Friday, December 12, 2008

Islamic Terrorists Are Real

Says John Albanese, promptly igniting a minor firestorm over at the Truth Action Forums.

Many on the polar extreme seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are indeed terrorist groups in the world hell-bent on spilling innocent blood, no less barbaric than the intentionality behind 9/11. Some on the polar extreme find acknowledging the existence of Islamic terrorism incompatible with the idea that 9/11 was an ‘inside job.’

Pretty reasonable for a Truther, I'd say, but the responses are predictably awful:

Condemning the religion of Islam in the here-and-now is like attacking the religion of Judaism during the holocaust. Easy? Yes. Productive? No. Sorry, but it's really that simple. Do we really need progressives trying to prove their "moderate" (read: genocidal) credentials by heaping scorn on the inmates at Gitmo?

Of course, Albanese was not condemning the religion of Islam, but the fanatics acting it its name, and he did not heap any scorn on the inmates at Gitmo (in fact, his post seems more inspired by the events at Mumbai).

And it's not long before we get the old "The terrorists are just responding to the provocation of the USA," line:

One could argue that Islamic extremism is a direct result of Western military/industrial policy and behavior for the past century. One could also point out that what we created is no longer entirely under our control. One could then argue that the chaos is intended.

I'd argue that what this country has done to Iraq, for example, dwarfs the tragedy of the 9/11 crime many times over. Western extremism, as exemplified by the Bush Doctrine, is a far greater threat to people's lives and global stability than Islamic extremism.

Well, if you really believe that the Iraq War is a much bigger crime than 9-11, why in the world are you focused on 9-11 and not on the war? And I would point out that claiming that the US provokes Islamic fundamentalists to attack us, excuses much fanaticism that I am sure these self-styled "progressives" would condemn if it happened in the US.

For example, the first reason cited by Osama Bin Laden in his fatwa against the USA was that we had troops stationed on Saudi soil. Now think about a comparable situation here in America. Suppose the Mormons decided tomorrow that no non-Mormons would be allowed in Utah. Would "progressives" support this as their right? If the Mormons then launched an attack against (say) Denver on the basis that some Coloradans were in their state, would anybody claim that they were provoked?

And get this:

"I condemn BOTH Israelis and Palestinians for shedding blood!" Well yeah, obviously, no one is a fan of "shedding blood", but the simple fact is that Palestine is being occupied.

"I condemn BOTH Nazis and French freedom fighters for shedding blood!" See how useless the statement is?

Well, implying that there's a moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and Israel is rather useless, now that you mention it.