In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

How To Top A Mohammed Cartoon

Jill

Run a Holocaust cartoon. Way to take a stand for your dearly-held national free speech values, Iran! We knew you had it in ya.*

I’m sure that the right-wing blogosphere will immediately denounce anyone who questions the good taste of these cartoons as an anti-free-speech advocate. And to further their love of free speech, I’m sure they’ll reproduce these cartoons on their sites (or at least link to them), just like so many of them did with the Mohammad cartoons. Maybe we’ll even get t-shirts! Because it’s all about free speech, no matter how offensive.

To be serious: There is a difference between making a cartoon about a mass genocide, and making a cartoon which features an image of a diety who isn’t supposed to be imaged. But supposedly this issue is strictly about speech — if you think it’s acceptable to not print horrifically offensive things on the editorial pages, you’re a fascist. Now, I’m a big First Amendment fan. I’d fight to the death (well… maybe not death, but high pain levels) for the rights of individuals and the press to create and publish what they want. But I also recognize that there’s a big difference between things like individually-created art and something promoted by the editorial board of a newspaper, which is why comparisons to things like Piss Christ and Corpus Christi don’t exactly follow. I think it’s sick that an Iranian newspaper is comissioning these cartoons. But my view is fairly consistent: Regardless of content, newspapers should have the right to print the images and words of their choosing, but they should make efforts to not be full-on bigots; their speech should have a point, and not simply seek to offend. I think this is true regardless of whether they’re depicting Muslims, Christians, Jews, Blacks, Asians, whoever. As a legal standard, of course, press and speech rights should be unfettered. And ideally, those rights would be used to challenge and to inform, not just to offend. If they do offend, use your own freedom of speech as a response — but the line gets drawn when you’re trying to shut down the conversation through violence, threats of violence or coercion.

So I’m curious to see how people will respond now that the content of the cartoons has changed. I longingly await Buy Iranian campaigns, demands for U.S. newspapers to publish the cartoons, and calls to give people who are offended by the cartoons a culture war. I’m sure the ever-consistent right wing will be on this immediately.

*Sarcasm, for the slower among us.

74 thoughts on How To Top A Mohammed Cartoon

  1. I’m going to get into all sorts of trouble for this comment, but…In a twisted sort of way, I think that this is actually a semi-reasonable response. Making fun of the Holocaust is a serious taboo in the west (and I have trouble trying to think of anything funny about premeditated mass murder myself), almost the equivalent of sacrilige, as picturing God is in Islam. So in a sense the Iranian newspaper’s publishing cartoons about the Holocaust is similar to the Danish newspaper publishing the cartoons making fun of Allah. Of course, it would be more dignified, loving, and generally in the Judeo-Christio-Islamic tradition to forgive the sacrilige and just ignore the unbelievers or maybe have a dialogue about why their humor is offensive, but if you can’t manage that, better more tacky cartoons than riots, arson, and bloodshed.

  2. I realize you were being sarcastic but a number of “Right Wing” sites have published these or other anti-semitic or anti-christian cartoons. Admittedly mostly to say how stupid and hatefull they are admittedly but they have published them.

    I actually do think US newspapers ought to publish them too for the same reason. And in fact they ought to publish them side by side so that people can get a feel for what is ebing argued over and maybe tell the Muslims to get a life. As it is the only hatefull thing the NY Times dares to print is the Madonna of shit

  4. You know, I’m so tired of hearing the whole “Madonna of shit” thing. It’s not like Chris Ofili smeared the painting with elephant shit.

    And really, with all the hoo-hah over the little lacquered balls of elephant turds, nobody seemed to notice the porn-mag cutouts all around the Madonna.

    Incidentally, here’s a story about the Danish newspaper’s earlier refusal to run cartoons that were offensive to Christians. So it appears that they knew exactly the outrage they’d provoke. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

  5. I think it is too easy to distinguish between the two types of cartoons, to believe that conservatives should have to (at the risk of being called hypocrites) put up “Buy Iranian” links and reprint the cartoons.

    For one, conservatives aren’t puting up “Buy Danish” links because a Denmark magazine printed some cartoons. They’re puting up links and reprinting the cartoons because Danish embassies are being burned down and Islamic countries are declaring boycotts on Danish products (incidentally, since when does one periodical represent an entire country?). The Iranian cartoons are being

    Also, while the Danish cartoons were possibly in poor taste, they were (ironically) printed to show the dissonance between the religion of Mohammed and the actions of radical Islamists. In other words, they were timely political commentary. On the other hand, the Iranian cartoons are being sought for the purpose of finding “the best cartoon about the Holocaust” so as to ask the question of whether free speech extends to criticism of “America and Israel’s crimes.”

    Somehow, I doubt Americans and Israelis (or any other Westerners) will throw rocks and fire bombs at Iranian embassies. So maybe this Iranian newspaper will demonstrate that free speech does extend to criticism of America and Israel.

