The unwillingness to discuss Islam in a candid manner while criticizing Christianity casually is hardly confined to The Simpsons.
What more can one say about South Park and the prophet whose name Comedy Central dares not speak?
If you are a fan of South Park there is a good chance you are familiar with the episode "Simpsons Already Did It."1 In the episode, Butters (through his evil alter ego Professor Chaos) devises ways to wreak havoc on the people of South Park, Colorado. The only problem is that every plot Butters hatches has already been done on The Simpsons. Butters' sidekick Dougie (a.k.a. General Disarray) keeps telling him, "Simpsons did it!!!" "Simpsons did it!!!"
Well, one thing that has never been done on The Simpsons is an episode with the Prophet Mohammed. It isn't a huge stretch of the imagination when you consider that God (as voiced by Harry Shearer) has been a recurring character.2 But if Simpsons' creator Matt Groening has his way Mohammed will never set foot in Springfield. During the opening credits of their most recent episode Bart Simpson could be seen writing this line on the blackboard:
"South Park – We'd Stand Beside You If We Weren't So Scared."
It was Groening's way of telling South Park's dynamic duo of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, "You're on your own."
Bart's chalk-drawn confession is also emblematic of the intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice of Western post-modern liberalism. Bart and everyone else in Springfield are afraid to undertake any social commentary where it concerns Islam because they don't want to end up like Theo van Gogh, as was so graphically illustrated by Revolution Muslim on their website. Even if the members of the Brooklyn-based group had no intention of doing any harm to Parker and Stone they know all too well there are those amongst them who would love nothing more than to become the next Mohammed Bouyeri. And everybody else knows it too.
Yet The Simpsons has never been scared when it comes to commenting on Christianity because they have had no reason to be scared. Indeed, hardly a week has gone by over the past twenty years when next-door neighbor Ned Flanders isn't mocked because of his Evangelical piety. In one episode when Bart asks his father what religion the family observes Homer Simpson replies, "You know, the one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life. Uh, Christianity."4
It is safe to say that in our P.C. world even Homer is smart enough not to go near Islam with a forty-foot pole. In fact, their reluctance to address Islam was briefly discussed in a book written by Mark I. Pinsky called The Gospel according to the Simpsons. In the book (which was originally published in 2001), Pinsky interviews longtime Simpsons' writer and now show runner Al Jean who explained why the show had not at the time delved into the Muslim faith. "One reason (for largely ignoring Muslims) is, I don't think we've had a writer who was a Muslim," said Jean. "It's a faith where you don't want to offend, because we're not Muslim, and we're not sure what might be offensive." Pinsky notes that Jean's comments were in the context of the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini after the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1989.5
Yet Parker and Stone had no such reservations about what happened to Rushdie when they depicted Mohammed in an episode titled "Super Best Friends" which originally aired in July 2001 without incident. Even after the events of September 11, 2001 and the 2006 Danish cartoon controversy, the episode has also been broadcast in syndication for many years without so much as a negative word and is available on DVD.6 However, in light of the threats from Revolution Muslim, Comedy Central has declared this episode can no longer be viewed online.7,8 Talk about retroactive censorship.
The Simpsons would not focus its attention on Muslims until the episode "Mypods and Boomsticks" which first aired in November 2008.9 However, the episode did not discuss Islam or its tenets but rather Homer's mistaken belief that his new Muslim neighbors were plotting to blow up the Springfield Mall. Indeed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent a letter to Groening praising him "for tackling the disturbing phenomenon of Islamophobia."10 One must wonder if Groening is afraid to stand with South Park because he doesn't want to offend CAIR.
The unwillingness to discuss Islam in a candid manner while criticizing Christianity casually is hardly confined to The Simpsons. It is pervasive in other television shows, movies, music and in books. I can attest such sentiments are also pervasive at poetry readings. This isn't to say that Christianity (or for that matter Judaism) shouldn't be looked at with a critical if not humorous eye. I simply wish those engaged in arts and entertainment would scrutinize Islam with the same vigor and zeal with which they scrutinize Christianity.
In a recent interview, Trey Parker commented on this dynamic. "That's messed up to have that kind of thought process, you know," said Parker, "OK, we'll rip on the Catholics because they won't hurt us but we won't rip on them because they might hurt us."11 Yet I suspect the reason the Matt Groenings of the world speak about Christianity is because it is safe. Nothing will happen to them. The same cannot be said if one speaks about Islam. As long as Matt Groening is scared to stand beside Trey Parker and Matt Stone this state of affairs will not change.
Endnotes
1. http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/607
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_characters_in_The_Simpsons#God
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/the-simpsons-come-to-the_n_551625.html
4. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-07-20/news/0707200386_1_simpsons-well-meaning-rules-religion
7. http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/504/
8. http://www.mediaite.com/online/south-parks-mohammed-episode-censored-by-comedy-central/
9. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291171/
10. http://pa.cair.com/actionalert/thank-fox-for-simpsons-episode/
11. http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/22/sbt.01.html
Since I’m really very liberal, I’m unhappy about the self-censorship of ‘South Park.’ I hope no one, regardless of their political ideology, will have any expectations that Muslims will one day become tolerant of mocking humor, satires, and send-ups, because they won’t. Nor will Islamic doctrine become open to the idea of a free, uncensored press. Within Islam there is simply no room for such things. So, the threat to any writer, artist, or entertainer who considers finding humor in Islam is, and will be for some time, very real. There is no tradition in the Islamic world for jokes that might start out with, “A mullah, a priest, and a rabbi went into a bar…” No one laughs at anything about Muhammad.
Got Sanctimony? If you’re a Conservative, sure you do, you may even be generously endowed with that particular emotion. It’s a nice little emotion, not as exciting as anger or as warmly stimulating as greed, but still, as emotions go, it has its moments. Sometimes sanctimony can take us to really absurd places – like here we are considering whether a cartoon character, Bart Simpson, has real integrity or if he’s some kind of Liberal wimp who would criticize Christians but lacks the cartoon courage to also insult Muslims. Is this writer actually serious about the hypocrisy of an animated character starring in a weekly comedy series? Attempting to understand this author’s perspective, I think someone may have once hung out with other guys who also had serious problems getting dates and who subsequently plunged into a writing career as a way to compensate.
I know, I know, Bart is really symbolic of his creator’s lack of backbone. And his creator is a Liberal, he’s typical of someone who puts self-interest before principles, right? But shake off sanctimony for a moment (I know it’s hard) and think. Show biz is about making gobs and gobs of money, driving expensive cars, “everyone knows your name”, a table is always reserved for you at Chez Snoot and so forth. It’s not about having some fanatic plant a knife in your chest while you’re on your way to the parking lot after work. It’s also not about this same lunatic penning a protest note opposing your ridicule of Islam and then using the knife arising from your chest as a convenient anchor to prevent it from blowing across the parking lot.
And under The Rules, you can insult Christians, Buddhists, even Jews, particularly if you’re a Jewish writer, so you would be well within your rights to insult Muslims with impunity. But is insulting someone’s religion a Constitutional right? Is it even the right thing to do? Well not exactly, but if you insult Christians then you must give equal time to insulting Muslims, right? And not having the guts to do so makes you a cowardly Liberal, right? Conservatives don’t really believe in insulting someone’s religion but, if they did, they’d at least have the courage of their convictions and insult Islam in equal measure. Is this moronic logic representative of how Conservatives want the world to see us?
When you come up for air, try to realize that “show biz” is entertainment, it’s a money making business, you don’t proclaim your willingness to die for its principles, it has no principles to die for. If “The Simpsons” offend you, don’t watch, that actually works for many Conservatives, or boycott the advertisers if you’re a fiery eyed activist, but don’t continue to watch it so you can wallow in sanctimony – that’s just not healthy and it could lead to chronic constipation – or even worse.
For the execs at Comedy Central and the two creators of “South Park”, Stone and Parker, who may be tempted sometime in the future to reverse their wise decision not to insult the Prophet Mohammed, we have police officers on the payroll whose unwelcome duty it will be to identify your corpse in the parking lot and start the standard homicide investigation searching for the religious fanatic who murdered you. They’ll catch your killer eventually, you’ll be famous, very briefly, plus various Liberals and Conservatives alike will make your death into something noble under the First Amendment, but they also won’t be anxious to further insult Muslims any time soon. For this Conservative, I’ll probably feel bad for your families once your deaths are reported but I see no Conservative obligation to insult Islam for cheap entertainment purposes – although I would see the entertainment value in the ironic circumstances of your death.
“For the execs at Comedy Central and the two creators of “South Park”, Stone and Parker, who may be tempted sometime in the future to reverse their wise decision not to insult the Prophet Mohammed, we have police officers on the payroll whose unwelcome duty it will be to identify your corpse in the parking lot and start the standard homicide investigation searching for the religious fanatic who murdered you. They’ll catch your killer eventually, you’ll be famous, very briefly, plus various Liberals and Conservatives alike will make your death into something noble under the First Amendment, but they also won’t be anxious to further insult Muslims any time soon”
What you’re saying here is that Muslims are incompatible with the free and open exchange of ideas that is crucial to the health of a democratic republic and should therefore be refused the right to immigrate. Quite frankly, I’m tempted to agree, but I think Gestell who commented above is closer to the mark. Muslims need to learn that freedom of speech, including the right to insult mohammed, is not negotiable. The only way for that to happen is for many people to repeatedly insult the child raping prophet (may he roast in hell forever) until one of two things happens: 1. Muslims get over it or 2. the rest of us get fed up with their violent ways and put an end to them.
Those of you who’ve followed my commentary know that I have absolutely no tolerance for the bigots and idiots on the extreme Right, as well as extreme Left. I’ve repeatedly called the paleoconservative “race matters” crowd a bunch of lunatic racists, and condemned them in clear, unmitigated terms, and actively opposed everything they stand for.
So it was interesting to see how a self-described “very liberal” commentator characterized his reaction to Islamo-fascist extremists who issues death threats against anyone who dares to criticize aspects of their religion. He was “unhappy” about the situation.
I guess we’re making real progress here. The next time a Neo-Nazi goes after Jews, Catholics, minorities, or anyone else they oppose with threats to their safety and well-being, we have the perfect template to respond. We’re “unhappy” about it. But just as important, we recognize that these people are who they are, and having accepted that lamentable conclusion, we offer the following explanation (not action plan or condemnation):
“I hope no one, regardless of their political ideology, will have any expectations that Neo-Nazis will one day become tolerant of mocking humor, satires, and send-ups, because they won’t. Nor will Nazi doctrine become open to the idea of a free, uncensored press. Within Nazism there is simply no room for such things. So, the threat to any writer, artist, or entertainer who considers finding humor in Nazism is, and will be for some time, very real. There is no tradition in the Neo-Nazi world for jokes that might start out with, “A storm trooper, a priest, and a rabbi went into a bar…” No one laughs at anything about Hitler.”
So, we’re once again provided with another great example of the moral relativism of the Left. We condemn our bigots, and propose ways to overcome that bigotry. The Left understands their bigotry, laments it, and then understands it some more.
To Phil and Mr. Skurka,
Phil, you devious Big Dawg you. Trampling all over the common ground laid out for you? Don’t you know that’s about as good as we’re going to get from the left? You just blew any chance the left and right have of ever coming together. Thanks a lot!
Mr. Skurka,
If you are right and it is about entertainment and money, then it is just a matter of determining if the material is funny, which is an indication of its financial viability.
If parody of Muhammed or Islam is funny and profitable, your argument goes down the toilet faster than a Cur’an at Guantanamo. Same goes for parodies of Christians, Jews….
From my standpoint, I simply demand to be entertained. If the producers endure death threats meeting my expectations, in addition to my viewership they get my respect and loyalty (which means I don’t change the channel on them so quickly).
While I can understand it in some cases, I don’t expect the providers of my entertainment to censor or withhold religious humor when in our culture and entertainment venues it has been long accepted as “in bounds.”
If it is out of bounds in other cultures or venues, then it likely isn’t going to be funny or profitable, so the problem sort of takes care of itself.
As for those who venture outside their culture and encounter offensive material, as Mr. Skurka says, don’t watch.
For those who think it is so offensive someone should die, I thank them for reminding us why we are at war.
Pat Skurka utterly misses the point and his condemnation is both pathetic and shallow, completely mischaracterizing the author’s logic.
No one is arguing that it is a requirement that television writers offend one religious group because they have offended another in some sort of a fairness doctrine of objectionable humor. The point of the piece was the to question why television writers avoid offending one religious group to the exclusion of all others. Besides a latent political correctness, which undoubtedly also exists in Hollywood, the fear of death or injury at the hands of religious fanatics is obviously at least partially the cause. But here again Skurka misses the point. No one expects comedy writers to take their lives into their hands in order to specifically target a group of fanatics and martyr themselves for a cause (although one wonders whether the sanctity of free speech much-lauded by liberal writers is really so all-important to them after all if they are unwilling to defend it against those who actually desire to take it away). That writers have to make that choice in an ostensibly free society where freedom of speech is guaranteed is the travesty.
