Redstate

I was going to point this out on the other post,  but you beat me to it.  Apparently you have even less to do on a Friday afternoon than I...

Or did State do this on their own? In any case, it is not the message we should be sending... but it certainly fits with State's M.O.

The State Department never complains about anti-semitism.  Ever.

I was looking for the State Department's condemnation of the recent Tom Toles cartoon. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm sure the State Dept was preparing it. Maybe the Muslim gunfire interrupted them.

Call it an inner Dhimmi, PC or decency, no government should ever condone such behavior by anyone or toward anyone.

Now, if some want to criticize the government's lack of response to other such activities toward other religions, go ahead...for what its worth. But the absence of a response on behalf of one group of people doesn't condemn a reponse on behalf of another.

Why the public thinks up OR get worked up about such stupid cartoons is beyond me.

I guess I'm just very thick-skinned and indifferent to religious discussions. This BS goes down at the bottom of priorties for me along with celebrity trials and gossip and other forms of shallow, fluff news and tabloids.

"the public" who is getting worked up about stupid cartoons, it's Muslims because it supposedly violates a tenet of their religion. This is not on the radar of the vast majority of "the American public" yet because it hasn't made it into the mainstream press.

Whether you or I are interested is no longer important. There are large numbers of angry people running around out there threatening death and destruction to people and institutions in Europe. And the governments and people of Europe can no longer pretend that the problem does not exist.

Your thick skin will not make any difference; there are people who desire to, and will, make it your business.

Call it an inner Dhimmi, PC or decency, no government should ever condone such behavior by anyone or toward anyone.

Why the public thinks up OR get worked up about such stupid cartoons is beyond me.

I guess I'm just very thick-skinned and indifferent to religious discussions. This BS goes down at the bottom of priorties for me along with celebrity trials and gossip and other forms of shallow, fluff news and tabloids.

Why should the government be in the business of condemning newspapers for publishing cartoons? Especially foreign cartoons in foreign newspapers that have nothing to do with the US Government? If  your view is that the original cartoons are not a big deal and people should not get worked up about it, I agree with you. But then it is impossible to reach the conclusion that State was right.

President Bush just gave a state of the union address in which he declared his opposition to radical Islam.

In that light, his criticism of the cartoons portraying Mohammed as a bloodthirsty terrorist is no different from the criticism he'd surely make of a series of cartoons, say, portraying Jesus to be bombing an abortion clinic, or putting a Jew through torture.

To equate this statement with turning a blind eye toward the problem we face seems to be an overreaction.  I'm confident this president every single day grapples with our continuing struggle with terrorism, and the radical Islamists who mostly commit it.

That's why I voted for him.  That's why many of us voted for him.  That he calls for dignity, and opposes degrading a long-standing religion for shock value, doesn't diminish that one bit.

Apparently, I was unclear. I have no problem with the White House noting that the cartoons were offensive. My problem was that they failed to address the rather more significant problem of the absurd and violent reaction against the Danish government (for the actions of a Danish newspaper, entirely unconnected with the State).

In other words, I would have been completely fine with a formulation of, "We express concern for the taste and journalistic responsibility of a newspaper which would run these cartoons. However, we are deeply concerned with the highly inappropriate response towards the Danish government and the entire continent of Europe, and call upon Muslim leaders throughout the world to cease fomenting this violent response."

On the one hand, the WH understands the sensitivity of the issue and that publicly condemning it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, the lack of response can used as further fuel on the fire and enable BS like "the U.S. has a double standard because they won't condemn the insulting actions of their allies....just like they do with Isreal. See, they hate Islam!". The WH did the right thing.

The second part concerns the general public. The WH's reaction is based on understanding the reality in that sentence I wrote. They know there are people out there that think this crap up to offend people and they know the offended will be zealously offended. A statement saying they are not aparty to it and are abhorred by it is necessary lingo for damage control. Even though they probably think the whole ordeal is as stupid and needless (on all sides) as I do.

I think you mean thick headed. If you can't understand by this point in the debate that the issue that people here are upset about is protests calling for a new 9/11 and so on, then you simply aren't capable of understanding or are being willfully ignorant.

The question at hand is whether or not the islamist reaction is ridiculous, which it is, and what that means to us, which is something bad.

If you insist on pretending this is just a reasonable reaction to an offensive cartoon then you are condoning the calls for terrorism.

We get that you are very sensitive to others and very modern and tolerant. Got it. My gosh, do we got it. Now perhaps you could be troubled to decide whether or not people should be calling for a new holocaust?

I said:

"Why the public thinks up OR get worked up about such stupid cartoons is beyond me."

The first part refers to the West and more specifically to these cartoonists. The second part refers to the Muslims who are outraged over it.

I understand the problem is volitile. My general point is just a overall disgust people who the need to provoke or engage in these petty "holy wars". Yes, I know: Petty to me but not to others. If I had my way in a perfect world, nobody would CARE what anyone said about religion.

