A rather extraordinary article by Jeremy Sear today where he actually argues that the US decision to fight the War on Terror is exactly what the terrorists behind the attacks on September 11 2001 wanted.
The War on Terror was basically a policy of combating terrorism by weakening terrorist organisations, toppling regimes which harboured those organisations and ramping up national security in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.
It follows that Jeremy is suggesting that al-Qaeda wanted to be destroyed, wanted the Taliban to be overthrown in Afghanistan and wanted US security to be tighter so they could not carry out similar attacks.
Naturally, Jeremy provides no evidence whatsoever for his absurd proposition. No quotes from Al-Qaeda where they praise the ousting of the Taliban. No broadcasts from Osama bin Laden where he expresses delight at the fact that Al-Qaeda has been progressively weakened. No quotes from terrorists who are glad that security in Western countries is now stronger in order to prevent more terrorism. No experts on the subject in support of such propositions.
As Andrew Bolt noted yesterday, the reality is that we are slowly winning the War on Terror. Islamic terrorists are weaker than they were in September 2001. There have been no successful attacks on US or Australian soil since then, although some nasty attempts have been thwarted.
As a result of our success, it’s easy to underestimate the terrorist threat and become rather complacent about it all, as Sear does. However, were it not for the good work of our authorities, terrorist attacks would have certainly occurred here, as the convictions under the Howard Government’s anti-terrorism legislation in the last few years demonstrate.
In his post, Jeremy also makes the following laughable claims:
– That the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were “petty murderous criminals”. What an oxymoron. If someone is a murderer, then they cannot possibly be a petty criminal. Moreover, the terrorists on that day were responsible for around 3,000 deaths. That’s certainly not petty either by any measure. It’s massive. 9/11 was an atrocity, not a minor criminal offence.
– That the terrorists are “not super villains”. Again, how can people who have deliberately killed thousands not be super villains? A villain is defined as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.” So presumably, killing around 3,000 is not particularly great, and doesn’t make you extremely cruel, malicious or criminal. What sort of atrocity does one have to commit in order to become a villain of the greatest magnitude? If they are not “super villains”, who are?
– That the terrorists “wanted the West to abandon the civil liberties its citizens enjoyed and become more like the tyrannical regimes they wished they had the support to establish.” What nonsense. Firstly we have not become tyrannical. Apart from our soldiers and terrorism suspects, we have only suffered minor inconveniences as a result of the War on Terror. Secondly, Al-Qaeda wants to commit terrorist attacks in order to advance its ultimate political objective – a fascist Islamic state. Their goal is not to make us more vigilant and determined to fight them, that is only a consequence of 9/11.
Since September 11, 2001, the left have often tried to rationalise the events of that day in ways which avoid acknowledging the obvious. At least Jeremy hasn’t excused what happened that day the way some leftists have.
This article has pointed out that many on the left have engaged in sophistry on the issue of September 11 and Islamic terrorism more generally. And in that respect, Jeremy is no different.
The War on Terrorism was clearly necessary, because there were and still are Islamic fascists who were and are prepared to kill civilians in order to promote their political objectives. It is obvious that more terrorist attacks would have occurred if we hadn’t fought terrorists in other countries and authorities had not been more vigilant at home.
Unfortunately, that point is not obvious to Jeremy Sear. How disappointing that someone who purports to stand for intellectual honesty cannot be so on the issue of Islamic terrorism.