Most opponents of American mid-east policy are very, very far from trying to argue that there is any sort of moral equivalence between the US and the forces of Islamic extremism, but there are a few, as Gene points out over at Harry’s Place, who seem to be heading in that direction. He quotes from an article in the Observer that includes this:

“Fanaticism comes from any form of chosen blindness accompanying the pursuit of a single dogma. The G8’s dogma is that the making of profit has to be mankind’s guiding principle before which everything else from the traditional past or aspiring future must be sacrificed as illusion.

The so-called war against terrorism is, in fact, a war between two fanaticisms. To bracket the two together seems outrageous. One is theocratic, the other pos itivist and secular. One is the fervent belief of a defensive minority, the other the unquestioned assumption of an amorphous, confident elite. One sets out to kill, the other plunders, leaves and lets die. One is strict, the other lax. One brooks no argument, the other ‘communicates’ and tries to ’spin’ into every corner of the world. One claims the right to spill innocent blood, the other the right to sell the entire earth’s water. Outrageous to compare them!”

Good lord.

To give a little historical context, Gene quotes this comment from a British pacifist from 1940:

“I am not greatly taken in by Britain’s “democracy”, particularly as it is gradually vanishing under the pressure of the war. Certainly I would never fight and kill for such a phantasm. I do not greatly admire the part “my country” has played in world events. I consider that spiritually Britain has lost all meaning… I feel identified with my country in a deep sense, and want her to regain her meaning, her soul, if that is possible: but the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won’t help this forward an inch… Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler’s head, we [pacifists] regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding. This does not mean that we like, or defend him. Personally I do not care for Hitler. He is, however, “realler” than Chamberlain, Churchill, Cripps, etc, in that he is the vehicle of raw historical forces, whereas they are stuffed dummies, waxwork figures, living in unreality. We do not desire a German “victory”; we would not lift a finger to help either Britain or Germany to “win”; but there would be a profound justice, I feel, however terrible, in a German victory…”

Yes, yes, that’s a very harsh comparison, but…