Terrorists murder 40 people in Grozny. The response of the Independent? It "underlines the need for a settlement in Chechnya." Say what? How does the Independent conclude that an attack underlines the need to surrender? Well, they start with the obligatory denunciation:
The loss of civilian lives through terrorism cannot be justified:...and then proceed to do just that. (Wait for it. Wait.... wait.... yes! Here it is: the BUT!)
but yesterday's assault on the civilian government does highlight the despair of the Chechen people, who believe they are fighting for self-determination and who have no other outlet than violence to air their grievances. That same despair prompted the appalling hostage-taking in Moscow in October, which resulted in the deaths of 41 attackers, and of 129 hostages.Is there anything that better illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the left than an argument like this? It "highlights the despair" of Chechens. The left is simply incapable of ever thinking that the weaker side in a fight could be wrong, let alone evil. So, in short, the worse that someone behaves, the more it proves that he's a victim.
Comments (1)
I am sorry, but you just don't seem to understand the obvious. It is really quite simple. Let me explain. The more fanatical you are, the more righteous your cause. Thus, if you kill enough innocent people you cause must be just. If you don't believe me, just ask Patty Murray or A. N. Wilson.
Posted by Richard | December 30, 2002 12:11 PM
Posted on December 30, 2002 12:11