Redstate

I share your concern over the rising tide of catholic rioting.

-exits

you registered to say this! right! how very tolerant of you.

I don't get why it matters that he registered to say this. I originally registered on this site in order to respond to something. My guess is a lot of people do.

of saying they went incredibly insane in bloodlust. Christians have for years had our religious "icons" trashed. Forgive me, however I would think it strange that a diety can be so damaged by something like this.

the two most translated books into Arabic are Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- both hate books and both nothing but lies.

You might be on the wrong site

Proud Member of the Our Candidate is Less Stinky than Yours Party! (OCILSTY 08!)

I don't view all Muslims as hate filled beings? Because I can actually rationally look at a situation from the other side?

If hating all Muslims unconditionally is a prerequisite for carrying on a conversation here, I guess you're right.

My point was simply to say that a certain level of unrest at the portrayal of Muhammed in the cartoon is at least understandable. And lots of Muslims have left it at that. The ones calling for the head of the cartoonist, clearly crossing the line. Christians have indeed had Jesus disparaged on many occasions, and have gotten rather upset on many occasions including protests and the like. I feel glad that none that I know of have taken it too far, and certainly that is a distinguishing mark in how they handle the insult.

"My point was simply to say that a certain level of unrest at the portrayal of Muhammed in the cartoon is at least understandable. And lots of Muslims have left it at that."

Having protest marches is understandable. Burning and beating is not. And of course, neither is the death threats and murders that have occurred.

The problem is that there is a lot more of the latter, rather than the former. What this shows us is that Islamic society is immature - not that they are somehow subhuman - and dangerous. (We are talking about pictures here, for god sakes. No other religion goes crazy over something like this.) And if they are immature, and if they do indeed hate us (as they say they do) we have no obligation to let them enter our country, unless we know for a fact that they are not supporters of these Islamic groups. There is no right to be an American. Perhaps this makes us un-PC, but I don't think it makes us haters.

But maybe you should report us to the Human Rights Commission in Canada, so we can be duly punished.

Where did that info come from? Very disturbing if true, and I couldn't seem to find the right combination of google search terms to confirm or deny that.

While I don't frequent too many bookstores in Baghdad, I don't think I've ever met an Arab that knew much about either book. Hell, never even heard of the second one. Title doesn't sound like great reading. They should try some John Grisham or something.

to Daily Kos or some online first person shooter game, it is not going to work out here.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

perhaps you could actually address one of my points.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

ok just for fun

1) Muhammed was a terrorist, he created a war religion that murdered its rivals and conquered non Muslim lands. People are choosing to be terrorists in the name of Islam, a relgion founded by Muhammed. The cartoon depicting Muhammed as a terrorist is certainly in the bounds of political satire.

2) depictions of Muhammed were the norm, not banned many years ago. There are old versions of the Koran with drawings of Muhammed. In fact, there is a depiction of Muhammed in the Supreme Court building.

3) you talk about Christians going crazy at the suggestion that Christ was married. First of all, you are wrong. Secondly, it was not a "suggestion", it was utter fiction, and so many mush brains have not the ability to know the difference. I am not bothered by fiction, but the standard of education among many is suboptimal.

4) you come to this site and defend those who riot and threaten because they do not get their way? What do you expect our response to be? You think we will join you and denounce the Danes?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

1. Certainly within the bounds of political satire. I totally agree. But at the same time, if you don't share the belief that the founder of your religion was a terrorist, you may indeed get a bit upset at the suggestion. Heck, people (WAY fewer of course) choose to be terrorists in the name of Christianity. But I certainly don't view that as a reflection of Jesus.

2. I really have no problem with drawings of Muhammad in general. None whatsoever.

3. There were a number of protests related to the Da Vinci Code. Yes, it was factually inaccurate. My point, though, is that an offensive or perceived-as-wrong portrayal of someone so central of one's religion is bound to cause people concern.

4. I never denounced the Danes for the cartoon. I guess it's easier to argue if you make up things. In fact, I specifically said that I thought no one should be getting worked up over things like this. And I absolutely did not defend those who would riot or threaten. Again, specifically said the opposite, that they were totally out of line.

You come in here saying "the only reason people got mad was the depiction of Muhammed as a terrorist". This is completely false, the threat has always been against ANY depiction of Muhammed. You are obviously not Muslim because you are setting your own standard, not the standard used by those who riot.

