While you may want to have "a private mutter of disgust will suffice as we keep telling ourselves that it doesn’t matter what they say about us, that mere words break no bones and that our cowering silence does not fuel the very fanaticism we claim to be fighting." Not me. I want people who kill, terrorize, or threaten to do harm to me and my friends, dead.

If you want a response from Europe, Peter, you can forget it. They have no religion and their secular "ideals" are purely self-serving.

Muslims may be misguided about some things, but it speaks well for them that they have things they love and wish to defend. Secular liberals seem to have only things they despise and wish to mock. In the end, it's the lovers to whom the future belongs.

PJ, I agree somewhat with your sentiments, but lovers or romantics? Hitler was a romantic. We don't need another Hitler.

Iran is being taken down that same worn path. If the people don't realise it themselves and stop the madmen before they reach the slippery slope ... woe to them. I don't say that in anger, but with sadness. They have much to lose, as do we all ... as does the ghost of Mussolini, the neofascist Chavez. He's on the same path.

When the conference starts, simply drop about 50 box cars from the sky on the whole thing. If necessary, throw in some Zyklon-B canisters. They'll get the message.

Peter, on what basis are you saying that the West stands mute? Are you expecting a million man march on the Hague in protest of this? Read what Chancellor Merkel had to say about Iran and the current regime, they recognize that they are dealing with a Nazi-like regime in Teheran.

The ones whose muteness we should notice are the Muslims who were so vocal about the Danish cartoon. If you think that you can buy their respect by joining in the outrage over their wounded sense of dignity, then you're making a big mistake.

I know that this is a serious topic and the the Muslim reaction to those cartoons is vile, dangerous and yet understandable. However, all of Peter's postings on this topic have seemed envious of the Muslim reaction. As though he was wishing that Christians would react to blaspheming with as much fervor and violence. He reminds me of General Buck Turgidson saying "I wish we had one of those Doomsday bombs."

We're worse than standing mute, we're agreeing with our enemies. It's not just the looney left. The US State Dep't issued a statement against publishing the cartoons. Where is the statement from Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al., about the importance of free speech, about toleration and nonviolent dissent??? I thought these were the values we were fighting for in this so-called War on Terror. The radical muslims know that they can intimidate us, or at least our leaders.

As for Merkel's statement, those are fine words, but absolutely meaningless. Germany is powerless to do anything about radical Islam. When she comes out in favor of a military, rather than diplomatic, solution to the problem, I'll start listening. Until then, the only country that matters is the United States. And I don't see much strength or resolve emanating from the White House these days.

I remain more convinced than ever that the initial impetus behind the WOT has died out. (See my essay, "The Bush Doctrine, RIP" on Real Clear Politics, 9/12/05.) Iran is being allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and radical muslims across the world are allowed to threaten the West -- even the very countries they live in - with terrorism and death.

Where are the counter demonstrations? Where are the patriotic Britons who are willing to stand up for their country? Britain appears lost.

Significantly, the large muslim populations in parts of the United States have not joined in with these protests. Why not? Because they know that Americans are not yet emasculated and would meet any such protests with staunch, probably violent, opposition. Can you imagine the London demonstrators doing the same thing in Brooklyn? Waving placards promising another 9/11 or another holocaust? Ordinary New Yorkers are still a tough bunch and would not tolerate such brazen threats.

But ordinary New Yorkers cannot prevent atomic bombs from being set off in Manhattan. I truly fear for my city and my country.

Steven: I think we need to parse this fairly carefully. Some of the cartoons are stupidly offensive. Some are not: I think that the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban makes a decent point about the effect of terrorism on Islam. Obviously, anyone who wishes to publish the cartoons should be free to do so but equally and to the same extent, anyone who wishes to protest their publication should be free to do so peacefully. I don't like the rhetoric about beheading the cartoonists, but I don't like the peacenik rhetoric about supporting our troops who frag their officers.

Frankly, we could use some instruction on the forceful protest of obscene viewpoints.

With all due respect, David, I think the problem is that we in the west engage in altogether too much "parsing" of issues that concern life and death of our citizens and societies. Parsing becomes an excuse for inaction by the good guys -- and so the bad guys keep gaining ground.

The only reason we have come as far as we have in the WOT is because after 9/11 Bush refused to "parse" the issues -- he decided that a military attack (i.e., killing the enemy) was called for. But now he's doing too much parsing regarding the biggest threat of all, Iran.