    QUESTION: Do you really think that conservatives are on the attack because people are “question[ing] the good taste of these cartoons”, or is there something more going on here? Okay, that was a rude and poorly disguised dig.

    It’s frustrating that we are all on the same side of this issue, and yet cannot help but try and use the events to make attacks on each other.

    We all agree that newspapers (Danish, Iranian, American, whatever) should have the right to publish whatever they want–with lawful limits on incitatory speech, etc. We all agree that burning embassies is bad. We all agree that people should be free to boycott whatever products or countries they want.

  6. We all agree that newspapers (Danish, Iranian, American, whatever) should have the right to publish whatever they want–with lawful limits on incitatory speech, etc. We all agree that burning embassies is bad. We all agree that people should be free to boycott whatever products or countries they want.

    This is absolutely true. Where we differ, though, is that people like me think that publishing the cartoons was purposely offensive, and see no point in rubbing Muslims’ face in that disrespect by reprinting the cartoons and linking to images of them.

    Look, I support the free speech angle, like you said. The fact that people are burning embassies over this is terrifying. But I also think we need to recognize that the partial root of the problem is the oppressive and totalitarian cultures/societies that a lot of the protestors are coming from. They haven’t enjoyed the same traditions of free speech and discourse that Americans and people from many other nations have. So while I don’t support their actions, I’m trying to look at them in context. Doesn’t justify what’s happening, but it helps in understanding it, getting to the root of the problem and preventing it in the future.

  7. I longingly await Buy Iranian campaigns, demands for U.S. newspapers to publish the cartoons

    I realize that you’re steeped in the Left’s embrace of moral and cultural equivalence and it’s likely that you’re posing the above challenge on that basis, so it’d be kind of pointless to highlight the different circumstances which would go a long way to invalidating your position, for argument is almost always trumped by principles, misguided as they may be.

  8. I realize that you’re steeped in the Left’s embrace of moral and cultural equivalence and it’s likely that you’re posing the above challenge on that basis, so it’d be kind of pointless to highlight the different circumstances which would go a long way to invalidating your position, for argument is almost always trumped by principles, misguided as they may be.

    I said:

    There is a difference between making a cartoon about a mass genocide, and making a cartoon which features an image of a diety who isn’t supposed to be imaged. But supposedly this issue is strictly about speech

    I think I was very clear that there are cultural and moral differences between these two cartoons, and the promotion of each of them. But the right-wing blogs I’ve been reading have been talking about this like it’s strictly a free speech issue, and have used it as a jumping-off point to validate ther bigotry, racism and hatred toward Muslims and Arabs. My larger point here is that, regardless of what they claim, this isn’t about the right loving free speech.

  9. so it’d be kind of pointless to highlight the different circumstances which would go a long way to invalidating your position,

    Then why did you bother to post at all? Your argument as it stands is less than convincing. Make your argument. And if you can’t support it, don’t blame other people’s positions for that.

  10. Oh joy, cartoons about oven roasted Jews. Can’t wait.

    The point of reprinting the Islamic cartoons is only indirectly to promote free speech. Its main purpose is to show the glaring disconnect between the rather tame content of the cartoons and the outlandish Islamic reaction of protest, burning embassies and boycotts. And the the unstated but implied message is “Look the kind of demented society the Muslims have produced.”

    The original Danish cartoons were intended to focus attention on the hands-off approach taken by many Europeans toward criticism of the actions of the Muslim community. The Muslims are already highly critical of the Jews and Israel, so why the need for an Iranian cartoon contest?

  11. The original Danish cartoons were intended to focus attention on the hands-off approach taken by many Europeans toward criticism of the actions of the Muslim community.

    That might wash a bit better if the paper in question treated cartoons about Jesus and cartoons about Muhammed the same. From the Guardian article I linked to above:

    Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
    The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

    In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

    Zieler received an email back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”

  12. Jill writes: There is a difference between making a cartoon about a mass genocide, and making a cartoon which features an image of a diety who isn’t supposed to be imaged.

    All together now: Muslims do NOT believe that Mohammed is a god. Mohammed is a man, a prophet, but a man.

    It sort of weirds me out sometimes how many people think Muslims worship Mohammed.

  13. Ah, that’s what I meant oudemia. I’m really not that ignorant. I was up all night last night, and I’ve been staring at my computer screen all day… exhaustion leads to stupidity.

  15. I second you, Jill, but want to add this as well. Muslims have had their entire religious culture conflated with terrorism around the world, primarily by Western countries, including those whose payoff for said conflation is justification for a war without boundary or timeline. And for further measure, let’s add political and social class tensions to the fire. Cherry on top.

    For chrissakes, we’ve had mosque-bombings here in Bumfuck, Indiana, and I have yet to see the kind of bulbous-nosed, head-swathed, bomb-weilding Muslim threatening to blow us off the map that we have depicted in the comics. Hell, let’s add a few more characters in there with him. We can start right here.

    To pretend that speech — even free if offensive speech — has no tangible consequence is, in a word, stupid.

