Two Views of Islam

In recent years there has been a lot of bad blood between the Muslims and the infidels or kuffar (unbelievers). They feel that we have been attacking them, and we are equally disturbed by their efforts to turn our cities into Islamic enclaves and "no-go" zones, and by their terror attacks. Each side considers the other's legal system as invalid, improper, worthless, and terrible. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but that gives the flavor of the dispute.

With all this, it should not be surprising that derogatory things have been said on both sides. Like this one about Muslims and their Sharia Law. Some — especially the more sensitive or perpetually offended among us — would find this description rather harsh.

But that's not harsh at all compared to what they say about themselves. Like this.

This strikes me as an explicit admission, by those most heavily steeped in Islam and most knowledgeable about it, that Islam makes no sense on its own terms. That also fits with the violence and intimidation the Imams are preaching. It's what appeals to those who know they are being dumped on and respond by striking out with any actions through which they can claim some form of dominance — "honor killings", thuggery, terror attacks, jihadism.

That Western "1400 years" view is also not harsh compared to what Muslims say about us (non-Muslims), or what they intend for us. It's the same as they intended, and implemented, for every group of people they ever encountered. It was a simple mantra: "Convert or die." And once they got past that immediate threat, they learned their problems were just beginning: "If you try to leave, we will kill you." It was all a part of, and a follow-on, to the only way Islam has ever spread — conquest.

How does this problem get solved? I'm not sure, but I do look forward a world like that described in this story.

The Will to Win

This was received from an Air Force colleague, who had received it from a Marine friend. It's worth passing on.

Unless you are willing to be as unreasonable and as brutal, as your enemy, do not engage him in a conflict -- because he will win.

An old leatherneck says it better. Here's what the WWII veteran said right after overhearing someone say that "You can't bomb an ideology.":

The hell you can't, because we did it. These Muslims are no different than the [Imperial] Japanese. The Japs had their suicide bombers too. And we stopped them. What it takes is the resolve and will to use a level of brutality and violence that your generations can't stomach. And until you can, this shit won't stop. It took us on the beaches with bullets, clearing out caves with flame throwers, and men like LeMay burning down their cities, killing people by the tens of thousands. And then it took 2 atom bombs on top of it. Plus we had to bomb the shit out of German cities to get them to quit fighting. But, if that was what it took to win, we were willing to do it. Until you are willing to do the same...well I hope you enjoy this shit, because it ain't going to stop!

Back then, we had leadership, resolve, resources and determination. Today we're afraid to hurt people's feelings .... and worry about which bathroom to piss in!!!

On one thing, though, I must disagree. "These Muslims" ARE different from the Japanese of World War II. The Japanese fighters were soldiers — uniformed soldiers, with a code of conduct enforced by their superiors and their military structure. They acted as a military force. Compare that to "these Muslims" who lack honor, think committing rape is normal and acceptable behavior, and prefer to attack civilian non-combatant targets — right down to beheading a woman for the "crime" of going to the market by herself. In other words, this is what "these Muslims" are like.

This is the new reality, as we've all seen. We ignore it at our peril.

Meanwhile, In Paris

A group of completely uncivilized barbarians went on a senseless rampage, murdering well over 100 people in Paris on Friday night for no other reason than that they wanted to. Several groups of pond snakes (far lower than apes and pigs) staged at least six separate coordinated attacks on restaurants, a shopping area, a rock concert, and a soccer game. Their only purpose was to terrorize the population, as they hope to do around the world in the future. ISIS has claimed the blame for this series of attacks.

Unlike previous jihadist attacks, this one did not produce Muslim community cheers for the attackers. (Muslims around the world condemn terrorism after the Paris attacks — headline) Indonesia (the world's most populous Muslim country) condemned the attacks. Iran called them a "crime against humanity." Arab state leaders called the attacks immoral, “criminal acts of terrorism which run counter to all teachings of holy faith and humanitarian values.” More locally, Albuquerque's imam, Shafi Abdul Aziz, told Channel 7 News it is time for everyone to come together to destroy ISIS. I'd say that's not quite good enough.

