If the islamic religion does not go through some sort of renaissance in the very near future it is not going to be able to continue to co-exist with the modern world.

Quoted: Buddy, I am sorry you and your people are going through that shit. I wonder about this world at times, I really do.

Thanks.

In the larger scheme of things, muslims still only make up less than 3% of our population, so I imagine that this is something that will be weathered.  

And with the much tougher immigration laws we've got now, and this wake-up call, hopefully it's something that people will figure out how to deal with much more effectively.

The problem utliamtely stems from the fact that EVERYTHING in Denmark - our welfare system, our unemployment benefits, our educational system, our legal code - everything, is based on a very homogenous population, that shares a lot of basic values, attitudes, etc.   When someone comes into that kind of system without those shared values, they can not only disrupt it a lot, but can also take advantage of it in ways that the people who created the system never conceived of in the first place.

But I think in the long run, the Danes will figure out how to manage it.  While integration may not have worked as expected, I think we will start to see two different "classes" of muslims emerge in Denmark.  The ones who want to be part of the solution, and who take advantage of the education and opportunities in Denmark, and reject nonsense like what we are seeing now - and then the ones who refuse to adapt.   Unfortunately, we are going to have to deal with the existence of the ones who won't play ball - and it's porbably going to ultimately going to lead to problems again - but I think it's not going to be a us vs. "the muslims" problem, but rather will HELP to define the unreasonable and intolerant ones as what they are.

Tigerhawk Likes Queen Margrethe, Too



In an email reference to his latest post about the Mohammed ’toons, Tigerhawk says that he’s “obsessed with this story.”

Isn’t everyone? Well, everyone center and right on the political spectrum, anyway. For some strange reason (you are free to discuss motivations here, class) the left doesn’t have much to say.

In “ The Conscience of the Queen,” Tigerhawk admits to having less than fond feelings for royalty. He links to an article from The Telegraph from back in April, when Queen Margrethe II published her biography. Tigerhawk thinks that while she hasn’t exactly redeemed royalty, he nonetheless admires her: “long may she reign.”

Margrethe published her book almost a year ago in celebration of her 65th birthday. This was five months or so before the Jyllens Posten decided to help the author who needed an illustrator of Mohammed. The frenzy against the newspaper which followed their appeal for artists was orchestrated long after the Queen faulted herself and her people for not demanding more of immigrants in the way of assimilation to Danish ways.

Gates of Vienna put up a post about her daring words back then. Here is the finish of my exposition on the eponymously titled Margrethe back in April:

Queen Margrethe, who professes a knowledge of Islam due to her interest in archaeology, said it was “natural that young Muslims would be attracted” to the faith’s absolute values and seek refuge in religion “as they are cut off from our community because of their lack of (Danish) language skills.” “It’s not just a matter of speaking and understanding” Danish, she said, but also “understanding the language’s codes, and we have to help them.”

Good thing she has tenure in her present position. She sure wouldn’t be on track in any self-respecting American university. Or any American political seat, either. Imagine “helping” immigrants become Americanized. Berkeley would implode, Columbia would spontaneously combust. Hmmm…[/quoe]

Our Danish commenter Rune quickly responded with this comment:

Some twenty years ago she expressed the almost direct opposite opinion – that we should welcome the immigrants better and not criticise them. So her new sentiments actually represent a turn of mind. Though I’m not much for royalty in general I always respect a man (and woman) whom can change her mind after reconsideration – I did so myself, used to be found on the left-wing - and I have but the utmost respect for myself, I’m such a swell person. Really. ummm.. anyway, needless to say the Danish leftist like her even less now. She married a French prince. But he’s not king since the Danish royal laws does not make the queen consort king. Pisses him off some too. They’ve got two children. The oldest just married an Australian girl, from Tasmania no less – but with English parents. I was in Copenhagen with my two daughters to watch them drive through town in their gilded horse carriage – the girls were overjoyed to learn there were other princesses than themselves. The youngest prince married a half-Chinese, half-English girl from Hong Kong - they’ve now got two small children.

So there you have it from one of her subjects. Not only is Margrethe an iconoclast, she's courageous enough to change her mind in public. I must tell Neo neocon about this.

Now, I just hope they’ll put her book out in English. A quick check of Amazon showed no English titles. Darn. Maybe I’ll write www.spencepublishing.com/]Spence Books and ask them to consider it. Remember them? They published Terror in the Skies by Annie Jacobsen.

Should I hear back from Spence, I’ll let you know.

posted by Dymphna | 11:24:00 AM | 2 comments | Trackback

It is a source of great pride to me to have served in Margrethe II's personal guard.  


I hope she lives forever.  She was just a little girl when my dad served in her dad's personal guard.

