The Only Moral Terrorism Is My Terrorism

Daniel Larison reads the New York Daily News Post:

The New York Post has reached the point of self-pardody:

Let’s be frank: Were the MeK to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention.

Of course, the MEK isn’t in any danger of playing a “critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb.” Assuming the NBC report is correct, the group has been murdering a handful of nuclear scientists, which does very little to delay Iran’s nuclear program. Not only is the editorial endorsing terrorism, it is endorsing ineffective terrorism as well. …

It’s fitting that the editorial doesn’t care that the MEK is a recognized terrorist group:

So who cares whether the MeK is a designated terror group?

No doubt they say the same thing about Hamas all the time.

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, News and Current Events, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://poisonyourmind.com dedc79

    I go in circles on this all the time. If the point is that our definition of “terrorism” is arbitrary, well, then, sure. But where do we go from there? Say we stopped using a broad definition of terrorism when we talked about our enemies and a narrow definition when we talked about ourselves and our allies? How would that change the debate?

    • http://poisonyourmind.com dedc79

      Also, it does seem to me that there’s a difference between targeting scientists helping to develop nuclear weapons, and, say, blowing up a bus of civilians or teenagers in a cafe. I understand that steps like the ones the israelis are assumed to have taken come far closer to a typical definition of terrorism, but I don’t think they are the same.

      Regardless, what does Larison know about how the killing of these scientists has affected the Iranian development of nuclear capabilities? He sure sounds pretty certain.