Defining The Territory of Insult

Written By: Dr Caleb
Date: 2007-06-25 16:21:00
<a href="/article/161501902-defining-the-territory-of-insult">Article Link</a>

Such raging crowds, of course, rarely appear in the modern West (unless as soccer hooligans). But they have become a common site across the Muslim world every time a pope, some cartoonist or, now, the British queen, step over some line in the sand drawn by the forces of intolerance.

The West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.

An ever-growing number of Muslims worldwide feel that they are engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the West for power, for territory, for limited resources and ideas.

As with all wars, symbols are important. But this is especially true in the Muslim mind which is governed by a rigid code of honor and shame. In this context symbols are not just images, but a matter of life and death. He who stands by and watches as his symbols are trashed has lost his honor.

The honor-and-shame code affects all Muslim societies from top to bottom--family, tribe and the Umma, or the Muslim nation. An insider who breaches this code, which is Salman Rushdie's great "crime," must be put to death. He shamed Muslims in two very serious ways: He left Islam, and he insulted Islam's infallible founder.

More at:
<a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26395/pub_detail.asp">http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26395/pub_detail.asp</a>

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 26, 2007]

“AEI's Organization and Purposes

A SNIPPET
AEI research is conducted through three primary research divisions: Economic Policy Studies, Social and Political Studies, and Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. It also works through several specialized programs such as the Brady Program on Culture and Freedom, the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the National Research Initiative (which sponsors research by university-based scholars), the AEI Press, and The American”
I shall have to investigate this organisation before going off

---
"The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.

- Father Bede Jarrett
(with thanks to Willie T)

oops

---
"The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.

- Father Bede Jarrett
(with thanks to Willie T)

Yes, must defend those 'symbols'. Like Coca Cola, Exxon, Shell, Monsanto, McDonalds, Nike, Wal Mart.....

If the messenger bothers you, there are others: 
 
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/long-live-the-queen-ayaa_b_53498.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/long-live-the-queen-ayaa_b_53498.html</a> 
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Pour oil on the fire and exclaim about how the flames get higher. This article exemplifies the mileage to be milked: "See THEY, are not like US, WE need to band together against THEM". The issue of political sensitivlty is more pertinent than tolerance IMHO. You either want the flames fueled higher or you want to contain them. Intent is everything. The world could have survived nicely without Rushdi being knighted at this time. Should The Queen be free to knight whoever, whenever? Sure, but the need to express freedoms to the fullest extent when and where good taste, or restraint in strained times should prevail speaks loudly. What is the full cost of demanding your full quoto of tolerance anyway?

I really like Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an author. Very smart lady. You may remember her being a member of the Dutch government, until her citizenship was revoked for lying on her refugee claim.

So, why is it we are not enraged when effigies of what we hold important are destroyed as those things which they represent would be destroyed if given the chance? Do we hold our freedom of speech so high that we must also hold their freedom of speech as high, even if it offends us?

Or, do we just not believe in those symbols enough to protect them?

As the author states - "By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life." Is it not worth defending this freedom, if only in harshly worded communications?

Or, am I just typing so my fingers get exercise again?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Or, do we just not believe in those symbols enough to protect them?" Those "symbols" are stealing our money in the form of taxation and turning it into bombs, which are being dropped quite intentionally with open admission on entire families as we speak - and that sir, is nothing I want to protect. As if there's any surprise, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali">Ayaan Hirsi Ali</a> is a fellow at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute">American Enterprise Institute</a>, a conservative think tank that is overflowing with defenders of human rights and liberty, such as ... <blockquote> "More than twenty AEI alumni have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.[3] Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney, is an AEI Senior Fellow." </blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Scholars_and_fellows">Click here for the full list of the worse society has to offer.</a> These are all the same guys n gals that instigated and kicked off 9/11, which is now being used as an excuse to destroy what little freedom and liberty we have left.

My concerns are as they would be in reading an article from a member of BC's Fraser institute. Know this too that is not the only criteria by which to judge an article. Iwas tiered at the time of offering my observations and the brane (dm*) was on (sm**).
It is right and properr to read with a critical eye, is it not? Anf there was something to Pro Am about the article that set off warning tingles.
In other words the jury is out
*deliberate mis-spell
**semi function

---
I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges

Ooooo! You are Soo bad!
"So, why is it we are not enraged when effigies of what we hold important are destroyed as those things which they represent would be destroyed if given the chance? Do we hold our freedom of speech so high that we must also hold their freedom of speech as high, even if it offends us?"

Do I recognise the above a s Chomsky rephrased?
The point is valid DC and kinda deep this early in my day without the Kick-start of the triple latte'

---
I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges

"By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life." Not everyone agrees that so-called "knighthood" is a such noble thing. <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,9061,1111643,00.html">The ultimate honour - impressive list of those who refused to bow to the system</a>

Nope, the Queens effigy gets exactly what it deserves. Knighting Rushdi was instigating and deliberatly irresponsable in a strained climate. Real people, not symbols, will be destroyed as a result ramping up the tensions with such deliberate provacation.
The Queen, person not symbol, won't be one on them. Britain, the people, are being softened up by the string pullers. It is never one string in isolation. Not safe for the prince to serve, oh my. The queen the object of ire, oh my. The fire is being stoked. Count the logs, see the flames rise higher, and stay tuned to further developments for Britains role in the "war on terror".

"Those "symbols" are stealing our money in the form of taxation and turning it into bombs, which are being dropped quite intentionally with open admission on entire families as we speak - and that sir, is nothing I want to protect."

The Queen is bombing Afghanistan? The Canadian flag is stealing our tax dollars? The Bible is killing innocent families? The Canadian Constitution is not worth protecting?

"As if there's any surprise, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow..."

Well, yes, it is a surprise, because the the link and my post clearly indicate Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a WOMAN.

"at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that is overflowing with defenders of human rights and liberty, such as ... "

No, the opinion piece was carried by the Associated Press and International Herald Tribune, and picked up by several other sources as well. Your 'full list of offenders' clearly lists her as a champion of women's rights. Sounds like a bad person to me.

"These are all the same guys n gals that instigated and kicked off 9/11, which is now being used as an excuse to destroy what little freedom and liberty we have left."

I think you have AEI confused with 19 Saudi's and a guy named Osama.

But, enough blaming the messenger, let's get back to the message:

If you read her book, 'Infidel', you'll note Ayaan Hirsi Ali was the subject of the film in which a Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was stabbed and nearly beheaded on the streets of Amsterdam. In the film he made starring her, she wrote words from the Quran on her body. It was a 10 minute film, and that was all she did in the film. That such holy words were written on a 'dirty female' was the justification for his murder and a Fatah against her calling for her immediate death. This is the kind of peoplewe want to protect? Someone who murders because of words?

So, who is it destroying our freedoms again? Why are we so eager to accept this affront to our values, at the risk of offending the values of others when it is they who are destroying our freedoms? Does her standing up for women's rights, and against Shaira law help us, or hurt us?

Does our silence at the burning of our flags and our Queen hurt us in the Muslim world because of our apparent (according to their values) weakness to defend our beliefs, or are we defending our beliefs by letting them burn our flags and effigies of The Queen? Ask yourself, given the fallout from the Danish cartoons; what would happen if we had a Prophet Muhammed and Quran weenie roast?

I know Afghanistan is your favourite subject, but it's not the subject here. The subject is: do our own values and the reluctance to protect them hurt us as a society?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Hehe. I specifically chose the AEI link, rather that the IHT or any other link to see how many would focus on the messenger, not the message.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.