Backlash? Terrible if true.

I hate to use the word but when speaking of something as horrible as a mosque firebombing. It seems like so much moral equivocation.

[Insert one act of injustice here] but [insert even greater act of injustice here].

In fact, I heard a British imam on NPR's Talk of the Nation using this tactic today. Condemning the London transportation bombings but noting that the Bush-Blair policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were so much worse and really the catalyst for the bombings. You know, the bombings were backlash against the war in Iraq. Daniel Benjamin makes much the same argument.

So be careful when using the word but and comparing two unequal wrongs.

Having made that disclaimer let me note that irrational backlash is wrong, but:

Incidentally, so long as we're so concerned about "backlash" -- the anti-Christian anti-Jew anti-Hindu anti-"apostate Muslim" "backlash" seems to have a much greater bodycount than the alleged anti-Muslim "backlash."

It sure would be nice to see Muslims have 1% of the concern for the "backlash" against the non-Muslim world -- the world that is actually experiencing mass-butchery at the hands of Muslims -- as they do for the hypothetical, always-on-the-horizon-but-never-quite-arriving "backlash" against themselves.

I'm far more worried about Islamic backlash than about any other type of backlash. Backlashes there be a plenty in a world of action-reaction.

Pop quiz. Which is worse?

a) Theo Van Gogh's backlash against mysogeny in the Islamic world in the form of his controversial film Submission.

b) Mohammed Bouyeri's backlash against Theo Van Gogh's controversial film Submission.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:36 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.