Redstate

I've been thinking about the "cowardly" media for the past couple of days.

In the abstract, they are behaving like cowards.  In reality, maybe they are just unwilling to take the chance that these childish brats will bombs their offices and kill their employees.  

It is one thing to stand on principle. It is another to risk your receptionist's life over it.

you throw our freedoms away... When you are afraid to stand up for them. Might be good for the safety of your organization in the short term. Yes, definitely - those freedom loving rioting muslims will like you. And that's all that matters to CNN - with the likes of Amanpour working there - CNN is full of 'objective' reporters.

I'm reminded of Hollywood's release of The Sum of All Fears, which despite coming out after September 11, 2001, the producers could not bear to have the bad guys be Arabs, as they were in the book. Instead evil European white men were used.

It should be pointed out that in the book there were "evil European white men" in on the nuke conspiracy with the Arabs -- East Germans, IIRC.

"Tolerance toward Intolerance" is what one German editor called it in today's Washington Post.

Bottom line: Muslims are asking the West to be tolerant, while being intolerant.  Government and media complicity sanctions intolerance and violence as a means to change policies and attitudes.

I don't like how the term intolerance is often used, but tolerance and moderation is key to civilized debate - tolerance of disagreements, moderation in how we respond to opponents.

For me giving into these fanatics - just like Yahoo and Google have given into their cousins in Beijing - is just one more way the West appeases extremism and has lost it's way.

I have a question, and in no way mean to stir the pot...but, I have noted that you and other diarists have filed your writings under the Section: War, while others have used other headings...

Just was wondering the reasoning.  Thanks

This conservative thinks CNN made the correct call.  There is a difference between "backing down" and not instigating the situation further.    

I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as it seems.  Every time I've read Michelle Malkin this week I've had fears that she's going to need a bodyguard soon.

In the end, though, you have to do the right thing based on your beliefs.  Let's just make sure that we're giving full credit for the courage it takes. It's not an easy decision.

In reality, maybe they are just unwilling to take the chance that these childish brats will bombs their offices and kill their employees.

Agreed. We should just do what they say, because otherwise they might kill us.

It won't be so bad.
Many people in the world get by just fine with murderous thugs in charge. As long as you do what they say and give them everything they want, they mostly leave you alone.

"Fighting for our freedoms" is so last century. Who needs freedoms? Grow your beard or wear your burkha, bow down when you're told to, and life goes on.

but the FOX news channel (Bret Hume's show) rebroadcast one of the offending cartoons.  I could almost hear Bret say, "add our names to your list."

Did they show clips from The Last Temptation of Christ when it was in theaters?

Remember the Cold-War phrase "better Red than dead?" This question is older than history.

You can excuse anyone for making either choice. In fact, to choose freedom (and to fight for it) is, in historical context, by far the minority opinion.

Let them try to kill me if they can. I choose freedom.

...Queen of the Danes:

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

And haven't we talked of this before?

Anyway, the trouble nowadays is that the discontents and the "Last Man" tendencies of modern, secular, liberal society exponentially increase the numbers of those who prefer peace and safety, at any cost, relative to the numbers of those who will fight for their liberties and face the prospect of an honourable death rather than learn to bow towards Mecca.

In other words, modernity makes more dhimmis; it may even be the dhimmi society par excellance.

My mother has a friend whose husband is Lebanese.  He's a great guy.  Funny, sociable, as American as a second generation immigrant can possibly be.  A catchphrase of his, that he uses so much he's downright known for it, is "the only thing they understand is a gun to the head."  When he speaks of "they" he is referring to arabs.  Since he happens to be an arab, I take his word for it.

When someone takes advantage of you (as the Muslim population has done with Europe) and you let them, I assure you they will continue to take advantage.  They won't think you're being nice, they'll think you are a weak fool.

You can't be nice to some people.  They only see it as weakness.  All they understand is a gun to the head.

"moderate" muslims we hear so much about but never see need to assert themselves and tell their fanatical brethren to chill. In the long run this rioting will do more damage to Islam than the cartoons ever will.

...since the Peloponnesian War and even earlier. And we'll keep talking about it until that blessed far-distant day when the human heart no longer harbors the desire to forcibly bend others to its will.

I think the "moderate" muslim is a myth.

If they do exist, they certainly do not hold enough power to temper the extremist majority.

If you look at the pictures, this isn't one crazy guy shooting doctors who provide abortions, these are large groups of people in several locations.

Furthermore, there all young men who will be around a long time.  They were unable to conquer Europe by direct force in the middle ages, but seem to be doing a pretty good job by just taking up residency.

"moderate" muslims we hear so much about but never see need to assert themselves and tell their fanatical brethren to chill.

Yes, I too wish all of the 1.2 billion Muslims would speak in their unified voice to denounce the violence. Just like the unified Christian voice that speaks out against abortion clinic bombings and anti-gay violence. Or that unified African-American voice that speaks out against things like gang violence.

There is a difference between "backing down" and not instigating the situation further.

There is an even bigger difference between backing down and concluding that the backing down just stopped. I think that's the split that you are seeing open up.

Some people worry that giving violent, racist thugs the idea that they can tell us what we can and cannot publish in our newspapers might lead to abuses. So they think we should tell the violent, racist thugs to stuff it, regardless of what happens next. Because if we don't, what will for sure happen next is that the violent, racist thugs will tell us what we can wear to work. And so on.

Let's pull the plug on that right now.

This bothers people whose preference is to cool the jets and hope the violent, racist thugs find someone else to bother.

Let's examine what has happened here. Some people who run a newspaper, who happen to be Danes, ran some cartoons. Some other people who were offended by the cartoons have decided to hold all individuals of Danish descent, the Danish government, and any businesses based in Denmark, responsible for the actions of these newspaper people. This is either tribalism or racism; take your pick. These people are further demanding that the newspaper people be punished... when they have broken no laws in their own country. They want their laws enforced in a foreign country. And if this is not done, then they will start torching buildings, kidnapping people, and murdering others.

Well.

It might have even been a bad idea to run the cartoons. But that doesn't matter anymore. Now we are faced with murderous thugs who propose to visit economic damage and physical violence on anyone who shares genes with certain Danish newspaper publishers.

Some of us think that's over the top. We say no. We're not going to have violent, racist thugs dictating law enforcement activity in our countries.

In fact this proposal is so outrageous that our inclination is to bring it to a head right now, because we're not going to live with these kinds of threats. Nor are we going to walk around on eggshells, wondering what will set the thugs off next.

This is just going to be a frightening time for the "cool the jets" crowd. But I don't think their arguments will carry much weight with those who have flipped to the other side.

Just like the unified Christian voice that speaks out against abortion clinic bombings and anti-gay violence.

Try paying attention before making inaccurate analogies.

Thanks.

If American newspapers (like the New York Times) didn't want to print the cartoons under normal circumstances, because their Muslim employees say these cartoons are offensive to non-terrorist Muslims as well as to terrorist Muslims, then why should these American newspapers print them now? Why now, do they do something they didn't want to do back when there was no threat? There's even less reason to do it now. If you're going to make a dangerous stand for freedom of speech, do it for something you stand behind. This isn't it.

Try paying attention before making inaccurate analogies.

Expecting there to be some "unified voice" for any religion is pointless. You won't find it for anything that large.

But the context of my question was more immediate.  I seem to recall an earlier exchange that touched upon this very issue.