Mashed:
I understand your words but don’t understand how insulting someone’s religion promotes the free and open exchange of ideas within a democracy. Rather, isn’t it just an infantile reaction driven by frustration, impotence and fear? Doesn’t a major religion like Islam become a convenient proxy for bigotry, a constitutionally sanctioned target in lieu of directly insulting American Muslims through an unconsciously held need to express deep anxieties and unjustified feelings of inferiority?
There are a billion Muslims in the world today, can anyone honestly believe ridiculing their religion will bring them all around to some warped view of democracy and freedom of expression? Why anyone would be proud of the fact they insulted another person’s religion without the threat of retribution and to earn the enthusiastic applause of their fellow citizens is beyond me. “South Park” markets to a target audience who won’t emerge from adolescence before the age of 32, who believe jokes about “farts” and “boogers” is the epitome of humor and who share a nihilistic view of society where nothing should remain sacred or be allowed to retain its dignity.
Well, as they say, that’s show biz sweetheart, that’s our 21st century America, but exactly which sacred American values are we trying to preserve with this “everything’s a big joke and nothing really matters”? Can we legitimately blame Muslims for a generation of American males raised by single mothers who, unable to teach their sons how to be men, settled for unsuccessfully teaching little boys to be little girls?
If American men truly believe Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or Jews should be legitimate targets of ridicule in order to exercise our freedoms, then that explains a lot about today’s America. But, should that be the case, my money is riding on the Muslims – because then the future of our nation will be firmly held in the sticky little hands of aging teenagers who stubbornly refuse to accept the philosophical legacy passed down to us by thinking adults – men and women who felt no compulsion to celebrate the hilarity of intestinal gas.
Mr. Skurka,
Your remark is odd. There is nothing about this exclusive to America or men. Humor, speech and art are universal forms of expression.
In this case, as you noted, it is about (questionable) humor and entertainment, but it could just as easily be about education or art.
The radical Islamic fundamentalists would be making the same death threats against anyone who painted a portrait or created a sculpture of Muhammed, a documentary producer or publisher who included historical images of Muhammed… .
That radical Muslims believe everyone is subject to Islamic law and every hadith is the problem.
It’s not clear whether you are making an argument for obeying/respecting the demands of Islamic fundamentalists, or if you are just making a social comment about how men (American men, that is) are infantile.
Where do you stand when an artist, under threat of death, is warned not to create a likeness of Muhammed?
“don’t understand how insulting someone’s religion promotes the free and open exchange of ideas within a democracy
Recently the Catholic church has been the target of harsh criticism and ridicule because of the actions of some of its priests. This doesn’t promote the free and open exchange of ideas, it is the free and open exchange of ideas. That Islam is a no go zone for discussion of this sort is a serious issue which must be addressed if Muslims are to participate in our society as full members of that society rather than as coddled children. Don’t say that Muslims have not done things worthy of discussion, harsh criticism and ridicule, we both know that is false
reply to Phillip Ellis Jackson,
Replace ‘unhappy’ with any word you favor. Nothing in my post suggests that I’m a moral relativist. For whatever it’s worth, Geert Wilders is right and the Dutch government in wrong, and I agree with Robert Spencer in FrontPage Magazine (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/09/the-railroading-of-geert-wilders/ that the conviction of Wilders means: “The era of enlightenment and the understanding that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights will be definitively drawing to a close, and a new darkness will descend over Europe and the free world in general.”
I do continue to insist that most Americans don’t understand Islam very well, and so all too many expect that some magical transformation will take place to make Islam indistinguishable from the safely domesticated Christianity which the West has had for the past several centuries. Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other with gusto for over a century, and over issues that today seem (at least to liberals) incredibly trivial and bizarre, just as today the offense Muslims take at satire seems strange to so many Americans. Islam will not change. The texts and the traditions of Islam are what they are. Of course, the Muslim who owns the convenience store down the street may not be a jihadist, but he is likely to be a very lukewarm Muslim. In the US we are not surprised to see ecumenical week in our towns and joint Protestant/Catholic charitable events, etc. No one could have dreamed of such things in the mid 17thcentury. There is no other way to understand this change in the West adequately except to point out that the absolute claims of religion eventually got watered down, modified, eliminated, etc. through very complicated processes of social and cultural change. Some of this history is the result of classical liberals like John Locke (and much less well-known theorists in the Netherlands, ironically enough) who set out through argument to encourage the ‘privatization’ of religion. The absence of a state church in this country is one eventual byproduct of these developments.
Islam is not about a state church as Westerners would understand it. Islam is a comprehensive religion that never made (and so it does not erase) those church/state distinctions we know from our own political history. Note that, whether or not a state church was disestablished, the Western European nations also underwent similar changes, to the point where they are largely secular. In contrast with this, Islam legislates for all aspects of life.
Now Mr.Jackson may rightly ask: “so what?” Now I get to my polemical point against his comment. What, precisely, does he think the US can do about Islamic intolerance? Does he really believe the US can wage war on a global scale to force a billion Muslims to start understanding their religion the way the Methodists or even the Baptists in that streetcorner church do in the US? That’s so not going to happen. It is possible for our foreign policy to allow for support of moderating forces (which do exist) in some Islamic societies. However, we must recognize that the occasional ‘moderate’ Muslim is likely to be a Western-educated intellectual or professional, hopelessly out of sync with his own society, and very unlikely to be a force for the massive shift in Islamic opinion Mr. Jackson may be hoping for.
What should be done, in both the US and Western Europe, is for national governments to reaffirm the personal and political freedoms that have become integral to the Western way of life. This does mean confrontations between governments and Muslims, especially in those nations where growing Muslim populations seek to live under shari’a and not the law of the country in which they reside. This sort of dualism cannot be allowed. Muslims do need to make a choice, and the contours of that choice are made by non-Muslims: the Muslims must fit into our system, and we do not have to adapt our system to theirs.
So, in conclusion, there’s no point in whining about Muslim suppression of liberty. That’s what they do. Support for our own principles is a better course than trying to get them to change their principles.
A postscript: One of the best books I know for a clear, historically and philosophically informed discussion of these issues is by the British conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton: “The West and the Rest” published by ISI in 2002.
I do continue to insist that most Americans don’t understand Islam very well, and so all too many expect that some magical transformation will take place to make Islam indistinguishable from the safely domesticated Christianity which the West has had for the past several centuries.
And what, exactly, is the empirical evidence to support the statement that “all too many [Americans] expect that some magical transformation will take place to make Islam indistinguishable from the safely domesticated Christianity”? To the contrary – since all you’re doing is offering pure conjecture here, I’ll add mine — the vast majority of Americans believe precisely the opposite. These ignorant, 12th century barbarians are incapable of rational thought, and the only thing that will “transform” them into a non-threat is a sufficient number of Islamo-fascist corpses, compliments of the US military.
The comparison of ‘most’ Islamists today to the sophistication level (read: social and historical ignorance) of Christian Crusaders is something I and others have long pointed out. Zealots and xenophobes, these people had a primitive understanding of the world in which they operated, and an equally primitive grasp of the relationship of God and religion to man. The difference is, the Crusaders didn’t possess chemical and biological weapons (or seek to possess nuclear weapons), and run around looking for an excuse to bring about world-wide Armageddon so the last Imam could crawl up from the well he’s been living in to purify the world.
All if which is why “Mr.Jackson may rightly ask: ‘so what?’” when someone does little more than explain why these dangerous Islamo fascist fools are dangerous Islamo fascist fools — offering the added caveat that it’s an “unhappy” situation — then ending his analysis with a reaffirmation that these Islamo-fascists have no sense of humor and aren’t going to change. You’ve just excused, and accepted, the status quo, and carved out a special place for giving the Islamo-fascists wider berth because they’ll kill you if you criticize them unlike Christians, Jews, or other devoutly religious people who don’t react in a similar fashion.
This is the moral relativism of the Left. While Gestell has had many recipes for change in other posts for those nasty old Conservatives who aren’t thinking real good thoughts according to Gestell’s view of the world, the best he can do when confronted with a genuine threat to life, liberty, and freedom is lament that it’s an “unhappy” situation, and educate us all about why these thugs are so special.
And when asked to come up with a real plan that might involve action rather than analysis, he falls back on the typical Liberal relativistic tripe that we must therefore “wage war on a global scale [on] a billion Muslims” if we’re going to take any action at all.”
It may come as a surprise to Gestell, who’s quite schooled in all things Islam as he’s repeatedly informed us, that the entire Muslim world is not fanatical, dangerous, and bloodthirsty. So, I can point out that we need not try and kill or imprison ever one of those “billion Muslims” his straw man proposes. Rather, we could aggressively seek out and kill or imprison the leaders and followers of the radical Islamo-fascists who are the actual cause of the problem.
We are not at war with Islam. We never have been. We’re at war with a bunch of lunatic fringe religious zealot a-holes who want to kill all the Infidels (including other Muslims who don’t believe exactly the same things they do).
We could do this quite effectively if the Left wasn’t doing everything it could to undercut this effort. This ranges from calling for an arbitrary end to military operations against radical Islamists, setting GITMO prisoners free (or conferring Constitutional rights on captured enemy combatants), deliberately opposing or undercutting everything the Bush Administration did for base political reasons — you know, little things like that.
But I haven’t seen Gestell call for an aggressive, sustained, directed war against radical Islamists (their leaders and followers) to kill or imprison as many of them as possible, and otherwise disrupt or minimize their ability to do us harm. Instead, he simply tells us that we need to understand these fanatics aren’t like Baptists, so we need to understand they will never be like Baptists, and thus they are not going to act like Baptists now or in the foreseeable future.
In short, Gestell wants us to know that we’re not safe, and understand why we aren’t safe because of that. The only other thing he can think of is that we might try to seek a “massive shift in Islamic opinion” to, I guess, make them more Western; but he doesn’t really see this as a practical solution, so it’s not really an option at all.
Yet another straw man from Gestell (it’s a silly alternative, not a real option). Personally, I don’t give a flying f**k if these Islamo-fascist fanatics Westernize or not. They can keep living in caves and screwing goats as long as they want. What I want to do is unfetter our military (and by this I mean give them the resources and honest political support) to seek out the fanatics and kill and/or imprison them.
We have the ability to make ourselves safe in the face of an Islamo-fascist threat. What we lack is the political will to do so, because too many people on the Left are busy telling us how we need to understand this “unhappy” state of affairs and accept that fanatical Muslims will kill people over perceived insults when Baptists won’t, because the only alternative in their mind is to wage war on the entire Muslim world.
We look at the fanatics and see them as fanatics. Gestell looks at the fanatics and sees them as ‘all Muslims”.
This is why Gestell can read the above article — which condemns the PC hypocrisy of excusing or appeasing Muslim fanatics — and conclude that it’s really about imposing Western standards of democracy on the entire Muslim world (“So, in conclusion, there’s no point in whining about Muslim suppression of liberty. That’s what they do. Support for our own principles is a better course than trying to get them to change their principles.”)
We’re not trying to change their principles. Like I said before, they can worship all the pedophile prophets and can f**k all the goats they want. What we’re trying to do is change their <i<actions to prevent them from killing innocent life to further their fanatical aims.
And we don’t do this by “understanding” all Islam. We do it by killing or imprisoning the terrorists who mean us harm.
Where do I stand? I stand well out of the way to avoid any stray bullets headed your way. And, no, I don’t believe I have a duty to defend to my death your right to say whatever pops into your mind. The reason for that position is directly related to infantile American men and the “brain-mouth” thing.
Review your reasoning as an example. Muslims immediately morph into “radical Islamists” under your rhetorical constructs, rather than just a religious people. So, if a Muslim objects to insults aimed at his or her religion, they become “radical Islamic fundamentalists” or “jihadists”? And the very fact of objecting to whatever you say makes them fanatics by your definition – otherwise they’d simply shrug it off and would, by your definition, truly understand democracy and freedom of expression.
So, all one billion Muslims are fanatics, or only the ones who object to your free expression concerning their sacred tenets? Puts them into a rather impossible position – doesn’t it? They have to accept insults quietly, like Christians, or they become wild eyed fanatics, hopelessly primitive folks who can’t grasp the concept of freedom. That’s a somewhat narrow view of reality – so, let me offer a different viewpoint.
We are a nation of laws and should your insistence on expressing negative opinions on Islam or the Prophet Mohammed result in your murder, I have every faith in our system of law – the fanatics will, and should, be brought to justice. What more would you have us do? Are you arguing for some universal “get out of death free card”? If you resent the thought you could be murdered for your opinion, then the choice is clear, remain silent or go boldly forward.
