Anger Over Mohammed Cartoon

[Beestie]

The sad fact of the matter is that Islam does not forbid (nor did Mohammed in his day) the depiction of icons in non-religious contexts. But, tell that to one-hundred thousand ignorant, uneducated, sun-baked cretins and all you'll get is a number. A number somewhere between the number drawn by the duped Muslim virgin scheduled to be caned for being screwed by a Muslim male who gets enthusiastic high-fives while his notch gets blood-soaked cane whips and the number fate deals to a foreign journalist scheduled to have his head lopped off for catching the wrong cab.

A religion of peace? More like a religion of blood and body parts. I openly scoff at this preemptive simulation proffered by Islam to disguise its core dependence on conflict. And while enlightened Muslims silently loathe their headline-hogging, primordial brethren, their vocal cords are stretched to the breaking point the minute a non-Muslim probe explores the nerve leading to the internal paradox upon which their piety rests.

I have no desire to disentangle the Gordian knot Islamic fundamentalism created to sustain itself by manufacturing offenses designed to substantiate a characterization of non-pious Muslims as Infidels. Without Infidels, fundamentalist Islam has no basis so it becomes imperative to create a perpetual supply of them. While Zion has served quite nicely as the requisite straw man in this epistemological closed loop, fundamentalist Islam is spreading its wings and is feasting on the unlimited Infidelistic potential of America and its co-conspiritors.

Seizing on this, Imams in Madrassahs and Mosques across the Quo'ran belt and in the belly of the beast itself (right here in DC for example) can't demonize the West enough. In so doing, otherwise nonexistent lines of distinction between pious Muslims and Infidels are created and clarified in terms the ignorant masses can internalize. Creating a synthetic enemy justifies Islam. The absence of an enemy would lead to the downfall of Islam since its very existence is based upon identifying and eventually terminating Infidels.

All I can say at this point is that the only defense available to the Western World against the unbridled rage fueling the Islamic furnace of hate is to starve them economically.

What I think a lot of legislators overlook is that peace is, by implication, detrimental to the continuity of Islam. Islam whips itself into a frenzy in reaction to the cartoon (even though it violates no Islamic tenant) because it adds to the inventory of Infidels to hate. And hate is the mother's milk of Islam

And the more the West kisses Islam's behind, the more determined Islam becomes to reject the overture since accepting the gesture requires Islam to poison the very well from which it drinks.

No infidels. No Islam. I say we give them what they want - a reason to exist. If Islam is slow to forgive this, IMHO, is why. It is not possible to make peace with someone who's very existence depends on the absence of peace.

So be it.

Not unlike the instantaneous credibility afforded to the hillbilly who won the Powerball lottery, Islamofascism enjoys a spotlight and an undeserved seat at the world's table by virtue of geological blind luck. But, the liquid luck sustaining this undeserved celebrity privilege is finite.

So, the world has to deal with these bozos until their subterranean trust fund runs dry. History will acknowledge in a footnote how they bought their way into civilization's timeline as well as their pending return to the barren patch of parched earth that serves as an appropriate metaphor for what they contributed to it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

C'mon Beestie, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think of them.

[jaguar]

If this isn't 'threatening behavious toward a group' I don't know what is. This is obvious grounds for arrest under UK law, the fact it was allowed to continue is evidence of blatant racism of the UK Police.

[Trilby]

These people just can't take a joke. Really. They worry me.

[Undertoad]

Belmont Club has some amazing analysis going in the last few days of posts.

...many Europeans -- not most, but many -- are suddenly aware they stand on the edge. If they let Islamic clerics determine what Europeans can and cannot print in their own press through a process of intimidation and force, the Old Continent will have surrendered a large part of its independence and sovereignty. The holy grail of every agitator is to find an issue on which both sides are unalterably opposed. Radical Islam has found it the blasphemy of Mohammed and ironically gave those who would rouse the West a mirror issue of their own: the blasphemy of censorship and the extinction of freedom of speech.

Both sides now are in too deep to climb down without damage.

[richlevy]

I really have a problem with the attitude of 'How dare you imply that Mohammed is not a prophet of peace. For this we must kill you.'

It would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

All I can say at this point is that the only defense available to the Western World against the unbridled rage fueling the Islamic furnace of hate is to starve them economically.

To rise to power, Nazis attacked the intelligencia and merchant classes so as to empower the naive. How did Milosevic inspire racial hate in the Balkans? Rush Limbaugh types currently do the same thing in America. Just because a propaganda technique is working, you would disparage all 1930s Germans and all 2000s Americans? Of course not.

Not all Islamic people are so narrow minded. And yet you would punish all for sins of the naive? That is a 'sure fire' formula to promote hate and war. Same trick used by Sharon to restart the intafada.

Take apart this controversy with a scalpel rather than painting all with a broad brush. First, some of those comics are really lame. They deserve 'censure' by art critics. Second, seek common ground to defuse tensions. Except for one comic, the whole bunch is pathetic nonsense - no humor, no insight, no redeeming value.

Meanwhile, simply ignore Rush Limbaughs of the Islamic world so they will vaporize. Worrying about such extremists only empower those extremists at the expense of intelligent Muslims. Where is my criticism? At those comics that are not funny even to those with infantile humor.

Those comics should have been condemned by comic critics. Now we have people getting emotional over really bad art.

Remember an exhibit by Chris Ofili in Brooklyn featuring a Virgin Mary painted in elephant dung? Once we ignored it, the problem quickly disseminated.

Those comics are much to do about nothing. Too many people are paying attention to something that will disappear if simply ignored. It exists only due to Rush Limbaugh type hate.

[Undertoad]

Belmont again:

Like the politicians of the 1930s, the leaders of the West after September 11 each made their own calculation. In America's case it took the shape of thinking that it could make common cause with the most enlightened elements of Islamic civilization against fundamentalist extremists who were vying for Islam's soul. The strategy for achieving this goal, though reviled as simplistic, was anything but: America would not pick a fight with Islam itself. Rather it would make itself Islam's friend, ally with its most moderate elements, overthrow its worst oppressors and enlist the aid of the Muslim everyman against the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. In practice it would build a web of relationships with intelligence services, soldiers, intellectuals and politicians in Islamic countries who would provide the information and in cases the manpower to hunt down fundamentalist villains. The War on Terror would be to wars what Smart Bombs were to bombs. It would destroy the miscreants while leaving the surrounding structure untouched. It may be that Europe's calculation was more cynical. But it was equally sophisticated. It would pursue a policy of Appeasement which like Chamberlain's was calculated to drive one nuisance against another, pitting America against Islamic fundamentalism in the hopes that one would wear the other out. And the key to Europe's establishing its bona fides with Islamic countries was to make nice at every opportunity; avoid giving offense; be lavish with aid; open to immigration and obstructive to America at every turn. Like the appeasers of the 1930s it paid for its diplomatic strategy by systematically weakening itself.

[Undertoad]

Syrians burn the Danish embassy.

[Kitsune]

Where are the protestors in America? Why is this anger only taking place in a few select countries?

[jaguar]

Belmont makes the mistake of thinking of Europe as one country. Might seem that ways from the other side of the pond but the situation in France is very different to the UK which is very different to Denmark, all of whom have different agendas and strategies.

Yes, I would also like to point out that the Muslims are to Europe as Mexico is to the US. Many European nations depend upon the supply of cheap foreign labor coming in the form of workers from Turkey and other Muslim countries. Europe is no more appeasing the Muslims then we are appeasing wetbacks. Going by Belmont's logic, one could say that the US is wimping out to illegal immigrants from south of the border while Europe has taken a strict stance as proved by the fact that hardly any illegal Mexican workers show up there. And Jag is correct. Each country of Europe has its own policy and reasons. The UK allows in Pakistani's and Indians because these countries were once part of the British Colonial Empire, not out of some desire to appease the Muslim world. Switzerland allows in Turkish foreign workers simply because so few Swiss are willing to do the low paid labor intensive jobs commonly performed by the Turks. I was visiting one of my aunts in Switzerland once when a group of Turks came into our compartment on Swissrail as we were traveling from Zurich to Luzerne. My aunt made no effort to hide her contempt. While I do not applaud my aunt's open prejudice, it was hardly an attitude of appeasement.

[smoothmoniker]

Mari, that's a fairly good comparison. The difference, of course, is that fundamental structure of the immigrant culture isn't all that differnet than ours. The collonial roots run deep in each, we share common religious roots, and by and large the same rational, western worldview.

Contrasting with Europe, where almost none of those things hold true between the Old Europe and the new immigrants.

[jaguar]

true, but that doesn't have much to do with the belmont argument.

Precisely, SM! Imagine if Mexico and the rest of South America were Muslim countries! I think what we would call "appeasement" by Europe, might take on the very same flavor here.

There are many in this country - especially the religous right - who do NOT consider that the people of Mexico have much in common with the US. They are mostly Catholic, speak a foreign tongue, and have different cultural traditions, etc.

I will agree that the Mexican immigrant to the US is probably more easily culturally assimilated than the Turkish immigrant to Switzerland, however.