Two Questions

As horrific as the attacks in London were and as saddened as I am over them, this is not the time to shrink from asking hard questions. We are in the midst of a war and our enemy hopes, by his use of terror as a weapon, to make us abandon reason, acting out of panic instead. If we are to win this war for our lives, we must examine the conflict with open eyes and at all times, especially in times like the present. The terrorists want to kill us whether we respond to them by taking their lives or we panic. But we will recoil from that first, proper response if we do not remember that we are the moral side.

From the Command Post (HT: Martin Lindeskog) comes an excellent roundup on the atrocities committed in London earlier today, from which I obtained the following Fox News quote.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" has posted a claim of responsibility for the series of blasts in London, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The statement was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, according to Der Spiegel magazine in Berlin, which republished the text on its own Web site.

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan," said the statement, which was translated by The Associated Press in Cairo.

The authenticity of the message could not be immediately confirmed.

"The heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west," the statement said.

"We warned the British government repeated. We have carried out our promise and carried out a military attack in Britain after great efforts by the heroic mujahedeen over a long period to ensure its success."

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," the statement went on.

It was signed: "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe."

Dead, mutilated bodies are "blessed"? Laying a bomb in a subway tunnel, running off, hiding, and using it to blow up people guilty only of living their lives is "heroic"? Is this the best they can do? (That is both a practical and moral question.)

I have two questions at this point. They are addressed to two specific groups of people, but they are worth considering for everyone else as a thought exercise. These questions concern who stands where in the war of which London is merely a battle site.

First, I have the following fundamental question for all the Moslems -- and their sympathizers -- who thrashed around and killed people about a month and a half ago on the strength of mere allegations that a mere book met its doom in a toilet.

"When does the rioting start?"

Either these terrorists speak for your religion or they do not. Either what they did glorifies your silly book or it desecrates it in a much more important way than mere destruction. Which is it? And why do I feel confident that today's murders will meet with jubilation from the same crowd that got its panties in a wad about what some prison guard might have done to an inanimate object?

To fail to object strenuously to these acts is to give them your blessing and to admit that surviving in one piece is too good a fate for your book.

The sound of silence on your part is louder than any bomb your flea-bitten, child-killing "heroes" can muster.

And for those who equated our prison in Guantanamo with the Gulag, I ask a similar question.

"When do the comparisons with the American military begin?

Either you honestly believe that our nation is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Red China, in which case the barbarism in London should be compared to what America is doing, in the vein of condemning it or you should openly praise what the terrorists did because it was justified or you should apologize for what could only very charitably be called hyperbole. Which is it? Or are you hoping everyone who heard you will forget what you said thanks to the atrocities? And if so, why did you say it at all if it wasn't that important? Or could it be that what you said might be better described by an adjective like, "dishonest" or "revealing"? Hmmmm?

These are not inappropriate questions, for if the abdication of reason leads men to perform acts of barbarism, it is the toleration of unreason that makes such acts easier to perform. The fact that the moral side in this war is being condemned by many Moslems and leftists is very revealing. People have just been killed -- again -- for the crime of living their lives. To fight the Islamofascists, we have to kill some of them and imprison others. It's called "war". The sooner we can pin down which side certain people are on, the better. No time like the present to be clear about who is helping things like the London attacks happen again. Hence the importance of asking these questions now, while the fact that the lives of civilized men -- our lives -- are in danger is fresh on our minds.

There are three possible outcomes in this war. (1) The West -- which is to say, humanity -- will lose. (2) The Moslems will reform their religion. (3) The Moslems will get wiped from the face of the earth. With "patriots" like Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas and Senator Dick Durbin, it is up to the rest of us to determine whether the first outcome will occur. And with a "champion" like al Qaeda, it is up to the Moslems which of the last two will occur.

This is everyone's war. Which side are you on?

-- CAV