Though I'm Christian, I would chuckle and roll my eyes if Muslims made an insulting cartoon of Jesus. They're gonna have to do better than that to get under my skin. Sadly, they DO. But that's a different matter. In so far as religion is considered, I just wish it were a non-issue.

I can wish.

On that note, it IS disheartening that many Europeans have come to this point toward Muslims. They've been dealing with them a lot longer than we have. I would shutter to think that we would follow their lead in terms of general attitide than vice-versa.

I don't know. it just sucks.

Why the public thinks up OR get worked up about such stupid cartoons is beyond me.

I could care less about cartoons - whether they offend Islam or Christianity. Search and see what we ARE all concerned about. Reading the embedded links will help.

You may want to check out Little Green Footballs:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19076_State_Department_Critic
ism_of_Cartoons_-_a_Hoax&only

It seems that there is some dispute about what actually was said by the State Dept., and exactly who in the State Dept. said it. Apparently three different State Dept. sources are being quoted in different three different newspapers. LGF is speculating that this whole thing may be a hoax, or a distortion by the press...

Developing.

This would have been the appropriate response.

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any -- first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example -- and on the particular cartoon that was published -- I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see -- that's what you're asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would -- we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you're just hoping that it doesn't -- I'm sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they're doing and you just hope it doesn't get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I --

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn't escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so --

QUESTION: You did. I'm trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews -- or it was the Egyptians -- this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was --

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that's the use of the word "unacceptable" and "not acceptable," exactly what that implies. I mean, it's not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say "unacceptable," it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is -- our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It's just the one word "unacceptable," I'm just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn't you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's for you and your editors to decide, and that's not for the government. We don't own the printing presses.

QUESTION: Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it's following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish -- these cartoons. Is the election mood -- is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I'd refer you to that answer.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, George.

QUESTION: Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do -- or is it -- or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?

MR. MCCORMACK: George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That -- all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is -- it's not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.

QUESTION: You're not dictating -- everybody knows you can't order people not to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find --

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right, you're right.

QUESTION: -- now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying -- you know, that -- you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this -- you're dealing with deeply-held beliefs.

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right. You're right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of -- millions and millions of people around the world would find these images -- these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60394.htm

Post updated.

come now. We must allow some degree of confrontational debate. I think ZTN is willfully ignoring the real issue. In my opinion, it is that which is not nice.

you said:

"The question at hand is whether or not the islamist reaction is ridiculous, which it is, and what that means to us, which is something bad."

I agree. The Muslim reaction IS RIDICULOUS...and sadly...it is PREDICTIBLY RIDICULOUS and our bretheren in Europe SHOULD KNOW THIS BETTER THAN US. I am appalled that this cartoonist would whimsically ruffle feathers like this, that the government did nothing to condemn it and most of all I'm appalled that this stuff in the name of OR against religions EVEN HAPPENS ot MATTERS TO ANYONE! The last part is just wishful thinking but I'm saying it.

I NEVER EVER AT ANY POINT, said or implied that the Muslim reaction was reasonable. Ofcourse it isn't. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION THEY ARE NOT REASONABLE. And anyone westerner that fails to keep this mind when making such stupid cartoons is not REASONING.

They post the video and audio of the daily press briefing. Unfortunately there is no transcript but today's briefer was Sean McComack. One has to sit through the entire briefing and hope you pickup the question/answer. But, it is there for the "serious student :-)"

Why the continued debate? I've watched your comments today. If the whole issue is so stupid why are you debating it?

Why is it stupid for people to be angry or concerned over massive demonstrations calling for the extermination of the west and death for all who oppose Islam? Is this not a reasonable topic for discussion?

Thousands of people on the streets of Europe calling for the destruction of Europe isn't worthy of discussion? It's just some silly flap over some silly cartoons about some silly religious ideas?

Sorry, I don't buy that. You can't possibly think that.

there <is> a transcript :-) Thanks

On that, I think you're right.  They shouldn't have stopped where they did, and instead kept on going to criticize the whole lot.

Right on.  I'm inclined to call it uncharacteristic of the Bush administration not to be so grand on foreign policy, for a change.

I was not speaking to the obvious points of the danger that this poses for us in the west.

I was critiquing and venting my overall disgust toward the underlying condition of religion in the world that makes this ordeal as big a problem as it is.

My comments were originally a reaction to the entire ordeal, how it disgusts me that someone would publish these cartoons in light of our reality and that they weren't condemned by the Danish government in light of our reality.

Obviously, I find the Muslim reaction ridiculous, I always have. I find their views on religion maniacal and I always have.

Sadly, solutions to these problems are becoming harder to come by. I hope it's not too late.

reading your comments again, I surprised how much we were on different pages.

Without admitting anything, I'll say it's possible I mixed you up with another poster. Something I wouldn't admit to even if I were positive that it were true, given my nature.

"I was not speaking to the obvious points of the danger that this poses for us in the west."

I'm glad you say that, because it certainly seems like it should be an obvious concern.

"I was critiquing and venting my overall disgust toward the underlying condition of religion in the world that makes this ordeal as big a problem as it is."

Religion is a thing, not an entity. The problem is always the practitioners.

"My comments were originally a reaction to the entire ordeal, how it disgusts me that someone would publish these cartoons in light of our reality and that they weren't condemned by the Danish government in light of our reality."

This is arguable. The Danish government said positively that the images were offensive, that they would not have published them. They also say it's not their place to do anything about it. Which it isn't. Which the protesters have an extreme problem with.

"Sadly, solutions to these problems are becoming harder to come by. I hope it's not too late. "

Remains to be seen.

Ok I admit the subject line is over the top but based on the continual over-reaction by entire Muslim countries to what are really small slights (handling problems w/ a Koran, offensive comics) I think we need to ask ourselves what is the percentage of "radicals" within the muslim community.  

I constantly hear that they are a very small % of the population but then something like this happens and then entire countries blow up.  Maybe the question that needs to be asked is "what is a Muslim's definition of radical?".

I would argue that most Westerners (sp?) would not threaten death and destruction based on a comic.  We might complain, we might boycott but we would not publically call for murder.  And if someone did, I can guarantee that there would be more responses against that position.

However in the Muslim world this seems to happen fairly often and nowhere do you ever hear Muslims speak against this.  So either the same small group of people are traveling from country to country staging riots or the vast majority agree with the response.  I guess the other possible option is that the vast majority is just too afraid to respond to the behavior of the radicals.  I guess I use to believe that could be the case when people were making that argument for the limited Muslim response to terrorist attacks but I can't accept it in response to general public mayhem.

Which brings me back to my original point, are all muslims radicals?  Or at least radicals by Western definition.

It seems to me, is fairly straightforward.  In America, when someone insults Christianity, it's one of those yuk-yuk jokes and American Christians pretty much sit back and turn the other cheek.  And they are expected to!  Elsewhere in the world, when anyone insults Islam, people with Kalashnikovs mount the towers, issue Fatwahs and march through the streets calling for beheadings.  That's why America is the "Great Satan" and we should just get out of the Middle East now and leave all those poor people alone, and wait for them to decide to come here.  It makes sense, no?

but the questions!  Oh the concern for deeply held beliefs, and the sensitivities,oh the horror of it all.  The real story is about fanatics who for centuries have shown little or no respect for the religions of others but in spite of that or because of it demand respect if not homage for their own.  The media, about as attractive as an unwashed fertilizer truck,in turn shows a deference to these currrent rioters who are attacking the one thing the media is supposed to prize, freedom of the press.  The obsession with identifying the contrarious with   the wise and superior inevitably marks the fool and the frivolous.  I might break out out Burnham's "Suicide of the West", old nemesis, same problem.

plus, I wasn't aware that the Danish government openly critized the cartoons. I'm glad they did.

But, yes, this highlights a large chasm between  our beliefs in what a "free press" is. By "our" I mean the West and the Muslim world.

It is ironic to see the American media (and others) falling all over themselves in their "sensitivity" over the current "religious" controversy isn't it, given that its the media's head thats on the block (perhaps literally) this go around?

You'd think the exempt media would finally see the violent, bald face of islam for what it is, but instead they mouth platitudes while their right to exist as a profession is being threatened with violence. I'd say I was surprised, but I've learned that the stupidity of the exempt media knows no bounds.

to characterize the State Department declaration as "embracing" Dhimmitude. Frankly, the DoS had no other choice but to take that position. Even the Karzai government in Afghanistan has condemned the Danish paper's cartoons, and we can not afford to damage our position in the Middle East by being associated with "blasphemy" against the Prophet Mohammed. Frankly, it is not a fight we need to get involved with.

Now the reaction to the Danish cartoon, especially in Indonesia, has been ridiculous. And it behooves the Administration, or DoS to say as much. But beyond that we should play this one safe. We've simply got bigger fish to fry.

Instead of hand-wringing about the delicate feelings of people inclined to take to the streets and call for the butchery and beheading of the Danes on account of a bunch of cartoons in one Danish newspaper several months ago, is it too much to expect the State Department to say something firm and reassuring about our reliable ally Denmark, whose soldiers under arms are stationed with our in Iraq right now?

Who is foolish enough to still imagine that calls for butchery from Muslims are mere idle threats?

If, therefore, the threat to our allies is real -- as all but the condemnably negligent now realize -- one would like think that the instinct of an honorable nation would be to defend its ally.

One would like to think that.

Yes all Muslims are radical.  Some more than others.

I think what the American people have to realize is that the Muslim faith is in direct opposition to the Jewish or Christian faith.  That they hate the American or Western way of life and will do anything to destroy it.

The Muslim faith will never allow other religions to co-exist.

Once we realize this then we will see the serious danger we face.