'We were meant to figure out the guest list for an upcoming party, but she said, “That's a great trial you've got going there,” and off we went, soon discussing our shared frustration with those who persist in believing that youthful goofiness or general haplessness are incompatible with terrorist aims and missions. They never have been with ordinary criminals – that's why most of them get caught most of the time – so why would it be any different with terrorist criminals?
To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.blatch28/BNStory/specialComment/home
I blogged about this long ago, but its still one of my most hated Guardian-reader arguments. Being buffoonish and incompetent doesn't mean a) you aren't dangerous and b) that you get a moral pass. It means nothing at all of consequence. Criminals who practise get to be better criminals. Terrorists who practise and get training become better terrorists. How could that not be obviously true?
It partly goes back to the Rousseauian 'Noble Savage', who is governed only by simple instincts and 'doesn't know better', but mainly lefties will use just about any weak argument to protect their 'side'.
No comments:
Post a Comment