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
Mr. Mulligan,
I don’t believe Mr. Skurka has an argument/response for the questions you ask.
He’s also has repositioned himself and undercut his own argument. This began with his warning that insulting Islam is a way to get yourself killed and that he would stand clear of anyone who insults Islam so as not to be caught in the crossfire, yet now he says “Death threats” are simply that, threats. You can take them too seriously.. .”
If death threats are “simply that,” then Mr. Skurka’s desire to stand clear of anyone who provokes them means he suffers from the same irrational, unreasoning fear he believes has gripped you and I.
Because he’s confident that the odds are better that a person will be mugged by a fellow American, fear of being attacked by a terrorist are mostly unreasonable. At this early stage of terrorists bringing their war to our shores, his math is correct, but it doesn’t change the fact that every one of the 3,000 who died on 9-11 also had a greater chance of being mugged by an American, though all 3,000 would have been mugged and murdered the same day to equal the wholesale achievement of the radical Islamists.
The same odds will apply to the 100,000 who might die in a dirty bomb attack.
As I stated, Mr. Skurka is not sufficiently impressed with the determination, capabilities or body counts Islamic radicals and their Jihad have achieved thus far. He needs to see more before he will commit any real concern to the problem, or fear to any great degree for the lives of innocent people.
For you and I, the potential losses we might suffer in the next attack are unthinkable. Mr. Skurka, as least for now, simply doesn’t think it is worth thinking about.
Mr. Skurka also only recognizes half the lessons of history. He does not have the moral or intellectual courage to examine any more than he wants to see. The only lesson he takes from our experience with the Japanese during WWII, is that Americans irrationally and mindlessly hated them, something we magically got over when they stopped killing us. But Mr. Skurka only focuses on Americans, as if the Japanese were not part of the equation.
We did stop hating the Japanese when we killed enough of them to take the fight out of them, but more important was that the Japanese stopped hating us. As silly as it sounds to him, killing each other tends to cause hard feelings and gets in the way of meaningful understanding and dialogue.
The reality is that attacked by Japan, war and a lot of killing was unavoidable, so what better outcome under the circumstances than the relationship we now share with the Japanese people, Mr. Skurka?
Perhaps the most annoying aspect of Mr. Skurka’s argument is his belief that he has transcended the base emotions from which the rest of us humans suffer. Our unawareness of our primitive patterns of fear and hate is obvious to him, and he’s both frustrated and amused by our animal obliviousness.
A scientist, philosopher, theologian and careful study of nature and history; he thinks from on high. The lab monkeys under his study are not only incapable of comprehending him, they were never meant to, thus when they all spoke to him in perfect English one day, he didn’t even notice.
As I stated, Mr. Skurka is not sufficiently impressed with the determination, capabilities or body counts Islamic radicals and their Jihad have achieved thus far. He needs to see more before he will commit any real concern to the problem, or fear to any great degree for the lives of innocent people.
In absolute terms, the results of Islamic terrorism are not that terribly impressive, but that is not and was not the point of the discussion. The efficacy of successful Islamic terrorists is dwarfed in comparison to the efficacy of insane Islamic fundamentalist stripping the protection of individual liberties from Americans for whom they are supposed to be inalienable and guaranteed.
That Muslim fanatics suppress any type of thought or speech with which they disagree, whether the thought or speech comes from an esteemed academic intellectual or a silly booger joke sayer, is unacceptable in a secular society where the rights of free speech and thought and assembly are supposed to be inalienable and guaranteed by the government. Skurka believes that speech or thought that is insulting to some identity group does not deserve protection, and that death threats and murder are perfectly reasonable and expected responses by the offended party. That the government will prosecute the Islamic troglodyte who murders you outside your car because you drew a cartoon of his deity with a bomb wrapped in his head scarf is Skurka’s idea of a guarantee of free speech and free thought. But a guarantee works exactly the opposite: when you say something insulting and the insulted party threatens to come to your home and murder you, the government’s job is to protect you, the person engaging in your ostensibly guaranteed right to free speech, from the insane person who wants to kill you because his feelings were hurt. There is no right to not be offended either expressed or implied alongside the right to free speech and free thought. People who commit murder, or threaten to commit murder, because they are offended by something that someone else says or thinks are insane, primitive, reactionary thugs. And anyone who defends their insane, primitive, reactionary, thuggish behavior is just as bad.