As for the rest of your comments, they seem utterly disconnected from the reality of what's going on: radical Islamists are threating death, another 9/11, a "real" holocaust, etc., because they find ANY depictions of Muhammad, not just these cartoons, a deep and unforgiveable insult to Islam. They presume to dictate, upon threat of death, what is and is not acceptable speech in the west.

This isn't a "peaceful" protest -- it's an open declaration of war. And this keeps happening all across the muslim world, while we in the west just sit back and "parse" the issues until the next big attack occurs that forces us to take action.

The whole point of the Bush Doctrine, of course, was that we wouldn't wait for another attack before we struck back. And now we can't even issue a strong public declaration of our support for free speech and condemnation of the reaction it has triggered among the radical Islamic lunatics. Pathetic. Which is exactly how the muslims think of us -- soft, degenerate infidels who do not deserve to live.

I'm sorry, but denying the reality of the violent clash of civilizations that is occurring won't make it go away. Sometimes you simply have to identify your enemies and kill them before they kill you. Harsh, but true. After all, the muslim world is not playing games here. Have we forgotten 9/11, Beslan, Bali, London, etc. etc. etc.?

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that the people of Britain would tolerate a bunch of terrorist sympathizers rallying in London in support of further attacks like these. We know who the enemy is -- these very people. Without question, they should be arrested, deported, and/or killed.

Would Britain have tolerated German residents (or leftist stooges) rallying in support of Hitler after Dunkirk? Obviously not. I fail to see the difference -- except that the west today is suffering from a seemingly fatal lack of confidence and resolve that would shock and depress the Churchills, Thatchers, FDRs, JFKs, and Reagans of the past century.

Gentlemen, the whole issue regarding the WOT against Islamofascism is that a large part of the "infidel" West doesn't believe that we are at war at all. A good portion of the anti-war movement is basically anti-Americanism at it's most nefarious core. Anything that can hurt the USA and GW is just fine for them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Steven is absolutely correct that we are wittnessing a clash of civilazations. But only one side is actually at war and it's not our side. We are for the most part waging this "war" like we try a case in court. We have to "parse" out that it's legal for GW to order warrentless wiretaps of our enemies. We have to have lawyers on the front lines with our troops to make sure they don't transgress our rules, we can't use torture to save our own lives. Our enemies laugh at us.

Only until enough of us have been killed and our way of life more altered than it is now will the rest of us know that we are at war.

Revisionist history about the Holocaust has been around forever. It's greatest supporters have been in the Arab world. They have been publishing this venom for decades. In fact, Abbu Abbas's phd dissertation argued that the Holocaust was a fiction. What is new, is that this is the first time since Nazi Germany fell that Holocaust denial and the destruction of the Jews is a stated national policy of a duly recognized country.

The Holocaust ended some 61 years ago, but some of us are still close to those who perished. By an accident of history it could have been me and not my brother who was murded at the age of 3 at Auschwitz. His misfortune was to be born too soon and my good fortune was to be born after WWII.

Many of the people who are against fighting this WOT as an existential war are the same people the Mullahs will throw into the gas chambers first.

Robert:

If you think that you can buy their respect by joining in the outrage over their wounded sense of dignity, then you're making a big mistake.

No, you don't get it. I couldn't care less about their respect and (as Brandon suggested elsewhere) I'm not envious of Muslim anything. This is about us in the West and what we stand for. Pj has nailed it.

Firstly, can we please cut this nonsense about this being about free speech or free expression. Any newspaper in the West could ( as many have) opine that the Muslim world is backward, that it is a menace to or even incompatible with Western values, that we should go to war, that Islam is intrinsically warlike and an obstacle to peace, that we should halt or restrict immigration, that we cannot trust them, that war with them is inevitable or even desirable, that their leaders are corrupt jerks, etc. etc. And any newspaper could publish cartoons showing any leader of any Muslim nation in the most unflattering light. In any of these cases, nobody would say: "You shouldn't have published that because it will upset them. Please moderate your views so they will like us more." Nobody would ask a government to censor and nobody would give two minutes to any Muslim who demanded they be shut down however nervous it made the State Department. Buy another paper.

But this was not about expressing an opinion or criticizing political/religious leadership or arguing a course or action. It was about expressing visceral hatred and contempt for a sixth of the globe by the time-honoured method of defiling what is holy to them in the full knowledge of the reaction it would invite from the craziest mullah right down to the most inconsequential peasant. It was basically a way of telling them their religion makes them sub-human in our eyes and unworthy of even default civility.

