Redstate

What Next? Driver Beware

sad to see nations cutting their own wrists, but I have a hunch they will recover before they've bled out.

I am with you 100% on these atrocious restrictions on free speech.  They remind me of the creeping speech codes on university campuses that impede free expression and open debate even about controversial topics.  That being said...

"a foe with a communal identity and a firmness of belief"

If this is referring to Islam, I must point out that we are not in a War with Islam.  If it is a description of Al Queda, then so be it although I saw no restrictions on speech about our enemy Al Queda.

....the totality of our enemy, as you well know.  Our enemies are those who take the Islamic principles of jihad and dhimmi to their logical (or illogical, as you prefer) extremes, resulting in predictable violence.  Whether this puts us in a "war with Islam" is wholly dependent upon the extent to which these things are separable from Islam: that is a matter for Muslims to decide, not us.

I don't think that the danger from these laws is that a society such as Britain's will roll over and croak (although I will not speculate as to the fate of our Neighbors to the North).

I think the danger in them is that they set the stage for the rise of a demagogue by tarnishing current political leadership as hopelessly naive.

As we know, such appeasement will not work. The bombs will go off anyway, and people will continue to be killed. And so the day arrives when that event occurs which, in hindsight, is called "the spark."

No one knows when that day will arrive, but it is inevitable, and it marks the day when a critical mass of the public loses faith in its political leadership and begins looking for someone who will Solve The Problem.

Not to bring Godwin down on me, but this is how horrible things happen. Somewhere out there is a Pym Fortuyn or a Tom Tancredo who will find himself in the right place at the right time, and he will be swept into office on a tide of anger and determination. "Tolerance" will not be one of his campaign promises. I doubt we will see gas ovens, but we will see mass deportations, mass internments, and a little civilian pogrom action that enjoys the same protection from its locals that the terrorists received from theirs.

The Muslims may think that we are over there waging war on them. But we are just taking a few tentative steps. Our goal so far is to avoid a war. The truth is, Muslims have not seen Westerners wage actual war in centuries. We have much better tools now. If there is another Crusade, it will be the last.

I hate to give Diane Feinstein credit for anything, but her call for the world's mullahs to start tamping down the jihad — instead of surreptituously encouraging it — is right on the mark. That is where it has to come from if it's to have any effect. Something had better have an effect soon, because otherwise the world is going to become a very unpleasant place for Muslims... all Muslims.

are you referring to with the comment "a foe with a communal identity and a firmness of belief?"

It seems you have already decided that we are fighting the 1 billion Muslim believers.

have to wake up to the dangers of Islam in general. Any reasonable analysis by Koranic scholars shows that there are two broad eras in which the Koran was written.

One was where Mohammed was waging war against various unbelievers. It was in this era that most reasonable scholars agree that most of the more violent expressions in the Koran come from.

The other era was when Mohammed had won his wars and had his enemies subjugated. Most reasonable scholars agree that it was in this period that the more peaceful parts of the Koran were written.

The conclusion that most reasonable people will draw from this reasonable analysis is that Islam's true manifestation is violent when under attack and peaceful when its enemies have been subjugated.

Where does this leave the West? The Left generally blames the West for violent manifestations of Islam. The Left is unwittingly correct. However, they are dimwittedly wrong in assuming there is some sort of Islam that is moderate that will acquiese to the Western way of life.

Furthermore, we are increasingly seeing "moderate" Islam being radicalised by "militant" Islam.

Until the West realises that Islam will continue to be violent until it sees the subjugation of its enemies (ie. the US, Israel and the West in general), the West will continue to "bleed" as expressed by a previous contributor.  

How do we deal with this? By subjugating ourselves to Sharia law and the Koran? This will surely get bin Laden off our backs.

Well if the Left follows its current train of thought truthfully and honestly, we would all be subject to Sharia law. If the Left realises the folly and naievity of its tolerance toward Islam, the West can unite and save itself.

We also need to be frank about the causes of Islamic terrorism. It is a reaction by Islam to the pervasiveness of Western culture in Islamic countries and therefore the undermining of Islamic values in Islamic countries. It is the US liberating Iraq. It is Israel as a state not delivering the Palestinians their homeland for 50+ years after they agreed to under Balfur.

Does this mean the West should be "tolerant" and not spread the ideals of democracy and liberty throughout the world? I don't think so.

Does this mean we should be encouraging Israel (as is seemingly being done by Bush's admin) to deliver the Palestinians a homeland? Yes, because it is the right thing to do. (NB: I don't think this alone will stop Islamic terrorism.)

Islamic terrorism is not a recent development. It has been with humanity for 1400 years. We need a final solution consistent with the ideals we espouse.

Undoubtably, I have missed explaining something properly. But I just wanted tell someone that the West's understanding of Islam is very poor and thus our response to its violent manifestation will be inadequate.

What is this final solution to the ominous threat hanging over the West?

I don't know the full answer to that at the moment. Ann Coulter is on the record as saying we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

I agree with the last part of her statement. But not when the Gospel is thrust down people's throat with a gun pointing at their head. It is the Holy Spirit that leads to conversion, not a gun.

It was an enormous effort to convert what I think into coherent sentences. I apologise for any incoherance.

In the wake of not one but two attempted bombings by Islamists and scores dead, the United Kingdom may well pass a law making it illegal to say unkind things about Islam.

Actually, it's "illegal to say unkind things about any religion" (of which Islam, Anglicanism, Judiaism, Buddhism, are all examples).  Indeed, that's true of each of your examples.  (The Austrialian law is of relatively recent vintage; but it's important to note that the French and Italian laws are not.)  

I don't think you've established your causal point, however, that these laws are a retreat from the battle against radical Islam.  Or that these laws were even passed based on a motivation to protect Islam.  Indeed, it's somewhat ironic that the modern version of these laws find their best purchase in our closest war allies, Britain and Australia.  

Now, if your point is that these are stupid laws that are likely to be misapplied in all manner of circumstances, I'm with you.*  Such a point, however, is not particularly evident from your piece.

And, of course, none of these citations provide an answer to our argument here -- http://von.redstate.org/story/2005/7/22/11361/5924; string beginning at comment 5 -- but at least you're no longer just making assertions without evidence.  

von

*My position is that laws that criminalize anti-religious speech are fundamentally misguided, regardless of the religion being protected.

it is political correctness run amuck, and restricting speech isnt going tomake the boogie man go away.

