Different River

”You can never step in the same river twice.” –Heraclitus

A certain radio commentator wondered aloud (i.e., on the radio) how long it would take before liberals in America would take political advantage of the terrorist attacks in London, blaming them on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He pointed out that the argument that “the war in Iraq is the cause of anti-Western terrorism” is nonsense, because the biggest terrorist attack (on Sept. 11, 2001) occurred before the war in Iraq. He predicted that the liberals would wait a respectful (for the victims) interval, but start blaming Bush on the Sunday-morning TV talk shows.

He was right on the argument, but wrong on the timing. It’s started already!

At 4:14pm today (Thursday), Michael Moore posted this article on his website.

July 7th, 2005 4:14 pm
Bush has to review strategy, say US experts

By Guy Dinmore and Demetri Sevastopulo / Financial Times

A constant theme of the Bush administration is that America and the world are safer because of the US invasion of Iraq and its anti-terror strategy.

That argument prevailed during the US presidential election campaign last year, despite even official US evidence to the contrary, but may have been finally buried by Thursday’s bombings in London.

Experts in Washington said following the blasts that it was time for the Bush administration to re-evaluate its strategy.

Who are these “experts”?

John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former deputy secretary of defence {under Clinton –DR}, said: “Clearly [the world] is not safer. I think this highlights the complexity of the problem.”

This is, of course, baloney. The war in Iraq didn’t cause the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and it didn’t cause the attack on the USS Cole, and it didn’t cause the attacks on the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and it didn’t cause this attack, either. It just became the rhetoric for this attack. There was other rhetoric for the other attacks.

Consider the statement claiming “responsibility” for the attack:

“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.”

Now with all due respect, there is nothing “Zionist” or “crusader” about anything Britain did in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Note: Did anyone say the war in Afghanistan caused this? No, they just say it about Iraq, even though the terrorists say it was both. Why is that?)

Of course, there is nothing “Zionist” or “crusader” about the government of Britain at all. Unless you define “Zionist” as allowing Jews to walk the streets without being decapitated, and “crusader” as allowing Christians to practice their religion. Which, come to think of it, is probably how Al-Qaeda does define it, since they are mostly from Saudi Arabia, and those things are not allowed there!

The fact is, Al-Qaeda is not after the West because of the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan, or the troops in Saudi Arabia. They “declared war” on the U.S. long before all those things. And it’s not about support for Israel, either — Europe gave up supporting Israel years ago, and there are still attacks on Madrid and London.

Al-Qaeda is after the West because according to their ideology, any society not governed by Islam is to be destroyed. Not just that, but any society not governed by their version of Islam is to be destroyed. Al-Qaeda is after the West, because in the West, Jews are allowed to walk the streets and live in peace (except maybe in France), Christians are allowed to practice their religion, atheists are allowed to practice their non-religion, the press is not censored of un-Islamic ideas, the universities teach whatever they want, the banks charge interest, and waddaya know, we don’t even stone homosexuals and adulterers — and even those of us who think those things are truly immoral aren’t trying to implement stoning for those folks.

That, to Al-Qaeda, is why the West must be destroyed. No amount of appeasement short of implement shari’ah (Islamic Law). As Hamas leader Ra’ed Salah put it in September 2001 (note date!), “The only solution is for Bush to convert to Islam.” Or to put it another way, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

So there you have it. They hate us because we are not an Islamic state. How inconsiderate of us.