But I work with Muslims, people I both like and admire. I can’t contemplate the hurt and humiliation I’d bring them solely to derive a childish satisfaction through a juvenile insistence on “having my say about Islam”. There’s a wide gulf between inflicting an indifferent cruelty on others and sincerely disagreeing with theological or political intellectual positions. And, it’s the motivation behind the speech that counts, just as motivation determines the difference between second degree manslaughter and first degree murder. You’re just as stone cold dead either way, but the law predicates the severity of the punishment on the killer’s motivation for the crime. So, what’s our motivation for insulting Islam, helpful criticism, exercising our God given rights or an infantile delight in inflicting humiliation?
Reticence in the expression of hurtful opinions and respect for others is a cultural practice, not a constitutional requirement. What do you say to the world’s Muslims after you’ve trotted out your insult, “Understand me, I only intended my insults toward those ‘radical fundamentalists’ among you”. That makes it “all good”, right? The Constitution says it doesn’t matter, have your say, you’re entitled. But centuries of civilized culture, derived from our monotheistic religions which include Islam, argues the opposite – it does matter what you say and why you said it.
So, if you and your artist friend are determined to insult Islam to make your point, it’s a free country, have at it, but don’t look around for me, I won’t have your back.
So, if you and your artist friend are determined to insult Islam to make your point, it’s a free country, have at it, but don’t look around for me, I won’t have your back
Patrick, Nick and Pat:
Since I admire all three of you, let me take a stab at bridging the point that seems to divide you.
Like Pat, I have no tolerance for people who use religion, disabilities, skin color, etc. as a cheap way to get a laugh. But, like all three of you agree, in the US it’s legally permissible to do so. So, something can be lawful and wrong, or even immoral (such as elective abortion). It can, in effect, be simultaneously legal, and condemnable.
I don’t think this is the main point of the discussion, however. Whether a lawful act is benign or reprehensible, there’s no reason why one group should be excused (morally, or legally) for reacting with violence against the ‘perpetrator’. There’s no reason why we should try to “understand’ the reasons why these fanatics act the way they do ala Gestell, other than to use this knowledge to stop them more effectively by killing or imprisoning them.
So, whether the creators of South Park deliberately provoked an Islamo-fascist response or not, I can solidly “have their back” in defending them against any aggression that might result. I despise abortion, but I’d do the same to protect a Planned Parenthood representative from any violence directed at them because of their position on abortion.
This doesn’t mean I condone abortion, or excuse the Planned Parenthood person who ‘provoked’ the violence by walking into church and fomented the attack by loudly stating his position. Physically attacking the pro-abortionist for expressing an opinion — however odious or ill-placed — is not justified.
So, I’d have the abortionist’s back to protect them from violence, while still working hard in other venues to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is no different than standing up pro-actively and aggressively to any and all Islamic fanaticism even if someone was deliberately insulting that religion. There are other ways to settle that grievance, and I can’t look the other way and — like Gestell — just content myself with understanding the ‘unhappy” situation because I disapprove of the private citizen’s action.
Mr. Jackson operates with the principle that if one of his opponents does not mention something that he, Jackson, thinks is important, that the opponent thinks precisely what Jackson imagines that he thinks. So, from Jackson’s silence about some of my points, I’m warranted, by Jackson’s own example, in assuming:
(1) Jackson is opposed to US efforts to support ‘moderate’ Muslims in Islamic nations. I think Obama’s foreign policy is both short-sighted and cowardly for not making US support for such Muslims a visible priority. His timid approach pulls the rug from under opponents of the Iranian regime, for instance.
(2) Jackson is unaware that there are both liberals and conservatives who have spoken, quite absurdly, in my opinion, of some sort of ‘Reformation’ within Islam. Historically, the ‘Reformation’ is precisely the emergence of radical Islam in the form of Wahhabism and kindred orientations, against the modernizing leadership of a number of Arab states. The big event for radical Islam was the Iranian Revolution that brought Khomeini into power, which convinced many millions of Muslims around the world that an authentic, militant Islam could both remove an American puppet like the Shah and begin the construction of a society compliant with shari’a. Radical Islamic is the new, energetic, transforming side of Islam.
(3) From his silence, I assume that Jackson has no problem with Muslim populations demanding to be allowed to live by shari’a in Western nations.
Now Jackson is certainly correct that there are many non-radical, non-violent Muslims–and I have never denied this in anything I’ve said on this topic. For that matter, much of the Muslim population of Indonesia seems uncongenial to jihadism. However, militant Islam is hot, appealing, attractive, to young Muslims around the world. And, contrary to Jackson’s belief, it is simply out of the question for the US to capture or eliminate all of them.
I’ve learned that there isn’t much crossover readership between this site and Townhall. Over on Townhall, I’ve maintained the following points for the past two years:
1. There should be no safe zones for leaders or Islamist strike forces. Starting with Saudi Arabia. The US should let all governments in the region know that harboring or supporting Islamist combatants is unacceptable, and can be grounds for American actions to eliminate or capture important cadres. Of course, the US would have to be willing to back up such an approach, and Obama appears to be most unlikely to do so.
2. The US should be willing and able to support resistance elements in such states as Iran, just as the US once did for anticommunist oppositions around the world.
3. The US should get much more serious about waging a propaganda war against Islamism. I’m aware that such efforts exist, but they should be stepped up. [A few years ago I had an Albanian student who recalled the times, when she was very young, of her parents listening in secret to ‘Voice of America’ broadcasts aimed at Albania. She was proud of her parents for taking such a risk. I want to see lots of Muslims who, in a few years, will be able to echo this student’s experience.
Finally, it is very difficult for Americans, and Jackson is no exception, to consider the possibility that major religions can truly be at war with each other. Most Americans do take for granted that if something is a ‘religion,’ then it must be about harmony, peace, singing kumbaya, etc. Well, that’s not what the history of relations between the Islamic world and Christian Europe show–not a bit of it. I’m not excusing the Crusaders, but I would point out that there is good reason to accept the “Pirenne thesis” (Henri Pirenne, French historian, 1862-1935) that Islamic expansion against Europe cut Europe off from trade routes to the East and was ultimately responsible for the final collapse of the remains of Roman civilization, thus contributing significantly to the ‘darkness’ of the ‘Dark Ages.’ In any sensible take on this history–the Crusades represent a European reaction against this expansion–the two religions (and the civilizations that were based on them) were in conflict. Of course, Americans often say “Well, that all happened centuries ago, so how can it be relevant now?” This is a short-sighted view. What matters in politics–and in war–is less what is ‘true’ and more what people, nations, and leaders believe. Thus far, Jackson has not marshaled either evidence or arguments to show me that I’m incorrect.
Mr. Skurka,
Pardon me. I didn’t say why the artist wanted to paint Muhammed. It was to honor him, as is an acceptable practice among millions of Muslims, but can mean a death warrant from radical fundamentalist Muslims.
One doesn’t have to be “determined to insult Islam” to insult radical Islamists. It easy to do without much determination at all.
Pardon my ignorance, if it turns out to be that: why is it that trying to better understand people means that you are somehow getting ready to make excuses for their bad behavior? Many people have worked hard to understand the thought processes of the Nazis, without that idea entering into it.
Muslims immediately morph into “radical Islamists” under your rhetorical constructs, rather than just a religious people.
And humorists morph into infantile, juvenile, childish, emotionally stunted man-boys in your rhetorical constructs rather than free people who should feel secure in expressing their opinion regardless of whether or not it offends the sensibilities of Muslims. I have honestly never heard more backward logic in my entire life. When one person makes fun of another and the offended party murders the offending party in response, I think it’s pretty easy to determine which party is childish, juvenile, troglodytic and anti-Western – and it ain’t the one who made the joke. Your reverence and admiration for the supposed civility and sanctity of a religion that threatens humorists, documentarians, political commentators, comparative theologians, fiction writers and social commentators (childish, juvenile, infantile, man-boy, fart-joke-tellers all, I suppose) with death on a routine basis for discussing – in any but a worshipful Islamic theological context – their prophet, can only be explained as stupidity, because you are certainly not ignorant of the facts. Despite Phil’s best efforts, reconciling your logic with any standard of American freedom of expression is utterly impossible because a religious reverence for a culture of death and supression of expression and thought is irreconcilable with any conception of free speech and thought in a secular society.
“So, what’s our motivation for insulting Islam, helpful criticism, exercising our God given rights or an infantile delight in inflicting humiliation?”
When Muslims will kill people regardless of the motivation, What does the motivation matter? You seem incapable of perceiving any middle ground between being a doormat upon which folk wipe their excrement covered sandals and murdering people who merely express their opinion. Are you for real!?!
Christians do not “accept insults quietly”, in fact, Christians participate in American social discourse loudly and in sufficient numbers to get atheists, who expected scientific progress to relegate religion to the scrapheap of history, seriously riled up. But neither Christians nor Atheists respond to their disagreements and the insults that are freely exchanged between both parties feel any need to murder their ideological opponents. How sad that you feel Muslims lack the ability to disagree loudly and emphatically without murdering people simply for expressing an idea. I have to disagree. If we pound on the ignorant followers of a philosophy that never truly escaped medieval modes of thought hard enough, they’ll learn sooner or later.
The only question is whether we’ll need to pound on them with our words or our guns. I’m hoping they’re smart enough that they wont need to get pounded quite so hard as all that.
Here’s another thought: freedom is not neat. If you want neat, find yourself a tyranny and you’re welcome to it. freedom is messy and disorderly and you get people doing things for good reasons and you get people doing things for bad reasons. If you don’t value freedom though, America is not the country for you. Don’t worry though, there are plenty of other nations, many of which are as neat and orderly (and suffering under their tyrant leaders) as any Muslim could desire.
Here’s the problem with Gestell.
He claims to have an advanced degree from Harvard, but he’s deliberately evasive about what that degree is. He says it’s a Ph.D. and implies that it is in political science, but won’t get more specific (philosophy, statistics, international relations)? This isn’t necessarily an issue unless someone uses that claim to bolster his comments as Gestell has repeatedly done before. I’m not an economist, so I’d never claim that my Ph.D. in political science (focusing on American politics and international relations) qualifies me to speak with any real authority on economic issues. Like everyone I’m free to offer my economic positions and support them the best way I can, but I don’t ask you to confer any special status on my economic pronouncements because of my Ph.D.
Second, as he’s told us before, Gestell’s practical experiences revolve entirely around the university. He’s never worked in Washington, never run a business, never had to really test his ideas in a real world setting. He pontificates by extending his abstract ideas to equally abstract constructs dealing with reality as it is viewed from the academic world. This allows him to view Islamo-fascist terrorism as an “unhappy” situation that needs to be explained and understood, because according to Gestell to challenge it means taking on the entire Muslim World and forceably converting them to Western values and lifestyle. Like the Scottrade commercial that’s currently running on TV, when faced with a real world issue that demands real world solutions, Gestell talks about unicorn farms and houses made of candy as the only alternative to doing something direct, and practical, to remedy the problem.
Finally, as Gestell has stated before, he feels compelled to use a Moniker not out of convenience, but out of fear that if Conservatives were to ever learn his true identity, they’d hunt him down and do him harm. Thus, in Gestell’s world, he has more to fear from the people participating in this conversation than any terrorist plot against the country.
I point this out both to again frame the empty suit that Gestell has shown himself to be, and to show everyone why he’s only capable of reacting with platitudes and straw men when addressing an issue. Some practical examples of this from his latest post:
Gestell: “Mr. Jackson operates with the principle that if one of his opponents does not mention something that he, Jackson, thinks is important, that the opponent thinks precisely what Jackson imagines that he thinks.”
Jackson: No, I’m correct in pointing out that in an article which condemns the PC hypocrisy of excusing or appeasing Muslim fanatics, Gestell can only call this an “unhappy” situation, seek to explain why fanatical Muslims should be understood as not wanting to change (as if this is a remarkable observation — what thug want to change their thuggish ways?) — and conclude that if we do anything it’s really about imposing Western standards of democracy on the entire Muslim world.
As I took care to point out, we are not at war with the entire Muslim world as Gestell’s alternative scenario would propose. So my silence on that issue (or the issue of extending NAFTA-like trade agreements to Latin America, or using the IMF to help bail out Greece, etc.) are irrelevant to this discussion. Only in Gestell’s world where the fight against Islamo fascist terrorists automatically requires you to attack the entire Muslim world does my focused response constitute a non-answer.
