"A jafi, whose soaring rhetoric about freedom and respect for Islam and the sacredness of the cause to bring liberty to the middle east as a grand antidote for tyranny and oppression, just came off looking a lot less sincere. A lot less.

I have to admit, rightly or wrongly, that after seeing the violent reaction to these cartoons and the out-an-out rejection of "freedom of speech" by the Muslims, I am considerably less enthusiastic about our Country going to the trouble and sacrifice required to bring liberty to these people. I am beginning to conclude that we have been deluded to think that it is possible.

As for "soaring rhetoric" about respect for Islam", I don't believe that the average American really ever bought into that. We did buy into the idea that people in the Middle East are entitled to exercise the liberty bestowed by God on all of us.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to agree.

Sue Bob -

I understand your instincts, but you've got to remember: despite some very real critical challenges to the Islamic world - namely, that this extremism is so pervasive (even as a minority position, it's still a significant minority position) - the people that you see on the news do not speak for all Muslims, and it's tricky to interpret it that way.

Democratization has a PROVEN historical record of moderating extremists within societies, but it doesn't quite happen overnight, so it's not a good idea to give up hope in the very middle of the fight to do so.

Untill such time as the Muslims start self-reflecting, take a step back and think about the reason they are potraying such images, we should start preparing to blocked the Middle East from the rest of the World.

Bill are you saying that members of the American military, outraged by Tom Toler's cartoon would be perfectly justified in burning down the Boston Globe? Or should they just be satisfied with threatening to behead its editors?
Are you saying that Christians, after the folks at KOS equated them with the Taliban, should have rioted in the street?
I realize these examples are extreme, and some of the cartoons are over the top, but civilized peoples all over the world manage to tolerate cartoonish nonsense without fatwas, and without homicide.
To pretend otherwise is beyond dishonest. It is to excuse criminal behaviour at the expense of the victim. Or maybe, that damned Rushdie bastard had it coming all along.
Don't get me wrong. I like your blog. I like Hugh Hewitt too, but the both of yoy have landed on the wrong side of a big, big question here. One that, in fact, separates civilization from barbarism.

Bill are you saying that members of the American military, outraged by Tom Toler's cartoon would be perfectly justified in burning down the Boston Globe? Or should they just be satisfied with threatening to behead its editors?

Not in the least. Re-read the post. Two or three times, four, if need be.

But here's a summary hint: if a group of Christians or right-wing "patriots" did issue such threats over the Tom Toles cartoon, it would be counter-intuitive to say that "Christians or right-wingers are all evil barbarians."

I do not excuse the outsized protests and threats taking place in the Muslim world. I do not minimize them as symptomatic of a serious problem, a philosophical cancer within that world. But I do not think that this gives us license to declare Islam the enemy, which is contrary to our larger goals of eradicating that cancer within Islam.

"so it's not a good idea to give up hope in the very middle of the fight to do so."

I totally agree because giving up this fight will only embolden them. I simply will no longer hold any warm fuzzy expectation about the Iraqi's, Iranians, Syrians or the citizens of any other Muslim country coming to value individual liberty. Liberty is a concept that has grown out the religious and philosophical propensities of Western Civilizations and it took us quite a while to bring it to fruition.

I now believe that our children and children's children will be fighting Islamists for generations. I don't believe that democratization or nationbuilding will prevent that.

I want the primary goal of any future military action to be the destruction of our enemies--not the liberation of people who will, I believe, ultimately spit in our "infidel" faces.

I've had it.

The Muslim radicals say they are being violent, because they are demanding respect. However it seems to me, that respect itself engenders respect. We in the west and subject to much in the way of insults, and nothingnni the way of respect, from people who understand little if anything of our culture, and what nothing to do with it, other than our money, and our submission.

We have sat back and watched thousands upon thousands of our people be slaughtered in support of a vile ideology. One sided respect in that light can only go so far. And, it has been one sided. Are we EVER going to be able to get them to stop trying to kill us? I doubt it, and so do a majority of Americans, I think. THe evidence of this is in abundance, in it's lack; Where are all the Muslims that are denouncing these radical actions? Where, I ask, are all the Muslims protesting BinLaden and his minions? Where are all the Muslims protesting Iran's were like stance against its neighbors?

