Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] February 08, 2006, 10:00 a.m.Rage Against the Western Machine Claudia Rosett We’re at war. But only one side seems to get that. "Rage over cartoons†has been the gist of many a headline over the past week describing the violence with which masked gunmen and arsonist mobs in the Islamic world have been protesting the publication in Denmark five months ago of political cartoons caricaturing Mohammed. Rage, yes. But let’s please get over the idea that this latest violence has anything much to do with the cartoons. "Religion of Peace," Love & Understanding This is more of the same rage that for years - decades, actually - has brought us parades of masked gunmen, along with bombings, beheadings, the murder of aid workers, tourists, and journalists, the assaults on resorts in Kenya and Bali, on the trains and subways of Madrid and London, on the weddings, funerals, and religious ceremonies of Israel and post-Baathist Iraq. This is more of the same rage - inspired one may presume by factors other than Danish political satire - that produced that act of war known as September 11. With each step, we have looked for ways to defuse the anger by understanding the grievances. Bookshops have filled with volumes on the history of Islam, the wounded pride, the regional distinctions, the contending forces within Islam itself. Our political leaders, who have relatively little to say - and just as well - about Buddhism, Hinduism, or for that matter Animism, have taken to celebrating the end of Ramadan, invited Islamic moderates to their state dinner tables and told us over and over that Islam is a religion of peace. We have debated whether to describe those who deviate from this serene vision as Islamic radicals, Islamo-fascists, militant Islamists, or plain old evil-doers, terrorists, fascists, and thugs who happen to be Muslims. And as the Danish drawings have made world headlines in recent days, our statesman have given every sign of being more disturbed by the contents of the cartoons than by the grotesque and bullying violence of the response. From many quarters, we have been warned that we must above all exercise that Christian virtue of turning the other cheek - if not positively feeling the rioters’ pain. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, self-described chief diplomat of the world, has stepped into the cartoon fray, taking the time - while accepting a $500,000 environmental prize in the United Arab Emirates - to say he shares the “anguish†of Muslims over the cartoons, but urges them to “forgive the wrong they have suffered.†Bill Clinton has condemned the cartoons as “totally outrageous.†The Bush White House has agreed with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen that all sides should move ahead “through dialogue and tolerance, not violence†- as if all sides had committed acts of equal gravity. The State Department has trotted out a spokesman to pronounce the cartoons “offensive†and a spokeswoman to scold that “Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable†- a reprimand presumably meant not for the gunmen and arsonists but for the press that dared publish the cartoons. The press, which these days includes the Internet, has been struggling over whether to run the cartoons or not - a debate salted with allusions to Hamlet’s “To be or not to be,†to print or not to print. Two editors in Jordan who bravely reprinted the cartoons - reportedly on the theory that people should at least know what they are rioting about - have been arrested. Newspapers in Germany, Norway, France, Spain, Mexico, Iceland, and Hungary have run the cartoons. Many in the U.S. have given them a pass. The Times of London ran an editorial on the matter with links to the cartoons, explaining this was meant to underscore that the viewing of them is a matter of choice. And some Western newspapers and blogs have been prompted to review the vast archive of grossly Anti-American anti-western, and above all anti-Semitic cartoons published daily in the state-controlled press in the most dictatorial countries of the Muslim world. They will soon have plenty more to review. An Iranian state newspaper is holding a Holocaust cartoon contest. But all this might be chalked up as merely a sort of jarring cultural or religious misunderstanding, needing mainly a big dose of the patience, tolerance, and dialogue so many world statesmen have been urging - were it not for the violence, and the credible threats of violence. Palestinian gunmen have stormed the European Union offices in Gaza and threatened to kidnap Scandinavians and Germans. Mobs have attacked and torched the Danish embassies in Beirut, Damascus, and Tehran, with assaults for good measure on the embassies of Norway. The Danish cartoonist, his newspaper, and others who have published the cartoons have been getting bomb threats and death threats. Iran’s Holocaust contest is no joke not simply because it is sick - which it is - but because it is accompanied by Iran’s building of nuclear bombs, teaching and funding of terror, and officially announced plans to annihilate Israel. A Pain That We're Used to These things cross a line that separates “dialogue†from acts of terrorism and war. Whatever the offense, or lack of it, the real question for the free world is where we draw the line over threats and violent acts