Moral relativism demands that we respect their choices

There are no good people or bad people. There are only people who have different cultural values. My deep and abiding respect for the multicultural principles underlying moral relativism demand that I accept as culturally reasonable the fact that terrorists in Iraq strapped a remote-controlled bomb to an eight year old girl in order to demonstrate their resistance to Western imperialism by blowing up an Iraqi commander.

Aw, the heck with it. These people are monsters. This is subhuman behavior that is the antithesis of anything resembling civilization. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the “masterminds” sacrificed his own daughter to this plot.  Nothing can be said to excuse this act.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    Moral relativism causes this behaviors, Book. If it wasn’t for media providing bonuses and pay for each time a terrorist does something like this, why would terrorists do something that wouldn’t pay? They would stop doing it cause resources could be spent on other things. But they don’t stop doing it cause it does pay in the media and in the world.

    Look at this comment from the UK as the perfect example.

    How the hell does an army deal with this revolting tactic? You cannot beat mentalities such as this. It brings into focus all over again the question: What in hell are we actually doing and achieving there?

    – John B, Lancs UK

    Indeed, you cannot beat mentalities such as this. All the better to just leave and give to the terrorists what they hoped to achieve by killing the girl. This way, the next time they’ll blow up even more eight year olds when they want something.

    You see how this becomes a self-reinforcing behavior, Book? Even from the people that say they don’t agree with such behavior? If you don’t like such behavior, why are you ensuring that people keep doing it?

  • Bald-Headed Geek

    Just posted this entry to my Facebook page!


  • Danny Lemieux

    YM, you are right on the money. Terrorism works! Thanks to the enabling of people such as Jimmy Carter, the Europeans and the Liberal/Left, this type of terrorism occurs because it works. The more vile and inhumane these acts of terror, the these enablers reward them.

    There is only one solution to this type of terror – kill them all. Let them know there is only one reward for that type of behavior.

    Unfortunately, too much of the West has lost its nerve, not to mention its ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil.

  • Ymarsakar

    You don’t need to kill the terrorists, you need to kill their supporters like Carter.

  • Ymarsakar

    Abu Musab Zarqawi is the terrorist and killing him is a good idea but as people have noticed, it didn’t actually do much in the long term to decrease terrorism in the Sunni areas. What did change things was the Al Anbar Awakening, which formed because we killed the support for terrorism and also because the terrorists killed their own support in the province by engaging in suicide bombing of Iraqi neighborhoods and Sharia law enclaves like Fallujah.

    Bush has always had the idea that to fight and get rid of terrorist support elements, you have to be in the Middle East. Bush just discounted all those terrorist support elements in the West.

  • Ymarsakar

    Check out this for why, again, bad news comes in the form of supporters of terrorism.

    It goes back to the same old ethical Dilemma. Who bears most of the responsibility, the murderer or those that release the murderer knowing that he will murder again?

  • Thomas

    Hello Bookworm,

    When I think of the moral relativism and pacifism, I sometimes think of a fairly old movie with Michel Caine called “Zulu”. In it, you have a pacifist preacher coming upon the Britain garrison that was about to be stormed by the Zulu’s. The Zulu Empire had already massacred a British patrol on their way southward to the garrison and it fell to the handful of Redcoats to stop them from advancing further toward the British settlements.

    The preacher, who eerily reminds me of Jimmy Carter, instead of steeling the soldiers from the approaching onslaughts tries to undermine the moral of the troops. He argues with them on moral grounds, the common “Thou shalt not kill” tact. His appeals become more and more fevered, then becoming more worse for wear with the help of some booze, he shouted, “You are all going to DIE!”

    Needless to say, the British troops there who were incredibly outnumbered, didn’t need a preacher whose appeals would seriously weaken the moral of the rank and file. Such undermining could get them killed at critical junctures since split-second hesitation would be the difference between life and death in that scenario.

    Seeing that the preacher was sowing fear and discontent in his soldiers, he made the civil decision to send him and his daughter away rather than killing him. The commander needed to buck up the moral of his troops to where they would stand steady in the face of thousands of Zulu warriors descending them. Having doubts and weak-kneed false moral dilemmas would certainly kill them.

    As they sent the preacher packing on his wagon, an enlisted soldier queried, “Why is it us? Why us?”

    His sergeant responded simply, “Because we’re here, lad. Nobody else. Just us.”

    That is how I view the current state of America. The Zulu’s are coming.

    I know I’m being longwinded in my analogy here, but I would have to disagree with YM about “killing” Carter and other prominent undermining pacifists.

    We are facing a civilizational war with Islam; we are facing the implosion of Europe demographically (in 50 to 100 years, there won’t be an Italy, a Greece, a Russia, Japan); we are facing a Chinese time bomb waiting to detonate; we are facing an oil and food crisis (they’ve discovered a fungus spreading like wildfire that would kill 70% of the wheat crops of the world); etc.

    In the face of approaching barbarity, we must resolutely deal with reality and not hedge with pink colored glasses with moral relativism and multicultural palaver. But to quote C.S. Lewis just because we recognize that the ship is going down, that doesn’t mean that we have to be uncivil to one another.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Hmmm, Thomas. Would accept taking sending the Jimmy Carter’s of the world to the sands of Arabia and pulling their passports? ;-/. Maybe we could change his sex first. Just asking.

  • Thomas


    I don’t know if that’s the thing to do, but that sure would feel good, wouldn’t it? :)

    But seriously, I think the thing to do is to publicly and overtly make him a laughingstock to the nation and the world. Expose his foundation for the fraud it is. I think if you blare his overt statements about Israel, the Palestinians and Hamas and underline what he’s done since his Presidency, it’s a fine line, but I think you can begin to characterize him as a wandering narcissist wanting his fix of attention without bringing down the prestige and reverence we have for the office of the Presidency.

    This is about Carter, not the office he once filled.

  • Thomas


    One more observation for you. When Americans have a huge belly laugh at a politician, he’s finished. Being laughed at is the most lethal injury an American politician can receive.

    Case in point, Howard Dean. He was blowing and going and it almost looked like he could get the nomination. He had a couple of setbacks and suddenly he yawed. I mean he, YEEEEEHAAWW!!!-ed himself into every comedy skit for months, and even I’m still chuckling from the memory of it.

    He became a joke. The fact that the Democratic Party voted him as their chairman just underlines what we already know about the Democratic leadership. Which is they no longer serve the interest of the constituents.

    But getting laughed at is the thing. And when you look at Carter, there are many laughable things; that is, if they were so deadly serious.

  • Thomas

    opps, I meant, “weren’t so deadly serious.”

    (shaking my head) Grammar. Always the grammar… :)

  • suek

    Not the grammar, Thomas…it’s the fingers! They’ll do you in every time.

    I remember seeing Zulu once…trying to remember how it ended…one memory has the Zulu’s leaving – just fading away after not succeeding in an attack – the other has everyone killed. I suspect I’m conflating more than one movie and don’t remember how it ends…! But I remember wave after wave of Zulus…and only a few Brits. And the minister and his daughter being locked into a house???

  • Ymarsakar

    Non-Americans don’t really care about how Americans laugh at their out of power politicians. The rest of the world is very happy in using American political figures as wedges to dig up America’s foundation.

    Carter does damage to America not from the inside, but from the outside. He has no political power per say inside the US, but for decades and even centuries rogue non-nation state actors such as pirates have prowled the world engaging in slavery, human bondage, the sex slave industry, the narcotics industry, and various other forms of exploitation and mass savagery.

    Those are the people you need to worry about when you see Carter speak out on the news since those are the people providing Carter his power to squash people and kill enemies.