Yesterday, I was speaking with a friend who has inside knowledge about the episode of Yale and the Danish cartoons–you know, the story of how Yale University Press, together with the Yale administration, insisted at the last minute that Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World be published without the cartoons and, indeed, without any depictions of Mohammed. John Donatich, director of the Yale University Press, and various members of the Yale Administration covered themselves with ignominy both in their original decision to censor Professor Klausen’s book and in their response to the almost universal criticism their decision occasioned. “We deplore this decision and its potential consequences,” wrote Cary Nelson, President of the AAUP in a blistering open letter titled “Academic Freedom Abridged at Yale Press,” which sums up the case nicely.
My friend speculated that Yale would seize upon Friday’s attack on Kurt Westergaard, the 75-year-old Danish illustrator who drew the most famous of the cartoons, to justify their despicable behavior last Fall. Yale spokesmen, many readers will remember, said that the chief reason they censored Professor Klausen’s book was because they feared Muslim violence if they included the representations of Mohammed. Not that such fears are groundless. They’re a touchy lot, these disciples of the religion of peace. Just recall what happened at the Westergaard homestead on Friday. “An axe-wielding Somali extremist,” read a story in the Times (the real one, not the New York knock-off), “broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard on Friday. . . by breaking a window.” Westergaard fled into a specially reinforced “panic room” while the intruder “shrieked about blood and revenge, as he smashed the axe in vain against the bathroom door.”
As I mentioned yesterday, the whole idea of having “panic rooms” in order fend off the Paynim Foe sticks in my craw. I don’t deny the prudence of having a bolt hole. If your neighborhood is infested by axe-wielding Somalis, I’d positively recommend one. But to make retreat into an article of policy when dealing with fanaticism is unwise, not to say cowardly and, in the end, counterproductive. (You hope by cowardice to avoid an unpleasant fate: generally, your cowardice guarantees that such a fate, which you might have avoided by stalwart resistance, befalls you.)
Google: About JCPA-Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons and in Muslim Children’s books
Yes, it is quite interesting that it seems perfectly ok for cartoonists to portray certain people, their religion, and their religious icons in a certain way…and yet, when the shoe is on the other foot…
Too bad that Kurt didn’t have a .12 gauge shotgun handy. The Somali thug would have learned the lesson of “never take a knife to a gun fight”.
Yale’s decision brings to mind the quote by Hermione Granger in Harry Potter’s “The Phiosopher’s Stone” (p. 216):
“Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.”
By ducking on the issue, Yale only showed its true fear of offending Islam. Amazing?!?
The religion of peace at it again. It is like every day now.
Failure to stop drill is in order. It is, two to the body, and one to the head.
Well it’s easy to be offended when because of the introduction of Islam your culture went from being scientifically advanced to basically nothing more than people who bang their foreheads on the floor five times a day. When’s the last time anyone bought something invented in an Islamic culture? Name another group who is upset people didn’t stay in the 12th century with them.
John Donatich, director of the Yale University Press, was faced with a decision that most would avoid. However, he framed the question of printing the cartoons in a way that allowed a servile response.
The cartoons are no different than the statue of Buddha that the Taliban destroyed. The cartoons are no different than pressing for the burqua to become as acceptable as jeans.
Mr. Donatich framed the problem as a security issue, not a collision of cultures. It was a convenient approach, but lacked grit. Worse, he set the pattern for future responses. We will, each and every one of us, reap the whirlwind of his decision later. For now, he is safe, but we are less so.
When will you people face reality? Is it not obvious that the triumph of Islam is inevitable?
Every day, more Muslims enter this country. Every day, more Muslim babies are born while you kill your children in unholy abortion mills.
Every day more mosques are built while your churches are converted into mosques, fall into disrepair, or are used as public latrines.
You must cease oppressing Muslims. You must cease insulting Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw). You must cease warring against Allah (swt) and fighting the spread of Islam.
You must discard your man-made laws and systems of government and implement Allah’s (swt) Law (Sharia).
Time grows short. Renounce your false religions now. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
The quandary that we are facing is how to contend with the irony of individuals using the freedoms and traditions of western society in order to destroy it.
Ain’t no problem with “radical islam” that a string of neutron bombs wouldn’t fix.
American Muslim:
Surely you jest, if not…kill me now rather than live in you apes**t world.
