Hugh Hewitt writes:
So, did the cartoons and their aftermath make it easier or more diffcult for Musharraf of Pakistan to continue to guide his country away from the lure of the jihadists? Easier or more difficult for Turkey to remain a friend of the West’s? Easier or more difficult for the pro-Western people of Iran to summon the courage to change their government? Easier or more difficult for Jordan’s King Abdullah to continue his course, which has included support for the reconstruction of Iraq even in the face of Zarqawi’s murderers?
In a wired world, there aren’t any inconsequential actions, and everything is grist for the propagandists among the jihadists.
That doesn’t mean censorship, or even self-censorship. Only a bit of reflection before rushing off to start new battles which divert attention from those already underway.
There is a chasm of difference between serious commentary on the Islamic challenge facing Europe and the West (see Mark Steyn’s “It’s The Demographics Stupid“) and crude, sweeping anti-Muslim propaganda. It isn’t necessary to defend the latter in order to uphold and praise the former.
He’s right. Nonetheless, (sorry, a conjunction of some sort was invevitable at this point, and that seemed the most stylish word to choose from), it’s also worth revisiting an August 2005 essay by Cathy Seipp:
Whenever liberals remind us that not all Muslims are terrorists or anti-American rioters, I always think that not everyone in the pre-civil-rights south was a church bomber or member of the Ku Klux Klan. Even then, there was lots to like about the south. Southerners always have been known for charm and hospitality