I also think the biggest mistake in the WOT is that we made our enemy a tactic, when we are in fact at war with those who believe in the jihadist movement.  Until the PC crowd realizes that they are going to continue to demand idiotic PC solutions to what is a problem that goes beyond issues of speech.

It is a fundamental mistake to discard our notions of morality, fairness, and justice as too quaint for the modern troubles.  We are not witnessing a change in history; in the grand scheme of things, the current conflict between the West and radical Islamism is a relatively minor flare up.  Compare it to the battles between capitalism and communism or the West and Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan:  by any measure, this is low-grade.  Don't blow it out of the proportion.

I'm not arguing against a vigorous response to terrorism or policies intended to fundamentally alter the ME or a robust homeland security program.  I'm arguing for some measure of perspective.  For we do have both the power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas others are brave from ignorance or hesitate upon reflection.

Indeed, the real lesson of 9-11 is not that "everything changed."  It's that "nothing has changed" -- there remain, in fact, still bad people in this bad old world.  Best to keep that big stick handy.

von

police?

Now if speech does indeed incite violence that is and should be illegal, but I am not into "gee if everybody says only nice things the jihadists won't want to kill us anymore" idea.  

GOing uber PC isn't the answer.  

It is a fundamental mistake to discard our notions of morality, fairness, and justice as too quaint for the modern troubles.

We are not the ones who lack for preachers counseling restraint. We already have plenty; it's those Other Guys who need more.

by any measure, this is low-grade.

My point in the note above is that We The Intelligentia do not get to decide when the threshold of no longer being "low grade" has been crossed. My expectation is that the "spark" will be a first use of a nuclear or chemical WMD. But it could also be the bombing of a busload of schoolchildren, or a Beslan-type incident, or some other thing we don't even see coming.

We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that once the public flips on this, it's over. Further preaching will fall on deaf ears. People will not want to hear preaching. They will want to hear the concrete steps that leadership will take to make sure that whatever-that-was never happens again.

The motivation will no longer be "keep us safe." It will be "get those people out of here. Now." Anyone who counsels patience and tolerance in that environment will be blown off the stage. It will be too late for that.

Note that I am not advocating that any of this happen. I believe that I am stating some common-sense observations about how humans are known to react when threatened by The Other. There comes a point when humans are no longer quite so human. That's too bad, but there it is, and we'd best not forget that it is there.

I absolutely, unequivocally, and completely* oppose any law that prohibits (whether as part of the civil or ciminal law) the criticism of religion.  I find the laws (and proposed laws) recited by Trevino as abhorrent as he does.  The differences, to the extent they exist, are why we find the laws abhorrent and what we believe the laws to signify in the greater scheme of things.  

Put another way:  it's frequently a very wise thing to be PC, and to take care not to needlessly give offense (it used to be called "being polite").  But one should not legislate niceties, lest we get churchmen condemned in their pulpits for preaching.

von

*I managed to use three adjectives that mean the same thing.

Islamic terrorism is not a recent development. It has been with humanity for 1400 years. We need a final solution consistent with the ideals we espouse.

I'm not going to argue that Muhammad waged war in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond. But it wasn't terrorism.

And, although far be upon it for me to restrict your right to speech, but I suggest you watch the "final solution" rhetoric. It has implications I'm sure you didn't mean.

Note that I am not advocating that any of this happen. I believe that I am stating some common-sense observations about how humans are known to react when threatened by The Other. There comes a point when humans are no longer quite so human. That's too bad, but there it is, and we'd best not forget that it is there.

I understand.  But I also think that reaffirming our core values in the face of outrages is critical to keeping the "flip" from occurring.  Britain retained her character under circumstances far graver than these during the blitz.  Yet, some of my countrymen* seem determined to wash it all away at the first bump in the road.  

What we need now are steadiness and resiliance.  

von

*Not Trevino, FTR.  Although his seeing of conspiracies and vast historical movements in a handful of disconnected laws does give "aid and comfort," so to speak, to those folks who would ruin the good things in this country out of their own self-centered fear and anger.  Measure, proportionality, clarity of thought, and rememberance that, in history's long sweep, this barely qualifies as a burp:  These are the things that we need to remember.

"three adjectives"

Erm, adverbs.  Somewhere, my junior high English teacher is pulling out what remains of her hair.

Islamic jihadist consider the war on terror to be waging war-they use terrorism, because they don't have armies (and the waging of weaponry has pretty much changed the face of modern war).

So while we call it a war on terror, they call it a jihad (and did so before we decided to engage in this war).  They do think they are at war.

Didn't I explicitly state whom in the comment to which you are now responding?

I think you should probably avoid using the phrase "final solution" in general, and in posts that border on calling for the extermination of Islam in particular.

And what is that difference in your mind?

Of course on two points.

First, of course it's all about you and your sterling points referenced.

Second, of course these laws and/or their present applications are not primarily functions of the role of Islam in the West.

Arrogance and denial is a poor combination.

Where does this leave the West? The Left generally blames the West for violent manifestations of Islam. The Left is unwittingly correct. However, they are dimwittedly wrong in assuming there is some sort of Islam that is moderate that will acquiese to the Western way of life.

If all Muslims were as inherently violent as you suggest, we would not occupy a country of 25 million Muslims with a quarter million or less troops.  And the attacks we deal with would be much more violent and dangerous than a rash of bombings that well organized third graders could pull off.

And I would also disagree that the goal is to turn them to the Western way of life.  If our goal truly is to destroy their culture and replace it with our own, then they would likely be justified in fighting us.  I would do the same if it were China trying to convert us to the communist way of life.

I think you are representing a very skewed vision of the war on terror.

Fortunately, your coda leads me to suspect that you didn't mean "final solution" in the way that it sounds.  But be warned in any case.

As for the nature of the Koran, etc., while this stuff is interesting on an intellectual and theological level, it's meaningless in terms of public policy.

I was told that math teachers occasionally have to explain to young students not to use the term "Endlösung" when describing the solution to a math problem.

Some phrases can never be reclaimed.