This battle has been going on for over a thousand years….its not new. This is the true Irony that seems to evade just about everyone on this website. There are a few people here and there that are able to place the Islamic/Christian tug of war into context, but not enough to bring focus to the issue. This is probably why solutions are so few and far between as well, everyone keeps taking snapshots instead of looking at the entire timeline, starting from the year 325 AD until today.
#8. American Muslim.
Tell that to the Persians.
It won’t be long before the opposition cries out “Death to Allah” (swt)
I won’t be surprised if, as a result of this on going revolution, they revert to Zoroastrianism. They were already an empire before the bedouins showed up at their doorstep.
Muslims aren’t taking over this country. The Hispanics are. And they happen to be good Roman Catholics or evangelicals. Haven’t seen you guys do much to convert them. Why? Because they can’t part with Mother Mary, La Virgen de Guadalupe, patron saint of the Americas. Not just North. We’re talking Central. And South.
I’ll believe what you say when, at the Home Depot, I see Arabic script under an English sign. Right now, all I see are English and Spanish.
I’ll believe in what you say when, on the phone calling a company or government office, I get a “Press 2 for Arabic”.
As someone of Filipino descent, I have a personal axe to grind against your kind. My people were kidnapped and enslaved by Moslem raiders. To this day, the word Visayan means slave in Indo-Malayan languages. I’m not too happy about that. You don’t see me strapping a bomb, do you?
Our Constitution’s framers were wise enough to recognize that inoffensive speech required no defending. They believed that no one had the right to restrict speech to avoid offending the sensibilities of others, and therefore, they explicitly stated this in the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Roger,
Love your writing (I honestly do) along with your wry sense of humor. Now comes the but.
But, Roger, if the followers of Muhammad request, even demand, that we not depict their prophet, what’s
so bad about that?
Look, I remember when the whole Danish cartoon thing was going down, and I saw it as a ludicrous issue.
Freedom of speech allows me to say just about anything, even to yell, theatre in a crowded firehouse if I so desire.
Back then, sir Roger, I even wrote a few mocking missives about Muhammad and his followers. Maybe even posted a cartoon or two that
drew the ire of some ardent religious followers of his. But, I thought, heck, what’s a threat or two amongst friends?
Looking back on the whole brouhaha, though, gives me some perspective.
I no longer do cartoons that show Muhammad getting his head chopped off by a fellow Muslim who
attacked him due to a case of mistaken identity. Trouble was, since the poor fellow never saw a picture
of Muhammad, he mistook him for an infidel and went and chopped his head off.
I now see the controversy in a whole new light.
Furthermore, I don’t have a panic room because I don’t need one. I live my life making a real attempt never to offend anyone. I’m polite
even when my order from the dollar menu at McDonald’s gets screwed up and I end up with
a diet coke when I ordered iced tea. I drink the tea. Eat my side salad. (a quintuple bypass ended my burger days) And I speak to my wife
politely and don’t have other women like other MadMen. For my vocation truly is creative director, adman.
Really, I just have one request. No, wrong word. A demand. Being a devout Catholic, I believe in going to mass every Sunday, and to
confession once a month like clockwork.
And since I live in a Chicago high rise with a nice Muslim family in the building, I do have to insist that they follow my religious belief
system. Mass every Sunday and. Oh, sorry, I just outlined my religious requirements.
So, anyway, two months ago when the Muslim family, one child and two adults, moved into the building, I politely let them know
that I want them to go to church every Sunday and confession once a month. Oh, there I go again. Repeating myself.
Anyway, the next Sunday, I didn’t see them at church, which is just up the block. So I knocked on their door again and asked if
they went to a different church or went at a different hour than I. They informed me that this is a free country; that I had no right to
impose my religion on them.
So I had no alternative. I killed them.
The fact is, there is a prejudiced anti-Islamic attitude in the West, due to 9/11 being the only thing associated with Islam in the media, which is already liberal and slanders most religions anyway. Most people who have commented (but not all) show their utter ignorance and bias towards Islam. While freedom of speech and artistic expression exists, people also have a right to anger if what is sacred to them is mocked and ridiculed. Many in the West are so far removed from religion or any concept of G-d in the trend of submitting to the whiny atheist minority, they forget that many in the world DO hold some things sacred and above a lousy cartoon.
We contend by exposing and beating the enemy into submission. It works every time. Spread the word.
LMAO at the American Wuslim!
I think the attacks on yale over this are ironic.
They’re being accused of censoring free speech, when the whole affair is over their own decision to publish a detailed and frank discussion of what happened.
