RSS 2.0
The Logic of the Illogical Appeasers
James Taranto, editor of Opinionjournal.com’s “Best of the Web,” has a great piece on the tortured logic of the left in trying to explain why Germany (who has stayed out of Iraq) was targeted in a terror attack this week:
Yesterday we noted an Associated Press story on the arrest of three alleged terror plotters in Germany, which contained the following statement:
Germany, which did not send troops to Iraq, has been spared terrorist attacks such as the mass transit bombings in Madrid and London–although its involvement in the attempt to stabilize Afghanistan has led to fears it might be targeted.
Several readers wrote to remind us that if Germany has been “spared,” it is only because those who tried to attack a year ago failed. An AP dispatch from Sept. 2, 2006, noted that two suspects were in custody in a botched attack:
The men are suspected of planting crude bombs July 31 on two trains at Cologne station, where they were seen in grainy surveillance camera video pulling wheeled suitcases.
The bombs were found later in the day on regional trains in Koblenz and Dortmund. Authorities have said that the detonators went off but failed to ignite the devices.
Reader Michael Newton makes another good point about the AP passage:
It’s even sneakier than you suggest. If Germany is not attacked, it’s because they stayed out of Iraq. If they are attacked, it’s because they were involved in Afghanistan. Therefore, regardless what happens, the conclusion is the same: Hide under your rock, don’t attack the Muslims, and you’ll be safe.
But it’s worse still. The 2006 AP story says the suspects “were partially motivated by anger over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad”–not in Germany but in Denmark. So if appeasing Islamist terrorists is possible at all, it requires not only that a country refrain from participating in an “attack” on Muslim countries, but also that everyone else refrain from offending fundamentalist Muslim sensibilities.