The Left in America want to appease the jihadis. Salman Rushdie summed up what was wrong with that approach when he said last week that the free world had learned the “wrong lessons” from the death fatwa issued against him by the Islamic Republic of Iran for blaspheming against Muhammad. “Instead of concluding we need to oppose these attacks on freedom of expression,” Rushdie noted, “we believed we should calm them through compromises and ceding.”
Rushdie added: “If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikov’s weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect.” He said that if he were threatened for insulting Islam today, “these people would not come to my defense and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.”
There is a larger point here. Rushdie believes the attacks should be opposed because of some kind of violation of the freedom to express oneself. What about the moral differences between the two sides? What about the difference between right and wrong?
Perhaps some of the governments of the Western nations want to “calm them through compromises and ceding”. What about those nations that want to defeat them by annihilating them because what they are doing is wrong?
One may play defense while letting the other side control the battles. In the alternative, one side may oppose the other and use overwhelming force to get their way.