They chose to do that, with their money: pajamas media didn’t, rupert murdoch didn’t, rush limbaugh didn’t – yale did. Yale is a private company. It doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy somebody else’s thirst for a spectacle. If PJM disagrees with the decision, then by all means start publishing books yourself. Then you can publish all the things you think ought to be published. Meantime, you’re just a spectator.
Yale apparently made a conscientious decision to leave out the cartoons, which add nothing to the debate (aside from the fact that they’re rubbish) and they can be obtained trivially from any number of online sources. Given the substance of what is in the book itself, that’s hardly cowering. They’re just avoiding the most pointlessly stupid responses from the lowest form of mouth breathers – the sort not intelligent enough to actually READ the book.
If yale had published the cartoons and a resulting spate of idiocy left a couple more christians dead in some unpleasant part of the world, I hardly see what they would achieved. The people making the decision didn’t personally need to worry about that – they’re quite safe from the consequences. I think the discussion itself is worth way more than the cartoons – so good on them for publishing.
As an alternative to the same old same old and for a unique insight to Arab life, Semitic ideas, the Muslim hajj and the life of the hajj pilgrims in the mid 19th century; I recommend reading “Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah” by Sir Richard F. Burton.
Burton was a British army officer who succesfully disguised himself, not as a convert to Islam, but as a born Muslim. In this disguise he made the great pilgrimage to Madhina and Mecca in 1852. His book, first published in 1855, describes this dangerous journey. If discovered he would have been instantly killed as an apostate. When he revealed his true infidel English identity to his personal travelling servant at the completion of the hajj, that poor man had a meltdown.
There is much about the “Arab Street” in Burton’s book that is very relevant to today. It is fascinating and sometimes eerie to compare the Muslim thoughts and words recorded by Richard Burton in 1852 with the contemporary thoughts and words expressed by Muslims in 2010.
Apart from that it’s an exciting adventure written in a pungent and uncompromising style by a great explorer. This is real stuff, not some TV poseur or Hollywood fabrication.
This Der Spiegel article is an excellent article –
After Attack on Danish Cartoonist :: The West Is Choked by Fear
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669888,00.html
With the PM assessment
“The list of the things Muslims are offended by would take over a culture..”
#8 American Muslim. During the time when Muslims invaded Europe they encountered and overcame peasants who had no weapons and no means of communicating the location of any current attack. Things have changed. Be content with your freedom to worship as you please. We are content with our guns and Bibles.
As I observe the various temper tantrums that arise from every perceived anti-Muslim offense, the offended often reminded of two-year old children. Should we maybe refer to the “Religion of Peace(R.O.P.)” as the “Religion of Toddlers(R.O.T.)”?
15. rachel peepers:
That was awesome! It was far better than the article! If you had a website, I’d read everything you wrote! If you had a Facebook page I could become a fan of, I would! Keep up the good work!
regards
Here’s something VERY offensive for the Muslims to want to behead me over:
“Morkhammed was actually an alien from outer space who changed his name when he came to Earth. It’s TRUE!
That’s right folks. Morkhammed was an alien. He came to Earth in a giant watermelon from the planet Orkhammed with a mission to observe human behavior. All the people who gathered and ate the watermelon released him on the world. He had a contact who he often called on his Koranophone. That contact was named “Orson Orslam.” Morkhammed changed the name to Islam because it sounded like a devastating professional wrestler move. And everybody knows that Morkhammed loved pro wrestling! It’s true!
Next Morkhammed got bored just observing humans and decided to take over the world. Morkhammed decided after a couple of failed attempts that taking over the Earth by being nice was going to be a more difficult enterprise than beating his companion Mindy. So he wrote up a military Earth-conquest manual and called it the Koran. Then, using this newly written manual of destruction, he started murdering everybody who disagreed with him and raping and genitally mutilating the women he captured and enslaved. It’s true!
Morkhammed then decided that his traditional greeting of “Na-Nu Na-Nu” sounded too foreign so he changed the words to “Allahu Akbar” and started saying this new phrase before beheading somebody. It quickly caught on and one can hear that same phrase being shouted today before a Muslim kills somebody. It’s true!
Morkhammed started a printing press to get the word out about the new warfare tactics. He enlisted everybody who he hadn’t killed into his new army and made them pray to him 5 times a day. Then he started a time of fasting, called Ramadan, to starve his army into total loyalty. It’s true!
