"The play on words had no intention of attacking the prophet," the group said.

Oh, that makes it all right.

Come on, Reporters Without Borders. Why not grow some spine? Why not say that imprisoning anyone for drawing a cartoon is ridiculous, if not downright barbaric? Why not point out that Christians and Jews somehow manage to suffer insults to their faith, real or imagined (as this one certainly is imagined), without imprisoning anyone, or rioting, or killing innocent people. And that this doesn't make them any less pious or devout, it just makes them aware that not everyone in the world shares their convictions, and that no one deserves punishment for not sharing them.

How about saying something like that?

Perfect.

I love the Mohammed cat cartoon. It's very sweet. I love how the cat is drawn and the obvious affection of the young boy for it. A debacle created over something so sweet. My God, how stupid.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 9:35 AM

5 months for a 1 month sentence? Sounds like he was released early, good for him! Although, he probably has more to fear now that he is out of jail.

And wouldn't it stand to reason that putting Muhammed's name in front of every other Muslim man would also be insulting, insinuating that they are as worthy as the "prophet"? Oh yeah, reason...nevermind.

And I thought the cartoon was actually pretty clever. Better than the lame stuff in my newspaper.

Posted by: Grafted at March 21, 2008 9:42 AM

Why not say that imprisoning anyone for drawing a cartoon is ridiculous, if not downright barbaric?

Simple. To do so would suggest that we hold the Muslims to our standards of behavior and of communication, which is a no-no in this multiculturally relativistic world. Their "sensibilities" must be recognized. Their "feelings" must not be hurt. Sharia must be accepted and respected, even if it kills us.
There was just an hour of this inanity on C-SPAN with John Esposito's co-author, Dalia Mogahed. (Who Speaks for Islam?)

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 9:45 AM

Actually, I think the people reading this have a right to find it offensive. It is mocking a sacred belief. We can sneer at "those people" for being intolerant, but we have plenty of taboos in our culture - they just aren't religious. Just ask Bill Maher or Don Imus what happens in the West when they made a joke...

That's my opinion. So, now the rest of the self-satisfied, reflexive attacks on people who hold other views that yours can begin...

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 21, 2008 9:46 AM

I have told one or two (or three or more) rather crude jokes about priests, rabbis, and Baptist Ministers; I have been reminded that they are not appreciated by some people. However I have never gone to jail or had a death threat because of it.

I would never tell a joke about a priest, a rabbi, and an Imam - just too damn dangerous.

How long can the not-so-Muslim (moderate) Muslims stand this kind of treatment from their own people? Will Islam destroy itself before it destroys us?

Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 9:58 AM

ReligionofPeas,
Absolutely, they have a right to find it offensive. They DON'T have the right to threaten someone's life because of it. Their rights end where ours begin. They have no problem calling us the descendants of apes and pigs. I find that deeply offensive, given that it comes from religious authorities, but I wouldn't kill them for what they say. Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.
Muslims who cry that they aren't being given the benefit of the doubt need to look at cases such as this and ask themselves why Islam isn't strong enough to withstand an insult here and there.

You bring up Don Imus and Bill Maher. Which of them was threatened with imprisonment? Imus is back on the air. Maher wasn't driven from show business.

Where is their respect for others who don't believe as they do? Just because their taboos are religious no one else can tread on them? Those are their taboos, not mine. Mohammed is a prophet to THEM. To me, he's just another man. Forcing me to treat him as a prophet means forcing me to accept Islam, which I wholeheartedly reject.

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 10:12 AM

Cats are nice! It is indeed a grave insult to call it Muhammad.

Posted by: Henrik at March 21, 2008 10:16 AM

This guy had to do jail time for that cartoon? Like many in the west, I fail to see how it could be offensive. It seems that many Muslims have the offense-o-meter turned to the crazy position.

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 21, 2008 10:23 AM

One month for Koranists equals six for the rest of us. It's sort of like the dog years to human years thing I guess.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 21, 2008 11:11 AM

Cats are nice! It is indeed a grave insult to call it Muhammad.

Posted by: Henrik at March 21, 2008 10:16 AM

Yes, Henrik.