If you did not come in here to defend the rioters, then what exactly is your point? Either people have a right to publish depictions of Muhammed or they do not. You also falsely malign a diary by this sites owner, saying it is inaccurate. Actually it is totally accurate, Muslim papers insult Judaism and Christianity all the time, and Muslim extremists threaten those that portray ANY likeness of Muhammed.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

aren't you implying that you're quoting someone? I never argued that that was the ONLY thing that got people all riled up. Only that the terrorist depiction is what sparked the whole thing. As you correctly noted, people had been depicting Muhammad in other mediums for a long time with no incident. It was not until this particular cartoon came along that the riots and such started.

Muhammed as terrorist drawing is what caused the uproar, this is incorrect.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

explains what I actually was saying. Like you yourself said, lots of people were depicting Muhammad and no one was rioting over it.

have threatened ANYONE who makes any depiction of Muhammed, no matter how tasteful. Even comedy central censored a depiction of Muhammed out of South Park out of fear. Many American newspapers bowed to the terrorists by not printing ANY depiction of Muhammed. IF you saw the censored South Park, you saw they depicted Jesus defacating on himself, this was not censored they made their point very clear.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

about something we agree about...at least in this particular line of questioning. Certainly, there's an even smaller segment of Islam (as compared to those who rioted over the Danish cartoon) who would make threats over even a benign depiction of Muhammad. Now that really wasn't out there until the turban bomb started the whole fuss. I would also totally agree that those people who would get that worked up over the benign are even more nuts.

Now, there's plenty of other threads where we have far more substantive disagreements. Like whether or not I should have "Aggies" in my username.

of Muhammed. You keep claiming the riots were caused solely by the turban bomp pic, but you offer no substance or links. As far as Aggies go, that school is one of the most conservative, pro American, public schools in the country, my point was you are far from representitive of the Aggies I know, I know many.

finally, stop trying to be so pc, think more about the 1st Amendment, particulary so close to George Washington's birthday.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I NEVER argued that the riots were solely for the turbanbomb. I did argue that was the one that STARTED it all. Really not that complex of a distinction. Yes, subsequent riots have been about any depiction. If you actually read the post you just responded to, you might note that I DENOUNCED such people.

And I certainly am not as conservative as most Aggies. Doesn't make me any less of one. I would take offense to any notion that I am anything BUT pro-American.

Finally, I have always maintained that the cartoons and other depictions had every right to be made. First Amendment yay! I've only maintained that a certain level of reaction to said expression is understandable. NOT riots or threats, but protests and general upsettedness? Sure. Doesn't mean the guy didn't have the RIGHT to make the cartoon.

what started it. You also seem to be backing down from your position since you are the only one on the other side, if you agree with me, then what started all this? Anyway, I hold no grudges, sorry about the aggie crack, but I am moving on from this converstation. Let's just see how you get on here on other subjects, I hope you are not a troll and seriously want to discuss issues.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Aggie, please cite a specific article from a reputable paper (etc.) that supports your claim that the Muhammed Turban bomb picture was the straw that broke the camels back. I have never heard this before, from anyone. It was always a generalized complaint that Muhammed should not be depicted in general, anywhere, by anyone.

_the top for an extended period, and Turkey is supposed to be an ally. Also, the most popular baby name in Islam, is Osama. Do me a favor, next time come with some facts.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

throughout the Muslim world. The latter, a proven forgery by agents of the Czar, to be used to justify pogroms against the Jews, was also used by Hitler when he wrote the former, as justification for his own final solution.

blood libel. Turkey also loves the book and movie Valley of the Wolves-Iraq, that portrays Americans as Turkish enemies and Jewish doctors harvesting organs from Muslims to sell in Tel Aviv. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/news/journal.php

and here is a link supporting your comments on Mein Kampf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Turkey is a very secular Muslim country -- considered one of the most liberal such. ::sigh:: Doesn't give you much hope for peace, does it.

that those were the two most popular books translated into Arabic. I absolutely don't defend either book in any way. Just seems like a hard-to-believe statistic given that neither book sounds like enjoyable reading, and I can't find any source that backs up or denies what you said.

Just curiosity...not attacking your statement at all. Like I said, disturbing if true.

Mein Kampf was a blockbuster in Germany even before it became mandatory reading
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Its something akin to a twilight zone episode and a rather sad commentary on human nature.

I wish I had a better handle on what is driving that. I suspect the gap is just too great.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

when you hear certain segments of RonPaul™ supporters discuss the Illuminati Bankers they are using code words for Jews -- and they are referring right back to the Elders of Zion forgery -- which discusses the nefarious plot of the Jewish Bankers to control the world.

out of it? You certainly do not represent the school in any way.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

it's obvious this one is a '2%-er'!

