Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Don't deny that some Muslims are hot for jihad

Old 04-02-06, 06:22 AM
  #1  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Don't deny that some Muslims are hot for jihad

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn02.html

April 2, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





If I were an anti-war leftie, I'd be very depressed by the Iraq anniversary protests. A few hundred people show up hither and yon to see Cindy Sheehan get arrested for the 15th time that week, or Charlie Sheen unveil his critically acclaimed the-World-Trade-Center-was-a-controlled-explosion conspiracy theory. The "Hot Shots! Part Deux" star is apparently an expert in that field, and he'd never seen commercial property break up that quickly since Heidi Fleiss' hooker ring. Anyway, Susan Sarandon's going to play Cindy in the movie, or maybe she's playing Charlie, or both -- either way, they might as well give her the Oscar during the opening titles.



But, while Charlie Sheen is undoubtedly a valiant leader, you couldn't help noticing it was followers the anti-war crowd seemed to be short of on the third anniversary. The next weekend half a million illegal immigrants -- whoops, sorry, half a million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community-- took to the streets, and you suddenly realized what a big-time demonstration is supposed to look like. These guys aren't even meant to be in the country and they can organize a better public protest movement than an anti-war crowd that's promoted 24/7 by the media and Hollywood.

Well, OK, half the anti-war crowd aren't meant to be in the country either, if they'd kept their promise to move to Canada after the last election. But my point is there's no mass anti-war movement. Some commentators claimed to be puzzled by the low turnout at a time when the polls show Iraq increasingly unpopular. But there are two kinds of persons objecting to the war: There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively. And on the day's headlines -- on everything from the Danish cartoon jihad to the Afghan facing death for apostasy -- the fainthearted response of "public diplomacy" is in danger of sounding only marginally less nutty than Charlie Sheen.

The line here is "respect." Everybody's busy professing their "respect": We all "respect" Islam; presidents and prime ministers and foreign ministers, lapsing so routinely into the deep-respect-for-the-religion-of-peace routine they forget that cumulatively it begins to sound less like "Let's roll!" and too often like "Let's roll over!"

Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, gave a typical Western government official's speech the other day explaining that "a large number of Muslims in this country were -- understandably -- upset by those cartoons being reprinted across Europe and at their deeply held beliefs being insulted. They expressed their hurt and outrage but did so in a way which epitomized the learned, peaceful religion of Islam."

"The learned, peaceful religion of Islam"? And that would be the guys marching through London with placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM" and "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS WESTERN TERRORISM" and promising to rain down a new Holocaust on Europe? This is geopolitics as the Aretha Franklin Doctrine: The more the world professes its R-E-S-P-E-C-T, the more the Islamists sock it to us.

At a basic level the foreign secretary's rhetoric does not match reality. Government leaders are essentially telling their citizens: Who ya gonna believe -- my platitudinous speechwriters or your lyin' eyes?


To win a war, you don't spin a war. Millions of ordinary citizens are not going to stick with a "long war" (as the administration now calls it) if they feel they're being dissembled to about its nature. One reason we regard Churchill as a great man is that his speeches about the nature of the enemy don't require unspinning or detriangulating.

If I had to propose a model for Western rhetoric, it would be the Australians. In the days after Sept. 11, the French got all the attention for that Le Monde headline -- "Nous sommes tous Americains" -- "We are all Americans," though they didn't mean it, even then. But John Howard, the Aussie prime minister, put it better and kept his word: "This is no time to be an 80 percent ally."

Marvelous. More recently, the prime minister offered some thoughts on the difference between Muslims and other immigrant groups. "You can't find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad," he said, stating the obvious in a way most political leaders can't quite bring themselves to do. "There is really not much point in pretending it doesn't exist."

Unfortunately, too many of his counterparts insist on pretending (at least to their citizenry) that it doesn't exist. What proportion of Western Muslims is hot for jihad? Five percent? Ten, 12 percent? Given that understanding this Pan-Islamist identity is critical to defeating it, why can't we acknowledge it honestly? "Raving on about jihad" is a line that meets what the law used to regard as the reasonable-man test: If you're watching news footage of a Muslim march promising to bring on the new Holocaust, John Howard's line fits.

Is it something in the water down there? Listen to Howard's Cabinet colleagues. Here's the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, with advice for Western Muslims who want to live under Islamic law: "There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -- Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."


