pwn3dSuddenly, Michelle Malkin fancies herself a crusader for human rights. Try not to laugh. Citing photographs of Iranian police treating protesters in Tehran much like the NYPD treated protesters at the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention, “Anchor Baby” Malkin claims that by not splashing the photos across our own blogs, “The Libs” are tacitly endorsing the brutally repressive conditions under the current Iranian regime.

Malkidinejad’s answer? Why, nuke Iran, of course! Because nothing says “human rights” like the deaths of thousands of civilians and the collapse of a bad authoritarian regime into an even worse sectarian bloodbath. Just ask the people of Iraq how they feel about their newfound freedom from electricity, hospitals, clean water, safety, and security.

A challenge to Rosie and Amnesty International USA members and America’s progressive left (I know there are a few on the story, but they are far between): How about taking a day off from Bush-bashing and America-blaming to raise your voices against the mullahcracy’s brutal human rights abuses?

You know, Lulu, if it was anyone but you asking me to sign on with this, I might consider it. But something seems a little…phony about all this coming from Miss “Boo Freakin’ Hoo”, Defender of Internment. Call me crazy.

Fortunately, Raw Story‘s Larisa Alexandrovna is on the case, and she opens up a Family-Size can of Whoop-Ass on Malkin’s Human Rights Concern Troll act, sparing me the fuss and bother. Take it away, Larisa:

Okay, I have to post about this. Michelle Malkin is busy building a moral straw man for some reason in order to declare something about the lack of Abu Ghraib type of outrage by the US media and US citizens over repression in Iran.

She writes in her AEI mouth-piece blog as follows:

“Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?

Answer: Fat chance.”

Let me be the first to tell Ms. Malkin that being concerned for human rights, really and truly concerned does not depend on the color of the victim’s skin or their religious background. It is an absolute moral position. This is not something Malkin can understand, because her outrage is purchased.

But, oh, there’s more. In the comment section, doubtless drawn by the scent of Concern Troll blood in the water, Ali Eteraz turns up to accuse Alexandrovna of supporting the Iranian theocrats.

Eteraz:

However, I believe that the Iranian regime’s actions are completely at odds with a) international human rights norms, and b) Islam (which is what they purport to rule under).

I am not sure why you’re upset with the idea that the evils of the Iranian regime are being exposed?

Eteraz is clearly missing the point, here. Alexandrovna straightens him right out.

My problem is with Ms. Malkin, not with her objection to Iranian oppression. A genuine reaction to the oppression of others is not what I am objecting to. I have never defended the Iranian regime nor will I ever. My problem is with hypocrisy and political exploitation of suffering – in other words, the body of work Ms. Malkin has behind her.

She is outraged at how these protesters are being treated. Right? She has no problem, however, defending Gitmo, she has no problem defending the bombing of Lebanon. In fact, Ms. Malkin has no problem with concentration camps for Japanese Americans during WWII. Clearly, Ms. Malkin has no problem with human rights abuses. So why this particular abuse? Why does this particular abuse send her screaming, when the likes of Abu Ghraib did not make her shake in horror all the while she complained of nudity being shown in the photos?

It just gets better from there.

That is not a human rights position, that is political exploitation of tragedy to further an ideological point of view that will also end in tragedy.

Alexandrovna, as a Ukranian Jew who grew up under the Soviets, knows a thing or two about repressive regimes and human rights abuses, and she sees Malkin’s Concern Troll act for exactly what it is. Frankly, the whole thing reminds me of Our Lady of the Concentration Camps’s short-lived and ideologically self-serving interest in the International Criminal Court, which I wrote about here.

What Malkin fails to grasp is that a commitment to human rights is not a selective or ideologically-driven thing. You don’t suddenly get a bug up your ass about human rights abuses in Iran when you’ve been plugging your ears with your fingers and going, “LA LA LA LA LA LA!!” for five years about human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Sorry, Miss American Mullah. You lose.

But thank you for playing in this round of “Wingnuts Say the Darnedest Things”, you provocative little minx. Keep up the, uh, good work! Without you, we’d have almost nothing to laugh at here at Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Headquarters.

Mille fois mercis!