Rice Blames Iran and Syria for Danish Cartoon Violence

Today, at a press conference with Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, the American Secretary of State pointed fingers in a direction that supports the hypothesis that the Danish Cartoon crisis may be linked to the Iranian nuclear showdown (Syria now has a defense treaty with Iran):

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the aftermath of the printing of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there has been outrage around the world that we've all seen. The question is: Do you think this is spontaneous as it continues? If not, who is behind it? What group or what governments might be behind it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other's religious traditions and respect each other's religious sensibilities and that is also very important.

Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.

I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.

But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don't have any doubt that given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn't even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We all need to respect each other's religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the press comes responsibility as well.

Al Qaeda Link in Danish Cartoon Crisis

Based on reports in the Danish media Brussels Journal charges three fake cartoons were made by Danish Imams, one of whom is linked to an Al Qaeda related publication, in order to incite violence (ht lfg & Michelle Malkin):

Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.

In his letter of “apology” Jyllands-Posten editor Carsten Juste wrote:

“In our opinion the 12 cartoons were moderate and not intended to be insulting. They did not go against Danish laws, but have evidently offended many Muslims, for which we apologize. Meanwhile a couple of offending cartoons have circulated in the Muslim world which were never published in Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published if they had been offered to us. We would have dismissed them on the grounds that they breached our ethical limits.”

Indeed, the three cartoons breaching the paper’s ethical limits have been made by fanatical Muslim clerics themselves in order to set the world ablaze and provoke a religious war with the West.

Even under Western law the Danish radical imams belong in jail. Their hate crime must be punished. The imams are the hate preachers who are responsible for the destruction and the fatalities that resulted from their lies and their blasphemy. One of these lying imams is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban. He works as a translator and distributor of an al-Qaeda related publication. [Editor's note: Here's the Al Qaeda link.]

Western papers and blogs that published the twelve cartoons were right to do so. If they had not published, no-one would have been able to ascertain that the pigsnout was not among them. If they had not published, the cheating, blasphemous imams would have got away with their lies. The public is served by information, never harmed by it. Let this be a lesson to the cowards of The Guardian, SBS, the BBC and the British and American mainstream media, who “out of respect” for Islam would have allowed blasphemous imams to get away with their gross insult of the prophet, with slander and libel, and with the violent acts which they instigated.

Danish Cartoons Reflect Anti-Muslim Europe

Writing in Ha'aretz, Yitzhak Laor says protests against Danish Cartoons are a reaction to European anti-Muslim prejudices:

The real context of the Danish cartoon is not the "war of civilizations," but rather the stubborn attempt by a great many elements to fan such a war. Okay, so the publication of the cartoon perhaps started a crisis in Denmark's relations with Muslim countries, but this publication is just one link in the manifestations of hostility toward the million of Muslims who live in Europe - most of whom were born there, educated there and speak one of its languages.

In the Europe of today it is very difficult to be a Muslim male with a beard and a skullcap, or a Muslim woman with a head covering and a long dress. It sometimes seems as though there are European elements - French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy is not exceptional, nor are the spokesmen of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the ruling party in Bavaria - who are seeking the right moment to expel tens of thousands of Muslims from the countries in which they live. One thing is clear: The neo-Nazis have long since ceased to be the only spokesmen of this racism. The interview granted by the Jewish Alain Finkielkraut to Dror Mishani in Haaretz was also, most disgracefully, a symptom of this fanning of the flames.

It appears as though Israeli newspapers have been too hasty in celebrating the news of the tension in relations with the Muslims. Perhaps they do not know what it means to be dark-skinned in Europe (not necessarily Arab) or to wear a beard and a skullcap, or to cover your head if you are a woman. And perhaps the opposite is the case, and in this rejoicing there is a kind of imaginary joining of the West: Perhaps only in this way we will remove from ourselves some "ancient shame" because of which we did not succeed in being part of the West.

It is too easy to ask another leading question: What would we have done had a Danish newspaper published an insulting drawing of Moses? This is a trivial question: Such a drawing is not possible in Western Europe today, because it is covering the hatred of Muslims with an increasing attack of philo-Semitism. Again and again they are writing and saying there, in Italian, Dutch, and Danish (what Britain is being so cautious about) that Islam is foreign to Europe, that in Christian Europe there have never been mosques, that there is a close connection between the Muslim religion and terror, that Muslim culture is fated to clash with Western culture, that Western culture is superior to any other culture, and in almost the same article or conversation they take pride in the ancient Jewish presence in Europe, and how much the Jews are missed, and they glory in the (empty) synagogues as part of the fabric of cultural life there, and of course they can lecture about the Jewish contribution to Western culture. How scary this "love of Israel" is for those who are familiar with the nature of the arguments about the Christian cultural purity of Europe.

