Daffyd:

The problem with your argument is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the Islamicists decided to "do the Dan Rather" and fake some offensive cartoons, because the original works weren't inflammatory enough. After all, the originals were reprinted in Egypt a month after they originally appeared, and none of this happened.

(See http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html).

Taken to the logical conclusion, your argument would insist that no one say ANYTHING, because the same Islamicists could lie about what they said as well. Mark Steyn's piece is a fine example; I suspect some of what it says is mildly offensive to some Muslims, but could be twisted into something truly sickening by a good propagandist. (I thought to try, but I haven't the stomach to re-read my first drafts.)

I think that in classing Rose as an "unuseful idiot", you're doing him a disservice at best... and playing a fast hand of "blame the victim" at worst.

Pray reconsider?

cordially, de Doc

De Doc:

Taken to the logical conclusion, your argument would insist that no one say ANYTHING, because the same Islamicists could lie about what they said as well.

No, that would be "taken to an illogical conclusion," because I certainly never said you can't say anything that could be taken to be offensive; I said you shouldn't (without some really good and specific reason) publish things that are offensive.

And I apply this accross the board: I would include Hugh Hewitt's example of a cartoon of Jesus with a crown of dynamite instead of thorns after some nutter bombs an abortion clinic and claims it's in the name of God -- and yes, I am aware that one person who bombed abortion clinics said he was more interested in Nietzsche than the Bible; this is a hypothetical. Though I'm not Christian, I wouldn't publish that cartoon, because it is offensive by my standards.

Here, for me, is the test: would a rational, reasonable Moslem find the turban-bomb-Mohammed offensive? To me, the answer is very likely yes. So out of simple decency, I wouldn't do it. Not "would Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be offended," not "would Muqtada Sadr be offended," but a rational and reasonable Moslem standard.

Just as I would not publish a great many Ted Rall cartoons and Tom Tolles cartoons, and I would not have bought the television show the Book of Daniel; but I would have released the movie the Last Temptation of Christ -- because it is in fact a very pro-Christian movie that has, if you want to use the old phrase, a redeeming social purpose.

(As an aside, I conclude that virtually everybody protesting that movie never actually saw it, because their description was so wildly erroneous.)

In the present case, I resent being pushed into fighting a battle in the South when I was preparing to fight it in the North.

Here is a question I've wanted to ask for a long time: if you believe that offending Moslems is a good in itself, then would you support some priest or minister calling in TV crews to film him burning the Koran, then broadcasting that throughout the world?

Now that would certainly inflame the entire Moslem world. So should ministers across Europe start doing that?

Dafydd

Daffyd:

On the off chance that you might actually believe your strawman, I don't think offending Muslims is "a good in itself". Nor do I think we're at war with all Islam.

But your analogy is faulty, and illustrates the problem with your assertions.

What the Jyllands Posten did is not akin to a televised Koran-roast. What they did is ... rather like televising a sermon in which a minister held up a Koran and saying, "I think that many people are scared of criticizing this book, because some of Mohammed's followers may *kill them* for doing so."

Is that offensive? Probably, to some. It's also true. Right?

Now, let us assume that this televised sermon is taken up by the Islamicists. What do they do?

They take this sermon, "Adobe" the hell out of it, and make fake footage which falsely depicts the preacher in question saying that Mohammed is a sodomite, and a mass murderer, and a demon. They then release the doctored sermon... and people get killed in the resulting riots.

I cannot conceive of any reason the poor preacher should have refrained from making his initial opinions clear *for fear someone would distory what he really said, falsify video footage, and use the false footage to incite riots*.

Here's another analogy. You have, from time to time, indulged in some very amusing redistricting... "Sen. Kennedy (D-Margaritaville)" comes happily to mind.

But that's almost certainly offensive to the Kennedy family, and probably so to his constituents.

Question one: Why are *your* reasons for offering the offense worthwhile enough to trump the sensibilities of those offended?

Question two: Let's say that someone doctors a post or two, and asserts you wrote of "Sen. Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick)?" A bit more offensive, that. Should you refrain from your "redistricting humor", knowing that your posts lend themselves to that bit of plausible lie-mongering?

You write "...I certainly never said you can't say anything that could be taken to be offensive; I said you shouldn't (without some really good and specific reason) publish things that are offensive."

The Jyllands Posten's "good and specific reason" was to call attention to the fact that in Denmark, artists were fearful of any commentary on Islam, because the radical Islamists living among them were capable of murder... as the friends of Theo van Gogh knew all too well.

Why wasn't that good enough?

(BTW, even if we agree to disagree about Rose and the J-P, let us take a moment to recognize that the bulk of the Muslim community acted with great civility to the initial J-P cartoons. They objected, they wrote letters, but they were *overwhelmingly civilized* in their initial response. It took a calculated campaign by a small set of intolerant thugs, bolstered by outright lies, to inflame sentiment to the point where riots and deaths occured.