You don't say. Which is the point: [b]Most Western government leaders don't say, and their silence is correctly read by a resurgent Islam as timidity. I also appreciated this pithy summation by my favorite foreigner minister, Alexander Downer: "Multilateralism is a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving internationalism of the lowest common denominator." See Sudanese slaughter, Iranian nukes, the U.N.'s flop response to the tsunami, etc. It's a good thing being an Aussie Cabinet minister doesn't require confirmation by John Kerry and Joe Biden.

My worry is that the official platitudes in this new war are the equivalent of the Cold War chit-chat in its 1970s detente phase --when Willy Brandt and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter pretended the enemy was not what it was. Then came Ronald Reagan: It wasn't just the evil-empire stuff, his jokes were on the money, too. In their own depraved way, the Islamists are a lot goofier than the commies and a few gags wouldn't come amiss. If this is a "long war," it needs a rhetoric that can go the distance. And the present line fails that test.

Mark Steyn, 2006
Our leaders are too worried about offending. So is our media. Most of the media in this country didn't print the Danish cartoons exactly for this reason.
bhk is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 09:16 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Most newspapers in this country wouldn't publish a racist cartoon, would they? Printing something that is deliberately offensive and inflammatory for no other reason than to offend and inflame is exacly what the phrase "crying fire in a crowded theater" is referring to.

And aren't there a number of militant Christian groups out there? Prior to 9/11, weren't the two worst terrorist attacks on US soil were commited by Christian extremists?

I'm not saying that there are not dangerous, extreme elements of the Muslim religion, and I am not excusing their actions. I'm suggesting that extremism on any issue is a bad thing -- and the article you quoted is a prime example.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 09:18 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I think it's quite a stretch to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist.

He wasn't driven by religion at all.

Come on!
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 09:38 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by classicman2
I think it's quite a stretch to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist.

He wasn't driven by religion at all.

Come on!
Good call, C-Man. I'll take back the "Christian" part of that, if not the "extremist" part.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 09:50 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3,797
The real reason why the media didn't want to publisht he photo is really simple.

If there *were* a terrorist attack on the US, and the responsible group claims that it's a retaliation for publishing the photo, the media who published it will immediately get sued by all the victims' families.

No company wants to risk that.
Grimfarrow is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 10:06 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Most newspapers in this country wouldn't publish a racist cartoon, would they? Printing something that is deliberately offensive and inflammatory for no other reason than to offend and inflame is exacly what the phrase "crying fire in a crowded theater" is referring to.
Those cartoons, firstly, were not racist at all, and secondly, they most certainly were not published only to offend and inflame, they were an artistic medium for fostering debating a hugely important socio-political issue, as the publisher here eloquently describes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...702499_pf.html

To me, those cartoons were really an archetypal example of exactly the important, profound role that art is capable of playing in the free exchange of ideas in an open society. The publisher was not trying to ram his ideas down anyone's throat. To imply that these cartoons were analogous to KKK caricatures specifically designed to denigrate blacks or Jews is completely false, IMO. Many newspapers in this country made the clear choice that it was more important "not to offend" than it was to foster an environment of free speech and open debate. And I've said this before---particularly in Europe---when the centrist politicians and media refuse to openly deal with this difficult and growing problem, the net result is that more people will turn to the far right parties, and that's not going to be good for anyone.



Originally Posted by NCMojo
And aren't there a number of militant Christian groups out there? Prior to 9/11, weren't the two worst terrorist attacks on US soil were commited by Christian extremists?.
If anyone can point me to Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, extremist groups, which are specifically religiously based, and that have even 1/1000 of the money, popular support and military clout that groups like AQ, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc have, then I would be willing to listen.

I'm sure there were some fiercely anti-Jewish groups in the USA in the 1930s,too---not really a justification for arguing that the US should not condemn Nazi Germany on every level. (Although, many in the US did not think Nazi Germany was threat in the 1930s..)
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 10:27 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Most newspapers in this country wouldn't publish a racist cartoon, would they?