And who among the Israelis who have spent considerable time there has not heard, at least once, the stupid compliment about the difference between us, the new Jews, and the Jews of other times. The Israeli rejoicing at the moment, which is fortifying the freedom of the Danish press, is not only not equipped with real memory, but also has been equipped for years now with something entirely different, a blend of hatred for religion and the East. In this respect, the reaction of the Conference of European Rabbis condemning the insult to the Muslim Prophet is encouraging, even if it has been late in coming and even if it has been too thin a voice.

Andrew Sullivan on Danish Cartoons and the American Media

"So, in refusing to publish the cartoons at issue, the American media are simply following the line not of Islam but of radical Islamists, who engineered this outbreak of violence in the first place."

Abu Hamza Linked to 7/7 London Blasts

The Hindustan Times reports:

The most significant revelation from the trial of the radical cleric Abu Hamza, is the finding of a direct link between him and the date of July 7 which four suicide bombers chose to cause carnage in tube trains and a double-decker bus.

It was also revealed that an arsenal was found inside Finsbury Park mosque over which he presided when 150 police officers raided it. The weaponry was to be used for training terrorists.

It was also found that three of the suicide bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the four bombers, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay, visited Finsbury Park where Hamza taught that Muslims were obliged to kill unbelievers to defend Islam.

He said the aim of jihad was to humiliate non-believers and convert them to Islam. "Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfil all these purposes? Yes, all of them."

The link between Hamza and the bombers who killed 52 people last July raises a possible new explanation for the date and timing of the attacks. On the morning of July 7 -- the date chosen by bombers to strike -- Abu Hamza was in the dock in the Old Bailey and about to stand trial.

BTW The Washington Post really buried its Abu Hamza story on its inside pages today--below the fold. How come?

New Sisyphus Blasts Anti-Danish Conservative Bloggers

Here's what theretired US State Department official has to say about commentators like Hugh Hewitt:

Some American conservatives and commentators have focused in on the need to denounce the cartoons themselves since the ensuing controversy is not helpful to America's over-all goals in the War on Terror. After all, these conservatives argue, this controversy has just made our soldier's and diplomat's lives much, much more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan and has needlessly complicated our alliances with countries like Turkey and Pakistan.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for the impulses that have produced this reaction, it must be said that, helpful or not, the controversy now exists in objective reality and choices must be made. While undeniably true that the U.S. would be making its job in the Middle East and elsewhere more difficult on the ground should it stand for principle, it is equally undeniably true that the only other alternative is to send the very dangerous message to our enemies that our liberties are negotiable.

In any case, defense of speech should never be equated by defense of the message. Even if one believe the Danish cartoons are horrifically offensive (they are not), one must stand up for the offensive speaker's absolute right to engage in legitimate political speech without hindrance, and certainly without subjecting oneself to a Muslim veto.

It is in this sense that all the Blogosphere talk about "helpfulness" misses the point: the controversy throws up a bevy of options, none of which are ideal from a strictly strategic point of view. This does not eliminate the need for us to respond in some meaningful way.

On of the leading proponents for the "this is not about free speech" school of thought, Hugh Hewitt, asks us to answer the question: Are we at war with Islam? Do we wish such a war?

Taking the second question first: obviously not. In fact, I fear such a war. I would do anything to avoid it short of surrender to Islam's demands.

As to the first question, I don't think so, not exactly, but it is regrettably something close to that.

I think it is beyond doubt that there exists a pan-Islamic school of fascist thought that has declared war on the West and that support for this line is quite high among the Muslim masses. Since they have declared war, and since their rationale for this war is Islam, we are, in a sense, at war with Islam. To paraphrase Trotksy's famous saying on the dialectic, "you may not be interested in an Islamic war, but Islamic war is interested in you."

I frankly do not find the significance in Jim Geraghty's dispatches from Turkey that Hugh assigns to them. Speaking as someone who has lived abroad in an anti-American atmosphere, I am very aware that it is possible for a population to be deeply anti-American and yet, at the same time, the vast majority of people are apolitical, nice to Americans in restaurants and want American visas. I suspect if one could go back in time to 1938 Munich one would also find lots of smiling, friendly Germans willing to take in an American traveller with great hospitality. The conflict is bigger than individuals, and lone Americans aren't seen in the same light as America-with-a-capital-A. None of which changes the facts that our respecitive civilizations stand for very different things and that these things are now in armed conflict.