Mr. Mulligan writes:
“There is no right to not be offended either expressed or implied alongside the right to free speech and free thought. People who commit murder, or threaten to commit murder, because they are offended by something that someone else says or thinks are insane, primitive, reactionary thugs. And anyone who defends their insane, primitive, reactionary, thuggish behavior is just as bad.”
While I know that my comments will draw the fire of Mr. Jackson, I think Americans have to remind themselves that within Islam, there is most definitely a ‘right not to be offended.’ For a devout Muslim, it is God himself who is insulted by the cartoons, humor, etc. and, as persons committed by ties of love and obedience to God, Muslims who take this seriously cannot (and do not) recognize that they are engaging in ‘primitive, reactionary, thuggish behavior.’ I’m not trying to justify this behavior–merely to point out that there are genuine, non-negotiable lines of division between people who prize “free speech and free thought” and those whose understanding of their religion commits them to take violent action. And this is why it is ultimately Islam itself that is the problem, because the behavior of the devout Muslims is based upon the teachings of Islam. Nor will it do for conservatives to get relativistic all of a sudden and reply “Well, that’s just one interpretation of Islam.” Agreed, but those who interpret their religion this way have made themselves our enemies. As for what Western nations should do–my answer is: protect the liberties of their citizens, require that Muslims living within their borders acknowledge the authority of the laws of the country in which they live, and enforce free press and free speech laws or guarantees without hesitation. No group should get a free pass permitting violence because it is offended.
I’m not trying to justify this behavior–merely to point out that there are genuine, non-negotiable lines of division between people who prize “free speech and free thought” and those whose understanding of their religion commits them to take violent action. And this is why it is ultimately Islam itself that is the problem… As for what Western nations should do–my answer is: protect the liberties of their citizens, require that Muslims living within their borders acknowledge the authority of the laws of the country in which they live, and enforce free press and free speech laws or guarantees without hesitation.
Well, I can’t quite believe it, but we have apparently found something we agree on! That has been the point I have been laboring to make since the start of this discussion. Although, in the interest of clarity for the benefit of Mr. Skurka, I should point out that I do not regard this behavior as primitive, reactionary and thuggish only when it is perpetrated by Muslims. And I do understand the sincerity of the Islamic faithful who make threats and commit acts of violence. But again, I am not a relativist. I couldn’t care less whether Muslims genuinely believe their behavior is righteous when they engage in intimidation, aggression, and murder against those they perceive to have slighted them. Objectively, that is primitive, reactionary, and thuggish.
Mr. Mulligan,
“In absolute terms, the results of Islamic terrorism are not that terribly impressive, but that is not and was not the point of the discussion. The efficacy of successful Islamic terrorists is dwarfed in comparison to the efficacy of insane Islamic fundamentalist stripping the protection of individual liberties from Americans for whom they are supposed to be inalienable and guaranteed.”
Other than a case being made that the net effects of threats create restrictions on liberty associated with security measures, I am not sure what liberties could be said to have been “stripped” from Americans “by” Islamic fundamentalists, so I’ll reserve full comment until I know your meaning. In the mean time, I am certain of those who have been stripped of that one very important liberty – their lives.
Jihad is the duty of all Muslims, according to the (insane) radical Islamic fundamentalists – be they threats of death or individual killings (as was the case with van Gogh) or larger-scale coordinated attacks as with the 9-11 operation or the Madrid bombings.
To limit this debate to just one particular way one may qualify as an infidel, such as drawing cartoons, is to miss the point. Nearly every American is prequalified, if not specifically scheduled for death. When radicals threaten infidels by name, such as with Parker and Stone, it is not as if they’re announcing that their intended victims have suddenly qualified for death, just that they have been moved up the priority list for this reason or that.
