Terrorism's Little Helpers

Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds links to Shanti Mangala, where this impassioned commentary exchange on the Bombay bombing takes place. Shanti is bemoaning what he perceives as the Western press's soft portrayal of Islamic terrorism.

Of course, Gaurav - don’t you know that Hindu zealots murder Muslims who defend themselves by turning to militancy - and even that is suspect since India “says so”. Ultimately to most, Hinduism is a pagan religion whose polytheistic followers are inherently inferior to the monotheistic regions’ followers. Only we can be zealots - not them.

Posted by: Shanti on August 25, 2003 09:27 AM

I don’t think it has anything to do with mono- or polytheism. The secular media has no respect for any religion that isn’t politically correct (which Islam is, right now). The monotheistic Israelis have the same complaints as the Hindus (a secular country is fighting barbaric fundamentalist terrorism, and it’s the one that gets blamed). And Israelis are the only ones accused of being “zealots.” Majority-Christian America, which is also a secular state, gets is treated the same way (but less so by American papers, and moreso by foreign news sources like the BBC).

The far left loves Islam because fundamentalist Muslims hate the current capitalist world system, and they adhere to its enemies (and non-fundamentalist Muslims are good props to hide behind, so they can accuse capitalists and freedom-lovers of racism). They want totalitarian communism and therefore they adhere to the enemies of freedom and individual liberty. They love Muslim terrorists because Muslim terrorists are evil, and they hate Hindus because Hindus tend to be non-evil. Anyone who isn’t evil isn’t “subversive” and is therefore “bourgeoise” and needs to be killed. Whether you are killed by secret police or by bombings in your decadent, capitalist shopping bazaars, they don’t care, as long as you bleed.

The blame for any crime always defaults to the nearest group of good people. If Hindus are running a responsible, decent government in India, and Muslims decide to blow something up there, Hindus take the blame. If Palestinian terrorists blow up a bus in Israel, the Israelis take the blame. If Muslim terrorists in Iraq blow up the UN HQ, that’s the fault of America and Israel. If Muslim terrorists from Afghanistan blow up some buildings in America, that’s America’s fault. Why blame us?

Because they hate and want to destroy all that is right and good in the world. It has nothing to do with religious bigotry, and everything to do with reporters’ outlook on the world. They hate all of us, we just have to accept it. I’m sure most of them don’t really think these thoughts consciously, but they reflexively sneer at good people, which is evidence there is something deeper underneath.

Posted by: Michael Levy August 25, 2003 03:43 PM

This isn't a new phenomenon. George Orwell pointed out that Second World War Marxist 'pacifism' was objectively pro-Nazi, an attempt to disguise the worst political desires with the perfume of moral sanctity. Albert Camus, who also turned his back on the Left, put the case higher. "...crime always finds lawyers, and innocence only rarely", or more tellingly "on the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence -- through a curious transposition peculiar to our times -- it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself." He was referring, of course, to his former comrades' defense of Stalin, the show trials, the Gulag, the starvation of millions and ghastly Socialist 'achievements' like the Road of Bones, but his finger points across the decades to the BBC, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Robert Fisk. But one should not despair. They are headed for the same historical footnote presently occupied by Pravda, Bertrand Russell, Lord Haw-haw and Joseph Goebbels.