Suicide bombers do not care whom they kill, since theirs is a divinely inspired mission to perfection and civilians are collaborators anyway. Reuel Marc Gerecht:

In fragile societies trying to establish democracy, where communal and individual trust are integral, suicide bombings, if they come in unending waves, could, conceivably, destroy everything. In all probability, this scenario is too pessimistic. The backlash in the Iraqi Sunni community, as elsewhere in the Sunni Arab world, against the horrific slaughter of women and children has already started. It may be a spur to political compromise among the Sunni Arabs in Iraq (for fear of the holy warriors and the Shia, who may eventually let loose a pitiless, all-consuming revenge).

Domestically, we have a coalition of terrorist-apologists, the MSM, leakers, lawyers and the Democrat-Left that want the United States to declare unilateral disarmament to protect the civil rights of those who want to kill us. We couldn’t help thinking about Gerecht’s comment about the backlash in Iraq as we read this post by Michelle Malkin about CAIR, the MSM, the leakers, and the lawyers, who are also on divinely inspired missions of theri own and do not appear to care whom among us is killed. These parties ought to consider a backlash against their irresponsible behavior, or possibly face a “pitiless, all-consuming revenge.”

UPDATE

From MM we were led to a somewhat related post by Shrinkwrapped and were inspired to buy The Narcissistic Pursuit of Perfection, which he characterized as a profoundly important book. We’re excited about reading it. Shrinkwrapped goes on to say this about the civil liberties absolutists:

They insist that the world should be the way they want it to be, and further, try to force others to collude with them in imagining the world is the way they wish. If they win one victory, they need to escalate; this is the logic of the pursuit of perfection. Thus, if the administration agrees to allow lawyers to visit inmates in Guantanamo, they cannot be satisfied, but then must escalate to demanding full rights of access to the American legal system. If they ever were to become successful at getting people to agree with them, their logic insists that the West effectively disarm; we must stop all NSA intercepts, stop monitoring Mosques and other locations, and maintain the inviolability of personal privacy from any government intrusion. Because their true demands are so extreme, they can only face marginalization by pressing their agenda; further, if they truly cared about civil liberties, they would find a way to compromise because the greatest risk to civil liberties would be posed by a second attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse. Were such an attack to occur, all notions of acceptable limits of governmental intrusion would be jettisoned, with the agreement of the vast majority of the American people. In either case, whether they win or lose the current argument, they ultimately must lose.

They should lose, the quicker the better, in our view. That would be safer for everyone.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 28th, 2005 at 8:05 am and is filed under Democrats, General, Law, MSM, Religion, War, art, culture, radical chic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.