What is Incitement?

After the Abu Hamza case, I wondered if American law has any provisions for prosecuting "incitement." Sure enough, it does, as I learned from this website about the Incitement Test.

In 1917, in a case related to the Russian Revolution, Masses Publishing v Patten, Judge Learned Hand wrote an opinion that "the government may prosecute words that are 'triggers to action' but not words that are 'keys of persuasion.'" In Brandenburg v Ohio, the Supreme Court expanded on this--in a ruling favorable to the Ku Klux Klan--holding that "the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce 'imminent lawless action' and which is likely to produce such action."

The Incitement Test (Brandenburg) The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

So, if speech is a trigger to imminent action--it is incitement, and may be banned.

Abu Hamza Conviction Raises MI5 Protection Questions

The Guardian suggests the convicted Imam of London's Finsbury Park Mosque may have had ties to MI5:

The conviction raises questions of why he was not prosecuted until many years after he had made his most inflammatory sermons and had established Finsbury Park mosque as a centre of Islamist extremism in Europe.

A senior French intelligence chief told the Guardian that for years Britain had failed to take action against him despite being given evidence that he had extensive involvement in terrorism. Former mosque worshippers say they told police about Abu Hamza's activities, including a meeting in the mosque to pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

A former MI5 agent who infiltrated the mosque says Abu Hamza was allowed to operate by the security services as long as he did not threaten Britain's national security. Both the agent and a close associate of Abu Hamza say the cleric was an unwitting informant on other extremist Muslims. It emerged that over a three-year period the cleric had met repeatedly with MI5 and Special Branch. A senior British counter-terrorism official said that a raid on the mosque in January 2003 recovered replica guns which had been used at "UK-based training camps". He added that "dozens" of terrorism investigations led back to Abu Hamza, who was "part of ... the global jihad. It would be a mistake to regard him as a buffoon".

Farid Ghadry: Strip Mecca from Saudis

In an interesting comment about the Danish Cartoon crisis to National Review, Farid Ghadry argues that stripping control of Mecca from the extremist Wahabis might be a step in the right direction. He proposes an international city, like the Vatican (ht Daniel Pipes):

The event that launched this worldwide protest by Muslims over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist was the pulling of the Saudi ambassador from Denmark, a mere four months after the printing. The effect will change the landscape for both Arab oil-producing countries and terrorism-sponsored states.

Oil-producing Saudi Arabia is also the guardian of the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. With oil, Saudi Arabia is able to influence the West, and with its guardianship of these cities, it is able to control the movement of 1.3 billion Muslims. This centralization of power gives Saudi Arabia vast powers that are having an effect on civilizations across the globe.

The Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia, adhereing to a movement that originated in the center of the country, controls oil in the east and Mecca and Medina in the west. But even within their own borders, the Wahabis have a geographic Achilles' heel in the west of the country; and this is exacerbated when one considers Jordan, as well as the history of the Hashemite family (today's Jordan), which, up until the turn of the 20th century, controlled Mecca and Medina instead of the Saudis.

It is important for all Muslims that Mecca and Medina either be returned to the Hashemite family or be guarded by an international council elected by the 56 countries of the Organization of Islamic Conferences. The few leaders of 25 million Muslims should not control the fate of another 1.3 billion. Making Mecca and Media be for Muslims more like what the Vatican is for Catholics would go a long way toward giving all Muslims a say in their own affairs and charting a new direction for Islam.

Terrorist states will use Islam, as Syria did, to impose its will on the West. Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and many others are watching how Syria used the cartoons to launch an attack against Western assets and values. This is the beginning of what promises to be an unstoppable weapon of rogue states, used to inflict pain, through violence, on other civilizations.

Amir Taheri: Islam Permits Pictures of Mohammed

Amir Taheri says protesters against Danish cartoons are lying about Islam's prohibition on representation, citing examples from the history of Islamic art:

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous...