meant to control or kill us. Are there any grounds on which it is all right for Palestinians, swimming for decades in Western aid, to storm the EU offices in Gaza? Are there any grounds on which it is acceptable for embassies to go up in smoke because the authorities of Syria, or Lebanon, or Iran, do not protect them? Are there any grounds on which it is appropriate for a secretary general of the U.N. to treat such attacks as mere breaches of etiquette, pronouncing himself “alarmed†apparently in equal measure by cartoonists and gunmen? What’s noteworthy about the latest violence is not that it is unusual - but how very ordinary in so many ways it has become. Yes, of course, the grimly whimsical surprise is that this time the lightning rod has turned out to be not the famous London underground, or the grand train stations of Madrid, or the twin towers of New York, but a set of cartoons out of Copenhagen. The Danish drawings did not trigger some previously nonexistent fury. They have simply become the latest litmus test of how very much the worst thugs of the Islamic world believe they are entitled to get away with, whatever the pretext. As for the cartoons, what ought to jump out here is that it is not, in fact, common for the Western press to caricature Mohammed, or even to run pointed cartoons about Islam. One has to wonder if the organizers of the gunmen, arsonists and death-threat-deliverers (and it takes a fair amount of organization to get hold of Danish flags in Gaza, or burn an embassy in the police-state of Syria) had to scour the ample outpourings of the Western press looking for something, anything, over which to take offense, and - faced with reams of material trying to understand their pain - had to fall back as a last resort on the cartoons of Denmark. To what extent is the Western press already afraid to risk offending those who even before the recent protests had racked up a record of death threats and murder? If statehood, citizenship, and civilization itself are to mean anything, we are all in the end accountable for our own actions. When people riot and brutalize and burn, there are individuals in the crowds who are responsible. And in the places where this is happening, if the governments will not call these individuals to account, we need to hold those governments themselves responsible. Cartoons alone, to quote another line from Hamlet, are in a class with nothing more than “words, words, words,†and those are grounds on which newspapers, nations, and religions may have their disagreements and their dialogues. But when violence enters the picture, that is a matter for governments to settle, and in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives. - Claudia Rosett is a journalist in residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200602081000.asp 219199[/snapback] Why isn't Bush speaking out for freedom of speach? Why isn't he straightening out those protestors throughout the world. If you want to destroy Muslims, now you have the way. Just put up a billboard in the middle of each country with a certain cartoon on it. If anyone comes out to protest, blow 'em away! Is that a plan or what? 219265[/snapback] And you wonder why it scares many for a dem to be in charge of National Defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUdaREALsecTigers 2 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 If you want to destroy Muslims, now you have the way. Just put up a billboard in the middle of each country with a certain cartoon on it. If anyone comes out to protest, blow 'em away! Is that a plan or what? yeah...that's cute. What office are you running for? maybe you should send that quote to Dean. The Dean-Pelosi chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club has provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Reasoned dissent is patriotic, but serving as propaganda agents for mass murderers is something else. Now the Dem extremists are welcoming the compromise of clandestine programs to prevent terrorist attacks.They, not Bush, are flouting our laws. By encouraging the compromise of classified material. All the while we are spending millions investigating Scooter for exposing an agent which had already been exposed. Do you not see how wrong that is? I'm not defending him, but in the grand scheme of things, which is worse? You should be in the U. S. "defending" our country. I, for one, am glad this fight is at their house vs my neighborhood. I respect and admire the work that CL and all of our guys are doing. I think that is a major problem with the dems today. It seems they show no respect to anyone who doesn't further their cause. The "if you're not a card carrying liberal democrat, you're an idiot!" campaign being waged hurts them more than any scandal. Here's an idea...instead of wasting all of this time, energy, and money bashing all things republican, instead of undermining the fight against terror and those wanting to kill Americans, instead of whining about the deficit, instead of political grandstanding, why don't you (dem leaders) come up with some sort of thought out plan to correct these issues and present them to the American people. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 If you didn't want the job, you didn't have to sign up. 219264[/snapback] Oh, I definitely wanted the job, make no mistake about it and don't confuse me with being a whiner such as yourself. I'm just somewhat...annoyed...by people like you that make repetitive, stupid comments in regards to the war and try to undermine everything we're doing to protect your butt. If we weren't in Iraq, you wouldn't be packing up so many bodies would you? 219264[/snapback] You're half right. You figure it out. You should be in the U. S. "defending" our country. 219264[/snapback] You should be in Baghdad "defending" Saddam. I bet you could make a pretty good argument. I, for one, am glad this fight is at their house vs my neighborhood. I respect and admire the work that CL and all of our guys are doing. I think that is a major problem with the dems today. It seems they show no respect to anyone who doesn't further their cause. The "if you're not a card carrying liberal democrat, you're an idiot!" campaign being waged hurts them more than any scandal. 219293[/snapback] Very well put. Thank you. And don't think we're not aware of how the liberals are acting. Around here if you have a television in your place of duty you are forced to leave it on CNN so as to see how the liberals are criticizing everything we do and how they're trying to bring us down. Getting home to Fox News everyday is such a relief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Why in the hell are we not attacking Iran, N. Korea, Syria and others? We are the world police, aren't we? Do you want more American soldiers to die in Iran, N. Korea, Syria and other countries? Where do you draw the line? For all of you fiddle fart doubting Thomas' on here, I AM AN AMERICAN! I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. Unlike a party hard liner, I would not protect any policy or leader I disagree with. To do so would be to give up all independent thought and be led like a sheep to slaughter. What say you? ("BAAAAAAAAA?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 For all of you fiddle fart doubting Thomas' on here, I AM AN AMERICAN! I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. Unlike a party hard liner, I would not protect any policy or leader I disagree with. To do so would be to give up all independent thought and be led like a sheep to slaughter. What say you? ("BAAAAAAAAA?") 219297[/snapback] OKey dokey, tell us which democrat leaders you disagree with and do not support. Also which democrat policies and positions you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,339 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Why in the hell are we not attacking Iran, N. Korea, Syria and others?We are the world police, aren't we? Do you want more American soldiers to die in Iran, N. Korea, Syria and other countries? Where do you draw the line? For all of you fiddle fart doubting Thomas' on here, I AM AN AMERICAN! I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. Unlike a party hard liner, I would not protect any policy or leader I disagree with. To do so would be to give up all independent thought and be led like a sheep to slaughter. What say you? ("BAAAAAAAAA?") 219297[/snapback] They're next. And there won't be a thing you liberals can do about it. Because we have a strong President and administration who sees the danger posed by leaders who want us to die. I propose we have a signup list for all of those who want to defend our country from here. And from that list we will just let the terrorists attack you and your family. The rest of us will continue to support the fight elsewhere. And since we are not at war, I will tell my son that he is illegally murdering those good folks over there shooting at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Why in the hell are we not attacking Iran, N. Korea, Syria and others?We are the world police, aren't we? Do you want more American soldiers to die in Iran, N. Korea, Syria and other countries? Where do you draw the line? For all of you fiddle fart doubting Thomas' on here, I AM AN AMERICAN! I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. Unlike a party hard liner, I would not protect any policy or leader I disagree with. To do so would be to give up all independent thought and be led like a sheep to slaughter. What say you? ("BAAAAAAAAA?") 219297[/snapback] They're next. And there won't be a thing you liberals can do about it. Because we have a strong President and administration who sees the danger posed by leaders who want us to die. I propose we have a signup list for all of those who want to defend our country from here. And from that list we will just let the terrorists attack you and your family. The rest of us will continue to support the fight elsewhere. And since we are not at war, I will tell my son that he is illegally murdering those good folks over there shooting at him. 219359[/snapback] I never said your son was not risking his life illegally. I guarantee you that if terrorists come to my town, they won't last long at all. Their butts will be full of buckshot and in a hole before dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I had the good fortune to speak with some squids off the Ronald Reagan this week. Great group of young men; smart, motivated. Certainly proud that they are doing their job. As I am in Singapore these days, they had some great suggestions for how to apply the Singaporean custom of "caning" lawbreakers to the US judicial system. It was an elegant solution and is in keeping