The following is from a short piece in the local rag by a CAIR representative which was surprisingly good and exorciated the Muslim world for its absurd sense of victimization and double standards:

If anything, this incident speaks to a lamentable gulf between worlds. Some in the Muslim world can get their hot buttons pushed by cartoons; some in the Western world find within them only a cold dismissal of the sacred space of others: grow up; smarten up; fix your fixations.

Where are the genuine efforts at human understanding? We can't demand a pound of flesh from each other and continue to live together.

So, Robert, if you want to continue down this course, fine, but if you do I hope you drop the mask of tolerance and reason and spare us pious condemnations of the havoc caused by religious-inspired bloodlust in days gone by. I can't believe you are backing this while the Marines you speak so highly of are risking their lives helping Iraqis rebuild and trying to convince them democracy and American friendship are completely compatible with their faith.

Ah, but we loved our Fuhrer....

Steven: I'm all for the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq and what ever it is we end up doing to Iran. We should fight war with war. But just because we're so good at war, we need to make sure that we're not fighting words with war. If Muslims are unhappy, then they get to express their unhappiness pungently. That's the only kind of speech that freedom of speech protects.

When those protests cross over the line, then they should be called on it just like any other protestor.

Morry: This is not an existential war. That doesn't make it any less a war as almost none of our wars have been existential.

Peter:

None of those cartoons came anywhere close to blasphemy, unless the definition is so widely expanded as to lose all coherence.

They each used religious icons as a background to criticize the acts of adherents to that religion.

Never mind the astonishing hypocrisy of Muslims who are so quick to denigrate any religion but their own.

This whole episode just might have the beneficial knock-on effect of focussing some left-wing PC minds on what is really at stake. And maybe, just maybe, how ridiculous their own position is.

Peter,

Well said. Thank you.

I might only add, one can be offended only when one give the aspiring offender the authority/power to offend. "Piss Christ" did not offend me. I wouldn't be willing to subsidize it (via tax dollars). But it did not offend me. I wouldn't give that kind of power or authority to an insect like aNDRES sERRANO (who longs for nothing more than for people to be offended!) When one has such a low opinion of someone, how can they possibly offend one?

You're doing a fine job in OJ's absence; keep up the great work and God bless you.

"...but it speaks well for them that they have things they love and wish to defend..."

Slippery slope indeed, free speech for thee but not for me. After all, the mohammadans must LOVE, what else can describe the disgusting hatred they display.

Very disappointing, Peter.

One does not need to "blaspheme" the "Religion of Peace."

Let it simply be exposed. Have its doctrines, practices, history, personages, and, yes, scripture, examined and studied.

I say again, this barbarian throwback cannot stand the light of day.

Jeff:

None of those cartoons came anywhere close to blasphemy

Thank goodness we have you razor-sharp rationalists around to help everybody see that. Hey, we've all chipped in and come up with just enough to send you over there to tell them.

Peter:

Jeff might just volunteer, given a properly equipped aircraft, of course.

Lou is right. One of the reasons Islam is so victim-oriented is because nobody really knows what it stands for from one day to the next, and all the endemic problems in Islamic countries just can't be Allah's will or his fault. Too much local culture (honor killings, female circumcision, etc.) from Morocco to Indonesia has been blended in with a few points of religious dogma for there to be any unity, except when screaming in the streets.

The various splits (after Muhammed's death) are not well known in the West, and there is in general a total lack of knowledge regarding Muslim history, doctrine, and tradition (as Lou noted). And so the West is puzzled by Islam. And some are afraid. And some will grant them victim status all day long.

But bullies are just bullies, and most people understand that very well. Not all will push back, but seeing signs about beheading those who 'insult' Islam lets everyone know what is what.

I can't believe you are backing this while the Marines you speak so highly of are risking their lives helping Iraqis rebuild and trying to convince them democracy and American friendship are completely compatible with their faith.

Oh please, you're not giving in to this nonsense about angering the "Arab street", are you? So we all have to feign outrage in solidarity with our bereaved Muslim brethren because our fighting boys are over there in harms way? The Arab street has no reserve anger left to throw onto the fire, they've been running an anger deficit since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. All the really angry Arabs are either dead by now, or living in a cave or a tribal area in Pakistan, or killing other Muslims. Or living in Europe.