I went to a high school youth leadership conference many years back.  One of my fellow participants was a German exchange student who explained that there weren't so many such events back home, because "jungenfuhrerconferenz" (pardon my ersatz German) just sounded bad.

I'd refer you this item in the margin of the page:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/34615/8860, wherein we are told that only 77% of British Muslims thought the bus and train bombings of two weeks ago were "completely unjustified," meaning that 23%, are at least partially in favor of blowing up their supposed countrymen on the way to work.  That's a lot of fellow-travellers who provide cover to the baddies.  Given that some of them may be downplaying their own extremism out of fear of reprisal, the number of sympathizers might well be higher than almost one in four.  And this is in Britain, not Yemen or Waziristan.  The assertion that we're at war with a tiny remnant of extremists, while plausible on its face to liberals who believe all religions are truly about finding the light within, has little evidence to support it.

Exceedingly interesting to visit right now. I went to Berlin in the fall of 2003, and the intersection of so much painful history with a potentially bright future is really amazing to see. Deutsche Bank skyscrapers rising up in the Potsdamer Platz where the Wall once went through, a monument glorifying Soviet soldiers still standing just steps from the new Reichstag, the S-bahn which can whisk you away in 30 minutes to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. What a place. I wish I spoke German.

...when, unlike Hitler and Tojo, bin Laden obtains two, perhaps three medium yield tactical nuclear weapons and uses them against major western cities. New York, London, and Washington, D.C., sound like choice targets.

Really, von, you underestimate our enemy at our peril.

The day will come when our enemy crosses the Rubicon. Bin Laden will because bin Laden must. It is in the nature of millenialist movements to eschew moderation in favor of extremism, and so to hasten their own destruction. You recall the tale of the scorpion and the frog, do you not? The frog would not take the scorpion cross the river because the scorpion would sting him. The scorpion insisted that he would not, for if he did, both of them would drown. The frog relented. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog. As paralysis began to set in, the frog asked the scorpion why he stung, knowing he would drown with the frog. The scorpion responded: "I couldn't help myself. It was in my nature."

Bin Laden is like the scorpion. He will not pocket these weapons. He will use them, secure in the knowledge that they will bring him victory over the hated West and the Jews. He does not consider it likely that the West will respond in kind, as he considers us weak, craven, and ripe for conquest. Throughout the 1990's, before the 9/11 war began, jihadi theorists told each other that America could be safely attacked by means of nuclear weapons. Without an address, America would never respond.

They never understood what would happen if the American people demanded that the Threat be put an end to, by Any Means Necessary, were several of our cities attacked. They haven't considered the power of the American thermonuclear arsenal. It is beyond their comprehension and understanding.

As they say, it is "outside of Islam".

Bin Laden is an intelligent man, but in the end, his childlike fascination with extremism will get the best of him. When, not if, he gets his hands on a couple of tactical weapons, he will use them and inflict untold horror on hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of people. What he does not understand, because he will not understand, is that in crossing the Rubicon he will pass a point of no return not only for him, but for his whole civilization.

The stakes are that high. We got to the bomb before Hitler did. Now, everybody has the bomb.

George Bush and Condi Rice have made a riverboat gamble that they can change Islamic civilization before such bad tidings come to pass. It is the central effort of this entire war. It is the crux upon which our entire grand strategy hinges. It is what those dullards over at DKos fail to understand, so obsessed are they will the likes of Karl Rove and Diebold Machines in Ohio. The lives of tens of millions are at stake.

I would like to believe that Bush and Rice will succeed. But American Presidents are too transitory to change the inner machinery of a civilization. Only the Muslims can do that. I'm not to happy about the odds, to be terribly honest.

barring such speech.  I can see the point in trying to curb bigotry, but this should be taken care of by the free speech of others to stand up to such talk.  This is another instance of letting terrorism win.

Every time we hastily remove one of our own freedoms to appease the threat of terrorism, we lose.

He may be correct: In extreme forms, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Perhaps it would be better to call it a social pathology.

Re: He does not consider it likely that the West will respond in kind, as he considers us weak, craven, and ripe for conquest.

In 2001 this was possible, even likely. In today's world, after we have toppled the Taliban and gone into Iraq, I have trouble imagining how bin Laden could consider the US weak or ripe for conquest.

. . . can we then say that Michael Savage is a social disease?

The Blitz made it easy for Brits to justify the extensive bombing of German civilian areas and Pearl Harbor and the steady stream of casualties coming back from the Pacific made the A-bombs' distruction not only palatable but celebrated.

Unfortunately, with modern WMDs, a very small group of individuals can perpetrate a reaction that would put people in power for the express purpose of answering that attack with all the means available.

This is the message that Islamic governments need to comprehend and it is the message that the majority of Muslims on the street need to understand. Islamic Governments must consider the consequences of any support for terrorists and the ultimate risk associated with developing nuclear weapons that may fall, even inadvertently, into the control of non-government groups. At street level, Muslims can not tolerate the violent element of their religion. If they continue to do so, they are assured of guilt by association.

We must oppose restrictions on free speech as an unfringement of our liberty. This is fundamental.

I agree with von, however, that the real lesson of 9/11 is that that "nothing has changed."  Each generation has its own abyss to face and its own choices to make.  What preserves and advances civilization is the human ability to learn, not just at an individual level but also at a societal level. One fundamental component of learning is the ability to recognize patterns and to say "I have seen something like this before."  Those of us who are approaching the sunset are not so quick in body or mind, but we have many patterns stored in our brain. Based on that we look at 9/11 and say "I have seen something like this before."  

One the other hand, the typography of age is not so good.  The keyboard is awkward under my fingers, and I doubt any amount of learning will change that.

Please excuse the typographical error in my title above.  Obviously I meant to type "perspective."  Kind of funny, really.  Guess you have to view the ramblings of an old boot with "prespective."

And you can, and perhaps do, call him that.

I see him as a very angry, self-absorbed person, myself. that said, I think he has a core that is interesting and analysis of many things to a deep level.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

— attributed to Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, 12/7/41

...isn't thinking in territorial terms.

He scored a tremendous victory in Spain. He is beginning a bombing campaign in the UK in an attempt to drive Britain out of the war. He believes that he can drive a wedge between the British and ourselves. He may be right. A continuous suicide bombing campaign in GB may force Blair from power and introduce the more problematic Gordon Brown as PM. It remains to be seen how the Britons will respond to homegrown Islamists.