Eventually he ended up with so many slave women that he couldn’t remember their names, so he started making them wear burqas so he couldn’t see their faces and therefore wouldn’t have to remember their names. Also, most of his slave women were horrifyingly ugly and he really didn’t want to see their faces because he easily got scared turtle syndrome. It’s true!
Finally, Morkhammed decided to drop the “r” and “k” from his name because he had had a nasty incident with a pig. Pork was thereafter considered “haram” or forbidden. It’s true!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of Morkhammed and the invention of Islam. It’s true!”
The sensitivities of various groups is getting boring and tiring. You can only be offended by speech if you believe that what is being said is true. The truthfulness of any offensive speech is proportional to the number of folks who complain about it. If you believe that whatever is being said about you is offensive, you have no right to complain. You do have the right to explain that what is being said is in error. You do not have the right to stifle the speech of others.
Yale claims to be sensitive to religious feelings which is a bald face lie. Just look at what is written about Christianity. They arent sensitive to religion, they are quivering groveling cowards.
Claiming victim hood, claiming offense is just a way to control the dialogue. It is a way to crush there opponents through censorship.
The most vociferous opponents of jihad should be peaceful, moderate Muslims. They should be turning in every Imam, every radical, every Muslim advocating violence or gathering terror type weapons to police. When that happens I will believe in moderate Islam.
I have the right to offend you.
You have the right to be offended.
Neither have the right to commit violent acts against each other over whats been spoken.
Thats freedom of speech in a free US, deal with it. If it changes, then freedom of speech has ceased.
Islam is bad.
Many, though not all, the foregoing comments seem unhinged. Moreover, they don’t directly address the central point Mr. Kimball makes: we must actively defend our rights to express freely, openly and safely our thoughts, beliefs, opinions, emotions against the freelance of offended Muslims.
Let me note just one problem which would probably preclude Mr. Westergaard from defending himself and his granddaughter with force against ax-wielding Somali home invaders and would tend toward installation of a “panic room” instead.
In most states here in the US of A, anyone may use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself & his family against home invaders, because the law presumes that in his own home, a man may reasonably fear for the physical safety & lives of himself & family at the hands of home invaders, based almost entirely on the invasion of the home itself. Moreover, in most states, there is no requirement to retreat in the face of physical threat; a man may stand his ground against any attacker. These are corollaries of the right to self-defense, a principle of common law in the US (and until recently, all other English-speaking countries). Finally, Americans are generally permitted to own firearms and other weapons; and Americans have exercised this right historically, to the extent of an estimated ratio of one firearm for every adult American.
In many European nations, these legal realities are almost wholly reversed. Use of physical force by a householder against a home invader can easily result in criminal prosecution of the householder for the death of, or any injury to, the invader, without any presumption in favor of self-defense. When faced with imminent threat of physical harm or death, a European must first retreat by and through any reasonable avenue available, before use of physical force in self-defense. Finally, Europeans are generally prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, carrying or using firearms (and many other weapons) under even the most dire circumstances and generally do not maintain them, either at their homes or on their persons; the penalties for violating such laws are stiff.
Given those legalities, it seems quite reasonable for Mr. Westergaard to have a panic room and for he and his granddaughter to have retreated there when threatened in his home by an ax-wielding Somali. These actions might not seem courageous, but Danish law probably left the poor man with few other permissible choices.
The best way to deal with people who threaten violence is to call their bluff.
Either they will blink, or they will give you an excuse to put them down for good.
“…some commentators have also interpreted as a reaction by the Islamic world to its degradation and humiliation by the West.”
Some commentators are lying leftist dirtbags (but I repeat myself) who have proclaimed their fealty to our enemies. These commentators never pass up an opportunity to blame America first. They are traitors who collaborate with our enemies and work to destroy us from within. Everything they say is either an outright lie, or is a small truth intended to disguise a much larger lie. They aren’t mistaken, mislead or confused. They are deliberately malicious to everything that we hold near and dear. They are EVIL.
The Islamic world degrades and humiliates itself. The west has absolutely nothing to do with the myriad problems that they bestow upon themselves. The suggestion that we are somehow at fault for their dysfunctional bullshit boggles the mind.
I have the right to offend all of u islamic people, If I have to I will dance on the face of your muhammed, if you don’t like it send assasin for and I will be waiting I will be ready and I will be saying to myself this gonna be fun.
HonestJon:
You berk. That’s scientology.