Have never deliberately bought Danish goods before but tomorrow is a new day.

wganz
¶

Quoted: Have never deliberately bought Danish goods before but tomorrow is a new day. wganz ¶

Pork - it does a body good!!  

Quoted: If the islamic religion does not go through some sort of renaissance in the very near future it is not going to be able to continue to co-exist with the modern world.

Its seems many are bending over backwads to accomodate their lifestyle. It woudl almost seem as if theya re winning their war through terror.

Quote of the Day


Minh-Duc, from the excellent blog State of Flux, commenting here on the Mohammed cartoons and related issues:

It cannot be secularism is one religion is granted special privilege and status. I am incensed at the bullying. I am incensed at the cowardice by our State Department. I did not escape Communism to live under Sharia.

posted by Baron Bodissey | 6:50:00 AM | 0 comments | Trackback

In other news, a patrol of Danish soldiers (from the danish battalion in Basra) came under fire today ..

Ironically, which trying to help iragi CHILDREN who had been injured in an unrelated traffic accident.  Despite the fire, the patrol returned fire, retreated and took the injured children to the hospital.

Quoted: Quoted: i1.tinypic.com/nb2974.gif</a> Nice summation. In other news, a hot-dog vendor in Denmark was attacked and beaten with a bat by two muslim youths today, for selling "unclean meat" I don't think those guys realize that if you mess with our hot-dogs, then the gloves will come off!!

You have to read this and imagine Christopher WAlken saying it

Do you enjoy eating hot dogs? I hope you won't be put off by my frankness when I tell you that I absolutely love them. In fact, I enjoy no food item more than a freshly-boiled hot dog. Now, I've done a lot of movies, and it's true that I've worked with quite a few celebrities who did not share this opinion. I'm sorry to say that these people have always angered me. There are two types of people in this world: those who eat hot dogs whenever it is possible to do so, and those who opt to do other things with their free time. Who do the latter think they are kidding? What pastime could be more rewarding than the consumption of hot dogs? I haven't yet found one, and I don't expect to in my lifetime. Unlike other foods, hot dogs can be eaten at any time, in any place, and it is not necessary to cook them. Now, I ask you: Why not eat hot dogs? They are delicious. I carry a bag of hot dogs with me wherever I go. I eat them from the bag whenever I get the urge, regardless of the circumstances. When I make a movie, my hot dogs are my co-stars. If, in the middle of a scene, I decide I want to consume a hot dog, I do so. I waste the director's time and thousands of dollars in film stock, but in the end, it is all worth it, because I enjoy eating hot dogs more than I enjoy acting. This bothers some people. I was supposed to portray Batman, but when Tim Burton learned of my hot dog cravings, he asked Michael Keaton to wear the cape. To this day, I am peeved about this. When we filmed The Dead Zone, I ate over 800 hot dogs a day. It was necessary. My character needed to come across as intense as possible, and I found the inspiration for that intensity in my intense love for hot dogs. The director, David Cronenberg, said that he would never work with me again. I kept eating hot dogs when the cameras were rolling, and that seemed to bother him. I say f*ck him. He doesn't even like hot dogs. I would like to end by emphasizing once again that I really like to eat hot dogs. If any of you people disagree, I loathe you. I despise you. Not only that, but I also despise all your loved ones. I want to see them torn to pieces by wild dogs. If I ever meet you in person, I'll smash your brains in with a f*cking bat. Then we'll see who doesn't like hot dogs. From his column in The Onion, 'Walken in LA'

Quoted: You have to read this and imagine Chriastipher WAlken saying it Do you enjoy eating hot dogs? I hope you won't be put off by my frankness when I tell you that I absolutely love them. In fact, I enjoy no food item more than a freshly-boiled hot dog. Now, I've done a lot of movies, and it's true that I've worked with quite a few celebrities who did not share this opinion. I'm sorry to say that these people have always angered me. There are two types of people in this world: those who eat hot dogs whenever it is possible to do so, and those who opt to do other things with their free time. Who do the latter think they are kidding? What pastime could be more rewarding than the consumption of hot dogs? I haven't yet found one, and I don't expect to in my lifetime. Unlike other foods, hot dogs can be eaten at any time, in any place, and it is not necessary to cook them. Now, I ask you: Why not eat hot dogs? They are delicious. I carry a bag of hot dogs with me wherever I go. I eat them from the bag whenever I get the urge, regardless of the circumstances. When I make a movie, my hot dogs are my co-stars. If, in the middle of a scene, I decide I want to consume a hot dog, I do so. I waste the director's time and thousands of dollars in film stock, but in the end, it is all worth it, because I enjoy eating hot dogs more than I enjoy acting. This bothers some people. I was supposed to portray Batman, but when Tim Burton learned of my hot dog cravings, he asked Michael Keaton to wear the cape. To this day, I am peeved about this. When we filmed The Dead Zone, I ate over 800 hot dogs a day. It was necessary. My character needed to come across as intense as possible, and I found the inspiration for that intensity in my intense love for hot dogs. The director, David Cronenberg, said that he would never work with me again. I kept eating hot dogs when the cameras were rolling, and that seemed to bother him. I say f*ck him. He doesn't even like hot dogs. I would like to end by emphasizing once again that I really like to eat hot dogs. If any of you people disagree, I loathe you. I despise you. Not only that, but I also despise all your loved ones. I want to see them torn to pieces by wild dogs. If I ever meet you in person, I'll smash your brains in with a f*cking bat. Then we'll see who doesn't like hot dogs. From his column in The Onion, 'Walken in LA'

