Accidental hypocrisy - or at least inconsistency!
Reader comment on item: Behead Islamists?

Submitted by Don Radlauer (Israel), Sep 25, 2006 at 06:16

I was rather taken aback by the following comment you made at the end of your "Behead Islamists?" post:

"It is nearly inevitable that Islamist barbarism provoke anti-Muslim barbarism... One can only hope the Islamists will call off their hordes before things get out of hand."

Aren't you making the same mistake you accuse Islamic organizations of making? In "Islamists Threaten Civil War in Great Britain – A Good Idea?" (and in many other places as well) you specifically (and correctly) castigate Moslem groups for threatening that Islamist terrorism will increase if Britain's or America's foreign policy isn't changed, Moslems don't get special privileges, or whatever. The point you make regarding Moslems - that terrorism is wrong and reprehensible regardless of its "root causes" - applies equally to anti-Moslem attacks, doesn't it?

By calling for Islamists to "call off their hordes before things get out of hand," you appear to be blaming the victims (potential or actual) of anti-Moslem terrorism in a way you don't do when the terrorism is perpetrated by Moslems against the West.

I'm sure that you didn't mean to make this distinction; but the fact that even someone as careful and conscientious as you are can make this kind of mistake is an indication of how careful we all have to be to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistent standards. If terrorism is wrong, it's wrong - period. That means that terrorism is just as wrong when it's directed at people we don't like as when it's directed at our friends; and it means that our enemies are no more required to change their political beliefs and strategies as a response to threatened or actual terrorism than our friends are.

-Don Radlauer

Associate, The Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Herzliya, Israel

http://radlauer.blogspot.com (personal); www.ict.org.il (ICT)

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Daniel Pipes replies:

It is wrong and I called it "anti-Muslim barbarism." Further, I am an analyst of this subject, not a spokesman for the British far-rightists, so I think your comparison between my analysis and the Islamist threats is a bit far-fetched.