What's surprising about this story is that Mohammed had a cat. There's a charming tale (no pun intended!) that goes: Mohammed was so solicitous of his cat that one morning when he woke and the cat was asleep on his sleeve, he cut off the sleeve rather than disturb the cat.

So, how can Mohammedans get so angry when their "role model" owned a cat and had affection for it??

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 11:14 AM

It is mocking a sacred belief. --religionofpeas

Whose "sacred belief?" No one has to buy into Islam's beliefs as "sacred."! They certainly don't buy into ours as "sacred!"

With Free Speech, *anything* in this world can be mocked, derided, ridiculed. And that's the way it should be in this decidedly imperfect world.

Last night I watched Jimmy Kimmel mocking Moses with Charlton Heston playing the part. He was joking that Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he parted the Red Sea! And then that scene was shown from the movie. Easy to mock Christianity, isn't it, because we don't kill innocent people over the mockery.

I said to my husband, also an IslamoRealist, "If such a scene was shown concerning an event from the Qur'an or Sirah (Life of Mohammed), once again we'd see rage, riots and innocent people getting killed." And there's an example of IslamoRealism for you.

The most important human right in this imperfect world is Freedom of Speech. No matter who gets their feelings hurt. You need to get that classic compilation of American free speech called "I Protest!"

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 11:28 AM

>>Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me. --PMK

In truth, "names" hurt - A LOT. How does it feel when Mohammedans and/or their Apologists call you "racist, bigot, hater?" Not good. They know the power that name-calling wields, which is why they use it to intimidate, silence and muzzle their adversaries. Because who wants to be called names? They hurt.

Tammy Bruce talks about this in her book "The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds" if you'd like to check that out.

Name-calling as a weapon. And that weapon DOES hurt.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 11:40 AM

"They DON'T have the right to threaten someone's life because of it."

Before we get too high and mighty let's remember that Andres Serrano, and others like him, have received death threats.

The thing we can be proud of is that those death threats had no official backing from our law. Those who did make death threats had to do so clandestinely.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 1:06 PM

"In truth, 'names' hurt - A LOT. How does it feel when Mohammedans and/or their Apologists call you 'racist, bigot, hater?' Not good."

Really? I can honestly say that nothing a Muslim has done or said has ever hurt me.

That representatives of a clearly inferior culture have the gall to esteem themselves superior does anger me, but it doesn't hurt.

It doesn't hurt when someone whom you consider to be beneath you calls you names - at least it doesn't hurt me.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 1:14 PM

It doesn't hurt when someone whom you consider to be beneath you calls you names - at least it doesn't hurt me.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 1:14 PM

I see your point, unbeliever.

But name-calling in general. Sure, it hurts. Emotionally, rather than physically, as with the sticks/stones.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 1:31 PM

If the kid was holding sewer rat, that cartoonist would be dead meat.

Posted by: rational at March 21, 2008 1:31 PM

"I see your point, unbeliever."

You can call me kufr or infidel in the context of Jihad Watch if you want :-P

They're all synonyms.

And, sure, you can make the case that name-calling hurts in principle, but for me the effect is neutered when the name-calling is coming from scum.

A Buddhist might point out that anger is a wound, but even Buddhism is a bit too poppycockish for me.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 1:42 PM

Darcy wrote:

I love the Mohammed cat cartoon. It's very sweet. I love how the cat is drawn and the obvious affection of the young boy for it. A debacle created over something so sweet. My God, how stupid.
..........................................

I agree. This is very much in the tradition of "kids say the darndest things"--rather like a Family Circus cartoon where little Billy is singing "Hark the Harold Angel sing" or praying "Our Father, who Art in heaven--Mommy, who's Art?"

This wasn't even meant to be insulting.

Posted by: gravenimage at March 21, 2008 2:22 PM

PMK:

I think you miss my point, which is why I am disappointed in JW for posting this.

People of other countries have the right to do as they please to citizens in their country. I don't approve or support this type of religious intolerance, but I won't support imposing my culture on these bozos. If they want a society that holds religion sacred, then that is their choice. Not yours.