As for the ability to execute death threats, radical Islamo-facists currently hold the record for the most effective attack on our home soil in American history. We can assume the aim is to dwarf that with their next attack.
They might also opt to up the body count by a few, assassinating artists and writers here and there, but if we are resolved that being murdered for failing to follow the Islamic law of extremist Muslims is wrong and must be stopped, then the deaths of our artistic infidels can be considered no differently than the deaths of all the garden-variety infidels who died in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania pasture.
I am not sure what liberties could be said to have been “stripped” from Americans “by” Islamic fundamentalists, so I’ll reserve full comment until I know your meaning.
I meant the individual right to free speech and free thought, which has been most effectively suppressed by threats and acts of violence, such as those against the creators of “South Park” which inspired the original piece, with the full endorsement of the government that is supposed to guarantee those rights. On the contrary, government has made every possible effort to protect to the point of sanctifying violent and threatening Islamic speech while figuratively and literally criminalizing through “hate speech” laws and suppressive internal policies any semblance of thought or speech critical of Islamic despotism – a policy of which Mr. Skurka would undoubtedly be proud.
To limit this debate to just one particular way one may qualify as an infidel, such as drawing cartoons, is to miss the point.
True in the context of a broader debate about the nature of Islam perhaps, but the topic of the original piece and the ensuing discussion was the suppression of any sort of free speech, thought or expression by Islamic thugs. Acts of terrorism like 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings are much fewer and farther between, and serve a different strategic purpose, than death threats and fatwas by Muslims against individuals who dare to treat Islam the same way that we treat other religions and philosophies in a (marginally) free society. I don’t disagree with you in your assessment of Islamic terrorist attacks, but even if a large scale Islamic terrorist attack like 9/11 had never happened in the United States I would feel exactly the same way about the death threats against the booger joke tellers and the death threats against the theological fiction writers and the death threats against the Christian and Jewish religious figures and the murders of the documentary film makers and journalists. I can’t speak for you, but contrary to Mr. Skurka’s assertion, my opposition to the suppression of speech and thought by authoritarian thugs transcends race and religion, and did not suddenly arise after 9/11 triggered some latent machismo desire for blood that went unfulfilled. It is the disgust that any thinking human being with the slightest regard for reason and individual liberty should feel toward mindless barbarism by totalitarian despots. If any other major religion made a practice of engaging in the same type of behavior I would rightly condemn that as well. However, “South Park” makes for an interesting case study in that regard. The show has relentlessly mocked, satirized, and blasphemed Christianity and Jesus, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the concept of religion in general since it first aired in 1997, but not until they broached the subject of Islam – ironically, to satirize the political correctness undertaken to avoid the very type of intimidation and death threats they received – were they subjected to threats of death or harm.
Gestell – Don’t get your hopes up with Dr. Jackson. He reserves the right to rephrase your statements or take words out of context, but don’t dare paraphrase him! See, e.g., here. Note his reply, and his specific, concrete ‘policy recommendations’.
Ask him how to apply that to Saudi Arabia. I’m kinda curious. He admits now that “There are a variety of non-military ways to impact policy”, but that’s just because it’s convenient at the moment. It wasn’t convenient back then, so, well…
“True in the context of a broader debate about the nature of Islam perhaps…”
I agree, but from my perspective, I don’t think there really is anything but a broad debate about the nature of (radical) Islam and dying at the hands of those inspired by it. Singling out particular murders and analyzing motives strikes me a bit like the thinking that led to hate-crime standards – this type of murder is more heinous than that type of murder.
A component of radical Islam is the suppression of our ability to speak freely, but for westerners in general, the primary component ought to be the pledge by radicals to suppress our ability to breath, or at the least subjugate us to their will (whether we draw pictures of Muhammad or not). As Gestell pointed out, from the perspective of radical Muslims, it is about breaking Islamic law.Free speech, per se, isn’t even on their radar.