Remember that extremists always believe their own bullfeces. Moderate men do not throw caution to the wind and send three million men into the vast interior of Soviet Russia. Hitler, at the height of his power, believed his own b.s. and sent the Wehrmacht, probably the finest fighting force in human history, into Russia for a proper burial. Only an extremist would do that.

The Islamists attack us because they believe us to be weak, not because they believe us to be strong.

...but extremely prescient. This paragraph jumped out at me:

"They never understood what would happen if the American people demanded that the Threat be put an end to, by Any Means Necessary, were several of our cities attacked. They haven't considered the power of the American thermonuclear arsenal. It is beyond their comprehension and understanding. As they say, it is "outside of Islam"."

One worrisome aspect is that very few Americans understand the power of the American nuclear arsenal in any real sense. Our last atmospheric test series was in 1962, and almost all of the folks who saw what nuclear weapons could really do are either dead or in their golden years.

There would be a hue and cry to "Nuke 'em 'til they glow." And a lot of folks, with motives both honorable and base, would respond to that hue and cry.

The level of destruction we could inflict with only a few minutes of wrathful intent is not only "outside of Islam," it's outside of anyone's ability to comprehend.

First, of course it's all about you and your sterling points referenced.

Of course it's not about me.  You're the one writing the post.

Second, of course these laws and/or their present applications are not primarily functions of the role of Islam in the West

That appears to be a change from your prior position, which was:

You are aware, yes, that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws (and similar laws, such as the French school hijab ban), are motivated by reactions for or against Islam, yes?

Good post, but you have adopted a constrictive, monolithic view of Muslims and of Muslim cultures.

"We also need to be frank about the causes of Islamic terrorism. It is a reaction by Islam to the pervasiveness of Western culture in Islamic countries and therefore the undermining of Islamic values in Islamic countries."

Muslims have long practiced terrorism against other Muslims, without regard to Western culture.  The two great divisions within the Muslim world are Sunni and Shi'ite, based on a question of whom to follow early in the Muslim era.  Two of the more prominent religious strains are the fundamentalist Salafi and the mystical Sufi traditions.  Politically, in recent history, the major movements in the Middle East are Arab nationalism, left-wing (communist) politics, Ba'ath secularism, and radical religious terrorism.  All of them are abject failures, maintained by totalitarian despots.  No wonder the Iraqis sported purple fingers, welcoming this strange new thing called democracy.

"...stuck in his mouth by the screenwriter for Tora! Tora! Tora!"

And what is that difference in your mind?

1.  Laws that criminalize anti-religious speech are fundamentally misguided, regardless of the religion being protected.  The fact that these laws are now being applied to Islam is the least concern; what should be troublesome is that these laws exist at all.
   
2.  I don't see any evidence of a link between these laws and any "retreat" or "appeasement" of Islam.  Certainly, you've provided none.  
   
3.  In fact, some of these law grew out of a desire to protect the Catholic Church from slander (e.g., Italy's laws); others are riding the wave of political correctness wherein we shrink from saying impolite truths for fear of giving offense.  Arguing, as you do, that these laws grow out of a desire to appease terror fundamentally misunderstands both the history of these laws and the issues involved.
   
4.  In other words, everything that touches upon the WoT is not of the WoT.  

von

*For clarity, I oppose anti-religious slander laws but do see a role for anti-religious discrimination laws.

Ironic considering how often that Michael Savage has demanded that people be thrown into prison for expressing their opinions.

You are correct in pointing out that a "tactic" is not an enemy.  In every war, the enemy is, in some sense, "those who believe."  However, beliefs can change.  Does what someone believed yesterday make him an enemy if he believes something different today?  Sometimes, but not always.

Another thing to keep in mind about beliefs is that they are not directly observable.  We can observe actions and infer beliefs from them.  There is a lot of room for error in this type of interence.  Nevertheless, in the end, we must identify the enemy by actions.   Thus terror as a tactic becomes relevant for purposes of enemy identification.  The focus on terror further becomes relevant if you understand that part of the strategy of war is to render ineffective any tactics that give the enemy an asymmetrical advantage.

Laws that criminalize anti-religious speech are fundamentally misguided....

Here we agree.

I don't see any evidence of a link between these laws and any "retreat" or "appeasement" of Islam.  Certainly, you've provided none.

I guess if you ignore four of the five bullet points given, you're right.

support a jihadist movement, then they have in fact surrendered and are no longer the enemy.

The problem of course with terrorism, is that the terrorists purposefully dress and look like civilians so that you can't readily recognize your enemy.

That is one thing about the man shot in Britain people fail to realize-is that if terrorists were not bombing subways in Britain, that man would never have been seen as a threat, and he would have arrived safely at work that day.

there was an interesting discussion at Captain's Quarters about this yesterday.  Basically this is exactly why the liberals need to shut up about the Geneva Convention meme, we have the Geneva conventions in place, so that we can see and recognize our enemy (that is why they are required to have uniforms/marking that identify them as soldiers in an organized army), so that civilian casualties are minimized.  Terrorism turns this ideal on its head, and turns the civilian into the possible enemy, and in the end makes it even more dangerous for the civilian.

I don't think speech codes are going to do much to prevent terrorism, and in the end it is going to impose PCness onto those who are not the enemy.

It has been in not detailing what we would do should we get hit.  We've mentioned the threat a little, but never our response.

Perhaps if our response were outlined in simple, stark, terms, we could knock sone sanity into some people.  Maybe enough to make a difference.

He wants them thrown in jail for sedition.

But without parsing, I would say that he is proving the old saying, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make angry."

 True. But that applies to Spain, and might make Spain a target of future attacks intended to win further concessions. I do not see that this would have any applicability to the US, other than in our favor: the terroroists may choose to conentrate more on states that behave in an appeasing manner, and less on those that are likely to fight back.

Perhaps our difference is that I do not think these people are as looney tunes as you do. The rank and file, maybe. But I see the leaders as cold, calculating and scarily rational--like Stalin, for a good example.  And even Hitler's WWII failures were within the realm of the possible: he could have overcome Russia, it was a very near thing. Attacking an enemy against whom you have some reasonable hope of victory is not evidence of irrationality. It's not the same as something well and truly insane, like Caligula sending a legion out to assault the sea and bring seashells back to Rome in triumph when his fleet had sunk.