Previous Islamic cults, the Hashshashin and the Thugee, exist now only as words in the dictionary — assassin and thug. That is too good for these groups. ISIS and al Qaeda should be exterminated thoroughly, removed even from the memory of humanity except as footnotes in an obscure historical treatise.

Start the Rumor ...

"If we could convince the Chinese that Jihadists’ testicles are an aphrodisiac, in 10 years they could be extinct ... "

Makes perfect sense to me, but probably has something in it to insult just about everyone.

Terrorists Demand Special Accommodation

The Wall Street Journal has reported on some of what it described as the "chaos" in the arraignment of the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacksin a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One element was particularly striking — the terrorists' demand (through one of their lawyers) that the U.S. court system pander to their barbarian prejudices. Instapundit extracts and summarizes it this way:

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION? WOMEN LAWYERS AT GITMO TRIAL SHOULD WEAR THE HIJAB TO PROTECT THE SOULS OF THE 9/11 ACCUSED: Really? If it were me, I’d wear the highest heels and shortest skirt I could find. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Cheryl Bormann, a lawyer for Mr. bin Attash, was dressed in an abaya, a loosefitting garment worn by observant Muslim women, leaving only her face exposed, and suggested that women on the prosecution team follow her example. They should dress modestly “so that our clients are not forced to not look at the prosecution for fear of committing a sin under their faith,” Ms. Bormann said.

Personally, I think the military judge in this tribunal should have ordered Ms. Bormann to leave the courtroom, and return when she was properly attired for a U.S. court. There is no reason at all for any court to pander to terrorist mass murderers.

Further, if the terrorists insist on the kind of disruptive behavior they showed at the arraignment, the judge should leave them in separate solitary cells with video monitors and audio for the simultaneous Arabic translation — outside the cells so they cannot damage or destroy them, and proceed with the court process in the courtroom. That sort of process is used with ordinary criminal defendants. If it's good enough for ordinary criminals, it's more than good enough for these confessed terrorists.

Osama bin Laden Helped Plan the Mumbai Terror Attack

A lot of documents and computers were collected by US Special Forces during the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan — the raid in which bin Laden was killed. A little of the information from those materials is now dribbling out, and it shows bin Laden was still actively plotting attacks while hiding (and/or being hidden) from the civilized world.

The Hindustan Times reports that Osama bin Laden helped plan the November 26, 2008, terror attack on Mumbai, India, in which 166 people were killed. Pakistan terrorism expert Bruce Reidel noted this also “suggested a much larger direct al-Qaeda role in the planning of the Mumbai attacks than many assumed.”

Bin Laden planned the attack in close coordination with Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed, whose group carried out the attack. That resulted in the pictures we'va all seen, like the one in this report.

The Long War Journal notes “the documents raise new questions about the former al Qaeda master's ties to elements of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment”, noting that Pakistan's ISI military intelligence organization had used Saeed's group “to wage a proxy war against Indian forces in Kashmir during the 1990s.” And many have noted the proximity of bin Laden's home to the Pakistani military academy.

Islam, Slavery, & Conquest

The headline says Ahmadinejad launches attack on 'slavers and colonizers' of the West. My first thought was "That little turd has a lot of brass." Later, when I was feeling exceptionally kind, I thought it might be ascribed to Ahmadinejad's extreme capacity for projection.

Islam accepts, promotes, and preaches slavery — and has from its beginning. Mohammed kept slaves, and Islam promotes Mohammed and everything he did as the perfect example for all to follow. As a result, fewer centuries ago, Muslim slavers captured the Africans that were sold to Western slavers for transport and sale outside Africa. Even now, slavery continues in a number of Muslim countries and Middle Eastern authorities advocate jihad to capture victimes to be sold as slaves to help those countries reduce their debt levels.

