Moral Relativism And Terrorism

Yesterdays post concerned the Sound Of Silence from the Muslim world regarding the ongoing terrorism; New York, London, Madrid, Russia, Chechnya, Nairobi, Rydiah, Baghdad, Cairo, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Qandahar. If a Christian sect with world wide membership committed the same kinds of atrocities against Catholics or perhaps Muslims, what do you suppose the headlines of the world would say? Exactly and there-in lies the problem. Some folk, blinded by their inability to say ill of the so-called 3rd world, by their inability to face the reality of this struggle, indeed, perhaps even hoping that in some way, the western democracies will receive their comeuppance.

This is the Moral Relativism of today. A relativism where the BBC removes the word terrorist from its site and puts up "bombers" in less than 24 hours after the bombs went off in London. A world where the morally blind wonder "Why do they hate us so." A world where CAIR is more concerned with Muslims being offended than with what may happen to those same Muslims if, say, a nuclear device is ever set off in a large city that is likely to have a hefty Muslim population. A world where an Imam can denounce terrorism in English on television, then get up in his pulpit and in Arabic praise the islamo-fascists, note their ascension into heaven and the rewards of martyrdom. This topsy-turvy world.

In yesterdays Opinion Journal, the online edition of the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto writes:

Now and then a terrorist actually takes the trouble to explain his motives. London's Daily Telegraph reports on the trial of the man who allegedly (and now confessedly) murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh:

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." . . .

Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs. van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

This had nothing to do with Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian lands," America's "unilateral invasion" of Iraq, "torture" of prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the widening "income gap," or any of the other litany of complaints that the terror apologists trot out. Islamist terrorism arises from religious fanaticism and hatred, plain and simple.

President Bush has said repeatedly that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. I don't believe that. The world's people have always admired our freedom. What they don't like is the arrogance and indifference to world opinion inherent in so much of our international policy.

If western civilization is ever ground under the heel of islamo-fascism, it will not be because of their strength of arms on the battlefield, it will be because of terrorism and more importantly, our own complacency by saying nothing to the radical Imams.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain expressed surprise and disappointment on learning that the islamo-fascists who set off the four bombs were British citizens of Pakistani descent. But why should he or anyone be surprised? There have been in London and elsewhere numerous Imam's preaching hate, defiance, jihad in England for some time. Perhaps the English, believing that if they were "tolerant," practiced "multi-culturalism" and opened their arms to the oppressed of the old British Empire that they would be safe from internal attack. All this while the Islamic heretics in their midst used the cover of Islam to preach hate, destruction, JIHAD

The Dutch/Moroccan Mohammed Bouyeri along with the young Brits (Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, and may have done the world a favor by exposing the real reason they are terrorists - their faith. Still others, such as this young man give ample evidence of the paucity of the multiculturalist left. The terrorists, islamo-fascists, jihadists, suicide bomber, what ever you wish to call them do this out of religious fervor, they are most often, middle class or better, educated and captured by a religious wasteland of hate.

There can be no doubt that the lack of outcry against the terrorists from the vast majority of Muslims will work against their own civil liberties, and against ours. During WWII, numerous Japanese-Americans were interned in what can only be called a massive racial animus aimed at anyone of Japanese descent. This interning also happened for "some" German-Americans, but nowhere near to the extent that the West Coast Japanese-Americans were interned. Those of the Muslim faith are generally identifiable by their garb or by their appearance. Should more such attacks occur, I dread the loss of freedoms that will occur for all of us.

Border restrictions that pale beyond what is current, identity cards, loyalty oaths, all the makings of a police state both in this country, and in Europe. And though it will be understandable in terms of a people blindly striking out in "self defense" it will not be a pretty sight.

One answer to this scourge is to stand up firmly, vociferously and loudly and condemn terrorism to the highest degree humanly possible. The whole world, united against a true fascistic ideology that does not care who it strikes. Old, young, retired, children, men, women, combatants, non-combatants, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Animist, atheist, poly-theist, black, white, brown, yellow, tan, red. Indian, Native American, German, French, British, Sudanese, South African, Brazilian, all will become targets because as in the words of Mohammed Bouyeri:

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion,..."

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same."

"I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

As Robert James Bidinotto noted in his blog:

This moral inversion is fueled by toxic philosophy. Thanks to a long gray line of ideological dope-pushers, Western intellectuals, politicians and cultural leaders are addicted to the self-destructive hallucinations of moral relativism, altruistic self-sacrifice, cultural self-loathing and political appeasement of sworn enemies. Self-blame, along with cowardly calls for more "understanding" and "restraint," are their only knee-jerk responses in the face of each new outrage.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit
In an interview with John Howard, PM of Australia:

...these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.

Another Update: Mudville Gazette has has a great list of reads up GWot Central as it were.

Update #3, Jeff Jarvis calls a spade a spade:

What they did is a crime. That's all it is, nothing more. A crime.

But when we treat it as something else, when we try to understand it, when we grant the veil of political correctness -- of understanding, even tolerance, invoking fuzzy words like "otherness" -- we risk spreading the crime, making it if not acceptable then at least understandable for others. It is a cousin of glamorizing crime, of turning these scum into ideological, religious Bonnies and Clydes.

Update # 4: Tim Birdnow has a nifty little post up at the Bird Blog.