I guess if you ignore four of the five bullet points given, you're right.

None of your bullet points, or the linked material, or other press reports, show or imply:

(1) That the law in question was passed in as part of any retreat or appeasement effort.  To the contrary, it's indisputable that many of the laws were not passed as a part of any such effort, but rather on other grounds.

(2)  That the application and prosecution of the laws in question were part of any retreat or appeasement effort.

But the problem is that all-too-often, we just think the stuff they say is BS.

Look at World War II.  Prior to it - at least a decade prior - we saw Hitler put out Mein Kampf, we saw the publication of the Tanaka Memorial.  Hitler and the Japanese warlords were clear about what they were going to do.

We even had Yamamoto boasting he would dictate peace terms in the White House.  We didn't pay attention until the bombs began dropping at Pearl Harbor.

against Muslims or the Muslim faith, I believe our only option lies in convincing Muslims across the world to vehemently oppose the violent philosophy of Bin Laden and his ilk.  Until we begin to hear the peaceful Muslim communities speaking in unison against this evil other countires within the western democracies will continue to look askance at their own Middle East citizenry and the doubt of their allegiance will grow.

The world needs to hear from the mosques and the madrassas, from clerics and believers alike that this terrorism will fail, does not speak for the majority of Muslims and will not be tolerated as a matter of faith.

The tolerance of the democracies will be sorely tested.

I think you could win this debate in everyone's left hemisphere while losing it in the right. There are some wonderful word structures being built here that lead inexorably to the desired logical conclusion.

However, this is not a courtroom and the readers are not judges. They will therefore factor in the observation that CAIR squeals like a stuck pig every time somebody says 'boo' about Islam, and that CAIR often demands state action to prohibit and constrain such comments.

This will not affect your logical conclusion, but it might cause readers to wonder why you are investing time and energy in an argument that appears destined for a museum case in an ivory tower.

Just sayin'.

This is in reference to your last line, not the proposed legislation or its application in other places

But unspoken, we know that they are deeds of fear, lest we further provoke the enemies already in our midst.

The reason it's not wise to increase the gap between nonMuslims and Muslims has nothing to do with fear or provoking enemies. Rather, doing so (that is, isolating "Islam,") will NOT work. It will not result in a future free from violence. Islam will not disappear.

As I wonder about why you persist in this approach, though, I can't help but conclude that somehow you're convinced the solution to radical Islamism is the same as it was to Communism. Isolate and call the belief system "evil" and fight it in every way possible.

The problem with that, as I've noted frequently, is that whereas Communism was a 70-year-old political experiment that most of the folks living under it had not signed up for (i.e., who would be very happy to see it disappear), Islam is anything but. Unlike Communism, where the weaker it became, the more those living under it were encouraged to rise up and help destroy it, with Islam, the more it's attacked, the more those who currently lean toward being moderate will become radicalized. You'll create MORE Islamist radicals, not fewer.

Please do not provide us with a choice between submission and annihilating them.

Muslims should not provide us with that choice either.

Find another way. Let's not go here:

"Why, Mr. Roddenberry, are there no Muslims on Star Trek?"

"Because, Your Excellency, Star Trek takes place in the future."

how do you get "submission" from anything I wrote?

The major proponents and supporters of this law were Muslim groups. As far as I know C of E, Catholics, Jews et al have not waded in on the side of this bit of politically correct tripe.

There is a very good reason why the vocal Muslim groups are supporting this; the one thing that they cannot deal with, and do not brook internally, is an open debate about Islam and its teachings. Open, public discussion  certainly drags into the open its strictures about deceiving infidels, hatred of Jews and 'people of the book', hatred of homosexuals, attitudes about women, forced conversions to Islam, etc. Laws like this are one way of shutting off public debate about Islam. I seriously doubt that you will see anyone from C of E appealing to the authorities for this law to be applied to anyone. We've already seen a similar law applied against two Christian ministers in Australia.

Public discussion might very well cause people to start questioning if Islam is actually a religion at all and not more a socio-political "philosophy." Right now the west is dealing with it as a religion and, given our traditional attitudes about religion, this tends to gloss over the legal-political-social aspects.

For the most part, Western religious philosophy evolved to draw a line between the domains of God and that of man; "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Islam on the other hand knits, not too neatly mind you, God and man's endeavors tightly together.

I heard it explained a few days ago, and I'm  paraphrasing, that 'Democracy is anathema in Islam because democracy is based on man's free will. Free will implies that man can choose to enact his own laws in place of those of God (Allah). Democracy makes man equal to God (Allah) and that is forbidden in Islam.'

----------------

"We even had Yamamoto boasting he would dictate peace terms in the White House."

Actually, he said that in order for Japan to win as decisively as the fire-eaters pretended it would, he would have to dictate peace terms in the White House--something that everyone knew was impossible.

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." ... Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto to Shigeharu Matsumoto,a member of the Japanese Cabinet, 1940

Get back to civility, you both have respectable positions.

Is I'm seeing this argument on both sides of the aisle.  I think Tom Friedman gets credit for hitting it first, since he wrote about it as his motivation for supporting the war back in '03, but it's good that everyone's coming around to at least see the problem the right way.

The fact was we had folks saying what they wanted to do.

Nobody really listened - until the bombs dropped.

The Tanaka Memorial was from 1928, three years before Japan took Manchuria.

It was the atomic bombs that woke up Godzilla (aka Gojira) - but those were brought about due to World War II, which Japan started by attacking Pearl Harbor.

the problem then is twofold:

1.  How to you convince them this is what needs to happen, and
   
   
2.  What is the consequence for not condemning the evil?  Or can there be consequences?

Really, von, you underestimate our enemy at our peril.

I don't think so.  The best information we have -- from polls; from functioning Islamic republics in Turkey, Malaysia, and elsewhere; from Lebanon; from Egypt in the wake of the recent bombings; from Iran's youth -- is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims want peace, prosperity, and freedom.  They do not want war; they do not view the current struggle as a vast battle for the world.  Rather, one a minority of activists see the current struggle in terms of a global jihad or crusade; and only a minority of that minority is willing to act on such beliefs; only a minority of a minority of a minority have the capability of acting on such beliefs in a manner detrimental to our interests.