Slavery provides other insights into Islam, through that same link to Mohammed and his actions. From my observation, there is nothing more racist and xenophobic than an Arab Muslim — and it would appear a Persian Muslim is not far behind. And it all comes from the Arabic language and the Islamic doctrine. It's not bad enough that Arabic commonly uses the same word for slave and for black African. These are people who are arrogant enough to believe their god speaks seventh century Arabic, incorporated in the Quran and since that time translated into modern Arabic so that modern Arabs and others can (perhaps) understand the words.

By contrast, what do we find in the West? The Catholic church prevented Muslim-style chattel slavery from existing in its areas of influence, ruling that one could own a man's work but not his soul. And then Western Protestants, English and American, ended slavery altogether in areas they controlled.

Westerners ended slavery where they could. Muslims continue it.

Colonizers? It seems to me that the West has now progressed to the point that it doesn't take over the places it feels it has to send its troops. Only the Muslims still do that, and insist of reconquering areas they once held. In fact, a look at history shows conquest is the only reliable way Islam has ever been spread.

Islamism, A Modern Phenomenon

It's always worth waiting for David Warren's columns in the Ottawa Citizen to be posted online. That's especially the case with one recent column. In that column, he goes after the "conventional wisdom" that he says the multiculturists and our rulers are prisoners of.

The issue is Islamism, the ideology responsible for 9/11, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the terrorist "culture of death". Warren notes, quite correctly in my view, that

• "Islamism is not a medieval recrudescence." This despite the fact that some related elements have surfaced in the past.
• "It is instead an ultramodern phenomenon, of the age of fascism and communism ..."
• It "is the product not of rekindled religious faith, but of the exact opposite."

Note Mohammed Atta spending his last night before 9/11 getting lap dances at a strip club, an Osama bin Laden's library of pornography. These are not the actions of people commited to religious beliefs.

Warren notes that religious people "do not make suicide bombers; never did and never will. Suicide bombers are recruited from among the young, mostly male, bored, frustrated, and indulged products of a debilitating consumerism (as our terrorist profiles show again and again)." These are wolves in sheep's clothing, using religion as camouflage to protect themselves and their fascist jihad ideology. (They protect themselves while sending others to die for them.)

We need to properly identify the enemy so we can identify the right strategy to use against it.

Islam Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers

That's what one of President Barack Obama's recent appointees says. A summary of the YouTube video series by Dr Azizah al-Hibri says

Were the freedoms outlined in the U.S. Constitution influenced by the Quran? Professor Azizah Y. al-Hibri, President of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Islamic scholar and law professor at the University of Richmond, discusses the influences of the Quran and early Muslim history on Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers. Listen as Dr. al-Hibri explains the implications of the Quran on U.S. Constitutional principles from freedom of religion to the separation of church and state.

She's right, in a way, but not in the way she seems to think. Islam did influence Thomas Jefferson, the fledgeling United States, and the Founding Fathers. Much of that influence was occasioned by the Barbary Coast caliphates attacks on shipping, taking U.S. seamen and civilians to be sold into slavery. These pirates promised safe passage for shipping in return for payment of tribute (protection money). The ambassador from Tripoli explained to Jefferson and John Adams that they did this because

"That's what we do. We are commanded to do so by Allah." Jefferson later wrote that the Tripoli ambassador told him, "It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise."

Thomas Jefferson was shocked. He bought and read the Koran. He learned what Islam was about. As a result, "Jefferson’s resolve to fight had its genesis in his reading the Koran as the best source of all things Muslim. Jefferson knew that 18th century Americans were in danger from what we call today conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Islam." This was the early 19th century jihad. Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marines against Tripoli and the Barbary Coast. (Remember "... to the shores of Tripoli"?) This was the first foreign war for the U.S., and the beginning of the end for the Islamic caliphates. And it spared most of the world that kind of barbarism for nearly 200 years. That is the kind of influence Islam had on the Founding Fathers and the early history of the United States.

I also seriously doubt that bit about the influence of "early Muslim history" on Jefferson since that early history was separated from Jefferson and early U.S. history by more than 1100 years.

Egypt Opening to Gaza

Egypt is permanently opening its border crossing into Gaza. In response, at least 400 al Qaeda terrorists have already moved into Sinai, ready to move from there into the Gaza strip — presumably to take up operations against Israel.

