I've noticed in various newspaper articles, editorials, letters to the editor and commentary in other media, the growing refrain that those on the 'left', in expressing condemnation of US led terrorism and in urging all parties to examine the full context of events and terrorism as a phenomenon, constitute apologists for the S11 terrorists and terrorism.
Indeed, it was Tony Blair who stated clearly in his neo-liberal megalomaniacal address: 'Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try. But let there be no moral ambiguity about this: Nothing could ever justify the events of September 11, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could'. Blair is equating the desire to contextualise the issues invoked by these attacks with tacit justification of terrorism.
Salman Rushdie has written in the New York Times:
"It's time to stop making enemies and start making friends. To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of the United States by sections of the Left that has been among the most unpleasant consequences of the terrorists' attacks on the US. "The problem with Americans is..." - "What America needs to understand..." There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a country in a deep state of mourning and horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is to blame for its citizens deaths."
Apart from Rushdie's gross generalisations there is the matter of labelling allegedly leftist commentary one of 'the most unpleasant consequences' of the terrorism. Really? That's quite an assertion in light of the mass homicide, the destabilising of America and arguably the entire globe psychologically, economically and politically, the displacement of thousands of Afghans, the ensuing cycle of violence and death, the war that now threatens us all.
It is profoundly illogical and unreasonable to extrapolate 'moral ambiguity' from the desire to examine the history of relevant global politics and the suggestion that all global citizens (including Americans!) would be wise to seek out political education.
On what evidence is this logical leap being made that the desire to understand the context of terrorism constitutes moral relativism? Where are the citations of respected authority to support such a grave charge?
I have seen a few comments on Web bbs that state things to the effect of 'America deserved this' etc but I have yet to see express or implied leftist affiliation by any such authors. The one voice that I know to be espousing such views expressly is that of extreme right neo-Nazis.
For what it's worth, here's my position as a 'lefty' who seeks to examine the history and context to improve my understanding...
There is no justification for terrorism - the indiscriminate infliction of homicide - the perpetrator, victim, cause, ideology etc do not affect the applicability of that non-negotiable principle. This absence of moral relativism enables me to remain immune to manipulative language that labels one party a 'terrorist' and another a 'freedom fighter'. This absence of moral relativism means that I know that to draw artificial distinctions between the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden (assuming his guilt for the sake of argument) and those of the US government would be a true embodiment of moral relativism.
This is an attempt to silence voices of reasoned dissent through the manipulation of language and distortion of logic - and an attempt to invalidate an entire sociopolitical group through accusations of moral infirmity. Let's make the distinctions clear to all who would be influenced by these ethically indefensible fallacious accusations.
It cannot but be supportive, socialist, communist or whatever you want to call it. Does nature, and the human species with it, have much time left to survive in the absence of such change? Very little time. Who will be the builders of that new world? The