There are none, or damned few... not enough to make any show of respect worthwhile. And the American people have identified this situation for what it is. They know we're not going to be able to make peace with these people any more than the cow makes peace with the butcher. They mean to kill us or enslave us. We know this because they've said as much. Why are we still concerned about hurting their feelings?

The message being sent by publishing those cartoons here in America is that we will not submit to bullies. And screw them if they don't like it.

Bill, I apologize to you for distorting your position. Far be it for me to point out that the folks that burned down the Danish embassy aren't a "tiny minority" in the Islamic world. Far be it from me to point out that leaders of that Religion are prepetuating this particular out-rage in the midst of a terribly dangerous stand off with Iran. Far be it from me to point out that the cartoons in question are so mild as to be laughable when compared to the way Islamic newspapers portray jews, Christians and American soliders. Far be it from me to point out that great numbers of Muslims dance in the streets whenever something awful happen to Americans or westerners. Far be it from me to point out that mullahs seem to be responsible for some of the more objectionabl cartoons in this case.
I should never, ever point these things out becuase, of course, I am the problem. Me, and the right wing blogosphere. If we were all "more nuanced" we would know better.
I assume that from now on we should blame fireman for house fires as well?
Look, arguing for restraint in this situation is a good thing. Implying that the Danes had it coming and that the world would be a much safer place if all of us would just shut up and not "antagonize" the Middle East with all our nasty, free speech is something else. That is tantamount to surrender.
Maybe we're talking past each other, but I don't think so. If you're not blaming the victim I apologize to you, but that is certainly how it appears.

Bill, I don't dislike every Muslim on earth- just the ones that want me dead for not being one of them. And yes, I can tell the difference.

I totally disagree. It is simply unacceptable to accept suppression of speech imposed by a religious group. There are no two ways about it. If this is all it takes for muslims to start burning buildings and maybe killing people, then it's clear islam is incompatible with the west. It's time we found out for sure, one way or the other.

Your position, while trying to find the precious middle ground, is just so much horseshit.

Since when in the history of mankind does anyone have the "right" not to be offended by anything? Should I now have the right to physically harm anyone who says something that insults my personal appearance or my beliefs?

It's called being an adult. When you were in kindergarten and someone made fun of you, you lashed out. Now you do one of two things, either consider the source and move on, or argue passionately for your position.

You are arguing for the ultimate in the pussification of the universe. Unfortunately, those offended aren't going to go and tell their mommies anymore, they're going to burn down their local embassy.

I really thought better of you.

Thing is, not all the cartoons were hateful or in any way saying bad things about Muhammad or Islam. Yet those cartoonists have gone into hiding due to death threats as well. I wish they'd printed only the non-offensive (to non-Muslim eyes) ones; I'm curious what would have happened then.

I totally disagree. It is simply unacceptable to accept suppression of speech imposed by a religious group.

Find the part of my post that advocates accepting suppression of speech, and quote it back to me. I'll wait.

Since when in the history of mankind does anyone have the "right" not to be offended by anything? Should I now have the right to physically harm anyone who says something that insults my personal appearance or my beliefs?

Where do I advocate any of that in my post OR my subsequent comments, you reading comprehension-challenged chimp? I'd call "being an adult" learning how to READ, for starters.

I really thought better of you.

I'm crying over here.

Lets face it, Hugh is right for once. The cartoons are crude, none too perspicuous, and quite offensive to anyone with any respect for religious tolerence. However the 3 that were created by Danish Imams and disseminated along with the other 12 to promote hatred are FAR worse...and that's really the point isn't it?

The reaction of the "Muslim world" to these cartoons, written over a year ago, has become beyond parody. It is an unfortunate mistake of many on the right to take this comical imbroglio and turn in into a condemnation of Islam and Muslim society itself...but given some of the protest pictures I've seen, as well as the utter emetic hypocrisy of it all...it is a tendency I can understand.

What everyone must realize is that the Middle East is a complete shit-hole in every sense of the world. People there live in poverty completely under the thumb of the governing kleptocrats and are constantly exposed to state propaganda that denies them any kind of perspective on the world and seeks only to ferment outwardly directed anger. Given that, I think the disgusting and farcical reaction of so many in the Middle East to this matter is understandable as well. It is obvious that the governments/dictators of many of these countries have had no small hand in drumming up the desired reaction.

So please, everyone on the Right bear this in mind before you engage in such sweeping generalizations and denunciations...no matter how deserved they may seem at the moment.

And yes, I can tell the difference.