To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.--Disraeli

many, many of which were not offensive in any way. The threat from the radicals is not to publish ANY depiction of Muhammed. Many American media outlets have bowed to the threat. And the cartoon shown here is not wrong, the Jews are libled in the most grotesque ways all the time in the Muslim World.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Their religion actually forbids graphical depictions of Muhammad? So again, even on those, I could somewhat understand why people might get a little upset. Anymore than that, and you take it overboard. But the cartoon posted here is clearly invoking the infamous Danish cartoon. That specific one with the turban-bomb is really the one they are referring to.

And I am not in favor of grotesque libelizations (it's a word...sorta) of Jews either, by the way.

But I am not a Muslim, and neither is the cartoonist. An unfit religion demands that others adhere to its tenets.

Islam is and always has been about control. "Submission" requires someone to whom to submit, and since Allah is fairly silent, the Prophets, Caliphs, Ayotollahs and Mullahs accept the submission for him.

Nice work if you can get it.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

This thread reminds me of a frustrating conversation I had a few years ago during the Beslan school slaughter.

The Chechen terrorists were monsters and slaughtered over 300 students and teachers. I was in a debate forum and some jerks were discussing the terrorists motivations, how one could understand why they were upset.

One could understand? Upset?! These armed animals took a school hostage and slaughtered children. Leave it to Western culture to VALIDATE the action by doing precisely what the terrorists wanted: examining their grievances.

The riots and deaths mean I no longer care what the grievance is. I won't validate terrorism by participating in achieving it's aims. If the aim of a terrorist act is to get me to examine an offense against their belief system, then that examination is the one thing you can count on me not doing.

Don't walk in here and validate murderous rioting and plots to assassinate cartoonists by doing what they are designing for you to do. Your message is that killing cartoonists is an effective and valid method for lodging one's complaints.

It's too late to complain. They went to murder. Complaint time is over.

absentee

regularly depict Mohammad.

It's not an Islamic rule handed down to Muhammad from God. Long after Muhammad, in a couple of the supplementals to existing hadith it was made unlawful for muslims to create ANY images not just Muhammads. It was an idolatry thing. Nowadays it's taken to especially mean Muhammads image. There are very old Korans with pictures of Muhammad in them.

FredHeads for Fred!

it at the same time. To wit:

Well, to be fair, no one called for Dan Brown to be killed for it that I know of.

I have no idea what the heck you're trying to say with the rest of your comment, here.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

That the majority of Muslims have what I would consider to be an understandable reaction to a perceived slight against a religion they hold dear. Christians understandably act the same way in defense of their own at times.

And in the quoted section you noted, I am trying to point out that I am talking about the majority of Muslims...the ones that aren't out for blood over this. Those that are...well, I think I'm with you on those people.

In response to the Danish cartoons, there were riots in which people were actually killed. Christian churches were burned. Loads of property damage was done. The point is not whether this behavior is representative of a majority of Muslims - the point is that it is representative of some - and in this case, "some" is too large at the point it reaches "any." Because there were zero riot deaths or burnings in response to The Da Vinci Code.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The level of fanaticism in Islam is disturbing, and you won't find me arguing otherwise. I tend to be troubled, though, when that characterization carries over to the millions of Muslims who either do not take their beliefs to anywhere near as extreme a measure, or actively oppose those who do. So much of the rhetoric generalizes things in a way that I think does more harm than good.

you should get to know us before making assumptions.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I certainly here that sort of rhetoric lots of places. No one here has said anything of the sort. I've heard more than one person argue that Islam should be banned as a religion entirely, or that we should simply deport all Muslims to be safe.

those muslims who are "radical" islamists. Do you?

I don't so much favor the idea of deporting people simply for opinions. When those opinions manifest themselves as any sort of subversive action against America or Americans, then yes, deport them. I think the challenge of the First Amendment is how we apply it to speech we disagree with, and there is a fine line you have to tread between allowing the expression in a way that still protects our country.

Because there were zero riot deaths or burnings in response to The Da Vinci Code.

...you're clearly forgetting (or ignoring) the East Peoria riots of 2006, when dozens died during rioting following a screening of that abysmal train wreck of a movie.