with the legal professions custom of sharing in the rewards of civil cases. The recommendation was that if a lawyer represents a defendant and then loses; the lawyer should share 1/3 in the punishment of his client. So in this case; that would generally mean that the lawyer would get anywhere from 10 - 25 strokes with the cane if he is unable to persuade the jury that a murderous, scum sucking, drug taking, thieving low life was entitled to walk the streets. I know this is a little off topic; but given Legal's comments, I thought it was appropriate. See, I think Shakespeare's recommendation was a little too harsh; so I think caning is a nice middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I had the good fortune to speak with some squids off the Ronald Reagan this week. Great group of young men; smart, motivated. Certainly proud that they are doing their job. As I am in Singapore these days, they had some great suggestions for how to apply the Singaporean custom of "caning" lawbreakers to the US judicial system. It was an elegant solution and is in keeping with the legal professions custom of sharing in the rewards of civil cases. The recommendation was that if a lawyer represents a defendant and then loses; the lawyer should share 1/3 in the punishment of his client. So in this case; that would generally mean that the lawyer would get anywhere from 10 - 25 strokes with the cane if he is unable to persuade the jury that a murderous, scum sucking, drug taking, thieving low life was entitled to walk the streets. I know this is a little off topic; but given Legal's comments, I thought it was appropriate. See, I think Shakespeare's recommendation was a little too harsh; so I think caning is a nice middle ground. 219432[/snapback] JAP, when your son gets arrested for commiting a crime (wrongly or rightly) make sure he doesn't hire a lawyer. The same holds true if you get a divorce or if someone runs over your wife and leaves her paralyzed from the neck down. Get up there and take what you get and keep on cussing those lawyers. What about those scum sucking low life rapist who had lawyers and spent 15 years in prison before DNA showed their innocense? You and your though processes are another threat to America and the system that makes her GREAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Legal, your profession should learn from the medical profession; "first do no harm".....when you adopt a restrained and prudent approach to your craft, then you'll get some respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Legal, your profession should learn from the medical profession; "first do no harm".....when you adopt a restrained and prudent approach to your craft, then you'll get some respect. 219612[/snapback] Respect from you would be revolting. I'd know I wasn't doing my profession or my duty to country properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Ex-CIA official rips war case Says Iraq data distorted to sway public By Cam Simpson Washington Bureau Published February 11, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The former CIA official charged with managing the U.S. government's secret intelligence assessments on Iraq says the Bush administration chose war first and then misleadingly used raw data to assemble a public case for its decision to invade. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ack=1&cset=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Ex-CIA official rips war caseSays Iraq data distorted to sway public By Cam Simpson Washington Bureau Published February 11, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The former CIA official charged with managing the U.S. government's secret intelligence assessments on Iraq says the Bush administration chose war first and then misleadingly used raw data to assemble a public case for its decision to invade. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ack=1&cset=true 219662[/snapback] There's no covering up the fact that Iraq didn't abide to the UN Resolutions. No matter how you cut it, Iraq brought this upon itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Ex-CIA official rips war caseSays Iraq data distorted to sway public By Cam Simpson Washington Bureau Published February 11, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The former CIA official charged with managing the U.S. government's secret intelligence assessments on Iraq says the Bush administration chose war first and then misleadingly used raw data to assemble a public case for its decision to invade. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ack=1&cset=true 219662[/snapback] There's no covering up the fact that Iraq didn't abide to the UN Resolutions. No matter how you cut it, Iraq brought this upon itself. 219691[/snapback] WRONG! Attacking a defenseless country is not the image of a conservative cowboy, why it is his. Him, captain chaos. NEO-Conservatives are strong on national defense, yes. But that's about it. Historically high deficits are another trait of today's conservative movement. Care to add to this list of blunders. Oh yeah, and while we are at it, Cheney is a terrible shot. First his daughter, then an Austin, Tx. attorney. I don't know where he [Osama] is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.-- President George W. Bush, May 13, 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.