    While I can’t condone any violence that has erupted from this particular incident, I can identify with their basic frustration.

  16. My larger point here is that, regardless of what they claim, this isn’t about the right loving free speech.

    I concur with Gabriel’s points – the “Buy Danish” campaign wasn’t instituted because a Danish newspaper published the cartoons in support of free speech, but because they are being punished for exercising that freedom.

    Now, when a Danish newspaper publishes a cartoon satarizing Jesus and Christian nations start closing embassies and enforcing boycotts on Danish products, then I think that you would see American Right Wing Christians not participating. This follows on a news report (sorry, I can’t find the link – I didn’t think I’d ever be linking to it) from the last few days which reported on a poll which asked people whether the press should self-censor in order to avoid causing offense and many agreed with that position. Yet, when the same people were asked with the question framed in Constitutional terms, almost all put the reverence for Constitutional principles above their personal sensitivities. The upshot is that people hold the Constitution in high reverence and try to uphold the principles, they just need to be reminded how the issue of the day is applicable to Constitutional prinicples.

    As to the specifics of publishing Holocaust cartoons. First it speaks to the hatred that Iranians hold for Jews and this contest isn’t going to break new ground because of the frequency of Holocaust, Jews=Nazi, and Holocaust denial that is prevalent in Iran. Obviously, their point is to see how the West reacts to their tactic and I’m willing to subscribe to a nitwit’s take on the likely response.

  17. I should clarify a bit. I put the insult of real, earthly tragedies in categories of far higher offense than depicting a god, prophet, or other religious figure in an offensive way. Holocaust cartoons are worse than Mohammed cartoons. Rape-promoting t-shirts are worse than a cheap plastic Christ in a jar of pee (by the way, if anyone bothered to do their research on Piss Christ, they would realize that Serrano grew up Catholic and was commenting in large part on the commodification of religion; but that’s another post).

    At no point was I trying to argue that “Iranian newspapers running Holocaust cartoons is the moral equivalent of Danish newspapers running Mohammed cartoons.” I thought I made that clear in my post, but perhaps not. And many conservative papers in the Middle East haven’t exactly been tactful with the kinds of images they’ve published of Jews.

    Lauren: Exactly.

    As for the theory that conservative Christians in the U.S. wouldn’t try and censor anyone, are you kidding me? They tried to de-fund the NEA because of Andres Serrano and Robert Mappelthorpe. Rudy Giuliani tried every trick in the book to close down local museums that displayed art that offended his faith. Christian groups try and boycott everything and everyone who says or does something they dislike; go to a pro-life/anti-gay website and check out their list of “products not to buy.” Remember the anti-Ford campaign? The anti-AOL campaign?

    Again, not equivalent to burning buildings. But the right wing in this country isn’t exactl a model of the First Amendment, “live and let live” and anti-censorship.

  18. Muslims have had their entire religious culture conflated with terrorism around the world, primarily by Western countries,

    I’m floored here. Primarily ? ? ? I’m sure that the conflation of terrorism with Islam by Muslims who commit the terror is completely immaterial to Western perceptions. Yup, the evil West, out of the blue, has come up with this nutty notion that most of the terrorism being committed around the world has connections to, or is done in the name of, Islam.

  19. I longingly await Buy Iranian campaigns, demands for U.S. newspapers to publish the cartoons, and calls to give people who are offended by the cartoons a culture war. I’m sure the ever-consistent right wing will be on this immediately.

    Why should there be “buy Iranian” campaigns? Are Iranians being boycotted? Are their embassies being burned? Are Jews worldwide holding rallies calling for the slaughter of Iranians? C’mon Jill. This is cheap “gotchaism.” Not to mention that Iranian news outlets are state-controlled, so it would hardly be striking a blow for freedom of the press to stand in soldiarity with the papers that run these Holocaust cartoons.

  20. Muslims (i.e. all Muslims, including peaceful, and lo, American Muslims, not just members of terrorist Muslim groups) have had their entire religious culture (all of it) conflated (equivocated, melded with) (because that’s what this word means) with terrorism.

  21. Why should there be “buy Iranian” campaigns? Are Iranians being boycotted? Are their embassies being burned? Are Jews worldwide holding rallies calling for the slaughter of Iranians? C’mon Jill.

    John, I know you’re a busy student, but I hate pointing out the obvious.

  23. First it speaks to the hatred that Iranians hold for Jews and this contest isn’t going to break new ground because of the frequency of Holocaust, Jews=Nazi, and Holocaust denial that is prevalent in Iran.

    Hmm…Are they going to offend Iranian sensibilities with this contest? After all, how can you have a cartoon about the Holocaust if it didn’t happen?