Let me emphasize that, Daffyd; not for your sake, but for any "kill 'em all" types who might be reading our discussion.

The overwhelming majority of the Muslim world responded to the original J-P cartoons in a civil, rational fashion, which gives the lie to the notion that such civil disagreement cannot occur with Muslims.

That point isn't being made loudly enough, nor in enough places. I intend to, once I can get back into my own blog. Traffic seems to have spiked there, and I can't get signed in just now.)

cordially, de Doc

De Doc:

1 Analogies

What they did is ... rather like televising a sermon in which a minister held up a Koran and saying, "I think that many people are scared of criticizing this book, because some of Mohammed's followers may *kill them* for doing so."

No, to do that, they would have published an editorial saying people were scared to criticize the Koran.

You'll have to explain to me why a picture of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban says "people are afraid of criticizing this book."

2 Ted Kennedy (D-Margaritaville)

Question one: Why are *your* reasons for offering the offense worthwhile enough to trump the sensibilities of those offended?

1. Because we're not at war with the Kennedys, or even the liberals;
2. Because not even the liberals believe that Ted Kennedy is literally God, and that insulting him is blasphemy;
3. Because we're dealing with civilized people who do not begin butchering people across the world when they get angry.

The Jyllands Posten's "good and specific reason" was to call attention to the fact that in Denmark, artists were fearful of any commentary on Islam, because the radical Islamists living among them were capable of murder... as the friends of Theo van Gogh knew all too well.

Why wasn't that good enough?

1. Because there was no connection between that message and the actual provocation;
2. Because the provocation did not discriminate between the intended targets and every other Moslem;
3. Because both the attack and its likely consequences should have been thought through more thoroughly and prepared for with more foresight -- rather than done thoughtlessly and and without any planning for what might follow;
4. Because we're already in a war with these terrorists, and any civilan attack should ideally be coordinated with the military part of the war, or at least carried out with some attention paid to that part -- and this was done in complete disdain for what anybody else was doing anywhere else in this war.

By the way, one of the consequences that should have been considered is how the EU would react: given their known cowardice, wasn't their own reaction -- that they should "work with publishers" to develop censorship rules -- also pretty inevitable?

I would argue that such provocation, the expected Moslem terrorist reaction, and the equally expected appeasement by the European Union, is wildly worse for the world than if the initial publication had been skipped in the first place.

You need to know who is at your back: look what happened to us at the first Battle of Fallujah when we overestimated our Iraqi allies. We were definitely worse off than we were before that battle. (The Iraqis are hugely improved now, but only because we trained them up for more than a year.)

BTW, even if we agree to disagree about Rose and the J-P, let us take a moment to recognize that the bulk of the Muslim community acted with great civility to the initial J-P cartoons. They objected, they wrote letters, but they were *overwhelmingly civilized* in their initial response. It took a calculated campaign by a small set of intolerant thugs, bolstered by outright lies, to inflame sentiment to the point where riots and deaths occured.

Isn't that an admission against interest that the cartoons did, in fact offend even the reasonable and moderate Moslems that we need to have on our side?

By not discriminating in the attack between the terrorists we are at war with and the moderates who might be our allies, Rose needlessly multiplied enemies and set back efforts to drive a wedge between these groups.

Think how much better it would have been to publish a bunch of cartoons mocking the terrorists themselves, showing them to be irreligious cowards who threaten women and children but were afraid to confront armed men! That would have continued to drive a wedge between the two groups, it wouldn't have offended reasonable Moslems, and it wouldn't have led to the mass protests and so many deaths.

If the imams manufactured their own cartoons, well, there's nothing you can do about that; but I'm not sure how many people would have believed the invented cartoons without the publication -- which anybody could check -- of the real anti-Mohammed cartoons.

This whole imbroglio is very similar to the despicable and repugnant cartoons and posters during World War II that depicted all Japanese are subhuman cannibals and demons -- without distinguishing between Japanese who supported the empire, Japanese (they were legion) who opposed the empire, or even Americans of Japanese descent, many of whom actually fought in our armed forced against the imperial Japanese or their Nazi allies.

All persons of Japanese descent were lumped together by race and collectively humiliated and offended. And among other things, it spread anti-Oriental bigotry across America, leading to widespread acceptance of the internment -- and by inference, contributed to anti-black and anti-Hispanic racism.

That was not our finest hour, and neither was this Jyllands-Posten's -- which, by the way, already apologized; so evidently it, too, regrets what it did.

Again, please note, de Doc, that I have said all along that now that this battle has started, we have to fight it. We no longer have a choice.

But I resent us having to fight battles picked by the enemy, not us; I would prefer that all battles be set up by the United States, on our terms.

So again I say -- thanks, Jyllands-Posten. Really appreciate it.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)