Apologists for Evil

On the darkest day in American history - September 11, 2001 = over 5000 people are mass-murdered by terrorists. This constitutes nothing less than an act of war against the United States and the West itself, as innocent civilians from more than eighty countries died.

Yet certain people imply that America was asking for trouble and somehow deserved it. They are the usual suspects and include left-wingers, anti-globalistation protesters, and pacificts. Not all fit into this category, of course, but many do. They argue that no military action should be taken because this would be tantamount to revenge and more innocent people would be killed, even though a large majority agree that in this case it is self-defence. Alternatively they suggest that America should change its foreign policy. The peace activists chant to President Bush that: "We don't want your racist war". They demand justice not war, and want us to look to the causes of terrorism.

The left-wing writer, Susan Sontag and comedian Bill Maher even called the hijackers 'brave'. Bill Maher suggested that 'lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away'- referring to past bombings of Iraq - was cowardly, but 'staying in the airplane when it hits the building' is not. His defence of the terrorists can only be described as disgusting, even though he has since apologised. These comments are examples of the weird thinking seemingly common amongst many left- wing intellectuals who show little or no compassion for the many who died in New York and Washington. Luckily most people disagree judging what happened on September 11 to be a cowardly and criminal act for which there is no justification whatsoever.

Many left-wing writers have blamed American foreign policy for this terrorist action in yet another example of twisted thinking. America's support of Israel the only democracy in the Middle-East, has been cited as one of the causes, in spite of the fact that America has been extremely active in the peace process. They blame Western sanctions against Iraq for injuring and killing innocent children failing to get their facts right and believing Iraqi propaganda. However, according to the editorial in the Economist: "The true casue of those deaths is Saddam. Although sanctions contribute to his country's impoverishment, it is he who has chosen to restrict the distribution of food and medicine that is permitted by them, and facilitated by an 'oil for food" programme, both directly and by siphoning off some of the resources for himself." Another problem they take issue with is the presence of American troops in Saudi-Arabia who are there with the consent of the government - which is admittedly a corrupt one - and to help protect

Go To Page: 1 2