The "moderate" Muslims, whose pain you feel, are going about ordering their new lives in Iraq as free members of a free society, they have more important things to worry about than some infidel cartoonist in Denmark. They know that they have the American Marines, among others, to thank and they aren't going to throw that away to become a jihadi over this stupid cartoon.

I think that it shows some condescension on your part to think of the Muslim population as a single mass of volatile matchsticks ready to catch fire over the slightest provocation. I think that most Muslims have better things to do with their time than blow a gasket over this cartoon. The mouthpiece Muslim groups that are trying to make this an international incident are the same ones who want Israel destroyed and want the US out of Iraq. You're playing into their propaganda operation by giving this cartoon more attention than it deserves, which is none.

You're playing into their propaganda operation by giving this cartoon more attention than it deserves, which is none.

Robert is exactly right.

I also think these protests have been well orchestrated and planned, to wit Danish flags in available in remote Moslem villages and hamlets. As usual, Mark Steyn says it best.

The above discussion shows that what the Islamists treat as a life-and-death issue, for us becomes a question of the boundaries of free speech (theirs and ours). This strikes me as fundmentally misguided and potentially suicidal.

The London protesters are not a bunch of feminists marching to keep abortion illegal, or college students rallying against the war, or [fill in the blank]. These protesters are openly siding with terrorists and threatening to *kill* us.

This is not "political speech" within a democratic system of government -- this is an attack on our very existence and way of life. And these people are not "exaggerating." Hello! They really do kill people, lots of people. And will gladly kill more, if and when they can. This is the reality of the world today. Denying it won't make it go away.

When someone threatens to kill me and my neighbors, there's nothing left to discuss. Political debate is no longer a viable option; self-defense is called for, commensurate with the nature of the threat. The Islamic threat today is a clear and present danger that calls for an appropriately robust response along all fronts, military, political, social, and economic.

The notion that "exposing" these lunatics in the arena of public opinion will have any beneficial effect (other than, hopefully, rallying more good people to take a firm stand against them) is, I think, wishful thinking. The radical Islamists believe what they believe for reasons that we might think are crazy, but which they (and their fellow travelers on the left) obviously don't. There is no "talking cure" for the problem of radical Islamic terrorism and cultural aggression.

Lastly, we might find it distasteful to our modern sensibilities, but sometimes, tragically, humanity reaches a point of conflict where violence is the only option. When that time comes, one can only hope to be on the side of the stronger, nobler faction.

Uh, Robert, it wasn't me who gave the cartoon attention. I actually don't have all that much difficulty with what you and Steven have said, except for one rather crucical point. You seem to have lost any sense of who it is you are fighting or want to fight.

All of 'em, Peter.

Ok, joe. From Tangiers to Jakarta, let's roll. Don't forget the two hundred million in Indonesia and the hundred million in India or Robert will accuse you of caving to Muslim sensibilities.

Peter:

The whole concept of blasphemy is practically empty, particularly when it comes to graphic representations of Mohammed.

The cartoonists are not Muslims; Quranic restrictions simply don't apply to them -- one might as well burn atheists for not observing the Sabbath.

Keep in mind: as far as Islamists are concerned, your very fact of disbelief in the divinity of Mohammed is itself blasphemy.

Jeff:

one might as well burn atheists for not observing the Sabbath.

What a cool idea. Original too. :-)

Jeff:

The whole concept of blasphemy is practically empty...

Which is rather the point of all this, and why you are marching defiantly for the right to offend and humiliate for absolutely no good reason.

Peter, for absolutely no reason?

Have you not read any Scandinavian blogs? Fjordman has closed shop, but his blog is still up. Moslems are wreaking havoc all over northern Europe and the once proud Viking warriors are cowering before them -- more afraid of seeming judgmental than enforcing the laws of the land.

Peter:

Wrong.

Unless, of course, you think Islamic terrorism -- yes, it exists -- is done for a good reason.

Clearly, just like I, you don't think that is true.

So please tell me how it is out of bounds for political cartoonists to caricature the reason Islamofascists use for their outrages?

Christopher Hitchens is worth reading on this.

Well, Jeff, it looks like your and Christopher's war on terror is morphing into a war on Islam, if not a war on religion generally. I suspect somewhere deep down you believe you are actually doing them a big favour by helping them modernize--sort of a crash course in the glories of secularism and the Enlightenment, for which you expect they will all be grateful to you some day. High stakes. Good luck.

