I doubt the Times meant to highlight exactly how violent the RoP actually is, but, they did! Editors must have been drunk due to Obama’s rapidly declining poll numbers. The Times gives a good time-line, and exposes the violence inherent in the RoP, particularly against the men who drew the cartoons.
Several men were arrested for plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard. There are bounties on the heads of Westergaard and his editor, Fleming Rose. Westergaard has to constantly move to avoid the RoP disciples.
In Egypt the speaker of the Parliament claimed Danes had violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seemed a little rich coming just a few weeks after the European Parliament, which itself complained about the cartoons’ re-publication, condemned Egypt for the sorry state of its human rights.
Muslims threatened an art showing. A Berlin opera had to be cancelled. And we all know the violence, including arson and murder, that occurred at the time. But, this was 2005! Geez, move on.
“It was not about mocking a minority but a religious figure, the Prophet, so it was blasphemy, not racism,†Mr. Rose said of the cartoons. “The idea of challenging religious authority led to liberal democracy, whereas the singling out of minorities, as minorities, led to Nazism and the persecution of the bourgeoisie in Russia. So this distinction is crucial to understand.â€
And in Islam, blasphemy is punishable by death. No appeals, no lengthy trials, just death.
Meanwhile, per Rusty at The Jawa Report, we find that the newest Osama tape includes a rant about, you got it! the cartoons
About 2 minutes in bin Laden claims:
that despite your publishing of the insulting drawings, you haven’t seen any reaction from the one and a half billion Muslims
Except for the violent demonstrations, the killing, the harming, the arson, the attempted murder.
What’s funny is that he rails against the U.S. for intentionally killing women and children, which he “testifies” that he has seen, and then compares that with the Mohammad cartoons. Which is worse? The Mo cartoons, of course!
Welcome to the RoP.
Michelle Malkinis looking for her own fatwa with a Mohammad cartoon. So does Hyscience, with a seriously disturbing 72 virgins picture. Spree wants a fatwa, too, as does Jammie Wearing Fool.
• John McCain may not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’ite but rest assured that the people in Iraq know, the people in Iran know and Al Qaeda knows. You can also bet that the cynics in the White House and the Pentagon who are planning and executing our strategy in the region know as well.
Iraq is Shi’ite dominated. The Maliki government in Iraq is Shi’ite dominated, thus the close connections between Al Maliki and Iran as witnessed during the congenial meetings recently between Al Maliki and Ahmadinejad of Iran. As Joe Lieberman whispered to McCain this week when McCain failed to understand that Iran was Shi’ite dominated and Al Qaeda is Sunni dominated, there is no love lost between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda.
So who is the US now arming in an effort to bring stability to Iraq? The Sunnis, the party of Al Qaeda. That’s right, we’re arming the guys affiliated with Al Qaeda in an effort to counter the growing influence of Iran in Iraq’s Shi’ite led government. And at a cost of 4000 lives and $12 billion a month, you are paying for the whole sorry thing!
As reported today by Selig S. Harrison, director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy:
“Until now, I was told, Iran has been actively helping the United States to stabilize Iraq during the “surge†by reducing its weapons inputs to Shi’ite militias, including the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who has ordered a cease-fire under Iranian pressure. But the message was clear: Unless Petraeus drastically cuts back the Sunni militias, Tehran will unleash the Shi’ite militias against US forces again and step up help to Maliki’s intelligence service, the Ministry of National Security. The United States has created a rival agency under Sunni control, the National Intelligence Service.
“The tensions building between the Maliki government and the Bush administration over Iran’s role in Iraq were underlined recently when Maliki, with visiting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran at his side, said that Iran “has been very helpful in bringing back security and stability to Iraq.†Two days later, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the retiring deputy commander of US forces in Iraq, criticized Iran for continuing to “train surrogates, fund surrogates, and supply weapons to them.â€
“The burgeoning US-sponsored Sunni militias so far number some 90,000 US-equipped fighters who are each paid $300 a month. This is euphemistically called the “Sunni Awakening.†The militias pose a growing challenge to the dominance of Maliki’s predominantly Shi’ite army, with its authorized strength of 186,000. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the key Shi’ite leader backing Maliki, has repeatedly complained that “weapons should be in the hands of the government only, and the government alone should decide who gets them. The alternative will be perpetual civil war.â€
“Iran’s former deputy foreign minister, Mahmoud Vaezi, told me that arming the Sunnis “suggests to us that the US is deliberately seeking to keep them strong enough to undermine al-Maliki and contain our influence. It will be impossible for us to cooperate in stabilizing Iraq if this goes on. If you shift power to the Sunnis, then some Shia groups will say, ‘If we can get more power through terrorist tactics, why not?’ â€
“President Bush attempts to justify an indefinite US military occupation of Iraq as a counter to Iranian influence. But the reality is that Iran will have dominant influence in Iraq whether or not a stable government emerges in Baghdad and whether or not US forces remain. History and ethnic arithmetic make this the inescapable legacy of the US invasion.
“Shi’ites make up 62 percent of the Iraq population. Yet for five centuries, the Ottoman and British invaders who preceded Saddam Hussein, using classic divide-and-rule tactics, installed successive Sunni minority governments to contain the Shi’ite majority. By destroying the Sunni-dominated Hussein regime, Bush gave the Iraqi Shi’ites an unprecedented opportunity to rule that they are now determined to exploit.â€
So we have switched from our strategy of arming both sides in the Iraq civil war, now we are backing the guys nominally aligned with Al Qaeda so we can counter Iran’s growing influence in Iraq. Despite the wonderful rhetoric from the impotent Bush yesterday, this is what our Iraq strategy has wrought, and what our boys are dying for.
Instead of defending ourselves from Al Qaeda we have painted ourselves into a corner where we need to fund people aligned with Al Qaeda, the guys who attacked us on 9/11, in order to counter the influence of Iran in the region. And you guys say we’re winning?
Um…sorry about your spammer will.
…he kinda…dumped his poli-sci thesis in your comments…
================
So anyway, could someone explain to my why suggestions that Islam is a violent religion makes them prove you right?
Excellent point, Gus. I think it goes back to so much of what the Koran says, in terms of killing the unbeliever if they will not convert or be a dhimmi, as well as the way it sets out the laws to live by, including killing those who blaspheme.
Generally, in Christianity, we try to redeem people. In Islam, they kill them.
Actually, that’s only half the story. That’s kinda like taking just the old testament for the Koran. There’s another whole section where Allah goes into a sit-down, tie-died, hand-holding, love-fest with Christians and tells Muslims to love Christians like their brothers.
Of course, considering most Muslim countries have the worst literacy rates in the world few of them have actually read it.