I don't see that the action of jailing a person who broke local laws in a threat to me, a citizen of a Western society. This is different from a fatwa against a book published in the West or cartoons published in Europe. This distinction is important.

I am passionate in my support for the Dannish cartoonists, because I support free speech in the WEST; but to say that people in Bangladesh have no right to be offended by a cartoon mocking their prophet IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY seems to imply that they have no rights other than the ones we have decreed are appropriate.

What they do on their side of the fence is their business, as long as they keep it there. They can call me names, they play the victim, they can burn my flag, they can boycott my country's products, they can spin conspiracy theories...that's their business. But it has to work both ways - they stay out of our stuff, and we stay out of their stuff.

That is why I don't agree with this particular posting, although I am a big fan of JW.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 21, 2008 2:54 PM

Some people believe that certain rights and freedoms are universal.

But even by your logic Robert Spencer has the West-granted right to be contemptuous of the laws of other countries.

Criticism is not imposition (unless you have a the mind of a Muslim that is).

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Muslims often claim, in reference to the Danish Muhammed cartoons, that Christians would react in just such an insane and violent manner as Muslims if their prophet was insulted. Well, a few days ago, in the middle of the reverend Wright scandal, a cartoon appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

It shows Barack Obama--looking very unhappy--carrying a cross, with reverend Wright nailed to the cross. Now, I'm pretty sure that the cartoonist meant to convey that the Wright controversy is Obama's "cross to bear".

It would not be difficult, however, for a reader to assume that the cartoonist was associating Obama--or even worse, the odious Wright--with Jesus Christ. It can also be seen as conflating an ugly political scandal with Jesus' sacrifice.

Where is the outrage? Where is the rioting in the streets? Where are the calls for the cartoonist's death?--Oh, I forgot, we live in a civilized society.

Posted by: gravenimage at March 21, 2008 3:30 PM

"Where are the calls for the cartoonist's death?--Oh, I forgot, we live in a civilized society."

Yes, we live in a society that requires that the death threats made against Andres Serrano - and others like him - be made anonymously.

Make no mistake - I do agree that that makes our society superior.

It doesn't make the individuals who made the threats superior, however.
Posted by at March 21, 2008 3:43 PM

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 3:45 PM

ReligionofPeas

You are right that people of other countries do have their own laws, as well as the right to enforce them on their own people. For instance, if a certain country forbids conversion to any religion, it's their call.

However, in this case, you're missing the point that enabling Islamic fanaticism anywhere, even within the parameters of local laws, simply makes that place a more comfortable launching pad for Jihad. Over the last several months, Bangladesh has been a terror training center for Jihadis to go to India and plot terror acts there. The more free Bangladeshi mobs feel to terrorize those staying from an orthodoxy excessively deferential to Mohammed, the easier it will be for them to continue to make their country a haven for Jihad.

So while I normally agree with you that if, say, Myanmar wants to ban something or the other and crack down on citizens who violate their law, when that involves Islam and Jihad in other countries, I take a different stance, if only to undermine their support of the same abroad. After all, you know just as well as I do that Jihadis don't make the distinction between dar ul Harb and dar ul Islam while demanding Shariah law, so why should we?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2008 4:15 PM

"You are right that people of other countries do have their own laws, as well as the right to enforce them on their own people."

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Infidel Pride,

Are you saying that, by not condeming the arrest of a cartoonist who breaks his countries laws against insulting religion, I am somehow supporting violent Jihad? I don't agree.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 21, 2008 5:22 PM

"Are you saying that, by not condeming the arrest of a cartoonist who breaks his countries laws against insulting religion, I am somehow supporting violent Jihad? I don't agree."

You're not only supporting violent Jihad; you're undermining the absolute and universal rights of human beings.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 5:25 PM

I don't agree. I am supporting each country's right to self-determination. We have a right to protect ourselves from violent attacks; we have the right to point out the doctrinal underpinings of these attacks, and to make countries and individuals suffer the consequences of violent acts against our nation by their citizens; but we do not have the right to tell people how to live their lives in their own countries or which culture they should adopt.

Further, I don't believe in universal rights. Rights are established by people through governments of their chosing. There is no world government.