More on the Iran Nuclear-Danish Cartoon Crisis Connection

From Shrinkwrapped(ht Roger L. Simon):

At the same time, the Cartoon War is a diversionary tactic being used by the Iranians and the Syrians to keep European attention focused away from the Iranian Nuclear weapons program and the Syrian/Iraqi WMD.  It is also a warning shot over the bow, letting the Europeans know that any move by Israel and/or America to deal with Syria (doubtful) or Iran (more likely) militarily will be met with violence in the streets of Europe.  And, while there has been minimal mention of this in the MSM, Hezbollah on the northern Israeli frontier and Hamas, from Gaza and the West Bank, have been escalating their attacks against Israel in conjunction with their "spontaneous" riots against European embassies.

In some ways, this all looks like a high stakes game of chicken, with an explosive confrontation approaching quickly. 

Michelle Malkin on Fox News and the Danish Cartoon Crisis

Michelle Malkin's not happy with Fox News' coverage:

I appeared tonight on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes for an all-too-brief segment on the Mohammed Cartoons. Before I drove to the Washington, D.C., studio, I stopped by a Kinko's store, printed out the cartoons, and pasted them onto a piece of poster board. I then used my short time on the airwaves to do what no one wants to do on American TV:

I tried to show viewers all 12 cartoons to give viewers the full context of the Jyllands-Posten's decision to publish the artwork.

Unfortunately, as I tried to walk through the content of the cartoons, the camera cut from my display to video of the Islamists' crazed, violent protests. As if we hadn't seen enough of that already.

What are the news networks and newspapers so afraid of? [Update: See the New York Press walkout for a rare show of guts and principle.]

Why do they persist in leaving viewers in a cloud of ignorance about this international controversy? Cherry-picking the most arguably inflammatory cartoon--the one of Muhammad and the bomb turban--and implying that it is representative of the rest of the artwork is not journalism.

That's journalistic malpractice.

And it's exactly what the radical Islamists are counting on the cowering MSM to do.

I had a nice chat with another FOX News personality before my segment. This person hadn't seen all the cartoons--but had already formed a firm opinion that the Jyllands-Posten was being unnecessarily provocative and insensitive.

Is it any wonder that millions of people are turning to the Internet to get to the truth?

***

There also wasn't enough time to address the other most important aspect of the Cartoon Jihad -- the fabrication of truly anti-Islam cartoons by Danish imams, who did precisely what the Jyllands-Posten is unfairly blamed for doing--that is, deliberately inciting Muslims to violence.

Anne Applebaum on the Danish Cartoon Crisis

In today's Washington Post, Anne Applebaum comments on the ramifications of the Danish Cartoon crisis. It's worth reading.

Herb Meyer: Attack Iran Now

The former Regan-era CIA official says Iran's government is a clear and present danger to America:

Most worrisome, while everyone in Washington is focusing on nuclear weapons, no one has uttered so much as a peep about the possibility that Iran may be developing chemical or biological weapons.  These weapons are far less costly than nuclear weapons, and the technology required to develop them is more widely available.  And since a cupful of anthrax or botulism is enough to kill 100,000 people, our ability to detect these weapons is – zilch.  So why wouldn’t the mullahs in Teheran order the development of chemical and biological weapons?  If they really do plan to wipe Israel – or us – off the map, these will do the job just as well as nukes.  And if reports are true that Saddam Hussein had such weapons before the war and shipped them out to Syria and Iran before we attacked in 2003 – then the mullahs already have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Simply put, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, combined with the murderous comments of that country’s president, is the political equivalent of a man running toward your children’s school holding a hand grenade and shouting “I hate kids.  I welcome death.”  The risk of taking time—to think, to talk, to analyze, to co-ordinate with other countries – is just too high.  We know where Amadinejad and the mullahs work, and we ought to know where they live.  (And if we don’t know, the Israelis do and would be more than happy to lend a hand.)  We have cruise missiles, Stealth fighters, and B-1 bombers that can fly from the US to Teheran, drop their lethal loads, then return to the US without ever landing en route.  We have skilled, courageous Special Forces teams that can get themselves on the ground in Teheran quietly and fast. 

The question is whether we still have within us the instinct for survival.  If we do, then our only course is to act – now, this minute, however we can – and to take out the mullahs.  Tonight.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Danish Cartoon Crisis

Ayaan Hirsi Ali talked to Germany's Der Spiegel (ht lgf):

SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?

Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.

SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?

Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.

SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?

Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.

