Mark Levin shared this, this week:
The column was not by Levin but by a writer named D.W. Wilber who, surprise, surprise, has a background in the US intelligence community.
Wilber wrote, “So let’s get a few things clear. First of all there are no ‘innocent Palestinians.’”
That Palestinian 1-year-old baby crushed by her home due to Israeli bomb strikes. Definitely not innocent, says this guy.
He then attempts to justify it.
“When a population raises their children from the time those toddlers are wearing diapers, to hate and murder Jews they have forfeited any claim of innocence and not being responsible for the brutal acts committed on October 7th,” Wilber wrote.
This is similar to how the US government justified dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing countless innocents.
You build up in your mind that they’re not “really” innocent.
Then the kicker, “Secondly, civilian casualties are a fact of war. Palestinians should have thought about that before they elected terrorists to govern them…”
This is EXACTLY part of Osama Bin Laden’s logic in carrying out 9/11. Al-Qaeda believed Americans elected their government and so anyone who perished on the day of their attacks was worse than just collateral damage—they deserved it.
This is an attempt to dehumanize Palestinians, which is how all holocausts, genocides and mass murders in most forms begin.
A few voices had words for Levin and his post.
Former Congressman Justin Amash is a Palestinian-American who has lost family members during Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza. His relatives were sheltering in a church.
Imagine a radicalized Muslim telling a 9/11 victim’s family that their relative deserved what he got. Because there is no difference in suggesting the same in a column, however indirectly, to Mr. Amash.
Glenn Greenwald thanked Levin for being upfront about what many really want in this conflict but don’t say it forthright: Collective punishment for collective guilt.
I kept it simple.
There’s an old saying: Retweets are not necessarily endorsements. But this not only wasn’t a retweet—Levin’s account crafted the post to specifically share this column—it sure as hell felt like an endorsement.
The columnist and the neoconservative talk host can write or say a million words trying to justify the mass taking of innocent life but the fact remains: There is little to no daylight between what Osama Bin Laden thought he was doing to America on September 7, 2001 and what this columnist and his apparent endorser Mark Levin approve of being done in Palestine today.
Or is it that in their minds, the moral question isn’t really the method by which you carry out terrorism or ethnic cleansing – they seem quite fine with the method – but which ethnicity gets terrorized or cleansed versus who does the terrorizing or cleansing?
The “good guys” can carry out mass killings because their victims aren’t really innocent. The “bad guys” can’t do mass killings, because all they’re victims are innocent – according to the good guys.
It’s time to end this column before we sink any further into depravity.
Because there’s really no defending evil. Unless you’re Mark Levin.
The post Mark Levin apparently agrees with Osama Bin Laden’s philosophy appeared first on Based Politics.