Tony asks what he apparently thinks is a pointed question:
For the record: People who celebrate terrorist attacks are not the same as people who celebrate the defeat of terrorists.
In his article, Tony criticizes celebrations in Washington DC and New York City (the respective targets of Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks), in a lame attempt to draw moral equivalency between Americans and radical Muslims who celebrated the death of innocent Americans on 9/11.
It's hard to refute Tony's argument without simply pointing out the obvious: Osama bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice. He was a terrorist, a murderer of innocent people and a threat to this country. His death was a milestone in the war on terror. This is not the first time that people will have celebrated a victory in war, and it will not be the last.
It's naive and juvenile to say that because 'both sides' in a conflict would celebrate the other's defeat, they're morally equivalent. Look at what Al Qaeda stands for. Imagine what a world run by such an oppressive and violent group would look like. For one, there would be no Tony's Kansas City.
Tony has the gall to include the parents of a 9/11 victim in his attack - crossing a line from a stupid and harmless internet argument to something that's morally reprehensible.
This was a very poor showing from Tony.
Comments