If you want to reify “Islam” as one particular theocratic worldview which is fundamentally incompatible with civil liberties, knock yourself out.
But the people who attend mosques and call themselves Muslims are free to define Islam however they see fit. If they want to call themselves Muslims who attend mosques and maintain civil liberties and secular government, fine by me. Better than fine, in fact.
I quite understand that many fanatical Salafi radical-Islamist jurists would doubtless refuse to call any non-theocratic, non-repressive version of their religion “Islam”. What I don’t understand is why you’re supporting them in their hard-line bigotry.
Great idea. Bomb the civilians and destabilize the governments who mostly didn’t support the anti-American violence, thereby generating additional anti-American resentment. That’ll show those damn manipulative jihadis, all right.
I am not certain about the chain of cause and effect here. Please explain it to me. The “consequence” of this kind of free speech is “the deaths of innocent people?” Moi is confused.
How exactly did innocent people die as a result of someone using their right of free speech? Did the US Ambassador see the video on YouTube and just keel over?
NO! WAIT! There is another cause and effect in the sequence that, for some reason is carefully omitted from your posting. It is a bunch of moron fanatics killing innocent people, believing they have been given the right and duty to do so by an invisible spirit man in the sky, who allegedly spoke to Mohammed, a 7th century warlord who fucked a 9-year-old girl. And that Mohammed gave them a law supposedly handed down by this God, that provides for the killing of people who want to leave Islam and blasphemers who mock Mohammed and Islam.
This is what we are dealing defending our freedoms against.
Something gives me the impression that the difference between there and elsewhere isn’t so much the belief in religion as it is the belief in the ability to get away with violence, what with the “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out” type opinions.
I think this is missing my point a bit. They can be offended, and they can think that the guy who created the film is an asshole… in fact many Americans would agree with them on those points. I’m not saying they should give the creator of the film a pass because he has a right to free speech. There are plenty of things that are both legal to say and deeply offensive.
But the fact that they seem to blame the U.S. government for the film, or for failing to prevent it from being made or punish the person responsible, I guess, suggests to me that perhaps they don’t understand that the U.S. government is Constitutionally prohibited from doing that. They’re blaming the wrong people, apparently because they greatly overestimate how much control our government has over its citizens.
Among some of the demands that BBC is reporting are taking root among the rioting masses is an international law making it a crime to insult Islam. Anywhere in the world. I’m not sure how long it will take to push that one though, but some seem fired up for it and won’t take no for an answer.
Those governments are not on our side. They would not hesitate to kill Americans if we weren’t providing them money. They had no intention of doing anything about the attacks on our embassies or our citizens. Americans will continue to die as long as we fight fire with rose petals. I have nothing against diplomacy, but if attacks against us aren’t met with disproportionate violence they will never cease.
Who are you talking about here? The Libyan government the U.S. assisted in the rebellion against Gadhaffi a couple of months ago, the government the U.S. established in Afghanistan, or the one it assisted and welcomed (despite its history with Mubarak) in Egypt?
And considering the body counts in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, I think we ticked the “attacks against us are met with disproportionate violence” box a long time ago.
So I guess by now the attacks have ceased, right? Oh wait…
Just to reiterate, I don’t think they should stop being offended. But it’d be nice if that offense was directed at the person responsible for it. Also, the fact that someone is offended is no excuse for causing the deaths of innocent people.
Realistically, there’s nothing we can do to ensure that no American ever says or does something offensive. It would be nice if when they do, folks in other countries understood (as we do here) that it’s just one person being an asshole, not our whole country being assholes.
Disproportionate violence must be met with disproportionate violence, or it will never cease.
Disproportionate violence is the reasonable and only effective solution to disproportionate violence.
I can’t help but see something of a problem here. If I hit you for no good reason, and you decide that I must be stopped and that the only good response is to hit me, isn’t it only logical to conclude that my only reasoning in response to that is going to be similar to your own? Doesn’t the very fact that you yourself, when looking at a situation where disproportionate violence is occuring, come to the conclusion that the answer is more violence back tend to negate the idea that it’s going to be a good idea?
Why? Is it your contention that people can’t tolerate being insulted, that they can’t control their actions? Or is it your contention that some people can’t tolerate it?
Who here is old enough to remember “Son’O’God Comics” from back in the 70s when National Lampoon was funny? Here is a sample of what they were like: http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/417/
Okay, do you agree that this is equally offensive in ridiculing Christianity as that stupid movie mockling Islam that may exist only in the form of trailers for all we know?
Now then, my point is not that nobody rioted against National Lampoon, and that the authors of these comics did not live in fear with 24-hour surveillance.
What I would propose is that we ask ourselves what would happen if this comic book were translated into Arabic and made available on the web. Would Muslims riot?
Not likely, because their belief is not that NOBODY should offend another person’s religious beliefs. On the contrary, the Koran explicitly states the blasphemous idea that Jesus was NOT the son of God, and yet enters freely into every wqestern country. It is that nobody should mock Islam, and that violence and the death of innocent peopkle will be the result if they do.
I agree with you. Except that’s not the case here. This situation has been going on for a long time. We have attempted again and again to find peaceful solutions to these problems, and it hasn’t worked. We’ve also tried stupid wars that have made the problem worse because we claimed to be fighting for a noble cause. We should have long ago made it clear that attacking us will result in disproportionate retaliation, something that out enemies will understand. If they thought we had the stomach to continue with this strategy they would change their minds.
You’re not making any sense here. Libya is not Egypt is not Yemen is not Pakistan. “Disproportionate relation” - which sounds like code for ‘killing innocents to make a point’ - is not the solution to all of these problems. Or any of them as far as I can see.
All of them. I don’t like talking like this. But there’s a bitterness built up in me from the long series of victims of their irrational behavior. Our enemies don’t live in caves, they’re online and connected to the world, they don’t believe in anything like our principles, and we continue to be sitting ducks. I have no doubt these are coordinated attacks not sanctioned by these governments. But without the personal interests of the people in those governments to stay in power they would turn on us in second. Libya is chock full of Al Quaeda related extremists who are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans and restore tyranny in their country and across the region.
I probably won’t like myself for succumbing to these feelings, but I also can’t help seeing the reality of the situation, and it is grim.
I mean, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that after your bombing campaigns (or whatever) are complete, somewhere in wherever it is you’ve attacked will be saying “We should have made it clear long ago that attacking us will result in disproportionate retaliation, something that our enemies will understand.” Your argument relies on the people you’re targeting to be cowed by your display of power and violence; that being convinced that since violence will be an inevitable and devestating response will inevitably lead to some form of surrender. But you have your own response to compare against! Are you cowed? Are you convinced that an inevitable violent response means using violence is a bad idea?
I just don’t get the cognitive dissonance. If your logic is sound, then right now, with your strong belief that this violence is endemic and inevitable, you would be changing your mind. If guaranteed, disproportionate violence was an effective deterrent, right now, faced with that very same thing, you would be the one being forced into altering your views. Are you? And if not, why do you think it will work when you use it on them?
But how much control does THEIR government have over its citizens? Ever stop and think that their government is the one pushing the propaganda that it’s the US government behind this? People don’t come up with this idea on their own. And do you think totalitarian governments are going to give people access to sources that say otherwise, or give them credit?
I’m not following your reasoning. We have the upper hand here. I’m not suggesting carpet bombing. We know where our enemies are, and I suggest we attack without regard to collateral damage. We have to make it clear this is what we are going to do, and point the finger at those who would attack us as the cause of the retaliation.