This is why if you re-read his April 28th, 2010 at 5:41 pm post you’ll see that Gestell cannot address real world issues, but again must raise and defeat straw men. Mr. Goldstein writes in his article “The unwillingness to discuss Islam in a candid manner while criticizing Christianity casually is hardly confined to The Simpsons. It is pervasive in other television shows, movies, music and in books. I can attest such sentiments are also pervasive at poetry readings. This isn’t to say that Christianity (or for that matter Judaism) shouldn’t be looked at with a critical if not humorous eye. I simply wish those engaged in arts and entertainment would scrutinize Islam with the same vigor and zeal with which they scrutinize Christianity.” This is what inspired my original commentary criticizing Gestell’s non-response. To which Gestell responds with his latest analysis “Jackson is unaware that there are both liberals and conservatives who have spoken, quite absurdly, in my opinion, of some sort of ‘Reformation’ within Islam.”
Go back and re-read my April 28th, 2010 at 5:01 pm post. I’m not urging any “Reformation” of, with or for Islam. I’m recommending that we target and kill or imprison Islamo fascist terrorists!
It’s this kind of dishonest analysis by Gestell which caused me to write a couple of previous articles on the “Hopelessness of Debate”. I criticized Gestell’s exact words for the intellectual vacuity they represented. To reply he must invent either silly-ass arguments that fighting Islamo fascist terrorists means trying to convert the entire Muslim world to Western values, or suggesting that I’m advocating some kind of idealistic “reformation” policy within Islam. Where, exactly, does a reasonable person come to this conclusion from a statement I made that went like this: “We’re not trying to change their principles. Like I said before, they can worship all the pedophile prophets and can f**k all the goats they want. What we’re trying to do is change their actions to prevent them from killing innocent life to further their fanatical aims.”
This is why you can’t have an intelligent conversation with a fool like Gestell. When backed into a corner over the idiocy of his own position, he takes the statement that I’m not urging the Westernizing of the entire Muslim World to mean that “I assume that Jackson has no problem with Muslim populations demanding to be allowed to live by shari’a in Western nations.”
Exactly what was it some famous philosopher said about an ass doing the “assuming”? Since Dr. Gestell, the Ph.D. from Harvard seems to have trouble with straightforward concepts, allow me to be of help. If you are a Muslim living in a Muslim nation who doesn’t want to kill us, you can f**k all the goats you want. But if you are a Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, etc. living in the United States (a “Western nation”), you need to live under US laws, not your own laws.
I realize that this is a tricky concept for Gestell to grasp, so I’ll try to spell it out more clearly when I use this concept in the future. I’ll try to remember that Harvard Ph.D.’s need a little extra help in grasping basic concepts, so if I later say that we should “close” the border to illegal aliens, Gestell doesn’t insist that this must mean that I advocate lighting up “no vacancy” signs along the Rio Grande.
Finally, as for the absurd conjecture on Gestell’s part that “it is very difficult for Americans, and Jackson is no exception, to consider the possibility that major religions can truly be at war with each other,”, I have a simple question. Is this guy a total f**king moron? Does he really believe that I and others have no idea that “major religions” have been at war in the Middle East for decades, if not centuries; that even someone as stupid as Joe Biden understood there were religious-based divisions in Iraq that resulted in violence; that radical Islamists have been trying to kill Infidels for years?
This is why it makes little sense to listen to an empty suit pontificate about fantasy life and artificial constructs to raise and knock down straw men to make his point. I again remind you of Gestell’s original statement reacting to Mr. Goldstein’s article about “The unwillingness to discuss Islam in a candid manner while criticizing Christianity casually is hardly confined to The Simpsons.”
That’s it. According to Gestell, the disparity exists. It’s an “unhappy” situation, and we need to understand that Muslims will not change or develop a sense of humor.
Had Mr. Goldstein’s article been a plea for Muslims to change, this might be a relevant (though obvious) point. But it wasn’t about them — it was about us.
And on this matter, after several exchanges, Gestell still has absolutely nothing relevant to say.
Pardon my ignorance, if it turns out to be that: why is it that trying to better understand people means that you are somehow getting ready to make excuses for their bad behavior? Many people have worked hard to understand the thought processes of the Nazis, without that idea entering into it.
Ruminator: As I’ve said before, you seem like a basically decent guy who can never quite bring himself to actually offering a position. To do so might cause someone to disagree with you, so you hide behind the facade of just asking deep, thoughtful questions while never coming to a conclusion yourself about any matter of real substance.
So, to indulge you once again, there is nothing wrong with seeking understanding about something. However, if you are facing a threat and all you advocate or support is seeking understanding of why you are facing a threat, then you’ll die knowledgeable instead of ignorant. But you’ll still be dead.
Or, you could do as I already advocated in my April 28th, 2010 at 5:37 pm post which actually answered your question: There’s no reason why we should try to “understand’ the reasons why these fanatics act the way they do ala Gestell, other than to use this knowledge to stop them more effectively by killing or imprisoning them.
Understanding terrorists for the sake of understanding then: bad.
Understanding terrorists to learn how to kill or imprison them better: good.
One more example of dishonest debate from Gestell:
Jackson April 28th, 2010 at 5:01 pm: “These ignorant, 12th century barbarians are incapable of rational thought, and the only thing that will ‘transform’ them into a non-threat is a sufficient number of Islamo-fascist corpses, compliments of the US military.”
Gestell’s characterization of this statement: “And, contrary to Jackson’s belief, it is simply out of the question for the US to capture or eliminate all of them.”
Again, this is why you cannot have an honest debate with a dishonest person. Only a fool would define success as the elimination of 100% (“all”) of a threat. A fool, or someone who can only argue a point by raising straw men to knock down.
Like others on the Left, Gestell seeks to win a point by altering what I said (in other words, lying). By contrast, I quote him directly, using his own words.
Here’s a firm position then: Vigorously, and yes, violently, fight terrorists. But study them.
For example I went to revolutionmuslim.com and what I heard just about made my blood boil, but I forced myself to listen and read. A few new theories: (1) some of them are a little like some baptists I have known, after all, being against pornography and homosexuality (no disrespect to Baptists). Obviously, the methods by which they oppose these things are very different. (2) This particular group of Muslims is very aware that they fight a propaganda war, and are trying to convince mainstream Muslims that the United States wages war with all of them. (3) They believe that the law of allah supercedes any man-made law and therefore the question of how the two systems of law may coexist without conflict is moot. Therefore, allah does not want anyone to show him disrespect, whether that person is a Muslim or not. And people may not allow others to do what allah does not allow anyone to do. Therefore, although they are not calling for the murder of the south park comedians, they seem to imply that they would be within their rights if they were to do so.
Some similarity to the thought process of a Christian who bombs an abortion clinic? (No disrespect to Christians).
Gestell is right: these people will never change. However, you are right too: if they perceive that they have lost a propaganda war, they may back off.
Ruminator: Glad to see you stake a firm stand.
1. Study terrorists, and use this knowledge to fight them. [Why then did you even have an initial question about this, then?]
2. When trying to understand terrorists, don’t go to a website run by some guy living in his mother’s basement. Actually consult a credible source. [Why is this an issue?]
3. And finally, you agree with both Gestell’s position, and mine too. Way to take a stand! [However, my criticism of Gestell wasn’t about the irrelevancy of understanding an issue before acting. It was about focusing only on understanding with no corresponding call to action. And further, responding to an article about PC excuses for criticizing Islam while not extending the same respect to other religions, with a lecture about the need to understand why Islam needs to be understood --- rather than actually address the subject of the article or any real points flowing from it, such as the cowardice of some in the West to confront Islamo fascist thugs].
Patrick,
“Despite Phil’s best efforts, reconciling your logic with any standard of American freedom of expression is utterly impossible because a religious reverence for a culture of death and supression of expression and thought is irreconcilable with any conception of free speech and thought in a secular society.”
Thanks for the reality check, but I’m not ready, despite all indications, to believe that Mr. Skurka has reverence for a culture of death? I (we) must be misunderstanding him. Right?
I said, “The radical Islamic fundamentalists would be making the same DEATH (emphasis added) threats against anyone who painted a portrait or created a sculpture of Muhammed, a documentary producer or publisher who included historical images of Muhammed… .
Mr. Skurka responded that in my “rhetorical construct,” I suggest that “if a Muslim objects to insults aimed at his or her religion, they morph into “radical Islamic fundamentalists” or “jihadists”?
Are we not making distinctions between Muslims who murder when offended and those who simply object through non-violent means? Isn’t that what this line of debate is about?
My answer to Mr. Skurka is, yes, of course Muslims morph into radicals if they’re “objections” to insults are manifested in murder and death warrants. Issuing a call for murder because someone publishes a book that reproduces a 16th century tapestry depicting Muhammed qualifies one as a radical, can we not agree? If your contention is that it is not radical by the standards of 1 billion Muslims, and you are right, then sign me up as a soldier in the war against all of Islam.
Mr. Skurka, if you do not agree that murdering someone (someone who may or may not be an infantile American male) for sculpting (even in a flattering way) Muhammed is a radical thing to do, please say so and explain why it isn’t radical.
If you think such a murder is proper or excusable by any standard, please explain that, as well.
Your answer is important, as without clarification, it appears you defend inhuman behavior among Muslims in the same way we might defend inhuman behavior among bears. Of course they are going to kill you if you blow in their face. Being animals they see it as a threat, even if it only was meant to insult.
Does offending a Muslim or his religion ever warrant a death decree? If it doesn’t, and they are not animals like bears, then we as fellow humans expect them to understand that murder is not a proper response to insult.
Many in western cultures argue over the principle of “an eye for an eye,” and to be certain there’s lots to talk about. But where do you start with the principle of “a head for drawing a picture of Muhammed?”
Phil,
Your critique of Gestell is very simple and straight forward, and did indeed address his exact words. He is “unhappy” South Park censored itself, and he explained to us why we can never expect anything but intolerance from Muslim extremists and offered no solutions. At your poke, he’s said a lot since, but he misses the point that your initial criticism goes to what he (and many “liberal” intellectuals) reveal about themselves when they speak their minds prior to being challenged.
But don’t give Mr. Skurka a pass here. Gestell’s reaction to the problem strikes me as a bit like Mr. Skurka’s (unless I get a clarification from Mr. Skurka), though it is worth noting that while Gestell is at least “unhappy” with South Park, Mr. Skurka congratulates it for making a “wise” decision.
Again, I might be reading him wrong, and if you understand Mr. Skurka’s position here better than I… .
Like Gestell, he “explains” that those who insult Islam can/should expect to be killed.
Like Gestell, (in his first and most revealing comment, anyway) Mr. Skurka does not suggest possible solutions, just “explains” the way it is and what people who insult Islam should expect to happen to them.
Like Gestell, he suggests that we cannot separate radical Muslims from other Muslims (I assume that means insulting them or killing them): He said, “What do you say to the world’s Muslims after you’ve trotted out your insult, “Understand me, I only intended my insults toward those ‘radical fundamentalists’ among you.”
I hope you engage Mr. Skurka, but also expect him to engage you. “If you are a Muslim living in a Muslim nation who doesn’t want to kill us, you can f**k all the goats you want,” appears to meet Mr. Skurka’s definition of an insult.
Call me a troublemaker, but I don’t think mutual admiration should preclude debate.
Call me a troublemaker, but I don’t think mutual admiration should preclude debate.
Nick: on the contrary, I’m all for debate — among friends as well as opponents. My only point was to tease out some common ground among you three I thought existed, which necessitated (to my mind) focusing on what I believe the core issue was in Pat’s “have your back” comment. Other than that I don’t have any real dog in your fight, so I’m happy to sit on the sidelines and observe without further commentary. It’s an interesting back-and-forth among the three of you.
As to gratuitously insulting Muslims, I must plead guilty on the phrase you cited. My focus has always been on Islamo fascists, and the insult only got broadened because Gestell introduced the entire Muslim world into the conversation, and I wrote the phrase carelessly in response to that straw man. I really don’t care what non-violent religious people believe. It only becomes an issue worthy of insult when a subset of them want to kill me.
Since I’m pretty sure that peaceful Muslims don’t attempt to propagate with their livestock as a matter of religion, I feel comfortable in clarifying my insult to apply only to those who routinely pervert Islam to mean a lot of things it was never intended to promote. If any Christian or Jewish terrorists redefine the teachings of their religion to justify killing me because I’m a non believer, I’ll probably offer up a few goat f**king observations here too. Until then, Islamo fascists occupy that singular point of distinction.
Now, I realize that to some this may be a hollow justification for a boorish act on my part, particularly since I’m on record opposing gratuitous insults of this nature. But I would point out two things in my defense.
First, my slurs against Islamo fascists are not gratuitous. They started it. I’m simply responding with the only “weapon” I’m morally and ethically prepared to use personally. These Islamo fascists deserve nothing but derision, and I’m happy to add my two cents any time I can.
[Note to Gestell: This doesn’t mean that I oppose military action against Islamo fascists. I said “use personally”. I’m not a soldier, so I don’t kill people. But I can (and do) support and encourage those who are soldiers acting under proper governmental authority.]