Sunday, February 05, 2006
Sacred Cows: Rank Hath Its Privileges


In his Boston Globe column today, Jeff Jacoby compares the behavior of Muslims over the Great Cartoon Affair with the non-behavior of non-affronted Hindus vis-à-vis cows:

Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don’t lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don’t expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent. But radical Muslims do.

I hate to say it, but he’s a little late on the bandwagon. Regular Gates of Vienna readers will remember that I launched this particular wagon back in December, in a post called “Sacred Animal Farm”. In it I mentioned the Mohammed Cartoons (referencing the The Brussels Journal) long before they were even fashionable. I said:


For a counterpoint to all this, look at Christianity. Forget inadvertent offense: the examples of deliberate, calculated, and extreme attempts to offend Christians are legion within the popular culture. Even so, no Baptists are strapping on bomb belts and blowing themselves up in the Museum of Modern Art.

Not long ago, on my way towards the meat counter in a grocery store I passed a Hindu couple pushing their shopping cart up along the aisle. When I got to the beef section I noticed a little display sign showing a smiling cartoon cow holding up a steak on a platter and licking her chops in autophagous anticipation.

Surely, I thought, the Hindu couple must have found this display repugnant. The rows of raw red beef in packages might well have deeply disturbed their religious sensibilities. Yet there they were, calmly shopping!

No one was picketing the store. I didn’t have to pass through a metal detector to get in. Nobody firebombed the place the next day. No Hindu suicide bomber blew up the regional Food Lion headquarters.

So you heard it here first! But who gets the lead on www.memeorandum.com/]Memeorandum? And just because he’s a big-shot MSM columnist! Rant! Rave! Seethe…

That crackling sound you hear is the slowly cooling embers of the late Baron Bodissey, recently consumed by envy.

posted by Baron Bodissey | 9:02:00 PM | 0 comments | Trackback

Quoted: Now the fucking US State Department (bunch of pinkie liberals, whole lot should be fired) have come out ON THE MUSLIMS SIDE!   today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-03T171307Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml Unfuckingbelieveable. I guess that "piss christ" would have been more easily managed by catholic groups if they promised to riot and perform acts of terrorism instead of trying to deal with funcing for the NEA.

Of course we are publicly going to condemn it. We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, and are gearing up to add a third. Believe me G. W. Bush INC. are laughing their ass off at the whole thing.

tag

Quoted: tag

Good reading. Thanks for all the good info.

Quoted: Quoted: Now the fucking US State Department (bunch of pinkie liberals, whole lot should be fired) have come out ON THE MUSLIMS SIDE!   today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-03T171307Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml Unfuckingbelieveable. I guess that "piss christ" would have been more easily managed by catholic groups if they promised to riot and perform acts of terrorism instead of trying to deal with funcing for the NEA. Of course we are publicly going to condemn it. We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, and are gearing up to add a third. Believe me G. W. Bush INC. are laughing their ass off at the whole thing.

I'm sure all the Danish troops in Afghanistan and Iraq appreciate that.  

Quoted: tag

Hey, nice avatar!

Quoted: Quoted: tag Hey, nice avatar!

Gulf News Prints Letters to the Editor About Sinful Denmark

Gulf News is posting Letters to the Editor on the Danish brouhaha. Some of the suggestions are quite…vacuous.

There has been a furore over the publication of 12 caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by Denmark's biggest-selling newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Gulf News has been tracking the developments closely. On January 29, we asked our readers a question: "Do you think Denmark should apologise over the cartoons?" In response, we received hundreds of letters and e-mails from around the world, including Denmark. We publish here a selection of the letters.

This mess has been going on since September of last year and this news organ gets around to a public question four months later. This is what they consider “tracking developments closely”? MSM mediocrity is certainly a world-wide phenomenon, isn’t it?

