What is it about Rasmussen?

31 thoughts on “What is it about Rasmussen?”

1. He leader of Denmark owes no apologies to anyone, just as the President of the United States owes Catholics no apology over “Piss Christ” or any other sacrilegious work of art produced in the US.
   http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/
   Helena’s old friend Ch**stopher Hitchens gets it right.

2. This originally had nothing to do with free speech.
   A series of offensive and unfunny cartoons was published. Happens all the time. Muslims had a right to be angry.
   It became a free speech issue when Muslims instead decided to demand boycotts of entire country’s products, and worse yet, started to riot and burn embassies.
   Free speech can be offensive. Does it have its limits? Yes. The U.S. has very very strong legal standards compared to other countries. Britain’s libel laws make it remarkably easy to prevail against a defendant. Some countries stretch the definition of what may constitute incitement.
   But the mere fact that free speech OFFENDS is not justification for its censorship. And despite Helena’s attempts to contort the laws to cover the instant situation, it is clear that the images in question should be protected from censorship in any free society.
   In free societies, such images would be met with counterspeech and appropriate condemnation. But you have to get to the “free societies” part first before we can have such a conversation. The reaction throughout the muslim world shows that the appropriate conversation that needs to be had is not about the offensiveness of the cartoons, but the need for the citizenry of these countries to tolerate views that they might not like.
   Meanwhile, European Muslims have begun to publish their own cartoons in response. And not surprisingly, they publish cartoons of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler and the like. And not a peep of outrage from Helena. Not to worry, while Jews may be very offended at the images, I doubt that the American Jewish community will burn anyone’s embassy in response.
   This had nothing to do with free speech at first. It absolutelty has to do with it now. That trumps any need for any apology from the Danish Prime Minister, which wasn’t even necessary in the first place.

3. I think that Rasmussen was pretty clear about why he couldn’t and shouldn’t apologize for what an independent paper published in Denmark. The Danish government is not directly responsible for what the private media says.
   The Lebanese government, on the other hand, is responsible for their inability to contain the violence in their streets and, particularly, for the damage caused by rioters to Danish property.

4. Joshua: European Muslims have begun to publish their own cartoons in response. And not surprisingly, they publish cartoons of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler and the like.
   Wow. Let’s unpack this a little. “They”– antecedent being [all] European Muslims– “publish cartoons of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler and the like.” And we are assured that this is “not surprising.”
   I’m really sorry you live in a world governed by such paranoia about your Muslim fellow-humans, Joshua. Maybe get to know a few of them– you might discover that making gross, stereotyping generalizations about “Muslims” is just as wrongheaded, silly, and dangerous as making them about any other whole group of humans.
   … Actually, as far as I can learn– which I only just did, here— one organization, the Arab European League posted some highly offensive anti-Jewish cartoons on its website; and one of those– the one of Anne Frank & Hitler– was removed shortly afterwards. That report continues:
   The Hague-based Centre Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI) contacted the public prosecutor’s office on Sunday after the cartoons appeared on AEL.nl… The cartoons were a reaction to the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that have caused offence to Muslims around the world… The cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank on the AEL site is a “nightmare” for the thousands of Jewish victims of the Holocaust who are still alive, CIDI director Ronny Naftaniel said… He said the Dutch law was the correct medium to decide what is and what isn’t permissible.
   I completely agree with everything Ronny Naftaniel said there. At a time when there is already crisis in Muslim-non-Muslim relations in Europe it is quite incendiary to hold to the kind of free-speech absolutism you seem to espouse. I say this though in most cases I agree with you that the answer to offensive speech is more speech. But here, we are talking not just about speech that is offensive, but speech that is inciteful.

5. There was nothing inciteful about the cartoons. Nothing inciteful, at least, for residents and citizens of a modern, liberal, democratic society.
   Once again, you act as an apologist for the real troublemakers. And of course, not a peep about the digusting antisemitic cartoons. Instead, you personally attack me claiming that I “generalized.” Nowhere did I say that ALL European Muslims published such cartoons.
   I know this is a troubling time for you. Because the west sees, in the news and on tv, images of these “lovely” and “gentle” indigenous people that you wax poetic about engaged in rioting. As a result, there is one and only one person engaging in blaming the victims Helena. It is you.

6. The cartoons were a reaction to the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that have caused offence to Muslims around the world…
   another brilliant non sequitur. Danish cartoons insulting to Islam (authored by Christians in a Christian nation) elicits an assault upon dutch jews.

7. For the record, Joshua, I said I agreed with everything Naftaniel had said. Go read the original… Of course I find the AEL cartoons as described there inciteful, hurtful, and disgusting. I believe that in that case– as in that of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons– the publishers were claiming their intention was “merely to test the limits of free speech.” Both were most likely dishonest in making this claim.
   Do you believe the two publishers should be treated differently? If so why? I believe they should be treated the same.
   I’m still trying to figure out, though, why you’re so knee-jerk paranoid in this matter…

8. why you’re so knee-jerk paranoid in this matter…
   more hate speech, of a piece with “what a dangerous ignoramus.”
   antecedent being [all] European Muslims
   your paranthetical. Joshua deserves an apology.

9. How is my pointing out your arrogant, patronizing attitudes toward people of color paranoid?

10. Vadim, you have the weirdest criterion of “hate speech” of anyone I know. Not that any of us does know you. Who are you? Why do you come here and engage in these shrill, accusatory exercizes? What is your stake in this discussion? Do tell us about yourself.
    Also, a small understanding of the rules of English grammar would be helpful. If one wants to specify “some” European Muslims, one puts in the word “some”.
    Joshua, I’d still, sincerely love to know your answer to the question I posed above. Let us reason this thing through together.

11. Helena, in American English, the lack of “some” does not imply all.
    I think that both publications were offensive.
    Now Helena, should the Jewish community and its diaspora react in the same way that Muslims (excuse me, SOME Muslims) have reacted? Would you be the apologist you have been recently if Jews (excuse me, SOME Jews) started to torch the embassies of Arab and Muslim countries (where papers, excuse me, SOME papers) regularly publish antisemtic cartoons, serialize the protocols of the elders of Zion, etc? Since the AEL cartoons were published in the Netherlands, is a boycott of Dutch products appropriate or “understandable”? Do you demand that the Dutch government apologize for AEL’s publication?
    Helena, you are the last person who should be accussing people of double standards.

12. Why do you come here and engage in these shrill, accusatory exercizes?
    a minor quibble to go with the “grammar lesson:” ‘exercises’ has no ‘z.’
    What is your stake in this discussion?
    The same as yours (I think!) To engage in civil, constructive debate. On that score you clearly have no idea how shrill and accusatory are your own posts. I don’t engage in ad hominem attacks. Yet after libelling Joshua (by inserting a fabricated and by no means implicit qualifier,) you refer to him as “paranoid” and “knee-jerk.” That’s shrill and disrespectful. In the text of this post, you term the Danish prime minister a “dangerous ignoramus” for refusing to apologise for the editorial content of an independent newspaper. Outrageous, especially coming from a journalist. I wouldn’t dream of insulting anyone this way (I’m far too gentle a soul — though more of a “chocolate-brown” than “coal-black.”)
    Separately I asked a question in the last thread that for some reason you ignored. I’d be really grateful if you offered your thoughts here.
    Would “Satanic Verses” [significantly more disrespectful of Islam than these cartoons] constitute “incitement to hate?” What about Andres Serrano’s work depicting a crucifix immersed in urine [artwork produced on the US taxpayer dime!]? Would you term a screening of “Brokeback Mountain” in rural Alabama “incitement to hate?” Should the movie “not have been made” as it deeply offends the sensitivites of religious christians?

13. The same as yours (I think!) To engage in civil, constructive debate.
    Well said indeed, Vadim!

14. Freedom of religion, whether in Denmark or anywhere else, depends precisely on the ability of any private person to say or publish anything they want about religion, provided it is peaceful. Muslim men and women are much more free in their faith in Denmark than in most of the Muslim countries, where apostasy or is a capital crime and dissenters are 2nd class citizens. Criticism of the Danish cartoons should be a matter of taste or civilized rebuttal, not riots, boycotts, and wrath. It would be more reassuring if the enraged mobs had an ounce as much indignation over the likes of Abu Hamza al Masri, who really must have bomb instead of a brain, and who preaches that suicide bombers merit paradise.
    Compare Rasmussen’s humane remarks about Islam to the sorts of horrific hate speech and sermons which abound on state sponsored media in the Muslim world!
    Likewise it should not offend at all if some cartoonist (whatever his personal faith) depict Jesus in a way that mocks all the war mongering and money grubbing hypocrites who invoke His name for their purposes.

15. J Koch, don’t forget “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus”
    http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
    courtesy of Al Franken. caution: not work safe (if your boss is Pat Robertson.)

16. Why not widen the parameters of this discussion a wee bit? It’s my impression that Pipes, Campus Watch and the rest of that crowd are doing their damndest to ride herd on the “Middle East academic discourse” in the States. Essentially to control it. To intimidate or sideline “dissident” voices – e.g., Juan Cole, who, unlike most of his critics, actually speaks and writes Arabic. And indeed has lived in Arab countries. Presumably that’s a different kettle of fish if you’re Vadim and co.
    They are rather ganging up on you, Helena. Don’t let it get you down. There are others out here – I’m one of them – for whom you’re talking a lot of sense. It’s probably all a question of perspective, of vantage point. I’ve got next to nothing “invested” in that situation. Apart from my common humanity. I’m a Yank. A gentile. I live in Europe. So I’m at quite a few “removes”. To paraphrase a prodigiously talented young man from Louisville, Kentucky – one Cassius Clay as he was in those days – “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Muslims”. Or them Israelis. I’ve travelled a little bit in the Middle East. Have dear Israeli friends – one of them, a sabra, was a tank driver in the army! – and, similarly, found the Arabs absolutely delightful people. The tragedy of the whole thing is that it probably could be healed. But not by this constant pouring of lighter fluid on the flames. Lighter fluid in its every variant: whether it’s bombs from planes or suicide bombs or what’s going on in the occupied territories or the constant drumming of the hate demon in all our ears. It’s just so sad. And very frightening. For the Israelis. For the Palestinians. For all of us. And if it’s like that for me at my “several removes” – tired of it, worried about it, wishing as an American that my country would play an absolutely straight bat in the Middle East – and that wish being about the extent of my “involvement”…well, what must it be like for people going round and round on the inside of that destructive cement mixer every single day of their life. Not able to get free from it. It’s the most ghastly straitjacket to have your life bound up in.

17. what must it be like for people going round and round on the inside of that destructive cement mixer every single day of their life. Not able to get free from it. It’s the most ghastly straitjacket to have your life bound up in.
    Totally agreed. On the other hand, by focusing on humanity and possibilities (as you have done so beautifully here before now) one can liberate oneself from a huge amount of debilitating fear. Buddhism is one powerful discipline that helps people do that. There are others. (Going on peace demonstrations helps do it for me!)

18. The cartoons were legal in Denmark but offensive, especially to Muslims. To me, they just looked dumb. Burning embassies is not only offensive, but illegal, as well as being dumb. The Syrian and Lebanese governments failed their duties to protect the Danish embassies and should apologize for this failure. The problem in Denmark did not originate with the government.
    Mohammed did not in fact have horns. Muslims do not in fact light fuses in their turbans. What is the point of such silly ideas? Freedom of speech in defense of more serious ideas would be a worthier battle.
    The whole affair doesn’t make Danish newspapers look terribly good (from afar, at least) but really casts no serious aspersions on Denmark. Yet the whole affair does point out that there is a considerable stream within Islam that is all too ready to anger and on the unstable side.
    I am shocked at the failure of the Lebanese and Syrian governments failure to protect embassies on their soil.
    Rasmussen is not a natural diplomat. There may be some Denmarkian reason, either cultural or political, that he cannot apologize. One of his problems is that it is hard to figure out what to apologize for. He cannot apologize for publishing the cartoons because he did not publish them. Likewise for drawing them. All that is honestly possible is for him to be “Deeply distressed”. Rasmussen cannot apologize for the fact that the cartoons are desecrative or defamatory (although I think they are) because he appears to think that contradicts his support of free speech. Rasmussen probably could have acknowledged that the cartoons are desecrative and defamatory but that puts him in the position of criticizing the newspaper. For a Prime Minister to criticize a newspaper may look like censorship over there… Rasmussen is in a tight spot and he isn’t quite nimble enough to walk the narrow path available. What seems right in Denmark might not seem right, say, in the US. Or in Syria. In any case, it isn’t Rasmussen that is the problem.
    The Muslim world, as a whole, doesn’t have very clean hands here. The state-run media in many Islamic countries regularly run terribly offensive cartoons, mostly against Jews. The result is that I am not very empathetic to their being offended.
    The protesting Muslims don’t come off looking very smart because cartoons, in the West, are inherently non-serious, or at least relatively light, and the response seems inappropriately serious.
    In the West, only teenage hoodlums and such think that violence is appropriate in response to being “Dissed”. By wishing “Death to Denmark” those protesters paint themselves as immature in Western eyes. It also wasn’t terribly mature of the Danish newspaper to publish cartoons whose only value is that they are offensive. While it is entirely appropriate for the Muslims to be offended, it is “Offensive” for them to wish death to others, to actually kill them, or to burn embassies.

19. Juan Cole, who, unlike most of his critics, actually speaks and writes Arabic… Presumably that’s a different kettle of fish if you’re Vadim and co… It’s probably all a question of perspective, of vantage point….
    It seems to me that some bloggers have made an art form of the ad hominem fallacy. Hence Helena’s invitation to present a short biography, that my opinions might be appropriately framed, qualified and belittled. Aristotle is spinning in his grave.
    Re Cole: many of his sharpest critics speak better Arabic than Cole himself — I have in mind Martin Kramer and Tony Badran (the latter is native Lebanese) but there are many others. And the list of “neocon-Likudnik” types who have “lived in arab countries” is quite long. As is the list of neocon-affiliated native Arabs. Ultimately Cole’s command of Arabic is incidental to the value of his analysis. From what I can tell he translates a great many Arab language newspapers that already supply anglophone editions. Furthermore, much of his own “analysis” seems to concern Israeli politics, and as far as I know he speaks not a single word of Hebrew.
    No one here is intimidating Helena or attempting to silence her or anyone else. This is “polite disagreement.” “Intimidation” is threatening an ideological opponent with a lawsuit, or asking followers to perform “oppo research” on a fellow academic, or calling for an academic boycott of an entire country. I’m pretty sure no one here would sink to such depths.

20. Was it you, Vadim, who yesterday urged all of us to read Efraim Karsh’s Commentary review of Robert Fisk’s book The Great War for Civilisation.
    As it happens I did go and read it. It was ad hominem from first to last. Well, that’s one way, I suppose, of trying to discredit what a man has seen – the “facts on the ground” (so to speak) he’s taken the measure of – and the conclusions he’s drawn.
    Special pleading doesn’t come much more disgraceful.
    But I suppose we could put it down to what you described yesterday as “the dim light of the faculty lounge”. The King’s College faculty lounge that is, since that’s where Mr. Karsh is churning away these days.

21. The Muslim world, as a whole, doesn’t have very clean hands here. The state-run ‎media in many Islamic countries regularly run terribly offensive cartoons, ‎mostly against Jews.‎
    Here we did not need you to tell us about Arab media and Israelis, this is completely ‎different issue and argument “by the way don’t mix Jews with Israelis here)‎
    The concern and the Muslim anger is in the Experienced Democracy like in Danish ‎in particular and the rest of west world whom they had laws of freedom of ‎expression but in same time they had laws and regulations for any offensive or ‎hatred speeches and acts specially for Jews, Muslims they don’t asked much its ‎just same position that laws/Regulations in those experiences democracies to ‎protected them from hatred acts in any shape or form. ‎
    As you know the Jews had suffered from these acts similarly in Europe for ‎decades, the worst one was holocaust crimes.‎
    If Arabic media or news did some thing, we love to here from you, it’s mostly ‎regarding Israeli personal and behaviours in ME, like the Sharon carton that ‎published in UK. I believe there are many things happened similarly in Israel in ‎Regard to Arab/Muslims, I don’t like to go in this issue.‎

22. No, Upharsin. I was the one who quoted Karsh (and despite my taking the trouble to highight the relevant point in the quote, the most relevant people did not appear to understand.)
    I was trying to make a point about being patronizing. I didn’t “urge” anyone, as you say to read the review, but I am glad that you did.
    I’d be ineterested in knowing exactly what you find as ad hominem in Karsh’s review. I don’t think that pointing out a long string of historical inaccuracies in what purports to be an argument based on history is ad hominem. Neither is pointing out contradiction or hypocricy in a person’s argument (as in the passage that I quoted) ad hominem, nor is simply not fawning over someone like Robert Fisk.
    BTW, I believe that Efraim Karsh speaks Arabic.

23. JES,
    More than happy to give you an idea of what I found ad hominem.
    From the top…
    Para one. Pas de problem.
    Para two. Problem. The tone is cheap. It’s snide. Martin Gilbert has written some very big books about Israel but I’m fairly confident that Efraim Karsh wouldn’t be claiming that the doorstopperness of his books “suggest” that he’s immodest. And that little matter of quoting Robert Fisk, “I was twenty-nine, and I was ‘offered’ the Middle East.” First of all, as I’m sure Mr. Karsh well knows, that’s just “journalese” – it’s shorthand for “I was offered the Middle East bureau.” It’s the cheapest of shots to suggest that that phrase betrays a nine-story high ego. As the inverted commas around Faisal’s being ‘offered’ Iraq and Churchill’s ‘offer’ of Transjordan make perfectly clear.
    Karsh then closes for what he thinks is the kill: “That Fisk would so readily identify himself with the region’s Arab autocrats is no accident. It is an apt if inadvertent metaphor, suggesting at once not only his manner as a writer but the opinions that have long infected his all-too-influential work.”
    Every last bit of that is ad hominem. It’s shoddy. A nasty little lie. Wondering how King Faisal felt melts ever so imperceptibly into “identifying himself with him”. No it doesn’t, Mr. Karsh. Not at all. But I completely understand why he’s keen to try to slip that one by his readers. It’s a clumsy broad brush attempt at a smear. And if he can get some of that ordure to stick, well suddenly this brave and, yes, good man – is contaminated goods. Not to be trusted.
    Notice as well that odious little verb: infected.
    As in “the opinions that have long infected his all-too-influential work.”
    That’s very neat. Cut. Thrust. Parry. “Opinions”. Get that established. No facts from Robert Fisk. Just opinions. And very suspect opinions. Diseased opinions. And then there’s that urbane, assured, tsk tsk of “all-too-influential work”.
    And so on and so on.
    It’s basically a work-up. And not a very good one.
    Does anyone know, did Benny Morris review Fisk’s book? He’s got the sort of intellectual rigour and honesty and integrity that needs to be brought to bear on a big book by a man of Fisk’s stature. As opposed to whatever it is that Mr. Karsh is drawing on.

24. Upharsin,
    You don’t like the review, and you don’t like Karsh’s style. So, say so. That doesn’t make what Karsh wrote ad hominem. It’s a book reveiw for godsake!
    I also don’t particlularly agree 100% with Efraim Karsh’s politics, but that doesn’t mean that I have to deride his scholarship.
    I’m sure that there will be other reveiws of Robert Fisk’s book. Maybe some of those will be more to your liking.
    At any rate, to get back to the original point, I believe that Karsh made a very good point when he said:
    The curious effect of this effort to absolve Middle Easterners of any blame or responsibility for their region’s problems, or their own deeds, is to make Fisk guilty of the sin for which he endlessly berates the West; he patronizes his subjects in the worst tradition of the “white man’s burden.”
    I think that characterizes many here. Fisk and others are all very well meaning, I’m sure. Just like the character played by Ingrid Bergman in the Sidney Lumet film “Murder on the Orient Express”, a rather “slow” women who, when asked what she has been doing in Africa says: “I’ve been helping the little black children, who are even more backward than me.”
    

25. (delurk)
    “The apology regarding the harm caused by some Lebanese citizens (and also some non-citizen residents of the country) is a humane, very statesmanlike thing for a national leader to do.”
    Or he was just acknowledging that the state of Lebanon is responsible for the security of the Danish embassy, and apologized for having failed to provide it. Wouldn’t even the simple host/guest relationship be reason enough for such an apology?
    (As an aside, I personally agree with the view of one of these infamous cartoonists: “The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs”)
    (relurk)

26. JES,
    My dictionary defines ad hominem as: directed against a person rather his arguments.
    What I painstakingly set out for you – at no little risk of belabouring the obvious – is ad hominem.
    So, no, that dawg just won’t hunt, JES. Karsh’s review is clearly ad hominem. Which is why it’s dishonest. Which is why I don’t like it.
    It’s not a question of simple, bare faced assertion, of “just saying so”…it’s a question of demonstrating, of proving, of seeing a thing for what it is, of calling a spade a spade, of nailing a lie.
    Mr. Karsh seems to have a little problem with that approach vis-a-vis Fisk’s book. I think it’s fair to assume that that’s the case because had he been able to fight fair and square with the book he surely would have tackled it along those honest, above board, reputable lines. He apparently wasn’t equal to that – or maybe Fisk’s book is in fact proof against it because it’s fundamentally sound – so Mr. Karsh has to resort to a shoddy, dishonest, nasty little ad hominem attack.
    And he got called on it. By me. And for that mattter by that other reader who chimed in and said something along the lines of: hold on a minute that’s certainly not been my experience, I’ve read lots of Fisk’s columns and he regularly holds the Arabs responsible – takes them to task – for their shortcomings, be it folly or stupidity or worse.
    And since you keep shoving that “core argument” of Karsh’s in our face…yes, let’s take a good hard look at it.
    Here’s the quote you fastened on. “The curious effect of this effort to absolve Middle Easterners of any blame or responsibility for their region’s problems, or their own deeds, is to make Fisk guilty of the sin for which he endlessly berates the West; he patronizes his subjects in the worst tradition of the ‘white man’s burden’.”
    Hmmm. It hadn’t occurred to me at first, but since that particular hobby horse keeps coming round and round on the carousel…well, you know what? I think that’s ad hominem as well. (Full marks to Mr. Karsh for being consistent.)
    It’s ad hominem. And it’s stale. It’s that old what’s wrong with the Arabs, what’s wrong with Islam chestnut. Crystallised, so to speak, in that line of Bolivia marching powder that Richard Perle, amongst others, regularly snorts and then sneezes all over the rest of us: Islamofascists. It’s the cultural equivalent of sickle cell aenemia – a faulty ethnic gene if you will.
    Pin that on them and you don’t have to pay any mind to the elephant on the patio – to what I believe they call “the catastrophe”; in short, why they feel aggrieved, what happened – and is happening – to them.
    To their undying credit there are Israeli historians – Morris springs to mind – who have the honesty and integrity to call the cards the way they’ve fallen. As have Israeli leaders, though perhaps not for very wide public consumption.
    Not looking at that squarely, fearlessly is the medical equivalent of pretending that a lump isn’t there. It’s quackery. Hokum.
    Look at thing squarely – see it for what it is – well, then at least you’ve got a chance.
    As to the modalities and instrumentalities…well, all that’s for the people of the region – and their statesmen, if, God willing, cometh the hour cometh the man or woman – to work out.
    I’m sure the rest of us would be only to happy to drop a few ideas in the Suggestion Box. E.G., a moratorium on suicide bombs. E.G., a moratorium on more settlements and the bulldozing of Palestian homes and land grab after land grab and generally making life impossible for the Palestinans (and then IDFing them when they respond, not in kind but howsoever they can). E.G., maybe at least entertain the thought that a viable Palestinian state also has a “right to exist”. E.G., “kicking the addiction” by seeing it for what it is – and admitting that it’s very bad for both peoples – and the way things are going, for the rest of the world – and then, once the decks are finally cleared of the lies and flummery and wishful thinking and smoke and mirrors…seeing if there isn’t a way through, a modus vivendi. Starting with, perhaps, a Truth and Forgiveness Commission – or whatever that inspired piece of South African “statesmanship” was called; followed by a hugely generous reparations and compensation scheme. Why not? Why shouldn’t Palestinians be compensated for their losses? Ditto Iraqi and other Middle Eastern Jews for their personal “catastrophe” in 1948 – losing their homes in Baghdad, etc. I mean. There’s of course a huge historical precedent for same. And, for that matter, I suspect the rest of us would be willing to pay for it.
    Grasp those nettles and there’s some hope. The alternatives hardly bear thinking about. What are they? Forcing “them” out. “Them” being…well, it’s hideously obvious what the two sides are to that particular coin. And down the end of that road you’re into Conrad’s territory: exterminate the brutes.
    It’s a catastrophe all right. For both sides. It’s trying to get out of a hole by digging it deeper. A hole that’s a grave.

27. Touche’ is the proper call.
    Readers might check that Karsh once produced a hollow critique of Benny Morris’ work. This was an entire book, so hollow it was an embarassment that no self-respecting academic would cite because it was simply a sham, a mirror Karsh held to his own face. Nothing more than a sham could have been expected from Karsh on Fisk.
    It is to be noted how the contras that populate this comments section resort to Karshian tactics, instead of reasoned analysis about the elephant sitting on the patio.

28. It is to be noted how the contras that populate this comments section resort to Karshian tactics,
    a fallacy about a fallacy. very postmodern. And inaccurate. “It is to be noted” [Dominic, please rap this person’s knuckles] that “contra” supposes a great deal, and reveals much about the speaker.
    Purpleness of prose notwithstanding, I’ll grant M. Upharsin’s point: that Karsh leans unnecessarily upon ad hominem in his Commentary piece. As JES notes, that comes with the medium (book reviews are usually opinion pieces, not rigorous syllogisms.) I’m sure it’s fun for him to go on about Fisk’s race-guilt, but it’s unnecessary and unlikely to convince the M.U.’s and SD’s of anything but their own moral superiority.

29. Start looking for higher ground, Vadim. It’s hot out there, and the ocean’s are rising!

30. Helena, two AEL’s cartoons are still on their site – http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsimages/200602051139183570L.jpg
    http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsimages/200602051139183647L.jpg
    Also, I don’t think that all 12 Danish cartoons could be considered offensive. Have those who claim that have seen them? (If they have, it won’t be thanks to “free” US media like TV or newspapers.) Because one cartoon depicts god in heaven saying to smoking suicide bombers “Stop, stop, no more virgins”. First, not a bad one, and second, how is that anti-muslim? There is no Mohammed in the picture, and we still can critisize suicide bombers. Or can we not? Another has a student named Muhammed in front of a blackboard.
    Majority of cartoons are not offensive, their major “offence” being breaking Islam’s taboo.
    The funny thing is that majority of Muslimd have not seen those cartoons, but still parrot mindlessly what their Islamist preachers claim. That is one of the problems with moslems – they do not think themselves, but rely on crowd “mentality”, incited and instigated by the extremist mullahs.

31. Well, as you accuse the muslims of following mindlessly what their islamist preachers tell them I would like you to consider and think about the following points.
    1. Would the muslim opinion have been so outraged if the world as seen from their experience would have been different. If for example, most of the countries occupied were not muslim countries, from Palestine to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir among others.
    2.Would the muslim response had been different if majority of those falling victim to world wide violence were not themselves muslims. I have just returned from Pakistan where just one sloppy so called operation against Al-Qaidda by the Americans killed around twenty innocent men, women and children.The attack, apart from being highly immoral was illegal by any international convention. Yet Americans even refuse to apologise and promised to repeat similar attacks in the future.
    3.Palestinians are daily being killed by the Israelis and labelled terrorist. The western media, with few exceptions, reports it from the Israeli perspective. I wonder how you would view the people who came to your country because of the persecutions they have suffered in some other country take your homes through terrorism and than deny you the right to return while granting the right to return to its own co-religionist with their only claim to that right being their belief that God promised them that land. This is what has happened to the Palestinian people.
    I happen to think strategically and morally muslims instead of complainng about the cartoon could very easily complain on a daily basis about the killing fields their countries have become as a direct result of the West’s policy of occupying their lands. From what I know about the Prophet(PBUH) he was always willing to tolerate insults without being provoked.
    Finally, the most significant point you need to consider in what is happening today, is that no matter how bad a terrorist action by any of these adhoc so called muslim groups it does not carry my approval and therefore I am not obliged to apologise for any of them. However, on the other hand when The US government, or for that matter any other government, attacks and violates another people or country citizens of those countries carry a moral and legal obligation for the terrorist actions of their governments.
    Perhaps it is the powerful one that need to change for a peaceful resolution of todays conflicts. The weak can only suffer in silence or create havoc. The vast majority of the weak are resigned to their fate. However, a small majority is willing to create havoc in an attempt to change things. The blame lies squarely with the powerful West and its constituents.

Comments are closed.