Thursday, February 09, 2006
Quack
There really can be only one core reason. Fear. There is no commercial explanation. It would sell. No argument about cultural sensitivity makes any sense. It is pure blather. Anything to avoid acknowledging pure, unadulterated fear. They would publish without hesitation items of great offense to others because none of these others has threatened deadly violence. Not so radical islamofascists. The MSM should be going out of their way to publish these cartoons precisely to offend their repressors.
The MSM are dhimmis. They are caving to Islamist-defined standards of Islamic supremacy. Scared to publish. Freedom must be fought for, and the MSM has no will, no courage to fight. Only the blogosphere seems to.
If it looks like a duck...
8 Comments:
By 
Christine, at
Thu Feb 09, 08:07:00 PM:
Yep, if people do not stand up to this intimidation, do not stop dressing up their fear with some type of lame excuse, we will lose. The terrorists are the absolute worst bullies the free world has ever encountered. Stop treating them like babies.
By 
, at
Thu Feb 09, 08:36:00 PM:
http://www.varifrank.com/ has a take on this very subject. and not far off the truth, if i might add.
By , at
Thu Feb 09, 08:39:00 PM:
Have you considered whether the publishers of these newspapers have to deal with Middle Eastern (i.e. Muslim) stockholders?
By John B. Chilton, at
Fri Feb 10, 04:05:00 AM:
Indeed.
100 Enlist for Attacks Over Cartoons
Mullah Dadullah, one of the Taleban’s most senior military commanders, said his group had also offered a reward of 100 kilograms of gold to anyone who killed people responsible for the drawings. Five kilograms of gold would go to anyone who killed a soldier from Denmark, Germany or Norway — among the countries where the cartoons have appeared, he said.
A voluntary code of conduct by the press in the European Union “will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” European Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
Voluntary?
As Instapundit says, "I'm sorry, but the lesson here is that if you want to be listened to, you should blow things up. That's a very bad incentive structure, but it's the one the allegedly responsible parties have created."
Elsewhere, a young person's comment: "this is dangerous topic, which is why I posted anonymous."
By , at
Fri Feb 10, 11:48:00 AM:
Here is my contribution, via your blog:
'O'
\|/ <-- Mohammed
/ \
There, it's published.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 10, 07:50:00 PM:
This is one of those rare "you're either with us or against us" moments, I think.
I differ from most people in that normally I would favor the publishing of religiously offensive cartoons. Personally I don't see any good to come from gratuitously giving offense. Sacrilege is a bad thing in my book. I wouldn't ban it, but on the other hand I see nothing wrong with saying "I have that right but that's a line I choose not to cross". But Mohammed is not God. He is a Prophet. Two very different things.
And while I'm not sure that two wrongs make a right (i.e., that you excuse a meretricious act - dissing someone else's religion - by saying, in effect, "he dared me not to"), the fact that to give in here establishes a very dangerous precedent is worth considering. So is the fact that no reciprocal consideration will be promised to the icons of Judaism or Christianity.
All things considered, I think the Reagan principle applies: the West does not negotiate with terrorists.
Period.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 10, 07:52:00 PM:
Arrgggh!
I would NOT favor the publishing...
I blame the Bush administration and Cerveceria Modela, S.A., DE C.V., Mexico, D. F.
Damn those foreign imports they are RUINING our country.
By Cardinalpark, at
Sat Feb 11, 07:25:00 AM:
I linked to the Manji piece a few days ago. It is excellent.
I agree with the view that good a priori editorial judgment would have precluded publishing the cartoons. In this sense, I think publishing these cartoons reflects poorly on their authors and editors.
However, similar offensive judgment is shown all the time, with regard to other culturally sensitive issues and icons. Freedom of expression means freedom to offend.
And when challenged on this subject, all those who rely on freedom of expression must support one another. If every MSM outlet in the US published the offensive cartoons, it would lay down the gauntlet and tell radicals who oppose liberty that freedom lovers will not be intimidated. Not to do so reflects pure cowardice. There is no other explanation. None.