Following this breathless announcement they put up letters from Dubai, Belgium, the US, India, etc. A real cross-section. My favorite letter is the first:

We all believe that the Almighty is the ultimate authority to punish the guilty. Therefore, we, being the servants of God, have no right to punish other humans. However, drawing cartoons or making disrespectful comments on any faith is unacceptable. Freedom of expression and democracy are meant to ensure expression of feelings, comments and suggestions in a respectful and healthy manner. It is high time the Danish government punished the guilty and apologised to the world in general, and not Muslims alone. Also, I wish the UN come out with a uniform code to punish offending individuals, publishers and nations.

My gosh! Why didn’t we think of this sooner? Call in the UN, they’ll handle it.

Be still, my eyebrows.

Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds,

I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever.

We need another General Sherman.

Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman.

No kidding -

"Hey everyone, let's be nice to the Nazi's and give them aid.  Then maybe they'll stop killing jews"  

So this Palestinian walks into a bar and sits down. The bartender says, “What’ll it be, pal?” The Palestinian goes, “BOOM!”

gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/02/palestinian-jokes.html


I think a lot of us are quoting Gates of Vienna

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman. No kidding - "Hey everyone, let's be nice to the Nazi's and give them aid.  Then maybe they'll stop killing jews"

I am convinced this will be a perpetual war. 100yrs war at best. We have become too PC.

This pic is a WWI recruitment poster. Imagine the Democrats (radical Islams enabler) responding to something similar in todays situation. The enemy here at home (liberals and democrats)will see to it that this war never ends.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman. No kidding - "Hey everyone, let's be nice to the Nazi's and give them aid.  Then maybe they'll stop killing jews"

Actually that is EXACTLY what they DID do at the begining of WWII.  The Rhineland, Austria, Sudatenland, Czechloslovika

No one in the west is yet willing to take the responsiblity for stating something that could kill hundreds of millions of Muslims, most of whom will be guilty of nothing more than living in the in the blast radius of a real terrorist or goverment facility. Three quarters will be women and children who in Islam are totally powerless to decide their fate...

Just like in 1939.  Even after war was declared, what happened?  The Phony War.

No one in the English or French goverments wanted to be the one to order someone to die again, such was their emotional response to the memories of the prior war.

Yet war came and millions died anyways...

Damn, this shit seems to just follow me around whenever I go on summer vacation!

I was in London the day they had the bus/subway bombings last July, now I find out the RoP'ers are acting up in Europe and I'm already booked to visit Denmark and Norway in June.

From New Sisyphus

Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Our Liberties are Our Liberties, Even If, and Especially if, That Pisses Mohammed Off
** Please See Update Below **

I still remember, vividly, what my initial thoughts were upon learning that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of the Islamic Republic had pronounced an order of death and offered a three million dollar bounty to anyone who carried it out by killing British author Salman Rushdie. In his fatwa, Khomeini decreed:

In the name of God Almighty. There is only one God, to whom we shall all return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare insult the Islamic sanctities. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing. In addition, anyone who has access to the author of the book, but does not possess the power to execute him, should refer him to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God's blessing be on you all.

This was in 1989. At the time I was an over-aged undergrad at Cal, living in Berkeley, attending class, working hard waiting tables at two jobs and, whenever I could, haunting my home-away-from-home, the Cafe Milano. (You could smoke on the upper deck back then; that's how long ago it was). To the extent I thought about Islam at all, it was in the context of the Iranian Revolution. At that time I saw myself as a staunch democratic socialist, a secularist, a member of Michael Harrington's DSA and very much the model of a liberal.

Which is why, looking back, my reaction to the news of the Ayatollah's fatwa was so odd. In its essence my reaction was: "well now, buddy, I'm sure your religion is important to you, but you don't have the right to declare death sentences on British citizens. Our belief in freedom of speech and our liberty is as important to us as your Koran is to you and you won't find us bending in to threats like this so easily. Who does this pipsqueak priest think he is?!? This guy has seriously over-stepped his bounds and is in for a terrible thumping, both culturally and probably militarily as well."

Which just goes to show you how much Conservatism is actually a question of temperament. Here I was, Mr. Berkeley Radical, just assuming that Tehran was in a heap of trouble with the U.K. and the U.S. for presuming to usurp its most cherished rights.

I was, as you can imagine, quickly disabused of such a naive notion.

First, I noticed that my friends and acquaintances, to the extent that they thought the matter worth commenting about at all, largely condemned Rushdie for opening this can of worms. "He should have known better," was the standard stance. After all, we all know these people are fanatics, so what good can come of provoking them? More reasoned commentators took this a step further by asking what good could possibly come of Western governments standing up to Tehran on the issue. "He wrote the bloody book and it's not our responsibility to shield him from the consequences of his act," seemed to sum it up.