What could possibly go wrong?

New Definition of Chutzpah

If you look up "chutzpah" in the dictionary, you will find the definition has been changed since earlier this week. That's because al Qaeda has released a statement on the death of Osama bin Laden which has been reported in English translation here (also reported here) that includes this:

Even when the Americans managed to kill Osama, they managed to do ONLY that by disgrace and betrayal. Men and heroes only should be confronted in the battlefields but at the end, that’s God’s fate.

This from an organization of professional cowards who

1. have never yet enterred an actual battlefield
2. have never acted as soldiers of any sort, preferring to operate in a manner that would embarrass common thugs
3. target women, children, and other defenseless people, avoiding situations where they might be confronted by those who might conceivably fight back
4. are led by those (like bin Laden) who extoll the virtues of martyrdom to their ignorant followers while keeping themselves safe from risk and harm

Amazing that al Qaeda could have the degree of arrogance and self-delusion to make such a statement. These barbarians make the lowest primitives look civilized. And that's not counting their extreme chutzpah.

White House Gang Can't Shoot Straight

Descriptions of the raid that killed Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden, as provided by President Barack Obama and senior members of his administration, have been changing day by day. That's not good, because the various descriptions contradict each other. And it's not just people mis-speaking, either — the official White House story of the raid has been changing. For example, Obama and administration officials said Osama bin Laden

• was part of the firefight
• used a woman as a human shield, and
• was shooting from behind his human shield

Later, administration officials were saying bin Laden

• wasn't shooting
• wasn't armed, and
• didn't use a human shield.

Contradictions like these simply had to be addressed:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday publicly revised the administration’s account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, telling reporters that the Al Qaeda leader wasn’t armed during the assault and didn’t use one of his wives as a shield.

Carney tried to explain:

“What is true,” Carney said, is that “we provided a great deal of information with great haste.”

“Obviously, some of the information was — came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated upon,” he said.

The Associated Press story, as printed in the Albuquerque Journal (apparently not available online) had a somewhat extended version of the same statement, saying

"We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you, and through you the American public, about the operation and how it transpired and the events that took place there in Pakistan," Carney told reporters Tuesday. "And obviously some of the information came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on."

It seems to me that Carney and the White House have embarrassed themselves here. This explanation is simply not believable. After all, Obama and the senior administration folks monitored the raid's progress in real time. In other words “Barack Obama watched US special forces' raid in 'real time'”. Another account put it this way

WASHINGTON -- From halfway around the world, President Barack Obama and his national security team monitored the strike on Osama bin Laden's compound in real time, watching and listening to the firefight that killed the terrorist leader.

The White House even released a photo taken during the raid.

The Situation Room: Obama and his National Security Team watching the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan (White House photo)

So the White House didn't have to wait for information on the raid, its progress, and its results to come in "piece by piece" and get assembled. They heard and saw it happen. Under these circumstances, the narrative contradictions that have come out of the White House and the administration are — at best — extremely unlikely to have occurred by accident.

At the very least, the White House has a lot of explaining to do.

The White House did something good in giving the raid task to a highly competent military organization to carry out. But in its information handling since that time, this White House has demonstrated the level of competence we have come to expect.

UPDATE: Now CIA director Leon Panetta claims there was no live video feed during the raid. In an interview with PBS, as reported in the London Telegraph, Panetta said,

"Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.

The sequence and timing of the claims/admissions raises more questions, the most important of which is this: Are they slow (etc.) in getting actual information out, or is this another cover-up? (Some folks are fairly clear what they think the answer is.)

Osama bin Laden Is Finally Dead

We'd heard earlier today that the local Air Force Base went to a higher alert level, but the only thing said about why was "orders from higher headquarters". Guess tonight's announcement explains the reason.

Glad he's dead. Glad it was a US operation. Now to get the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership team.

Is the Mahdi Returning?