Yes, but do you communicate the difference? I'm not saying that YOU don't, or can't, but that's my point.

And do others communicate the difference?

Bless you, Jason.

Bill, this post is horsehit.

Why you would advocate the state-supported murder of Terri Shiavo by Islamist Radicals who want to destroy America, I'll never know.

I really thought better of you, Bill.

Kevin, your comment is a good illustration of Bill's point. "It is simply unacceptable to accept suppression of speech imposed by a religious group" is pretty obviously uncontroversial, the problem is identifying "a religious group" as all of Islam is a bit broad. Bill's statement that "pointed attacks on the entire religion" betrays an interest "to slake personal desires to express cultural and specifically religious triumphalism" seems to show itself in a tendency to make blanket statements about how Islam is this or that when the speakers have only a superficial understanding of the religion of Islam. (Maybe they should comment to Aziz P's post and inform him about how his religion is incompatible with the West.)

It's one thing to say it will be difficult to help effect reform in Islam, another to rule it out completely. If it were impossible for Islam to coexist with the West, then trying to set up a democracy in Iraq is pointless, because it would never take root.

And I will add that there are signs that Islam can coexist with the West. 15.9% of the population of Israel is Muslim, with Muslim members of the Knesset. I've personally met a Muslim Bedouin Arab who was trying to get a job working as a diplomat representing Israel to the world. If this can happen in freaking Israel I'd say there's hope. Guinea-Bissau, with a 45% Muslim population and Indonesia with an 88% Muslim population have both managed to have female heads of states (for admittedly brief periods) so there's another glimmer. (I'm betting this last paragraph gets mischaracterized along the lines of "Islam is no worse than Christianity" in less than 3 comments, any takers?)

Jason and Hugh are a bit Pollyanna-ish (typical of Hugh)when describing the cartoons as "quite offensive". They're satire for cripes' sake! They're supposed to be a "dig" at the their subject matter and that's going to be offensive to many, even if the critique is warranted!.
So what? Get over it! Deal with it! Write a letter to the editor, circulate a petition....but no, Muslims threaten death and destruction over these little whimsies.
Defending "offensive material" is the real gist of the freedom of expression, since anything anyone says can be found subjectively offensive.
Being a Deist, I was offended that Hugh, as an Evangelical religionist, placed these cartoons in some special editorial purgatory because they struck at religion---yet,I didn't burn down anything or threaten Hugh's life!

I think something that brings out the misplaced "enthusiasm" with which right wing blogs are pursuing this is the hypocrisy of many media outlets. The very outlets, in this country, that profess a "sensitivity" to Islam are the same ones displaying and attacking Christian icons and then complaining that these "fundamentalists" who complain are infringing on their first amendment rights. That hypocrisy goes for many major news organs in Muslim countries that portray Christians and Jews as baby killers and Nazis. I agree holding current events up as an example of how extreme Islam can be won't help but don't you wonder if that is how Islam really is? Also, if you had a major Muslim leader asking for calm in the midst of this storm, you would get more caution from many commenters. But, alas, no one within the Muslim community is saying stop. The silence is deafening.

? Also, if you had a major Muslim leader asking for calm in the midst of this storm, you would get more caution from many commenters. But, alas, no one within the Muslim community is saying stop. The silence is deafening.

Like, say, this?

However, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric suggested that Islamic extremists responsible for suicide attacks and terrorism were partly responsible for tarnishing the image of Islam.

"We strongly denounce and condemn" the caricatures, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said in a statement on his Web site. But he also referred to "misguided and oppressive" elements within the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

"Enemies have exploited this ...to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms," al-Sistani said.

I know, one guy, not enough. And I understand the media's hypocrisy. But ...

Why you would advocate the state-supported murder of Terri Shiavo by Islamist Radicals who want to destroy America, I'll never know.

Ha.

The cartoons are offensive Earl, they play on stereotypes and mock a religious figure. I would say the same thing about any cartoon that made fun of Christians by mocking Jesus...would you? You seem to be unable to make the critical distinction between valorizing the cartoons and defending the right for their being published. I think the cartoons were stupid, trite, and offensive, but the newspaper that published them had a perfect right to do so. How exactly is that "pollyannaish"? Is that not the purest defense of freedom of speech?

Also you seem to read this objection to the cartoons as a tacit legitimation of the (typical) "Muslim" reaction. All I can say is that this is and OBVIOUS straw man (just read what I wrote once more please) and the hallmark of a small mind.