Well, after reading and hearing more about this incident over the weekend, apparently the insult was for a very good reason. The cartoons were commissioned to protest the self-censorship of book publishers and media outlets in the face of Islamic intimidation. Now I'm wholeheartedly for them.

Peter, if Muslim sensibilities have been humiliated by these cartoons, then it is the humiliation that comes from looking in the mirror. How do they protest this depiction of them, this "caricature"? By living up to the caricature, of course. Burning buildings, shootings, threats of death and dismemberment.

Peter, there is more at stake here than civility. This isn't a food fight going on here.

Peter:

Your response is simply wrong, and completely illogical.

My war is defending the freedom of speech against violent reprisal.

Let's say Muslims are reflexively offended by depictions of Mohammed. Therefore, we should, in deference to their sensibilities and charges of blasphemy, self-censor such depictions.

All well and good, to you. Apparently their religious strictures should be binding upon us, for fear of causing offence otherwise.

However, there are a great many other things we, and you, do in the West that are also abhorrent to either Islam in general, or Islamists in particular, which they view as blasphemy.

I don't have time to make a list; in any event, it would be self-evident.

Should we defer to the Islamists there, as well? If not, why not?

I never thought I would cite something from the Daily Kos, but this particular Muslim's take on the situation is also well worth reading -- particularly with respect to depictions of Mohammed.

Additionally, you seem to be rather, and unusually, on Robert Fisk's side on this one. Maybe that isn't the most sensible place to be.

BTW -- I'm still curious.

How is it out of bounds for Western political cartoonists to use depictions of Mohammed in making a point about religiously inspired terrorism?

Robert:

Would that it were just a food fight. Let me try again. I do not believe that, in a spirit of contempt or by pompously and hypocritically asserting some right to free speech, I am justified in publically ridiculing or desecrating my enemy's religion (irrespective of what he does to mine), especially when his religion is shared by many, many more who are not my enemy. Doesn't mean I can't kill him, though. Doesn't mean I give a whit about his religion. And it doesn't mean I fear the Arab street or sympathesize with the crazies who have been losing it for the past few days. If they cross the line, arrest or even shoot them.

That's the principle and I would like to believe I would hold to it regardless of the practicalities just as firmly as I would hold to the same idea on race. But speaking of those practicalities, you seem to have lost any sense that the Islamicist challenge is much more a civil war than a clash of civilizations, and that there have been far, far more Muslim victims than Western ones. Many of those have managed to combine Muslim piety with firm anti-Islamicism. We have a very long history of sucking up to radicals and tyrants and undercutting moderates in the Middle East. One reason I am so impressed with Bush is how he seems to understand that. He also understands that moderation is not a physical quality that remains constant and that it can disappear quite quickly without respect and support. You can parse and analyse and deconstruct all you want but you know as well as I that there are many, many moderates in the Muslim world who have been stung and are wondering whether Europe really does despise them all. I'd like to tell them they are wrong, but I ain't so sure. So in addition to being a gutter-impulse, it was also incredibly stupid.

But I'm far removed from that world and am just assuming the moderates are there in great numbers, that they will respond to overtures and that they are my enemy's enemy. If I'm wrong, and you are right that they are all peas in a pod, then I'm wrong, but the principle still would hold.

Peter,
I'm sure there are moderates, but I doubt that even the moderates are culturally ready for a free society. I would say that this is a good "teaching moment" for would be Muslim moderates to learn that political cartoons are not the voice of the people, and that they should learn to have some understanding of their own for the impact that Islamist violence has had on the way others view their religion. Now would be a good time for the moderates to come out of the woodwork and say "even though I find these cartoons offensive, I understand where some people have gotten a bad image of Islam from those who do violence in its name". I think that it is incumbent on the moderates to earn their moderate credentials. But I haven't witnessed very much of that, though I am far away from the matter, as are you.

Frankly, if I were a moderate Muslim I think that I would have some understanding of what the cartoonist was trying to say. Just think if the Christian church were still in the Crusade business, and was waging a holy shooting war to convert the nonbelievers of the world. If a cartoonist in Egypt portrayed Jesus with an Uzi, don't you think you'd have to understand how they could get such a poor view of your savior? Or would you expect your moderate status to insulate you from such offenses?

The moderates can't be neutral, their religion is at stake.