaching Islamization, we're also losing economically. China is becoming more powerful, and as hard as it is to believe, America is now pursuing economic policies which are making us weaker, and which if they continue to be pursued, will wind up in us becoming inevitably weaker than China.
China and Brazil are working together to stop using the dollar, and the Obama administration's reaction to that was "Good".
Great. They don't care.
It's as if they don't realize that it's important that the world thinks the dollar is a good investment.
Note to the Obama admin. - how do you think all that debt is financed? It's financed through other nations believing that America is a good investment.
Apparently, many countries are starting to believe we're not such a good investment anymore.
MR is on to a basic truth in this situation, which is that no one is going to effectively stand up to the Jihad until it becomes universally obvious that the enemy is deaf to reason and there are only two options left: fight or submit. Those who fight will do so with a variety of motivations, but if VB chooses to fight under the banner of Ethnic Nationalist Whateverthehell instead of the principles stated in the United States Constitution that will be their problem. At that point it will be far down the list of ours. We have no control over who else chooses to fight our enemies, but we do control whether they are friends of merely allies in a specific battle for survival.
Post a Comment