When Cody's, the famous Berkeley bookstore, was fire-bombed for carrying The Satanic Verses, the reaction was not what I would have then expected, yet another nail in the coffin of my leftism. I tried to imagine if the muted reaction would have been the same if a militant Christian sect had bombed the store for carrying Chomsky and found myself laughing at the very thought.

Then, searching the British press (a much more difficult task in those days, involving 9-day old copies of the Times bought at five times its cover price), one learned of Muslim demonstrations in Britain, including book burnings and hangings in effigy, being met with statements of solidarity by Members of Parliament, usually from those in constituencies with large Muslim populations. Rushdie went into hiding and those responsible for the foreign affairs of the U.K. pronounced themselves still committed to "engagement" of the radical Islamist regime. British analysts tried to figure out what this meant for the Muslim vote and Labour's prospects. Any mention of the underlying principle escaped my attention.

Looking back, it is as clear as day that the Rushdie affair marked one of the opening battles in what has come to be a larger war, a battle that the Islamists could not have done anything but walk away from with their view on the matter vindicated. Oil and confident power were shown to be worth much, much more than abstract principles like "liberty" or "freedom." Can we really blame them if they took from this affair a reasoned judgment that we were unable to respond in kind to their programme?

Since that time, of course, this grand game of "Chicken" has reached epic proportions. Again and again, Islamists of many stripes have presented a challenge to the West, only to find that, when pushed, we in the West were likely to prefer our illusions and our comforts to the terrible prospect of an actual counter-response.

And, so, the famous Bin Laden Myth of the Paper Tiger was born. Kill their soldiers, bomb their diplomats, blow holes in their warships, demand that they kow-tow to our beliefs, craft respect for the Islamist political programme as an issue of "civil rights," murder their men while they are bringing food to a starving Muslim nation, murder sailors during hijackings, use any counter-reaction by Westerners as a ploy for international sympathy, use war in Bosnia and Kosovo as a method to advance the cause in Europe itself--none of it provoked anything but the feeblest responses, mostly symbolic and costing in the millions of dollars. And how could they fail to notice our self-flagellation after even such a weak reaction? One can blame the Islamists for much, but certainly not for their underwhelming judgment of the West's resolve.

In the era just prior to 9.11 Bin Laden and his compatriots must have wondered what they needed to do to get the West to take them seriously.

All of which famously led to September 11, 2001, an event which, for a moment, backlighted the underlying grander issue with the same sort of crystal clarity that fine Autumn morning itself is now famous for.

But old habits die hard and I was never one of those who thought that the moment of clarity would last or that it would "change everything." What I did think, however, was that it pretty decisively dealt a body-blow to the "let's just apologize" school of American foreign relations. It was, frankly, a joy to see America rise as one and not only refuse to apologize and revel in its new-found role as international victim but to fight back, hard and fast. Conservatives don't like to talk about it (except for the admirable Jonah Goldberg, as far as I can tell) but another reason aside from the obvious for taking the war to Iraq was to continue to demonstrate that the apology phase of our relations with the Islamic world were at an end.

As Eban used to say, the Arabs can have peace or they can have war, but the one thing we will not allow them is to wage war on us while having peace at home. There is more wisdom in that one statement than a year's worth of editorials out of the New Republic, and we'd all do well to remember that in these dark times. Like they said at the beginning of Fallout: war never changes. One either prevails or one does not.

(Side note: Eban is a fantastic source for quotes. One of my other favorites also concerns the Arabs, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War: "I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.")

Having through the years learned to manipulate Western prejudices and concerns, especially with regard to religion, the Islamists continue to conjure up controversies and slights for which we owe them apologies. The latest concerns a series of cartoon interpretations of the figure of Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper. Like the faux rage brought up every year about waging war during the Most Holy Month of Ramadan Which Does Not Allow Fighting (Unless We Launch The Attack) And Especially Does Not Allow Fighting If We Are Getting Our Sorry Asses Kicked, the worldwide Muslim rage over the cartoons has now risen to the level of a serious international incident.

Proving once again that they don't understand the West one bit, major Muslim governments demanded that the Government of Denmark apologize and grovel. Of course, the GoD has absolutely nothing to do with the matter and couldn't prevent a newspaper from publishing the cartoons in question even if it wanted to, which it should not.

