This just in:

Intellectuals have large holes in head. Or will as soon as the Taliban gets hold of them.

Right now I'm visiting my parents and hadn't planned on doing any blogging, but I saw this when checking some sites and just couldn't not comment on this crap:
I wonder where he stands on the pointed question that Amis recently put to his impeccably liberal audience at the ICA: 'Do you feel morally superior to the Taliban?' (Only about a third raised a hand to say they did, a nice demonstration of relativist liberal guilt.)

That's bad enough. There's also a slight problem with the response:
Eagleton lets out a sharp laugh. 'I certainly hope I am morally superior to people who believe in slaughtering innocents. But what I object to is the dangerous fudging of the line between the Muslim world and the Taliban, and the easy moral superiority that leaves us blind to our own crimes, or the crimes done in our names. It is an obvious point, but one still worth making, that it was our own barbarism and colonialism in the Middle East that has helped to create these situations in the first place. Amis and Hitchens have become perversely silent on the crimes of Western civilisation. Western civilisation has produced enormous advances, but not to see the darker side of that, not to see the barbarism of the West, and not to see that at a time when we are killing thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems extraordinarily naive.'

Couple of points in this: First, I don't think it matters one damn bit what the U.S. or Britain did x years ago; the fact is our influences would have spread no matter what. In the past, did varous things done cause problems with various muslim or muslim-influenced countries? Yes. Does that justify a bunch of self-detonating neolithic goatherds blowing up people in the name of God? Hell no. Nice excuse, and it makes a lot of people feel better because they can blame their own country(if you're western) or outside influences(if you're a perpetual-victim muslim) for the problems, but not realistic. Lots and lots of Busddhists and others affected by, for instance, the British Empire in past years but you don't see a lot of them running around screaming "Death to those who insult whatever!" And, as I said, Coke and jeans and movies and whatever would have been spreading and causing problems for medieval-minded nuts even if our only contact with a country had been selling movies and books and whatever.

Second, the 'but not to see the darker side of that, not to see the barbarism of the West, and not to see that at a time when we are killing thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems extraordinarily naive.' crap. That sounds an awful lot like "We're blowing up and shooting terrorists and islamist murderers, and that's just as bad as blowing up people in the market. Or torturing and murdering kids in school. We're just as bad as they are!" Which is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. From a clapped-out bull. As someone put it in a different reference, when innocents have died from Israeli military actions, it's been accidental, something they work hard to prevent; when it happens from Hamas & Hizballah and Co., it's what they're trying to do, and if you can't see that difference, then you have great big rocks in your head. And a really sick outlook on life.

I have what will apparently be a big surprise for Mr. Eagleton: given a choice, we wouldn't be there. I don't know anybody who actually wants to have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a number of other places. Given a choice, we'd let them sink or swim on their own, and considering the dependance most of these places have on the west for an awful lot of things it'd mostly be sink. Which would let a lot of people salve their conscience by moaning about how "The rich countries are not helping these people!", etc. But the people in charge- in some cases the people who were in charge- wanted to control us, still do in some cases, and that we like even less. So we had to act.

Which means we've got friends and family in uniform in places they'd rather not be, doing work they'd rather not do. And we have to listen to people blame us for the fact that people like Ahmadinnerjacket would like to kill everyone in Israel, and for that matter most of the rest of the non-islamic world. But then, the latter would be true no matter what. We're what the wahabi nutcases blame for islam not ruling the world, so sooner or later we'd have been their target for terrorism, no matter what happened in the past.