2006 February 04 Saturday
Embassies Burn In Syria As Embassies Attacked Elsewhere By Muslims

Some might see this as an example of the power of cartoons. I flash on David Byrne singing "Burning Down The House".

Syrian police using water cannon and tear gas fought pitched battles with stone-throwing protestors into Saturday evening.

Witnesses said that groups of protestors broke into the Danish embassy and used furniture from the offices to start fires which spread to the entire three-storey building. The building also houses the Swedish and Chilean embassies.

The embassies were closed at the time of the attacks and there were no reports of casualties at either building.

The Gaza Strip was also the scene of angry attacks on European diplomatic missions on Saturday. Around a dozen men, many of them masked, threw missiles at the German consulate office - which was closed at the time - while protestors also managed to hoist a Palestinian flag above the European Union's offices next door.

After burning the Danish embassy the rioters moved on to burn the Norwegian embassy.

Demonstrators later stormed the Norwegian embassy in Damascus, which is housed in a different building. According to the AFP news bureau 11 demonstrators were injured when the Syrian police tried to keep them away from the building. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry says the building burned to the ground.

The rioting was sparked by text messages that made false claims that the Danes were able to start burning Korans.

"Denmark wants to burn the sacred Koran Saturday in Copenhagen in response to the Muslim boycott" of Danish products, the message in Egypt said, calling on Muslims to curse the Danish.

"Send (this message on) and you will be rewarded," the text said.

The Syrian rioters tried but failed to burn the French embassy in Damascus.

Denmark and Norway condemned Syria for failing its international obligations and urged their citizens to leave.

Demonstrators also tried to storm the French mission, but were stopped.

Muslim protestors in London hate free speech even as they use their right to free speech (and there's a lesson to be learned from that fact).

The 400 or so protesters, including a group of women in burqas, waved placards bearing slogans such as "Behead the one who insults the prophet" and "Free speech go to hell".

The demonstrators, who also passed the French and German embassies, burned flags and threatened fresh terrorist attacks in revenge for the cartoons.

These 400 protesters strike me as people who belong on the top of a deportation list.

Burning down embassies is par for the course in the Middle East. A month ago Britain, Canada, and Australia closed their embassies in Amman Jordan due to some attack threat. More recently a mob tried to attack the Danish Embassy in Jakarta Indonesia which happens to be in the 25th floor of a building.

Up to 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage inside the lobby of a Jakarta building housing the Danish embassy on Friday in protest over cartoons that Muslims say insult Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.

Imagine that mob had succeeded. Can buildings tens of stories high (which haven't been hit by a jumbo jet piloted by Muslim extremists) burn down or do they have sufficient fire control equipment to stop fires from getting out of control?

Muslim protestors in London want to kill everyone in Denmark.

Yesterday there was another protest in London involving hundreds of demonstrators chanting "Kill, kill Denmark!" They burned the Denmark flag and converged on the embassy.

Muslim immigration is bad. Why should the Brits or the Danes or, for that matter, the Dutch, Germans, or French have to have foreign cultures in their midst that reject their societies? Did the Europeans do something to deserve "getting hit on the head lessons"? Or are their leaders traitors to their own cultures?

If you haven't seen this yet Michelle Malkin has pictures of Muslim protestors in London England. Their signs include "Freedom Go To Hell", "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust", "Behead Those Who Insult Islam", "Massacre Those Who Insult Islam", "Exterminate Those Who Insult Islam", "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam", and "Europe You Will Pay, Demolition Is On Its Way". These people are not British in belief. They are not British in their political loyalties. They are not friendly toward what Britain represents. Why are they in Britain?

The fuss is all about these cartoons or these cartoons. Here are the 12 Danish cartoons about Islam and Mohammed that have the Muslims trying to oppress us. Yet Muslims did make paintings and other visual representations of Muhammad/Mohammed/Muhammed in previous centuries.

Want to understand the Danish cartoon conflict in a nutshell? Muslims hold other values ahead of freedom and that is the key thing you must understand about them.