All the same, while the historical parallels and reflections on the constancy of certain unfortunate tendencies of human nature are all instructive, I'm more inclined to restrict my field of inquiry to the present, as my children are not growing up within a general problematic of history and human nature.

Excellent summary.

How about just some voice of any influence?

Technically, this is correct, as the odd yahoo might keep us at only 99.999999999999999% compliance.

It is, however, a stupid lefty canard to pretend that the vast, overwhelming Christian community doesn't react negatively to abortion clinic violence and whatever your canard of the day is.

How about just some voice of any influence?

Right. I'm sure CNN will be there to cover it.

And that was not my point. I would expect moderate Muslims, who we are told are in the majority, would denounce or at least criticize the behaviour of these rioters. Instead we have heard virtually nothing.

As far as your analogy between these riots and the lone nuts who attack abortion clinics and doctors, that makes no sense. If there were thousands of Christians attacking and burning abortion clinics and thousands of Christians storming the headquarters of the ACLU or NBC, then your analogy would make sense. Trying to equate a handful to thousands doesn't compute.

Instead we have heard virtually nothing.

[Quick background: My fiance is an Egyptian Muslim. Her parents were born in Egypt. I've probably had more interaction with the Muslim community than a majority of people on this site.]

When was the last time you were inside a mosque or attended anything predominately Muslim? Violence is spoken out against on a regular basis. Most Muslims view the Islamic extremists as those people. They want absolutely nothing to do with them.

Do you really believe a national news organization would be there to cover a prayer where they were speaking out against violence?

...In Michigan.

Read my posts a few threads down. Guess where I live ;).

Yes, I do.  In fact I think they would prefer to show these sane voices and skew the press coverage of these sane voices if they could find enough of them.  It better fits the media's narrative to find a "religion of peace" echoing Rodney King with "Can't we all just get along?" then the sad reality that the bulk of these people seem to prefer living in the 12th century.

That way, they could have news stories full of the moral relativism you had in your original post regarding the abortion clinic bombings, etc.  They'd drool over this chance.

the bulk of these people seem to prefer living in the 12th century

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that there's 1.2 billion Muslims? What small percentage of that do you think gets the most media coverage?

Frankly, I have a hard time determining what category to place these stories in myself. I think history will be the final arbiter of where they belong. By that point, it won't have mattered.

They decided not to run the cartoons out of respect for Islam. A respect they are unable to locate when it comes to Christianity or Judaism.

Fie, it is not respect it is pure unadulterated fear. When you insult Christians and Jews they write letters and have little protest marches. when you insult Muslims you get death threats, firebombs and killings. CNN acted out of the "purest" of instincts --- to save their own lives at the cost of the truth.

The national news media are a powerful force for good or ill. Why are they not running the key story. Muslims demand, on threat of violence, respect for their religion while running the vilest of articles and cartoons about Jews in their newspapers. They demand punishment for those in the West who offend their delicate sensibilities yet persecute and kill those who practice other religions. Why are they not telling the true story of the nature of this conflict? Easy. Fear, pure simple unadulterated fear.

The attitude of the Muslims is outragious. If they are not protesting, they are defending the protesters. This attitude of 'we can insult other religions by desecrating Christian churches, killing priests and portraying Jews as pigs and rats, but if you draw Mohammed, we'll kill you!' can not be held by mentally stable people.

Christians have to tolerate insults to Christianity constantly. 'Art' exhibits had pictures of Jesus in urine, a cross in elephant crap and an upside down picture of Jesus who has the face of Osama bin Laden.

Imagine if one of Mohammed's pictures was soaking in a jar of urine.

You don't see Christians in violent protests, killing Muslim or Jewish clergy and launching "make fun of the dead Muslims" contest.

This intolerance and arrogance from the Muslim community shows that we can not reason with these people. They are like unreasonable children who think we should be Muslim or dead.

Any group of people who can't understand that freedoms (of speech, of religion, etc.) have to extend to everyone, this group of people should not be in a position of power in the world, that is why America voted out liberals (I had to get that dig in there). What is worse, most Muslims believe Israel should be wiped off the map, and we should try to reason with these people?

This has gone beyond the cartoons, they were just the trigger; they are no longer important, the real story is being played out in the streets of the Muslim world and in the parliaments of the western world. Do we stand for something or do we stand for nothing?

If we do not hang together we shall all surely hang separately

A few years ago you could have convinced me that a few bad apples are spoiling the whole bunch.  I no longer buy it.  Perhaps in India, Indonesia, Ann Arbor, etc you can find this "sane majority", but I'm worried this doesn't exist in the middle east anymore.  

It's not the fault of the faith so much as the governments that intentionally keep their populations illiterate and unemployed to prevent them from getting any funny ideas about wanting real governments.  This leads to the carefully manicured opinions in the state run media that any given problem is the fault of Israel, etc.

When you refer to "most Muslims"- you mean most Muslims in the US or the rest of the world or both?

I would certainly expect that most Muslims in the US have a negative view of the extremists because they, hopefully for the most part, are having a positive and successful experience living in America, and have generally adapted to our cultural attitudes on Religious tolerance. I do think the media would be happy to cover prominent US Muslim leaders explicitly condemning the acts of Muslim extremists, but I expect most Muslims in the US are somewhat apprehensive about living in a country that is at war with a group espousing a fascist iteration of their faith, and out of this apprehension generally try to keep a low profile and not make waves.

But from what I perceive of Muslims in the rest of the world, I don't get the sense that there are moderate Muslims that consider extremists "those people" and want nothing to do with them. Iran is the only nation that we are routinely told has a moderate population that doesn't support extremism. We are routinely told that authoritarian rule is the only thing holding back the extremist views of the general population in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudia Arabia. But maybe you have some inlaws in Egypt or elsewhere and have a greater insight.

exist, a postulate that many believe is yet to be proved, I submit they do not speak out for the same reason that CNN is quiet; not respect but fear.

There are only a few possible reasons for "moderate" Muslims to be subdued:

• disinterest; it doesn't effect them so they simply ignore it.
  
• support; they quietly support the rage and look forward to it's success while hiding behind a cloak of respectability
  
• fear; they are as fearful of the extremists as the rest of the world.

If it is disinterest they make a serious mistake. When the blowback comes they will be swept up in it as sure as the perpetrators. If it is quiet support then, as in disinterest, they will be swept up in the backlash. If it is fear then this should tell them a great deal about their chosen religion; why would anyone want to belong to a group that demands obedience and achieves it through fear. What kind of God demands your life to demonstrate your love for Him?

Can you identify any other possible reasons for silence?

 

appreciate the reply

"Every time I've read Michelle Malkin this week I've had fears that she's going to need a bodyguard soon.

You may be right. Remember how the veterans of Gulf War I and returning vets from GWOT stormed the offices of the Washington Post, frog-marched Tom Toles into the street and hanged him, then torched the WaPo offices and smashed their presses? All because of the offensive op-ed cartoon published on January 29?

What? That didn't happen, you say? Oh that's right, it's different to be insensitive to our armed forces. They're tough guys, they can take it. Their families can take it. It's the poor benighted Moooslims who are so frail, so sensitive, so easily offended that they get the vapors if we even say BACON! BACON! BACON!

The Danes ought to run herds of pigs through every street in every city in Denmark, stopping to let them leave a "souvenier" on the doorstep of every Moslem in the country.

I defecate upon your Koran!

When you refer to "most Muslims"- you mean most Muslims in the US or the rest of the world or both?

Varied. An extremely high percentage in the US, a lower percentage worldwide.