With the requisite apology not forthcoming, the leading lights of Europe pulled a Rushdie and immediately began blaming Denmark for this "regrettable" incident. And now, from Davos, we have word that a President of the United States has joined this shameful chorus. Said Clinton:

"None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions ... there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark ... these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,"

Does this man even begin to understand the scope of his responsibilities? The importance of the principle of free speech? Is he seriously saying that "outrageous cartoons" appearing in a newspaper is a matter for a national government to apologize for? Does he not understand that we are free people and that we are even free to say things people don't like, even if it's along the line of "Islam is a load of horse shit"?

This man is a President of the United States, not some toothy-grinned, back-slapping Southern con-man telling his audience of marks what they want to hear so as to ingratiate himself with his benefactors.....

Oh, wait.


UPDATE: Speaking of Eban, I found the following excerpt from a speech of his to the United Nations during the Yom Kippur War. Looks like nothing much has changed in the Arab world since that time, which both illustrates the state of political stagnation in that world and the scope of the problem:

Finally, pending the further elaboration of our position at a meeting, which I understand has been requested, of the Security Council, I want to say something about the lessons of this experience. First, about the nature of the hostility that we face. The nature of that hostility is such that no security concern can be exaggerated. When President Sadat said in an Egyptian newspaper that he admired Hitler, all the world smiled indulgently. The Soviet Union, which had resisted Hitler, heroically but belatedly, went on supplying arms. Other nations shrugged their shoulders. When the Egyptian Prime Minister praised the murder of pilgrims and tourists at Lod, we were told "it is only propaganda". Anti-semitic literature abounds in Cairo, a spiritual heroin, fraught with death and decay. There is too much international indulgence for that hostility. There was indulgence for it at the Algiers Conference. There was indulgence in a speech in which a fine continental tradition of peace, fidelity and friendship was violated by the President of Zaire on this platform. There is too much indulgence of this hostility. We really must take Egyptian and Syrian statements of hostility at their face value.

The same blind hatred, the same international indulgence, the same war.
link 2:48 PM Comments (15)

Evidently the guy who shot a Catholic priest in Turkey ran through the streets yelling "Allahu akbar" after that.

What was the quote in "The Devil's Brigade"? Murder for murder, blood for blood?

I swear I'd eat Danish hotdogs everyday just to piss those RoPers off.

If Islam is a peaceful religion then pigs can fly.  

Quoted: Evidently the guy who shot a Catholic priest in Turkey ran through the streets yelling "Allahu akbar" after that. What was the quote in "The Devil's Brigade"? Murder for murder, blood for blood?

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183879,00.html They always get the young ones to commit the murders.

ANKARA, Turkey — A teenage boy shot and killed the Italian Roman Catholic priest of a church in the Black Sea port city of Trabzon on Sunday, shouting "God is great" as he escaped, according to police and witnesses. Officers were searching for the boy aged around 14 or 15, according to a police official who declined to be identified because of rules that bar Turkish civil servants from speaking to journalists without prior authorization. The police official would not say if the attack might be linked to the printing in European newspapers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which has caused anger in Muslim countries. Earlier Sunday, hundreds of Turks protested in Istanbul against the cartoons. "Whether the killing is linked to the caricatures will emerge when the culprit has been caught," Trabzon's Gov. Huseyin Yavuzdemir said. ...

Yeah, we'll find out if the killing is linked later.

A major Danish newspaper today published a story about the LIES that the main imam in Denmark, Abu Laban - who is pretending to be concilliatory and moderate - has told in this affair.



Lie 1:  He claimed that 29 different official muslim organzations in Denmark were opposed to the cartoons.  Turns out that that several of these organizations don't even exist, and other organizations were put on his list without ever being contacted or asked if they were opposed.  In several cases, organizations were listed as being supporters of the boycott and confrontation, even though they completely disagree.

Lie 2: His spokesperson claimed in several official press releases that the 29 organizations represent between 150,000 and 200,000 muslims (most muslims in Denmark).  Abu Laban never corrects this, even though the ACTUAL number is somewhere between 15,000 and 5,000 - including counting children as young as seven.

Lie 3: When he and others travelled to the middle east to show the "offensive" pictures published in danish newspapers, they included three incredibly offensive drawings - showing Mohammed as a pig, showing Mohammed as a pedophile, and showing a praying muslim being anally violated by a dog.  These pictures were presented among the others as cartoons that were published, even though it is a total lie.

Lie 4:  After justice department officials on january 8th stated that the cartoons were not a violation of rules in denmark against blasphemy (YES, there are laws in Denmark against blasphemy) his spokesperson announced that they would immediately appeal to the top justice department official (the title is hard to translate - Rigsadvokat kind of translates to "Imperial Attorney" ). Sufficiet it to say, it is like the Attorney General.  Yet, even though they said they would immediately appeal, the AG's office has received no complaint or appeal. Seems like they are not actually interested in the legality or working in the system to resolve their greivance.