Summing up the cultural rift between Islam and the West, imam Ahmed Abu Laban told worshippers at Friday prayers in a Copenhagen mosque: ďIn the West, freedom of speech is sacred; To us, the prophet is sacred.Ē

I think it speaks volumes about the Muslims that they can get all upset about how the Danes are terrible. The Danes! We are talking about the Danes. Denmark. The mind boggles. When was the last time the Danes did anything seriously harmful to humanity? People who target the Danes are a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel.

Update: Muslim rioters burned down the Danish Consulate in a Christian neighborhood of Beirut.

BEIRUT, Feb. 5 ó Protesters angry over European drawings of the Prophet Muhammad attacked a building housing the Danish Consulate here early today, setting it afire and clashing with Lebanese security forces just a day after protesters in Syria set fire to the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Damascus.

The rioters also attacked Christian buildings.

But in the streets, fistfights broke out between Christian and Muslim Lebanese, after protesters threw rocks at a Maronite Catholic Church, broke windows at the Lebanese Red Cross office and shattered windshields of cars. Bands of Christian youths congregated with sticks and iron bars, promising to defend their neighborhoods.

One leaflet circulating in Beirut called Muslims to action to defend against a supposed US war against Islam.

"What are you going to do?" asked a leaflet circulated in Beirut that called for Sunday's protest.

"Bush and his group have invaded and are fighting wars by all means available," it added. "Their goal: destroying the Islamic nation ideologically and economically and stealing and looting its resources."

Lebanon is no stranger to political violence, having endured a 15 year civil war that ended only in 1990. A group claiming to be part of Al Qaeda just blew up a bomb near a Lebanese army barracks 3 days ago.

Beirut, Lebanon - A bomb exploded near a Lebanese army barracks in Beirut early on Thursday, shortly after a purported threat by al-Qaeda to attack security installations in Lebanon.

The group is protesting that some of it members were arrested several weeks ago.

Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah has not disarmed since the end of the civil war.

ALONG the shabby streets of the overcrowded and impoverished Hezbollah stronghold of Haret Hreik, in south Beirut, there is unflinching support for the right of the militant Lebanese Shia group to bear arms and for its allegiance to Syria.

"So what if Hezbollah is with the Syrian regime? We are Arabs, not American-lovers like the Lebanese who are calling for Hezbollah's disarmament," said Ibrahim Khatib, a 23-year-old biology student, as he waited for a taxi.

The split between Hezbollah and non-Shiite Lebanese widened as a result of the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

The powerful Shi'ite organisation, which has a vast social network and sizeable parliamentary bloc, has become alienated from the swath of public opinion that holds Syria responsible for the February 14 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri and a string of killings in Lebanon since then.

The Danish cartoon flap is deepening internal divisions within Lebanese society.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 04 07:41 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
John S Bolton said at February 4, 2006 9:53 PM:

There is also poetic justice in that this retarded, juvenile moslem aggression targets and burns out the selfless diplomats. Those functionaries robotically process moslem refugees into places that they do no deserve entry to.
Liberal fictions about the natural peace, love, brotherhood and equality of all mankind, which only need an open-handed welfare democracy to flourish, with suitable protections for the group privileges of minorities; must now try to survive the burning out of the depraved diplomats. Diplomats driven forth in flames; this is the egalitarian society. Will they assert power, privilege, distinction and superiority? That wouldn't be very egalitarian.

Kenelm Digby said at February 5, 2006 3:33 AM:

Randall,
To repeat a simple and obvious point that I've made many, many times before in many, many different fora, "these people" are in Brtain wholly and solely because Britain's political ladership *WANTED* them to be in Britain.
Absolutely no further elaboration or explanation is neede.

Yolanda said at February 5, 2006 6:36 AM:

The "insensitive" cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban depicts Muslims as violent people, but what is very unfortunate is that their reaction has confirmed it.

Andy Bethel said at February 5, 2006 7:31 AM:

I really canít see the big deal.... fair enough the Danish have made a mistake in printing material which some people deem as inappropriate, and I agree that the media do have a morale responsibility to respect nations and publish material which is not going to upset the balance between different ethnic groups... The cartoons do not have any real place in official publications, but I very much doubt they were printed with intent...

