Don't Let Me Stop You

What the heck, you'll do what you want anyway.

Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

The Danish Cartoons

Posted by Dan Draney on April 25, 2010

danish011

The most widely known cartoon of the series

The “controversial” Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed were published in Sept., 2005, leading to riots and murders perpetrated by Muslims in 2006, and death threats that persist today against the cartoonists involved. As I wrote in DLMSY at the time:

Thousands of Muslims around the world got all worked up about 12 cartoons published back in September in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. Outraged that some of the cartoons dared to suggest that Islam is a violent religion, many of the “faithful” have poured into the streets threatening to kill those who would utter such a slander. Others went right to the killings of random Westerners, the burning of any buildings associated with Denmark, and so on, all in the name of the Religion of Peace. Some slightly less nutty groups began a boycott of Danish goods. Gee, a person might get the wrong impression about Islam from the way its adherents overreact to such small things. Well, it’s not the “wrong” impression, we guess, but a bad one anyway.

Despite (or more accurately because of) the controversy many people have never seen the actual cartoons that sparked it. American mainstream media generally declined to broadcast or print the cartoons, as the riots were occurring or afterwards. A recent book from Yale University Press devoted to the topic did not even show the cartoons it was discussing. These acts of self-censorship were generally dressed up as nods to “sensibilities” of Muslims, but the root cause was obviously fear. The cartoon with Mohammed’s turban as a bomb is probably the image, if any, that most people saw and remember. I can understand why Muslims would find this offensive. Do Muslims understand that murder, rioting and terrorism in the name of Islam is not just offensive, but evil and bad for Islam? Those behaviors have done far more to hurt Islam’s reputation than a million cartoons could.

Today free speech continues to lose ground even here in America where it is deeply rooted in our culture. If we keep taking the “safe,” easy way of self-censorship we let the most violent elements of Islamic Fascism define what is acceptable discourse. If we do that we have de facto Sharia law. In the name of standing up for freedom of expressiont, here are the rest of the Danish cartoons, along with something else that stains Islam. See if you can pick that one out.

danish1

Not much to be offended about with this one.

danish002

Note the Islamic crescent as horns.

danish006

More of a caricature of the cartoonists.

danish008

Apparently a police lineup w/ Danish polticians dressed as Mohammed.

danish012

Caricature of cartoonists: PR Stunt to the Head

danish007

The best of the 12. The cartoonist is in the process of penning a perfectly harmless drawing of Mohammed. He's in a dark room, sweating profusely, hiding the drawing with one hand, and glancing furtively over his shoulder in fear. That gets right to the heart of the matter, with subtlety, sharpness and humor.

danish004

Combining opression of women and violence

danish003

Not much to be offended about with this one.

danish010

Actual caption: "Relax folks, after all it's just a drawing made by an infidel from south Denmark..."

danish005

I don't care who you are. That's funny.

Which dishonors Mohammed more: cartoons or this?

danish009

Click to see translation of the Danish poem.

Posted in Islam, Mohammed cartoons, terrorism | 2 Comments »

South Park and Self-Censorship

Posted by Dan Draney on April 25, 2010

DIrka dirka. Mohammed jihad.

You may have missed it, but this week Comedy Central censored an episode of South Park. As you can probably guess, this was not done in response to agitation by a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or even atheist group. It was done in response to death threats against the creators of South Park by a member of what we refer to as The Religion of Peace. Despite all the talk on the left about Christians representing some budding theocratic threat, there is only one religion, Islam, that issues death threats at the drop of a cartoon.

This particular episode satirized Islam’s kooky (and rather selective, in that it only applies to infidels) outrage at any depiction of Mohammad, and it featured a cartoon Mohammad in a bear suit.

Meanwhile our national media never seem to miss a chance to miss a chance to defend free speech against those who threaten violence against those who jeopardize their free speech rights by exercising them. As Diana West writes:

No other American “name” I can think of, no one tops in pop culture, has spoken out against (or even mentioned) the Islamic threat to Western freedom of expression as exemplified by the Sharia dictates against “Motooning.” Certainly no one has produced creative content about it.

