The Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that published the Mohammed cartoons, says it will not publish the winners of Iran’s bogus Holocaust cartoon contest. Bravo, sirs, you are making me like you more and more.
Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizbullah, told President Bush and Condi Rice to shut up about Allah. Yeah, that’s some religion of tolerance. Oh, and once again, the magician is trying to distract you by making it all about Israel.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said that if the controversy touched on Jews or Israel the West would have reacted differently and quickly.
Uh-huh.
Hamas says they’re going to develop an economy independent from Israel. Hey, good luck with that, guys, but y’know, nail bombs and IED’s have a limited market. And oh, yeah: No negotiation, no recognition, and no peace with Israel. Just in case you were wondering.
In the “Brilliant move, Abu” department, palestinians have kidnapped an Egyptian diplomat. Yeah, that’ll definitely entice Egypt to keep helping the pals. Oh, wait. Egypt has begun withdrawing its forces from Gaza already. This must be the palestinian way to get them back.
They could always rent out suicide bombers. Slogan “Make your party a real blast, Go with Hamas!”
This is a classic f*** your buddy move. Debka says it was Fatah trying to foul up Hamas’ upcoming “meet the new government” talks with Egypt.
Cartoons from the arab press
I support the concept of free speech; having said that I think that publishing crude and insulting cartoons depicting Mohammed was deliberately provocative and boneheaded, and morally no better than a cartoon depicting a Torah being used as toilet paper.
Newspapers [in western countries, at least] have the right to publish what they want; however they can be sued in civil court if they defame someone; that’s a private matter between the newspaper and the offended and has nothing to do with freedom of the press or of speech. And if I were a Muslim I might be retaining a lawyer to sue the paper. I could accept that response.
But burning cars, yelling Death To Denmark, and boycotting Prune Danish? ! billion harshly worded letters to the editor would have been more appropriate…
Well Doc, that is the approach Jews or Christians would use. Maybe some peaceful demonstrations in addition, and press releases from the ADL or some Evangelical group deploring the blasphemy committed by an “artist” throwing elephant dung at a picture of Mary. What would be the result? Nada, zilch, nothing. The “artists” would preen themselves on their “courage” in mocking religions whose followers don’t threaten them with violence. Liberal newspapers would deplore the critics, mocking them as backward rubes. The “artists” would have laughed themselves all the way to the bank with the extra money they got after such publicity.
With the Muslims on the other hand, their threats of violence (sometimes fulfilled, as with Theo van Gogh) terrify those who might draw or write something the Muslims don’t like. Liberal newspapers and broadcasters attack those who print or show such stuff, and oh-so-brave transgressive artists decide not to show films that Muslim’s might object to. Muslims get their opponents silenced and groveling apologies from Western governments for their citizens exercizing their freedom of speech. Obviously the Muslim methods are far more effective at actually getting results and the press and broadcasters of the West are far more respectful of the sensitivities of Muslims who threaten them with death for stepping out of line than they are of those who hew to peaceful methods. The press even becomes apologists for the Muslim nutters threatening them.
Muslims demand respect after the fashion of a Mafia don and get it from the Western press and broadcasters, who will speak what they take to be truth only to powers, like the US government, other Western governments, Christians, and Jews, that won’t threaten them with real retaliation.
Why would a Muslim sue for defamation? The paper did not defame him. It committed no libel against any particular Muslim person. Under what law could he sue? That is just silly. Muslim apologetic groups will use the law when they can, but generally it will be for curtailing other peoples’ freedoms. It is dovetailed with violence because violence works better and quicker, and serves the function of intimidating the rest of a Western society into conforming to what those radical Muslims want. It’s cartoons today, but tomorrow it will be some other minor thing that stokes their outrage (so easily inflamed; Muslims seem to have a gigantically inflated amour propre). But you will be comforted to know that appeasement becomes easier for the appeaser the more times it is practiced.