Lie 5: Abu Laban has several times publicly stated to Danish media that he is opposed to the boycott, and wants the arab world to end it - yet on Tuesday he was interviewed for Al-Jazeera (the biggest arab news station), and told 50 million muslim viewers that he was pleased and happy with the boycott.

Not only do they want to censor Western Press but also their own for just discussing democracy.  Dubai complies to avoid a confrontation.  Upping the ante.

www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453773.023611111.html

<Bubba Whoopass Wilson> Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but....</Bubba Whoopass Wilson> isn't Islam the one true religion, and Allah is the one true God, and Mohommad is his Prophet  - - so, if somebody mocks the Prophet they are in effect mocking God.

That seems to be my take on the whole thing.... All religions want to be and claim to be the one true religion, and that religion's "God" is the one true "God". However, many religions are peaceful, while (in my limited research) Islam seems to have a one track agenda and that is to "convert or kill".


eta

Bubba Whoopass Wilson

Quoted: Islam seems to have a one track agenda and that is to "convert or kill".

You're thinking of the necromongers.


Where is Riddick when you need him?  

The Justification
by 'Callimachus' on February 6, 2006 01:20 PM

I was wondering what the theological justification was for calling for the death of non-Muslims who are deemed to have insulted the Prophet. This Islamist screed provides it:

At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad (saw). Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today. The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute. The response of the Muslims all over the world shows us the inability to deal with such people, the kuffar are attacking our Messenger and are allowed to get away with it whilst the Muslims have no power to do anything about it.

So, if this is right, it's not just a case of some angry people who need to get a grip (as many of the liberal sites seem to regard it). It's in there. It's bound and bred in the core of the religion.

« ok, I'm done now

Direct Link | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (1) | Printer-Friendly | E-mail This!

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Parris Gets It

Writing in the Times yesterday, one of the best political writers in modern times, Matthew Parris, demonstrated that, unlike many on the right--including a personal hero of mine, Hugh Hewitt--he understands clearly the stakes in the Mohammed Cartoon controversy. Parris writes:

But offence implicitly offered, and offence actually taken, are two different matters. On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them--to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. (Emphasis added).

This is, of course, the key. Once one agrees that one should not do anything that will objectively cause Muslims offense, one has in effect given the keys to one's liberty to a group that not only is notoriously thin-skinned but one that has shown an ability to feign outrage for political purposes.

There is no "Muslim veto" on our right to free speech and liberty, not even in the name of respect, decency or tolerance, as important as those values are.

You can find the whole essay here.

Although there are a lot of loud voices in this debate, I have been heartened by three things it has illustrated sharply: 1) that an ever-growing number of people across the West are very much aware of the danger poised by Islamic Fascism; 2) that we in the conservative Blogosphere can debate and disagree on very firmly held points of view without name-calling; and 3) that our deep contempt for the MSM is wholly justified.

link 12:20 PM Comments (8)

You know guys this is a good thing.  If a US paper published these images it would have just been another "wacko" american deal.  But the fact that it was a LIBERAL country in Europe and is getting this response is great.  Let the World War against the Dark Ages start today.

Quoted:
<Bubba Whoopass Wilson> Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but... isn't Islam the one true religion, and Allah is the one true God, and Mohommad is his Prophet .


Jim Jones said the same thing about himself.

David Koresh said the same thing about himself.

See where I am going with this ??  

That is what I feel about the late comer, Mohamm*d.

I have felt this way for many years.

rj

Liberal Muslim:  "Be like me".
Moderate Muslim:  "Be like me, or be punished".
Extreme Muslim:  "Be like me, or die".

I'll tolerate or politely ignore #1 (as I do from other religious folk) and resist #'s 2 and 3 with everything from strong words to gun fire.  Until they learn that NOT being a Muslim is NOT something that needs to be changed, punished, or exterminated they'll find nothing but resistance and conflict.  But that seems to be what they want.  

I for one hope that the cartoon incident does push them into an open move that they're not yet ready for.  The quiet takeover that they've been working in Europe up till now needs to be stopped before it goes any further.

And don't we all love the "strong words" from the West's religious leader?  The Pope came out with a statement saying that they have the right not to be offended.  Great.  So much for a strong, militant Pope.

Quoted: Funny how you don't see any other religion rioting upon viewing a caricature of their diety.....

Muhammad is God?
Better tell Muslims that.
They must not have gotten the memo.

Quoted: Quoted: Funny how you don't see any other religion rioting upon viewing a caricature of their diety..... Muhammad is God? Better tell Muslims that. They must not have gotten the memo.