In the hell-hole known as Bangladesh, the people have a government whose laws prohibit insulting their religion. That's their choice, not yours or anyone elses. They can support or change their own laws.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 21, 2008 5:51 PM

In the hell-hole known as Bangladesh, the people have a government whose laws prohibit insulting their religion. That's their choice, not yours or anyone elses. They can support or change their own laws.

ReligionofPeas,
And what about the people who choose not to believe in that religion? Are they required to submit to this tyranny? What about foreigners who enter the country? Your stance is the perfect reason for closing these countries off from the outside world. If they don't want to abide by standards of human decency then we shouldn't want to associate with them in any way, shape or form.
And if you don't believe in universal rights then I can trust that you will not be one who lambastes the US for "working with dictators". You can only hope that no government comes along to take away your right to express yourself here or anywhere else. If you don't believe in universal rights then you don't need them, either.

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 6:03 PM

darcy,
Names can hurt you only if you let them. If you let them hurt you then you are giving in to the small-minded people who utter them. You are letting them win.
It's best to turn a deaf ear.

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 6:05 PM

"People of other countries have the right to do as they please to citizens in their country."

Well, you can tell that to those native German Jews who managed to survuve Auschwitz, Berkenau, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald . . . need more camp names?

Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 6:21 PM

Culturally and morally relativistic poppycock.

So you're saying that they have the right to change their own government and laws. That's their choice - not mine?

Well, whence the right of that choice?

Your argument is internally inconsistent. What if I say that I have the right to impose my values on Bangladesh? I'm sure that you would say that I don't have that right - you have in fact said just that.

In other words, you have asserted that Bangladesh and Bangladeshis have a right to self-determination. You further imply that all (what? states? ethnicities? communities? who?) have this right.

Do you take this to be a universal right then? You contradict yourself regardless of whether you say "yes" or "no." If you don't believe in universal human rights then people do not have a right to determine their own governments. If they do have the right to determine their own governments then you implicitly allow for at the very least the universal human right to self-determination.

No one is saying that the United States, or any other body for that matter, has the right to go in and impose its values on another people. Now, if the US did do such Bangladesh might be better off in the long run - take a look at Japan. Our conquering them and writing their constitution for them was the best thing that ever happened to them. It's what we should do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Despite the fact that I believe that human rights are universal, however, I doubt that either I or the US government finds Bangladesh and its people to be important enough to warrant forceful imposition of our superior society on them.

The most that we can hope for is that those non-subhumans among their populous (such as the cartoonist in question for example) will stand up an demand respect for the basic human rights with which they were born.

I DARE you to tell me that I shouldn't cheer them on when they do so because the subhuman ignorant filth who run their country have instituted idiotic and barbaric laws.

I DARE you.

But that is not what people here on this Web site are calling for - forceful imposition upon Bangladesh of our superior society and laws.

All that Robert Spencer, I, and some other of the commentators have said is that putting someone in jail for offending backward religious sensibilities is both reprehensible and absurd.

I DARE you to tell me I can't mock that toilet paper known as sacred literature - regardless of whether it's the Bible, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Sutras, or the Qur'an.

I DARE you to say that I can't mock the illiterate bloodthirsty moron pederast known has Muhammad (pigshit be upon him).

I DARE you to tell me I can't mock that pre-Code-of-Hammurabi Demiurge whom the Muslims call Allah.

And I DARE you to tell me that I can't mock and insult barbaric, backward, culturally inferior laws that violate the - yes indeed - UNIVERSAL human right of self expression.

If you don't believe in the universality of the basic rights of human beings, probably due to some half-baked, puerile, more-enlightened-than-thou, hypocritically self-righteous pseudo-philosophical position, then you are an enemy of the human race, and the world entire will be better off when you and those who think like you have become extinct.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 6:31 PM

"Well, you can tell that to those native German Jews who managed to survuve Auschwitz, Berkenau, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald . . . need more camp names?"

You have proven Godwin's Law yet again, but I happen to think that in this instance the invocation of the Holocaust is warranted.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 6:34 PM

Let's come full circle:

"That's my opinion. So, now the rest of the self-satisfied, reflexive attacks on people who hold other views that yours can begin..."

