Glad He's Back

For awhile Europundits was closed and I sort of stopped paying attention...but in the effort to revitalize my blogroll, I found it again and remember how frigging good it is. One thing I'll say about this whole war on terror and Iraq business is that it has revitalized discussion on matters of political philosophy and legitimate governence - questions that to my mind, seemed pretty much answered - JS Mill's harm principle and Lockean economics winning out over the Marxist critique of capitalism way back in the 1950s and 1960s when it became pretty clear to the world that the Soviet Empire was in fact, a totalitarian one.

Archer breaks down "justifications" for the London bombing. Here are some exerpts, but the whole thing is well worth reading. PS - the brits have been the most articulate in explaining why Iraq is so important, whereas we American's have gotten too clouded by practical "selling" the war arguments.

In my view, anyone who tries to explain their atrocities in any way, anyone who simply uses the word “but” in connection with those crimes and criminals, believes in the following:

1) collective victimization; (b/c London bombers weren't Iraqi - the only connection was being Muslim)
2) collective guilt; (All Brits are guilty for their govts action)
3) guilt by association, even the most remote one; (Specific Londoners deserve punishment for their govts action)
4) capital punishment. (i think ya'll understand)


When people say “Iraq”, “Afghanistan”, “imperialism”, “racism”, “the Crusades”, whatever, they think there are explaining why those murderers wanted to kill. I don’t think any of these explanations is valid. But neither do I think we are formulating the right question. The true question is not why they want to murder –that’s their trouble after all and anyone who wants to commit murder will find some kind of reason for doing it-, but why do they feel entitled to murder?