Kommentar

Ikke før hadde bombene eksplodert i London, før forklaringer om hvem som egentlig hadde skylden, lot seg høre.

Først uttrykker man sympati med ofrene, så rir man på den emosjonelle bølgen, og sier at dette burde Tony Blair tenkt på før. George Galloway sa det rett ut, Robert Fisk også (han som ifølge bin Laden er en nøytral reporter). Men disse forklaringene kommer i mange tapninger; en av de mer «saklige» er at årsaken ligger i Midtøsten. Palestinernes sak, selvfølgelig, selv om den aldri har rangert høyt hos bin Laden. Irak og Afghanistan. Det utrolige er at flere såkalt venstreorienterte, fra Klassekampen til Samtiden-bidragsyter og deltaker på Kapittel 4 i Stavanger, Tariq Ali, også snakker om okkupasjonen av Afghanistan.

Disse stemmene var også hørbare etter 911. I Norge var vel Johan Galtung den verste. Om Bali sa han det skyldtes raseri over vestlige pedofile.

Nick Cohen har tatt for seg denne «they had it coming»-forklaringen. Dario Fo har fått Nobels litteraturpris, men burde mistet den hvis det er riktig at han sa:

‘The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?’

Denne tendensen var systematisk gjennomført i Klassekampen lørdag. Hva er London-bombene mot Fallujah? Avsender Peter M. Johansen, som dagen før forsvarte Mao mot biografen Jung Chang.

In these bleak days, it’s worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that ‘we had it coming’. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.
…….
But it’s a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West – and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors.

Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.

Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I’m afraid that’s what the record shows.

What can the survivors do? Not a lot according to a Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He told bin Laden that the northern Kurds may be Sunni but ‘Islam’s voice has died out among them’ and they’d been infiltrated by Jews. The southern Shia were ‘a sect of treachery’ while any Arab, Kurd, Shia or Sunni who believed in a democratic Iraq was a heretic.

Our options are as limited When Abu Bakr Bashir was arrested for the Bali bombings, he was asked how the families of the dead could avoid the fate of their relatives. ‘Please convert to Islam,’ he replied.

Face up to the truth
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1525172,00.html