Friday, February 03, 2006

Islamist Agitation Tactics

The cartoons of Mohammed, for which J-P recently apologized, showed up in the France Soir. The editor was fired the next day. Furthermore, according to a BBC broadcast I just watched, the German paper, Die Welt, has also printed them. The original publication was in September. Somebody has apparently kept the pot boiling long enough that others felt it necessary to make a statement about the Freedom of Speech.

According to The American Thinker, various Islamists in Denmark are fomenting a worldwide Muslim reaction, including a boycott of Denmark's products, despite the apology. One imam apparently tells broadcasters in Denmark that he is against the boycott while speaking Danish, but tells Al-Jazerra that it's a good idea, speaking, of course, Arabic. Another outrageous tactic that has been used is to add needlessly provocative images apparently intended to further inflame Muslim audiences, such as Mohammed as a pig. I can't understand why it is wicked to create the images, but OK to look at them. Nevertheless, I infer that some Muslim individual must have created the interpolated image(s), or commissioned their creation, for the specific purpose of agitation. I guess it's OK to sin for the greater glory of God. Furthermore, it seems that many Muslim nations, such as fanatical Iran, have always displayed and sold images of Mohammed as religious icons. It's really hard to pin this one down. The American Thinker believes that the long-term intent is to force Sharia law onto Denmark.

2/3/2006 12:24 AM

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link


At Friday, February 03, 2006 9:20:00 AM, Blogger mal said...

hypocrisy and ambition are unbound by good sense.

If nothing had been said, the cartoons would have disappeared into obscurity a week after they were published.

The French editor that was fired? The papers owner is reported to be Egyptian

At Friday, February 03, 2006 5:11:00 PM, Blogger Steve said...

But these angry islamists are not interested in having the cartoons fade away. Rather, they are interested in cultivating submission, which they wrongly label "respect".

As I understand it, the cartoons were published because islamists had succeeded in intimidating people by such tactics as the murder of Theo van Gogh and threats against that amazing woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in Amsterdam. Something had to be done, probably better sooner than later, because unless confronted, this sort of people just won't stop until submission is secure.

These fundies remind me of American gangstas getting riled when someone "disrespects" them. They don't know the difference between respect and submission; instead, they equate respect and fear.

Many people are entirely too thin-skinned, including the author of the American Thinker piece and the Joint Chiefs. Tom Toles' cartoon was not making light of an amputee veteran. It was poking a justified stick in Rumsfeld's eye.

If that author and the Chiefs are so disgusted by the Tom Toles cartoon, I think Ted Rall would send them over the top and into the streets, screaming like mad fatwistas. Deep linking to Rall's cartoons doesn't work, but it might be worth clicking on the calendar to see "Santa Bush" on Dec 19. The American Thinker author and the Chiefs would probably miss the point again and say Rall was making light of an amputee veteran.

Ted Rall hits hard. I especially liked The Adventures of Bushman (Jan 26).

At Friday, February 03, 2006 8:46:00 PM, Blogger jj mollo said...

Ted Rall hits hard, but I think he's mentally unbalanced. My diagnosis would include the word paranoia somewhere. His assessment of Bush is too brutal to be amusing. I think Rall has a problem related to thin skin -- belief that his version of the world is righteous and no one else can see the truth like he can.

I don't have any problem with Tom Tole's cartoon. It uses symbolism to express a message. At the base, it respects amputee soldiers who have given so much for their country because it implies that Rumsfeld should stop putting them in harm's way. I disagree strongly with the obverse of that implication, which is that the war in Iraq is not worth such sacrifices. I also have no problem with the JCOS registering a complaint. I would say that it is part of their job to politely advocate for the respect of their personnel. It is their privilege to be a bit obtuse.

I think often about Van Gogh. I'm glad to see others do as well. The free speech vs. religious prerogative argument, for me, should always be awarded to the free speech side. I think the KKK and the Nazi party should be allowed to publish whatever they want. The free exchange of ideas is the thing that makes us strong. We should not be afraid that we cannot withstand repugnant ideas. We should be afraid when anyone is silenced.

At Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:14:00 PM, Blogger Steve said...

Well, I guess I wrote too soon about things dying down. I came back from a few hours in the desert with the dog and now I see there is insanity in Syria.

Oh, well...

At Monday, February 06, 2006 9:31:00 AM, Blogger mal said...

"We should not be afraid that we cannot withstand repugnant ideas. We should be afraid when anyone is silenced."

I must heartily agree with that one! It is a shame that others can not have the conviction that there views will stand the light of examination


Post a Comment

<< Home