It will be slow and hard, but, if we keep our resolve and wits,* we are going to win.  Because our ideas are better than those of our enemies.

von

*For instance, avoiding the (erroneous) implication that we are at war with Islam.  President Bush's tone on that matter has been exactly right.

They will therefore factor in the observation that CAIR squeals like a stuck pig every time somebody says 'boo' about Islam, and that CAIR often demands state action to prohibit and constrain such comments.

When they're laws that support their position, why wouldn't they "demands state action to prohibit and constrain such comments"?  They're an advocacy group.  

The point to make -- repeatedly, if need be -- that it's the law itself that's wrong.  (Fortunately, it's less of an issue in the U.S. in light of the First Amendment.)

This will not affect your logical conclusion, but it might cause readers to wonder why you are investing time and energy in an argument that appears destined for a museum case in an ivory tower.

I'm a believer in juries and as a result I'm more confident that, when given time to think, most folks will see the logic of my position.   Fear and anger are passing and, for most folks, they're not enough.      

Re: There is a very good reason why the vocal Muslim groups are supporting this; the one thing that they cannot deal with, and do not brook internally, is an open debate about Islam and its teachings.

Would this law prevent a reasoned and respectful debate about Islam and its teachings? Seems to me that it only sanctions slurs and insults of the "Islam stinks" variety. To be sure, I think that's out of line for a law to ban as well, but I donlt see how it could shut down an intelletual debate about Islamic vs Christian theology.

disagreement in this debate, as well as much of the confusion, lies in the difference between what might be, or have been, the genesis of some of these proscriptions, and then likely applications of their provisions.  It is in light of the latter that many of us wonder - quite rationally, as it happens - whether Islam might not, after all, play the largest role in inspiring the proscription of "religious vilification".  

Does anyone seriously believe, for example, that we will witness prosecutions of certain Protestant groups, for whom belief in the freedom of the will is enormously important, so important, in fact, that they will refer to Calvinists as worshippers of a devil god?  That we will witness prosecutions of Calvinists who accuse all other Christians of having embraced paganism in their rejection, refusal, or state of never-having-had-it, with respect to the Calvinist system of universal determinism?  That we will witness prosecutions of "brights" such as Dawkins and Dennett on account of all of the cretinous and mean-spirited things they write about religion and "religionists"?  That we will live to see the day a Muslim is prosecuted for denouncing the polytheism of Christianity, or Hinduism?  That a Jew will be prosecuted on account of some of the uncharitable things written in the Talmud about Christianity?  

In truth, the probability of any of these things transpiring in almost infinitesimal.  What we are likely to see, however, is the prosecution of Christians for having the temerity to suggest, even on the basis of history, that Islam has certain unpleasantries associated with its social history, if not necessarily its dogmatics (although that is an issue for them to clarify).  Sane men do not conceive it likely that these statutes, by and large, will be invoked to protect Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, even atheism.  I believe that this is known as the principle of the squeaky wheel....

While they believe their BS, their declared/futuer enemies try to pretend like the BS is just that, or that they aren't serious.

Sometimes we have a tendancy to underestimate the fanatac aspect of the enemy.  

We think all that stuff just couldn't happen...

And then we're surprised when it does.

I agree with von here.  There's a reason why the hemisphere that's responsible for logical thought is dominant.  While everyone is eligible for the Darwin award, some are more likely than others to receive it.

The Straw man is dead! Long live the Straw man!

Please be so kind as to give bin Laden credit for believing in what he believes in and being willing to follow through with his beliefs. Like Hitler before him, he is a millenialist. Like Hitler before him, he will use any means at his disposal to achieve his ends.

Of COURSE most folks in, say, ar-Ramadi or Quetta want to go on living their daily lives as you and I do. That's not the point. So did most people in Potsdam and the little town of Dachau, if you'll recall. It's what is done in their name that matters.

Bin Laden will take history into his hands. He is not concerned with the peaceful desires of millions of people in Turkey or Iran. To Usama, they are merely deluded by the false conciousness of Western materialism and Jewish finance. They have been sold out by false kings and greedy oil princelings who have betrayed the True Path of the Prophet. They do not see, as he clearly does, the "broad sunlit uplands" of a restored, glorious caliphate led by the Select whose interpretation of the Koran is the Correct interpretation.

Our argument is not with the millions of people who want peace. It is with the millions of people who see in bin Laden the answer to their sense of wrong and grievance.

And whether you want to admit it or not, there are millions of them.

I was there in 2001 and I wanted to say that I agree 100%.  Fascinating to see so much history in one place that is still adjusting from the last transition.

And at great risk to their reputations, they are trying to head off that all-too-thinkable situation.

Isn't it ironic that the neocons are arguably Islam's best shot for saving itself?

Exactly the line I was thinking when I read Tancredo's comments.  As I said elsethread, if al-Qaeda takes out Bush, Cheney, and half of Congress with a nuclear weapon, it's hard telling who will take control of the country and who they'll nuke.

The problem with that, as I've noted frequently, is that whereas Communism was a 70-year-old political experiment that most of the folks living under it had not signed up for (i.e., who would be very happy to see it disappear), Islam is anything but. Unlike Communism, where the weaker it became, the more those living under it were encouraged to rise up and help destroy it, with Islam, the more it's attacked, the more those who currently lean toward being moderate will become radicalized. You'll create MORE Islamist radicals, not fewer.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it stands contrary to human nature. Radical Islam is categorically incapable of providing a decent life for the vast majority of its adherents - see Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The vast majority of Muslims aren't brain-dead killbots. Radical Islam is much like Communism in that is riddled with internal contradictions, and often is used to supress the very people it's supposed to be "liberating." Just look at the bombings in Iraq and the recent bombing in Sharm-el-Sheik. The idea that the radicals are fighting for the ummah quickly goes by the wayside when all of a sudden the average Muslim finds himself just as much a target as one of the "Jews and Crusaders".

If anything, the most recent Pew survey indicates that support for radicalism is beginning to decline - and its not hard to figure out why. The radicals are starting to cannibalize their own and those internal contradictions are starting to open a schism between the radicals and the rest of the worldwide Muslim community.