    Obviously, their point is to see how the West reacts to their tactic

    I actually think they made a good choice for that purpose. A cartoon about Jesus or whomever wouldn’t touch any really deep taboos in Denmark anymore, most people there are agnostic. (I’d probably give such a cartoon the ultimate insult anyone can give an artist who is trying to be shocking: “How pedestrian”.) The Holocaust, on the other hand, is still a very sensitive matter in Europe and the US and nothing that the majority of people in either appreciate people laughing about. Remember, the Danish cartoons do not seem relatively inoffensive to Islamic believers: they violate a number of very deeply held beliefs. Whether they seem like silly beliefs to any outsider is irrelevent. An Iranian might argue that Holocaust cartoons are actually less offensive: they only make fun of unjust death, an ephemeral thing for a believer, not immortal souls.

  24. Lauren,

    Take the situation that Islam presents for me and my co-bloggers. That is, everyday Islam, not terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. One of us was born into a Muslim family and in now apostate. Another was born into a non-monotheistic religion, hinduism. The 3 of us are all atheists. What does Islam say should be done with us? Now add another co-blogger who is a practicing Jew living in Israel. Everyday Islamic teachings don’t pronounce that he should be put to death, but everyday practice sure encourages it.

    The Muslim PR problem, including that of peaceful Muslims, is one of their own making, completely apart from the perversions of the faith committed by the terrorists. If you’re interested in some in-depth analysis of the Muslim need for reform, I could point you to some of the posts written by my co-blogger, who takes this issue very seriously.

    The West didn’t conjure up the bad PR for Islam.

  25. As for the theory that conservative Christians in the U.S. wouldn’t try and censor anyone, are you kidding me? They tried to de-fund the NEA because of Andres Serrano and Robert Mappelthorpe. Rudy Giuliani tried every trick in the book to close down local museums that displayed art that offended his faith. Christian groups try and boycott everything and everyone who says or does something they dislike; go to a pro-life/anti-gay website and check out their list of “products not to buy.” Remember the anti-Ford campaign? The anti-AOL campaign?

    Jill, “censorship” is not the same thing as a choice made by a private individual or group not to patronize a certain business. It is not “censorship” for a bunch of Christians, pro-lifers, or any other group to decide not to consume certain products from companies whose actions they find offensive. Would you call it “censorship” if the AFL-CIO recommended that its members not shop at Wal-Mart?

    Ditto for defunding the NEA. Lobbying to have public funds withdrawn for something is not the same thing as government suppression of something. The aim of the latter is to affirmatively squelch certain expression; the goal of the former is merely to stop promoting that expression.

    The only example you cite that even comes close to censorship is the Giuliani/Sensation affair.

  26. John, I know you’re a busy student, but I hate pointing out the obvious.

    You’re going to have to, because I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re accusing me of conflating all Muslims with terrorists, I’m not sure how you can get that out of a fair reading of what I wrote.

  27. You’re going to have to, because I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re accusing me of conflating all Muslims with terrorists, I’m not sure how you can get that out of a fair reading of what I wrote.

    Not even close. I was going to point out your entire reaction in that post was based on something heavily laced with sarcasm and cynicism, i.e. not to be taken literally.

  28. And to further their love of free speech, I’m sure they’ll reproduce these cartoons on their sites (or at least link to them), just like so many of them did with the Mohammad cartoons

    Actually, it looks like there will be reproduction of the cartoons: Danish newspaper to publish Holocaust cartoons

    Don’t you just love how no matter who perpetrates what, it always seems to end in Jew-hatred?

  29. The arab-european league already did this btw, the ann frank sleeping with hitler one is my fave (not funny of course, but then neither was the original cartoons, what’s up with that btw? they do cartoons that aren’t funny and people are defending them? goddamn PoMoism, where’s the goddamn quality gone in the race baiting cartoonistry?), though probably becasue it’s not straight out holocaust denial, just a serious case of deeply wrong taboo breakage.

    Everyday Islamic teachings don’t pronounce that he should be put to death, but everyday practice sure encourages it.

    huh, this is the religion who’s theocratic laws specifically allows peaceful co-existence with the other abrahamic religions right? Islam? The one in which violence has traditionally been muslim on muslim for most of its history?

    Goddammit, it really helps, when people pontificate on muslims, arabs, the middle east and who’s evil, that they have:

    A) a sound historical knowledge of who’s fault, Precisely, every single trouble in the middle east is (hint: when every single tyrannical regime in the region is either a reaction to american or russian intervention in those countries, or was an intentional result of american or russian support, it’s certainly not islam that’s at fault, there’s a US$ or a Soviet rubal behind every evil in the region, IDF, Saud, al qaeda, HAMAS, Syria, Iran et al)

    B) That they look just a bit beyond the CNN commentary on the region, as iran, while evil, is still a democratic state, and has to my knowledge killed quite a bit fewer jews and christian than the IDF’s cannon and rocket barrages on palestinian territory have managed. one country in the region is exculsively persecuting semitic peoples for being semitic in a built up area right now, and it’s isreal, the palestine/isreal conflict is a political conflict, and only isreal’s genocidal hard line conservatives and fundies gain from it being mass marketed as some stupid fucking holy war when it is nothing of the sort.

    jesus christ, most of the violent protests are either run by tiny ickly islamist groups in europe or are being run specifically by US backed states (and iran, because a democratic country knows how to exploit a politicallly explosive situation like no dictatorship ever could) to distract their populace from the fact that they’re collaborating with the US in torture and iraq, everyone knows this, politically exploiting the protests is precisely what the european powers are doing also, france and germany are lapping this crap up to help demonise those violent wogs who keep getting angry at being exploited and trod on by the nations they’re trying to live in. Anything to keep the flag of racist european politics waving high for yet another millenia you know.

