Mr. Speaker, I continue to be perplexed by the kind of comments such as the one I have just heard from the member. For instance, she asked at the outset of her speech in this context: is good only on one side? This implies a question that is filled with moral ambiguity and moral relativism.
In response to her rhetorical question, I propose that good is on the side of those who oppose the evil represented by these acts of terror and those who perpetrated them. It is that simple. There is good and evil at play in this combat. It is not jingoistic to suggest it. It is simply a question of absolute moral clarity. I am shocked that not every member can see this.
The member talked about root causes. We keep hearing this over and over again. Here we are facing the single greatest strategic security threat to the health and well-being of the people of the free world since the cold war and instead of a serious analysis of what drives it and how to prevent it and fight it, we hear about anger, rage, revolt, economic inequity. Many of the terrorists who perpetrated this were very wealthy people financed by at least one billionaire and probably by other very wealthy people involved in the Islamic movement. Some of the actual hijackers had graduate degrees from western universities. They were not struggling voices of economic depravity from the third world. They were people who represent a very insidious movement of radical Islamism, not all Muslims, but a radical Islamism which is predicated on anti-Semitism and a hatred for Liberal democracy.
Does the member not appreciate the real motives here and the moral clarity that stands in this conflict?