In Bill Kristol’s latest column about the Mumbai attacks, he takes University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum to task
Consider first an op-ed article in Sundayâ€™s Los Angeles Times by Martha Nussbaum, a well-known professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago. The article was headlined â€œTerrorism in India has many faces.â€ But one face that Nussbaum fails to mention specifically is that of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group originating in Pakistan that seems to have been centrally involved in the attack on Mumbai.
This is because Nussbaumâ€™s main concern is not explaining or curbing Islamic terror. Rather, she writes that â€œif, as now seems likely, last weekâ€™s terrible events in Mumbai were the work of Islamic terrorists, thatâ€™s more bad news for Indiaâ€™s minority Muslim population.â€ She deplores past acts of Hindu terror against Indiaâ€™s Muslims. She worries about Muslim youths being rounded up on suspicion of terrorism with little or no evidence. And she notes that this is â€œan analogue to the current ugly phenomenon of racial profiling in the United States.â€
So jihadists kill innocents in Mumbai â€” and Nussbaum ends up decrying racial profiling here. Is it just that liberal academics are required to include some alleged ugly American phenomenon in everything they write?
Lots of pundits want to paint last week’s attacks as something other than what they really were: Terrorist attacks by “a jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion, ‘backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services.'”
They have essentially the same “maximalist” aims as their friends in al-Qaeda–elimination of Islam’s “existential” enemies (the United States, UK, India, Israel) and establishment of a global caliphate.
The motivation for these attacks was no more complicated than that.
It’s as nose as the Anne on plain’s face.
(h/t Scott L.)
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at email@example.com.