    And just to add insult to islam’s injuries, the crackheaded grandson of someone who bankrolled the holocaust and who’s also the man that keeps dousing iraqis in generic brand napalm, all in the name of jesus of course, is branded the manliest fucking whitehatted goody too-shoes cowboy in the whole wide world by the only partly-sycophantic asslicking population which were so deeply confused by the concept of PUNCHING A FUCKING HOLE IN A CARD that they voted him into office, twice, but you know if muslims protest mostly peacefully, well fuck me! it’s a religion of hate at work yessireebob, no question there, and don’t let the PC softies tell you otherwise.

    Scientists better invent a better form of eyerolling soon, this century is gonna need some seriously hardcore shit.

  30. R. Mildred,

    Goddammit, it really helps, when people pontificate on muslims, . . .

    It’s clear from your fervent ranting that you don’t abide your own advice about understanding Islam. See here for a liberal site’s analysis of apostasy in Modern Day Islam:

    It is quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars . . .

    Under Muslim law, the male apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boy apostatises, he is imprisoned until he comes of age, when if he persists in rejecting Islam he must be put to death. Drunkards and the mentally disturbed are not held responsible for their apostasy. If a person has acted under compulsion he is not considered an apostate, his wife is not divorced and his lands are not forfeited. According to Hanafis and Shia, a woman is imprisoned until she repents and adopts Islam once more, but according to the influential Ibn Hanbal, and the Malikis and Shafiites , she is also put to death. . . .

    Finally, according to the Shafites it is not only apostasy from Islam that is to be punished with death, but also apostasy from other religions when this is not accompanied by conversion to Islam. For example, a Jew who becomes a Christian will thus have to be put to death since the Prophet has ordered in general that everyone “who adopts any other religion” shall be put to death. . . .

    Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR,1948] states: . . . . . The clause guaranteeing the freedom to change one’s religion was added at the request of the delegate from Lebanon, Charles Malik, who was a Christian.(15) Lebanon had accepted many people fleeing persecution for their beliefs, in particular for having changed their religion. Lebanon especially objected to the Islamic law concerning apostasy. Many Muslim countries, however, objected strongly to the clause regarding the right to change one’s religion. . .

    During discussions of Article 18 in 1966, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wanted to suppress the clause guaranteeing the freedom to change one’s religion. Finally a compromise amendment proposed by Brazil and the Philippines was adopted to placate the Islamic countries. Thus, “the freedom to change his religion or belief” was replaced by “the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”(17) Similarly in 1981, during discussions on the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Iran, under the new regime reminded everyone that Islam punished apostasy by death. The delegate from Iraq, backed up by Syria, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference expressed his reserve for any clauses or terms that would contradict the Islamic Sharia, while the delegate from Egypt felt that they had to guard against such a clause being exploited for political ends to interfere in the internal affairs of states.

    The [Muslim] authors’ unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights.”(19) Islamic Human Rights Schemes are clearly not universal since they introduce a specifically Islamic religious criterion into the political sphere, whereas the UDHR of 1948 places human rights in an entirely secular and universalist framework. The Islamic human rights schemes severely restrict and qualify the rights of individuals, particularly women, non-Muslims and those, such as apostates, who do not accept Islamic religious orthodoxy.

  31. Not even close. I was going to point out your entire reaction in that post was based on something heavily laced with sarcasm and cynicism, i.e. not to be taken literally.

    Uh, I got the sarcasm, thanks. But it’s still pretty clear that Jill intended the post as a pre-emptive criticism of conservative bloggers for not responding to the two sets of cartoons in the same way. I simply pointed out that the circumstances surrounding the two situations aren’t comparable, hence Jill’s criticism is baseless.

  32. But it’s still pretty clear that Jill intended the post as a pre-emptive criticism of conservative bloggers for not responding to the two sets of cartoons in the same way.

    No, I think it’s pretty clear Jill thinks their responses are stupid. That’s all.

    Don’t read into it too much. You’re in real-people world again.

  33. Lauren, here’s what Jill said in her post #8 above:

    But the right-wing blogs I’ve been reading have been talking about this like it’s strictly a free speech issue… My larger point here is that, regardless of what they claim, this isn’t about the right loving free speech.

    So again: Jill was criticizing right-wing bloggers preemptively for would she took to be their hypocrisy on free speech. And I repeat: it would not be a defense of free speech to side with a state-run agitprop outlet.

  35. Jill was criticizing right-wing bloggers preemptively for would she took to be their hypocrisy on free speech. And I repeat: it would not be a defense of free speech to side with a state-run agitprop outlet.

    No, I wasn’t. Notice my nice little criticism of Iran in the first paragraph? I’m certainly not under the impression that Iranian newspapers are bastions of free speech.

    I also wasn’t preemptively criticizing right-wing bloggers for not running the Holocaust cartoons. I don’t think anyone should run the Holocaust cartoons. I was criticizing their general position, using the existence of these Holocaust cartoons as a jumping-off point, because I think it’s such a ridiculous response that it merited mentioning. The entire post was sarcastic, and meant to convey that I generally think the entire argument is stupid, and highly inconsistent.

    Or in other words, Lauren nailed it.

  36. I guess I don’t really see the point of what you’ve posted at all then, Jill. I don’t see how you can reconcile what you’ve just posted with the quote I pulled from your comment #8. What do you mean by:

    I was criticizing their general position, using the existence of these Holocaust cartoons as a jumping-off point, because I think it’s such a ridiculous response that it merited mentioning.

    What is the “general position” of right-wing blogs that you are criticizing?

  37. I guess I don’t really see the point of what you’ve posted at all then, Jill. I don’t see how you can reconcile what you’ve just posted with the quote I pulled from your comment #8.

    I know it’s crazy, but sometimes people switch their tone several times in one piece of writing. Insanity!

    And then there are people like Jon C. who don’t know what they’re saying but keep on talkin’ anyway.

    What is the “general position” of right-wing blogs that you are criticizing?

    Muslims are bad. Islam is bad. See the sites Jill condescendingly linked to above.

    And here, as a public service, I’ll go ahead and highlight the portion of my sentence that we’re all supposed to pay attention to in the next round of hair-splitting: See the sites Jill condescendingly linked to above.

  38. TangoMan sez: Yup, the evil West, out of the blue, has come up with this nutty notion that most of the terrorism being committed around the world has connections to, or is done in the name of, Islam.

    *Sigh* It was only a week ago that I responded to a similarly ignorant statement with the following:

    Bullshit. Islam Karimov’s government in Uzbekistan has murdered hundreds in the name of defeating Islamic terrorism, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda has murdered thousands in the name of Christianity, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols (remember those guys?) murdered 168 in the name of the militia movement or something like that, Hutus murdered 800,000 people in the name of Hutu power, Basque terrorists have killed a few dozen in Spain, the IRA and Protestant extremists have only recently ended decades of violence toward each other (at least nominally) in Northern Ireland, Serbian Christians murdered tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, and some of the other ethnic groups in the area returned the favor, if not quite on the same scale (some Muslim, some Christian), etc. Just because terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists get the most American media coverage doesn’t mean other groups aren’t or haven’t been busy committing their own acts of terrorism.

    From this post, comment #9.

  39. First of all, What do rape T-shirts have to do with the issue? (Yuck.)

    But I also recognize that there’s a big difference between things like individually-created art and something promoted by the editorial board of a newspaper,

    Oh. Okay. So you are going to denounce all art, promoted by an editorial board of a newspaper, that is offensive to Christians as “racist, bigoted and stupid”? Right.

    So I’m curious to see how people will respond now that the content of the cartoons has changed. I longingly await Buy Iranian campaigns, demands for U.S. newspapers to publish the cartoons, and calls to give people who are offended by the cartoons a culture war. I’m sure the ever-consistent right wing will be on this immediately.

    Bah. The issue here, and then (the Muhammed cartoons), is: Who controls the newspapers in the West? The newspapers themselves (Freedom of Press), or a combination of radical, violent thugs (the muslims issuing death threats*, burning embassies etc*) and foreign police states (Iran) using threats and exploiting “liberal guilt”.

    In essence, Iran is saying to Western states and people therein: “If you don’t censor the Muhammed cartoons, you must publish our propaganda, or else your freedom is hypocrisy.” I’m sure we all agree that Mr. Ahmadinejad doesn’t get to dictate terms to private newspapers beyond his reach.

    Of course, this will probably backfire big time against Iran and radical Islam, as people will see just how badly Israel/Jews are hated.

    But curiously, this is exactly the same thing you are saying to Michelle Malkin etc. So you have swallowed the childish ploy at least partly. They are free to not publish the holocaust cartoons.**

    *: Not all muslims are like this…

    **: That is, even while you protect Freedom of Speech (hurray!) and sanely denounce Holocaust jokes (but not by banning), you still make the “hypocrisy” accusation. That is some twisted definition of hypocrisy: By that logic, a liberal site that mocks conservatives is hypocritical if it doesn’t have equal amount of liberal-bashing (it isn’t hypocritical, it is just biased. Works vice versa, of course, as we all have a bias.).

  40. Sign, indeed. I can’t believe this is really necessary, but what the hell.

    Islam Karimov’s government in Uzbekistan

    Since when is governmental oppression defined as terrorism?

    Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda has murdered thousands

    The LRA seeks to overthrow the Uganda Government and has inflicted brutal violence on the population in northern Uganda, including rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder. LRA forces also target local government officials and employees.

    Since when do we define a faction in a civil war to be terrorists?

    Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols

    Yup. You got me here. Two nutbars commit an act of terror 11 years ago.

    Hutus murdered 800,000 people in the name of Hutu power

    Again, a civil war that overlaps with organized genocide.

    Basque terrorists have killed a few dozen in Spain

    Yup, you got me here too. I know that people the world over are frightened that the Basques are going to blow up the London Subway, or some other act of terror.

    the IRA and Protestant extremists have only recently ended decades of violence

    Here again, we’re dealing with a long simmering civil war. The total death toll, from 1969 to 1995, was 3,181. The one day total of Islamic terror in New York – 2,967.

    Serbian Christians murdered tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia,

    Another civil war overlapping with genocide.

    I’m not quite sure why you’ve embarked on a project to convince us that black is white, but keep trying. Here are a few hints – look at the “terrorism” of WWII, WWI, the Civil War, and the Peloponnesian War to puff up your numbers. But be certain to avoid looking at the situations in:

    Iraq, the Occupied Territories, the Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Chechnya, Phillipines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Thailand, Spain, Egypt, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Britain, Kabardino-Balkaria, Turkey, Morocco, Yemen, Lebanon, France, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Mauritania, Kenya, Eritrea, Syria, Somalia, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Qatar, Tajikistan, the Netherlands and the US;

    where there were Islamist terror attacks on civilians. Then try to find any data on Basque terror cells in Sri Lanka or Thailand. Good luck.

  41. While you’re trying to remap black to white please try to find other surveys like the respected Pew Global Attitudes Project which show other religions that have such high levels of support for terrorist tactics as that found in Islam. Why even prospective EU member, Turkey where 14% of the population supports terror. Then there are countries like Pakistan with 25% support, Indonesia with 15% support, and then there is Jordan with 57% support. Now compare the support for terrorist tactics in Pakistan, with those found in India, or other non-Muslim countries.

  44. And then there are people like Jon C. who don’t know what they’re saying but keep on talkin’ anyway.

    I think it’s you who doesn’t know what you’re talking about, Lauren. You say that the “general position” of right-wing blogs has been:

    Muslims are bad. Islam is bad. See the sites Jill condescendingly linked to above.

    Okay, I’ve checked out the links. One is a post from Michelle Malkin encouraging people to buy Danish goods. No references to Islam or Muslims being evil or “bad”. The second link is not to a conservative blog, but to a Townhall.com article in which the writer criticizes radical Muslims while being careful to draw distinctions between the extremists and moderate Muslims like Ayann Hirsi Ali. The third link is to a conservative blog that calls on Hollywood to step up the “culture war” in response to the extreme Islamist reaction to the cartoons. I don’t see this as calling Muslims or Islam “bad”, but it’s a little hyperbolic, so we’ll grade on a curve and give you one out of three.

    Ho hum. This is supposed to represent the worst of the evil, Muslim-hating right?

  45. In what plane of existance is genocide not an act of terrorism? That’s what genocide is: Inflicting terror on a rather large population of people.

  46. Sheesh, Jill, you really don’t get it, do you, regardless of being The First Amendment’s biggest fan.

    Uh, the first amendment isn’t implicated in this. neither the federal government nor any states are punishing speech. good red herring though.

  47. Ho hum. This is supposed to represent the worst of the evil, Muslim-hating right?

    No, for that you have to go to LGF, if you can stand the smell.

  48. Robert,

    Terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” 22 USC 2656f(d)(2).

    The acts of governments are only usually called “terrorism” in the hysterical-hyperbolic sense. More accurately, government acts like those described above are properly referred to as “oppression,” “genocide,” or “government killings/massacres.”

    The other part of the definition that is important is that terrorism (not in the hyperventilating use, but in the generally accepted use of the word) is intended to accomplish a political goal. For that reason, race-motivated killings like the genocide in the Sudan are not properly called “terrorism.”

    I think TangoMan was pretty pursuasive when he wrote that civil wars are probably not terrorism. While true that civil wars are mostly (always?) politically motivated, I wonder if it is true that the sides of a civil war can properly be considered “subnational” or that their intended targets are noncombatants. I emphasized the word “intended” because civilians (noncombatants) are killed in every war, even though great pains are made to minimize those deaths.

  49. Hmm, perhaps my last sentence should read “…even when great pains are made to minimize those deaths.”

    I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me and post examples of times when minimizing civilian deaths was clearly not important during a civil war.