[Further note to Gestell: This last reference to “proper governmental authority” is to recognize that soldiers cannot go out and act on their own and kill any “Islamo fascists” they personally deem worthy of killing. I’m compelled to reduce this analysis to a third-grade level of comprehension based on your previous inability to understand the difference between “a sufficient number” and “all”, and Islamo fascists vs. the entire Muslim World, etc.].
Second — speaking of Gestell — employing Gestellian methodology, instead of criticizing me for calling these a-holes a bunch of goat f**kers, you should be going the extra mile to “understand” why I feel the way I do, and explain to everyone that since I find no humor in Islamo fascism, I will act as if Islamo fascists deserve no respect, or whatever the hell Gestell was fumbling around with when he was trying to rationalize and excuse their behavior. If it’s good to analyze cold blooded Islamo fascist killers this way, it should work for something a non-violent, fair-weather Catholic has written. :)
Take care, Phil
Mulligan/Mashed: If you’re desperately searching for a people to hate, the world is, as the military folks would say, a target rich environment. But consider for a moment the cultural basis for your emotions. 9/11 was a watershed event in American history, one of the few events in the last 70 years which brought Americans of all political persuasions together – like Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination in earlier decades. Whether you’re a Conservative or a Liberal, we could come together as “one people”, we could grieve together for the murdered Americans, together we could admire the bravery of New York firefighters and police officers rescuing survivors from the Twin Towers, we could bond, united in anger, toward the terrorist organizations which were responsible. We could point fingers of blame at our government for not preventing it, both Liberals and Conservatives finally united in joint condemnation.
And we could create caricatures of the new Muslim enemy just as we did with past enemies in earlier watershed events. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were, according to American belief, short, buck-toothed little men wearing coke bottle glasses (since the entire race was genetically near-sighted) – they couldn’t fight on our level, they were too primitive a race to engage in modern warfare or understand 20th century weaponry. The attack on Pearl Harbor and immediate battles following it couldn’t force us to re-examine our stereotypes, the superiority of Japanese aircraft compared to our own obsolete designs, their brilliant naval tactics non-withstanding – despite all evidence to the contrary, they were still our inferiors, man for man. We blindly refused to let go of these comforting stereotype regardless of how well the Japanese airmen or sailors hammered us; in fact, their repeated, but short lived, success served only to increase our hatred for their culture and reinforce our contempt for them and their fighting skills.
Now, in your generation, Americans were given the opportunity once again to repeat this tribal ritual; allies now, the Japanese don’t draw out the very real hatred and fear they once commanded from the vast majority of Americans. What happened? Where did all that delicious hate go? How were we able to retire our stereotypes and make these same “inferior” Japanese rich at our common expense? Well, no matter, that’s ancient history, right?
And look at the common stereotypes you insist characterize Muslims, all one billion of them. They’re a primitive society, despite currently constructing the world’s tallest building or developing functional nuclear weapons. They live their entire lives within hide bound ritual; their individual actions, in fact their entire society, are totally controlled by their religious leaders and beliefs. And these religious beliefs are laughably unsophisticated compared to our political philosophy, we’re free to think and talk about anything, in any manner, our enlightenment outshines their ignorance like the sun compared to a 15 watt light bulb.
Trained sociologists, if permitted, would have a field day analyzing Americans who subscribe to these stereotypes. Our lives are just as firmly controlled and carefully monitored by our own society. Websites have filtering software to prevent you from employing certain words within your posts. We all understand what “political correctness” means, but it’s not like we can’t say anything we wish to – sure that’s right. We can’t tell certain jokes around co-workers at the bar without violating federal law, we can’t discriminate in any fashion, whether in real estate rentals or in who can marry or adopt, churches must employ atheists or suffer possible financial penalties, we have a seemingly endless list of proscribed actions and words we must use in every social situation – and we’re very busy adding even more to the list.
Billy-Bob Ray “Bubba” Boudreau can’t utter the “N” word while murdering Lamont Kamal Washington without incurring an additional 5 years in prison because he committed a “hate” crime. Even the words we choose to employ while killing someone are carefully controlled in our “free” society. Our lives, as Americans, are filled with complex ritual and rigid structure derived from our secular American religion – but at least we’re not Muslims, right?
And we’re happy within our highly structured society and rigidly enforced social customs – just don’t try to take away those stereotypes we’re allowed to cherish. In fact, that’s exactly what bothers this essay’s author, Goldstein. Messrs. Parker and Stone, plus the execs at Comedy Central, made an adult decision not to risk death in support of “free speech”. They wisely decided to avoid losing the Aston-Martin Vantage or their reserved table at Chez Snoot – there are plenty of other, and much safer, sacred icons to lampoon and which will deposit gobs of money into their bank account. But that adult decision leaves a bad taste in our collective mouths – it strikes at the very foundation of our assumed superiority.
So we compensate by claiming it’s the threats of death which sets “them” apart from us. But, what would you have us do? Our modern police investigation techniques will apprehend the fanatics and mete out justice if they carry out their threats – what more is there for you to resent? And it’s not like you can’t also fall victim to a serial killer or an 80 year old man who has no business driving a car any longer. Yet, you insist a threat to your personal safety from fanatics is intolerable – so, once again, what would you have us do? Should we bomb “them” indiscriminately – does their temerity in disrupting your world warrant capital punishment regardless of guilt or innocence – would that make you feel safer, relieve your anxieties?
All that is noble and good within our culture resides solely within our own minds – an unreasoning hate also resides solely within our minds – our choices as to that which we allow inside our skulls are strongly influenced by our society but, ultimately, we must decide individually which emotions we value and which we reject as without value – or truth.
My apologies to Patrick Mulligan. You had Mr. Skurka pegged, I just could not believe what I was reading – until now.
The idiocy of asking what are we supposed to do when the radical ideology of Islamo-facists demands that a person must die whenever they don’t adhere to their hadith leaves me mostly speechless.
Don’t worry, he says. If you are murdered for sketching Muhammed, the police will get them.
Murder (even on a large scale, I assume) at the hands of offended Muslims apparently is not a problem that calls for preemption or even an effective deterrent, just police doing their jobs after our bodies have gone cold.
I opt for Phil’s solution, which worked out just wonderfully for improving our relations with Germany, Italy and Japan.
Really, Mr. Skurka? You can’t figure out why “The Japanese don’t draw out the very real hatred and fear they once commanded from the vast majority of Americans. What happened?” you ask.
Any “Bubba” knows its because they ain’t tryin’ to kill us no more. And that’s because we kilt them until they stopped killin’ us.
Skurka, someone who is incapable of engaging in debate about critical contemporary issues without murdering their correspondent is indeed deeply inferior. Your contempt for muslims is an entirely rational emotional response to such demonstrated inferiority. That is, if you accept the notion that muslims are incapable of engaging in debate without murdering their correspondent. It is my belief that if Americans are simply assertive enough to insist that muslims who live in America must abide by the American way of life, they can and will learn to live like civilized people.
Set aside your contempt for muslims and you will find they too, can learn to live like civilized people.
reply to Mr. Jackson:
When Mr. Jackson finds something in one of my posts that might upset his biases about my views, why he just goes right by it. For example: in one of his oh-so-clever putdowns, he writes:
“Gestell talks about unicorn farms and houses made of candy as the only alternative to doing something direct, and practical, to remedy the problem.” Apparently he either didn’t read my practical proposals or couldn’t quite reconcile them with his imaginary version of me and my views.
Nowhere do I say that all Muslims are bloodthirsty fanatics; what I do say (and believe) is that, in its fundamental doctrines, Islam is (and can only be) at war with the West. The fidelity of any individual Muslim or any mass of Muslims to these teachings is another matter. Was that thought too much of a stretch for you, Mr. Jackson?
Now, I don’t know why Mr. Jackson’s supercilious paragraph implying that I need to be told that soldiers can’t just go out and kill Muslims was necessary. I said no such thing, and the proposals I made would require well-designed and executed military planning. So much for that cheap shot.
Finally, Mr. Jackson gets plenty of mileage out of my use of the word “unhappy.” And from this he concludes, groundlessly, that I’m some sort of relativist. He also seeks support for this in what I do say: namely, that we need to understand Muslims. Now I know that I’m dealing with a real conservative! If I want to “understand” Muslims, why that just automatically means that I’m a stereotypical liberal relativist. One of the idiocies of the Right is the belief, evidently shared by Mr. Jackson, that all you need to deal with bad guys is a full mag and a good sight. Well, that’s not enough in the real world. Here’s a new bulletin for Mr. Jackson: to understand all is not to forgive all, as someone once said. Americans need to understand how Islamic political thinking works, what its foundations are, and how Islamists (once again, not the entire Muslim population) view the world. That way we’ll have some idea when and where we should be aiming.
In conclusion: Now Mr. Jackson throws in all sorts of irrelevancies–i.e., standard right-wing smears–directed at me for one non-reason or another, mostly having to do with the fact that I’m a liberal academic. He insists on blaming me for positions that I plainly haven’t taken, in the hope that some of the mud he slings will stick. I’m sure it will, since this is, after all, a conservative website.
I rather liked the phrase that was formerly used by the JCS to characterize our struggle with Islamists: the “long war,” a phrase that the Bushies eventually made the JCS and DOD analysts stop using. “Long war” fits precisely a conflict that will continue to go on for a number of years, can flare up in many parts of the world, and will involve enemy forces of widely varying sizes, strength, and capabilities, all of which emerges from a major religion and is justified in ways that are central to that religion. No wonder the Bushies didn’t want that phrase catching on. People might have concluded that our problems will not vanish when and if we ever apprehend Osama bin Laden. Mr. Jackson seems to share the view that we are opposed by some very small number of evil fanatics that we can eventually either kill or capture, and things will then be peachy. No, we are in a war that, unfortunately, my children will still be paying for 20 years from now. The world isn’t very nice, Mr. Jackson, and it’s even less nice than you seem to think it is.
Gestell: “Apparently he either didn’t read my practical proposals or couldn’t quite reconcile them with his imaginary version of me and my views.”
*** Nice try. My criticisms of your original response stand. You’ve attempted to offer some substantive issues once I called you on your initial foolishness, but only after once again listing a series of straw men to knock down. Specifically:
>”Jackson is opposed to US efforts to support ‘moderate’ Muslims in Islamic nations.”
> “Jackson is unaware that there are both liberals and conservatives who have spoken, quite absurdly, in my opinion, of some sort of ‘Reformation’ within Islam.”
>”From his silence, I assume that Jackson has no problem with Muslim populations demanding to be allowed to live by shari’a in Western nations.”
Since only a fool would actually suggest that these are my positions based on what I’ve offered, I can understand why you’d object to me pointing out the foolishness of your ‘analysis’ as represented above. As for your policy prescriptions that followed, mouthing platitudes is not “a practical proposal”. Fill in the blanks, and you have something “practical” to say.
Just for giggles, let’s look at what you think are “practical proposals”:
Gestell: (1) “The US should let all governments in the region know that harboring or supporting Islamist combatants is unacceptable, and can be grounds for American actions to eliminate or capture important cadres. Of course, the US would have to be willing to back up such an approach, and Obama appears to be most unlikely to do so.”
*** Let’s look at this “practical proposal” again with my bracketed comments:
“The US should let all governments in the region know that harboring or supporting Islamist combatants is unacceptable [with no actual “practical” statement about the consequences of them continuing to harbor Islamist combatants], and can be grounds for American [undefined] actions [anything from a strongly worded letter to a full scale invasion] to eliminate or capture important cadres [and what exactly is an “important cadre”? We ignore the foot soldiers and focus only on getting Osama?]. Of course, the US would have to be willing to back up such an approach [again, with no hint as to whether this backup is a bomb or protest letter], and Obama appears to be most unlikely to do so [which means exactly what --- we just end the discussion here and turn to Health Care, or use all appropriate resources to compel more aggressive action by Obama?].”
Empty, vacuous, platitude-driven bilge.
Gestell: (2) “The US should be willing and able to support resistance elements in such states as Iran, just as the US once did for anticommunist oppositions around the world.
*** And exactly what form should this resistance take, given your admonition that Obama isn’t going to do anything anyway, that nothing we do will change the way Islamists react to perceived slights (I’m assuming a full scale invasion is one such example of a ‘sleight’), and your insistence that the alternative to just sucking it up and accepting the fact that pissed-off Islamo fascists will want to kill you is waging full scale war against a billion Muslims?
Gestell: (3) “The US should get much more serious about waging a propaganda war against Islamism.”
*** And exactly why will a propaganda war be successful, given your previous insistence that nothing we do will change the way Islamists think … you know the rest.