I do think the media would be happy to cover prominent US Muslim leaders explicitly condemning the acts of Muslim extremists, but I expect most Muslims in the US are somewhat apprehensive about living in a country that is at war with a group espousing a fascist iteration of their faith, and out of this apprehension generally try to keep a low profile and not make waves.

Yes, it'd make a fantastic 15 second clip that they'd show twice, probably right between clips of Muslim violence in France. Isn't this the same media that's regularly torn apart for being biased and useless on this site? You are correct about most wanting keeping a low profile, especially now. While most Muslims think of the extremists as "those people", most Americans seems to think of all Muslims as "those people".

Iran is the only nation that we are routinely told has a moderate population that doesn't support extremism.

I can think of a thing or two that might change that. Iraq was too at one point.

acquiescence. If as you say there are so many moderate Muslims constantly preaching against violence where are they? All Muslims are being painted as if not extremists at the very least tolerant supporters. If all Muslims are being impacted by the actions of the few then why is the vast majority not out in the public square condemning the violence?

No one in America, even Ted Kennedy, realistically thinks that a few wacko abortion clinic attackers represent any measurable portion of Christianity. So the fact that huge throngs of Christians don't hold massive public demonstrations against the wackos doesn't matter.

But more and more people are coming to see Muslims, all Muslims, as inimical to western and particularly American life. So all Muslims are being tarred, rightly or wrongly, with this brush. And don't say that it shouldn't happen this way, this is human nature, we didn't invent it, it's been going since we climbed down from the trees.

There is a reaction building and fewer people are prepared to sit back and simply watch. I don't hae any idea what the reaction will be ultimately, it's hard to tell just yet. But remember that even in this country we were not above interning Japanese-Americans out of fear in WW II. Right now that's not going to happen but don't for a minute think that it couldn't happen again under the right (or wrong) circumstances. And that's here in America; who knows how it will come out on the other side of the pond if the Europeans finally reach their breaking point.

Every group of people in America has at some point been called upon to demonstrate it's bona fides, it's "American-ness". Maybe that time has come for American Muslims; maybe silence isn't enough any longer.

Or perhaps just logic.

most Americans seems to think of all Muslims as "those people"

Consider irony.

Iraq was too at one point.

Before the Ba'athists came doesn't count.

The title of this article should be:

Fighting the Islamic Borg: We will not be assimilated.

There are many, many arabs who are neither violent nor islamic. The problem is not a race or a people group (i.e., arabs), the problem is the ideology that is so prevalent among that people group (i.e., islam). Let's not conflate ideology with race or ethnicity. Certainly many of the people we see currently rioting are arabic (in a broad sense), but this is not a race problem, its an idea problem.

Its apparent from your article that you understand that islam is at the root of this mess, so I'm not saying that you are using the term "arab" in the title of your article in a racist way, or that you yourself are racist Blanton. I'm merely pointing out that I believe its a poor choice of terminology.

Pointing to the real culprit (i.e., islam) in your article title would keep the whole race canard from being brought up as much as it has been the past few days. People are born arab, people are not born islamic. One is predetermined, the other is embraced.

It was over the top. Should have quit after the second paragraph. I was in "General Pershing" mode for a minute there.

public press would be running the entire story"

These cartoons {insert Danish Mohamed cartoons here} were published in a Danish newspaper. The Muslim world exploded in violence and threats against the journalists, the newspaper, the Danish nation and it's people.

Prior to this publication the newspapers of the Muslim world publish these cartoons {insert Jew-hating, America-hating, Western-hating cartoons here} on a daily basis. This has been going on for years and continues to this day

Now you know the whole story, you can make an informed decision.

"We report, you decide." A rational press would report the story from both sides and let the American public make up their minds. A rational press would be telling the entire story, not just snippets of burning embassies and marches with disgusting banners triggered by some cartoons "too offensive to display". But instead we get CNN holding back out of phony respect for Islam while the New York Times expends its ink trying to equate the NSA intercept program with the shady goings on of the Nixon administration.

Just another demonstration why he press is a waste of trees and electrons.

Right on the money jsteele. I think Western civilization is rapidly approaching a "tipping point" with regard to acquiescence versus blowback. There will come a time when there is no room left for nuance or shades of grey, just "Whose side are you on?"

There is never a "dangerous stand" for free speech my friend.

I will stand up for the right of anyone to say whatever they want, regardless of how I feel about what they are saying. Speech harms no one.

Essentially, you are asking for self-censorship on the part of the media. In the case of national security secrets, self-censorship may be justified. Otherwise, let the consumers vote with their wallets as to which papers and media outlets they are going to support and pay attention to.

I see conservatives decry all the time that the media censors itself, that it won't report on conservative or republican issues fairly or at all, that the MSM shows only what it wants to show. Why would we be against the media censoring itself in these instances, but not in this case with these cartoons?

No. Let the information flow, and let people make up their own minds about it. I don't need the media to filter the news for me, thanks very much.

to let the terrorist-supporters at CAIR speak for you, for all Muslims in America? They are the ones with the megaphone in the public square claiming to be the voice on Muslims in this country.

CAIR claims to speak for you. They aren't doing a very good job if you ask me.

most Americans seems to think of all Muslims as "those people".

Not yet. Americans are highly resistant to doing that with any people.

We do, however, use doing that as a tool. If you see that happening, it's bad news. It means we've decided.

CNN is the most pro-muslim pro-arab network on US tv. It's very biased against Israel at the same time. Their reporters like Christiane Amanpour and other muslims are blatant in their prejudice. Trust me, if there were some major muslim figures speaking out forcefully and leading peace marches - they would show it.

Thanks for pointing that out.

The question would be the same as the Germans vs. Nazi question, wouldn't it? Are all Germans culpable  to a degree for the Nazi rise?  I'm not sure there's a consensus viewpoint on that.

I can readily believe that there's a bunch (large minority even) of Muslims who thing the whole thing's bogus.  I can readily believe there's a minority (indeterminant size) who are doing all the rioting.  I can readily believe there's a large minority who think "I'm not wasting my time with it, but I agree with them."  And I think it's the latter two which form the majority.

I think many of us believe that due to the lack of counter-proof.  If Iran stands up and says "we're going to destroy Israel" and the Palestinians elect Hamas, who says "we're going to destroy Israel," and no one stands up to say "we disagree with you," how can you ask that we not believe Iran and the Palestinians?

It's a very iffy argument with absolutely no basis in fact trying to refute very public, very obvious proof.  You just can't make the argument that "I know people."  I know some Americans who came from Jordan or Iran also.  Even ones who are anti-"Organized Religion" due to how the use of Islam by socio-political leaders "over there" leads to just plain war.  However, there's an ethnically-Muslim type of mindset -- a tribalism that says that Jew-hating is fine.  An admmiration for Nazi culture, and a odd, paradoxical desire to avoid War.  But remember -- absence of Armed Conflict is not Peace.  There's a huge divide there, witness the Cold War or pre-9/11 World.

But much like the Nazi rise, no one is speaking out against the radical elements; there are large portions of the population who are sympathizers and large parts who think it's all dumb, I could believe.  But until the "moderates" stop the "extremists" there can be no effectual difference.

And I think that's a major point that you have to understand -- if it's between people who want to kill me, enslave me and/or destroy my way of life, an indifference is just as deadly as an extremist if there are enough extremists to do the job.  The moderates are totally irrelevant to such a situation -- witness 1940 Germany.  The Jews were massacred because no one rose up to stop it.  The moderate Germans could have hated the Nazis all they wanted -- makes no difference to the dead Jews.

