More Cartoon Reprisals

I know. I know. I said I would not discuss this again, and that the subject was closed. Call me a reneger. Call me a liar. But I cannot, in good conscience, sit idly by and watch this unfold without commenting on it; especially on the heels of what I have read recently about these "protests."

Quick recap: A group of Danish cartoonists did a number of cartoons painting Mohammed--the Muslims revered prophet--is a nasty light. And, in short, the Muslim population went ape-s**t. It started with simple calls for the heads of the cartoonists, and numerous shouts of infidel "persecution." You know the norm when they get upset; we watched it occur over the phony Newsweek story over "desecrated" Korans.

But even as that story unfolded, and the Muslims started going nuts, it NEVER got to this stage. The link will take you to Michelle Malkin's site, and her post regarding the burning of Danish and Norwegian embassies. Yes, I said, and emphasized, burning.

Anyone with a lick of sense, at this point, have to understand that the Muslims have escalated this to levels that no one expected. To go to the most basic level right now, an embassy is sovereign soil; it belongs to the nation that has it--in this case, Denmark and Norway. Such "attacks" on an embassy can be interpreted as an act of war. In the broadest sense, the continued violence is giving support to the Danes in defense of those cartoonists.

Indeed, take a look at the cartoons and ask yourself if:

A) This justifies the response by the Muslim population, and

B) does the reprisals by the Muslims not play into the hands of the cartoonists, and their drawings.

We are engaged in a war against a radical sect of Islam. This is indisputable. Those radicals--those animals--prefer to abide by 7th Century ideals. These ideas run contrary to how society sees the world today. Women are treated with respect, for the most part, and we do not lop off the heads of "infidels." We did not start this war; it was delivered to our doorstep. Our only fault was refusing to accept the fact that these people had a beef with us, and had the capability to strike us.

Of course, the common-sense people saw the attacks each time they came. The USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, the '83 WTC attack, in Somalia where we cut-and-run in the face of a man backed up by our enemy, and going all the way back to 1979 when we ran from the animals the first time.

The press is trying to downplay this. However, spin is not the answer. These people are not protesting.

Capt. Ed had the following wisdom about this whole uproar:

Editorial cartoons exist to challenge political thought and expose hypocrisy. Among religions, Islam should be the least protected from this form of speech, as it insists on involving itself in temporal political matters wherever it is practiced. Indeed, it insists on dictating political and legal matters, usually in the most extreme terms, and it uses the life of Mohammed as its claim on political and legal supremacy. Christianity hasn't taken that position in centuries, focusing on the spiritual and individual rather than group diktat. Judaism hasn't had the means to develop that kind of theocratic position for over two millenia until the establishment of Israel, and even then the Chosen have chosen a liberal democracy for themselves rather than rule by the high-priest descendants of Aaron.

That insistence on dictating terms of temporal power makes criticism, by cartoonists or editorialists, absolutely necessary in order to combat the stultifying reach of sharia. Islam sets the terms of debate. It cannot insist on temporal rule based on Mohammed and the Qu'ran and then expect people to refrain from criticizing either one. Christians understand this, even if they don't pursue the thought intellectually to its end. If we Christians insisted on basing all government and laws explicitly on the four Gospels, we would necessarily be forced to intellectually defend each and every passage, as well as the life and actions of Jesus and his disciples and their assumed infallibility to rule on human activity.

For this reason, we must support the publication of the cartoons by European news organizations. Islam wants to impose its tenets on us, and if we give up the option of political criticism, we have moved more than halfway towards surrender to the Islamists. For those individuals who cross the line into unnecessary offense, the option to use free debate to argue the point will remain open as long as we defend free speech.

I agree. This goes back to the preciseness of my argument when the protests started. You lend credence to this portrayal, and then get all huffy when people point it out. It is rather hypocritical. The moderates Muslims are not happy over these cartoons either, but they are not the ones rioting and conducting acts of war aganst sovereign territory. There are also possible links to use the melee over the cartoons as an excuse to incite it's populace, taking their focus away from the investigation into the death of Prime Minister Hariri; it is alleged that Assad's hands are all over the assassination.

One thing is certain about this mess. It will only get worse before it gets better, and the "protesters" have committed two acts of war. All over a bunch of cartoons.

The Bunny ;)

ADDENDUM: This is something I am unaware of occurring as yet. (I may be wrong on this.) But, has the Danish government or papers apologized for the cartoons, as yet? If we offend someone in life, it is customary to at least apologize for it. Perhaps there was not one made before this whole thing exploded--literally--but there is no better time than the present to give it a try.

I should point out, also, that the blogosphere's "battle lines" seem to be drawn over this issue. Though we are not on anyone's blogrolls, we do stand on the side of condemning this violence. It is purely asinine to condone this response to anything as petty as a cartoon. Likewise, while reading over Hugh Hewitt's site, I can see there is little sympathy for the Danish cartoonists. Should there be? Not really. Knowing what we know the Muslim radicals, it was expected that this sort of a reaction would occur over these cartoons. Of course, Syria and Jordan could have lessened the response had they not hyped them and reprinted them, respectively.

But I maintain what I said this morning: This will get worse before it gets better. "Damage control" is not the operative phrase to be used right now. These people need to be calmed down, not incited. Syria is still fanning the flames, and so are the radicals in other countries. Also, I have two final thoughts on this point.

First, to the US and it's foreign policy people, quit condemning the Danes. Let them deal with their problem. EVERY nation on the face of the planet is ready to condemn anyone and every one for the most minor slights. There is a difference between doing an improper cartoon, and burning an embassy to the ground.

Second, Hugh Hewitt asked a question today regarding Christ. Would we appreciate a picture of Christ drawn with his crown of thorns, but instead of thorns, have them replaced by sticks of TNT in response to an abortion clinic bombing? Obviously the answer tot hat question is no; any other question is simply stupid and foolish. However, I fire back at Mr. Hewitt this question.

If one were drawn like that, would Christians be acting as the Muslims are now? That I doubt. And why will we not do that? Simply put, and honestly answered, it is not conducive to society to act like an animal.

The Bunny ;) (3:30 p.m. AZ Time, updated)