You’ve spouted BS talking points that don’t mesh with your previously stated views, and that are so ambiguous as to be meaningless, and call this a “practical proposal”. You don’t really believe what you say, so why should I or anyone else react to you as if you’re seriously offering a “practical” suggestion?
Gestell: “I don’t know why Mr. Jackson’s supercilious paragraph implying that I need to be told that soldiers can’t just go out and kill Muslims was necessary. I said no such thing, and the proposals I made would require well-designed and executed military planning. So much for that cheap shot.”
*** As I explained in the previous post, since you conflate “a sufficient number” with “all of them”, and confuse statements about Islamo fascists with the entire Muslim world, it’s incumbent upon me to explain things to you in simple detail so even you can understand the point I’m making. This is why I took pains to explain what I was saying, not what you were saying. But apparently you can’t even understand when I’m making a point instead of characterizing your position. I’ll give you a hint in the future to help you see the difference. When I refer to things you’ve said, as a general practice I quote your exact words back to you. When you characterize what I say, you never quote me directly, you simply make up words and react to them.
Gestell: “If I want to ‘understand’ Muslims, why that just automatically means that I’m a stereotypical liberal relativist.”
*** No. You’re a stereotypical liberal relativist if that’s all you seek to do, as your original comment stated, and I called you on that. Chastened, you later offered up some platitudes and called them “practical actions”. You’re a stereotypical liberal relativist because while you’ve been repeatedly counseling that we need to “understand Muslims”, you’ve made no such effort or advocated no such action to understand other groups, like, say, Christians or Conservatives. Those folks, you just smear and condemn here and in other posts you’ve made.
Gestell: “One of the idiocies of the Right is the belief, evidently shared by Mr. Jackson, that all you need to deal with bad guys is a full mag and a good sight.”
*** Yes, that is indeed how you react to someone trying to kill you. If they cannot be dissuaded from their beliefs, as you’ve stated, then the only other option is to kill or imprison as many of them as you can until the threat is substantially diminished. This is not rocket science. In fact, I think you even suggested something similar, unless all that you really suggested in the “practical” approach you suggested (you remember, the one that Obama isn’t going to do anyway as a practical matter) in your first point above was nothing more than a strongly worded letter to the Times.
Gestell: “Now Mr. Jackson throws in all sorts of irrelevancies–i.e., standard right-wing smears–directed at me for one non-reason or another, mostly having to do with the fact that I’m a liberal academic.”
*** It’s not irrelevant to point out that a guy who claims an advance degree from a prestigious university but refuses to actually tell us what specific field the degree is in, and who has never had any real world practical experience (either in business or politics), — but bases his observations and conclusions on his degree and academic expertise — is an empty suit.
As for the “mud slinging” you think is coming, calling an empty suit an empty suit is a matter of accuracy, not gratuitous insult. And may I remind you that it was you those many months ago who informed all of us right wing fanatics that you couldn’t be more specific about yourself because you feared we’d track you down and hurt you? You’re the arrogant pompous ass. I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Mr. Skurka,
With all due discretion and sensitivity, you are an idiot. Again, your logic is so backward that it is incomprehensible. In the same breath that you acknowledge that artists, documentarians, theologians, philosophers, and anyone else who disagrees with the theological tenets of Islam are taking their lives into their own hands in doing so, you characterize my acknowledgement of this same fact as an act of racial discrimination and stereotyping?
It was not a racial stereotype that issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (12 years before “we” Americans collectively developed this horrible stereotype about Islamic terrorism and Muslim thuggery), or against Taslima Nasreen in 1993, or against Isioma Daniel in 2002, or against Jerry Falwell in 2002. And it wasn’t a racial stereotype that murdered Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh. And it wasn’t a racial stereotype that issued death threats against the creators of “South Park” for portarying Muhammad in a bear costume (in an episode that also included Buddha snorting cocaine). You may classify it as cultural arrogance or whatever else you wish, but religious people who engage in that type of behavior, whether they are Muslim or Sikh or Christian or Hindu, are barbarians. It is the sign of a weak ideology that it cannot stand up to scrutiny or questioning and must be enforced through violence. And it is a sorry excuse for a human being who would defend or advocate that kind of behavior. Don’t project your own antiquated racial hostilities on others who are simply disgusted by disgusting behavior.
Mr. Skurka – you write, I understand your words but don’t understand how insulting someone’s religion promotes the free and open exchange of ideas within a democracy.
The problem is that people can decide to be offended by anything. Consider what Fred Phelps finds offensive…
Asking people to avoid offense insofar as possible is one thing. But there’s just about no position one can take that will avoid offending someone. And requiring people who don’t share your religion to follow your own religion’s rules is just wrong. I’ve got no problem with people who want to avoid flicking light switches on the Sabbath, but that won’t stop me from doing so. We still have remnants of such laws here in the U.S. – you can’t buy liquor before noon on Sundays here in Michigan, which is annoying every six months or so when we finally use up a bottle of schnapps or tequila or whatever.
Taking it up to death threats against people who don’t even share their religion is orders of magnitude worse.
For an example of someone who isn’t giving Islam a pass, see here: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/p/mission-statement.html
I think their motivations are pretty clear, and I don’t see signs of an “infantile reaction driven by frustration, impotence and fear”.
Today is a busy one, so this one last time and then you’ll have to go play chase the frisbee with the dog – or your sister. The Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadist Council and Canasta Club tries its best, through issuing “Death Threats”, to spread terror here in the West – probably why we sometimes refer to them as terrorists. But, they also have selfish reasons for frightening Americans, one such reason being recruitment.
If the Underwear Bomber is an example of their top terrorist operative, then recruitment efforts require considerable revamping. Now, pay attention here, young Muslim men, accountants, stockbrokers and goat herders like to lie around the tent, telling “booger” jokes, eating baba ganoush and watching Al Jazeera on TV. When they see America’s South Park intending to deliberately insult their religion they become enraged – normally, they like to raise a little hell as all young men do, trying to see what’s under the veil by drilling a peephole in the females’ tent or attempting to goad their Uncle Kamal’s camel into spitting on their sister – but they are very serious about their religion and it infuriates them when Al Jazeera reports that Americans not only lack any respect for Islam, but frequently enjoy casually insulting Muslims, it’s a direct challenge to their manhood. A small few of them applaud terrorist groups who intend to punish Americans, thereby defending their manhood – these few also make for good new recruits, especially those who can make it through “suicide bomber” bootcamp without serious injury.
Now, keep paying attention, those young Muslim men who have studied in America for free at our finest colleges observed that young American males like to sit around their apartments, telling “booger” jokes, eating pizza and watching South Park on television. They, these young Americans, believe it’s their right, under the Constitution, to insult anyone, any institution, any religion equally – it’s what passes for cultural expression here in America. Someone, anybody, with the temerity to deny them their fun is a direct challenge to their manhood.
It would be safer for innocent women and children if, somehow, we could evacuate the entire state of Kansas and bring these young men from different cultures together, next to a huge pile of machetes and encourage them to have short, but extremely intense, debates over the issue of freedom of speech vs. respect for religion. However, given the opportunity to defend their culture’s honor directly would, I suspect, result in a very light turnout.
Now, getting back to those Isalamic Fundamentalists etc., they realize that recruitment fares better when they issue Death Threats which attract worldwide attention. If they simply wanted to murder Americans who insult Islam, there are plenty of takers on the web – Billy-Bob Ray “Bubba” Boudreau’s who insult Islam or the Prophet daily, using vile and provocative language on those many websites which allow them to – or, in a milder form of expression, on other websites. Killing these valuable intellectuals one at a time is a low return on investment and would do little or nothing for recruitment efforts, so, naturally, they prefer to target high profile individuals or organizations.
Now, here’s the important message, American government employees realize that civilians – those innocents who don’t insult religion for the sole purpose of feeling good about themselves – could also die during bombings or shootings directed at these high profile targets. However, in truth, terrorists don’t need a logical justification to kill Americans, but everyone likes to feel their reasons are righteous. Consequently, we have other young American men tramping around the boonies trying to destroy these terrorists in their holes. Thousands of man hours are spent weekly by other government employees using computers or satellites to locate the funding sources or the safe houses of terrorist operatives. Add in airport security, Homeland Security, the FBI and you have considerable resources attempting to protect our Constitutional right to eat pizza, tell “booger” jokes and make fun of Islam. And we’ll gladly spend the necessary money and lives to protect this important right, among others.
If you personally receive a Death Threat, the FBI will be all over it, investigating and doing whatever is necessary for your protection. Should the worse happen and the Death Threat is successful, the police and FBI will do their best to bring the killer or killers to justice – it’s not nearly enough when it comes to your sacred right to promote democracy and free expression, but it will have to do.
Now, Parker or Stone of South Park fame are thinking to themselves: “I’m important, rich, famous and I have no desire to die if all these protection efforts fail, so I need a way to back off this ‘freedom of expression’ stuff and, like, very soon before something really bad happens”. Consequently, a press conference is called and either Parker or Stone announce their decision as follows: “While I fervently believe in our Constitutional right to free expression, there is a real possibility innocent citizens could be put in danger if we air the South Park episode involving the Prophet. Therefore, solely in the interest of public safety, we won’t go forward with our intention to run this episode – however, we are substituting an amusing episode on Hindus next week”.
Personally, I have nothing but contempt for someone who insults any religion intentionally and for no better reason than it’s their right to do so. The Constitution, however, doesn’t concern itself with my opinion, it’s an important right – and a necessary emotional outlet – many Americans have come to embrace. My opinion of Constitutional rights makes me a bad American, frankly, I don’t care. But, I understand the disappointment which resulted from South Park’s reluctance to become a potential terrorist target and high profile “warrior” proxy for those who do believe in that right. Consequently, for those intellectuals who believe it’s necessary to take the bull by the horns and go boldly forward on their own – feel free. If you have any lingering anxiety or a nagging feeling you won’t be able to exercise your right to self expression in perfect safety, I have a solution. Phil Jackson, based on his writings, is a decent and honest man, perhaps he’ll allow you to come out to the house and take safe refuge in his garage.
That’s good Skurka – you just keep on knocking down that ignorant American sociopath booger joking strawman. It’s only immature booger joke tellers who receive death threats from insane, backward Neanderthals who celebrate a culture of theocratic totalitarianism and murder. As long as we keep our mouths shut there’s nothing to worry about, and after all, we should keep our mouths shut anyway – we’re civilized human beings! Those man-boy booger joke tellers endanger us all with their cavalier use of speech. You know what? We should kill them ourselves! It’s really the only sensible thing to do. For our own safety.
For what it’s worth, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the writer/producers of “South Park” were not as interested in political expediency as you seem to think. They have released statements indicating that it was solely the network’s decision to censor the content of the episode in question – not theirs. So don’t be too hasty with your praise for their complacency.
I’m curious, does anyone NOT believe that Skurka is a Muslim pretending not to be a muslim so that he can threaten to kill us without actually admitting that he’s threatening to kill us?
“Empty, vacuous, platitude-driven bilge” is what Mr. Jackson calls my proposals, which he ridicules in brackets. His ridicule, however, shows how little he understands sort of serious analysis that would have to underlie American actions. Consider: I can’t tell you what is an “important cadre”—that’s what the military gets intel about. Mr. Jackson is foolish enough to suppose that I would (or could) second-guess expert decisions that are needed to decide who to take out or capture. Similarly, he mocks me because I don’t say whether US disapproval should be expressed by a diplomatic note or a rocket attack. Again, these kinds of decisions shouldn’t be made in an intel vacuum. I think Mr. Jackson thinks that all our military has to do is take aim and fire. Some situations might call for a diplomatic note, while others require covert action, while still others require a major show of force. Again, intellectuals such as Mr. Jackson and me can’t make these calls from our armchairs. Fortunately, the US has the expertise and capability to do any and all of these things, as specific situations warrant. Mr. Jackson has an overly simplistic view of matters military.
I’m very surprised that I didn’t warm the cockles of Mr. Jackson’s conservative heart by saying pretty directly that Obama may not have the stomach for the things I’m suggesting. Thus far, Obama makes Jimmy Carter seems as decisive as Erwin Rommel, and I don’t expect Obama to change. I thought I was voting for a politician who might, just might, understand (a) the absolute necessity of proceeding in a bipartisan way on most major domestic issues and (b) that there are times when the US must act without ambiguity, in such areas as the protection of our country from acts of war by Islamists. So far, Obama hasn’t shown he can do either of these things. Worse, he doesn’t see that they are necessary. His cowardice is exceeded here only by his foolishness.
Mr. Jackson, once more, thinks he’s got me when he claims to find me contradicting myself when I say that Islamic belief won’t change, but that propaganda can be necessary and useful. Why does Mr. Jackson assume a simplistic dichotomy like this? American propaganda during the Cold War was not, by itself, responsible for the collapse of Soviet communism; however, it did persuade large numbers of citizens in the Communist world to question, doubt, and withdraw their active allegiance to those governments. Mr. Jackson is one of those all-or-nothing intellectuals who seems unaware that in the real world lots of measures may be useful without being decisive.