The fact of the matter is newspapers and media companies have one main objective... To make money!!! With this in mind, it is obvious that some of the material printed or presented is aimed at the less intellectual and geared at getting a laugh. I do think the cartoons were aimed at a giggle, I really donít think they maliciously attacked the prophet and the Muslim community, papers always contain sketches taking the piss out of polatitians and even Jesus....
Come on guys, forgive and forget, fair enough express you given right of freedom of speech, but donít misrepresent your community by attacking embassies, burning flags and threatening Nations with visious militant attacks!!! There is no need!
I stand neutral in this fight, I agree the Danish have done wrong, but it does not justify the violent protests by followers of Islam, if your upset express it through publication or media, donít start a war and give people an excuse to hate you....
I have put this view across in my own opinion, I apologise if it touches a nerve. As mentioned above by "Yolander", the picture of mohammed does dictate that Muslims are violent people and i have to agree the actions by the minority will confirm this and form the basis of opinions for the majority.... and why, because it makes news and people like to gossip and have opinions, which is our right...
Peace

Randall Parker said at February 5, 2006 8:44 AM:

Andy Bethel,

Every time a comic tells a joke that someone is offended by has the comic done something wrong?

I do not see that the Danish newspaper has done anything wrong.

Are the Muslims really misrepresenting their community by burning embassies? I do not think so. Too many Muslims are demanding the death of Danish people. They are showing their true colors.

Kurt said at February 5, 2006 11:01 AM:

The muslims are all in a huff because they were offended by some cartoons. They claim that because they were offended, that they should be able to burn down embassies and attack the people who offended them.

I am not a member of any religion, especially christianity or islam. When someone in a mosque gets up and starts ranting and raving about how their god has juridiction over me, even though I am not a member of their religion, I am offended. By the same logic, I should be justified in going around and burning down any mosque or church where the religious leader makes speeches making such a claim.

I think that, if these people cannot accept the live and let live credo of modern, Western society; that they should be given the boot and deported out of the West. I would start with anyone who is a wahabbi.

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 12:00 PM:

Andy,

Not only was the Danish paper doing nothing wrong, the purpose of the cartoons was to address an important issue and to right an ongoing wrong. The newspaper editor who published them has stated he thinks the censors have won. I think we in the west have a moral obligation to defeat the censors.

Freedom of speech is worth killing for. Our ancestors paid for our freedom with their blood. I have no intention to hand it over without a fight.

I am appalled by the craven cowardice exhibited by the state department and others.

Marvin said at February 5, 2006 4:34 PM:

The Danes have done no wrong, Andy. No wrong whatsoever. You, Andy, are doing wrong by trying to give the miscreant rioters an excuse for their desire to massacre the entire race of Danes. There is no excuse for their behavior, Andy.
Their religious leaders are fomenting homicidal rage among a low IQ population, borderline sociopaths, and typical criminals. What is so stupid is that these moronic fools actually believe they are demonstrating their power to the world. Power? To burn buildings? To demand the death of an entire nation because of some cartoons? Not power, you idiots. You are demonstrating your essential impotence.

John S Bolton said at February 6, 2006 12:28 AM:

There's another reason why they'd go after the Danes and Norwegians, and those embassies in particular; even though many countries have published the same images of the degraded prophet. It is because Denmark and Norway are known as the peacemakers and peacekeepers. The religion of holy war, where the commandment to war of religion occupies the place which respectable faiths fill with philosophy and theology, drives its low followers to target especially the peacemakers. Civilization needs peacemaker missiles, and hopefully they will blast Iran, but don't occupy more than a small part of the country, where there is something worthwhile.

John S Bolton said at February 6, 2006 12:40 AM:

Islam is not a respectable faith; civilization cannot respect such a religion. What are the corrupt, power-hungering officials of Europe and their own public scholars asking for, though? Respect for aggressors, respect for vicious welfare-grabbing, respect for monstrous backwardness, and even respect for those unprincipled and malicious enough to loudly and publicly, demand an end to freedom of speech, in the homelands of civilization.

Invisible Scientist said at February 6, 2006 1:33 AM:

Hey, listen everybody!!!

From the way this discussion is going, it really seems that most of us are thinking only in 4 dimensions, which is too low.

