Right-Wing Terror Apologists

by Joe Katzman at August 22, 2003 5:35 AM

This is a painful post to write, but it needs to be written. I find the U.N. beneath contempt, for reasons I'll explain in a minute - but some of the posts out there in the wake of the terrorist attack on the U.N.'s Baghdad HQ crossed a very important line.

This post by Emperor Misha I, and a few of the comments associated with it, are probably the most widely publicized. Regrettably, in the comments section of this Winds of Change.NET post, team member Trent Telenko wrote in one of his comments:

"Too bad the Al-Qaeda didn't use a bigger bomb (August 20, 2003 02:56 AM)."

That's unacceptable. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Not their failure, mind - they communicated all too well. So perhaps it's mine. Brothers, listen. Carefully.

There are people, and I'm among them, who dislike the U.N. I mean really dislike the U.N. Corrupt, meddlesome, cynical, accomplices and abettors of tyranny, murder and genocide cloaking themselves in a false aura of morality; one made even worse by their pretentions to speak for the planet. It's no exaggeration to say that this body and its officials are the sworn enemies of many of the things I hold dear. With me so far?

Now, understand this: there are people out there who feel the exact same way about the U.S.A. I mean, they'd use the exact same adjectives.

Leave aside whether they're justified in these idiotarian beliefs. That they have them is beyond debate. Now... think back to 9/11, and all those "good, now America knows what it feels like" comments, and "anyone who would bomb the Pentagon has my support," and other episodes of with-it wretchedness and smirking schadenfreude. Remember what that felt like.

Remember, too, the mindset and the moral black hole that was behind it. The mindset that if directed against the "correct" targets, mass terrorism can be accepted or excused. After all, it's not like (Israelis, Americans, insert here) are real people or anything. Remember, too, the refusal to acknowledge civilized standards which must not be abandoned - or, implicitly, to acknowledge any standards at all. In this as in so many other world evils, the Palestinians are the ranking specialists, with official Arab cultures close behind and certain European and leftist intellectuals following obsequiously in their train, passing out the operating manuals as they go.

Congratulations. They must all be right - because you just joined them.

It's one thing to see the irony and rage against the idiocy in the all-too-typical U.N. pattern of refusing American protection despite the warnings, then complaining when that makes them a target. Or to lash that fraud Kofi Annan for his saccharine sanctimony. Or to acknowledge the blowback issue. Or to note, even, that the U.N's and especially Sr. de Mello's actions may have made them a terrorist target in other ways (2 words: East Timor). As the building smokes behind you, this is pushing the envelope a bit. Hard hitting, to be sure, but it's still on the civilized side of the line.

Wishing for a bigger bomb is not. Wishing the destruction had been greater is not. Saying "they deserved it" or "it's a start, I suppose" is not. Doesn't matter if you want the people who did this dead, too. When you say things like that, you join the idiotarians. Everyone does stupid things sometimes - as a team member and friend, however, I'm here to tell you you're abusing the privilege.

Still, there are worse mistakes. If you cling to your words, if you deflect or 'clarify' (spin) rather than explicitly taking your words back and acknowledging that it was wrong to say them - because there is no contect in which they might make moral sense. If, in short, you refuse to take responsibility for the failing. If you make those choices, under those circumstances, you cross a line.

It isn't a line between political position A and political position B. It's the line that divides "my friends" from "my enemies."

If it's "too bad [they] didn't use a bigger bomb" on the U.N. in Baghdad, because you attribute the same adjectives to the U.N. that I do, does that mean people who feel the same way about the U.S.A. are entitled to gloat JUST AS YOU'RE DOING when people take down buildings and kill your civilians? To dance in the streets? Because obviously that's the working principle here.

You're entitled to dislike, to oppose, to wish for the failure of another's goals. You're entitled to hold a grudge, to refuse to forgive. You may even be entitled to hate. But you're not entitled to that working principle.

Our actions lie in the past, unchangeable. Our choices lie before us. Choose.

--- UPDATES ---

  • Emperor Misha I responds in the Comments section. Not a great response. Afterward, we had a bit if an email conversation. Misha took a deep breath or 3, thought it over, and came back with a typically profane but real and unqualified apology, including taking responsibility for and renouncing his "it's a start" remark. Works for me.
  • Trent responds in the comments section that held his original post. He acknowledges that his response was "over the top," (weak choice of phrase) then undoes everything with his last paragraph. Disappointing. I respond. Trent fires back with "Hanging A Lantern 101", then "So I Am Not Alone".

All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/rightwing_terror_apologists.php

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.