Cal Thomas (thanks to Twostellas) zeroes in on media dhimmitude in the face of cartoon rage:
At the National Black Fine Art Show in New York, a painting by Harlem artist "Tafa" depicts an upside down "Christ-like" figure with a face that resembles Osama bin Laden.No Christians have threatened the artist, or bombed the building where it is displayed, or attacked the city government.
Throughout the Middle East, state-controlled newspapers regularly depict Jews and Israeli leaders in despicable, stereotypical and anti-
Semitic caricatures. These cartoons show Jews with hooked noses; Stars of David morphing into swastikas; Palestinian and Arab blood drips from Jewish hands, and Jews are blamed for creating AIDS. Neither those newspapers nor Arab embassies have been attacked by Jewish mobs.When a Danish newspaper publishes several political cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, riots ensue and the artists and newspaper receive death threats. When newspapers in France and Germany courageously (and unexpectedly) reprint the cartoons as a demonstration of their right to free speech, further demonstrations occur and threats are made against those newspapers.
Occasionally, moral clarity comes with something quite simple, like political cartoons. These riots impress upon us an objective truth: the "clash of civilizations" is more than a conflict between peoples; it is between the 21st and the 7th centuries; between a God who has "commissioned" his followers to exact judgment on the world, according to their narrow interpretation, and a God who offers man grace, along with the freedom to choose or reject it, reserving judgment for Himself on another day.
Many American newspapers and some television networks have declined to publish the "offending" cartoons, thereby playing into the rioters' hands. CBS News reported on the rioting but says it will not show the cartoons because they cross a line. That CBS has a line will surprise some.
Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of the Washington Post, told Editor and Publisher magazine, "(The cartoons) wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper."...
A free press is so critical to freedom itself that America's founders wrote it into the First Amendment as one of our fundamental rights. If intimidation limits press freedom, our other freedoms are in jeopardy....
Lurie says it won't stop with cartoon censorship, but will advance to "telling us what to wear and Islam will be insulted if your wife or girlfriend doesn't wear a head scarf." Will free societies give in to threats, intimidation, murder and riots? If we don't stand now against this fundamentalist intolerance, there may not be enough of us left standing for the next and subsequent battles.
In a speech to the National Press Club last week, Secretary Rumsfeld said of Islamic terrorists, "they will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs."
It's going to be a long war.
It is not just the US. Read this letter from a former CEO of the BBC:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2027758,00.html
...the other two letters in the Times today are good too.
N
Wow! Rumsfeld certainly seems to be hitting the nail on the head quite recently.
bit of a improvement from his "known unknowns" poetic phase.
No Christians have threatened the artist, or bombed the building where it is displayed, or attacked the city government
No, we just shake our heads and figure that they are at war with God.
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do
This is worth the time to read,
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/07/185446.html
"The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by, in the face of death."
... between a God who has "commissioned" his followers to exact judgment on the world, according to their narrow interpretation, and a God who offers man grace, along with the freedom to choose or reject it, reserving judgment for Himself on another day.
Whose narrow interpretation? And which God offers grace, would that be Yaweh or Allah?
Cal Thomas is sounding wobbly to me. Just like that pipsqueak Sean Hannity last night, when Lt. Col. Oliver North, UMSC Ret. finally dropped a gonad or two and pronounced that "moderate Moslems" are mythical. An alarmed Hannity (ever the snivelling little sycophant) spent the rest of the segment trying to get the Marine to clarify that what he really meant is that the Moderate Moslem is mythical only amongst the Islamic leadership, and not the full-boat 1.2 billion of them.
Time to retire, Cal. As for you, Sean, if you're feeling particularly fearful on a topic, can't you just shut the hell up?
I am *extremely* disappointed with the Bush Administration's official stance on this issue. I'm equally disappointed with the official response from the British government.
The Eruopean governments caught up in this, albeit ridiculous, row are and have been correct in their stance. They have reiterated their commitments to the priciples of free speech in a democracy and have refused to aplogize.
The fact that the US government seems, in the interest of international politial correctness in the wake of the failed and ill conceived Iraq war, to have forgotten about these principles of free speech that our founding fathers felt important enough to list in the very first amendment.
