Posted on 10/02/2012 9:22:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As Muslim crowds dissipate and American diplomatic missions return to normal activities, here are three final thoughts on the riots that began this September 11 and killed about 30:
The movie really did matter: The Obama administration dishonestly skirted responsibility for the murder of four Americans in Libya by claiming that the attack was a protest that got unpredictably out of hand against the Innocence of Muslims video. In response, leading analysts have concluded that the video hardly mattered anywhere. Barry Rubin scorns the video as a “phony excuse for the demonstration” in Egypt. Michael Ledeen upbraids the administration for claiming “that attacks against Americans aren’t attacks against Americans at all, but attacks against a video.” “It is not about a video,” writes Andrew McCarthy, “any more than similar episodes in recent years have been about cartoons, teddy-bears, accidental Koran burnings, etc.” Hussein Haqqani dismisses the protests as a “function of politics, not religion.” For Victor Davis Hanson, the video and similar incidents “are no more than crude pretexts to direct fury among their ignorant and impoverished masses at opportune times against the United States, and thereby gain power.” Lee Smith speculates that “blaming the video is part of some complex public diplomacy campaign.” Cliff Kinkaid flatly calls the video “a diversion intended to save Obama’s presidency.”
I respect and learn from all these writers, but disagree about the video. Yes, individuals, organizations, and governments goaded the mobs — indeed, there always needs to be some instigator who mobilizes Muslims against an offending statement, text, drawing, or video. But it would be a mistake to see the mob as but a tool of clashing interests (such as Salafis vs. Muslim Brothers in Egypt) or American political imperatives. Rage directed at the video was heartfelt, real, and persistent.
The person of Mohammed has acquired a saint-like quality among Muslims and may not be criticized, much less mocked. German orientalist Annemarie Schimmel pointed out (in her 1985 study on the veneration of Mohammed) that his personality is, other than the Koran, “the center of the Muslims’ life.” Outrage among Muslims over insults to his person is sincere; note, for example, the notorious section 295-B of Pakistan’s Criminal Code, which punishes any defamation of Mohammed, even if unintentional, with execution. These regulations have so much support that two prominent politicians, Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, were assassinated in 2011 merely for voicing opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Their murders had nothing to do with the West and certainly were not diversions in a U.S. presidential campaign.
Obama vs. Morsi: The American and Egyptian presidents offered starkly different views on the freedom to blaspheme in their speeches to the United Nations last week. Barack Obama insisted that “in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.” Mohamed Morsi disagreed: “The obscenities recently released as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities is unacceptable and requires a firm stand. We have a responsibility in this international gathering to study how we can protect the world from instability and hatred.” In brief, each side has an approach and method (free speech vs. prohibition of blasphemy) that it considers fundamental to its identity and forwards with a certain reverence. Ever since the Khomeini edict against Salman Rushdie in 1989, each side intends to impose its way on the other side, suggesting that this clash of wills has just begun.
Trends: As someone who’s been watching that clash since Khomeini’s time, I ascertain three main trends. First, Muslims increasingly devote themselves to the political imperative of preserving Mohammed’s sanctity. Second, Western governments and elites (i.e., journalists, lawyers, intellectuals, artists) have become increasingly timid over time when facing Islamist fury, willing to apologize, appease, and placate; for one appalling example, see the U.S. embassy in Cairo’s effusions on this September 11, as a mob raged outside. Third, Western non-elites have increasingly responded to Islamists with a you-want-to-be-insulted-well-take-this! attitude that includes Koran burnings, “Defeat Jihad” ads, belligerently offensive French cartoons, and a promised rollout of Mohammed movies.
In combination, these three points lead me to predict that the conflict over values will continue to heat up.
— Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.
Gee, Daniel. Ya think?
No sane person thinks that the video “caused” the rioting and deaths. All persons with a functioning brain know that the administration and the jihadis think alike and have both claimed that the video “caused” the violence.
The jihadis hate us and will always hate us, no matter how low obama bows down.
Parsing:
"the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete" ...
....really reflects 0bama's true desire that the flow of information was ACTUALLY CONTROLLABLE, and that he would like to do the controlling. The First Amendment is too easily aided by electronics these days, and 0bama is chagrinned.
"There is no speech that justifies mindless violence"...
....The violence of Muslims against Free Speech is hardly mindless. Indeed, it is focused like a laser against Freedom. Freedom is anathema to Muslims, for whom subservience by all to their "religion" is the highest goal. 0bama's inability to even notice the extremely MINDFUL violence shows he is unwilling to acknowledge the nature of our enemy. Indeed, it suggests that as a matter of obfuscation ("taqqia"?) 0bama is in complete agreement with undermining Freedom in favor of subservience to Islam.
Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:17:32 PM by Ben Barrack
“There is more to the story of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula than what we are told by the media. Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin, a Palestinian Muslim from Beit Sahour in the Palestinian district of Bethlehem.
To prove my claim, I revealed Eiad Salameh long before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first real reportage of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012.
Now do I have your attention?..............”
____________________________________________________________
IF this is true, then the whole video was made to inflame and outrage Muslims and blame Coptic Christians... What did Obama and Clinton know and when did they know it? The both were first in line to call the world's attention to this video. Few can afford that kind of advertising.
0bama NEVER issues a blanket defense of Free Speech. Ever. He always issues a slight "out" for the Islamists to regulate Speech. Fundamentally, 0bama is opposed to Free Speech; he cannot bring himself to defend it unequivocally. I therefore conclude 0bama is with the Anti-Blaspheming Muslims.
On any given day, there are many videos on youtube that insult Jews, Christians and Muslims. To say this particular video was a spark of murder just makes no sense.
By blaming the movie Obama and Clinton legitimize the attacks.
It gave the Muslims a reason to go to the streets and protest. These protests usually become violent. Many of the protesters would have not gone to the streets to support terrorists. By lying about the attacks and its cause they instigated the other violent demonstrations.
America should put copyright piracy to good use. A lot of the music and video files put on pirate websites for download should be corrupted with anti-Muslim and anti-Mohammed audio and video.
And we should do the same to radical Islamic audio and video. Halfway through, edit in stuff that will make Muslims seethe. Some speech by a radical Imam, and halfway through somebody does a cut and paste to make him sound like he is attacking Islam and Mohammed.
It could be fun. Like getting some speech by a radical Mufti, and giving it subtitles from rap videos.
The best defense...
Contrast the life of Mohammed with that of Jesus Christ. Anyone with little or no knowledge of the former knows there is no comparison with the latter.
The contrast is appalling and shows anyone who is interested just why the Muslim world is filled with violence committed in the name of its progenitor. It also shows why it is terrified of the Truth.
No founder of any religion that I am aware of was a murderer, thief, pedophile or fraud except Mad Mo.
It’s galling to say the least that for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God, Mohammed preformed no miracles, never did a charitable thing for anyone, was a murderer and a pedophile and yet somehow is revered as a prophet of God. It’s sickening.
>> the conflict over values will continue to heat up.
Good to restate the obvious.
Islam is a war plan. It is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Yup. Islam is in direct opposition to God Himself.I know what Islam is and it’s galling enough but what infuriates me to no end is to listen to IDIOTS, from Limbaugh to Hannity and everyone in between talk about ‘’moderate Muslims’’, as if there were ever ‘’moderate Nazis’’. Anyone ever consider if the bloody ‘’religion’ were so ‘’peaceful’’, why the need for ‘’moderation’’? Wouldn’t that make the argument it isn’t ‘’peaceful’’?
I am all for people reading the Koran to get a true idea of what Islam is. What a pile of crap!
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.