|
Will they still say it’s all about Israel?
Here is a question that should be directed at every person who has said that but for the Jews (excuse me, I meant to say, “but for the neoconservatives who have unfairly tilted America in favor of Israel”), there would be no Islamic terrorism against the West: Do you think that if Israel didn’t exist, or if America weren’t friends with Israel, that the terrorist attack on the Bali nightclub that slaughtered 181 young people, most of them Australian tourists, would not have occurred? However, there are several other possible variations on this question, to be directed at the respective ideological factions which have each put forward their own exclusive explanation for the September 11th attack. Here are some of them: Do you think that but for American interference in Arab countries, including financial assistance to corrupt governments and the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, there would be no Islamic terrorist attacks against the West? Do you think that but for the Gulf War and the sanctions enforced by the U.S. against Iraq, there would be no Islamic terrorist attacks against the West? Do you think that but for America’s arrogant unilateralism, as shown by its refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord and to attend the marvelous Durban Conference on Racism, there would be no Islamic terrorist attacks against the West? Do you think that but for the West’s failure to feed the world’s hungry, there would be no Islamic terrorist attacks against the West? (I haven’t made this up; I’ve heard people say this—they were Episcopalians.) Do you think that but for America’s history of racial discrimination, there would be no Islamic terrorist attacks against the West?
Do you think that but for …
Comments
I agree, the Bali attack certainly proves to me that the Islamists are at war with Western civilzation itself. All of the arguments you listed are missing the real reason behind the attacks. These arguments are often made to promote other agendas. Robert Locke has penned a devastating criticism of the anti-war right (specifically Buchanan, et al) on FrontpageMag today. As he pointed out, the immigration issue, an area where the paleo-conservatives really could present compelling criticism of the neo-cons in general and the Bush administration in particular, was glossed over in “The American Conservative.” The refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws is at least as grave a threat to the nation’s security as Iraq’s WMD program. The 9-11 terrorists all were in this country thanks to the ridiculous corruption and lax enforcement of the INS, who has not reformed its practices in any significant way to this very day. Posted by: Carl on October 15, 2002 8:59 PMI BELIEVE THAT ISLAM TOOK A SABATACLE FROM IT’S DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICES WHEN THE WEST BEGAN TO BE PROSPEROUS ENOUGH TO BE A FORMIDABLE FORCE. NOW THAT THEY THINK THAT THE WEST HAS GONE SOFT, THEY ARE BACK TO THEIR ABUSIVE AND DEADLY PRACTICES OF DESTRUCTION TO ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE AS THEY DO. Miss Eyman makes an excellent point, and it applies not just to Muslims but to many kinds of social and political disorder we see today. The fact is that barbarism needs to be continually held down by civilization, and it is held down as long as civilization is moral and vital and self-confidently asserts its authority. But as soon as civilization starts to lose its grip, the barbarism starts to rise again. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 17, 2002 1:18 PM |