The symbol is that the force, which many centuries ago threatened to turn the world into obscurantism and was confronted by Christians and Jews, has revealed itself on this spot without a mask of “respect to other religions”. For the first time, the Islamic fundamentalism’s doctrine revealed itself when Arabic hordes set out to conquer Europe, but were stopped by Franks’ King Carl Martell, who defeated them near Puatie in 732 A.D. What was the doctrine about? It was very short. When it came to decide what should be done with famous Alexandria Library, which Arabs had seized, a sheikh said “Books, which contain the same as Koran, are redundant, those, which contain something different, are harmful”. Now, let us remember Talibs, Ayatollah Hamenei, “Hamas” or “Islamic Jihad”, that is those who put this thesis into practice nowadays.
Of course, one would like to lump it all on extremists, which every religion and nation has. However, a loud voice of Islamic clergy denouncing kamikazes’ terrorist acts are somewhat not heard. There was a theological conference in Beirut instead where it was reckoned a rather acceptable deed to commit suchlike suicides “grabbing” others’ lives as well. Today, Iraqi leader Suddam Hussein openly vows to pay huge sums of money to families of “kamikaze-terrorists” (it doesn’t prevent him from complaining about Iraqi children dying from maltreatment though). It is clear about Hussein, but why does respectable Egypt break off relations with Israel? Why are accusations from all over the Arabic world addressed to this State?
Perhaps, it’s high time to dot one’s “i’s” and cross one’s “t’s”. Whether we like it or not, we have to confess that it is useless to expect any objectiveness, any condemnation of “its” terrorists and, moreover, any steps taken against from that side. They would demand objectiveness from any other different from themselves – Israel, Europe, Russia or the United States.
The most dangerous thing for the civilized world is playing up. How one can request Israel to make concessions under the terms of constant terror? As terrorists would take this concession for their victory and in the same way go for more. And is the country, which is fighting against contemporary barbarism practically alone, worth relentless criticizing for “indiscriminate use of force”? One certainly can criticize while “kamikaze” and their spiritual tutors are far away!
But history has already experienced that. In 1918-1920, Bolsheviks also seemed to be far-away and, to wit, not scary much to Europe. This horde didn’t invade Europe then just because it was heroically opposed by the White Guards in Russia. But, having won the Civil War, Communists captured half of the world. The whole story could end up in a world nuclear conflict, if not a lucky chance in the person of Gorbachev.
Although, September 11 events are pretty enough to display the relative meaning of “far-away”.