Sometimes I wonder about people

I sometimes listen to Sean Hannity on the drive home, and one of his callers yesterday just irritated me.

Hannity apparently interviewed a certain Western University professor of insane political views (I won't dignify the looney with a mention of his name, much less a link.) Suffice it to say said "Education Professional" believes the dead in the WTC and the Pentagon got what was coming to them. It's a free country, and this jerk is allowed to say what he wants. We ought to see people like this make fools of themselves - it's meant as a warning to us to use our brains when we speak.

Anyway, the caller gets on the line and says (I paraphrase) "well, nothing should have happened to the Trade Center victims, but the Pentagon was a military target, so it's OK." Hannity took the guy to task for equating the US, liberators of millions over the last half century with the terrorist sickos who killed office workers and stewardesses. I'm fully in agreement with Hannity here, as I suspect most people are - there is no possible moral equivalent between the two.

What I wish Hannity had brought up is a few basic problems with the caller's premise. First of all, at the time they attacked us on 9/11, WE WERE NOT AT WAR. I don't care what Bin Laden said - there was no formal declaration of war, ergo there is no such thing as a military target. Granted we're not dealing with people who care for the niceties of international conventions, but I do not believe you can call something a military target when we are not actually engaged in a war. I can live with the idea of the Germans in WWII bombing the Pentagon - we were at war, and if they could have pulled it off, it would have been within legitimate target boundaries, as far as I can tell. Still would have been awful, but one couldn't really be surprised. Calling it a military target for Al Qaida assumes a certain level of common beliefs, which is clearly not the case.

Second, let's assume (as the caller was) that Al Qaida had legitimate gripes. Did they not have an obligation to address us directly to have their complaints addressed? Would the caller side with their approach that either 1) they tried to talk to us but we didn't listen, or 2) we have forfeited any right to explain ourselves? Look, I'll grant you that American foreign policy over the years has not been without issues. We have stepped on a lot of toes and caused many problems. But giving these guys ANY legitimacy is insane. Terrorists are terrorists - their entire approach is that no one is innocent, and I can't find any rational or moral defense for such an approach.

Third, we are not dealing with a recognized government. No one voted these guys any legitimacy. They are self-appointed "defenders of righteousness." Just because they have a beef is no reason why we need to legitimize it, much less bend over and take it. The caller's implication is, as the Perfesser's that we had it coming. If we do (and I don't believe we do), it's not Al Qaida's choice any more than it would be the IRA's, the Weathermen, or Aryan Brotherhood. Civilized people don't act this way.

The moral equivalency the west has developed over the last 30-40 years is among the most pernicious, subversive, and unintellectual schools of thought I can imagine. When everything becomes relative, there's no truth anymore. The end of the Shema prayer says "The Lord, your God, is truth." Without truth, there's nothing left. When you can defend someone who will fly airplanes into buildings, killing ordinary people, you cannot be considered a reasonable person.