Yes they would and here are two that were:





Yep, I guess portraying blacks with teh big lips is ok (if they aren't part of, well you know), and the same goes for portraying a black woman as an "Aunt Jemima" figure...

too easy
crazyronin is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 10:29 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Most newspapers in this country wouldn't publish a racist cartoon, would they? Printing something that is deliberately offensive and inflammatory for no other reason than to offend and inflame is exacly what the phrase "crying fire in a crowded theater" is referring to.
I think it depends on the context.

If someone drew a racist cartoon just for the hell of it and shopped it around to different newspapers, I'd expect most of them to pass.

but if that same cartoon made world news and sparked riots, i'd think that some newspapers would publish that cartoon in the context of reporting the news.

I think it's a joke that every single media outlet in this country has reported on the cartoon story, but none of them will ever show what all the contraversy is all about.
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 12:02 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by RoyalTea
I think it depends on the context.

If someone drew a racist cartoon just for the hell of it and shopped it around to different newspapers, I'd expect most of them to pass.

but if that same cartoon made world news and sparked riots, i'd think that some newspapers would publish that cartoon in the context of reporting the news.

I think it's a joke that every single media outlet in this country has reported on the cartoon story, but none of them will ever show what all the contraversy is all about.
I do agree with this last point.

I had an interesting thought the other day. When compared to the other major religions of the world -- Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. -- Islam is a relatively young religion. It's only been around since the 7th century -- about 1400 years -- so that puts it about 600 years behind Christianity, and of course several thousand years behind the others.

From a Christian standpoint, 600 years takes us back to the days of the Church as an absolute power, of Inquisitions and rigid, puritanical sects. Not too far removed from the days of Crusades, and right in the midst of the summary execution of witches and heretics.

Could it be that, as the Muslim faith ages and matures, it also abandons these tenets of radicalism and embraces a more moderate tone?
NCMojo is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 12:10 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,813
Originally Posted by classicman2
I think it's quite a stretch to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist.

He wasn't driven by religion at all.

Come on!
Yes, and he was our terrorist, not some furrin terrorist who came here to steal opportunities from our terrorists.
Mammal is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 12:24 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Originally Posted by classicman2
I think it's quite a stretch to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist.

He wasn't driven by religion at all.

Come on!
Don't sell McVeigh short -- he did try to hook up with Elohim City (and may have succeeded). He was clearly drivne by a radical libertarian ideology, not a radical Christian ideology. However, he did try to tie himself to radical Christianity.
JasonF is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 01:42 PM
  #12  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
It's only been around since the 7th century -- about 1400 years -- so that puts it about 600 years behind Christianity, and of course several thousand years behind the others.

From a Christian standpoint, 600 years takes us back to the days of the Church as an absolute power, of Inquisitions and rigid, puritanical sects. Not too far removed from the days of Crusades, and right in the midst of the summary execution of witches and heretics.

Could it be that, as the Muslim faith ages and matures, it also abandons these tenets of radicalism and embraces a more moderate tone?
I doubt it. The peak of Moslem architecture and art are already in the past. I wish our pols would address the fact that the protestors of the cartoons were calling for things against non-believers that prove the "stereotype" of the wild-eyed fanatics.
bhk is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 01:47 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Originally Posted by crazyronin
Yes they would and here are two that were:

I don't find this one racist. The cartoonist is trying to make her parrot-like. Parrots have big beaks.
DonnachaOne is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 01:53 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by JasonF
Don't sell McVeigh short -- he did try to hook up with Elohim City (and may have succeeded). He was clearly drivne by a radical libertarian ideology, not a radical Christian ideology. However, he did try to tie himself to radical Christianity.
But again, this has to be put into context. Take a worldwide poll of Christians, and what percentage would say that McVeigh was a heroic figure? Maybe .0001%? And what percentage of Muslims worldwide consider Bin Laden a hero? A consideraby different percentage, if I correctly recall the polls asking this question over the last couple of years. Every religion has violent extremists, but it's a bit different when the violent extremists have massive amounts of public sympathy, as well as logistical and financial support, from significant percentages of the mainstream of the religion.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:08 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by JasonF
Don't sell McVeigh short -- he did try to hook up with Elohim City (and may have succeeded). He was clearly drivne by a radical libertarian ideology, not a radical Christian ideology. However, he did try to tie himself to radical Christianity.
Timothy McVeigh considered himself to be a 20th Century American Revolutionary.

I'm in no way selling him short.

He was able to pull the wool over the eyes of a couple of Buffalo, NY, reporters who wrote a book about him.