Finally, Europeans are generally prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, carrying or using firearms (and many other weapons)
Complete tosh. Europe (and the EU) have proposed general regulations on gun ownership, including national registration databases, restrictions on buying firearms online and background and reference checks, but a number of european countries have (pretty obvious) long-standing traditions of hunting – including one of the most restrictive countries, england. If you want to own a gun for a sensible reason, you can own a gun. It probably cant be a semi-automatic rifle though, and youll have to show that you can store it securely, and you might not be allowed to keep thousands of rounds of ammo.
And in britain, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
Come on. This stuff isnt that hard to check.
My ex-wife is British so I happen to know a bit about how things work over there.
In the UK the “reasonable” force you are allowed by law to use in self defence is that which is equal to your assailant. So if someone breaks into your home at night and holds a knife to your wife’s throat, you actually have to wait until the cutting begins before doing anything about it. Do anything to protect her and YOU will be the one going to jail. There was a case here a few years ago in which a man defended his family against armed intruders. He was sent to prison for manslaughter. Of course given the choice between going to prison and seeing my loved one’s murdered, I’ll take prison any day and I’m sure that this man feels the same way. A good person is someone who does the right thing even when they know they will be punished for it. In a society ruled by evil, doing the right thing becomes a revolutionary act.
In my wife’s home town EVERYONE has a burglar alarm and burglaries are endemic. The police are useless, unless of course you’re in violation of PC regulations, in which case they waste no time in persecuting you. I’ll bet you that in decades to come, the skeletal remains of dead criminals will start cropping up in gardens across Britain. A dead burglar can’t complain to the police that you abused him when he was found crawling through your window. A dead burglar can’t get you arrested for resisting his efforts to steal from you. A dead burglar doesn’t advertise his intention to break into your house at 2 am. The only people who know that he is there are you and him. So if he disappears it won’t be your house that they come looking for him in.
Most egregious of all perhaps is the is the recent case in which an Iraq war veteran was sentenced to 5 years in prison for handing a gun over to the police. He discovered a rifle on his property and delivered it to the police station. So naturally he was arrested and charged with a crime. (Had he rescued a child from drowning or saved victims from a burning building they probably would have hanged him.)
Imagine if you found a bag of drugs on your property and delivered them to the police station. Would it be right for you to be sentenced to prison for drug possession? That is the level of insanity that has come to be considered normal in the UK.
Any gun regulation other than the prohibition of guns in the hands of convicted felons is a human rights violation. You don’t need a “good reason” to own a gun. Gun ownership is a fundamental right on par with the right to freedom of speech and trial by jury. There is no liberty without the ability to use force in defence of that liberty. Liberty and power are two sides of the same coin. Societies where citizens have power are free. Societies where citizens do not have power are not free. An armed society is a free society.
HonestJon,
Thanks for the compliment. I actually thought it was a pretty funny story. You can see a bunch of my writing by googling
Rachel Peepers (use the quotes), or visit my webpage, Bill Force, the 50 plus guy standing with a coke in his main picture making a speech.
Or you can see me on youtube, something my creative partner and I did to have some fun with while were working on more serious political
conversations to be introduced by youtube sometime around March or April. Go to youtube and search, AndThenHeKissedMe, our redition of the
old Crystals song.
Lee:
Rubbish. If youre going to refer to the usual political correctness gone mad stories that britain manufactures for export, then give us some links so we can get at least the 1/2 of the facts that the tabloids care to provide.
Im not from britain, but I have checked enough homeowner nicked for not offering burglar cup of tea stories for myself to just ignore them these days unless I at least see a modicum of evidence. Hard luck stories about poor innocent people being done over by the nanny state are practically a literary form now. Its possible that you actually believe the stories you mention yourself – so heres a lark: try digging them up and reading them with critical eye. If you still think theyre legit, post us some links so we can see for ourselves.
Roger: if you don’t think it is a big deal to depict prophet Mohamad as a bomb packing terrorist then here is what you should do:
On new years eve go to the Vatican while the pope is celebrating mass. then in the name of freedom of speech hold up a banner depicting Jesus having hot annal and oarl gay sex and depciting virgn mary having a three some with two studs. then see how fast you get your ass kicked!!!!
Where are all the moderate muslims, why dont they stand against the murderist, terrorist driven, radical muslims? They have no problem killing other muslims. They dont care how many muslims they kill. THEY BOMB THEIR shops,buses, schools, hospitals,etc.
FEAR IS THEIR MOST POTENT WEAPON. iF THESE moderate muslims RISE AGAINST them, they are subject to beheadings,hands, feet, noses,etc. cutoff.