The free speech rights of Stone and Parker have not been taken, it is just that threats of death or terrorism had a chilling effect on the network they work for. We and other countries are in the process of killing and capturing the leaders who inspire, authorize and condone these death sentences, and in as much as these leaders encourage individual Jihadists and organize the larger-scale terrorist attacks that embolden these individuals even more, the two issues are intertwined.
In short, we’ve got a job to do killing and capturing radical Islamic leaders behind murder of any scale, and great resources have been dedicated to ensuring attacks like 9-11 do not happen again. If we are successful, it should have a chilling effect on those who see themselves as part of the Jihad and obligated to follow the lead of the Jihad’s leaders – to threaten or kill the Stones and Parkers of the world. The war on terrorism is by default a war on the fascists who would inhibit our free speech.
I think the comparison to the Japanese is a good one. Both the Japanese warrior class and radical Islamists are determined to the point of suicide, and impossible to deal with in any way other than with force. It also is interesting to note that near the end of WWII we believed Japan may have been in possession of the technology to build an atom bomb, courtesy of the Germans. We are in a similar situation now, as we believe radical Islamists may soon have access to nuclear weapons courtesy of Iran, which is a real reminder about the nature of what we are up against. The freedom to air a cartoon featuring Muhammad is something a free nation values and should fight for, but we really have to get our priorities in order. We fight for security, which is what underwrites our liberty.
There is no free speech without security, and there will be no security until the fight is taken out of our enemy. It’s the head of the snake we’re after.
Ah yes. It didn’t take long for the master himself, Raymond Ingles, to join the dissembling.
For those of you unfamiliar with Raymond, he contacted me a few years back, telling me he had problems with one of my essay. I’m not afraid to defend my ideas, so I offered to facilitate asking the IC to publish a formal response by Raymond. If what I said made sense, it should hold up to public scrutiny.
I was initially confused when Raymond began to attribute things to me that I never said. I found out later that he never actually read my entire essay, and never actually intended to challenge the entire article — which was a series of foundational steps leading to a conclusion. Ignore or omit any of the steps, and you don’t have the support I intended to back my position. Instead, by his own admission which I was able to pull out of him at a later date, Raymond admitted that he only read parts of the essay, and just filled in the rest with a general exploration of the issue. In doing this he rejected many of the things that I had also rejected, but made it appear as if it was my thesis he was objecting to. That’s when I began to understand who and what he was.
To give you a great example of how Raymond thinks, take this logic advanced by Raymond. A few paragraphs into my essay Raymond found a sentence where I used “i.e.” instead of “e.g.” to illustrate a point. Because of this he stop citing what I actually said and proceeded to write a 10,000 word response to what he said I might have meant because I used i.e. instead of e.g. as a shorthand for the phrase “for example”. Because of this he claimed to have carte blanche to attribute things to me that I never said to ‘disprove’ my thesis. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/#comment-80430
This is why no one takes him seriously. In fact, the word “dishonest” or “[lacking] honesty” constantly arises from others (Mountain Man, Patrick Mulligan to name two recently), in addition to my own assessment of Raymond, whenever you enter a discussion. The subject matter doesn’t even matter — science, politics, religion; the characterization of you is always the same.
“And you STILL wonder why people call you dishonest?”
Mountain Man http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/22/why-obama-is-failing/#comment-79769
“You seem to have a much deeper mistrust of particular administrations overseeing particular issues that are important to you – the very same selective outrage you are accusing conservatives of … I just find it ironic that you are so perturbed by ostensibly the same behavior coming from conservatives. More than anything, I hope, more in the interest of your own sanity than anything else, that you don’t honestly consider yourself a libertarian in any sense other than party affiliation. The Libertarian party as a political body comes probably closer than any other to the consistency of principle you desire, but small “l” libertarian principles don’t mesh well with the positions and policy you’ve advocated here in the past.”
Patrick Mulligan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/31/do-obamas-czars-need-congressional-approval/
“Since I didn’t set out any “chronology” or make any accusation whatsoever, let alone against any particular individual, again, I’m left without any response. Whether Phil Jones was in charge of the department that destroyed the un-adjusted data currently being used in climate models or whether it was destroyed as a result of a conspiracy by space aliens is utterly irrelevant to anything – particularly anything I’ve said in this discussion. I suppose it’s progress though. 2 posts ago that data had never been destroyed at all. Now it’s been destroyed but it’s not Phil Jones’ fault. And all it cost me was losing an argument I didn’t make.”