Actually, the way that Islam seems to be practiced a lot of places, he might as well be considered a god.  

Isn't Mohammed supposed to be the one who decides who gets into heaven and who doesn't - while Allah is apparently busy somewhere else?  Certainly, the status of Mohammed is "higher" than that of other prophets, and almost seems to approach semi-deity status.  Which is INCREDIBLY inonic, because by all accounts, that exactly what the guy wanted to avoid, with his new trendy religion.

Quoted: Quoted: tag Hey, nice avatar!

Guess the pink ribbons for patty will soon fall out of favor?

Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman.

Therein lies the problem.
This is not a war, this is a counterinsurgency.
Some of you people are simple.
In a counterinsurgency, you win hearts and minds.
Shit man, get educated.

Yea, that's a grand fuckin' idea.
Got anymore good ones?
Notice how the South still resents the North for Sherman's March to the Sea?
Imagine that, but in the Middle East.
Instead of winning the war, you have set the stage for another one.
Stop trying to help.

And don't we all love the "strong words" from the West's religious leader? The Pope came out with a statement saying that they have the right not to be offended. Great. So much for a strong, militant Pope.

Yes we do.

That absolute LAST thing we need is for Western clergy to start aping mullahs and issuing fatwahs.

The Muslims are after us not because we are not Muslim or because we happen to be Christian/Jew/Hindi/whatever.

They hate the west because it is SECULAR and FREE,

The fact we dont think of religion as a matter to take up arms over, that we coexist with people of other faiths who do things against whichever scripture we privately beleve and practice at home, THAT is what they hate.

Because THAT behavior is corrosive to the hierarchical social structure, with modern communications technology they cannot hide, there is no barrier they can put up that can keep thier masses from knowing about the Western way of life.  The Shieks and Mullahs DEPEND for their livelyhood on a litteral interpretation of the Koran and the social structure that they have concocted based on it, that places them at a apex of layer upon layer of exploitation of lower status persons.  All sanctified by God, according to their teachings.


There was a time, long ago, when the Christian Church in the West behaved this way too, but two centuries of warfare between the murder of John Hus and the signing of the Peace of Westphalia burned such behavior out of Europe.  They still fought after that, for many reasons, but rarely because God was ordaining it... when it did reappear it was in peripheral areas like Ireland and Scotland in the West and Poland/Ukrane in the East...

.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman. Therein lies the problem. This is not a war, this is a counterinsurgency. Some of you people are simple. In a counterinsurgency, you win hearts and minds. (Just like in Vietnam?) Shit man, get educated. Yea, that's a grand fuckin' idea. Got anymore good ones? Notice how the South still resents the North for Sherman's March to the Sea? Imagine that, but in the Middle East. Instead of winning the war, you have set the stage for another one. Stop trying to help.

This "war" between Muslims and Christians has been going on for over 1,000 years. Count them...1,000 years! Some of the time it's been a hot war, most of the time it's been a cold war. We are just in a hot period right now and it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better.

Win hearts and minds of muslims... Yeah, RIGHT!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We are ass deep in two ROP conflicts winning hearts and minds, I am sure glad we were not trying to win hearts and minds in WWII. We would still be fighting it. Until we fight this war like a war. It will go on forever. We need another General Sherman. Therein lies the problem. This is not a war, this is a counterinsurgency. Some of you people are simple. In a counterinsurgency, you win hearts and minds. Shit man, get educated. Yea, that's a grand fuckin' idea. Got anymore good ones? Notice how the South still resents the North for Sherman's March to the Sea? Imagine that, but in the Middle East. Instead of winning the war, you have set the stage for another one. Stop trying to help.

I guess you got it all figured out then. Thanks for correcting me what would I have done without your insight?

PS this will probably kill the thread but the South was beat so bad it had no capability to wage war and still does not. (if folks have issues with that please start another thread) We need to reduce the extremists to that level. Those people ony respond to brute force, they actyally respect it and in some cases, need it. How do you think Saddam kept them in line? How does anyone in the middle east with large populations of extremists keep the peace? Through brute force. I wish it was not the case but until Islam takes care of the radicals, nothing we do will stop their aggression. All we can do for now if keep pressure on the wound and control the bleeding. Until the patient seeks medical help, its  a losing situation for all.

Quoted: And don't we all love the "strong words" from the West's religious leader?  The Pope came out with a statement saying that they have the right not to be offended.  Great.  So much for a strong, militant Pope.

The pope has been irrelevant for last few centuries, to anyone but those of the Catholic faith.
Some would argue he was irrelevant before, but the Vatican did actually wield power as a political state before the renaissance era. Much like the British monarchy. Solely a tourist attraction to many.