I believe the right is a little too into showing the pictures. That part of it is probably the Right teasing the Left into exposing some hypocracy. In the face of Kanye West posing as Christ and Crucifix in urine, these cartoons are tame. The Right has to co-exist with those images which are disrespectful to Christians in its culture. Further they are called religious oppressors when they don't want their taxes to pay for the display of those images. So, the Left, not wanting to resist sticking up for something that is contra tranditional Western culture is being goaded into exposing it hypocrisy.

But there is a real concern here which I believe is being missed. This is the tip of the iceberg of Muslim culture exerting control over Europe. Not only from within but also being projected from the Middle East. Are you ready for the assimilation of Europe into the Muslim sphere? Because that reality just dawned on much of her citizens.

Bill,

Good, thoughtful post. Not "bad" at all :)

I agree that it's not in the strategic interest of the US gov't to inflame this controversy. So temperate statements by Bush and the State Dept. are appropriate.

Do newspaper and bloggers have an obligation to follow that lead? IOW, is displaying the cartoons irresponsible and ultimately self-destructive? I don't know, and I'm not sure if that's your view.

I DO think that, in many ways, "Islam has a problem wiht modernity." Or many segments of Islam, extending farther and deeper than a terrorist fringe, have such a problem. That suggests that the strategic neocon policy may not work. Ouch! Does that mean "kill 'em all?" No, I don't think so. Nor can I propose a well-thought-out third way.

It's an interesting debate or problem, Bill. And I'm willing to be shown wrong, or irresponsible, etc. I dredged up the Allah swirly cone fracas from last September. How do we ('we' = secular Western civilization) address such a challenge. 'Yes' to swirly cones, but 'no' to cartoons?

Nobody forget that freedom of expression in Europe (including Denmark) is not absolute. For example, denying the Holocaust is a crime.

These cartoons should be made into a crime too. If only to spare us all the trouble...

"Are you ready for the assimilation of Europe into the Muslim sphere? Because that reality just dawned on much of her citizens."

You mean much in the way that we have been assimilated by the Jewish sphere? (see above comment).

Nah, it's nonsense. What we have to underestand in Europe is that, we like it or not, many of our citizens are muslims, and we should respect their personal idiosyncracies to some extent. Just as those of any other type of European citizen.

Do newspaper and bloggers have an obligation to follow that lead? IOW, is displaying the cartoons irresponsible and ultimately self-destructive? I don't know, and I'm not sure if that's your view.

No, they don't have an obligation, and to be fair, I should have authored a preface to this post outlining my position on that.

I'm merely addressing that right wing bloggers that claim to support our policies in Iraq and elsewhere with regard to democratizing the Muslim world are contradictory in their rhetoric that condemns an entire religion as a death cult, in addition the base problem of taking the sweeping, aggressive rhetoric too far. As a corollary, the celebration of the cartoons themselves as high art shows a form of hypocrisy in CERTAIN quarters (not yours) about respect for religion, and the willingness to cheer blaspheming another's religion simply belies what is, in essence, a hyperaggressive religious pissing match. "My religion kicks your religion's ass."

Otherwise, why would otherwise religious pundits celebrate artwork that blasphemes an ENTIRE religion? Last time I checked, a billion people weren't protesting or lighting stuff on fire. If they were, we'd have a lot bigger problems.

These cartoons should be made into a crime too. If only to spare us all the trouble...

I'd say that following Europe's censorship model is a terrible idea. Inflammatory expression should not be criminalized.

Bill,

Thx. Lots to think about on this one.

Cheers.

I follow you, Bill.

But as you've found out, it's hard to put so fine a point on matters, when passions are running so loud and so high. Everyone has an individual self and a mob self, switching as the situation carries them along.

I second your hope that this flap doesn't scuttle democracy in the ME. But I won't accept dhimmitude here at home, no matter what the cause.

When "pisschrist" was in the headlines, I was offended, but I was told it's protected speech. When a so called arist spread feces on an image of the Virgin Mary, I was offended, but again, it's protected speech. When the American flag is burned on US soil, I am offended, but again, freedom of speech. When these same goons in the Middle East celebrated the 9/11 disaster, I was offended, but was told "We're the US, we need to be big enough to take the abuse." But some clowns in Denmark do some political cartoons, and all of a sudden, the world must bow to THEIR feelings of offense? Don't you see why the conservative bloggers are having a field day?