It really seems to me that much more complex nonlinear forces are at work here. There seems to be long term cycles that govern the behavior of masses, and periodically unexpected ideologies such as communism (a religion in the previous century, towards the end of 19th century), or Wahabism ( a more prominent sect that is gaining ground during the last few decades and more recently ), and many other "isms" that are simply confounding and polarizing the human race(s).

Maybe it is the case that the humans are not necessarily the highest in the food chain, and perhaps there are natural forces that basically feed on chaotic human emotions and suffering in some way. Maybe nature wants destruction in a periodic way...

For instance, if you throw a frog in boiling water, the frog which has good reflexes, would feel the pain an simply save itself by jumping off the couldron. But if you put the frog in a couldron full of cold water and gradually heat the water, then the frog gets used to the gradual heating process, and does not realize that it is getting boiled, and consequently the frog does not jump off the couldron and actually dies, because its nervous system gets conditioned to ignore the slow change in temperature. It seems to me that we are all going to get killed like the frog, unless we start thinking nonlinearly, and in higher dimensions...

After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporters interviewed Albert Einstein and asked him what kind of weapons might be used in World War III. At that precise moment, Einstein said that he had no idea what kind of weapons would be used in World War III, but that he was sure that World War IV was going to be fought with swords and shields.

But seriously, Stephen Hawking said a few years ago that it is possible that the future of the world can become like the opening scenes of Terminator, where the world is barbaric and half-destroyed.

Engineer-Poet said at February 6, 2006 10:00 AM:

The "slowly heated frog" story is false to fact.

Pico said at February 6, 2006 10:16 AM:

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor responsible for the offensive anti-Muslim cartoons, is a supporter of the Zionist "clash of civilizations" promoted by the Neo-Con Daniel Pipes.

Pico said at February 6, 2006 10:28 AM:

Zionists have succeeded in provoking a clash of civilizations between the west and Islam.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 10:47 AM:

Pico,

I am familiar with Daniel Pipes' writings. If you think he promulgates a 'clash of civilisations', I can only conclude you haven't bothered to actually read anything he wrote. Quite the opposite, he believes Islam can and will modernize into a humane civilisation.

You also throw around the the term 'Zionist' like it is some kind of epithet. Personally, I am a Zionist. I believe Israel has a right to exist, and Israelis have a right to live. I think Jews need at least one nation.

It strikes me that the Islamists were at war with us for two or three decades before anyone in the west really noticed. Given that, I am not sure how anyone here in the west could cause the conflict.

Pico said at February 6, 2006 11:26 AM:

I do not believe American interests and Israeli interests are identical. America is being unnecessarily drawn into conflicts that do not involve american interests.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 11:34 AM:

Obviously, Israeli interests are Israeli interests and not American interests. By the same token, Canadian interests are Canadian interests. Each should pursue their own interests with vigor. As a Zionist, I think Israel should pursue its interests with vigor. I don't see anything wrong with that.

On the other hand, freedom of speech is a specific interest or core value shared among the US and Denmark and Canada and the UK and France and the Netherlands and Australia etc. We need to stand united to defend that core value and shared interest.

daveg said at February 6, 2006 11:35 AM:

You also throw around the the term 'Zionist' like it is some kind of epithet. Personally, I am a Zionist. I believe Israel has a right to exist, and Israelis have a right to live. I think Jews need at least one nation.

Do you belive that nations should have sectarian identities?

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 11:48 AM:

Daveg,

Almost all nations do have sectarian identities. I am not opposed to it for all nations; although, I would prefer to live in a nation without a sectarian identity.

daveg said at February 6, 2006 1:05 PM:

Almost all nations do have sectarian identities. I am not opposed to it for all nations; although, I would prefer to live in a nation without a sectarian identity.

So, I assume you think it is fine for countries to invoke laws that will help preserve those sectarian identities, including heavily restricted immigration or strongly favoring immigrants who are of that religion as well as laws that ban proselytizing?

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 1:42 PM:

Sure, why not?

daveg said at February 6, 2006 3:19 PM:

Interesting.

Many Jewish groups get mad when people try to prevent Jews from coming into their country, such as the 1905 homestead act which prevented all sorts of immigration into England. They also are very upset at the failure of the US to take in Jewish refugees in the years leading up to WWII.

Talk about restricting immigration based on religion and you will get more than an earful from the likes of Abe Foxman.