Let’s be clear: absolutely no one—not me, not Mr. Jackson, or anyone else—has any precise estimate for the number of Islamists who are, or can be motivated to become, active combatants against the US. I’m surprised that Mr. Jackson didn’t even deign to mention either the ‘long war’ or my general agreement with this way of thinking about the American conflict with Islam (or Islamist thugs, if you prefer). The “long war” concept assumes a constantly shifting, changing collection of Islamist groups and forces that coalesce to take advantage of opportunities to do damage, fade away when confronted by American military superiority, and believe themselves to be (rightly, I think) able to persuade large numbers of Muslims to join them. What if the US sent a message to the Saudis that went like this? We have identified the following Saudi princes as financial and logistical supporters of al-Qaeda and similar groups. If you do not surrender these individuals to the American embassy by (date), we will remove them by whatever means proves necessary. If American aircraft or special forces are fired upon, they will destroy any and all Saudi military installations from which such fire originated. We advise your forces to stand down during the extraction.
Now of course I’m sure Mr. Jackson will find some way to label my proposal as a typical product of a liberal academic–and he sure does loathe liberal academics, so I await his broadside. Maybe some liberal professor once challenged some statement he made in a seminar, and the poor guy just hasn’t gotten over it yet.
I can’t tell you what is an “important cadre”—that’s what the military gets intel about. Mr. Jackson is foolish enough to suppose that I would (or could) second-guess expert decisions that are needed to decide who to take out or capture. Similarly, he mocks me because I don’t say whether US disapproval should be expressed by a diplomatic note or a rocket attack… Some situations might call for a diplomatic note, while others require covert action, while still others require a major show of force. Again, intellectuals such as Mr. Jackson and me can’t make these calls from our armchairs.
This complete and total lack of clarity of action or purpose is why speaking in generalities like “The US should let all governments in the region know that harboring or supporting Islamist combatants is unacceptable, and can be grounds for American actions to eliminate or capture important cadres” is so completely devoid of any practical meaning, which I think was Phil’s intended criticism. Your policy prescription is to let all the nations of the world know that we will not tolerate their harboring of undefined “Islamists”, and that their doing so may possibly result in some undefined action, maybe diplomatic, maybe military, depending on the exact situation and time and conditions, in order to capture or eliminate undefined important cadres within the undefined “Islamist” community. If that’s as specific as you can get without highly classified top-level intelligence reports, then there really isn’t much point in offering your “strategy” at all – it is far too vague to be of any analytical or practical value. This “policy proposal” is not much different from a manager who tells his sales staff “Let’s get out there and sell, sell, sell!” or a football coach who tells his players “Let’s get out there and play our hearts out!” Those aren’t real strategies or proposals. And there’s nothing wrong with not having a real strategy or proposal if you don’t have access to the appropriate information, or you are operating outside the range of your expertise, or you don’t have a full understanding of all the relevant issues. Just admit it up front and don’t try to substitute a silly caricature for the real deal and then proclaim yourself an intellectual for it or you just end up looking silly.
“Empty, vacuous, platitude-driven bilge” is what Mr. Jackson calls my proposals, which he ridicules in brackets.
*** Congratulations for actually quoting me this time, instead of substituting different words for what I actually said.
Your “practical proposals’ contained absolutely nothing of any substance. You think we back up our actions by backing them up (no details offered other than the platitude itself), get serious about waging a propaganda war with people you yourself said are not going to change their core beliefs, etc.
You are the one who stated emphatically — twice actually — that you had these serious “practical proposals” you put on the table. I simply pointed out what’s obvious to everyone. Your practical proposals have absolutely no substance.
In Gestellian language, I’ll offer my own “practical proposals”. We should win without losing, be aggressive without being too forceful, and get more serious about doing things in a serious manner.
I’m sure you’ll accept these as substantive observations because, as you’ve indicated, we can’t make specific calls to action “from our armchairs.” So let’s unite by not being divisive, and win without incurring defeat.
Now of course I’m sure Mr. Jackson will find some way to label my proposal as a typical product of a liberal academic–and he sure does loathe liberal academics, so I await his broadside. Maybe some liberal professor once challenged some statement he made in a seminar, and the poor guy just hasn’t gotten over it yet.
*** On the contrary, as someone with a real Ph.D. from a real university in a real related field (American politics and international relations), who has worked in Washington, and on political campaigns, and was involved in international treaty negotiations, in addition to creating several successful private sector businesses, I do not “loathe” academics. What I loathe are phonies who hide behind made-up degrees in made-up subjects and who pontificate about real world issues solely from the basis of their limited academic knowledge of the real world.
At every point in this discussion I’ve called attention to both your phony credentials — which are only an issue because you’ve repeatedly used those credentials to support your statements, since you have nothing else in life of any real substance to inform your thinking — and to the fundamental vacuity of thought behind what you say. You being with empty headed platitudes, graduate to contradictory and empty “practical” proposals, and end up crying about the fact that I’ve called attention to these facts.
But fear not. Your participation in this conversation has been useful, if only to illustrate a shining example of someone who believes that strongly worded platitudes are actually “practical policies”, who simultaneously argues two contradictory points at the same time without even understanding their fundamental contradictions, and who has to raise straw men arguments about fighting a billion Muslims if I raise the issue of fighting Islamo fascist fanatics to make his points.
It’s the classic definition of an empty suit. I’m just impolite enough to keep pointing that fact out.
What if the US sent a message to the Saudis that went like this? We have identified the following Saudi princes as financial and logistical supporters of al-Qaeda and similar groups. If you do not surrender these individuals to the American embassy by (date), we will remove them by whatever means proves necessary. If American aircraft or special forces are fired upon, they will destroy any and all Saudi military installations from which such fire originated. We advise your forces to stand down during the extraction.
I change my designation of Gestell from “empty suit” to “absolute fool”.
Only an academic would think that military action against Saudi Arabia in 2010 is a viable, “practical” alternative to a nation that depends on Saudi Arabia for a significant portion of our and the world’s oil!
This is why the US debt to China is so insidious. Like oil and Saudi Arabia, it limits our practical ability to act against these countries. It’s why interaction with a pre and post nuclear Korea (or Iran) are “practically” different. And so on, and so on.
Can you really imagine a “practical” policy in the year 2010 where the US fires on Saudi Arabia — particularly with Iran about to go nuclear, and other tensions in the Middle East? Not only would this “practical” policy result in chaos in the world energy markets, it would utterly destroy any opportunity for US success in the Middle East.
Gestell says he’s a Ph.D. from Harvard in political science, but he has absolutely no idea how the real world operates. Backchannel negotiations, public indignation from leaders who actually support our efforts, freezing finances vs. shooting people (when dealing with established states), shooting people instead of freezing finances (when dealing with certain rogue terrorists) … it complicated in the real world. And yet, Gestell wants to act like Rambo with the Saudis while preaching “understanding” of Islamo fascists. The man is a complete fool.
Ivory tower academics think any permutation of any policy they can conceive is a realistic or “practical” option.
People who actually work for a living in the real world, or who have actual real world experience with policy makers in Washington, understand differently.
As I said before, Gestell is simply not meant to be taken seriously.
Mr. Skurka, you continues to ignore the fact that radical Islam is on a mission to kill western infidels, whether they make fun of them or not.
You, Mr. Skurka, are a target, as is virtually every living human among the ranks of western culture, infantile or not. Your contention seems to be that if we slaughtered or imprisoned every American male who either told or laughed at a “booger” joke, our worries would be over.
How does one insult a radical Muslim? Let me count the ways.
Our “slutty” women offend, their naked shoulders exposed for anyone to see.
Our taste for pork and our silly notion that we may choose to worship no god, much less theirs.
Our cinema with its sex scenes, and our blasphemes literature.
Our equal treatment of women (my goodness, they even count the same as a man when they testify in court)
Our respect for children, and our laws that protect them from merciless beatings (even execution) at the hands of their fathers.
I could go on for some time.
You cannot be taken seriously here as long as you don’t take the threat from radical Islam seriously. They don’t want you and me dead just because people make fun of their religion. The radicals want us dead because we are westerners and their religion demands we submit to their will and god. If a westerner is lucky, perhaps he escapes by paying the jizyah, becoming subservient to Muslims.
Your line of reasoning thus far makes at least a little sense if you are only issuing a warning that antagonizing Muslims makes matters worse, but really, sir, just how much worse can it get? They want you dead if you don’t tell your jokes, paint Muhammad or broadcast images of him. And they also want you dead if you do any of those things.
Intolerance and death sentences are hallmarks of radical Islam, Mr. Skurka, and your avoidance of that fact makes you appear more of a fool than the infantile American men you’ve repeatedly sketch for us.
You’re advice seems to be the classic, “be nice to the alligator” ploy.
Yes, Mr. Skurka, maybe you will be eaten last. Bully for you.
By the way, for those who like Mr. Skurka think they will be safe simply standing clear of those who make fun of Islam, the following lets you know where you stand:
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
NEWS FLASH AND URGENT WARNING TO ALL
I took Mr. Skurka’s advice a bit earlier and was playing Frisbee with my sister, when she was attacked by Muslim extremists visiting from Pakistan.
Seems they were part of the group of Muslim men who became famous for attacking women participating in marathons in Lahore and Gujranwala, Pakistan a while back. http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimhateforathletes.htm
They wanted my sister and I to understand that according to the Koran, everyone is subject to their hard-line version of Islamic law, and they say women are not permitted to participate in sports of any kind.
My sister’s OK, just bumps and bruises from stoning, but I wanted to warn anyone else here who might take up Mr. Skurka’s suggestion to engage in sports with their sister (or any woman for that matter). He also suggested playing Frisbee with a dog, but I’d recommend it be a male dog just to be safe.
As long as there are extreme fundamentalist Muslim men around who might be offended, we all have an obligation to watch ourselves and be respectful. Learn everything that bothers them, and avoid it for your own safety. Like 007, they are licensed (only by Allah, not the Queen) to kill.
What we call a “peaceful Muslim” is really a half-assed Muslim.
Messrs. Adams, Mulligan and Mashed: Interesting responses but, despite the “tough talk”, apparently you desperately do want a “get out of death free” card. We, as Westerners, have legitimate reasons to be frightened of terrorists, but a constant and unreasoning fear isn’t normal. You have a better chance of being mugged outside your place of work by an apple pie loving American, or even mugged and then killed – there is only the remotest of possibilities you will be personally assaulted by Muslim terrorists – yet, you obviously fear that event beyond what could be considered rational. And, as Americans, our collective and highly irrational fears have evolved into a carefully constructed hate, hating Muslims, hating Islam is an understandable outgrowth of a constant and a low level personal fear of physical harm and humiliation at the hands of Muslims.
Employing a popular expression, the media has really “done a job on your heads” – these Muslims, as the media constantly reports to you, are very scary people – if they are capable of half the cruelties our media reports them inflicting on their fellow Muslims, the hidden message is “what would they do to you?”. Honor killings, female circumcision, beheadings, lopping off hands – horrifying images to Americans – “what’s wrong with these people – they must be savages”. And, you’ve been given full permission to hate Muslims by the media and our feminists, not in a blatantly obvious way of course, but you may turn your personal fears into a healthy hate without having to say “Mother, may I?”. And, look at the undeniable progression of your fear into a “politically correct” hate – the stages are obvious – and even predictable.
For example, you can’t simply go around saying “the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim” – that emotion is too bluntly repulsive to be voiced within our matriarchal society. Women are constantly frightened by naked male aggression so our little boys are taught subtle ways to express fear and hate. For example, there is Nick Adams’ approach – he finds examples of innocents who have been wronged by Muslim society and uses that as a basis for doling out his brand of justice. We should condemn any Muslim who objects to our insulting Islam because Adams can produce a few examples where an innocent was wrongly threatened. In order to take our collective prejudices out for a walk, some Americans go the self-serving route of “Defender of the Innocent”. This form of sanctimony generates a pleasant self-image and warm feeling of satisfaction which in turn suppresses their fear.
For others, they mask their hate, and soothe their fear, by pretending to a “cultural superiority” – as Americans, they constantly point out, we’re more advanced, not cultural primitives like those living within Muslim society – in fact, we’re so advanced as a people, we’ve outgrown our petty hates and have much to teach Muslims if only they would listen to us. This “official explanation” comes from people like Mashed and is apparently his tactic for controlling fear – if only all Muslims would live up to his personal expectations, there would be no reason to insult their religion, but since they haven’t yet learned to emulate Americans, they can’t expect to be treated with dignity and there is no moral reason to respect their primitive religion.