Patrick Mulligan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/comment-page-2/#comment-80489
It’s a chronic problem we face when debating the Left, whether it’s Gestell making up his credentials and making up words I and others never actually uttered, or Raymond’s overall propensity to just make things up period.
This is also the problem Raymond has with lifting partial quotes, like he did. Here’s the full exchange:
Raymond: “What’s my policy prescription for making the terrorists treat US prisoners fairly? I don’t have one”.
Phil: “That is painfully obvious.”
Raymond: “… and neither do you, it’s worth noting.”
Phil: “On the contrary. I expressed my policy quite clearly. Kill as many of them as we can, and lock the rest of them up (or as many as we can) for as long as we can. People who are dead or behind bars can’t go around cutting people’s heads off with a rusty saw. That will solve the problem of prisoner mistreatment by the enemy by eliminating the enemy. This will “reduce the number of [western] prisoners” held by terrorists” Your faux concern for the civil rights of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — losing sleep over whether he had the full three commissioned officers at his hearing or only two — is a smokescreen for another agenda as you were previously called on. You sanctimoniously call the desire to defeat truly evil people by killing them as a “revenge-driven tribal culture, this is bound to lead to an escalating fight.” This is pure bullsh*t. Even Obama has had to acknowledge that killing more terrorists in Iraq in the last 12 months (the surge) has led to fewer terrorist attacks and kidnappings. The effective use of force works every time when coupled with the political will to win. That’s what separates WWII from Vietnam, and people like me from Liberals and Democrats today. If we followed your reasoned policy we’d still be in a heightened state of terrorism in Iraq today.”
So, Raymond lifts a partial quote of mine where I’m talking about capturing or killing terrorists on a battlefield and applies it to a discussion of attacking the Saudi Arabian military if they don’t do as we tell them. And he still wonders why no one takes him seriously.
Since one can’t have an honest debate with a dishonest partner, there’s really no point in having a conversation with him.
Some of you have written me off line about my absence the last few months in these forums. I appreciate the concern, but I’ve just been extremely busy.
As I’ve shared with some of you, I’m writing a book with one of the Apollo astronauts. In a strange way I actually have Raymond Ingles to thank for this. He contacted me after reading my essays on global warming, and was particularly amused by the mental gyrations Raymond and others have gone through to prop up the phony conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. We became good friends and decided to write a novel together. We hope to have the first draft finished by the year’s end. When we’re farther down the road I’ll provide more public details.
Consequently, I’ve been spending a lot of time in Houston, and am returning there again shortly. In addition I’ve decided to take the summer off and do a bit of international traveling. So, other than a few days here or there, I’ll be pretty much out of pocket until August or September.
Therefore, as a general note, unless Gestell has any interest in coming clean about his real credentials, I’m not particularly interested in continuing this discussion. And as usual, Raymond really has nothing of substance to contribute. Since we all know who Raymond is, continuing to point out the obvious about him quickly becomes tedious and redundant.
I’m delighted that Mr. Jackson has something else to do with his time. For some reason he got obsessed with the question of my graduate education and just wouldn’t get over it. As Raymond noted, Mr. Jackson’s vaunted real-world savvy didn’t prevent him from making proposals for US action at least as vague as anything I suggested. But, since Mr. Jackson is such a real-world guy, I guess he expected readers to lap this up. I tried to play the game of who can be nastier against Mr. Jackson, but he’s really good at it. And I’m much too nice to continue on this subject.
Again, nice try Gestell. You’ve claimed in previous posts to have a Ph.D. from Harvard, but this is obviously misleading. Sadly, you cite your phony Ph.D. to support what you say. As long as you phony up your credentials, I’ll continue to point it out. If you think it’s “nasty” to call a fraud a fraud, well, it’s something I’ll just have to live with …
By the way, there’s nothing “vague” about proposing that we attack Saudi Arabia. Rather, it’s incredibly stupid to make this suggestion. Glad to keep pointing that out too.
