Anti-Climacus

THAT DOG JUST WON'T HUNT:

John Quiggin tries to take the moral high ground against Unite Against Terror. I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. He says, for example:

"The implication of the statement, read as a whole, is that unity against terrorism requires unquestioning support for the Bush Administration, and denunciation of its opponents."

Here's the 'political' portion of the statement:

"Terrorist attacks against Londoners on July 7th killed at least 54 people. The suicide bombers who struck in Netanya, Israel, on July 12 ended five lives, including two 16 year old girls. And on July 13, in Iraq, suicide bombers slaughtered 24 children. We stand in solidarity with all these strangers, hand holding hand, from London to Netanya to Baghdad: communities united against terror.

These attacks were the latest atrocities committed by terrorist groups inspired by a poisonous and perverted politics that disguises itself as a form of the religion of Islam. The terrorists seek a closed society of fear and conformity. They are opposed by Muslims the world over. Muslim community leaders have condemned the London attacks unequivocally. We reject the terrorists' claim that they represent authentic Islam. They do not.

We remember the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 and in Madrid on March 11, 2004. But we know that al Qaeda and groups that are inspired by Bin-Ladenism have carried out atrocities in France, Pakistan, Israel, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Tunisia, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Osetia and many other countries.

The vast majority of the victims of al Qaeda's violence have been Muslims. Those who have suffered at the hands of violent Islamic Fundamentalist movements in Iran and Algeria have also been ordinary Muslims.

This terrorist violence is not a response by 'Muslims' to the injustices perpetrated upon them by 'the west'. Western democracies have been responsible for some of the ills of this world but not for the terrorist murders of these deluded Bin-Ladenists.

These attacks did not begin in 2003. The first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center took place ten years before, in 1993."

So far as I can tell, the only things which are not, as such, facts and are thus open to argumentation are the identification of who is responsible for the latest terror attacks and the belief that the people who do these things in the name of Islam do not actually represent it. Quiggin objects thusly to the first of those two points:

"I don’t know the details of the Netanya and Baghdad attacks, but many terror attacks in Israel have been the work of secular Palestinian nationalist groups, and many terror attacks in Iraq have been organised by secular Baathists"

Which is to say, so far as I can tell, that it's somehow wrong or irresponsible to point out the fact that some people commit terrorism in the name of Islam because some people also do it for non-religious reasons. I'm not entirely sure what the force of Quiggin's objection is intended to be, because I think identifying the at least potentially 'Islamist' nature of the terrorist threat is actually meant to point out that even if people who call themselves Muslim use terror, they tend to use it against fellow Muslims and in the name of something other than Islam, and the statement further says:

"We stand firmly against the racists who seek to exploit the current tensions for their own agenda."

(I pass over his argument based on the statements of people who signed as to why they signed. I would presume that the rightness of a position isn't dependent on who else is taking that position, but then, I've always been heavily deontological in that way)

Quiggin has another objection, which he takes it is a coded reference to Iraq:

"And, while terror attacks did not begin in 2003, it is clear, at the very minimum, that recent terror attacks in Baghdad are a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq in that year (whether or not you think good consequences outweighed the bad ones)."

Granted, but I rather take it that this is not the point. The line is not intended as an apologia for war in Iraq, but rather to note that the use of terroristic tactics by people with their approximate set of political and social aims (even by at least some of the people acting in Iraq) did not begin in 2003. But, of course, Quiggin says this is "the very minimum;" one wonders what the "maximum" would be.

Then Quiggin offers the frankly bizarre charge:

"The emphasis on the specifically Islamist characteristics of the attacks we are asked to unite against suggests (if it is relevant at all) that other forms of terrorism, in support of other causes, might be morally justified."

But I'm unclear on how anything, say, here:

"These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best. They despise individual liberty, critical thought, gender equality, religious tolerance, the rights of minorities and political pluralism. They do not criticize democracy because it sometimes fails to live up to its principles; they oppose those principles.

In areas of conflict, the terrorists have damaged attempts at peaceful and political solutions to problems. They choose killing and reject mutual recognition, accommodation, negotiation, understanding, and compromise.

In the face of such an enemy, we believe it is vital that democratic political forces in all countries unite. We need a global movement of solidarity linking together communities threatened by terror. United we stand against terror."

...could not be applied fairly equally to any other kind of terrorist group. The specific peg of the statement hardly prevents wider interpretation.

And, well, let's take a look at some other parts of what Quiggin calls "the tendentious analysis" of the statement:

"We can find our inspiration in the behavior of ordinary people in the immediate aftermath of terrorist atrocities. Always the story is the same. A fractured world is mended by the kindness of strangers. We see, amidst the pain and anguish, in the rubble of the Twin Towers, the wreckage of a London bus, the bloodied glass across a Tel Aviv street, and among the Mothers searching for their children in Baghdad, that a common humanity asserts itself. Extraordinary acts of courage and selflessness become commonplace. The impulse of solidarity overwhelms fear and help comes from strangers.

With every healing gesture between strangers we feel a candle of hope has been lit in a dark world. On 7/7 a London tube worker rushed towards the blast, running down a smoke-filled tunnel, torch in hand, to lead out the survivors.

These ordinary yet heroic rescuers teach us the ethic of responsibility. It is time to assert our common humanity against all who would divide us. It is time to forge communities united against terror, respectful of the dignity of difference, and organised to extend active solidarity to each other across the globe...

We offer our support and solidarity to all those within the Muslim faith who work in opposition to the terrorists and who seek to win young people away from extremism and nihilism, towards an engagement with democratic politics.

We believe that democracy and human rights are worth defending with all our strength. The human values of respect and tolerance and dignity are not 'western' but universal.

We are not afraid. But we are not vengeful. We believe the kindness of strangers has lit the way and this light will drive away the darkness. We want to join light to light to show that evil, injustice and oppression will not have the final word. Through these acts of human solidarity we will mend the world the terrorists have fractured."

Yeah man: hope, democracy, human rights, respect, tolerance, dignity: the Bush Administration has brainwashed us good if it has us believing in those things.