For what it's worth, Muslims abroad whom I know were upset by the cartoons, but then when they saw the rioting their general reaction was far more negative toward that than the cartoons. And my (Muslim; ex-Soviet Muslim, but Muslim nevertheless) host father said (approximately) of Iran getting the bomb, "it's a bad idea, yes, a bad idea. Muslims are terrorists, it's true, I am a Muslim, but I know it is so! If they get a nuclear bomb it is very bad for the world." Now, I offer that up anecdotally and without a real point except it's a crazy mixed-up world and (perhaps this qualifies as a point) the "clash of civilizations" is overrated because it presupposes monolithic culture structures.

(-2.75, -4.92)

Because I am not "forgetting" anything - this is the first I've ever heard of it.

And I should also note that your last point is completely untrue - even the crusades did not involve two monolithic cultures. Clashes of civilizations actually require a much smaller critical mass than you are giving them credit for. This error stems from your erroneous liberal view of human nature in general - to wit, that we as humans are not mostly scum.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

In my parallel joke world, people rioted because the movie was so bad, not because of a defamation of Christianity.

And, as for the civilization clash, I think there's too much gray, interconnectivity, and lag time involved for the thesis to work out the way it's progenitors think it will. But that isn't the conversation.

(-2.75, -4.92)

That movie was pretty bad. Common ground! Rejoice!

For instance, I'm sure that either I would have understood that you were joking or you would have understood that I'm too tired to "get" jokes right now, were we communicating in real life.

In any event, your last paragraph is pretty plausible if you ignore pretty much all of human history. That isn't to say that all "clashes of civilizations" are really about the differences between the civilizations, but they have a dismaying tendency of happening nonetheless.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Assuming for a second that you actually are a rational person and not just a troll, please back up one news report that backs up your claim:

"Christians understandably act the same way in defense of their own at times."

When, where, what?

I doubt you can site a real case of Christians going on a rampage becasue of a cartoon, or a painting like "P*** Christ", or "Dung Christ" or any other.

Maybe where you come from Christians riot, I've never seen it. 

______________________________________

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Just kidding don't blow a gasket
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Christians understandably act the same way in defense of their own at times."

Now remember that in the original post, this was in reference to the majority of Muslims who had a more measured and non-riotous and non-threatening to kill type of response. Christians have indeed staged numerous protests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4987116.stm

Riots? Don't know about that. I would certainly agree with anyone who wants to argue that the most extreme Muslims...even a lot of Muslims...take upsettedness to an over-the-top level in cases like this, where Christians have the civility not to.

Having to live in a secret safe house with body guards, hiding from the mobs of crazed Christers trying to burn him.
It was so sad when the Pope put out a death threat on Dan Brown.
And thanks be to all secular goodness that when the Christian mobs burned all those cinema houses world wide that so few people were killed.
From your handle, let me guess that you also have some interesting opinions about 911 and who did it?

I specifically said that Christian reactions are far more measured and reasonable than those of extremist Muslims...a credit to Christians everywhere. I was simply referring to the upset people who left it at upset or maybe even peaceful protests...Christians and Muslims alike have both reacted in that way.

And as to my handle, txaggies911 was a moniker I have had since a few years before the tragic event. I assure you I have no unusual theories of the attack.

Yet ironically, you are embarrassing most real Aggies.

There are constant smears against Christ and Christianity. Burning effigies, cross in a bottle of urine, etc etc. Are Christians burning down buildings, killing people over these?
Do you think you can see the difference in that?

"it should be at least somewhat understandable that some Muslims would be offended by the Danish cartoon."

And understanding that means it's ok to kill, burn and rob?

It's not just that western society didn't scream for Dan Browns death, we didn't kill him either. i.e.:The viscous murder of Theo van Gogh for the short film "Submission" or the attempted murder and continuing assault on Ayaan Hirsi Ali for leaving Islam and for her writings.

FredHeads for Fred!

I really wish you would stop attributing a position to me that I never took.

I have repeatedly stated that those who would "kill, burn, and rob" are WRONG. I have never said it's ok in any way.

All I have said is that, for the vast majority of Muslims who have exhibited a more measured response, the anger is understandable.

I have also been quite clear on several occasions that Christians have repeatedly and more consistently been more civil in expressing their distaste than have the most radical elements of Islam (like those who killed van Gogh). I think I have made it quite evident that I recognize that distinction.

I also, however, recognize the violent overreaction for what it is -- a lunatic response from a tiny minority of all Muslims.

"All I have said is that, for the vast majority of Muslims who have exhibited a more measured response, the anger is understandable."