Maybe one day someone from the Left will actually engage in a serious debate. Until then, they remain a source of amusement for all of us, in a sad sort of way.
We and other countries are in the process of killing and capturing the leaders who inspire, authorize and condone these death sentences…If we are successful, it should have a chilling effect on those who see themselves as part of the Jihad and obligated to follow the lead of the Jihad’s leaders
Call me a pessimist, but short of literally killing every practioner of Islam on the planet, I don’t see our “war on terrorism” accomplishing anything of the sort for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that we refuse to properly identify that with which we are at war. In all practicality, regardless of how many cave dwellers we kill at 2 million dollars a piece with high-tech bunker buster bombs in Afghanistan, we will still have domestic practioners of Islam issuing and executing death threats against writers, theologians, philosophers, academics and anyone else who in their estimation violates the tenets of their religion. They are not going to be killed or captured in the “war on terror”, and consequently they have little reason to be disincentivized from acting by the “war on terror”. But they SHOULD be dealt with severely when they try to silence their foes by murdering or threatening to murder them rather than being coddled, made excuses for, and in fact having the government pass laws and rules supporting their cause to prevent everyone else from being able to speak and think freely. And that’s really the issue that is highlighted by this incident.
OK, I’ll call you a pessimist.
You might be right, but I think the people you have concerns about are the tail of the snake. They are the most gutless soldiers of the Jihad, and cannot operate much more than their mouths without a revered figure in robes sitting cross-legged on the side of a mountain to inspire them.
As we carve away at the more capable and charismatic leaders, those who move up to replace them will be found lacking, commanding less and less respect, less and less influence.
At this point we really do know our enemy, and those in charge of defeating him are executing this strategy. As we kill or capture key players, younger male Muslims will have fewer and fewer heroes, as only living, effective warriors can rise to hero status in a Jihad.
Geronimo was a legend because he was an effective warrior who avoided capture for so long. Had he been shot dead on his second raid, we wouldn’t know his name.
Another factor to consider is that killing experienced radical leaders, and those with potential to become leaders, helps the moderates who have been shivering on the sidelines magically find the courage to step up and lead, themselves.
My hope is that in the end, the radicals among Islam will have to face the fact that they fail far too much to be Allah’s chosen people, and they’ll wise up to the leaders who encourage them to not only give their lives, but to add to the embarrassment – perhaps becoming more of a joke than even the underwear bomber, who scorched his manhood for Allah.
How do you say, “F.. that sh..” in Arabic?
I have all the same concerns you have, but I think the problems work themselves out if we deal with the worst of the radicals.
I am not qualified to know the best way to protect ourselves. But I ponder this: from a practical standpoint, threatening Saudi Arabia may be too risky to be a good idea. But then again, drawing pictures of Muhammed is also. (Even Bill O’Reilly said in so many words “what were they thinking?”)
So, I have these theories: (1) Just because you decide to lay off the obvious and deliberate religious insults, doesn’t mean the terrorists have won, and (2) if we thought it were a moral imperative to change what the Saudi’s were doing, we would proceed.
I think the problems work themselves out if we deal with the worst of the radicals.
I wish you were right, but considering the 1500 years of Islam’s history thus far, I think that is extremely overly optimistic. Especially considering the prosecution of the “war on terror”.
I didn’t say it would be a permanent solution. If it were, just one war is all any country would ever have to fight.
What is permanent, anyway? We could end up fighting the Japanese again. And yes, Mr. Skurka, if Japan should strike us with a nuclear attack and incinerate a couple million of us, we’re likely to start hating them for it.
It’s marketing 101.
The following two articles from Capitalism Magazine pretty well summarize the discussion we have had here, particularly the contrast between Mr. Skurka’s views and mine:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/5826-Draw-Mohammed-America.html
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/5827-Why-James-Taranto-Clueless-Mohammed-Drawings.html