The thought police

Submitted by Gabriel Grosso (Italy), Feb 13, 2006 at 14:55

I don't agree with everything the American government does and I certainly didn't agree with the war on Iraq, because it has radicalized the Middle East. I would not agree with a war on Iran either, for the same reasons. But, when it comes to domestic defence, I think we need to be able to define the problem. In that respect, we need to be grateful to Daniel Pipes for describing the problem in clear terms. Nowadays, if one says that "Moslem States represent a threat to world peace", he would be called an "Islamophobe" and a "racist". If one said that the Middle East is marked by "poverty, ignorance and stagnation", he would get into big trouble.

Like I said, I am against attacking Moslem States: I think that would be counter-productive. If we attack Moslem States, terrorism will grow. But, i do care about our own internal security in the West, and especially in Europe. We cannot protect ourselves from terrorism, because terrorism is a military tactic. We need to protect ourselves from the perpetrators of terrorism and we need to define them. If we are not allowed to define the threat, then we will never be able to defend ourselves. Back in 1946, it was not a problem to talk about the Middle East. Nowadays, many things have changed. But they were right back in 1946.

Today, we are too afraid of offending people. It does not make sense. What kind of terrorism are we concerned with? Is it the IRA? The Tamil Tigers? The PKK? Or Middle East terrorism? We are afraid of calling things by their name.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".