What is your point here? Lots of people are offended in this lifetime. Sometimes, it is when someone burns their flag. Sometimes, it is when their mothers are insulted. Sometimes, it is when someone (really) insults their religion. Here, it is because a non-Muslim drew an innocuous picture of Muhammed. (As we said before, they don't want any pictures of Muhammed, ever!) All of these examples are understandable. But so what? Why is it so important to you that we recognize that their anger is understandable? I suspect - and this is probably why this Redstate debate is so intense - that you hope that by understanding this anger, we will be prompted to mollify it by apologizing for printing these silly cartoons, or by seeking to change our behavior in Iraq, Israel, etc.

The idea that we have to understand, and probably mollify, the anger of Muslim society over printing silly cartoons offends me. I hope my anger is "understandable" too.

I don't expect anyone to apologize for the cartoons...it's what free expression is all about. Happens to be a battle I would personally choose not to fight -- having the right to do or say something does not make it a good idea (just ask the Dixie Chicks). I think we should evaluate all of our actions not simply on the basis of what we can do, but on what we should. You weight the purpose served vs. the damage done. In the case of the cartoons, I would argue the purpose served is minimal, and the anger generated much greater, so maybe not the best idea.

I don't take this approach simply towards Muslim anger. I feel the same way about some of the abhorrent and sacreligious depictions of Jesus.

I would argue that a certain level of understanding in much of our approach is important, not for the benefit of terrorists...I think many of them deserve their ends...but for the sake of those who are on the fence. Perhaps a deeper understanding of what drives someone there would allow us to prevent people from becoming terrorists in the first place. And this is a great example. Mocking Islam is certainly our right. But it's understandable and expected that people will get upset over it. In fact, if that sort of mockery becomes endemic on our part, perhaps it becomes enough to drive people to terrorism. While we had every right to mock the religion, is it really a good idea if that is the end? A level of understanding of the results of our actions can be beneficial indeed.

And that is my point.

"Mocking Islam is certainly our right."
I don't see how a simple drawing of Muhammed is mocking him(obviously, the one with the turban bomb is, but that is not all they object to).

"But it's understandable and expected that people will get upset over it. In fact, if that sort of mockery becomes endemic on our part, perhaps it becomes enough to drive people to terrorism."
Are you saying that these cartoons are going to drive people to terrorism? Please, their extremist ideology and military weakness drives them to terrorism. The cartoon controversy was actually ginned up by the Islamic jihadist leadership to give them reasons to promote violence.

"In the case of the cartoons, I would argue the purpose served is minimal, and the anger generated much greater, so maybe not the best idea."
So you are arguing that we change our behavior to accomodate them. Once again, I disagree. Lot's of people get offended by things others say and do. These people need to grow up. The rest of us don't need to cater to their delicate condition.

For that matter, your proposal is a total misreading of how to change bad human behavior. Catering to the excessive and unrealistic demands of a certain segment of society, while allowing that society to treat you in an inconsistently bad fashion (i.e., Islamic media is rife with dishonorable attacks on Christians, Jews, and all western things) encourages more bad behavior from that segment, as well as similar bad behavior from other observers. This is psch 001.

Please, their extremist ideology and military weakness drives them to terrorism.

This is precisely the type of oversimplification that I believe exacerbates the issues. I'm going with a gross oversimplification here myself, but I would offer that there is a segment of the population inherently driven to terrorism simply on the basis of an extremist ideology. The rest are recruited to the cause, often on the basis of a general hatred for the west. And that hatred is the type of thing that is only fueled by mockery that serves no other purpose.

I guess in a sense I am proposing that we change some behaviors to accommodate the sensitivities of others. The same reason I think Westboro Baptist should curb their behavior. Same reason I wear pants to work. With freedom comes responsibility. And I strongly believe part of that responsibility is to in some cases curb ourselves in situations where the action might cause harm (see the classic yelling "Fire!" in a theater example). And again, rightly or wrongly, mocking Islam through cartoons has at least the potential to drive another person to the terrorist ideals, or spark a riot that results in deaths. Sure, ultimate responsibility for those actions lie with the individuals involved, but if we hold the power to stop it by not publishing a not-all-that-funny-to-begin-with cartoon with a turbanbomb, shouldn't we?

1000 years of progress toward tolerance, free speech, and general liberty in order to pacify those who would as soon see us dead as not.

