Half-Baked Apologies for Terrorism

Christopher Hitchens continues his crusade to keep the Left honest. The only problem is that they aren't listening. In this column, Hitchens asks fellow Leftists, "Why ask why?"

Consider this, look again at the awful carnage in Bali, and shudder if you ever said, or thought, that the bombs in London in July, or the bombs in Baghdad every day, or the bombs in Bali last Friday, are caused by any "policy" but that of the bombers themselves. Note the following:

1) East Timor was for many years, and quite rightly, a signature cause of the Noam Chomsky "left." The near-genocide of its people is an eternal stain on Indonesia and on the Western states that were complicit or silent. Yet Bin Ladenism wants not less of this killing and repression but more. Its demand to re-establish the caliphate is a pro-imperialist demand, not an anti-imperialist one.

2) Random bombings are not a protest against poverty and unemployment. They are a cause of poverty and unemployment and of wider economic dislocation.

3) Hinduism is considered by Bin Ladenists to be a worse heresy even than Christianity or Judaism or Shiism, and its adherents, whether in Bali or Kashmir, are fit only for the edge of the sword. So, it is absurd to think of jihadism—which murders the poor and the brown without compunction—as a movement against the rich and the "white."

So, what did Indonesia do to deserve this, or bring it on itself? How will the slaughter in Bali improve the lot of the Palestinians? Those who look for the connection will be doomed to ask increasingly stupid questions and to be content with increasingly wicked answers.

But Hitchens is incorrect if he thinks that after considering these points the Left will cease their half-baked apologies for terrorism.

Hitchens is being logical. Hitchens is trying to appeal to the principles that he believes are the foundation for Leftist thought (including Communism and Socialism). You see, he naiively contends that these ideologies actually care about the poor and disadvantaged and that these ideologies have the solution to peace and social justice.

Sadly, he couldn't be more wrong about that. That's why his own comrades don't listen to him; and in breaking with the Left on this issue, he has become a cause celebre for the Right. He is able to see the essential truth about the Islamofascists, and has accordingly supported the war in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam. He thinks he is supporting the principles of his ideology. You would think that a historical review of the 20th century would disabuse him of this line of thinking. Nevertheless, his support for the War on Terror has been strong and consistent.

OTOH, if he thinks for one moment that people like George Galloway and the members of ANSWER or the rest of the lunatic fringe of the Left give one whit for any rational arguments--he is deluding himself.

The truth is that the extreme Left has far more in common with the thugs of Al Qaeda and the desire to have absolute control over the lives of all people. They only differ on their definitions of "infidel".

That's why they will continue to put forth those half-baked apologies for terrorism and support and enable terrorists the world over.

Nice try though, Mr. Hitchens.