The moderate muslims are no better than the terrorist muslims, They coward down, and hope they are not in a shop, bus, school, etc, when the terrorist muslims come.
HOW CAN THEY LIVE A NORMAL LIFE, UNDEW THESE CONDITIONS?
I for one, do not want to hear anymore about these moderate muslims. If they had any guts, they would rise up against this madness.
They better wakeup, the day is comming when this muslim world of theirs is going to be NUKED, THEN they can all have their 72 virgins.
Like I said, my ex wife is British. I’m not getting my information from sensationalist news stories. I’m getting it from someone who LIVED THERE.
But if you really want a link to a good example of the insanity that is the UK, try this one on for size:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html?cacheBust=sqg8W2kRdjp1&success=true#community
Lee:
Thank you. That’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Anyone who’s following this, I recommend reading the first article, then the one I’m about to post.
Firstly, I agree that I don’t like the idea of the police not being allowed to exercise discretion, but I gather it’s quite common (because it’s otherwise hard to prosecute a lot of low-level stuff – after all, everybody has an excuse). However, the judge does have the ability to respond to extreme circumstances and in this case he did. The guy walked free with a conviction and 12 month suspended sentence. That seems steep, but not excessive.
Now you should read this – the second article, linked from the one you gave me:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/GUN-SOLDIER-WALKS-FREE-COURT/article-1626207-detail/article.html
This story is seriously weird. The guy actually called the police, several times. He didn’t get through to his mate, so he decided to just not tell them about the gun. Just like that.
Think about this: he’s found a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag with two cartridges, and he’s decided not to give it to the police at all – instead he moves it, handles it and keeps it for FOUR DAYS, destroying any chance that it might have have forensic value. I imagine the police were pretty annoyed about that.
The reasons for his arrest aren’t quite the way the first story you linked to painted them. This is a guy who handled firearms and should have known better. Any idiot could have seen that this was a gun that was, or was likely to be, used in a crime. And he called the the police but didn’t tell them about it, and for very dubious personal reasons (like he didn’t want a bunch of “trigger happy cops” at his door).
Not exactly “P.C. gone mad” at all. Have you got any more of these?
Just a follow-up to that.
The british press seems to take great delight in misrepresenting crime and government stories if it means they can beat the “PC gone mad” drum. People seem to believe them when they do it, too (and conservative pundits in my part of the world like to quote them – which is why I end up checking them out and how I know that most of them are rubbish).
I don’t doubt that the UK has its fair share of real administrative idiocy, but it’s vastly overstated in their press. You might be annoyed because you think you picked the one story that could be debunked – my point is that MOST of them can be debunked. Pick any five stories you like, and I bet you that four of them will be bogus. That’s not a swipe at you or your ex – it’s a swipe at the british press, which (lets face it) invented the tabloid.
Most people who have commented (but not all) show their utter ignorance and bias towards Islam. While freedom of speech and artistic expression exists, people also have a right to anger if what is sacred to them is mocked and ridiculed.
OF COURSE Muslims have the right to be angry at free speech that offends them. What they dont have is the right to kill, threaten, and oppress those who say things that offend them.
From the writing style, and from knowing many Muslims and many Americans (I live in Israel and lived for years in the States), I will bet a large sum of money American Muslim is a non-Muslim American trying to make an ironic point, by writing like he *thinks* a radical American Muslim would write.
The whole post rings stylistically false, e.g., in the claim that churches are converted to mosques every day or that churches in America are used as latrines, neither of which are true and whose falsity is obvious to every American.
If I were grading this post as a write like a radical American Muslim exercise, I would give it a C: he got many of the general threats radical Muslims all over the world use correctly, but failed to make them believably American.
Where are all the moderate muslims, why dont they stand against the murderist, terrorist driven, radical muslims?
Where are all the good Russian people, standing up against Stalin? Radical Islam is in no way just a tiny minority of extremists, just like Communism wasnt. But imagine you lived for GENERATIONS in a society where opposing the mullah (or the commissar) is tantamount to suicide. Youd find it very hard to rise up and protest, too. Just look at what the MET and Yale University Press are doing over the slightest, indeed over nonexistent, threats!
And still people DO protest. I suggest you check out MEMRI (www.memri.org). You will be surprised. On the one hand youll find a lot of ugliness and thuggish calls for murder and mayhem. On the other youll also find a lot of call for reform and cleaning-up of Arabic and Muslim culture.
These people — the ones who want reform, like the students in Iran — are the REAL radical Muslims.