A while back, I noted the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations. From that speech, three and a half years ago, I noted something in particular:

And look at his final sentence fragment: "A wish which I expect will be realized in the near future." Ahmadinejad expects the return of the Mahdi in "the near future." This is chilling. The Hojjatieh believe the Mahdi will return only when the world contains enough oppression, misery, tyranny, and sorrow to warrant his coming. As a result, they believe in spreading evil and creating chaos as their way to hasten his return. (See The Two Trees of Jihadism.)

Fast forward to the past seven days. Last Friday, it was reported that:

In his fiery style, Ahmadinejad, showed his messianic beliefs on Friday, saying the world was witnessing a revolution managed by Imam Mehdi, the 12^th Shiite imam who disappeared as a five-year-old in the 10th century and who Shiites believe would return on the judgement day.

"The final move has begun. We are in the middle of a world revolution managed by this dear (12^th Imam). A great awakening is unfolding. One can witness the hand of Imam in managing it," said Ahmadinejad.

This follows Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei telling his associates "the Hidden [12^th] Imam had appeared to him and promised to arrive during his term as Supreme Leader." (Khamenei — so far — is only saying this in private, apparently because of the criticism Ahmadinejad received for similar statements.) Khamenei is also reported to have told associates he has been made spokesman for the Mahdi. Given the belief structure noted above, this suggests Iran is planning to start a war. Soon.

PC Run Amok + Bureaucratic Overreach

“Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.”

It may be a fluke, but I feel a little prescient. Almost a year ago, I asked “Since this guy had his PETN explosive in his underwear, will we have to start taking ours off for TSA?” The answer is apparently yes, though TSA is doing is doing this with a combination of (a) technology (full-body scanners) and (b) “enhanced pat-downs” — in a coercive environment — in place of traditional strip searches. In other words, TSA is making their employees into a combination of peepers and gropers, both varieties of sex offenders who would have to register with law enforcement (and would face jail time) if they weren't government employees.

I also said “It looks to me like the bureaucrats of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) really don't know what they're doing. As a result, they are mainly just hassling ordinary passengers without doing what's needed to make us safer.” And I see no reason to change that assessment.

The bottom line is this: Limited by its bureaucrats' ideology, the TSA has no idea what to do to make actual improvements in aviation safety. So they opt for the “politically correct” solution, thereby harassing (sexually and otherwise) millions of passengers they already have reason to know are innocent while detecting no hijackers or terrorists. That's bureaucratic overreach at its best.

I would categorize this as deliberate stupidity. Somebody obviously said words like “Do something, even if it's wrong.”

As usual, Trever identifies the situation best.

It looks to me like the only solution is to disband the Transportation Security Agency and turn their responsibilities over to someone who at least has some concept of what the responsibility entails — like concentrating on who gets on the plane, instead of assaulting everyone because TSA won't focus on actual (real and projected) threats.

That way, too, we can get away from the combination of political correctness run amok combined with bureaucratic overreach — the current toxic combination that gives a program that fulfills bureaucracy's promise by being offensive, stupid, and ineffective.

Simple Solutions

The Jihadist who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City's Times Square proudly plead guilty to all charges in court. He was eager to tell about his plot — he was proud of his failed attempt — he came to court with a prepared statement.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born US citizen, trained with the Taliban and returned to the US to launch attacks on civilians here. He considers himself a "Muslim soldier". He said the attacks will continue until US forces leave Muslim lands.

This suggests a few simple solutions to some of our current problems. Here's a big one that would solve a number of problems:

• US and other Western forces leave Muslim lands.
• In return, all Muslims leave or are ejected from Western countries.
• The Muslim lands we leave are put into isolation — under quarantine. No more Western aid. No more Western contact. They can commune among themselves. This status will continue until those countries' populations change their regimes to governments that no longer attack the West and promote terrorism and Islamist supremacy.

If we don't quite want to go that far, we can at least require reciprocity:

• No mosque or Islamic study center can be built or opened in a Western land until Christian churches and synagogues are built and opened — without threats or violence — in Muslim lands.
• No new mosque can be built or opened in a top-level Western city like New York or Washington DC until at least one cathedral and at least one synagogue is built and opened in Mecca.