Rather, such dictates have been religiously followed — no pun whatsoever intended — just as though our society were itself officially Islamic. This makes “South Park’s” message the closest thing yet to a mainstream declaration of independence from Sharia. For rejecting both the threat of violence and the emotional blackmail emanating from Islam over critiquing Islam’s prophet, the two “South Park” creators deserve a medal.

“They’re courageous — no doubt that they are,” said Bill O’Reilly of Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor” this week. He was discussing the Islamic death threats against Parker and Stone that, naturally, followed the recent “South Park” Muhammad episode.

The threats came in a jihadist video (caption: “Help Us Remove the Filth”) portraying the writer-producers as likely victims of Islamic violence along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. A photo of the slain body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, his head nearly cut off on an Amsterdam, Netherlands, street in 2004 by a jihadist assassin, served as an example.

Rather than praise Parker’s and Stone’s courage, however, O’Reilly went on to disparage their judgment.

“Was it the smart thing to do in light of the Danish cartoonist and van Gogh?” he asked. “It’s harmless to me,” he continued about the episode in question. “But if you are a hard-core jihadist, any mention of Muhammad in any kind of way, particularly if you’re poking fun at him, is a capital offense.”

Way to “look out for the folks,” Bill. Jon Stewart to his great credit, had an extensive piece about the incident on The Daily Show, ending with a “gospel chorus” singing, “Go f*ck yourself.”

Dan Savage has suggested a perfect response we all can participate in: an Everybody Draw Mohammed Day festival.

When the original Mohammad Cartoon Controversy erupted, it played out in the US with most people never even seeing the cartoons involved. Since one can’t discuss the controversy intelligently without actually seeing the cartoons, I put them on Flickr and linked to them from DLMSY. The Flickr interface is a bit clunky, so I will reproduce them here in the next post.

Posted in Islam, Mohammed cartoons, terrorism | 1 Comment »

KSM Back to Military Tribunal?

Posted by Dan Draney on March 4, 2010

Sometimes reality just smacks you in the face when you’re a member of the so-called “reality-based community.” Such is the situation with the Obama Administration’s foolish plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in Manhattan. First the venue was quashed; now we hear via the WaPo Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters.

President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

Gotta love the WaPo spin machine explaining how the “bipartisan opposition” is “mainly from Republicans.” Apparently we’re about to see yet another silent vindication of the much-criticized Bush anti-terrorism policies. It won’t be the last.

Posted in terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Mossad In Coolness Revival

Posted by Ryne McClaren on February 27, 2010

From the international affairs desk of Don’t Let Me Stop You comes a “special interest” story out of Israel.  Yes, this blog does have an international desk.  You would have thought otherwise?

Today’s story comes from us from Israel, in the aftermath of the (alleged) Mossad killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by electrocuting him with a bedside lamp.  You have to admit: nobody does international diplomacy quite like the Mossad.

Would you be prepared to cross-dress? And kill a guest in an adjacent hotel room? If the answer to these questions is a resounding “yes”, and you can also act, enjoy luxury international travel with a twist and can carry off a convincing Irish or Australian accent, then the job could be yours.

The Israeli spy agency Mossad may be the target of international reproach since it allegedly killed the Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel this month, but at home emerging details of the operation have generated Mossad mania.

It has never been more popular in Israel, with stores selling out of Mossad memorabilia and its official website reporting a soaring number of visitors interested in applying to become agents. “Mossad has been restored to its glory days,” said Ilan Mizrahi, a former deputy director of the agency, which is located in the affluent beach town of Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv.

Compare and contrast: can you imagine buying CIA memorabilia, and considering it cool rather than ironic?

Opticians have reported a rise in sales of the horn-rimmed glasses in the style worn by 14 of the 26 suspects, T-shirts with Mossad logos are selling out at stores and the agency has experienced a flood of applicants.

Although no new jobs have been posted for half a year, a new statement on the Mossad website reads: “You have an opportunity to create a new reality where you can play the leading role. If you possess intelligence and sophistication, you can make a difference and fulfil a national mission. If you can engage, charm and influence people — you may have the qualities we are looking for.”

The possibly accurate but quite lengthy Wikipedia entry on the Mossad can be found here.

Posted in terrorism | 1 Comment »

What the Heck Did He Mean Here?