Our civilization is based on the balance between religious faith and scientific knowledge. Freedom of thought is the scale on which they are measured. To say that we must not print this image or that image because it offends someone's religious sense goes beyond yelling "fire!" in a theatre. It's essentially saying that one religion is to be held above the others.

All because they're bullies. Shame on you.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

I am not sure my saying an extremist ideology and military weakness drives them to terrorism is an oversimplification. Besides these cartoons, what other things drive them to terrorism? (Don't give us economic class warfare. That has been proven wrong again and again. Besides, many of the extremists are rich Saudis.)

This is also not yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, which can easily lead to injuries because of a normal human reaction. This is an abnormal reaction to innocuous catroons. Although you keep trying to focus on the turban bomb, the Islamic extremists object to all cartoon depictions of Muhammed, and not just the turban bomb depiction itself.

And we will just have to disagree on the publish/not publish question. I think that it sends exactly the wrong signal, and will merely encourage the Islamic extremists to make other demands on us. (I might add that the cartoon controversy was largely manufactured by the leadership of the Islamic radicals. What they have done once, they can do again, on another equally innocuous topic.) They tell us all the time that we are a "weak horse," and that is why we will fail. Caving in to this would just be seen as another sign of our weakness, and their inevitable triumph.

1. While I think neither of us is truly in the place to be in the mind of a terrorist, I would imagine that not ALL of their ranks are simply the result of an extremist ideology and military weakness. A portion, yes, but not all, which is why I called the assessment an oversimplification. The remainder are recruited as a result of people who have some sort of deep seated resentment towards Israel or the West. These cartoons can be used as a tool to further that resentment. Economic class warfare is certainly in my mind less of an effective means.

2. This certainly is not quite the same as yelling "fire" in the theater. The illustration was more to demonstrate that both have PREDICTABLE reactions. However abnormal the reaction (and I agree it is abnormal), it's tough to deny that, particularly after the initial protests sparked by turbanbomb, one could have seen other similar reactions coming. And I focus on turbanbomb mostly because as far as I have seen, that is the one that really sparked the loud outcry. Certainly other more innocuous portrayals have done so since, but turbanbomb started it all. But the same corollary of predictable reactions holds either way.

3. The publish or not publish, I certainly see the merit in your point of view. I am arguing more from the point of view of the not-yet-terrorists. If we can give a terrorist a little less ammo in the recruitment game (see #1), then perhaps we weaken their ranks. I simply don't see cartoons of Muhammad as the most effective way to demonstrate our strength.

4. On self-censorship, I would argue that we engage in it every single day. Friend of mine used to call it "the selector." It was the part of your brain that, when you thought of something, told you maybe it wasn't the best idea to say it. It's the part of you that makes you wear a suit to work when you'd be more comfortable in jeans. The part of you that holds back on telling an off color joke when you know your audience may be less than appreciative. We filter what we say and do in light of how it may affect others all the time. Doesn't mean we have to, but when you can see the consequences ahead of time, we often decide we should.

when those cartoons were first published. Look at when they were published and then when the spontaneous riots took place all over Europe, and throughout the Mideast.

You might be surprised to discover that the spontaneous riots that sprang up as Muslims were outraged by the cartoons, actually took place several weeks after publication. It was all CONTRIVED by the Jihadists. At the time, didn't is seem just a little strange that Danish flags were readily available, by the hundreds, throughout the Mideast to be burned in protest?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

The fact that the whole thing was contrived does not really disprove much. I made the argument that the cartoon could effectively be used as a tool by terrorists to rile up other non-terrorist Muslims, since it could feed someone's general dislike of the West. You seem to be arguing that that is EXACTLY what happened.

Look at the vile stuff on ME media (see http://www.memritv.org/) and conclude that the West is the party in need of more self constraint?

It is specifically by NOT calling out the Jihadists for who they are that the "moderates" can be more effectively drawn into Jihad.

I agree, nobody should let themselves get too offended by things like this. That's the problem- many have. And their "solution" is to try to suppress the speech they don't like by dominating not only those who speak what they don't want to hear, but also dominating anybody who might disagree.

This isn't pretty no matter who does it. ...but if you have a look at who's doing it now, that's pretty instructive. Some concern is very reasonable.

(noe teckste)

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

There are several stories on it, here is a recent one. Gotta love them Palestinians.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28912_Video-_Hamas_Jew-Eat...

( 1.50, -1.08) http://politicalcompass.org/

liberal made the "misstake" but the libs would want to say this about Iraq or Afghan, and would not want to say the truth that it comes from Palestine.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!