Reciprocity must be required at other levels, as well.

• Because of continued demonstrations of Muslim intolerance, including the continued harassment and murder of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Baha'is, and other non-Muslims, any demands (or requests) for tolerance by Muslims must be preceded by demonstrations of Muslim tolerance for non-Muslim religions and groups. (The simplest tolerance demonstration might be acceptance of Muslim converts to other religions, or to none.) Without such demonstrations, no request or demand will be heard.

We must also quit cutting Muslim extremists so much slack. If they are going to continue to seek converts in the West, they cannot object to Christian (and other) missionaries seeking converts in Muslim countries. If they are going to continue to limit their charity to Muslims only, they cannot object if we begin to limit our charity to them.

To smooth acceptance of these solutions and terms, we might accept the demand of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (and other Muslim organizations) for a law banning defamation of religions, making it clear that the first thousand cases will immediately be filed against mosques and imams for their preaching of hatred against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims. Large fines and jail time might do more than all the tolerance in the world to reduce the venom and violence being preached routinely to the Muslim faithful.

Just a few ideas for simple solutions to complex problems, with the added benefit of letting some of these folks reap the appropriate consequences of their own actions and their own immature demands.

And that's before we consider the question of whether Islamism (or Islam itself) is actually a religion, or whether it is in reality just another totalitarian political ideology.

Mohammed Cartoons

Today has been designated "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". I think the best contribution I can make is to reprint a pair of postings originally made on my old site (and linked here in the "Favorites" list as Offensive Cartoons).

UPDATE: Here are a few "Draw Mohammed Day" postings I found interesting. One was at Atlas Shrugs. A broader one (probably not safe for work) is at Weasel Zippers. The Infidel Bloggers Alliance also has a good summary. Zombie and Michelle Malkin have comments. Error Theory also has an interesting related post.

UPDATE: Facebook has shown it doesn't believe in free speech — at least, not enough to actually support it. Instead, it has shown real cowardice. It has apologized to Pakistan for the existence of the Mohammed cartoons page, taken down that page, and assured the government of Pakistan that "nothing of this sort will happen in the future." In other words, Facebook has promised to limit Americans' (and others') free speech rights at the behest of foreign control freaks. This is just another example of American companies acting badly.

This does leave one more question: What other American and Western values does Facebook not believe in or support?

February 5, 2006

“Offensive” Cartoons

I’ve been trying to figure out what the big deal is about the drawings printed by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark. First, I wonder which of the drawings is supposed to be Muhammad? They all look different! Is any picture of any vaguely Arab-looking man supposed to be banned as an insulting image of Muhammad? Or maybe only those with beards and turbans? By that stricture, no picture of Khomeini, al Sadr, or any of the mullahs could be printed. That’s ridiculous!

Second, even the rioters seem to agree that these drawings are not, themselves, offensive. The only thing I’ve seen them bring up is that the drawings are “insulting Islam” — because they show a man someone can convince himself looks like Muhammad, which he can convince himself is prohibited by Islamic tradition. But, as Michelle Malkin notes,

In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, Zombie has created the “Mohammed Image Archive,” which contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history.

One set of images on that page are labeled as “Modern Iranian Icons,” and are freely available today in Iran. Another includes images from across the Muslim world from prior centuries. Those images and others demonstrate that, if such a prohibition exists, it has been honored in the breach (i.e., not at all) throughout Muslim history.

It seems to me that someone was looking for an excuse that could be used to stir up trouble. This is consistent with the drawings, themselves, which were published last September. It is consistent with the fact that there was little adverse reaction until much later. And it is consistent with the fact that the leadership of the Islamic Society of Denmark had to create additional images — which are offensive — to gain the controversy any traction.

For the record, here are the twelve cartoons all the fuss is supposedly about.
   

The cartoonists who drew the last two images (below) seem to have had some idea of the kind of responses that might come from some of the local flock.

All twelve of these images are from the Face of Muhammad site, where the words that appear on some of them have been translated into English.