It is *shocking* to me that that the United States has sunk so low as to cow-tow to these murderous malcontents in the muslim world. They called for an "internation day of anger" over this silly cartoon. That's funny because I was under the impression that in the muslim world, *everyday* was an international day of anger. Exactly what *aren't* they angry about?
I'm tired of hearing how sensitive we have to be to Islam. I'm tired of worrying about offending islam, the islamic priciples and islamic people. They have now succeeded in forcing our government to sacrifice it's core principles and they have succeeded in subjugating the Bush Administration to the extent that the Administraion's official position is one that the islamists would have us all take on the subject.
I, for one, will *never* be similarly subjugated.
Chris Emerson
Oakland CA
Carolyn2,
The Thomas Soule article was worth the read.
APF,
Ollie did wobble a bit himself, but eventually recovered. We need more people making such public statements. Let's send him a polite e-mail or two.
Osirris555,
Did you send that letter to a newspaper or an elected official? Pete Stark, perhaps?
Hello PRCS,
No. I have not. That is only here thus far. If you have a suggestion as to where/who to send the comment to, I certainly will.
I'm about to post it on the Free Republic site too.
CE (Osiris555)
As usual Fox News stands up and at least attempts to have gonads. Last night Bill ran the cartoon of Mohammed with the bomb turban on The Factor. Kudos Bill!
Ollie did wobble a bit himself, but eventually recovered.
You got that right, PRCS. Watching these guys is like watching a child trying to take its first step.
Over the past week we've seen dozens of so-called experts tip-toe up to the line --- you know, the one across which Islam is truly described --- but then catch a frog in the throat and finish off with averted eyes and an indeterminant mumble.
Last night I saw Krauthammer do this pathetic dance, of all people. I turned the TV off. If I wanna see how to be a craven coward, I can join up with the volunteers at moveon.org.
Has anybody ever thought of exposing Islamic scripture? Wouldn't that do the trick once and for all?
CE,
If you spiff it up a bit, I'd suggest the Oakland Tribune Letters to the Editor. Just kidding about Stark. He's clueless.
I do sent letters and make calls to Senator's Boxer and Feinstein.
PRCS
South Lake Tahoe
PCRS,
I spiffed it up and sent to stark, lee, boxer, feinstein. All would and will label my views as "out of the mainstream" for wack-job northern California - a place I love very much, but is seriously misguided politically. So I doubt it will have any effect or hold water with them - because their capitulation and weakness on this matter would have been even more extensive than the administration's was. I sent it to Bill Frist too, but he is a lap dog for the president. Bush is and internationalist, liberal, neo-con of the highest order - as is Frist. Come to think of it, my message may resonate better with feinstein and boxer than with him - despite the fact that those old hags are just about the worst of the worst right after the dynamic duo of (lush/man-slaughterer) Kennedy and (seditious) Kerry.
CE
Oaktown, CA
Ha! I just posted it to the Free Republic site, and they "revoked" my posting privelages. Hmmmm, guess their republic isn't as free as they claim. Maybe Hamas runs the Free Republic. Hmmm, probably not, but who probably does run it are more George Bush lap-dogs. People who ignore the fact that he ignores the gaping hole in our southern boarder where we have, for sure, already been infiltrated by Al Quaeda. People who ignore the fact that his internationalist, "free market" policies have shipped our jobs and our manufacturing capacity offshore. People who think that invading Iraq and destablilzing the middle east, without doing our homework, was a good idea because George Bush and Dick Cheney decided it was a good idea. And they decided it was a good idea because God/Jesus told them so. I guess God/Jesus also told Cheney that Haliburton needed a boost to their bottom line as well. Now what we will have in Iraq is a Shi'ite superstate, once we do finally withdraw. Iran will be the dominant influence over Iraq moving forward...we cant stay there forever. We could have had the status quo - a secular, if brutal, dictator that intimidated Iran and kept it in check.
George Bush says "how high" when Israel says "jump". Sounds like the free republic people ask "how high" when George Bush says "jump".
The only second coming I'm waiting for is that of either Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.
APF: Cal Thomas is sounding wobbly to me. Just like that pipsqueak Sean Hannity last night, when Lt. Col. Oliver North, UMSC Ret. finally dropped a gonad or two and pronounced that "moderate Moslems" are mythical. An alarmed Hannity (ever the snivelling little sycophant) spent the rest of the segment trying to get the Marine to clarify that what he really meant is that the Moderate Moslem is mythical only amongst the Islamic leadership, and not the full-boat 1.2 billion of them.
APF
I watched that disgraceful segment as well. The moment Col North said that, Alan Colmes ounced on him. But the Col had the last laugh - he challenged Colmes to bring up 5 Muslims who unequivally condemn the violence on the show tomorrow (i.e. tonight). Expect to see some taqqiya artists dregged out of CAIR, or some other organization. The next segment had Irshad Manji on, and she went on about how there is no compulsion in religion. How I wish Hugh could have been there - he's the only one who wouldn't tolerate such disemmination.
But I disagree with you on Cal Thomas. On several occasions on Fox News Watch, (including 2 weeks ago while discussing the book of Daniel), he has pointed out that Islam isn't as benign as it's made out to be. And this weekend, if the cartoons are discussed on that program, as they are likely to be, expect him to come down on it like a ton of bricks. Just curious to see whether Neal Gabler will take up the cause of Jihad.
I also wouldn't give up on Fox News, as some have suggested while discussing Saudi investment in News Corp. Yesterday, during the round-table on Special Report w/ Brit Hume finally hit the nail on its head. To paraphrase:
Fred Barnes: "This is not al-Qaeda protesting, this is mainstream Muslims".
Charles Krauthammer: "If this was about the right to free speech vs. the right of a religion not to be insulted, it would be one thing. But since we've seen all the insults that are hurled at Jews & Christians in government newspapers in Syria and Egypt, it's clear that this is about Islamic supremacy. And it is something that all in the West have to be against."
Fred & Charles made my day! I had been losing faith in FoxNews, but finally, 2 people flushing out all the euphamisms, and stating the obvious.
APF
Which statement of Krauthammer turned you off? He clearly stated that the demonstrations were about Islamic supremacy, which is what needed to be said all along.
Indidel Pride - I love it. Shout it out everywhere.
-Osiris555
... it's clear that this is about Islamic supremacy. And it is something that all in the West have to be against.
Krauthammer is correct in this statement, as far as it goes. But, like nearly all commentators on Islam, he is also badly mistaken by omission.
His implication was that Islamic supremacism is a movement within Islam that must be opposed. Wrong. Supremacism is the very nature and essence of Islam and therefore Islam is something that all in the West must be against.
A commentator takes that step, Robert Spencer included, and maybe some progress will have finally been started. Until that happens, if it ever does, we sit here dead in the water, waiting on the breed rate.
Wow! Rumsfeld certainly seems to be hitting the nail on the head quite recently.
I'm not sure where you've been but this is nothing new for Rummy. Around the time of the start of the war in Afghanistan he said (I'm paraphrasing here) "We can change the way the Islamists live or the way we live, we've chosen to change the way they live".
If Rumsfeld and the administration were serious about not allowing them to change the way we live, then they would get serious about comprehensively securing our boarder with Mexico. Build a wall, militarize the boarder, I dont care which. Just do something.
It is intellectually dishonest for the administration to tout their efforts in Iraq and the middle east as a policy in which the intent is to further the national, domestic, security of the United States. Until they comprehensively secure the boarder with Mexico, in whatever way, we cannot have a credible discussion of domestic security in this country. Because there is no security without a secure southern boarder. So that makes all of the hot air the administration bellows out there a big bunch of steaming BS - especially the silly argument that we're better off fighting them over there than fighting them here. That is about the shallowest, most asinine, example of politically charged drivel I cant think of - and I can think of a lot - that has come out of this white house to justify thier spilling of american men's blood for a people, nation, religion who care nothing for freedom or democracy or what we have to offer them at all.
This administration's ignoring the boarder issue, by itself, is grounds for impeachment because the president refuses to carry out his primary duty - to protect the citizens of this country. And it seems he does so because of the big business lobby that he is beholden to - who want an interntionalist, free trade/market, open door policy on the boarder.
We have to hope for the best, but assume the worst. Al Quaeda has infiltrated our country through the southern boarder. They have very well produced papers/passports etc. with hispanic names. There is an ethnic similarity as to how they appear to people of latino origin. My greatest fear is that there would be a simultaneous, multi-major city, nuclear - biological - radiological attack by operatives who have gotten into the country through the southern boarder. If this were to happen, can you imagine the level of outrage that would be directed at our government and the present administration.
Its time for Bush and his team to grow up and join the adults and accept this reality.
APF
That isn't how I read Krauthammer's statement. I thought it was pretty explicit. Coming as it did after Fred Barnes' statement about this being mainstream Islam, the fact that Charles chose not to contradict it, but rather elaborate on it, shows that these 2 finally have it right.
"We can change the way the Islamists live or the way we live, we've chosen to change the way they live".
-- quoting Rumsfeld in a posting above
But the only way to "change the way they live" is to create the conditions, or at least not prevent the natural creation of such conditions, that within the Lands of Islam will force Muslims to confront the connnection between Islam and despotism, Islam and inshallah-fatalism, Islam and every other kind of social and intellectual failure (What Have You Done For Me Lately is a question that needs to keep being asked) that can be observed, if only we, the Infidels, stop propping up with Western Jizyah-aid, Western technology, access to Western health care and Western education, the Muslim states, which can only survive on the unmerited revenues from oil and gas, which revenues should go down as the Western world realizes that, to save itself from Islam, and the world from irreversible environmental change, it is going to have to do so in any case.
Active intervention by Infidels will always acomplish far less, will even work against any accomplishment, of what can be achieved by leaving the world of Islam to its own devices, self-inflicted wounds, miseries. It cannot be done completely, but much more can be done to create, ideally, as complete a separation as possible between the Infidel and the Believer.
Hugh
Rumsfeld is talking about Islamic terrorists, not Muslims in general. As long as the former is the topic, we aren't going to see progress. One can't expect Rumsfeld to spell out that Muslims are the problem, as long as his boss is going around describing Islam as a noble religion.
Given this, I think Rumsfeld's quote was completely unrelated to the above story.
Hugh I'm not sure how anyone can say the Bush administration has not changed the way Islamists live. Prior to 9/11 they had a base of operation in Afghanistan. The enemy's operatives also moved freely about in the US apparently without fear of NSA wiretaps and other inconveniences.In the years since 9/11 the US has fought two wars and defeated two Islamic regimes. Yes, there is still much to be done and I'm all for ending the jizya. But Rome wasn't built in a day and I think it's disigenuous to act as if nothing has changed for the enemy.
Here's a link of an interview with Alan Dershowitz from a danish tv channel, it's about the spinelessness of the American MSM:
test
Enjoy.
We can change the way the Islamists live or the way we live...
Can somebody please tell me what in the hell an Islamist is? I know what a Moslem is: an Arab or a fake Arab (hello Pakistan) who actually believe in the ignoble Koran.
But this other new fangled term Islamist reeks of approach avoidance and excuse-dealing.
You have a point, Infidel Pride. I concede your point. Upon further reflection perhaps I was too harsh.
But I expect nothing but the best from Krauthammer, so maybe that's why my negativity.
Great quote from this article
the "clash of civilizations" is more than a conflict between peoples; it is between the 21st and the 7th centuries; between a God who has "commissioned" his followers to exact judgment on the world, according to their narrow interpretation, and a God who offers man grace, along with the freedom to choose or reject it, reserving judgment for Himself on another day
Tafa lived one floor down from me in New York on E 105th street. Trust me, when I saw his name I knew it was just about getting attention. The fact that he can get the press and not the sword is the point but I just want to add the info that it is 100% about his career. Believe me his only politics are his rep and the little paint brush in his shorts. He used to pay starry eyed white girls from Kansas living out their urban fantasy to write his name all over the sidewalks. Makes me sick to think he and I were in the same building on 9/11/2001.
As much as l wished the GOP to be more assertive, when you hear what Clinton and Carter have to say about the riots, cartoons, the Bush people are miles ahead of the mark! Rummi is prol the most talented of the bunch.
More of these talking heads need to urge everyone:
"Read the Koran. Read the Koran! Read the damned Koran!!!"
Without the intellectual fundamentals of knowledge of the playbook, the rest is untethered meanderings.
I wish Bush had said at the State of the Union:
"I'd advise everyone in America, and the Free World to Read the Koran. Now. To understand what the modern dilemma is." (And skip the "noble" b.s.)
Everyone on the air is talking around it and beside it and beneath it and behind it, but no one ever says what's really IN it.
World-historical schmucks, one and all.