So you reflexively attack, in your own self-satifisfaction, those who hold a view other than your own - the view that it is ok to attack those who have views other than their own.

Hypocrisy.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 6:40 PM

darcy,
Names can hurt you only if you let them. If you let them hurt you then you are giving in to the small-minded people who utter them. You are letting them win.
It's best to turn a deaf ear.

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 6:05 PM

That's good advice.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 7:02 PM

non-croyant,
Cheers. Three excellent posts.

religionofpeas,

That's their choice, not yours or anyone elses. They can support or change their own laws.

But it's NOT their choice. It never was. They are in the grip of tyrants. They can't change their own laws. They don't have the power.

All of this is beside the point. Bangladesh belongs to an organization known as the United Nations. Do you believe in the United Nations? As a member it has obligations to the INTERNATIONAL community. Bangladesh knew this before it joined the UN, in 1974.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

(there's a whole lot more, but here is just a taste.)

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Posted by: PMK at March 21, 2008 7:02 PM

Pelayo,

So, you are equating the jailing of a cartoonist to the murder of 6 million men, women, and children? In that case, let's attack Bangladesh!

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 21, 2008 9:49 PM

ReligionofPeas, you made a generalized, not too well thought out statement that begged to be shot down.

"People of other countries have the right to do as they please to citizens in their country."

I did, and that's all I did. You read far too much into my response.

Based on your philosophy, we should let the people of Somalia alone and let the killing continue. Let the Iranians hang homosexuals and abuse women for their attire. Yeah, we should let the Sudanese have their way in Darfur, it's their country and their citizens.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 10:23 PM

"So, you are equating the jailing of a cartoonist to the murder of 6 million men, women, and children?

No, you are.

Pelayo was merely following your argument to its logical conclusion.

If human rights are not universal, and if "people of other countries have the right to do as they please to citizens in their country," then the logical conclusion is that the Holocaust was a valid exercise of civil authority on the part of Hitler and the Nazi party, especially since they enjoyed the popular support of the German people.

And Iran can hang homosexuals.

And governments across the Ummah can slap the wrists of honor killers.

And kingdoms can flog women for the crime of being gang raped.

&c

&c

&c

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 10:33 PM

"Let the Iranians hang homosexuals and abuse women for their attire."

The sad truth is that in the case of Iran we do have to allow it. The Sudan and Somalia might or might not be a different story depending on the whims of the international community.

Even if we did intervene that doesn't mean that we would impose our superior society on these backward cultures - just look at Afghanistan and Iraq.

For most of the cultures which commit barbaric violations of the fundamental and universal human rights of their own citizens the most we can do is what we have been criticized for doing already by ropeas:
impotently criticize it in the insular communities of Web sites like this.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 21, 2008 10:47 PM

"Pelayo was merely following your argument to its logical conclusion."

Non-croyant, thanks for that; I needed it.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 11:36 PM

"The sad truth is that in the case of Iran we do have to allow it."

Let me slightly disagree. We are not justified in dropping bombs, but international pressure is certainly appropriate. There has been international pressure applied to stop certain things. The most recent one was an Iranian woman who was freed from a death sentence for adultry. Much earlier a Pakistani apostate was released.

We can and must apply appropriate measures to mitigate the outrageous activities we see daily.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 21, 2008 11:52 PM

Talk about a play on names, check the prosecutor's name in this case, Shahidul Haque. If I'm not mistaken that roughly translates to Martyr of Truth, or Martyr of the True Religion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I wonder when he'll be running for President, or mayor of Dearbornistan?

Posted by: SeifulKaffir at March 22, 2008 12:50 AM

Are you saying that, by not condeming the arrest of a cartoonist who breaks his countries laws against insulting religion, I am somehow supporting violent Jihad? I don't agree.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas

I'm not saying that you are supporting it. I'm just saying that when Muslims are given a free pass to do anything they like just because it's their country, it has the effect of enabling - inadvertantly or intentionally - those who want to make it a FOB for the launching of jihad. This isn't meant to be an aspersion on you - please don't take it that way. I was just pointing out the side effects of allowing the Muslims anywhere - Dhaka, Samarqhand, Timbuktoo - to do something shariah-like just because it's their place.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 22, 2008 3:27 AM

"Let the Iranians hang homosexuals and abuse women for their attire."