.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:43 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,919
Originally Posted by classicman2
I think it's quite a stretch to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist.

He wasn't driven by religion at all.

Come on!
He did ask for a Catholic Priest before he died. Why would a non-religious person do that.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:45 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by bhk
I doubt it. The peak of Moslem architecture and art are already in the past. I wish our pols would address the fact that the protestors of the cartoons were calling for things against non-believers that prove the "stereotype" of the wild-eyed fanatics.
The peak of Christian architechture and art are in the past as well -- I'd say the Middle Ages to early Renaissance was probably the apex of Christian-themed art and culture.

And again -- bear in mind that the actual "war on terrorism" -- or more accurately, the battle against the forces that attacked us on 9/11 -- cannot possibly be won at gunpoint. It is ultimately a war of ideas and ideologies, and until we begin seeing it from that perspective -- as something that cannot be bombed into oblivion -- we're doomed to fail.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:45 PM
  #18  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
He did ask for a Catholic Priest before he died. Why would a non-religious person do that.
Didn't your hear the old saying?
There's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.
Myster X is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:46 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,919
Originally Posted by bhk
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn02.html

Our leaders are too worried about offending. So is our media. Most of the media in this country didn't print the Danish cartoons exactly for this reason.
One of the reasons why is because the media would more than likely be sued by local and national Muslim communities. A "free market" has its downsides. Offending has nothing to do with it. Being sued for $$$ does.

Since when does the media have a warm heart about possibly offending someone. It's only when they might be sued do they retract a story or not report about something.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:49 PM
  #20  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Since when does the media have a warm heart about possibly offending someone. It's only when they might be sued do they retract a story or not report about something.
Abu Ghraib pictures are OK to print but not the cartoons?
Myster X is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:53 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,919
Two different situations and events. If you don't recognize the difference, then ask someone else to explain it to you.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 02:58 PM
  #22  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Both are offending to the muslim world, so what's your point?
Myster X is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 03:33 PM
  #23  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
The peak of Christian architechture and art are in the past as well -- I'd say the Middle Ages to early Renaissance was probably the apex of Christian-themed art and culture.
That doesn't really matter because Western Civilization hasn't had it's peak in the past. And most Christians aren't yearning to live in the time of the inquisition whereas many moslems(30-40% of the ones that live in western countries) support Sharia laws that were in place 1400 years ago. There is no higher calling for them than living exactly like Mohammed.

It is ultimately a war of ideas and ideologies, and until we begin seeing it from that perspective -- as something that cannot be bombed into oblivion -- we're doomed to fail.
But we can only defeat it if we recognize the magnitude of the actual problem which many people refuse to do and somehow blame the west for its foreign policy.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

'I dream of a map without Israel'

Newly-installed Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar on Sunday reiterated Hamas's desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.

Zahar's remarks, in an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua, dispel hopes that Hamas's presence in power would have a moderating effect on its leaders. His statements also stand in sharp contrast with Hamas's attempt to project a conciliatory and pragmatic image following the movement's landslide victory in last January's parliamentary election.

Other Hamas leaders, including Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, have not ruled out over the past few weeks the possibility of negotiating with Israel or recognizing its right to exist.

"I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it," Zahar said in the interview. "I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize)."

This dream, he added, "will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land."
bhk is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 03:35 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,919
Originally Posted by Myster X
Both are offending to the muslim world, so what's your point?
You really don't see the difference between the two stories? Alrighty then.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-02-06, 03:43 PM
  #25  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Since when does the media have a warm heart about possibly offending someone. It's only when they might be sued do they retract a story or not report about something.
It has less to do with lawsuits and more to do with people finding out where the VP of news lives and firebombing his garage. The threat of lawsuits is everpresent in this country. Anyone can file a lawsuit and many trivial lawsuits go to the courts. But there is a difference why people are so eager to offend christians in the name of art/news/ whatnot and very hesitant to do anything that might be perceived to be offensive towards moslems. For example, BK in england stopped serving a type of ice cream because someone complained that the swirl looked like "Allah" or "Mohammed". There have been slippers made by a US company that had the image of a Hindu deity. Do you think that a threat of a lawsuit is what is preventing other clotheirs etc from making clothes or shoes with verses of the Koran on it?
bhk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.