This Is Not A Reasonable Solution

Howie Carr posted an article in the Boston Herald today about a recent remark by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The article reports Secretary Kerry’s remarks:

“…If you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what is going on.”

This is a bit of a contrast to the Sun Tzu quote:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The article reminds us of some of Secretary Kerry’s other ideas:

Kerry said the Arab murderers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris had “a legitimacy, not legitimacy, but a rationale.” Okay, so he walked that one back a little, but he doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Why should he? He’s protected by taxpayer-paid heat until January, and after that, all the security his second wife’s first husband’s trust fund can buy.

Burying our heads in the sand will not help fight terrorism. I am in favor of newspapers not mentioning the names of terrorists and western social media taking down terrorist recruitment films and pre-suicide bombing videos. However, burying our heads in the sand leaves us in a place very similar to where we were on September 10, 2011.

What Is Being Said Here?

Howie Carr at The Boston Herald posted an article today about remarks Secretary of State John Kerry made at the U.S. Embassy in Paris on Tuesday.

The article posted:

At the U.S. Embassy in Paris Tuesday, the secretary of state compared the two Muslim terrorist massacres in France this year — the shooting up of the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices and then last Friday’s celebration of diversity.

“There’s something different about what happened (Friday) from Hebdo,” he says on the tape, “and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not legitimacy — but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and, ‘OK, they’re really angry because of this or that.’ ”

The implication here is that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were caused by the actions of the editors. Actually, those responsible for the Charlies Hebdo acts were the people who planned them and carried them out. Note to Secretary Kerry–nothing justifies the kind of cold-blooded murder that went on at the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices.

There is another aspect to this. In his book, Catastrophic Failure, Stephen Coughlin explains that one of the goals of the Islamic Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is to institute Islamic Law on non-Muslims, beginning with the concept of slander. In Islam, slander is defined to any speech that mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam. It doesn’t matter if what you say is true, if it is negative, it is considered slander. The penalty for slander is death. We need to be careful that we do not compromise our free speech rights in this area. People who commit crimes because they do not like what is being said need to know that there will be consequences for their behavior. Unfortunately, what Secretary Kerry said implied that killing people because you don’t like what they published is understandable. Americans need to state clearly that this is neither understandable nor justifiable.

The invented word ‘Islamophobia’ is an example of the attempt to curtain the First Amendment rights of Americans. If we tell the politically incorrect truth about the goals of Islam, that word is often invoked. It is a way of avoiding the truth. It is unfortunate that our Secretary of State did not choose his words more carefully.

Just For The Record, This Is The Image That Won The Contest

Datechguyblog posted the winning picture from the Draw Mohammed contest in Garland, Texas. This picture perfectly sums up the battle for free speech. The problem in Texas was not Pam Geller’s contest–it was the Muslims who felt that it was their duty to kill people exercising their right to free speech. P–s Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. It was part of an art exhibit in New York. As offensive as it was, no one who was offended attempted to kill anyone. In the mid-1970s, Skokie, Illinois, was at the center of a case concerning the First Amendment right to assemble and the National Socialist Party of America, a neo-Nazi group. Skokie ultimately lost that case. Skokie had a sizeable Jewish population which objected to the Nazi-planned march. The march went ahead. Again, no one was killed. The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech. It does not protect anyone from being offended by that speech. The First Amendment should not be curtailed–if Muslims cannot live under the laws of America, they need to leave. If anyone comes to America, they need to be willing to live under the laws of America. The problem is not Pamela Geller–the problem is people living in America who are prone to violence and do not respect the rights of Americans.

 

draw-mohammad

Let’s Stop A Minute And Think About This

France 24 posted an article today stating that France will close 20 embassies across the Muslim world on Friday after French weekly Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed naked. Now wait a minute. I’m really not into naked pictures of Mohammed, but what is going on here? Did anyone notice that there were no riots after the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was released? That movie was certainly as obnoxious to Christians as naked cartoons of Mohammed would be to Muslims.There were some peaceful protests, as allowed by American law, but no one was killed.

At some point you have to ask, “Is the problem the film, pictures, cartoon, or whatever the current medium is, or is the problem with the protesters?” There is nothing wrong with gathering in a group carrying signs expressing your opinion–killing people, however, is another matter. I recently heard an interview where someone who had spent considerable time in Iran talked about students who were called and told to be at a specific place for a spontaneous protest. I don’t even have a problem with that (provided they are peaceful protests). I wonder if part of the reason that protests seem to get out of hand in Muslim countries is that the right of protest is not universally guaranteed–protests are organized by the government or groups opposing the government and seem to be designed to get out of hand.  A spontaneous protest in a Muslim country is generally not allowed.

Over the years, Muslim leaders have mastered the art of propaganda. They have painted Israel as an apartheid state when Arabs in Israel have more freedom in Israel than they do in Muslim countries. The protests we are seeing are a part of that propaganda war. The protests are designed to make the western countries open to a concept found in Sharia Law–disrespecting Mohammed is punishable by death. The theory is that as violent protests follow any perceived slight to Mohammed or the Koran, the west will be intimidated into curtailing free speech in western countries. This is the beginning of the path to Sharia Law.

As western countries, we need to learn to condemn the people who commit violence–regardless of the perceived cause. Bad behavior needs to have consequences. Otherwise we will continue to see more of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta