Posted on 01/09/2015 6:33:43 AM PST by Kaslin
The vigils in Paris are moving. The hashtag plumes of #JeSuisCharlie ("I am Charlie") are endearing. The expressions of condemnation from Muslim leaders are commendable, as are the assurances of solidarity and support from Western governments.
But, as a practical matter, they don't change a thing: The jihadists won this week/
Even if the atrocity in Paris served to imbue the civilized world -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- with a newfound resolve to battle radical Islam (it almost certainly won't), this still stands as a victory for the bad guys.
In any war, the goal is to put your enemy in a position where he has no good options. The murderous attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo does exactly that.
Consider the response from the Western media with regard to the Muhammad cartoons.
As a conservative, I don't like gratuitous mockery of religion, any religion. That's not to say I think all blasphemies are equally offensive. For instance, I think most satire of Christianity is particularly cowardly and lame precisely because Christians are such a safe target. Also, after centuries of tolerance for satire of Christianity, opportunities for cleverness or originality are few and far between.
Mockery of Islam, meanwhile, whether in good taste or not, is dangerous and therefore also courageous even when stupid.
In a world where Muslim extremists weren't killing people for such things, I'd be against publishing such material (not as matter of law, but editorial judgment). But we don't live in that world. And the slaughter in Paris only makes that more of a reality.
Whereas last week, running satirical pictures of Muhammad largely made sense only as a matter of opinion journalism, it is now a requirement of news reporting -- because those images are central to the story. Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, and his colleagues were murdered because they ran those pictures. It's understandable that news outlets wouldn't want to invite similar attacks by printing or broadcasting those images. But by refusing to do so, they send a message: "We're afraid of you."
That's an unequivocal win for the terrorists.
But when outlets do run the images, the radicals get to say, "See, look at their disrespect for Islam and the prophet. There can be no compromise with these infidels."
That's a win for the terrorists, too.
Attempts to find a middle way fall short. The New York Daily News tried to have it both ways, running a photo of Charbonnier while pixelating the issue of Charlie Hebdo he was holding so that readers couldn't make out the satirical image of Muhammad. This "compromise" was worse than refusing to run the cartoon at all because it removed all doubt that the editors are afraid and that such attacks pay off.
This isn't simply a meaty topic for a journalism school seminar, it's symbolic of the bind that we are in. Radicals always try to force crises because in a crisis, everyone must choose sides. Vladimir Lenin understood this when he followed a strategy of "the worse, the better." No one benefits more from blanket anti-Muslim sentiment more than jihadists, because such attitudes push moderate Muslims into their arms.
But that doesn't justify the use of weasel words from Western politicians such as Barack Obama, John Kerry and Howard Dean, who insist that Islamist terrorists aren't Islamic, that we are merely at war with unspecified "extremists." Well-intentioned as such statements may be, they are lies. Moreover, they are the kind of lies that breed suspicion: suspicion that our leaders don't understand the nature of the threat, and suspicion that they are afraid of speaking the truth. These lies also invite others to believe the opposite is true, or to at least test the proposition. That in turn radicalizes yet more Muslims.
It is right and good to say we are not at war with Islam, but it is dishonest to claim that there are no Muslims waging war against us. Falling back on sanitized euphemisms is the rhetorical equivalent of pixelating Muhammed; it fools no one, save fools.
A free society cannot allow freedom to be held hostage to murderers. And that is why I favor running those images of Muhammad even if some of them offend me. Moderation, tolerance and respect are essential to a free society, but we are in a moment where moderation, tolerance and respect are too easily confused for appeasement. And that is why the jihadists are winning. They are forcing us into only bad options. The center is not holding.
Without the hate, the normal experience of meeting cultures is to be a melting pot.
Waiting for “Maybe this tragedy will make us more mindful of the hurtful nature of satire when it is applied against oppressed religious minorities”.
I have to disagree, but let us hope.
You won’t get that from me... the reaction to Hebdo was way beyond the pale. It bespoke rage, not righteous anger. Putting it in a different way, not all hates are the same.
I’d make it easy for someone like Hebdo to defend themselves in place as they believed necessary. I wouldn’t necessarily appoint government goon squads to watch over them.
Exactly right! And the West seems to lack the nerve to do the rough work that is required to forestall a total clamp down. Ultimately, the sheeple will demand it.
Even yet, the option to call on the Lord always remains. Forces of evil cannot yet rise above that.
Ridiculous! Even under optimal circumstances where immigrants are encouraged to leave their regressive ideologies and embrace and assimilate with the Host Culture, the immigrants tend to live, work and mingle with themselves.
America has always welcomed and benefited from immigrants who came here with the understanding that Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed Liberties and America is superior and Exceptional.
Thanks to Leftists, immigrants are now encouraged to come here and celebrate the cultures which oppressed them and from which they flee. They are taught that America is a bad country full of evil white rich guys who want all their stuff.
Multi-Culturalism is a specific cause and a font of continuing chaos. Your focus on "Hate” is ridiculous and shows a lack of analytical thinking.
I had high hopes that the result of 9/11 would have been a deep national repentance for the abortion holocaust. Oceans of innocent blood cover this land. God will not hear prayer while such is the case.
The silver lining in all this Jihad crap.
Goldberg’s point is why it is helpful to have a little understanding of the various sects of Islam.
We are at war with salafism — the sect of Sunni Islam that regards strict imitation of Mohammed and the first seven Caliphs in all matters of law and religious practice (but I repeat myself*) as absolutely incumbent upon all Muslims — and salafism is at war with the entire non-Muslim world and a goodly part of the Muslim world (which is why Muslims call the most hard-line salafis “takfiri” — a word meaning they will declare Muslims who aren’t salafis to be apostates) as well. The Da’ish (a.k.a. IS, ISIL, ISIS) and all the sundry groups that have sworn allegiance to it, Boko Haram, the Taliban (or at least the hard-enders in the Taliban) and Al Qaeda with all its affiliates are all salafi movements.
For the rest of the West, for the Muslims who are under attack from such movements, and for Russia, this point is very easy to see. For America and Israel it is muddied by the fact that we are in a cold war and Israel in a proxy war with another Islamic sect, the Ta’ajili sect of Shia Islam which controls Iran.
I can give a long list of Muslims sects with whom we are not at war, starting with the Ismailis (who follow the Aga Khan) and the Zaidis, but also including orthodox (non-Ta’ajili) Twelver Shi’ites and non-Salafi Sunnis best exemplified by Sunni imams who take their marching orders from the Hashemite King of Jordan (but, who unfortunately don’t really constitute a well-defined sect for lack of a Caliph, and therefore are susceptible to “radicalization”, i.e. turning into salafi jihadists, as a result of an increase in religious fervor) and the (tiny) Qu’ran-only movement.
*Islam is first and foremost a body of law, and religious practice and law are essentially identical in Muslim thought.
I think LePen winning the next French election is a foregone conclusion now.
They imported far too many Muslims. It was only a matter of time and numbers for France. I’m surprised it has been as peaceful as it has been for so long.
They are all in for it from here on. All we in the USA can do is take notes and hopefully not follow their mistakes.
1.6 billion Muslims on the planet and growing rapidly. If only 10% are active ‘extremists’ that’s enough for big trouble. 160 million. Plus, probably 50% tacitly condone what the 10% active extremists are about.
It’s a numbers game.
They can say all day that not all Muslims are extremists and violent, and that’s true but beside the point. They don’t all have to be violent. Ten percent is enough to create all sorts of mayhem.
The greater overall number you import into your midst the greater number of extremists willing to do violence (and their tacit supporters) you are importing. It is simply comes down to numbers.
France never crunched the numbers.
I think you’re being incoherent.
It’s hate that turns strangers into balkanization. And leftists are great at ginning up such hate in the form of absurd demands.
It will certainly boost her chances. The lefties of France have shown themselves powerless to keep order.
Your so called analysis fails to include the heavenly. It doesn’t even rise to being wrong.
As an evangelical I approach this from a different angle. People are going to need to permit Christ to be Lord of their own lives, one by one. It sounds grand to say the next logical step is to do something heroic about abortion, but if our own houses are zeroic we cannot do anything heroic.
You seem to be reluctant to condemn MC’ism. Makes me wonder who you are trying to protect. It wouldn't be Islam would it? Just wondering...
Read the bible, would you, before babbling about how hate is such a general term.
You might be surprised to find that it can be used quite sensibly.
It depends again on what cultures. If they are all variations of the Western Christian worldview, or those who respect it today such as certain Oriental societies, they will be able to transcend their differences. Some will not play nice. They will never melt into the pot.
The very fact you utter such an evil suspicion turns the mirror on you, not me.
Goldberg is wrong that the West has no good options. It has very good and very obvious options, like ending Muslim immigration and deporting as many of those they’ve already made the mistake of admitting as they can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.