Now it turns out the the leadership of the Islamic Society of Denmark went to the Middle East to “create awareness” about the cartoons that were published in Denmark. Evidently, however, they know the Danish drawings are inoffensive — nothing to get disturbed about — but don’t want to admit they cooked up the whole issue. So they created some additional graphics of their own (see right, from Gateway Pundit here and here) that really are offensive. As Gateway Pundit says, “Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip!” (See, too, the coverage in the CounterTerrorism Blog, including here and here. There are also several other related posts.) And yet, the additional graphics created by Muslims to stir up other Muslims still aren’t as bad as the ones regularly aimed at Christians and Jews in the Middle East press.

[UPDATE: It seems to me the main reason the Islamist leadership, and those in the protests they hire, don’t want U.S. and European newspapers republishing the Danish cartoons is simple — they don’t want people to see that their riots are “put up jobs” and that there’s really nothing behind their “outrage”.]

To avoid other assertions, here is an image of the page on which the drawings were published in Denmark on September 30, 2005 (left).

As for me, I tend to agree with Cox and Forkum’s take on the issue (below).

UPDATE: These two cartoonists have captured the cultural differences involved in these “cartoon wars.” The first cartoon is from Filibuster Cartoons via Zombie’s Mohammed Image Archive. The second cartoon is from Trever in the Albuquerque Journal.

For my money, though, the best comment is from Cagle. Probably no one would think the Danish drawings were of Muhammad if they weren’t being told so by their religious leaders. And isn’t that truly a fitting conclusion for the “cartoon wars”?

 

February 17, 2006

Those Who Insult Islam

Looks to me like it’s these folks (and their compatriots) that are an insult to Islam. If these are its adherents, it’s self-insulting.

By the way, I think I’ve figured out two reasons why the Islamist leadership and demonstrators are trying so hard to prevent other newspapers from printing the Danish cartoons, most of which don’t even purport to show Muhammad:

1. It’s a power thing, to demonstrate they can control other countries and societies — against their own laws — without the necessity of actual conquest.
2. They don’t want people to see there’s really nothing behind their “outrage”.

 

Warning Flags, Ignored

Let's see — Here are a few things we know (from the news reports) about the piece of sub-human garbage who tried to kill a large number of humans on Christmas:
    • He bought a one-way ticket
    • He paid cash
    • He apparently bought it pretty close to the last minute
    • He checked in with no checked baggage

All these are things we have been told ad infinitum would always produced detailed secondary screening. But it's pretty clear no secondary screening — detailed or otherwise — ever took place. If it had, that screening would probably have turned up the fact that
    • He had been reported as a dangerous extremist to US and foreign authorities by his father,
    • He had been denied a re-entry visa (to return to school) by the British,
    • He was associated with al Qaeda in Yemen, which has claimed the blame for this attack, and
    • He was on a warning list of dangerous, terror-connected individuals, even though
    • He hadn't (yet) been promoted to the no-fly list

These are just a few warning flags. I've no doubt there were more.

It looks to me like the bureaucrats of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) really don't know what they're doing. As a result, they are mainly just hassling ordinary passengers without doing what's needed to make us safer.

One more thing: After Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", tried to blow up a plane over the Atlantic 8 years ago, we all had to start taking off our shoes for screening. Since this guy had his PETN explosive in his underwear, will we have to start taking ours off for TSA?

UPDATE: Another missed warning flag — on his way to a frigid city, he had no coat.

Preemptive Surrender at Yale

The Yale University Press has apparently decided to surrender to a threat that has not yet been made. It will publish a book about the controversy over the "Mohammed cartoons" without showing the cartoons that were (supposedly) the cause of the furor.

This kind of cowardice is incredible, and illogical. The people who have made such threats in the past, and may in the future, do not need reasons for their threats and violence. They have consistently shown they will invent whatever excuse/pretense they may feel the need for.

Therefore, to make life easier for the Yale University Press, and as a public service, I provide here a re-link to a post from February 2006 showing the cartoons and providing some context from the time period in which they were originally published. (The link is also provided among my favorites, on the right of this web page.) And I have checked — most of the links still work!