I'm with Hitchens. You don't have any right not to be mocked for your ideas or beliefs. Don't like it? Defend your ideas. Mock back.

Hugh says: The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world

Unnecessary affront? The point is, the author of a book about Mohammed couldn't find anyone willing to illustrate it. The point is, the Western press is censoring itself to avoid having its offices blown up. The point is, they need to do so - as we have seen.

I think it was a very necessary, indeed, vital, affront.

Well, I'm with Hitchens too, in general. And I'm not concerned with the existence of the cartoons myself, as much as I am by the outsized reactions of right-wing pundits after the cartoons set off a certain segment of the Muslim world.

Do you recognize these distinctions?

"Or maybe, that damned Rushdie bastard had it coming all along."

Why of COURSE he did the only shame is, that it was not him murdered for writing that book instead of some of the ones who worked publishing it.

Another PERFECT example of how it is OUR fault if Muslims do not follow our cultural mores is.

" professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan) as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

The very SHAME of those women! Wearing provocative clothing and then DARING to BLAME those poor boys for being unable to resist their natural cultural tendencies to respond with violence and rape.,

What all this sturm und drang is really about is simply the inevitable clash of 'modern' sensibilities [the concept of free speech] and medieval consciousness, which is inherent in the fundamentalist branches of all religions.

Any fundamentalist [jew, christian or muslim] would probably like to kill anyone who appears to ridicule their religion because it is their entire reason for being. {I know, I was raised as one]. It threatens their existence on the most personal and irrational and emotional basis.

But if we going to continue to co-exist on the same planet within easy striking distance of one another, we need some ground rules. Like I may have have the right to poke fun at your religion, but do I really need to deliberately and methodically antagonize you? Do I really need to take that liberty?

And, conversely, you have the right to be angered at what you feel is ridicule, and to raise your voice about it, but do you think anything or anyone is served by physical violence?

An enormous problem is that so many people [including many of our own citizens] are so continuously enraged that they want a war – any war, no matter what the costs. We are seeing one of those times in history when rationality has gone out the window and all there is left is bloodlust.

Bill, I'm not a conservative, so I apologize in advance if my endorsement, being of a different ideological stripe, somehow weakens your credentials.

That said, great post. To the critics commenting here, I'd point out:

1) There is no threat to free speech here. Denmark is not going to censor Jyllands-Posten, and there was never a chance they would.

2) Self-censorship has another name: discretion. Picturing Muhammed wearing a turban-bomb is not discrete, or even satire. It's prejudice, flat-out, no different from when a British cartoonist won a prize for illustrating Ariel Sharon eating babies. Neither should be censored, and neither deserves support or legitimation.

3) To say that "Muslims" are "outraged", "irrational", etc. etc. is no different than if an American lefty says "Christians" are "zealots". The generalization is reprehensible.

4) If you really think the whole Muslim world has lost it, and there isn't anyone to talk to, I personally think you're not really looking. All that energy put into looking for Danish crackers in the supermarket could instead be put towards finding the moderate voices. Like these, for instance. Or even better these journalists. These are people you may disagree with, but they are rational, communicating individuals. If you still think its pointless to try, then we better get Karen Hughes a new job and get ready for the real "Clash of Civilizations", because if we don't focus on the sensible and ignore the crass, on both sides, this war is going to longer, more brutal and more senseless than any other we've fought.

You guys are the 82317 best, thanks so much for the help.

pantyhose peeing amature pantyhose

pantyhose peeing amature pantyhose

pantyhose peeing amature pantyhose

amateur ass fuck amateur porn blog

amateur ass fuck amateur porn blog

amateur ass fuck amateur porn blog

chubby redheads galleries free whores ass chubby gallery

chubby redheads galleries free whores ass chubby gallery

chubby redheads galleries free whores ass chubby gallery

fetish for girls in white socks nun fetish

tee trans heart cardio sluts whores foto sesso trans transex

sphuvlkub

sphuvlkub

oafgzven

lleu

ycfvux

ycfvux

Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy...

Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy...

Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

iraqi rapes free rape video The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

afpechrvu hebc rvcfowza erhn bsjvkf ntpjk binajed

vxhgmsba gyvbfprwk rbndq qfrdb sxcfmjt czwxh lgbzjhk