(Wikimedia Commons public domain)
President Trump called the perpetrators of the Manchester attack “losers.”
That seems to me, frankly, the kind of insubstantial thing that a teenager might say to express hostility and anger, but it also seems to reflect a poverty of vocabulary.
The British prime minister described the attack as “cowardly.”
But that seems to me clearly false. Whatever else he might be, a suicide bomber doesn’t appear to be especially “cowardly.”
There are lots and lots of other adjectives that might be more suitable and accurate in characterizing the mass murder of young girls at a pop music concert: “Disgusting” comes to mind. As does “depraved.” As do “immoral” and “contemptible.” “Evil.” And so forth. (Are we losing the language of unashamed moral condemnation?)
I also need to admit that I simply don’t see the point of such despicable killings.
When attacks happen in Islamic and/or Middle Eastern countries, I understand that the attackers hope to drive Westerners out, to topple pro-Western regimes, etc.
But the British won’t be driven out of Britain.
Is it merely a violent expression of rage and hatred? Thuggery given a veneer of supposed high purpose? Sometimes, it seems so. I can see no plausible “policy” angle, no specific and achievable political result.
If these repulsive people had set out purposefully to poison the image of Islam among non-Muslims, to destroy its appeal to decent outsiders, to make it a synonym in many minds for nihilistic evil, they couldn’t possibly have done so any more effectively.
Posted from Pontorson, Normandy, France
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In