Like scholars and academics, folks employing the cultural superiority fear suppression technique closely research Islam but solely for the specific purpose of searching out items to place within their criminal indictment of an entire culture. “Look at “sharia laws” they exclaim, “how primitive can you get”? But, at the same time, forgetting American “sharia” law, the thousands of laws controlling our every social action; between the races, between men and women, between parents and children – laws which even claim the amazing ability to interpret our very thoughts and judge if those thoughts are just and proper. Ignorant of history, the morally superior don’t realize we’ve all been down this same road before – with the Japanese prior to and during WWII. Or, what about “Lo, the poor Indian” –he was a primitive and deserved our contempt. But as Mr. Adams points out, once we had conquered the Japanese, and, even earlier, the Native Americans, we could begin to forgive and even learn to love them and see the value within their culture. Once the basis for our individual fear was gone, we saw them in a completely different light – psychologically revealing after the fact in regard to our historic fear of the Japanese and Native Americans, but apparently a lesson we must learn over and over again within each new generation of Americans and toward each new culture we encounter. So, now we’re going through the same unconscious process with the Muslims – if we can conquer them, we can forgive them and then we no longer need to fear them.
For Patrick Mulligan, Esq., apparently you’re only one intelligent step removed from “Bubba” Boudreau and his band of Merry Men – if someone isn’t a team player and doesn’t instantly recognize the justification for your rhetorical position, then they’re an “idiot” and can’t understand how necessary it is to salute the “common wisdom” and “get with the program”. Do you really believe Messrs. Parker and Stone were personally eager to go ahead with the South Park episode lampooning the Prophet even if it resulted in Death Threats, but it was those unidentified, and cowardly, “Suits” at the Comedy Central network who wouldn’t allow it? How convenient for Parker and Stone; whew, that was a close one for them but they yet remain your heroes, prophets of the politically correct and Defenders of What’s What. I’m sure you and many others weren’t being manipulated by the media with this little morality play, also created by Parker and Stone, you know them personally and well enough to easily recognize the underlying truth here, right?
They say “even paranoids have real enemies” so there is a legitimacy to fear of physical harm by Muslim terrorists, but the psychological harm inflicted on you three appears much more recent – and more real. “Death threats” are simply that, threats. You can take them too seriously, you could overreact and make the situation worse. Many people are trying their best to protect you and stamp out terrorists without setting the entire world on fire, don’t make their jobs harder by taking your hates and fears out for a daily stroll.
Mr. Skurka,
You are quite “full of it,” as they say.
You already stated that you would not be standing anywhere near me or anyone who insults Islam, lest you be hit by the bullet as well. And you also noted you would not have our backs. What bullets were you expecting from the non-threat you are pitching now? Why would you have to have anyone’s back?
Nearly every western nation on the planet is engaged in some way in the war with radical Islam, whose members will not hesitate to kill millions if they should secure the technology.
We get it. The bombings around the world and the attacks of 9-ll do not impress you, and you simply will have to see 10 or 100s of thousands die in a dirty bomb or nuclear attack before you consider the problem worth considering.
Until then, radical Islam and its threat, is a media myth. When was the last time you saw 3,000 people die from a myth, Mr. Skurka?
When will it be 100,000?
Absurd and not likely, you assure us. Well, then, I guess we can stop looking in shoes at the airport and disband the military.
Yours is a fool’s argument, even if made on Nov. 10, 2001, much less now.
As for the South Park episode in question, I thought everyone knew that Parker and Stone were not behind pulling the image of Muhammad, something they’ve been quite vocal about. They didn’t get mad, they got even. Their decision not to pull the episode and to put Muhammad in a bear suit was their commentary on just how ridiculous and fearful the network was being.
“There, we put him in a bear suit. You fraidy cat execs happy now?”
I’m not sure the network execs were happy having their spinelessness become part of the joke, but obviously the show with Muhammad the bear went on.
And one last thing, Mr. Skurka. Unlike you, I am quite clear on who is a better human being when considering myself and radical Islamo-facists dedicated to wholesale murder to impose their ideology and religion on the world.
I am, Mr. Skurka. I am.
Mr. Jackson would not consider any sort of threat against Saudi Arabia because he imagines, like so many Americans, that the US imports most of its oil from that nation. From this false premise, he argues that the US would disrupt the region unless we continue the practice of looking the other way while some Saudi princes subsidize Islamist forces. In the interest of giving Mr.Jackson real data, I turned to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, where I found the following:
“February 2010 Import Highlights: April 29, 2010
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in February 2010 has been released and it shows that one country exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 64 percent of United States crude oil imports in February while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 85 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for February were Canada (1.897 million barrels per day), Mexico (0.996 million barrels per day), Venezuela (0.913 million barrels per day), Nigeria (0.896 million barrels per day), and Saudi Arabia (0.881 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.540 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.371) million barrels per day), Angola (0.312 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.282 million barrels per day), and United Kingdom (0.260 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 8.680 million barrels per day in February, which is an increase of 0.226 million barrels per day from January 2010.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in February, exporting 2.490 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.593 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.134 million barrels per day.”
If we believe that the Saudis hold us in an energy death-grip, it is because we choose to ignore facts. Why do you suppose, then, that the US really doesn’t choose to at least try to shut down Saudi funding for Islamists? Perhaps Mr. Jackson knows.
(EDITORS NOTE: Right now the US imports more oil from Canada then from Arabia.)
“Mr. Jackson would not consider any sort of threat against Saudi Arabia because he imagines, like so many Americans, that the US imports most of its oil from that nation. From this false premise, he argues that the US would disrupt the region unless we continue the practice of looking the other way while some Saudi princes subsidize Islamist forces.”
This is why it’s pointless to debate a dishonest partner.
I ridiculed Gestell’s notion of military action against Saudi Arabia. Once again Gestell cannot quote exactly what I said, and instead substitutes “any sort of threat” for “military action”, and uses those substitute words to criticize me for offering a statement I never made.
I’m reacting to his insane idea of using military force against the Saudis. Gestell responds by stating that if I ridicule this ridiculous idea, I’m against “any sort of” action against the Saudis. What about targeted economic sanctions, or freezing their US assets, or denying them replacement equipment for their military and intelligence technology which we sold them, or refusing to defend them against attack by their neighbors? There are a variety of non-military ways to impact policy, but Gestell understands none of this when he offers his “practical approach” to bombing their military installations if they don’t comply with our demands. Worse, the only way he can respond to my criticism of him is to raise the straw man that I must therefore be against “any sort of “ action.
By the way, it goes without saying that if you object to a really stupid idea, it doesn’t mean that your embrace ‘doing nothing’ (“[Jackson] argues that the US would disrupt the region unless we continue the practice of looking the other way …”) I just pointed out a variety of things we can do that don’t involve military force against Saudi Arabia. I’m opposing a stupid “practical” idea proposed by Gestell. Only a moron would conclude from this that I therefore want to do nothing.
Gestell is also hung up on the fantasy that the US attacking Saudi Arabia would not be harmful to us or the world. Now forgetting for the moment how absolutely stupid his suggestion is that we fire on Saudi Arabia if we don’t get our way, I’ll pretend it’s actually a real “practical” policy and examine what he said.
I specifically stated that disrupting the flow of Saudi oil would impact us and the world, stating that we depend on “Saudi Arabia for a significant portion of our and the world’s oil!” Again, pretending that such an action would be inconsequential for us, other countries dependent on Saudi or Middle Eastern oil, and would have no real impact at all on our broader Middle East policy, to refute what I said once again Gestell has to ignore what I actually wrote about the fact that US military actions against SA would impact the ENTIRE WORLD, not just us.
He focuses only on US oil imports, quoting USEIA stats about our share of SA oil.
He suggests that shutting off .881 million barrels of SA oil to the US would not be economically devastating. This amount of oil is about the same amount of oil we get from Venezuela (.913) or Mexico (.996). Now, does anyone want to seriously argue that if Mexico or Venezuela shut off all their oil to the US tomorrow it would not have a “significant” impact on the US?
I chose the word “significant” in my original comments for a reason. I didn’t say it would be “crippling”, or “inconsequential”, or “easily replaced”, or “catastrophic”. I chose the word that accurately represented the impact such an action would have on the US economy, both by reducing our oil supply, and by the additional chaos such an action would cause in the world oil market, and for our overall Middle Eastern policy (“Not only would [Gestell’s] ‘practical’ policy result in chaos in the world energy markets, it would utterly destroy any opportunity for US success in the Middle East.”)
The fact is, anyone who suggests that we use military action against Saudi Arabia as a “practical” matter is a total f**king moron. If we wanted to pressure the Saudis, we’d use non-military methods like those I described above.
If Gestell really has a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University this country is in much deeper trouble than anyone could ever imagine. He’s arguing facts and policy like a community college drop out. He has absolutely no true grasp of the real world as it relates to this conversation, believing that the US could attack Saudi Arabia with no more consequence than attacking Trinidad or Tobago; and that jeopardizing as much oil as we get from either Mexico or Venezuela would have no appreciable impact on the US economy; and that the US attacking Saudi Arabia would not impact in any “significant” way (the term I used, that he dismissed) our entire effort in the Middle East?
By the way, did I mention that my Master’s Thesis was on Middle Eastern Oil policy? I actually have a real degree in a real area of expertise related to this conversation. Gestell continues to maintain that he has a Ph.D. from Harvard, and says he has a degree in political science, but refuses to state that his Ph.D. is in political science. For all we know, based on the way he reasons and the evasiveness he shows, he has a BA or MA in political philosophy from some university, and a Ph.D. from Harvard in an entirely unrelated field.
But, we’ll never know the truth because he’s a-feared that us Kon-servatives will hunt him down and do him harm if we ever discover his secret identity, so he just keep pretending to be edjukated while telling us all what fer.
Since his academic credentials are the only things Gestell cites as proof he knows what he’s talking about, it’s fair game to keep pressing him on this issue.
He’s a fraud, and an idiot.
Skurka,
Once again, I applaud your resolute refusal to address anything except for the absurd caricature of a non-existent argument that you’ve attributed to the booger joke tellers and psychologically ignorant primitives. It seems rather silly to respond since you are having an argument in which both sides are constructed purely in your own mind.
Now that you’ve enlightened us as to the psychological motivations for our irrational fear (or our blind, ignorant hatred – whichever suits your latest diatribe) of the Muslim race (and here I thought Islam was a religion – obviously subversive propaganda by the right-wing anti-Muslim American media) – a conclusion that you drew because we believe it is primitive and backward to threaten someone with death for satirizing your religion – I’m curious if you can provide us with a similar assessment for Muslim clerics who issue death decrees against fiction writers, documentary film makers, and religious leaders of competing theologies; or for suicide bombers who hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, or blow themselves up in crowded restaurants and buses; or for Muslim fundamentalists who riot, destroy property, murder and post death threats on the internet against satirical cartoon writers. Not because I actually value your opinion (because after the showcase of illogic and jabberwocky you’ve put on here, I can scarcely think of another person who I could possibly take less seriously), it’d just be humorous to see what sort of intellectual contortion you’re willing to resort to in order to defend utter and complete insanity and try to cast the alternative as irrational.
Chalk it up to whatever psychological disorder or deficiency that you like, but I am nothing but proud of the fact that I possess the moral clarity and mental capacity that you apparently lack to recognize barbaric and immoral behavior and differentiate it from rational, moral behavior. I am not a relativist, and being called irrational for it does not bother me – least of all coming from someone defending reactionary barbarism against individual liberties, such as freedom of speech. I’m not interested in exploring the cultural, social, and psychological reasons for your delusional thought processes based on the scant information I can glean about you from your posts at a political ‘blog and wrapping my conclusions about you in pseudo-intellectual psycho babble about your latent desires and hostilities, or shortcomings and inadequecies, so I will simply stand by my original assessment. You are an idiot. I cite as proof the entirety of your analysis from the beginning of this discussion. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by j5i: The Simpsons Never Did It http://bit.ly/c1yYhu...
[...] La réticence à discuter de l'Islam d'une manière franche, tout en critiquant le christianisme est à peine en passant limitée à The Simpsons. Que peut-on dire à propos de South Park et le prophète dont le nom Comedy Central n'ose pas dire? Si vous êtes un fan de South Park il ya un bonne chance vous êtes familier avec l'épisode "Simpsons [...] URL article original: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/04/27/the-simpsons-never-did-it/ [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nicholas Romyn, Lineboil.com, David Thorpe, dej rabel, A Walker and others. A Walker said: RT @dominionpundit: The Simpsons Never Did It: Offending Christianity=free speech. Offending #Islam is bigotry http://kl.am/bqrh #roft #tcot [...]
[...] The unwillingness to discuss Islam in a candid manner while criticizing Christianity casually is hardly confined to The Simpsons. for more click here [...]