Silence=Collusion. As a gay person living in a free society I have a duty to speak out about any government that commits acts of violence upon homosexuals and women.

Posted by: skevin at March 22, 2008 5:48 AM

Gravenimage:

"It shows Barack Obama--looking very unhappy--carrying a cross, with reverend Wright nailed to the cross".

I peed in my pants laughing over that one!

Posted by: Platypus at March 22, 2008 8:28 AM

First of all, you guys need to chill out and/or switch to decaf. I am expressing my opinion; apparently, those who attack Islam as dogmatic and resistant to debate react very vehemently - including personal attacks - when someone attempts to express an opinion other than THEIR dogma. Rather than reflecting on, and discussing my opinion, several posters prefer personal attacks.

On this one posting, responses have called me a supporter of violent Jihad; a hypocrite; etc. They have thrown extreme examples (eg, Nazi Germany) to make a case. And it sad when you need to bring in the completely dysfunctional bureaucratic mess called the "United Nations" and its declarations to make a point! I would re-think that.

My concern is that we aren't addressing the real threats to our safety. For example, where are the articles about the source of Jihad violence - money from the oil we consume that goes to Saudi Arabia and Iran? I'm no tree hugger but when I see a guy driving new SUV called the JEEP "Patriot" - that is something that I am concerned about, because of the unblinking hypocracy of it all (please explain to me how it is patriotic to waste gas and send increased levels of money to Islamic regimes that support Jihadi violence?). What kind of car are you driving? What is our government doing about energy conservation and developing alternative sources of energy? Isn't that a more immediate issue that affects our national security, compared with a dopey law in an impoverished nation against blasphemy?

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at March 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Religionofpeas,
They're all separate issues. The fact that people in this country drive SUVs (I don't get it, either.) has nothing to do with what you call "hypocracy". (For future reference: it's "hypocrisy".)
I brought up the UN to show you that this is not strictly an "internal" matter. Member nations have signed on to different agreements. If they break one, which ones won't they break? Do you believe in international organizations or not?
You are comparing apples and oranges. All of the things you bring up are very important but our dependence on oil doesn't delegitimize other issues. There are oil-producing countries that don't support terrorism, such as Canada and Norway. And what if we got off all oil? Do you think that would stop the Islamists? They existed long before the first internal combustion engine was developed and they've been killing people for fourteen centuries. They'll have accumulated a lot of capital before the spigots are turned off and it will be available for some time.
Nazi Germany is another valid example. Germany signed the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI and the Nazis later broke it. The end result was millions dead and Europe all but destroyed. Do you want to see a similar result in the Middle East or Asia?
Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Posted by: PMK at March 22, 2008 10:21 PM

"For example, where are the articles about the source of Jihad violence ..."

There are articles every day on this site about the source of Jihad violence: Islam, a belief system that is the product of a backward, ignorant, and inferior culture.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 23, 2008 12:56 AM

I fail to see why there should be all this outrage about an innocent cartoon about a cat being called Muhammad.

All the authentic Islamic reports record that Muhammad regarded cats as “clean” animals and he even loved cats. On the other hand we all know that he had a problem with dogs, pigs and donkeys besides a whole lot of other things. The Muslim wudu (ritual washing) before prayers are not broken by physical contact with cats. Only contact with “dirty” animals such as dogs, etc means they have to redo the wudu.

Moreover, one of Muhammad’s very close disciples Abu Huraira, who is quoted very widely in Buqhari’s book of authentic sayings of Muhammad also had a passion for cats. In fact “Abu Huraira” was not even his real name but a fond nickname that he acquired from Muhammad himself which means “Father of the little cat”

Now if this cartoonist had named a dog or a pig or a TEDDY BEAR “Muhammad”, I could maybe understand their anger. Certainly not for a cat!

Posted by: Shafee al-Zindig at March 23, 2008 10:27 AM