Posted by Dan Draney on November 4, 2008

This is from a speech Sen. Obama gave in Colorado in July, 2008. Watch it and ask yourself what in the world he’s talking about.

Here’s the long version (24 min) from the Obama Campaign site. You might want to skip to the 14 min mark or so for a reasonable lead in.

So why would we need a “civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded” as the military? We already have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, TSA and various federal and state law enforcement agencies. Since Defense is about 20% of regular federal spending (whatever that means these days), this suggests a massive spending project without any apparent purpose.

Taking the relatively benign interpretation of Obama’s proposal, he may be suggesting, as the Left is wont to do, that all desired spending is a matter of “national security.” He doesn’t really have anything useful for them to do, but he’s sure it needs to be done in a big way. In this interpretation the plan is only a colossal waste of money, to be spent on make-work projects like the FDR administration promulgated during the Great Depression. These kinds of programs were ineffective then, and they might well precipitate a depression if tried now.

Looking beyond that, we can guess that this may be a vehicle for channeling more federal money into favored “community organizations” such as ACORN, Nation of Islam, etc. Such a powerful, strong, well-funded civilian force would be very handy to have in the future for stealing elections, intimidating opponents, and perhaps busting a few heads, as needed. Anyone for pogroms?

Posted in ACORN, civilian national security force, Obama, terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Who Should We Trust on Foreign Policy?

Posted by Dan Draney on October 27, 2008

It’s hard to make a better foreign policy case for McCain than Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, did the other day. However, Melanie Phillips is up to the task:

The Spectator: “No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.”

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

It’s an excellent article, and you should read the rest.


I’m still trying to figure out what exactly Biden meant when he told the crowd of Democrat fundraisers that they needed to stand behind Obama in the upcoming crisis, because his decision(s) would appear to be wrong. Did he mean Obama would cave to a threat, showing weakness before aggression, and embolden our enemies everywhere? That’s certainly plausible, and it would mean Joe was asking them to stand behind Obama, because no one else would. Alternatively, was he saying that Obama would respond aggressively and recklessly to a situation, say by invading Pakistan, to show he’s tough, and the fundraising group would be shocked and dismayed? Hope we don’t have to find out…

Posted in Obama, terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Who Is Bill Ayers?

Posted by Dan Draney on October 22, 2008


From Five Feet of Fury.

Posted in crazy leftists, Obama, terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Muslims Riot Over Exam Question

Posted by Dan Draney on May 3, 2008

In a New Delhi university a riot broke out over the wording of an exam question on Mohammed’s life for a graduate level history course. Fortunately the authorities quickly took stern actions:

Meanwhile, Jharkhand Chief Minister, Madhu Koda has directed Ranchi University Vice Chancellor, A A Khan to inquire into the question paper scandal.

Koda said he would talk to the university authorities and urge them to initiate action against the question paper-setters.

He expressed concern over the issue, saying such an act could hurt the sentiments of a community and affect communal harmony. Meanwhile, the University administration cancelled the History examination and set up a committee to inquire into the matter.

Apparently disclosing the entire question in the article would be too “inflammatory,” but the paper does mention:

Students allege that the question was an insult to Prophet Mohammad as it refers to the Prophet as a ‘businessman’ and a ‘raider’ in his early days.

The facts around these aspects of Mohammed’s life are well-known and beyond dispute:
He was a successful trader
He did lead his followers in attacks on caravans and cities

So it’s hard to discern exactly what part of the undisclosed question was misrepresenting his life.

The discussion thread attached to the article is also interesting reading. Evidently the trials and tribulations faced by the poor Muslims at the hands of infidels are the same the world over, regardless of the identities of the “oppressors.”

Posted in Islam, terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Root Cause of Terrorism

Posted by Dan Draney on April 4, 2007

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, writes in OpinionJournal about the inherent propensity to violence in Islam. Dr. Hamid now lives in the West and describes himself as a Muslim reformer.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals–who unceasingly claim to support human rights–have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western “progressives” pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

We don’t know whether or not Dr. Hamid’s efforts to create a non-violent Islamic theology will succeed, but we wish him the very best of luck. Read the rest of his excellent article here.

Posted in Islam, terrorism | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: