Redstate

     Yes, solidarity with the Danes is in order.  

     How regularly have citizens of the West been offended by "insensitive" publications, art, etc.  In this case, however, the response has been far more offensive than the insult.

     Threats and acts of murder for symbolic offenses are totalitarian in their effect, and often in their intent.  If we don't confront such crude, sweeping threats now, our freedoms will vanish before we recognize they are gone.

I don't allow my 4-year-old daughter behave in this manner. Somehow it's perceived by some as acceptable for a major world religion. That fact has me stumped.

Threats and acts of murder for symbolic offenses are totalitarian in their effect, and often in their intent.

Regardless of the intent, I think it's time that more people in the Moslem world understood that we in the West are about up-to-here with the death threats.

If what they really mean is, "We're upset, doggone it, and we don't want you making fun of our Prophet," then they should say that. Most of us can sympathize with that.

But it just seems like every week, there's another reason why they are going to kill us all. That gets old after a while, especially when there are actual instances of Moslem fanatics killing people in our countries. I think that's one of the reasons that the Germans and the French decided to poke Islamic eyes with sticks by running the cartoons again. There's a certain amount of "bring it on!" in that.

I thank you for the courtesy and ask leave to respond in depth.  My sarcasm was directed at those among us who view any religious slur, up to and including outright blasphemy, as something either defensible or desirable. I have nothing to say to such people, nor I would I be responding to you if I thought you felt the same way.

 As I have stated many times, I consider the radical Islamists to be the enemy of the world. My sympathies here are with ordinary Moslems, who neither understand nor have ever experienced what for us has become commonplace. Their initial reaction was to clamor for a boycott of Danish products. Some subsequently demanded a retraction and apology. Is any of this unreasonable? Now, of course, the Islamists have entered the scene with their customary bloodthirsty hysterics. Naturally, we respond to them, instead of the original plaintiffs. Yet aren't ordinary Moslems are allies, too? Does it make sense for us to say to them, in effect: "We defend the right to mock your religion and expect you to be as passive as us?" I maintain that if the Moslem response had remained as it begun, a simple demand for spiritual courtesy, no conservative would have objected. To do so would be hypocrisy.

 Which leads me to the images that appeared on RS last night. In Miranda Prorsus, Pius XII's letter on film, TV and radio, and the confluence of free speech and spirituality, he writes:

For these new possessions and new instruments which are within almost everyone's grasp, introduce a most powerful influence into men's minds, both because they can flood them with light, raise them to nobility, adorn them with beauty, and because they can disfigure them by dimming their lustre, dishonour them by a process of corruption, and make them subject to uncontrolled passions, according as the subjects presented to the senses in these shows are praiseworthy or reprehensible.

  Transmission of the images of Moslem radicals had the net effect of shifting the focus from simple respect for the religious sensibilities of pious Moslems to the battleground of the current war on terrorism. This, incidentally, was what motivated my response to Leon yesterday.

  In a simpler, and better time, an offended Danish Moslem simply would have marched to the office of that cartoonist and demanded either an apology or the satisfaction due to a gentleman. That such an option no longer exists is not a justification for the typically mindless response of the radicals. However, while I share your solidarity with the Danes, as I necessarily must, at the same time I sympathize with simple, honest Moslems who have borne an unwarranted insult and had no recourse other than to ask for an apology or boycott Danish products. What started out as a question of respect for religion has descended into an ignoble pursuit for greater insult and violence. A moment of circumspection is perhaps in order.

The protesters are offended because the cartoons hit too close to home. The picture of Muhammed with the bomb in his turban is all too accurate. The igniting of the Danish embasssy in Damascus today pretty much validates that cartoon.

The Koran specifically calls for use of violence against converts and nonbelievers. It is not a peaceful religion. Look around the world where Islamic society bumps up against others -- Kashmir, Thailand, the Phillippines, the southern Caucus region, Israel, middle Africa, and now even the streets of Paris and Copenhagen -- violence results.

So what do we do? We can continue to fight defensive battles at the periphery, or we can go into their heartland and try to wrestle them into modernity. This is exactly what the Iraq campaign is all about. It is a bold, costly, and extremely risky proposition and I haven't a clue how it will turn out. But if it works it will have been worth it. This of course is something left wingers will never concede.

But why can't we just leave them alone? (say America's isolationists and knee jerk peaceniks). Because a world of rapidly diffusing WMD technology makes that course of inaction literally suicidal. This does not mean we invade every unfriendly, potentially threatening country on the planet. It means we drain the worst swamps and hope for positive ripple effects elsewhere. Baby steps toward democracy in the Arab world post-2003 and Libya foregoing the pursuit of WMD are examples of this theory in action.  

Go Steelers!

Does it make sense for us to say to them, in effect: "We defend the right to mock your religion and expect you to be as passive as us?"

In point of fact, yes, it does.  Muslims aren't children, and we shouldn't treat them as such.  That explicitly includes not letting them get away with behavior that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.  Which explicitly includes threats of physical violence in response to provocative images and words.

If they don't like it, they might want to try moving.

Being offended by what someone says is part of the price we pay for living in a free society. As a Christian Republican I have gotten used to people saying things that deeply offend me. When our flag is burned in Gaza we didn't run out and blow up buses. When a crucifix was displayed in a jar of urine, nuns didn't fly planes into buildings. When MonveOn.org portrayed GWB as Hitler we didn't fire bomb the DNC.

I totally disagree with Joel Stein, Tom Toles and the rest. I tolerate them because I have confidence in what I believe and I can defend it with facts without resorting to Mad Magazine tactics. I tolerate their short-sighted, naive view because I love living in a free society.

Are liberals willing to sacrifice free speech to peacefully coexistence with radical fundamentalists like these?

against Denmark and Norway:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=200
6-02-04T184214Z_01_L03545299_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS.xml&rpc=22

As NATO members isn't it now acceptable for NATO to go into Syria and defend our allies?

Have you bought your Danish goods yet?

During WWII when the Nazis ordered all the Danish Jews to ware yellow stars to identify them as Jews, ALL the Danish people decided to ware yellow stars to make it impossible for the Germans to ID the Jews.  

What great products do the Danish make so I can go out and buy them?

I am going out today to buy nothing but Carlsberg beer for my Super Bowl party tomorrow.

"The Jews are a part of the Danish nation. We have no 'Jewish problem' in our country because we never had an inferiority complex in relation to the Jews. If the Jews are forced to wear a yellow star, I and my whole family shall wear it as a badge of honor."

- King Christian X, 1943.

It takes nerve to say that to frothingly genocidal lunatics that are currently in possession of your country.  More nerve to stick to it, which the Danes did, in spades.

You've got it right Nick.

After 9/11, practically during in fact, we were bombarded by the news wringing their hands over what potential backlash their might be against innocent Muslims in America. I saw interviews all day long where the "chief concern" or "what worried me the most" was the possibility of retribution against Muslims living here.

Frankly, that was bad taste, uneccessary, and telling. It was upside down priorities. The first response should be outrage over the attack, not worry about revenge.

Soon thereafter, and ever since then, we hear from the left how it's our fault they hate us. "Yes yes, we think destroying the towers was excessive, but after all, it is our fault they hate us".

I am seeing in this controvery, and in the responses from our government, more of the same. "Yes yes, we think it's bad how they reacted, but they do have a legit complaint" the talking heads say. "Yes Yes, they shouldn't be threatening to wipe Europe off the face, but let's all agree the images were offensive".

It's all a little to disingenuous for me. Is there no consideration for the fact that the images were produced months ago, and only now, with the violence, is it getting republished in other papers and all over the web? Doesn't that show that we didn't all jump on some bashing bandwagon, that this is, in fact, about the Muslim reaction?

I believe they are offended. But I'm pretty well cared out about that. I stop worrying about your hurt feelings the moment you start thinking about my murder. Tit for tat.

I'm through with analyzing why the protesters feelings are legitimately hurt, I'm through with it. I'm no longer interested in their feelings. If burning embassies is how their religion compels them to react to the cartoons, why should I be concerned about people making fun of their religion in the first place? All due respect to Rega, but frankly the protesters aren't making a strong case for sensitivity right now.

There are Muslim groups who think the reaction is outrageous. Why is it that we are not allowed the same reaction? Why must we qualify it?

It sounds just like the libs crying about how we "made" the terrorists.

"But it just seems like every week, there's another reason why they are going to kill us all."

Indeed it does. And it would seem Denmark is just a little fed up with that. Bravo for them!

My sympathies here are with ordinary Moslems, who neither understand nor have ever experienced what for us has become commonplace. Their initial reaction was to clamor for a boycott of Danish products. Some subsequently demanded a retraction and apology. Is any of this unreasonable?

The demand for a retraction and apology is certainly reasonable. The clamor for a boycott is, it seems to me, on the order of insisting on a boycott of New York because a museum there hosted a collection of anti-Christian art.

Does it make sense for us to say to them, in effect: "We defend the right to mock your religion and expect you to be as passive as us?"

This is a difficult question. Those Muslims living in our countries -- countries, that is, where, among other much more admirable things, the liberal has been fused with the libertine philosophy -- have some obligation to assimilate. This assimilation will have to include some moderation of the sense of religious honor. Even the calm and more reasonable Muslim spokesmen I heard on TV seem to be of the opinion that this issue is so dear to them that Europe (and, by extension, the West) must assimilate to them. We must change to accomodate their sensibility. Twice on Thursday night (on Fox and on PBS), I heard sensible Muslim figures say things which had just that effect.

This simply will not do. The implications of the logic of this view are grim. If even the moderates (and perhaps the characters I saw on TV were not representative) demand concession on this point, and will not compromise, then what is left of the call for assimilation? Are their words not, in essence, as admission that there can be no assimilation of Islam?

it is the worst time to say such a thing. I will explain why. From the beginning, the strategy of the radical Islamists has been to provoke the West into a general war against Islam. The reason that they have failed is that, as a rule, ordinary Moslems despise them even more than we do. I state this from my experience of one year in the Islamic world and subsequent 15 years of personal contact with Moslems. The Islamist propaganda has always centered on promoting a conflict between Christianity and Islam, a thing so patently absurd that's its net effect was to make extreme radicals appear ridiculous just for making such a claim. How could a culture so secular as to permit Serrano EVER make Christianity the basis for a war against Islam? Along with other things, this was pointed out to me in the unlikely locale of Mazar-i-Sharif.

 What will provoke the West into a war against Islam is support from the one quarter that has done its absolute best to resist it - the Press. And the way to get the press involved is to threaten their power and their glory - freedom of speech. When they start beating the drums, it will be impossible to avoid a general war, a war that the Islamists will use to confirm what they have always propagandized - the West is out to destroy Islam.

 The meme is already out: Civilization against the Barbarians. Here's what will happen. Outraged by the threat to free speech, the most egregious and insulting depictions of Mohammed will appear, followed by insults to Whom Moslems consider to be G-d. As our colleague Boomer called for last night, oceans of piss will appear. Any calls for moderation and circumspection will be called objective support for Islamic fascism. We will have effectively told ordinary Moslems that we fight not for Christianity but for piss Christ. Remember that when it sinks in that we've been had by the Islamists.

 As a final note, I have never called for violence or defended it any way. I appeal now, in my own name, for people to reason a little and to use a little circumspection: Who wins here?  

has a load of Danish products on her website.

I bought a Danish ham for dinner tonight, that is what immediately came to my mind.

Does that count? But the point is well taken. I would be pretty pissed off at someone who was depicting St. Paul or St. Peter in a bad light the way these cartoons have done to Muhammed. And my points in other diaries and news entries stand: I really hate people who perform publicity stunts and call it either "art" or "a political statement." I do think making those cartoons was pointless and only done to be antagonist. When anyone, conservative or liberal, does that, it irritates me quite a bit.

But the unbelievable response to cartoons published in a Danish magazine a MONTH AGO is just too much for me now. Especially in light of the Danish embassies getting torched. But what can we really do besides launch a 21st century style crusade? Not much except tell those who are offended that THEY are the ones who need to go to hell.

Now this I can support.

Keeping the focus on the war, rather than on an implicit support for the worst of free speech, allows us to support the Danes against our enemy without setting a cultural precedent to be used against us at home later.

Nice work.

Yet aren't ordinary Moslems are allies, too?

Which "ordinary" muslims were you referring to? The ones who remain silent while terrorist acts are perpetrated in the name of islam, the ones who dance in the street when terrorists acts are perpetrated in the name of islam, the ones who support terrorists acts with their money, the ones that are hoping Iran goes nuclear so Israel can be wiped off the map, or the ones who commit terrorist acts themselves that they may become martyrs to earn their 21 virgins?

Which of these are our allies?

The Danes have inadvertently exposed a rather poisonous form of fascism. Fascism is wrong whether it come from Berlin, Rome or Mecca. What is more disturbing is that this new fascism is about to acquire nuclear weapons.

I have to disagree with many of you here.  While I certainly do NOT support the violence some Muslims are advocating, they kind of have a point.  This whole episode is a clear example of Europes bigotry towards religion and towards muslims.  

The newspapers clearly have the right to publish those cartoons, but is it the right thing to do?  I can understand the initial incident, but the intentional re-publishing of the cartoons is a clear slap in the face of Muslims in Europe.  Frankly, the editors of those papers are using freedom of the press as an excuse to antagonize people of faith.  

The press should not be censored by the government, but there should be a clear call by people in power to have the newspapers voluntarily pull those depictions of their God.  

As evidenced by the lack of participation in the Iraq war, and the reluctance to admit Turkey to the EU, Europe considers people of the middle east second class citizens IMHO.  

Europe, like the former communist USSR, is slowly becoming God-less, and this is further evidence of that.  How long until they start publicly rediculing Jesus?

for chivalrously engaging me on this matter. As I have stated to you before, both on these pages in and in personal correspondence, I believe it is the duty of all people living within the United States to either assimilate themselves or leave. As a group, I don't know if Moslem assimilation as a whole is possible, although I know that it is possible for individual Moslems to adapt. In the latter case, it is more a question of conscience and personally arrived at rapproachment between the conflicting demands of religious obligation and secular society. If it were up to me, I would deport any person, Moslem or otherwise, who attempted to impose their beliefs on American society.

 Which leads me to say that one of the things that I hope comes out of this is a careful and honest discussion about the relationship between free speech and, for lack of a better term, spiritual courtesy, in the United States. More precisely, exactly when did free speech, originally intended to counteract the abuse of power, become a weapon of humiliation and insult to religious people? What has been overlooked here, I believe, is what amounts to a sophisticated form of religious persecution, while we are all aware that there are enormous consequences for uttering certain things against what has become an oppressive secular power. Speaking truth to power seems to be in order here.

You disagree with many here. But you think the violence being advocated is wrong. But those threatening the violence do have a point. But the papers have a right to publish the cartoons. But doing so is being antagonistic. But the press should not be censored, but the government should pressure them to censor themselves, but they might (MIGHT? ha!!) start making fun of Jesus.

So what is the point of all that back and forth? Everyone should sit back and fail to feel confronted by the protesters? Or that death threats don't matter? Like lefties after 9/11, saying you disagree with the violence but understand it is a pointless point. It should be stood against. It should not be tolerated.

I'll never forget the lefties arguing about the execution of the students at that elementary school some years ago, how we had to understand where the terrorists were coming from. That line of thinking was garbage then, and it's garbage now. There's nothing to understand about calls for a new holocaust. Not one thing. Understanding time is over.

I mean the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who are fighting side by side with us against the Islamists, the tens of thousands of Afghan soldiers who are fighting side by side with us against the Islamist, and the tens of millions of ordinary Moslems who have flatly rejected the propaganda of the Islamists. But I see the point you're trying to make, John, they're all just some species of gook, anyway.

Now you're calling people racists. If you think that more Muslims are on our side than theirs, then that's what you think. Everyone who fails to share that optimistic point of view isn't a racist by extension.

All one has to do is look at the France situation to see that. Or the UK for that matter. Look, those death threats really do not amount to a whole lot. Yes Theo Van Gogh was murdered, but I think the point those who agree with me are trying to make is that Muslims getting violently upset, burning things and chanting "death to whomever" in the streets is not anything new. It's such a typical response that if they had reacted differently I would honestly have been shocked.

We should not stand up and say "these cartoons are great, they are demonstrating a good point about Islam and the Muslim world." They are in poor taste and are just antagonistic for really no good reason. Now those artists get to look like heroes for a noble cause when really they are just acting like children.

The proper response is to softly say that those drawings are offensive, that we won't be printing them here, but that there's no reason Muslims should be getting violent because of what some unbeliever drew and published in an obscure paper.  And then put some muscle into saying we will not tolerate violence towards the Danes or anyone who reprinted them... though we encourage all publications to cut the nonsense. The Euros have put themselves into this position and while we have an obligation to defend freedom and our allies, we should not defend idiocy.

Fascinating. And how is it that we are not saying that very thing? I thought you said you disagreed with those posting here. Sounds like you pretty well summed up what most people have been saying to me. Drawings were offensive, but the reaction is out of control and must be stopped.

What then are the alternatives? We are being presented with some number of people in our midst who are not only prepared to carry signs calling for death to the infidels but clearly are prepared to carry out those threats.

Do we change our standards of freedom in order not to upset these fanatics? Then if we inhibit speech to respect Muslims do we not also have to inhibit it to respect Catholics, Hindus, et al? Muslims don't eat pork so what does the grocery chain do when they say we won't shop here until you stop selling pork? Muslims pray 5 times a day. What do we do when they demand that they be provided prayer rooms and time off to pray? What do we tell everyone else? No, you Catholics can't have a chapel on site but the Muslims can?

Do we round them up and remove them to somewhere else?

What do you propose as the way for western civilization to deal with this? How far are you prepared to go to cater to their demands, because make no mistake, that's what we are talking about; and the demands will not stop there.

Without the death threats and violence, how is this different from boycotting Walt Disney for providing same-sex benefits and sponsoring "gay day?"  Paul, given the strength and passion of your own beliefs, I would think you would share a bit more understanding for the religious versus us nasty secular jerks who put Christ in urine and put bombs in the Prophet's turban.

I stand with the Danes absolutely and without reservation.  Some of the pictures were unkind, but that's the reality of a free press.  My feelings would be the same if they published cartoons of Jesus in drag.  Where we differ is that I don't believe the violence and threat of violence is a product of Islam, per se, but the culture of the countries which are Islamic.  

Certainly the religion of a culture influences and informs the culture, but I do not think it is the end of the story here.  Couple that with the fact right now we've got both fists up the tar baby in Iraq right, some of this is just an excuse to react to the imposition of Western will on Middle Eastern reality.  We've kicked the wasp nest - no surprise they are swarming at every provocation now.

Question: is there no benefit, no avenue for the strongly faithful in the West to reach out to the strongly faithful in the Middle East to come to some understanding of faith and secularity?  Must it be a war with the entire Muslim faith?  I can't answer that question - I have few tools to discuss and analyze the requirements of faith because I am not one of the faithful.  It would seem on some deep level, there must be a common ground between those of strong faith versus the overarch of modern secularity.  

My compliments to all on the discussion so far.  Well done.

It seems to me that this is not a close call.  

The cartoons may be impolite - but are well within accepted pratice in Europe (and the US).  

The Muslim response - calling for censorship, arson, murder, and even civil war is extreme.  When viewed in comparison to the repeated, offensive, and government sponsored attacks on other religions by Muslims, it appears ludicrous.

The actions - kidnappings and arson (that I have seen reported so far)- are beyond this - they simply NOT ACCEPTABLE.

What would the reaction be if an American religous group (your choice) burned the Saudi Embassy in Wahsington because they were angered by the editorial content of Saudi papers?

It seems the proper European and US response here is to treat the Muslims as equals - fully support freedom of speech on all sides, denounce threats, and aggreassively prosecute any violence in the Europe/US.  

And perhaps to suggest that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

TANSTAAFL

precisely, what a man will do, and what another will not, it is better to judge each man by his own, individual act.

Granted, jihadism, and the disciples of the subject, can be considered by most reasonable men to be evil.  However, the rational judgement made by reasonable men bears no semblance to 'racism', in any sense of the word.

...if we cannot legitimately expect the adherents of a particular religion or cultural group to act like responsible adults when faced with challenges to it, we might as well have that full war now and be done with it.  I say this as someone who doesn't even remotely believe that Islam is incompatible with the West, or that it's pernicious.  But its more hotheaded adherents will learn en masse to play nice - either on their own, or because they'll be taught to.

I mildly but firmly suggest that the first option would be in their best interests.

Moe

PS: We don't use or tolerate racial epithets on this site.  Full stop.

Most especially the "I demand to be banned" schtick, which is making its third or fourth go-round with you, when the ability to not post here is nonetheless manifestly available to you.

However, when you call your opponents racist, it rises above the level of annoyance into a violation of the posting rules. An apology is in order to John Stark, posthaste.

The Koran specifically calls for use of violence against converts and nonbelievers. It is not a peaceful religion. Look around the world where Islamic society bumps up against others -- Kashmir, Thailand, the Phillippines, the southern Caucus region, Israel, middle Africa, and now even the streets of Paris and Copenhagen -- violence results.

So what do we do? We can continue to fight defensive battles at the periphery, or we can go into their heartland and try to wrestle them into modernity. This is exactly what the Iraq campaign is all about. It is a bold, costly, and extremely risky proposition and I haven't a clue how it will turn out. But if it works it will have been worth it. This of course is something left wingers will never concede.

Granting that, why not just keep Islamic society at arm's length, rather than encouraging it to develop in New Jersey and London?  It makes no sense to declare perpetual war on a benighted fifth of the world's population for the sake of safe streets in western countries. That object could be far more easily accomplished via a sensible immigration policy.  Do we have a moral obligation to spread the blessings of "democracy" to them?  It all sounds rather like the White Man's Burden, to which I can only say, include me out.  If they're not over here, and we're over there only to the minimum level required by commerce, then there's no problem for us, is there?  With all due respect to our President, the Islamic countries have almost no capacity to harm us, and their terrorists even less so, provided we don't let them in.

manifestations of poor taste often go unresponded, and the offender is the one who looks silly. In this case, many in the Muslim world have decided to respond to the insult of the cartoons with even more tasteless threats. Right here, where we are now, is a pretty good place to drop the matter.

But if it should happen that someone in Europe is beheaded over this, then we shouldn't be surprised if a dam breaks and it becomes impossible to avoid a much stronger response to Muslim intolerance. Especially since, as you rightly point out, the press will join for the first time on the anti-extremism side.

If that happens, popular outrage may finally force Europe to wake up to the threat long-aborning in their midst, in a way that the brutal murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh did not.

...it is in point of fact impossible to keep the rest of the planet out in any meaningful sense.  The existence of international air travel alone punches large holes into any Fortress America scheme, and I can think of at least three terrorist scenarios which will blithely ignore anything less than a full hermetic sealing of the entire country.

And no, I'm not going to mention any of them in public.  A little thought should be enough for anybody keeping up with this to work the scenarios out on their own - or come up with their own disturbing variants.  Which is, really, part of the problem.

Perhaps the difference is just in the way we present the argument. Many here seem to be saying that these protests amount to war and that the Danes should post whatever cartoons they want without getting any flak in response. Or that the reaction one sees today is utterly ludicrous.

I am simply stating that utter lunacy typifies the Middle East when it comes to issues like this, so why are we so outraged or shocked? And there are few really spelling out why the cartoons are offensive and wrong to publish in the first place. I just felt that when I tried to say something to the contrary that all of a sudden folks thought I was defending the response. I'm not. I'm saying that they're right to be offended and of course they're going to go nuts because they have nothing better to do.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/04/international/i1306
51S16.DTL

Sorry, but iv'e yet to see christians or jews burning down embassys when theyve been mocked in the press.

Are we still hopefull that these peoples can truly from free democracies?

Shall we take pictures from the last LA Riots, and question whether Americans are capable of having a fair justice system instead of mob bloodlust?

I think the ridicule of Jesus has already been going on over here in the United States.  For quite some time, even; I had an 1972 album by the Jefferson Airplane (those San Francisco Leftie-rockers amongst whose membership one Grace Slick lays claim to) in which one of the featured songs depicted Him as a swinger fathering children with Mary Magdeline.  If that's not ridicule, I don't know what is.

And of course there was the whole NEA-sponsored deal with crucifixes in urine, etc.  I don't recall anything more exciting than calls to our Congress to pull the taxpayer funding plug on the agency or boycott the museums which carried the exhibits.  At least they were calling for someone to turn themselves into a human bomb in a crowd of viewers, kidnap the artists and have someone saw their heads off with a rusty sabre, or otherwise have random viewers and museum curators' skulls smashed to a pulp by grapefruit-sized stones lobbed by an angry mob.  That's the difference between 21st-Century Christians and 13th-Century Islamic fanatics.

Clean up your own house. That's the solution. If this other and apparently much larger demographic of Muslims doesn't want this war, then only they can stop it. Protesting offensive cartoons is one thing. Protesting them by burning embassies is another. The failure on the part of this large demographic that you speak of to present a public face of outrage and resistance is compounded by the success of the Islamists in putting a public face of war forward.

How can you put the onus here? How are the everyday Muslims you champion not the ones with a responsibility to stand up or speak out?

We can only do what we can do. How then, to meet the threat?

And then lets compare the burning of some property and cars to the images of a man having his head sawed off by scimitar.

Is all violence equal? I don't think so.

and got home intending to correct it. But I'm also weary, and I don't take orders from people. No apology will be forthcoming.

I get annoyed and upset when I see Christianity mocked. However, I could not begin to fathom holding up signs that say "Behead those that mock Jesus" and setting buildings on fire.

So no, I can't see much common ground there.

...that the LA Riots were secretly instigated by the US government.

Which is not saying that I disagree with you on whether Muslims can form free societies.  I, in fact, think that they can - and will, with sufficient motivation.  I am gratified that the Syrian regime is sufficiently worried that I'm right that they're trying to distract their subjects.

The point is that the rioters (and let's not forget that the LA riots weren't bloodless) in LA are no more representative of Americans than these Islamofascist rioters are of Arabs.

You knew your conduct was over the line, you knew it violated the posting rules, yet because I pointed it out, you won't apologize (keeping in mind that it's not me that you owe the apology to).

We all make our decisions, I guess.

Blam.

The riots in los angeles, and even those in the 60's were quelled by law enforcement, and the state.

These acts of violence are being supported by the state.

There is a huge difference.

And I have yet to hear from one muslim cleric decrying this violence.

There may yet be democracy in these countries, but it wont happen in my lifetime.

Yes, that speaks to a difference between the governments in the US and Syria.

People are people, though.

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, Christian faith or any other 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.

Re: Without the death threats and violence, how is this different from boycotting Walt Disney for providing same-sex benefits and sponsoring "gay day?"  

That's an awfully big "other than" Rather like the difference between botcotting the bus company and bombing the bus company.

numerous scenarios wherein grave destruction could be inflicted upon Western countries by terrorists or Muslim states, but the fact remains that they are either fantastic or merely highly unlikely. The actual attacks that have taken place in Madrid, London, Paris, the Netherlands, and Manhattan have been possible only because of Western societies permitting or encouraging (hostile) Islamic communities to exist within them.  In any event, a pretty good seal is better than none at all.  The insinuation that, since we can't seal out all of them, we may as well not even bother would be absurd in almost any other field, though it reminds me of liberal arguments against missile defense.  Besides, even if one were to grant that rolling back Muslim immigration with even a fraction of the same diligence that Muslim states have attacked their own, usually ante-Islamic non-Muslim minorities would have no effect, it is still far from self-evident that democratizing the Islamic world is the solution to our problems.  There is nothing inherently peaceful about democracies, and American history should give the lie to American propaganda on that count.  But even granting that democratization is the solution, it is even more doubtful that the United States has the capacity to force it on a billion people who show little interest in it and tend to hate us already.  It is, on the other hand, quite likely that the effort will exhaust us.

Before I een bother about commenting, please tell me that this was sarcastic.

You can't  be serious, right?

I always feel better when I'm in agreement with you.

I don't ultimately agree with Joe. He has the nugget of a fair point and he pushes it too far. I do not like to see him banned tho' and if I had any creds I'd appeal on his behalf. He has a pov worth reading and every man has to, at some point, preserve his self-respect. We are all guilty of pride now and then and he did admit he was out of line in his own mind, but declined to do it under the threat of enforcement. Its a little ironic in the current context as he is standing up for his own right of self determination in decision, one he apparently would have made had it not been demanded of him, in the face of sanctions from those in power.

In the final analysis its between Joe and John, regardless of banning, so perhaps Joe will see that, come what may, and I hope he may come back.

Joe certainly had the option of saying, "I apologize to John because I know he's not a racist, but since Leon H is such an overbearing jerk I'm not posting here anymore." Thusly, he could have proven that he at the very least meant what he said about desiring to take it back.

I would similarly have understood his refusal to apologize to me, if he absolutely felt that such a response was necessary - but it wasn't me he insulted. Therefore, I think less than nothing of his motivations in this particular instance.

Joe's asked to be banned on several different occasions. The bottom line is that he set out to force our hand this time.

too.  The entire concept of taking on faith the acts of the Divine, regardless of the faith chosen, is a radical one.

How you jump from that to the idea that the 3 million Muslim-Americans are threats to society who cannot co-exist with the rest of us, I'm not sure.  And I'd suggest you meet a few Muslims before claiming that they all hate America.  I know quite a few who beg to differ.  

That's the question posed by this op/ed in The Telegraph.

It's some time since I visited Palestine, so I may be out of date, but I don't remember seeing many Danish flags on sale there. Not much demand, I suppose. I raise the question because, as soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn.

. . .

Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.

. . .

It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

Like the man says, 'just asking.'

"I know quite a few who beg to differ."

This sentiment keeps getting repeated. It's very nice, I'm sure, that you know Muslims who like America. I happen to know a few who serve America in the Armed Forces.

And so what? Don't recognize that there is a problem between Islam and the west? There is. These riots are only the latest evidence.

I know you are reacting to what you see as unfair or sweeping condemnations. But personally, I'm becoming a bit exhausted by the incessant repetition about not "all" Muslims being this or that.

There is an obvious obstacle between Islam and integration with Western society. That you and I know a few exceptions to the rule doesn't mean it isn't so.

Did I hit a sore spot?

The obvious purpose of my statements was to draw out the point that muslims do little to nothing to stop or speak against the violence that their own religious tenents promote. Is every muslim a terrorist? Obviously not, but a little hyperbole demonstrates the problem at hand, namely that muslims, by and large, are either silent partners in terrosim committed in the name of islam, or active endorses, supporters, and partakers in it.

When I see muslims make actual reforms to their religion that makes the use of violence anathema, then I'll view adherents to that religion less suspiciously. Note that I didn't say proclamations or fatwahs, I said actual reforms. Mouthing platitudes is not enough. Islamic terrorism has been going on for decade upon decade. Real efforts by muslims to stop this need to be undertaken. Until then, the religion is suspect.

Also, notice that the lefty charge of racism comes into play when we are talking about muslims. I wasn't talking about any particular people group (i.e., race). All muslims are not brown people, or "gooks." Muslims run the gamut, from arabs, to asians, to europeans, and so on. If I was talking about race, then it must be I'm racist against EVERYONE, a charge that is patently ridiculous. Islam is not Judaism, wherein race and religion often go hand in hand and are nearly inseparable. Muslims are adherents to a faith, WILLING adherents (usually willing, but even the unwilling are proof of the evil of this ideology). Last I checked, no one is born islamic. Suspicion of an ideology that has proven itself time and again to be violent and tyrannical is not racism in any form. Its simply a matter of common sense and practical application of logic, a recognition that ideas have consequences.

Consider the example of the Nazis (I'm sure someone is going to invoke godwin's law, but bear with me). It preached expansion of the german empire through blood and race. It preached the destruction of the Jews and other undesirables within german society. It openly spoke of violence as a means of securing its own destiny, and of attaining glory and power, and then acted upon its own ideals. Nazis weren't born nazis, they were people who accepted a specific ideology and acted upon it, or they were people who stood by and said/did nothing/little while nazism's reign of terror overshadowed the world.

Compare nazism to islam, and we'll see the same parallels. My comments had nothing to do with race, which of course people are born with and can't help. My comments were directed at an ideology, one which is demonstrably a matter of personal conscience and acceptance, and one that is demonstrably fanatical, violent, and totalitarian. Why? Because those are the tenets of that ideology, like it or not.

So, the only reason that I can see for race getting injected into this is the need on the part of my accuser to conflate the issue, due to the tremendous amount of evidence that is staring him in the face at the moment concerning the fundamental nature of islam.

Of course, since it seems Joe Rega will no longer be posting here, perhaps I've spilled my ink for no reason and he won't be seeing my reply. However, that doesn't mean we should let the conflating of two separate issues (ideology and race) stand. Its good when we can see where a debate has been side tracked by needless ad hominems and straw man arguments, for it clarifies why the talking points of the left are so wrong.

but just asking mind you ...

It's not about free speech, never has been, never will be.

Was the Danish press irresponsible for printing the cartoons? Who cares? That's not the issue either.

The issue here is the rampant overreaction by the psycho wing of Islam (which seems to be the dominant wing nowadays) and just how quickly the west is capitulating.

Our brave US media...these cartoons are barely anywhere to be seen. Indeed, the Boston Globe's editorial on the whole affair triggered Godwins' law, and you can just guess what side they fell on.

Freedom of speech, press responsibility are not topics we should be wasting our breath on regarding this. What is most important are two issues:

1)Will the muslims grow up?

2) More importantly, when will the west tell these lunatics to go sod off, and if they don't like it they can keep their protests peaceful or else?

I'm not going to argue that these this example proves that all Muslims have total tolerance for other religions. People of other religions in this example did get treated as second class citizens

I shouldn't, however, have to even finish writing this post - though I will. The Moors ruled Spain in the 1100's. At that time in hisory I think it would be fair to say that some Christian countries "[would] never allow other religions to co-exist." (davidba Feb. 5 2006). It is worth noting that this was pretty multicultural for its time (Christians, Jews and Muslims).

As a side note, the renaissance was at least partially facillitated through the transfer of knowledge preserved by Muslims in North Africa (also the invention of the notion of '0' incidently). I have found the discussion that has come out of this news topic rather interesting and the positions on all sides of the topic are interesting and compelling.

It suffices to say that in my humber opinion you have made an inaccurate categorical statement about a lot of people. I hope this instance from history will convince you to the contrary. It is probably more compelling then telling you that I know a number of Muslims and that they bare me no ill will.

The flip answer is that you've just answered your own question: people are up in arms because the people of the Middle East do, in fact, act like raging lunatics over issues of this type. For the past four years and change, it's been obvious that shrugging and saying "Oh, those crazy barbarians! Of course they go nuts when you do that!" is not an adequate response to the situation.

Anyway, there is a larger point, and one little touched upon in all the discussion of this issue. This is a trial of strength between the West and its enemies. The anger of these protestors is genuine, but the protests have not risen ex nihilo. We've heard about one of the  Danish imams taking the cartoons on tour through the Middle East to feed the flames, with three additional and grossly insulting cartoons added. This article (ht jsteele) asks, among other things, where did all those Danish flags now being burnt come from? We know, or ought to know, what Saudi money has wrought: Wahhabi imams, lashing their congregants to a frenzy, in the service of those who would see the West prostrate and bleeding beneath their sabres. Make no mistake: they test our mettle. It is a thing cherished in the West, by left and right alike, that speech alone should counter speech: not law to shut up men's mouths, nor violence to close them forever, but speech given in return. A weakness, perhaps, seeing the harm that the speech of fools and knaves may do, but a necessary one. They are determined that they shall not suffer from it: when their oracle shall ope his lips, let no dog bark. They seek to wrest from us the privilege we deny ourselves, freedom from the contumely of others, by naked threat and fear. And if they obtain it, who dare say they have not struggled with us and won? Half our battle is to rouse the sleepers here in the West, to persuade that the dreams of Caliphate and conquest are not a mere conjuror's jugglery. If our lips are stopped for fear we give offense, that battle is lost and lost forever.

Some — many — here have demurred, on the grounds that the cartoons are offensive to those Muslims who do not, in fact, wish to wage a bloody jihad against us, or that our approval provides ammunition for those within our own society who sap our strength by their attacks against Christianity and Western virtues in general. To the first, I say, this is a time for choosing sides. Two amendments were passed just this past week in the British Parliament to narrow the scope of a bill criminalizing "incitement to religious hatred," the first by ten votes, the second by one. Had they not passed, any speech deemed "threatening, insulting, or abusive" against members of a particular religion might have been prosecuted, even had they intended no offense. And when insults to Christians are met with letters to the editor, and insults to Muslims with riot and tumult, it is easy to see who would be prosecuted. We must go to this war with the cartoons we have, not the cartoons we want; if we wait for free speech to produce perfected fruits before we go forth to defend it, we will find that it has already been taken. The laws that take it will be, notionally, fair; but they will not answer the cause of justice, because they were forged in fear of thugs and the maniacs who lead them. A state that passes such a law in fear of evildoers will hardly dare to use it against them; and so it will be a tool in their hands instead, and with it they will strike down those who still have the courage to speak against them. To those who would demur for fear of giving strength to those among us who mock our own virtues and the Christian faith, what will they do that they do not do already? "You will be hated by all nations for my name's sake," and mockery will be our share until the end of the world. They forbear from mocking Islam not because they believe in "respect" for other people — they set that at a straw — but because they fear that disrespect of Islam will bring about horrible punishment at the hands of its votaries. A Christianity free of their gibes would be so not because they respected it, but because they lived in terror of it, and a terrible Christianity that would be indeed.

Again, I say, this is no time for shallow quibbling. As C.S. Lewis said, "the shadow of one dark wing is over all Tellus," for everywhere the fanatics have sent imams to raise the faithful against all that does not proceed from Allah. The arguments made by these cartoons, if they may be so dignified, are imperfect; but so are all arguments. To capitulate now is to tell our enemies that the threat of force is irrefrangible; it is to turn our own tradition of free thought and speech against ourselves, so that we can only corrode through self-abnegation. Their lies and slanders, ripples running dark through a stagnant culture choked with the scum of anti-Semitism, will be vaunted by them with pride; any who dare call them tyrants will be dragged down, not by their hands alone, but by those of their cowardly fellows, loving tranquility better than freedom. This must not be.

We must go to this war with the cartoons we have, not the cartoons we want; if we wait for free speech to produce perfected fruits before we go forth to defend it, we will find that it has already been taken.

I can't believe you made that work. But you did.

We should have some sort of award for people who think up stuff that good.

... and linked with approval at Obsidian Wings, Paul.

They weren't pointless. Perhaps someone who is a better writer than I can explain it to you. From Steyn:

Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point [...]. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.

That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.

The fact of the matter is, the cartoons were a welcome opportunity for Islamic fascism to show its strength. The cartoons themselves were completely irrelevant; a street vendor of hotdogs was beaten with a baseball bat yesterday in Copenhagen for selling "unclean meat".

The actual trigger doesn't matter.

I have no problem with boycotts.  Or protest marches.  Or speaking your mind if you happen to disagree with me.  That's part of living in a place way that values both free speech and the freedom of association.

If I have a choice, I don't give my money to Disney.  I don't go to George Clooney movies.  I don't buy Babs Streisand's CD's and I don't watch Jane Fonda do anything.  I happen to be offended by the conduct of all of those folks.  I'm also pretty well armed and moderately knowledgeable in the use of various things that can prove quite lethal.  I've yet to either threaten or construct a plot against any of the parties who've offended me.  (Other than to encourage others to not buy their stuff.)  If it's up to me, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore and John Kerry will all live to a ripe old age and I expect they will continue to offend me on a pretty regular basis.

Methinks we make this whole discussion way too complicated.  We seem to get all wound up about "offending" someone or their religion.  What we should be paying attention to is not who's offended this week, because I am probably more offended by the conduct of Islamic governments and "news" organizations than they are of ours, but by people's conduct.  

Generally speaking, in the West, when we have issues between people groups (us and the French), we attempt to reach a negotiated settlement.  Islamists have an issue, they attempt to kill the people on the other side of the issue.  Sorry, that's not acceptable behaviour and as long as that is their preferred mode of operating, I'm not interested in their "cause".  What I'm interested in doing is having a proactive policy that identifies their leaders and kills them before they are able to act.

What I have no interest in doing is caring that they are offended.  It's time the rest of the world, and ESPECIALLY the Muslim moderates (whereever they are), stand up to these folks and tell them to grow up and get civilized,

....is one of the most brilliant declamations I have ever read on this, or any, site.  Bravo.

But if it should happen that someone in Europe is beheaded over this, then we shouldn't be surprised if a dam breaks and it becomes impossible to avoid a much stronger response to Muslim intolerance.

Theo van Gogh.  The Danish(?) legislator who's name I can't remember.

Apparently the transport minister of Iraq has announced that they will cut off all ties with Denmark and Norway over the cartoon issue. so, this country for whom we have spent American soldiers and treasure, this country where 500 Danish soldiers still provide security.

And President Hamid Karzai, seemingly a god-send for Afghanistan, is incensed and demands that the Danish government take action to punish the newspaper.

Democracy and freedom are a long, long uphill struggle, a struggle that may never be accomplished.

But to my mind, a similar motivation, acted upon very differently.  And yes, the method of action matters greatly.  Note, I'm not excusing this behavior one bit - it is reprehensible and deserves every bit of the condemnation it has received and more.  

So, the logical extension of that comment is that since there is no condemnation of televised beheadings of "innocents" by Muslim leaders, Muslim politicians and Muslim governments, there would be no condemnation in the US if Muslims were kidnapped by folks from the Christian Coalition and beheaded for TV.

Give me a break.  This is turning into a complete exercise in silliness.  Riots in the US have been put down by force by US law enforcement.  In the '60's when rioting got out of the control of local police, the National Guard was immediately called in to stop it.  With the use of deadly force if necessary.  At the time, many responsible members of the communities involved in the rioting condemned it and tried to stop it.

Rioting in Muslim countries is winked at by the governments, except in the case where the people are assembling to protest for more freedom.  Muslim clerics not only are silent, but generally condone and encourage the violence.

I keep hearing about "moderates".  Where are they and why are they silent?

don't get killed by motivation or opinion, they get killed by action.

And posts like this are the reason.

5

The west and specifically Christians have been targeted by muslim fundamentalists for almost fifty years now, they have killed thousands if not millions and not one peep of outrage from any moderate muslims or Imams why is that? The muslim faith is the faith of a conqueror and if you read the Koran you will realize they will not and cannot allow any other culture or religion to coexist with them unless it is enslaved by them. This is a fundamental problem with our culture, government and people they do not understand the threat posed by not just fundamentalist islam but islam in general. It is beyond me why we have not come to understand this. Why do we not treat islam just like we did Nazism and Communism? We eradicated them and ostracized them and we should be doing the same to islam. We better wake up or we will all be paying Jizaya to our muslim masters it has already started in the Gaza strip in Bethlahem. The western world better start learning what islam is all about and understand that in the modern world where technology allows the killing of millions with one device we cannot afford nor allow a religion or idealogy like islam to exist and yes I know all the people who say but Christianity was just as bad look at the crusades or the inquasitions, this is true however, Christianity went through the reformation and became more tolarant, islam is not capable of doing the same thing read the paragraph after this to see why. I am sorry but most people in the wstern world are tragically wrong that is ok most everyone is on this issue becuase as civilized people we just cannot accept what needs to be done to solve the problem. I am sure this will get me tagged as an Islamophobe well so be it, I am sure in todays PC world if I were saying the same thing about Nazism I would be tagged with the same lable and Islam and Nazism are the same only differance is Islam is a religion and Nazism is an ideology.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Father Joseph Fessio, Provosty of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida about a meeting between the Pope and a muslim scholar you can read the whole thing HERE it was not good read on:

HH: And so, is it fair to describe him(the Pope) as a pessimist about the prospect of modernity truly engaging Islam in the way modernity has engaged Christianity?

JF: Well, the other way around.

HH: Yes. I meant that.

JF: Yeah, that Christianity can engage modernity just like it did...the Jews did Egypt, or Christians did to Greece, because we can take what's good there, and we can elevate it through the revelation of Christ in the Bible. But Islam is stuck. It's stuck with a text that cannot be adapted, or even be interpreted properly.

HH: And so the Pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?

JF: Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims.

HH: And so, even the dialectic that was the Reformation is not possible within Islam?

JF: No. And then a second thing which he did not say, but which I would have said, I might have said at the time, is that...and this is from a Catholic point of view, there's no one to interpret the Koran officially. the Catholic Church has an official interpretor, which is the Holy Father with the bishops.

HH: Right. Well, let me ask you then. If, in fact, that reformation within Islam is not possible in the eyes of the Pope, and the demographics do not change, as they are unlikely to change in Europe, the last time Christendom went under the waves, so to speak, in Europe, there were the monasteries, beseiged as they were by the barbarians, sacked as they were by the Vikings, they endured.

JF: Yeah.

HH: That doesn't happen in modernity, because of the technology of oppression. And you've just noted the reluctance of Islam to accept religious pluralism, or to embrace it and celebrate it.

You can also read a really good article at American thinker by James Arlandson HERE or you can type his name in the archive search and read all his articles.

Re:  The muslim faith is the faith of a conqueror and if you read the Koran you will realize they will not and cannot allow any other culture or religion to coexist with them unless it is enslaved by them.

Last time I checked Islam has coexisted with several cultures for at least 1400 years. Else we would all be Muslism (as would the Chinese, Hindus, Japanese, American Indians, Australian Aborigines, Bantu Africans, etc. etc.) even if what you say is true, Islam, even in its greatest age, lacked the means to conquer the world, and it most certainly lacks that means today, when it is the second weakest of all the world's major civilizations (only Africa is more of a mess than the Middle East.) Hitler had the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe that almost no one could stand against. Islam can't even win a battle against a tiny nation (Israel) in its own midst.

Last time I checked Islam has coexisted with several cultures for at least 1400 years.

Ummm, yeah. They coexisted in the sense that they weren't able to conquer all of their neighbors, partly due to their neighbors fighting back, and partly due to their own internal disputes (as well as other reasons).

But they haven't peacefully coexisted. Not in the sense that you're trying to give here.

[snip]...even if what you say is true, Islam, even in its greatest age, lacked the means to conquer the world, and it most certainly lacks that means today, when it is the second weakest of all the world's major civilizations (only Africa is more of a mess than the Middle East.) Hitler had the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe that almost no one could stand against. Islam can't even win a battle against a tiny nation (Israel) in its own midst.

This is a bit disingenuous. Israel has had the support and backing of one of the most powerful military forces in the history of mankind, namely the US. Furthermore, Isreal has had nukes for some time, which is an excellent deterent. Its rather silly to say that islam is weak because it can't defeat Isreal, a nation backed both by nuclear capability and the world's last super power.

Given that Iran may already have a few nukes, or is at least rapidly speeding towards the day that they will have such an arsenal, we may see a middle eastern state with its own version of the Wermacht soon enough.

Let me ask you, since Christianity was born in the ME and Mohommad lived in a village that was predominantly Christian and the ME was mostly Christian what happened to all the Christians? Answer they were driven out or forced to convert also the first crusades no matter what the PC people want you to believe was a defensive response to muslim incursions into Europe read the truth HERE the other thing you do not address is the point I made about modern technology and how it changes everything a country does not need large armies(at the end of WWII the US thought about eliminating all of its armed forces and just maintaining a nuclear response) they just need Nukes and a delivery system whether that is a terrorist smuggling it into a country or an ICBM also don't forget about modern gentic engineering can you say biological terrorism? Its coming sooner or later.

I have reread this several times over the last day or so and have referenced you at my blog this morning. Your post is an outstanding answer to what are indeed to the two biggest objections to defiance.

Via Michelle Malkin this morning I read this post at Counterterrorism blog, which addresses some of the same points. I recommend it.

Wow.

Just, wow.

Re: But they haven't peacefully coexisted. Not in the sense that you're trying to give here.

Has any civilization ever existed peacefully? Maybe some hunter-gatherer cultures too primitive to have the means for war, but that's all I can think of. China, Europe, India, the Incas and Aztecs, and all the rest: war has been a tool of national aggrndizement for one and all. I don't think we can condmen Islam for being in any way uniquely belligerent or imperialistic. We can of course fight back but we have n