  50. Okay, I’ve checked out the links. One is a post from Michelle Malkin encouraging people to buy Danish goods. No references to Islam or Muslims being evil or “bad”. The second link is not to a conservative blog, but to a Townhall.com article in which the writer criticizes radical Muslims while being careful to draw distinctions between the extremists and moderate Muslims like Ayann Hirsi Ali. The third link is to a conservative blog that calls on Hollywood to step up the “culture war” in response to the extreme Islamist reaction to the cartoons. I don’t see this as calling Muslims or Islam “bad”, but it’s a little hyperbolic, so we’ll grade on a curve and give you one out of three.

    Ho hum. This is supposed to represent the worst of the evil, Muslim-hating right?

    Go ahead and read all of the other posts on those blogs. See, I pay attention to context, you know, the kind where all these half-hearted concessions are sandwiched with all the Muslims R Bad bullshit they spew every other day of the week while pretending to care about the state of Denmark.

  52. zuzu, could you cite some support for that claim?

    Lauren, is it possible that some of these Republicans are acting in good faith (even if you disagree with them) and not just because they are evil?

  53. Lauren, is it possible that some of these Republicans are acting in good faith (even if you disagree with them) and not just because they are evil?

    Certainly.

  54. Pingback: CGP: The Flaming Grasshopper

  55. Here, here, and here.

    I mean, her book is called “In Defense of Internment: The Case For Racial Profiling In World War II and The War On Terror.” I know she objects to the term “concentration camp” and seems to think that the Japanese internment camps of WWII were like summer camp, but it’s hard to escape the idea, when she argues that the essential feature of the internment camps was racial profiling, and that racial profiling is justified in the GWOT, that she does not support the logical consequence — that Muslims should be not only profiled but registered and then put into camps.

  58. zuzu, thanks for responding to me.

    Robert, to be fair, Malkin is just not on the record in those articles for being for rounding up all the Muslims and puting them in camps. It’s possible that she said it somewhere else. With that in mind, though, maybe we ought to refrain from ascribing positions to her that she hasn’t claimed for herself.

    I did notice, however, that in the third article you linked, it had this to say about Malkin fellow traveller Daniel Pipes: “In criticizing Pipes on this point, I want to distance myself from the many critics who have ascribed to him an explicit proposal to put Muslims in ‘concentration camps.’ That isn’t what he said, and it’s stupid and irresponsible to claim that he did.”

  59. See, I pay attention to context, you know, the kind where all these half-hearted concessions are sandwiched with all the Muslims R Bad bullshit they spew every other day of the week while pretending to care about the state of Denmark.

    One would think that if the “Muslims R Bad bullshit” is so pervasive it would be easy to find and link to unambiguous examples of it.

  60. One would think that if the “Muslims R Bad bullshit” is so pervasive it would be easy to find and link to unambiguous examples of it.

    It isn’t difficult at all, but I suggest you do your own research since everything we put up is never convincing enough for you.

  61. Well, perhaps if you put something up that validated the claim you made, instead of the increasingly-common pattern of putting up some completely bullshit claim, then citing something vaguely related in a kind-of-along-those-lines-fashion, it would be slightly more convincing. You wouldn’t accept that kind of sloppy citation from someone on the other side of the fence; why would you accept it from an ally? Either make claims you can substantiate, or modify your claims to reflect what the evidence actually shows.

    Intellectual integrity. It’s a good thing.

  69. Congratulations! Have a cup of child blood.

    What are you doing, where will you be working, and to whom do we send the vaguely threatening e-mails narcing you out for posting on weblogs when you should be working?

  70. Gabriel, I never claimed that civil wars were in and of themselves terrorism. I said genocide is terrorism. The Balkan wars almost all degenerated into genocide of one or another people, Rwanda is used today as the definition of genocide, the Lord’s Resistance Army has on at least one occasion slaughtered and burned an entire refugee camp in Uganda. While those may not fit the narrow, legal definition of terrorism (the LRA’s actions certainly do, however), they are pretty clearly one group terrorizing another, which seems an awful lot like terrorism to me.

    But maybe I’m just a dumbass.

  71. Randomliberal/Robert –

    One difference with the situations in the Balkans, Rwanda, et al is that the people acting slightly uncivilized in them weren’t doing it in the service of some overarching, and threatening, ambition. The frightening spectre of Greater Serbia aside, these were basically local fights.

    The people that get mentally grouped as “the real terrorists” have somewhat grander aspirations than killing all their neighbors who they’ve hated for X-umpteen years or reuiting with their yokel cousins.

  72. One difference with the situations in the Balkans, Rwanda, et al is that the people acting slightly uncivilized in them weren’t doing it in the service of some overarching, and threatening, ambition. The frightening spectre of Greater Serbia aside, these were basically local fights.

    How is that relevant to whether they are terrorists or not? Terrorism is about means, not ends.

  73. Erm, Robert? How is “I’m going to destroy your entire people” not an “overarching, and threatening, ambition”?

  74. Also: saying that a group that slaughtered 800,000 people was “acting slightly uncivilized” is a wee bit of an understatement, no?

Comments are currently closed.