At some point Muslims will have to make a decisive stand, and that point is coming much closer as the radicals start killing more and more Muslims that don't match their particular view of Islamic purity.

I agree that many Americans do not understand the power of our nuclear arsenal.  However, it is not outside of anyone's ability to comprehend the level of destruction that would result from the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons against an enemy that had first strike capability only.  I believe this is the scenario we are actually talking about.

The destruction would be great, no doubt about it.  However, we can not only comprehend it, we can model the effects of variables to predict best- and worst-case scenarios pretty well.  What these models do not predict are the non-physical secondary effects -- most specifically the economic impacts.

In the event that America is provoked into a retaliatory nuclear strike, the result is unlikely to be the apocalypse so feared by everyone except the "Left Behind" crowd.  However, neither is the result likely to be a world that has learned not to count on American restraint, but that continues to carry on "business as usual" with us otherwise.  This is the weakness of our war games and our strategic models:  they do not take into account that what is bad for business is bad for America.

not that that's odd.

At some point Muslims will have to make a decisive stand

Totally agree with this...continued below...

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it stands contrary to human nature. Radical Islam is categorically incapable of providing a decent life for the vast majority of its adherents - see Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Disagree with the presumption this makes though: that "radical Islam" will be differentiated in the rhetoric from Islam in general.

My point is that by doing what they can to protect Muslims, Western states strengthen the Muslims' alternative to radicalism....they give them somewhere else welcoming to turn. By opening the rhetorical floodgates and widely (i.e., sloppily) letting "Islamism" (which will be heard as "Islam" to less careful folks on both sides of the aisle) be defined as the "problem," many moderates who might have turned to the alternative will not trust it enough to do so.

I've seen this happen first hand. Moderates (mostly from MINO communities) who have moved to the US and very happily embraced its culture, respond to reports of Muslims being indiscriminately targeted by idiot vigilantes with a stiffening back and decision that they'll have to side with the radicals. It drives me nuts, but I understand why they do it. The idiot vigilantes are not differentiating...(they've been known to attack Sikhs for godsake), the Muslims have to protect themselves.

Therefore, the rhetoric and its resulting actions must be kept in check. It's our best way forward.

The problem is that Islam seems to have decided that terrorism is their magic sword that will overcome all structural difficulties in their societies versus modern ones.

Until we convince Islam to modernize itself the problem remains.

First there is a chilling effect from the fact that the law exists in the first place. Second, in light of this law "slurs and insults" are in the eye of the beholder. As I said I seriously doubt that the C of E will be hauling Imams into court every week for preaching the conversion or death of 'people of the book.' But, based on current performance, I fully expect that any C of E vicar that says that Islam condones stoning of homosexuals will find himself before the magistrate very quickly. And even if the magistrate rules against the complaint, regular visits before the bar will tend to 'temper' people's enthusiasm for the truth.

And I doubt that this will be confined to inter-religious combat. I predict that anyone who has the temerity to say that Islam teaches the conquest and subjugation of 'infidels' will find themselves om the receiving end of a subpeona. As will anyone who criticizes some British Imam for saying the Britain belongs to God (Allah) not the British.

These kinds of laws are simply wrong and serve only to provide a club with which to silence disent.

And, like Hitler before him, he is a lousy student of history.

I apologize; I'm out of time today (pesky work).  But in partial response to this:

Does anyone seriously believe, for example, that we will witness prosecutions of certain Protestant groups, for whom belief in the freedom of the will is enormously important, so important, in fact, that they will refer to Calvinists as worshippers of a devil god?

Consider the following case involving Italy's anti-slander law and the Catholic Church:  http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.159552138&a
mp;par.  It reads in part:

Rome, 29 April (AKI) - People who slander the Catholic faith cannot face harsher punishment than those who insult other recognised religions, Italy's constitutional court ruled on Friday. The court's decision was made in connection with the trial of a Muslim man who on television branded the Catholic Church "a criminal organisation." Italian Muslim activist, Adel Smith, on trial in the northeastern city of Verona for allegedly "offending the Catholic religion, through the use of scorn," faced up to three years in jail, if convicted.

However, the Verona court suspended the proceedings against Smith and requested the constitutional court's interpretation of two articles in Italy's penal code. Article 403, specifies stiffer penalties for slander against Catholicism, while article 406 prescribes more lenient punishment for insults against other religions.

Here we have the prosecution of a Muslim man for slandering Catholicism; the relevant legal issue,* was not whether it was lawful to prosecute him for the slander.  Rather, the question was whether Italy's Constitution's permitted the law to impose harsher penalties on those who slander Catholicism.

*As opposed to factual issues, e.g., what was said.

I'm out of time.  Briefly:  

Our argument is not with the millions of people who want peace. It is with the millions of people who see in bin Laden the answer to their sense of wrong and grievance.

There may be millions who revere bin Laden as a pop culture phenomenon, the way folks wear Che t-shirts.  There's no evidence, however, that millions are willing to kill or die for him.

the problem then is twofold:

1. How to you convince them this is what needs to happen, and
   
2. What is the consequence for not condemning the evil?  Or can there be consequences?
   

1.  We don't convince them, they come to the realization themselves after watching jihadists blow up coffee shops in Baghdad.
   
2. The consequence is more of the same.  We for certain can't impose consequences, that only unites people against us.  These people are in another culture, remember.  I'm sure a lot of conservatives here would sympathize with the idea of standing by the USA against other countries even if we're somewhat to blame for things.  It's the same over there.
   

the case that the Italian example is simply the exception which proves the rule?  No one, so far as I am aware - and I do occasionally pop in over at sites like jihadwatch, where such news would surely be noted - has ever adduced a case in which a Muslim was prosecuted for saying mean things about Jews and Christians in any of the other nations that have adopted such legislation.  The focus of enforcement seems to be the silencing of those Christians, secularists and others who wish to engage in civil dialogue about some of the unpleasant and downright retrograde elements of Islamic history, such as the jihads that have been rather other than defensive, dhimmitude, sharia, taqqiya, etc.  If civil authorities in these nations were truly intent upon imposing their (mistaken) conception of civilized and tolerant discourse, there would be innumerably more prosecutions of Muslim offenders than of any other group, by virtue of that vocal and indecent minority bent upon the realization of a nihilist's vision of the seventh century.  The reality, whether it be good or naive, is that relatively few Christians or others speak of Islam in tones, and with terminology, even roughly analogous to that with which some Muslims routinely excoriate the people of the book.  

I believe that those of us who have been made cycnical by the patronizing puerilities of PC are amply justified in suspecting that, in most of these nations, the objects of enforcement indicate the inspiration of the legislation enforced: protecting sensitive Muslim feelings.

I hate doing the Hitler thing in most threads, but in discussing ideology and how it motivates the populace it applies.

There were a lot of people who didn't believe in or see Hitler's goals as being all the serious or as a threat to them.

Many people in Germany didn't join the Nazi party, and France didn't consider him a threat at all, until he invaded. There were some who admired him to some degree, but didn't get motivated to jump on board the Nazi train.

So my point is people do not neccessarily have to sign up for the whole shebang, but if they view him as a pop icon, or as some novelty or as something that shouldn't be feared, without taking any actions to stop, or condemn, in the end they end up getting run over by the tanks, and at that point it is too late.

I like that :->

I think people do forget how much Islam is not as much a religion for some but instead a sort of "ethnic identity", especially in diaspora communities like in the U.S. That's where I'm coming from, mostly.

No one, so far as I am aware - and I do occasionally pop in over at sites like jihadwatch, where such news would surely be noted - has ever adduced a case in which a Muslim was prosecuted for saying mean things about Jews and Christians in any of the other nations that have adopted such legislation.

Two notes and a quibble, then I'm out again.

First, sites like JihadWatch are partisans.  Consequently, they have no reason to identify cases of prosecutions of Christianity/Judiaism/etc. -- and so they don't.  Indeed, w/r/t the Oriana Fallaci case they certainly do not emphasize the fact that the law applies generally to all religions or that it was enacted during Italy's Fascist period, for neither fact is helpful to their thesis.  (Indeed, they frequently try to create the contrary impression.)

Second, I'd suspect that the overwhelming majority of the prosecutions under (say) article 403 or 406 of the Italian code are for slanders against Christianity or Judiaism (note the easy applicability of the laws to neo-Nazi types); I'm betting, based purely on demography, that most of the prosecuted have not been Muslims.  These are educated guesses, however; not certainties.  

Now, the quibble -- and only because I've been guilty of the same mistake itself.  The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" doesn't work in this circumstance, regardless of who's right.  "The exception proves the rule" refers to the circumstance in which the mention of an "exception" implies a general (unspoken) rule.  For instance, were I to say:

"Only those travelling on official state business are allowed out after curfew"

I would imply that the general rule that "no one is allowed out after curfew [except for those travelling on official state business]."

(Apologies for the above example of my being a persnickety horse's ass.)

Re: Second, in light of this law "slurs and insults" are in the eye of the beholder.

Actually no. A court (and a jury!) will determine that.

Re: I fully expect that any C of E vicar that says that Islam condones stoning of homosexuals will find himself before the magistrate very quickly.

But that would be a factual statement, one which could be shown to be true by citing relevant passages in the Shari'a, or even real world examples. A judgment of slander can only be found if the accused made false statements that he knew to be false. As I said, I think these laws are appalling but I don't see they could be used outside cases where people are either making deliberately untrue statements or uttering inflammatory opinions.

laws.

Sure they are often written so that anyone can be charged, but in reality it is going to be almost entirely white people charged with hate crimes.

These kinds of laws may have a broad definition, but in the end they are aimed at curbing one type of speech.

First, we are not talking about the way libel and slander laws work in the US. They don't work the same way in the UK.

Second it isn't that the case would eventually be adjudicated by a magistrate or jury (again because its the UK most will probably be by magistrate, the British are not as profligate with juries as we are.)

It is that charges will be raised right and left over "perceived" or alleged insult. And an incessant rain of such charges will eventually inhibit if not prevent people from raising questions --- there is a certain intimidation factor to being served with charges every Monday morning!

And another thing to consider is that these are not necessarily extensions of current libel laws, these are new laws specifically tailored to religious "hate" speech. I am not familiar with the details of the laws but I'll put good money that they are far more restrictive, and less easy to defend against than ordinary libel.

If we were talking about the US then you would be correct that the truth is an absolute defense against libel. But we aren't talking about the US here. IANAL, much less a barrister, but I seem to recall from some writings on various libel charges in UK courts against Americans that the burden of proof is reversed in the UK from what we are used to here. But again that doesn't really make any difference as these are not libel laws anyway.

Here I am Joy mongering at restate.org. This guy just said that Liberalism is a mental disorder! Wow! You guys really have to come here. They are in serious need of Joy mongering! ;)

It violates the First Commandment of the Universe:

Survival.

I did not mean extermination. I mean evangelism.

There will be no "final solution" this side of the return of Christ (if this blog will let me be this overt).

First, I do not believe that it follows from the fact that sites such as Jihadwatch are partisan that they will necessarily refrain from making mention of any actual prosecutions of Muslims for vilification or slander.  These sites typically refer to events, such as prosecutions or the surveillance of radicals, albeit typically with the caveat that the newfound watchfulness amounts to a belated buying of a clue.  

Second, I wouldn't expect them to discuss the origins and emphases of the Italian law, for obvious reasons, although I fail to see precisely how this is itself dispositive as to the inspiration of these laws generally.  The Italian law has a history, which the other statutes in other nations lack; in these latter cases, there is, at the least, a strong prima facie case to be made that Islam has much to do with the legislation, and that in a way that is curiously unidirectional, in that no one seems to be terribly concerned about the dreadful things some Muslims have to say (consider the prominence of certain radicals in Bristish Muslim life), while many seem to be horrified at the prospect that certain facets of the Islamic experience might be discussed forthrightly.  In other words, in these nations, when it is observed that an Omar Bakri is propagating the most lurid and hateful slanders of the West, there arises the assumption that this must be due largely, even solely, to that shibboleth of Western maleficence, the hatred of the Other, our refusal to appropriately abase ourselved before the Other, while even sincere and forthright discourse on the substance of those hateful slurs against the West is ascribed to Islamophobia, the characteristic and paradigmatic form of other-hatred in our time.  

So, while it may not be correct usage of the phrase "exception that proves the rule", Italy is still anomalous.