I find it very hypocritical.

Pico said at February 6, 2006 3:50 PM:

The problem arises when zionists pursue their interests in America. Daniel Pipes founded Campus watch, which monitors college professors on their position on Israel. The zionist groups for whom criticism of israel is political heresy have engaged in a campaign of calumny to vilify professors who do not toe the zionist line. Academic freedom is a core value of the west which is under seige in America.

daveg said at February 6, 2006 3:52 PM:

And I should add that virtually no western "sectarian" nation follows the policies I am set forth above, and virtually any attempt to implement them is met with cries of racism (which is a misnomer, to some degree) or worse.

Basically, although these countries still have some official religion on the books, the reality is that this is in name only, and virtually every western nation has rejected policies directly at preserving the countries religious identity. The idea of a sectarian state not longer exists in the west, and the fact that Israel implements them separates them from normal western society.

Now, some may argue that we should be more like Israel, but you won't here that from any of the mainstream Jewish origanizations that I am aware of.

Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 4:17 PM:

daveg,

I certainly favor the US doing some of the same things that Israel does: Do not allow Muslim immigration. Build walls to control borders.

Most Jews in America support policies for Israel that, yes, they accuse whites of racism for supporting for the US. Yes, this is blatant hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to promote ideas that I see as in my best interest regardless of who calls me racist as a result.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 4:18 PM:

Daveg,

The international response to Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust is one of the things that lead me to Zionism. If the Jews need to flee persecution, they need someplace to flee to. It is not safe for the Jews to rely on the humanitarianism of other states.

Some western states are more sectarian than others. I expect the sectarian states to become even more sectarian in the future as a response to Islamism.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 4:34 PM:

Pico,

The problem arises when zionists pursue their interests in America.

What's wrong with individual Americans pursuing their own individual interests? Are you saying AARP members have no business pursuing the interests of retirees? Are you saying farmers have no business pursuing the interests of farmers?


Daniel Pipes founded Campus watch, which monitors college professors on their position on Israel.

Actually, you once again fail to understand and/or mischaracterize Daniel Pipes. Campus Watch monitors intolerance, excessive and inappropriate orthodoxy, and political bullying by Islamist professors on American campuses. The fact that the evidence sometimes includes statements about Israel does not mean the organization monitors professors on their position on Israel per se. And why would any academic complain about additional publicity of the views they hold?


The zionist groups for whom criticism of israel is political heresy have engaged in a campaign of calumny to vilify professors who do not toe the zionist line.

Here you really reveal your ignorance. Many professors of Islamic/Middle-east studies promulgate an inherently Islamist hatred for all things western. They have been known to bully and to stifle open dialogue on university campuses, which is anathema to higher learning. Campus Watch only shines a light into that dark little corner. The fact that some of the professors featured have been arrested for supporting terrorism suggests to me that Campus Watch very much pursues America's best interests.


Academic freedom is a core value of the west which is under seige in America.

Campus Watch in no way diminishes academic freedom. Professors are still free to say what they want. The only difference is their opinions now reach a much wider audience. Campus Watch increases academic freedom and broadens the academic experience by opening the classroom to wider points of view. Freedom of the press is also a core value in America.

Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 4:59 PM:

E-P,

If that bit about slowly rising temperatures and frogs is an urban legend then I see an obvious conclusion: frogs have got more sense than Europeans.

daveg said at February 6, 2006 5:12 PM:

The international response to Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust is one of the things that lead me to Zionism. If the Jews need to flee persecution, they need someplace to flee to. It is not safe for the Jews to rely on the humanitarianism of other states.

Right, but you recall that your response to my question regarding it being OK to protect the religious identity of a country, as the US was essentially doing when turning back the jews was:

"Sure, why not?"

So, American didn't do anything wrong morally. I mean you don't hold Israel responsible for not taking if refugee from Rwanda, right?

And the fact remains, the idea of a "religious" state is not really acceptable from a modern western perspective. It is certainly not practiced by any western nation I am aware of.


daveg said at February 6, 2006 5:28 PM:

Many professors of Islamic/Middle-east studies promulgate an inherently Islamist hatred for all things western. They have been known to bully and to stifle open dialogue on university campuses, which is anathema to higher learning.

