Finally, a European with backbone

[Ned]

Henryk Broder has written a book called, "Hurray! We're Capitulating." In it, he condemns European appeasement of what he calls the Nazi-Islamism. It is quite a read. Here is an excerpt from Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html

Sounds a lot like Jack Kennedy's paper on the appeasement of Nazism that got President Roosevelt's attention and changed America's policy toward Nazi Germany. Hopefully, Broder's piece will be well recieved somewhere in Europe.

[KrazyHorse]

You should probably go troll somewhere you're not as much of a joke already.

[BeBMan]

The guy's a quite known journalist here. Usually I think his stuff has some merits, mainly because he doesn't care about certain PC mainstream views, but in recent times his overly polemic style has reached sometimes hysteric dimensions. Provocation is all nice as long it's really thought-provoking, but when overdone too often it's just boring.

[Zkribbler]

Here's the problem with Broder's point of view. He assumes that there must be a good guy and a bad guy.

That is, it's okay to print offensive cartoons of the prophet because the reaction of the Islamists was ever more extreme.

But in fact, the printing of cartoons--which (a) depicted the prophet and thus would be viewed as blasphamy in the eyes of Muslims; and (b) depicted the prophet in false and degrating stances, which would inflame Muslims even more--is despicable conduct. Being offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive is conduct which deserves to be roundly condemned by all.

Broder does point to conduct from Muslims which was even more horrendous: e.g., the burning of embassies and consulates. This conduct was not only far more horrific than the printing of offensive cartoons, it was also criminal and, because it was an attack of foreign soil, could be considered to be an act of war.

But just because some Muslims acted far worse than the Danish morons who published the cartoons, doesn't absolve the vileness of the cartoons and the stupidity that got them published.

It is not appeasement to condemn wrongdoing!

Broder points to other instances of PC run amok. For example, the objection by the German government agecy to the nude posters on the grounds that it might offend some non-Christians--i.e. Muslims. But there are obviously going to be isolated incidents of government officials overreacting, and they count for little if anything.

We had one in L.A. The ACLU sued to have Christian crosses removed from the County Seal. The County signed a concent decree, and then, on its own, removed the image of the harvest goddess Pomona as well.
--Oh my! Should Angelenos condemn Greek pagans because of this??

As civilized people, we need to be respect the sensativites of other cultures. We're all on one planet which is getting smaller everyday. We need to get along.

When people gratuitiously use "fighting words," (as did the Dutch publishers) we need to condemn them. When someone resorts to violence (as did the Muslim "street"), we need to doubly condemn them.

Treating people with respect is not, as Broder implies, the moral equivalent of giving up Chechoslovakia to the Nazis.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
(b) depicted the prophet in false and degrating stances,

Exactly wich of the drawings did that ?

[Zkribbler]

There was one where Mohammed was depicted wearing a bomb as a turban.

Another depicted him with horns, which curved and golden as if mimicking a halo.

[BlackCat]

And where is the false and degrating in those ?

Haven't the main part of terrorist bombings in the recent years been done in his name ?

The halo thingie - well, a halo usually depicts something holy, but if evil is done in the persons name, I don't find it questionable to twist the halo into horns.

[Heresson]

Henryk? Strange that he kept a polish name despite living in Germany for almost a half of century

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Haven't the main part of terrorist bombings in the recent years been done in his name ?

The same way cross-burning used to be done in the name of Christ.

You have to remember these wackos aren't mainstream Muslims. Their chief religious leaders have condemned them.

Remember, in Islam, it is a sin to make a drawing of anything found on Earth or in Heaven! To draw their prophet is a double abomination. And to draw him with horn is beyond the pale.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The same way cross-burning used to be done in the name of Christ.

Yeah, KKK and their actions are probably not the most appropriate display of christianity in a christian country, but could actually be considered the true nature in a nonchristian country.

Those drawings are nothing but displays of the current situation, wich includes the fact that muslims doesn't figth against those that misinterpret the true faith.

You have to remember these wackos aren't mainstream Muslims. Their chief religious leaders have condemned them.

I really can't remember such, but if it has happened, it has been so quiet that noone has heard it.

Remember, in Islam, it is a sin to make a drawing of anything found on Earth or in Heaven! To draw their prophet is a double abomination. And to draw him with horn is beyond the pale.

That is probably true, but since denmark isn't a muslim country, such a thing isn't an abomination.

[Heresson]

there should be not a muslim country. If a muslim dislikes such drawings, he is not forced to draw them.
Of course, what I am saying is against muslim tradition.

[Zkribbler]

Insulting someone else's religious figures in not cool. Such actions deserve criticism.



We will lose the War on Terror if we insist upon lumping mainstream Muslims in with the Islamic fanatics. If we see treating Muslims with respect and sensitivity as "appeasement" and "weakness," and if we see Islam as the enemy, then we doom ourselves to a bloody, unnecessary and endless conflict.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Insulting someone else's religious figures in not cool. Such actions deserve criticism.

If it's done to insult specific persons, I agree, but if it just insult a religion, I actually find it as common sense.

We will lose the War on Terror if we insist upon lumping mainstream Muslims in with the Islamic fanatics. If we see treating Muslims with respect and sensitivity as "appeasement" and "weakness," and if we see Islam as the enemy, then we doom ourselves to a bloody, unnecessary and endless conflict.

I think that you have misunderstood something - there is a tendency (might even be high) to do that, but the main problem is that mainstream muslims doesn't say NO.

That said, there are lots of ordinary muslims that really disagrees with what is done in the name of muhammed, but the rarely say anything.

I belive that most people want to treat Muslims with respect and sensitivity, but it's a two way road - they must equally accept the opposite way of doing things including drawing pictures of ancient people and redicule of religion.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I belive that most people want to treat Muslims with respect and sensitivity, but it's a two way road - they must equally accept the opposite way of doing things including drawing pictures of ancient people and redicule of religion.

I can accept if they feel strongly enough to protest and even burn a flag or two.

--But they're over the line when the begin burning embassies and making death threats.

[BlackCat]

The funny thing is that common muslims in denmark wasn't peticularily offended by the drawings. It took something like four months and intensive work by certain people before it exploded. It wasn't common muslims that was offended by the drawings.