So, I think, arguing that the "majority" of Muslims don't believe this is, to be honest, completely irrelevant witnessing 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 and all the rest.  Moderates either need to step up and try to stop it, or you make yourselves irrelevant.  I can admit to a third party in a conflict -- a with-us, against-us or sidelines.  I can not admit to the relevancy of the sideline portion, however.

The responsiveness, open-mindedness, and honesty of the writers and managers of Redstate is excellent. Thank you.

Well done.

I touched upon some of the issues you identified in

http://vadum.redstate.com/story/2006/2/5/03954/92013

and was vilified by the unthinking leftists who lurk around Redstate using pseudonyms.

With people and institutions like Josh Marshall and CNN defending Americans' freedoms, we might as well just give up.

Fortunately, I don't think too many people take CNN and Josh Marshall and Bill "Blame American First" Clinton and the New York Times and the Washington Post too seriously anymore.

Over on RedHot you postulate that the Europeans might be willing to slaughter journalists and that we might be willing to cleanse Islam of its fascist elements. A double good in my book.

"In the case of national security secrets, self-censorship may be justified.

So, now that we've really built our entire ME philosophy as "it's us Americans helping you, the Muslim everyday joe, against the radicals in your midst", don't we completely jeapordize that if we come into the Cartoon Wars on the opposite side as the ME "street"?

Seems like this was the most effective response the mullahs could have made to our inroads to Abdullah Sixpack's heart. Just as their opinion of us was starting to rise (which was, I think, the brilliance of the Bush strategy), the imams hit on a surefire way to alienate us from the mob.

As much as it disgusts me to say so, CNN is doing this exactly right - for Bush's and our sakes - and exactly wrong - for their own agenda. I'm surprised that the NYT didn't immediately print the cartoons - what a great way to knock out Bush's rising popularity over there.

...if we are to tout freedom and representative government as being accessible to even the muslim world.

We don't kow tow to totalitarian demands to eliminate free speech, or to restrict/censor free speech. We need to boldly say, "This is what freedom is, to speak one's mind without fear, and we want you to have it too." We can't promote this ideal if we are going to deny it to ourselves at home.

Buckling under to pressure to self-censor is living in fear. We don't live in fear of tyranny in the West, because we're supposed to be FREE.

Let those elements in the islamic world who want change see that the West means business when it comes to freedom. Censoring the media, whether its the media doing it to themselves out of fear, or the government doing it, in the face of violent islam, sends precisely the wrong message. It says that we aren't serious about this whole freedom thing, that our ideals are nothing more than empty platitudes, and it shows we are weak, both of which will worsen our position vis-a-vis the middle east, not strengthen it.

Let freedom ring. The truth shall make us free.

what about this..."self censorship" vs. "better judgement"  

any chance this has a chance?...or does using better judgement mean "we given in".. or gave up on rights?

between "let us all be friends, and work together to make this a better world for all, and, now that we're playing so nicely, here's our idea of what freedoms we think are important and vital . . ."

and

{WHACK} "Dammit, BE FREE WITH US, oh, and Mohammad SUX! We can say that!" {WHACK}.

One just seems . . . more efficient, I guess. The other seems more prideful, maybe, but I'm not convinced good things much ever come of that.

...to throw the lines from Kumbaya in there.

Does not the general population acquire some culpability for failing to stand against the extremists? In my opinion, the pre-War German populace has some responsibility for not just allowing the Nazis to come to power but doing so with enthusiasm. My Dad was part of the occupation forces and always used to marvel at watching pre-war newsreels of all the crowds cheering Hitler; he said after the war you couldn't find anyone who had ever been to a rally :-)

I believe there is such a thing as responsibility by acquiescence. If I don't stand up and say no then I have some responsibility for the outcome.

...that could fall under "better judgment." There are many things I dislike that are printed in the media.

However, I stand firm that speech must be free, except possibly in the case of national security. Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words (or cartoons) will never hurt me.

I'd have thought more people would have learned that principle on the school yard playground. Apparently, I'm mistaken in that assumption.

You've got it exactly right. CNN has shown its true stripes before, when they were willing to print whatever Saddam Hussein wanted, just so CNN could stay in Baghdad.

how bout a war zone reporter...accidently, or not, reveals positions, or something like that.

something bad happens...a soldier dies.  who do you fault?..the scum you're fighting for killing that soldier, or the reporter that, because he can, did his job?

or, is the anger, blame, to go around for both?

hated that song..more of a John Henry guy

...would obviously fall under the "national security" exception I gave. Reporters embedded with combat units agree not to air things that that would hinder or hurt our troops in terms of the overall strategy and/or tactics being used during an operation.

So, a reporter who screws up and reveals information about strategy/tactics on the battlefield is NOT doing his job. He's agreed to censor his own reports to keep from revealing military secrets. So in that case, the journalist is partly to blame, but only because he didn't follow the proper protocol in the first place.

These cartoons are completely different. There are no gag orders from the government concerning these, because they do not deal with national security interests or military planning/secrets. They are merely political/religious statements being made by a particular newspaper in a particular country. And that is the tradition that has grown up in the West, namely that outside of national security/military issues, individuals and the press are able to speak their minds freely, regardless of the content of that speech.

Indeed, I'm surprised that this even needs to be clarified. Its one of the corner stones of our free Western societies. Indeed, it is what give you the right to ask your question in this forum.

Limit it, and its no longer "free."

think that point needs to be clarified.

what is at the crux of my point is nothing was gained by printing the toons.  

this equating restricting freedoms, and using good judgement is astounding.

v. stomp around, tear up grass and throw it, beat on chest.

I'm not sayin' we criticize the cartoonists. I'm just sayin', we sit back and quietly let the Euros fight this one out.

Al Jazeera?...are you willing to defend their rights , as you would the Danes?...

I just read in the editorial of today's journal (yes actual print news).

Muslims denouncing violence from important places

-- Jihad al-Momani, newspaper editor in Jordan, of course he lost his job for printing cartoons.

-- Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria of Lebannon, and accepted resignation of Interior Minister for not protecting consulate

-- Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, condemned both cartoons and violence, but violence more so.

Certainly I agree with that -- the question is more of "what is the result of the 'diffused culpability'".  Very much like "diffusion of responsibility" in mob settings, if it doesn't actually meet the definition.

The point of interest for me was the commentor trying to say that "Average/Majority of Muslims" don't agree with the "radicals."  While I'm inclined to doubt the veracity of the statement, I'm holding back to the point of saying "ok let's say they don't; how are they, then, even relevant to the discussion?"

Which is to say if the average Muslim is not only not the same thing, but against the Radical, but makes no case or motion against, then they are wholly irrelevant to the question.  Granted, I'm being lenient, or charitable, here, but "charity," "leniency," or -- a-hah -- "tolerance" is part of the Western teaching - founded in the Christianity that gave rise to the West.

However, it begs a further question, I guess. Namely that, if as some have indicated, the "moderate" Muslim is the majority, and the "radical" is carrying out an impure understanding of the Islamic faith, is a "moderate" so due to the following of a "more pure" Islamic faith -- the point of which is not to question the "purity," but the "moderate" being moderate due to what?  A better understanding of the faith?

And further that, if so, is the "moderate" not in some way called by his religion to act in objective ways to obstruct the radical form?  Much is made of the fact that the "radicals" are confirmed in their belief that to blow oneself up in a homicide-bomb attack is better than to allow the status quo, would not a similar case be pending for the "moderate" to act objectively to stop the "radicals" from defaming the faith?

This is excellent news, of course.  I'll remain guardedly optimistic on it.  It goes to the point I tried to make (below) regarding objective efforts of "moderate" Muslims in obstructing the "radicals."

Not to be too pessemistic, but were these pronouncements in Arabic and then translated?  or were they -- a la Arafat's Oslo Debacle -- originally in English?

...that you don't fully believe in the freedom of speech and the press?

The point obviously needed to be clarified, in light of the spurious example you were using to try and support your position. You were conflating a Danish newspaper's right to make a political or religious statement with the need for a reporter to censor his reports from the battle field.

You want newspapers to self-censor based on what you call "good judgment." I call your "good judgment" fear of unfettered freedom of speech and the press. Why not just admit what you've been hinting around at in the plethora of posts you've made to this and other articles here at Redstate, and come right out and say that YOU think there are things that should not be printed.

I mean, as long as you're arrogating to yourself the position of ultimate judge of what should and should not make it into print, at least be honest about it. Is it so hard for you to say, "I believe in free speech, but only to a point?" Or is it the case that you know, once you admit that position, that speech is no longer truly free?

If we are to bow to the demands of "good judgment" when it comes to what should and shouldn't see print, we'll end up with the American version of Soviet-era Pravda.

No thanks.

but you're wrong as to my beliefs.  I can believe in free speech, and many other freedoms, and still exercise good judgement.  The fact that you can't,that is what is confounding.  

Now, back to the question, what about Al Jazeera?

You're on the spot....

We do not have complete freedom of speech, and it has often been conservatives who have advocated restirctions on "speech" in the form of obscenity ordinances and the like.  The New York Times couldn't just put a picture of a nude woman on its cover.  An individual citizen would be prohibited in many locations from putting a huge billboard on his own property depicting extreme violence.

We have these kinds of laws out of respect for other people.

Many people are probably more offended by religious satire than a picture of a naked woman, yet one is prohibited (in public) and the other is pervasive.  It's not entirely unreasonable to say that there should be a real discussion about this question.

I think IDEAS should never be censored.  It would be terrible if the government were to tell editors that they couldn't publish stories that criticized religion.  I'm not sure that pictures are "speech."  If so, why are they restricted in many ways?

Of course the main justification for obscenity laws is that they are intended to protect children, but if adults want pornography and violence they can get it easily enough.  This has not always been the case.  There was a time in America where cities and states could have total bans on pictures, books, or films deemed offensive.

Maybe it's good that we don't have these laws anymore, but the laws were understandable and maybe led to a better society.

I'm talking abstract here.  In this particular case I don't think the Arab anti-cartoonists have a leg to stand on given their hypocrisy in publishing offensive anti-Jewish propoganda all the time.  They clearly don't respect any other religions themselves and should not expect the rest of the world to have to respect their religion.

I'd love for Americans to be able to hear right from the horse's mouth the praise for terrorits and murderers that passes as "news" on Al Jazeera. I'd love people in the West to see muslims praising beheadings, suicide bombings, airline hijackings, and the detonation of IEDs. I'd love more people in the West to hear the jew-hatred that is broadcast through Al Jazeera on a regular basis. I'd love more people in the west to hear Iran declare that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and that they're willing to do whatever it takes to get the nukes to do it.

Why? Because it would wake people up to the brutalality and barbarity that islamic religion and politics thrives upon. I'd love for the liberal talking points about how much of a wonderful and peaceful religion islam is become exposed for what they are.

I'm a believer in free markets, both economically and for ideas. Let the ideas get out there for people to see and think about, and I'll trust the market place to sort out the good ones from the bad. I can guarentee that Al Jazeera broadcasting in the West would hurt, not help, the islamic cause, as more people would be exposed to the lies and evil which islam represents on a consistent basis.

Using the Borg analogy is an excellent way to explain the danger, and perhaps explains why certain people belonging to older, elite groups don't understand the danger.

However, you fall short if you think we can defeat radical Islam. Because like the BORG, the radicalized Muslim is but a tool of the common consciousness. Something else, not radical Islam is using the tool as a weapon.

I touched on this in my diary. (Dec 31, 2005: Remnants of an Empire - the real enemy exposed)

True, the immediate threat is the terrorist, but it isn't religion that drives them. It is something far worse, and far harder to understand, but easier to defeat once you see the danger clearly.

Osama bin Laden didn't set out to be a martyr. He wants to be emperor. The problem in short is that the treaty of 1923 didn't end the Ottoman empire, it simply disbursed the assets. The organization, structure and fiefdoms may have been redistributed to the King of England and to the Republic of France, and certainly only the loyal Emirs, Sheiks, Kings and tyrants would prosper but the structure of the empire remains intact.

A little research into the building of the Ottoman empire along with some research into the difference between Middle East feudalism and western feudalism which are the two social structures that inherited the remnants of Roman Empire, will make the real cause rather than the symptom clear.

Yes, the Islamists as well as most Arab Muslims are very Borg like. But there is a reason. The reason is that there are a number of elites that rule everything. And among the elites the "baddest", most dangerous, most ruthless play a dangerous game of king of the hill. And to prove how bad they are they send their minions to do dastardly deeds of violence throughout the world.

What seems to be opaque to everyone is why anyone would be a suicide attacker. Asked another way it is easier to understand. Why would anyone sacrifice their lives to impress someone who would be their king. The answer is obvious: to gain political advantage. After all, in the middle east the very privilege to live is something that any royal family member or associate can rescind. The role that religion plays is to lend moral credibility to the life and death decisions of the royalty as "the will of God". A parasitic relationship common to all feudal societies.

In these ways the west and eastern form of feudalism isn't very different. The elite, who are not only above the law but whose word is the law hold the power of life and death, the source of economic reward or punishment. The reason kings grant fiefs is the same reason that Fattah provided jobs to families willing to make a blood sacrifice in Arafat's war. Arafat controlled all access to all assets. He held the power to revoke the privilege of life from anyone that disagreed. With proper credit to Shakespeare, the point is that a leader that acts like what we call a king, by any other title will still be a king.

Successful democracy, where individual rights are protected (real freedom) is the only way to end the terrorism for it is the only way to eliminate the remnants of the feudalism and the generational resurgence of the king of the hill game.

Otherwise, in a few years some other son of an elite family will rise up and agitate the Borg to violence, in order to win himself a reputation. As long as the middle east remains a land by which leaders are chosen through trial and combat, and religion enforces the moral power that the leaders hold over the privilege of life, the only way for the half son of a royal family with 57 half brothers, uncles and cousins can negotiate a decent place for himself in the ruling hierarchy will be through his ability to motivate people to murder on his behalf. And so they will send their followers to bleed the weak that they may appear strong.

Basically, that is what Osama bin Laden thought he was doing.

and not to speak for Mr. Stark, but I would have to concur that you're asking the question:

 - where does the free in free speech end.

And, I think that question has been answered by most Western countries:  there is an implicit order, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independance, for one example:

1. Life
2. Liberty
   and
3. Pursuit of Happiness (Property)

Liberty is clearly the guiding dicum w/r/t speech.  Therefore, first and foremost, infringments of one claiming "liberty" against life is a loss to Liberty's side. (No I'm not arguing against "give me liberty or give me death;" I'm arguing for a supremacy of one's life over someone else's liberty.)

I think this is what lends itself to the Western interpretation that "inciting violence" is really the clear limit.

I would not disagree with you that lots of things are published in bad taste or bad faith.  The badness thereof does not modify the freedom to do so, however.  If Al Jazeera is inciting to violence, or airing material inciting to violence, I think it is clear-cut that this would fail the test.  Anything short -- however innappropriate and bizarre -- would not fail the test.

For how long have similar cartoons depicting Jews and/or the West been published without reprisal?

is that you won't hear that on the upcoming US service of Al Jezeera. You will hear what Al Jezeera wants you to hear as the Arab version.

It's the old Arafat trick, say one thing for the English speaking TV cameras and something entirly different for the Arabic language services.

It happens today in the New York Times, why should we expect Al Jazeera to be any different. The NYT is currently peddling how much the NSA intercept program is reminiscent of the Nixon era, when in fact they know full well there that the only similarity is that someone is gathering intelligence on someone else. But that doesn't stop them from "quoting old Washington hands" or "some DC insiders" or whatever.

I'd rather US be at least a vocal defender of individual rights around the world. Which means sticking up for freedom of the press even if we don't have to.

John, this guy figures that if we behave ourselves we'll be fine. He's not going to look at the fact that Muslim extremists hate us for a lot more than just some stupid cartoons.

for many years.  And a lot of that is the fact that we(?) pride ourselves on the liberties and freedoms available, and defend them.  however, part of my point is judgement, in using those wonderful rights and freedoms.

to this moment, no one shown a benefit, a reason, for publishing those.  what was the purpose?..as I have seen here a couple times, just becasue you have the right, doesn't mean it's right.

I appreciate your honesty

i believe if we use good judgement, stupid things may not happen.  this is a perfect example of not using good judgement.  

if that works out so that we end up wrecking, or at least throwing a wrench into, our process of bringing these ME muslim societies into this century, showing them what democratic freedom can do for them, and helping ourselves craft a more stable, safer world, for our OWN damn sake, and all we get in exchange is the self-satisfaction that we spoke REALLY LOUDLY in defense of those freedoms we just made less available, aren't we sort of useless? Or worse?

If restraint is what it takes to foster more rather than less freedom in the world, why not? Do we really serve that freedom we're trumpeting if all we accomplish is to make it less likely to spread?

Who cares if it wasn't right??? The point it, since it was aready done, we are left with the actual freedom to do it to defend. Not the reasons for why it was done. The deed is done. Cartoons are published. Did the newspapers have the right to publish them? 100% yes.

Now if we were discussing whether it would be a good idea to publish them to begin with, you could have some point. I'd still argue that the stereotypes perpetuated by those mild cartoons are perfectly valid as proven by the reaction.

You are correct in that in a Democratic/Liberty-based society that Temperance is the first to die (see Plato, The Republic).  

However, you are arguing, it would seem, for some sort of censure on free-speech.  As a temperate self-moderation is untenable, the argument lacks standing, as it were.  Thus the real need for tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and retaliation in-kind, not in excess.

You're not going to get anyone to agree that there should be some censure prohibiting the publication of these cartoons who is a classical liberal.  It's anti-thetical to Western civilization -- based upon classical liberalism -- to do so.

The only other case you could possible be making is for arrogation of the self-censorship onto some other body -- thus the subject of my comment.

You can't have it both ways, and the least worst is to put up with intemperate people mouthing off.  This preserves the grace of free speech for all who can really benefit from it.

Likewise, there will always be people to be offended by whatever is said; that, too, is inescapable.  So I would, respectfully, suggest that your argument lacks a rational basis -- follow-through your argument to a possible implementation and you'll see that there isn't one.

I can't tell you about the Ayatollah, but the journalist and Prime Minister made public enough acts, that there is no way to confuse them.  And I suspect the Ayatollah's was in arabic as well given the text they had in the editorial(it was directed at muslims).

I think it was a righteous thing to do. To not do something because it might provoke violence from criminals... Someone else said it here - it's like blaming the girl who was raped, for dressing up in a sexy fashion.

I am proud to support both the right and the decision to publish those cartoons.

Why? Well because they were true. And mild at that.

...but I have every faith that the virulent hatred, bigotry, and violence that muslims have for non-muslims (particularly for Jews) would come out in the wash. They simply cannot help themselves, for "the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart...for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders" and "the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil," because "a bad tree cannot produce good fruit."

in this case do we have a freedom to defend?...people are using the "freedom " arguement to justify stupidity.  Sure, they can publish whatever they want...but why?...Iran is putting out inflaming thoughts, ideas, rhetoric...look what happens...it makes us mad, gets people calling for blood.  you think the average Iranian is happy their government is provoking a fight?...please...i'm tired of this.

our rights are coupled with responsibility...period.

appreciate the engagement by all.

It is better to expose people for who they really are. Personally I am getting the satisfaction of seeing my friends shocked.

I am not seeing any real effort of bringing those ME societies into the 21st century succeeding without a huge shock to their system. Maybe something to the effect of them realizing that Allah is not going to protect them from a serious butt kicking. Unfortunately it will take more than 1 war. Middle East is not ready for peace. Not this generation.

So maybe I am not looking to spread freedom there right this moment. I'd rather concentrate on defending OUR freedoms in the West.

moral equivalency is annoying. How the hell do you compare the garbage and terrorism coming out of the ME totalitarian governments to one instance of cartoons in a God forsaken Danish newspaper.

Our rights are inalienable. Responsibility rests on the criminals.

I said:

this guy figures that if we behave ourselves we'll be fine

You said:

no, i believe if we use good judgement, stupid things may not happen.

What's the difference? I still think that somewhere in the back of your mind, you think the whole kerfuffle is the cartoonists' fault.

"So maybe I am not looking to spread freedom there right this moment. I'd rather concentrate on defending OUR freedoms in the West.
"

It's just that I fear that letting the mullahs turn this into a true religious war must surely lead to WWIII, with a nuclear Iran rallying Islam.

We'll win. But, damn, the cost . . . .

First off, muslims were faced by some truths with those cartoons. The cartoon of mohammed at the gats of heaven telling martyrs that there are no more virgins, or the one with mohammed's turban as a bomb with a lit fuse, were pointed critique's of the muslim's penchant for religious violence. Given the violence and promotion of violence that has resulted since the publication of those cartoons, the West is learning an invaluable theological and political lesson about the true face of islam.

Furthermore, muslims themselves are faced with what is wrong with their own religious and political views. Truth hurts, and its apparent that the muslim world is hurting from the truth revealed in those cartoons. Perhaps that hurt will drive some muslims to re-evaluate the dictates of their faith. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but miracles have been known to happen.

As well, the fact that these Danes were able to exercise their right to free speech is, in and of itself, a benefit. All of us who live in free countries can celebrate the exercise of freedom, even if we don't agree with the contents of it or think it was "good judgment." It reaffirms the values of the West in that it shows the world that we mean what we say when it comes to freedom.

Let freedom ring.

of Jihad and intolerance for our civilization, it seems to me that they are not ready to make real peace. And I would not accept peace on their terms.

I shudder at the thought of compromise with evil :( We may end up doing it, but what will happen to our freedoms. The cost is great either way.

because the #$%^ going on now is a result of stupidity.  And innocents are dying, because an already unstable element is no less stable.  Adn you know what, they have a reason to be pissed.  Not to kill, attack , burn , whatever.  to be pissed.

Did one act lead to another, ...yes.  Could it have been avoided?..yes.  Get a grip

"I shudder at the thought of compromise with evil."

Shoot. That reminds me - I gotta finish my taxes.

me too :)

the cartoonists used poor judgement.  everything else is the fault of the rioters.

agree or not, i don't care.  believe or not that our rights come w/responsiblity, again, up to you.

Who gets to choose? You? Me? Someone may decide your comments are stupid. Should that justify your censorship. And I am not talking about RedState, I mean government censorship.

The problem is what you find stupid others may not. It seems as if the Danish paper felt the need to publish these exactly to show the rabid threat to democracy that these groups pose. There is good that came out of this and that it may make the touchy-feely "we just dont understand them" crowd wake up.

If it werent about religion, lets say it was about race: White Supremacists threaten that you should not print pro-black articles or you will die. Do you think CNN should just shut up?

As for better judgement? Should the news be broadcast only when it is convenient? I say no. If CNN doesnt want to be uncomfortable they should get out of the business.

the point is that if you are a woman in America and are exposing your ankles you are probably on their poo list already,

if you are a Christian or Jew you automatically are on the list

if you have ever worn a bathing suit, had a chocolate martini, taught your daughter math, breathed the air as an Infidel, lived life as an American, you're screwed.

So you are already doing a lot of things to piss them off so unless you plan on converting good judgement is irrelevant.

would think twice about something something so hot.

I don't have the need to showcase my rights, and freedoms.

Unlike reporters, the magnitude of impact of my views is pretty insignificant.

which means that the magnitude of censorship in such a case is even greater too.

self censorship?....should be easy to refrain

Someone needs to say it clearly: the misbehavior of others does not justify every excess of our own. The fact that there are thousands of muslims stampeding around the world like a bunch of spoiled tribal brats, unwilling or unable to make the titanic shift from tribalism to classic liberalism (properly understood) does nothing except highlight their primitive culture. Sometimes we have a tendency to conclude that because someone has a right to, say, publish a deliberately offensive cartoon, that makes it right to do so. Those who published these cartoons may have done so to make a point about the nature of free speech. But part of me suspects they did so to, as another poster above put it, to "poke muslims in the eye". To poke a man in the eye because he is taking a punch at you is a good thing. To poke him in the eye because it will make him stomp in anger is uncivilized and bufoonish.  I wish I had confidence this was done for the right reason.

Meantime, we are now backed into a corner where we dare not not publish these things even more.  

On the otherhand the good news is that you can't kill yourself by holding your breath. Eventually you will pass out and start breathing again :-)

you are never likely to see at CNN

"CNN will not televise (insert NEA abomination here) out of respect for Christianity/Judaism."

but caution....some here will attempt to poke you in the eye for saying that.  they will also attempt, because you've said this, paint you to be soft on the rioters/radicals.

anyway, nice post.

it would have been something else.

We are dealing with a sub-population that wants, no demands, some special consideration for their religious, social, political and economic views. The great falacy of our day is that Islam is a religion; it is an entire system of life that, in its fullest practice, dictates religious, social, political, economic aspects of the adherent's life.

What is this finish of which you speak? :-)

but I seriously doubt that any of these will have any impact. And if I'm thinking of the same story, the Jordanian not only lost his job he's been arrested.

granted...but unless something happens...co existance is a must.  you don't co exist by "poking in the eye"  no?

you go back to what Jylands-Posten said was the reason for doing this, they were concerned about the self-censorship going on in Europe. Between the lines is the reason for the self-censorship; fear. Remember Theo Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali, et al. The newspaper says it was responding to the gauntlet already having been thrown down.

These cartoons were not run out of sheer cussedness, simply to poke a man in the eye, they were run to highlight a growing problem that we all know exists in Europe and increasingly in this country. The demands for some special consideration, special rules, special interpretation grow almost daily in Europe. Now the demand is to suppress free speech if it offends Islam. Of course they say if it offends any religion but that's not what it really means.

incident in Europe. The demands have been made for years and the Europeans have given in on every one. Maybe the newspaper thought it was time to say 'enough is enough --- no more, this is our line in the sand.'

just got more information regarding the whole ordeal..heard some valid points about standing w /the Danes, with Europe as a whole.    I understand the solidarity, and the anger at the protesters and rioters for what is going on.  I've never excused the reaction to ...

I just don't think there was value in posting the cartoons.

I also doubt they will have much impact, but I just wanted to show that there was some hope out there.  The fact that an editorial, with the purpose of demonstrating high profile muslims with sense over this, could only find 3 big names is sufficient cause for cynicism.

I hadn't heard he was arrested, source?

or maybe WND, I just can't recall right now. I'd guess that Google will index it in another day or two.

IMO, the cartoon issue came at a great time, or perhaps a bit late.

When somebody like Theo van Gogh is murdered, we think it's only one wacko.  If trains are bombed in London or Madrid, we wonder what happened that the perps weren't assimilated.  If Scandinavian g girls are raped in disproportionate numbers by Muslim young men, the government simply stops releasing the figures.

It is, possibly, fear that keeps the focus of the question narrow.

I can't think of another issue which would have been so icy-clear in bringing out the real issue:

The rest of the world must conform to the whims of the Muslims or die.  Or fight.  There is no way to narrow the focus here to relieve ourselves of seeing the truth.

The cartoon issue is the best thing that's happened to the West since the war began, which I figure was about thirty-five years ago, although some would say it goes back another millenium and a quarter.

You are putting some perspective into this. Castro stage-manages demonstrations too, and we don't kneel before him (unless, of course, we are from the Hollywood bubble). Perhaps because he doesn't have suicide bombers in Miami like Al Qaeda does?

And if CNNs craven cowardice had prevailed before wwII we'd be dealing with Hitler's grandson leading Europe by now.

CNN make my stomach churn.

and it's well founded.  those types don't care about their lives or ours.  they've shown it, and probably will continue to show it.  it is exactly this fear that is out there that should make those in position to influence, (reporters, political leaders, ...)cautious with their rights/abilities.

Yeah.

--

Bad Dane!  Don't poke the crazy Muslim in the eye!

What?  He already cut of your head?  Oh well... mine's still attached, don't anger him.

--

It's absurd to say "don't poke" when they're beheading.  Can you not see your sham effort at moral equivalency between a cartoon and bloody murder?

There. Is. No. Equivalency.

Please... stop apologizing for crazy people fire-bombing embassies.  It's ridiculous.

Van Gogh get's his poor head chopped off and the Muslims Imams rush to tell us not to indict all of Muslimhood for it... a paper publishes some cartoons to show just how intolerant Muslims are and how self-censoring Europeans are, and the same Imams rush around the middle east inciting violence.  Did they limit that to just the people at the paper?  No, as was made blatently clear it was to the entirety of the West.  That's you and me both.

Fear is a very popular basis for making decisions. People do it every day. But recognize that when you self-censor out of fear, you have ceded control over your life to someone else. I can't complain about this of course. As I say, it's a very popular way to make decisions.

You may consider me naive as well as uncivilized for saying that my general preference is to make my own decisions, regardless of what anyone else wants or thinks, and regardless of whom I offend. But after a whole day of effort, I hope it's at least clear exactly where we disagree.

go, run around the yard and cool off...pop a pill, do something, just quit barking sparky.

now, show me where I've ever apologized for those people, advocated on their behalf, or any of the bile that you just coughed up.

it just served as an anchor for the 'discussion' and allowed the crazies to show their true colors. As Freud probably wished he had said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

and I too live my life that way,uncontrolled by fear..  then again, your words and actions aren't likely to enrage others to the point of violence.

others, in public forums, well, I guess we've seen what can happen.

you responded to the wrong post. I am not arguing for moral equivilence in this matter, there is none possible. If you are responding to me you "misunderestimated" my views.

Correct; I mistakenly attached to your's, I meant to attach to 117 w/r/t 114.

...seem from your many other posts to be pretty realistic and practical about islam and what it is. I'm surprised to hear you say that you think the a western versioin of Al Jazeera would be able to keep the lid on endorsing terrorism and jew-hatred.

We've got muslims in European countries walking around with signs talking about the next 911, the next holocaust, calling for beheadings, bombings, and hijackings/kidnappings. These people have grown bold to the point that they don't seem to mind their real views being on display for the public to see.

In the US, we have plenty of "moderate" muslims blatantly denying the holocaust, talking about the "jewish-run media, economy, government, etc." These are the "mainstream, moderate" islamic political/social organizations mind you, like CAIR, et al. They don't seem to mind putting their ideas out for public consumption at all.

So, I'm not sure why you think a western version of Al Jazeera would be able to keep the lid on what islam really stands for. They might play their games for awhile, but the true nature of islam always comes to the forefront.

Someone needs to say it clearly: the misbehavior of others does not justify every excess of our own.

So freedom of speech and the press is now an "excess?" Sigh.

Those who published these cartoons may have done so to make a point about the nature of free speech. But part of me suspects they did so to, as another poster above put it, to "poke muslims in the eye". To poke a man in the eye because he is taking a punch at you is a good thing. To poke him in the eye because it will make him stomp in anger is uncivilized and bufoonish.

You might want to check the news once in awhile. Islam has been "poking the west in the eye" for some time now. Suicide bombings. Plane hijackings. Ship hijackings. 911. Jew-hatred. The Pan AM flight that blew up over Lockerby. The London bombings. The Madrid bombings. The French riots. The first world trade center bombings. The death of 300 marines in beirut. Why, just yesterday a catholic priest was shot to death in Turkey over this.

I could go on and on and on.

The fact of the matter is that islam has been making war on the civilian and military populations of the west for decades. They know they can't win in a stand up fight again our militaries, so they kill civilians and attack military targets when they think they can get away with it. They won't take us on in a stand up fight, because they know we'd clean their clocks. So instead, the wage their dirty little terrorist campaigns, poking the west in the eye every chance they get.

And what did some Danish newspaper folks do? They published some cartoons! What a poke in the eye that was! Those poor muslims, why, their feelings may have been hurt! The outrage! The horror!

Cry me a river.

but I have a sense that they will work the old two faced game on us --- just like Arafat et al, one thing for the English cameras another for the Arabic. They recently hired Dave Marash formerly of ABCNews "Nightline" and tried to get Koppel. I sense that they are trying to get people who understand how to "frame*" things for the American audience.

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

* frame: Demospeak for telling you what I think you want my values to be without the trouble and work of actually bothering to have any.

...that it would get played like that. I simply don't agree that the jew-hatred and the scorn for us infidels could be kept under wraps. If we had islamic professors, clerics, etc. on network television, at some point they are going to play to the cameras and their islamic followers and let slip their true beliefs. Its been my experience that those who are two faced and liars can only play the game for so long.

Look at Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, hehe.

for publication of artistic expression is having the artwork pass some sort of "gains" test?  Can you imagine the "gain" test being applied to France in 1875?  The first Impressionist auction caused a riot in Paris. Would we be better off if Monet and Renoir applied some "self-censorship" and went back to a more traditional style?

And in regards to the current circmstances, isn't there a "gain" from discussions of the differences between Western Culture and Islam?

How easy it is to self censor is not the point. exactly the opposite. You claim that the magnitude of impact of your views is pretty insignificant. That presumes that the magnitude of impact of a major newspaper is very significant. Therefore, the result of an outlet like that censoring itself because it just isnt convenient has a HUGE impact to freedom and liberty.

In fact you are making my point by saying, "I dont have a need to showcase my freedoms." I think major media outlets, who pretend to be great upholders of free speech, do have that need. More like an obligation.

I hope there are not many who believe what you do because freedom is going to go down the drain quickly if we, as a nation, start believeing that. One inconvenience after another and all of a sudden you will be outraged as to why you CANT say anything anymore.

Liberty is not convenient.

it happend everyday...newspapers, news stations, anchors, radio, you name it.  all have at one point or another just decided to do X.  have made decisions, not to run a story, not to air a clip, not to show pictures.  that decision has not made any negative impact on freedom, liberty, rights.

IT SIMPLY HASN'T.  all it comes down to is one individual, or group deciding on their own not to doing something.

this idea that a judgement call by someone has an overall impact on our liberties, our freedoms is just crazy.  if a government crack down, ok, now let's talk.  but an individual to exercise judgement, sorry, no effect on the big picture.

you are trying to compare an everyday decision on what to run, probably due to time or space constraints to censorship based on an outside threat of violence. theres no comparison.

You may be ok with a group of people threatening someone from writing an article, or killing someone for making a documentary and I guess it is there that we shall agree to disagree.

I also am amazed that you are okee dokee with this if it just happens to instigated by religious leaders instead of political leaders. I guess I know how you would have voted if you were living in Spain.

speculation...you border on being OB.

stick to what you know, and not what you think you know.

debate on this point is being done by others right now...my point is valid, regardless how you want to distort it.

instead of telling me what I should or should not say

what have I distorted, i am just putting together all the pieces of what you have said. While your vote in Spain is speculation, I would say it is more educated guess. Otherwise I think everything else is pretty much dead on.

I've come to understand that people like you just like to hear yourself squawk.  that's all it is.

my points since post one have been made, countered, debated.  you jump in and presume to know who i am, what i think, wrapped up in rah, rah, freedoms talk, and anit muslim bile...yes you and others.

i tend not to go there, as I said my points have been made...and, interestingly enough, when it come to me point of responsibility and the cartoonist, others are saying the same thing.

as i said , stick to what you know, don't for the sake of discussion through out assumptions about other people.  that, my friend, gets very tiring.

why the #$%^ should i waste time on proving you wrong?...I've only stated my views , and opinions on this topic.  you and others(verse posters)seem to think you have the monopoly on wisdom in this area...forget all the other junk you've been spewing, answer this..what was gained by posting the cartoons?...

you have no idea what you are talking about.

buh bye

That has already been explained to you in painful detail by numerous people on this subject who, like me, are growing woefully tired of explaining it to you over and over again. It is refreshing, though, that when you no longer have a good argument you have to start accusing people of being racists.

Very nice.

Whatever our differences, it really isnt fair to bring Lovie Smith into this, he's doing a good job.

At least you're a Bears fan. I'll give you that.

C'mon , I'm a republican too!...

listen, obviously we are not going to agree on this, so lets just leave it at that. In the heat of debate sarcasm sometimes has a way of reigning supreme and time constraint usurp the ability to fully write out everything I may want to say.

I shall see you in another issue perhaps.

this debate is getting tiring...very.

i will say that personally, it is nice to see that GWB has similar feelings as mine about rights and responsibilities when exercisng those rights....not that any of the commenters here have been wrong.

it has been enlightening, really.  i do see the points that have been raised...it is nice we all view the field from the same bench