Ah, here you reviel yourself to be a bit of a zelot.

The claim that Islamists stifle open debate on university campuses is laughable. Some may say some crazy things, but the middle eastern studies deparments is certainly not capable of stifling debate. They are just one small department in (typically) large universities.

And I really don't share your opinion that groups like Campus Watch are instruments of opening up debate on the middle east. The do engage in vilification and accusation rather than clarification and dicussion.

There might be a group that does what you suggest, but Campus Watch is not that group.

If you want to see some great quote comparing neocons to the Cultural Revoltion in China look here.

These guys are very scary.

Marvin said at February 6, 2006 6:02 PM:

No, Bob is pretty accurate in his description of the professors of middle eastern studies--little tyrants who enjoy tyranizing whomever they can.

There really is no such thing as a cultural revoltion in China. Chinese culture is quite old, and not so revolting at all. You should read more.

Campus Watch is much needed on university campuses, where the little dictator professors roam freely, inflicting their brand of oppression and destruction of personal freedoms which would never be tolerated in any other setting in the US except prisons and the military. Even in the military there is a chain of command and appeal. On campus, the deck is stacked against the student. Students had better organize, or the idiot professors of "XXX Studies" could do whatever they wanted.

Invisible Scientist said at February 6, 2006 7:06 PM:

Daveg wrote:
"So, American didn't do anything wrong morally. I mean you don't hold Israel responsible for not taking if refugee from Rwanda, right?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, if my memory is correct, around 1999, when the Serbs of Yugoslavia were slaughering the Muslims, during the siege of Sarajevo, Israel actually accepted more than a hundred Muslim refugees from Sarajevo. Understandably, I agree that this was a small number, and this was not enough, and they should have accepted more, but given the fact that Israel is such a small country, it really seems that there was a certain degree of humanity going on there...

Before and during the Holocaust, it was not the indifference but the active prejudice of various government officials that was responsible for the refusal of many countries to accept Jewish refugees. And at that time, the Jewish refugees did not fall in an aggressive category, their number was not increasing due to low birth rate, and they were basically very assimilable in any country.

Incidentally, some Jewish Rabbis from France and England responded to the Danish caricature business by saying that it was unfair for the caricatures to humiliate Muslims.

Daveg said at February 6, 2006 7:31 PM:

Before and during the Holocaust, it was not the indifference but the active prejudice of various government officials that was responsible for the refusal of many countries to accept Jewish refugees. And at that time, the Jewish refugees did not fall in an aggressive category, their number was not increasing due to low birth rate, and they were basically very assimilable in any country.

Who said anything about being agressive? We are talking about the right to preserve the sectarian identity of your country. Something that Zionists see no problem with whatsoever.

The agressiveness, or lack thereof, of the influx is not a factor.

Daveg said at February 6, 2006 7:41 PM:

There really is no such thing as a cultural revolution in China. Chinese culture is quite old, and not so revolting at all. You should read more.

Honestly, Marvin you should be ashamed at yourself for making such a statement. Do you think all those people fled to Taiwan for the fun of it?

You are a repulsive Cultural Revolution denier. Disgusting.

The Cultural Revolution

Oh, and don't forget the 20 million or so killed by Stalin's willing executioners during the Bolshevek Revolution.

Those people didn't have a country to flee to either.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 9:42 PM:

Daveg,

With all due respect, all Campus Watch does is publish the professors' own words. If that is vilification, whose fault is that? After all, the professors chose those words. If they are ashamed of their own words, isn't that a problem of their own creation?

It reminds me of an incident from when I was in university. The Engineering Society's humour magazine once responded to the frequent charges that its content was inappropriate or in bad taste by publishing verbatim an essentially pornographic article written by a lesbian that had appeared in another student newspaper without anyone taking any particular notice or complaining about the appropriateness. In the lawsuit that followed, the author claimed to have been humiliated and defamed by the publication, and the Engineering Society responded that the author, herself, had already distributed the same article to essentially the same audience.

Exercising one's freedom of speech is not censorship. Campus Watch does not censor anyone. Censorship would be wrong, but publicity is a good thing.

Personally, I find the professor in florida who was waging war against the US a lot scarier than Daniel Pipes.


With respect to your other points, lots of countries took no Rwandan refugees. Why should I care about that?

Stalin and the Cultural Revolution are different from the holocaust in that those sad periods were not intertribal/multicultural (ignoring occupied nations like Tibet.) If the Chinese and the Russians want government by murderous dictators, they can have it. Ditto the Cambodians. In the end, the government they have reflects something about the nation itself.


And the fact remains, the idea of a "religious" state is not really acceptable from a modern western perspective. It is certainly not practiced by any western nation I am aware of.

Do you suggest that France and Italy are not catholic states? That England is not an Anglican state? I fully expect the west to become a lot more sectarian in the future. You seem to be arguing with yourself. I find sectarian states acceptable.


P.S. Marvin did not deny the Cultural Revolution. He ridiculed you for a typo. He's like that.

John S Bolton said at February 6, 2006 10:02 PM:

People in distress don't have privilege to disregard the need to avoid increasing the aggression on others. Here is something copied from Sailer: HAVING BEEN BOOED RECENTLY... [John Podhoretz]

...when the subject was immigration, Mark, I assure you that I wasn't dishing anything out at the time. I said merely what I feel deeply -- which is that, as a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in."
From this, you would never know that our immigration policy during the years of the Hitler regime, gave its largest quota to Germans. Nor would you be told that immigration visas went to the relevant demographic, German Jews, at something like 100 times the Jewish share of the world's population.
Perhaps it would be said that the comparison shoould be to the total distressed population of the world. China, however, was under invasion from Japan during all those years. There were other likely refugee populations. So how can it be suggested that one group was hard done by, in terms of immigration restriction, when it was the particular restrictions that allowed them to get enormously more immigration visas, at the relevant period, than their expected egalitarian share?
Moslem immigration is a terror offensive by officials on the majority.
If one says free immigration could save everyone who might be about to be victimized; how does that square with the existence of moslem populations which are inclined to immigrate to the supposed indestructible refuges?
Pretending that the 'refuge' countries can't be harmed or destroyed by 'refugees' is to take the side of the terror offensive.

Invisible Scientist said at February 6, 2006 11:23 PM:

Daveg wrote:
"Oh, and don't forget the 20 million or so killed by Stalin's willing executioners during the Bolshevek Revolution.
Those people didn't have a country to flee to either."
----------------------------------------------------------

The victims of Stalin DID have a country to flee, namely the United States, because we were officially against commies, and we would have accepted ALL the Russians who wanted to become capitalists, because this was a matter of principle for us. But unfortunately, Stalin did not let too many of them escape Russia, and killed almost everybody on his list... Had Stalin exiled them instead of killing, then we would have accepted everyone who escaped from communism...

Incidentally, Stalin's daughter did escape to the United States as a refugee... As if this were not enough, to add insult to injury, she even said that she actually believed in God, unlike the God-less commies...

Daveg said at February 7, 2006 7:23 AM:

Do you suggest that France and Italy are not catholic states? That England is not an Anglican state? I fully expect the west to become a lot more sectarian in the future. You seem to be arguing with yourself. I find sectarian states acceptable.

These states do not protect their religious identity in the way that Israel does. Any attempt to use the same tools employed by Israel is met with strong resistance, often by Jewish groups (as well as many others). Such activism also elicits streams of disapproving op-eds from the major newspapers.

I repeat, the methods employed by Israel to protect its religious identity are not acceptable by conventional western standards.

That Steve Sailer article is definitely worth reading. Here is a Links

As to campus watch, I simply don't agree that this group is dedicated to opening dialog. And between a few crazy middle eastern professor and them I will take the professors.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 9:35 AM:

Daveg,

I expect France and England don't denigrate Americans in the same knee-jerk way Canadians do. I expect Germany and the Netherlands don't try to protect their languages from English incursions the way the French do. Different cultures forming different nation states have different bugaboos.

You are trying to make an issue out of something that is a total non-issue to me. A few years ago, I might have agreed that protecting a religious identity is unaccepable by western standards. But since then, I have grown. I think it is unacceptable for America to do that according to American standards, and I would like to see America preserve those standards for itself.

However, I do not think American standards are universal. Thus, I don't think American standards apply in Bosnia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, France, Sweden etc. Nor do I think it appropriate for Sweden or Iran to impose their standards on America.

daveg said at February 7, 2006 10:01 AM:

Here an example of the kind of "debate" you get from campus watch:

ďTexas Journalism Professor Robert Jensen, who rabidly hates the United States, and recently told his students, ĎThe United States has lost the war in Iraq and thatís a good thing.íĒ

This use of the word "rabid" is perhaps the best example of projection I have ever seen. The only rabid person is the one doing who wrote this.

Here is some of the response to this:

First, Iím not rabid, in personal or political style. Iím a sedate, non-descript middle-aged academic who tries to approach political and moral questions rationally.

...

Second, I offer such critiques without hate. Sometimes my assessments are harsh, such as in evaluating George W. Bushís invasion of Iraq and concluding the attack was unlawful and, therefore, our president is guilty of crimes against peace and should be prosecuted.

...

Third, these critiques are not of the United States, but of specific policies and policymakers. No nation is a monolith with a single set of interests or political positions, and itís nonsensical to claim that harsh critique constitutes rejection of an entire nation.

Why would anyone suggest that I rabidly hate the United States? Itís easier to defame opponents using emotionally charged language than engage on real issues. Accuse them of being irrational and hateful. Ignore the substance of the claims and just sling mud. By even minimal standards of intellectual or political discourse itís not terribly honorable, but it often works. [Yup]

Beyond these junkyard dog tactics, Horowitzís email also makes one crucial factual error. I did write that the U.S. losing the Iraq war was a good thingónot in celebration of death and destruction, of course, but because the defeat temporarily restrains policymakers in their dangerous attempts to extend the U.S. empire. But that was the first sentence of an opinion piece I published in various newspapers in 2004, not a statement to students. The distinction is important.

Poeple like Horowitz are permanent "revolutionaries". They were dangerous on the left and they are just and dangerous on the right.

daveg said at February 7, 2006 11:08 AM:

I think it is unacceptable for America to do that according to American standards, and I would like to see America preserve those standards for itself.

But America has protected its "identity" in the past. So, American "standards" change over time.

That is, they are not standard at all.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 11:23 AM:

America protects its identity today, and I wish it would go even further to protect its identity, so I fail to see your point.

I am disgusted by an American political elite who refuse to assert American sovereignty and who refuse to protect American borders.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 4:02 PM:

Daniel Pipes:

It certainly feels like a clash of civilizations. But it is not.
...
It is a tragic mistake to lump all Muslims with the forces of darkness. Moderate, enlightened, free-thinking Muslims do exist.

Yep, that's one scary, scary guy. Ooooh, he even said 'clash of civilizations'. Ooooh, scary.

atheist Andy said at February 8, 2006 11:43 AM:

Judging from the 'diversity' of opinions expressed here, I reckon I might have inadvertently come across the club of WASP Islam-bashing ultra-rightists.

Bob Badour said at February 8, 2006 4:03 PM:

And you would reckon incorrectly.

iambt said at February 19, 2006 6:29 PM:

when the prophet mohammad sent the army to the war with the enemy he told them not to kill women, not to kill children, not to burn any church, not to burn plants nor trees and not to hurt animals.
so when his followers in 2006 did that with people who just didn't beleive in him, they don't have his acceptance.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 2:29 PM:
not to kill women, not to kill children, not to burn any church, not to burn plants nor trees and not to hurt animals.

Apparently, he did not want them damaging any of the merchandise.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 3:42 PM:

then, that the way you see it.
every good moral must lead to something bad =)

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 5:32 PM:

My explanation is consistent with all of the facts. Mohammed murdered, raped and stole, which means he was never a man of higher morals.

He considered the women and children of those he murdered as property, ie. as slaves. He ordered his men not to damage any of the chattel, but he did nothing to prevent them from murdering, stealing and raping.

Mohammed devoted an entire Surah of the Qur'an to claiming his own personal share of the property he ordered his men to steal and not to damage. He was not a man of higher morals, and the greed motive is consistent with his entire history.

Jones said at March 2, 2006 2:08 PM:

Long ago didn't they convert one great church into a mosque, or am I mistaken?
(Rhetorical, I already know the answer)


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©