Friday, August 04, 2006

1938 = 2006?

I have never been particularly impressed with comparisons of our current "global war on terror" with World War II, but Mr. Hanson makes some valid points:
Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”
Read the whole thing.

Read this too:
God forbid the Left should analyze when it’s so much more joyful to simply criticize — and simplicity is everything to the furious. Hence, this “connect the dots” front page of one of Britain’s more simplistic papers, the Independent, where even the normally sane Malcolm Rifkind waxes indignant, angry about what has passed him by, but clueless about where to go next. This is global politics as seen by John and Yoko, it’s sex-as-a-tantrum, and it becomes clear reading this kind of rubbish that for the British Left the only thing that would save Israel’s Jews from the deeply complex problems confronting them is if they were little, furry animals. Like those who hate Bush so much they want to see American reverses around the world, Blair-haters, angry at being ignored more than anything else, are happy to see the kind of guarantee of future bloodshed an “immediate ceasefire” would produce so long as it means humiliation for the man they love to hate.