Why American Newspapers are Anti-Danish

In a section of Opinion Journal titled
Fair Weather Free Speech Friends, James Taranto explains why the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe do not support the right to free speech of Danish journalists or cartoonists:

What accounts for the difference? A combination of fear and ideology. Muslim fundamentalists, or at least some of them, express offense by torching embassies and threatening terrorist attacks. By contrast, U.S. military leaders write firm but polite letters to the editor, and Christian fundamentalists ask their elected representatives to stop spending tax money on offensive stuff. (Never believe a liberal when he professes to find Christian fundamentalists "scary.") There is no need to appease an opponent who respects rules of civilized behavior.

There is also an ideological component, which goes back to the essay we noted last week on "folk Marxism," or liberal multiculturalism. This ideology sees the world as a series of class struggles--not between economic classes, as in proper Marxism, but between racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or other identity groups, which are defined as either "oppressors" or "victims."

Generally speaking, multiculturalists consider Christians to be an oppressor class, while Muslims are a victim class. A victim class's grievances must be taken seriously and can even trump free expression, while the same is never true of an oppressor class's. (The multicultural worldview sees Jews as an intermediate class--victims of Christians, oppressors of Muslims--which is why liberals can be outraged by anti-Semitic imagery in "The Passion of the Christ" but unperturbed by terrorism against Israelis.)

In this regard, Hiatt's staunch defense of the Toles cartoon, which offended members of the military, is particularly telling. As we've noted, those on the antiwar left often talk of soldiers as if they were a victim class. We haven't heard any of them, however, side with the soldiers who find the Toles cartoon offensive. This suggests that the soldiers-as-victims trope is purely cynical.

Abu Hamza Convicted

According to the BBC,the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque has been found guilty of 11 counts of incitement to murder and racial hatred by a London jury. He will be open to extradition to the US for his alleged role in the 9/11 plot after completing his 7-year sentence. Abu Hamza's lawyers have said they will appeal.

Daniel Pipes on the Danish Cartoon Crisis: Like Father, Like Son

George W. is treating Islamist fanatics just like George H.W. did, Daniel Pipes says:

Strangely, as "Old Europe" finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the American government reaction, it won the endorsement of the country's leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially. On two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realist novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist's life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both "offensive." The then secretary of state, James A. Baker III, termed the edict merely "regrettable."

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the American government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question "either sick or … evil" and stated that "She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam." The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst. As I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I "found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic."

Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).

Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.

Tom Gross on the Danish Cartoon Crisis

Writing in Jerusalem Post, Tom Gross notes :

"The relatively mild Danish cartoons have been republished in several European papers so readers can discover what all the fuss is about. (It is hard for readers to judge the story without seeing them.) But not in papers in Britain, or in any major publications in the US, countries that are now apparently too intimidated to run the risks that might go with reproducing them.
At the same time, whereas editors from both the Guardian and Independent in London, for example, have appeared on the BBC saying they wouldn't dream of publishing cartoons that Muslims find offensive, these papers have not hesitated to publish cartoons offensive to Jews (Arab blood being smeared on the Western Wall in The Guardian, the flesh of Palestinian babies being eaten by Ariel Sharon in The Independent, and so on).

The New York Times rushed to praise a frivolous Broadway play showing Jesus having gay sex with Judas, yet hasn't dared to reproduce a Danish cartoon making a serious point about the misuse of the teachings of the prophet Muhammad by Islamist terrorists.

With demonstrators on the streets of London last Friday chanting in unison: 'Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way' and holding signs reading 'Behead those who insult Islam' and 'Prepare for the REAL Holocaust,' it is perhaps not surprising that weak spirits in the West are cowed.

Yet this is an issue that goes far beyond cartoons, and if they want Western freedoms to survive, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike have to stop caving into threats. On Sunday, Mark Steyn reminded us of the best-known words of a famous fictional Dane: 'To be or not to be, that is the question.'
Exactly. " (ht The Augean Stables)

Sakharov Museum to Display Danish Cartoons

UPI reports that Russia's leading museum of dissidence will host the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed (ht Matt Drudge):

Yury Samodurov, director of the Sakharov Museum and Public Center, said on Russian television that the center was ready to organize a public exhibition of the cartoons satirizing the founder of Islam that originally were published in a Danish newspaper, Pravda.ru reported Monday.

"We must show the whole world that Russia goes along with Europe, that the freedom of expression is much more important for us than the dogmas of religious fanatics," Samodurov said.

The exhibition reportedly will open in March. Lawyer Yury Shmidt has said he will invite French philosopher Andre Glucksmann and French novelist Michel Houellebecq to the opening ceremony to read lectures about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.