Paris Attack Puts Western World in a Bad Spot (Jonah Goldberg)

[Fishrrman]

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2015/01/09/paris-attack-puts-western-world-in-a-bad-spot-n1940451

Paris Attack Puts Western World in a Bad Spot
Jonah Goldberg
Townhall.com
January 9, 2015 |

The vigils in Paris are moving. The hashtag plumes of #JeSuisCharlie ("I am Charlie") are endearing. The expressions of condemnation from Muslim leaders are commendable, as are the assurances of solidarity and support from Western governments.

But, as a practical matter, they don't change a thing: The jihadists won this week/

Even if the atrocity in Paris served to imbue the civilized world -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- with a newfound resolve to battle radical Islam (it almost certainly won't), this still stands as a victory for the bad guys.

In any war, the goal is to put your enemy in a position where he has no good options. The murderous attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo does exactly that.

Consider the response from the Western media with regard to the Muhammad cartoons.

As a conservative, I don't like gratuitous mockery of religion, any religion. That's not to say I think all blasphemies are equally offensive. For instance, I think most satire of Christianity is particularly cowardly and lame precisely because Christians are such a safe target. Also, after centuries of tolerance for satire of Christianity, opportunities for cleverness or originality are few and far between.

Mockery of Islam, meanwhile, whether in good taste or not, is dangerous and therefore also courageous even when stupid.

In a world where Muslim extremists weren't killing people for such things, I'd be against publishing such material (not as matter of law, but editorial judgment). But we don't live in that world. And the slaughter in Paris only makes that more of a reality.

Whereas last week, running satirical pictures of Muhammad largely made sense only as a matter of opinion journalism, it is now a requirement of news reporting -- because those images are central to the story. Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, and his colleagues were murdered because they ran those pictures. It's understandable that news outlets wouldn't want to invite similar attacks by printing or broadcasting those images. But by refusing to do so, they send a message: "We're afraid of you."

That's an unequivocal win for the terrorists.

But when outlets do run the images, the radicals get to say, "See, look at their disrespect for Islam and the prophet. There can be no compromise with these infidels."

That's a win for the terrorists, too.

Attempts to find a middle way fall short. The New York Daily News tried to have it both ways, running a photo of Charbonnier while pixelating the issue of Charlie Hebdo he was holding so that readers couldn't make out the satirical image of Muhammad. This "compromise" was worse than refusing to run the cartoon at all because it removed all doubt that the editors are afraid and that such attacks pay off.

This isn't simply a meaty topic for a journalism school seminar, it's symbolic of the bind that we are in. Radicals always try to force crises because in a crisis, everyone must choose sides. Vladimir Lenin understood this when he followed a strategy of "the worse, the better." No one benefits more from blanket anti-Muslim sentiment more than jihadists, because such attitudes push moderate Muslims into their arms.

But that doesn't justify the use of weasel words from Western politicians such as Barack Obama, John Kerry and Howard Dean, who insist that Islamist terrorists aren't Islamic, that we are merely at war with unspecified "extremists." Well-intentioned as such statements may be, they are lies. Moreover, they are the kind of lies that breed suspicion: suspicion that our leaders don't understand the nature of the threat, and suspicion that they are afraid of speaking the truth. These lies also invite others to believe the opposite is true, or to at least test the proposition. That in turn radicalizes yet more Muslims.

It is right and good to say we are not at war with Islam, but it is dishonest to claim that there are no Muslims waging war against us. Falling back on sanitized euphemisms is the rhetorical equivalent of pixelating Muhammed; it fools no one, save fools.

A free society cannot allow freedom to be held hostage to murderers. And that is why I favor running those images of Muhammad even if some of them offend me. Moderation, tolerance and respect are essential to a free society, but we are in a moment where moderation, tolerance and respect are too easily confused for appeasement. And that is why the jihadists are winning. They are forcing us into only bad options. The center is not holding.

[Fishrrman]

Since about 2003 I've been posting the question online:
"Who's winning?"

For a decade my question was mostly ignored.
It seems like others are finally asking, too.

[Bigun]

Since about 2003 I've been posting the question online:
"Who's winning?"

For a decade my question was mostly ignored.
It seems like others are finally asking, too.

Just for the record, I have not ignored your question for any reason other than the fact that I did not know the answer! Still don't in fact!

[katzenjammer]

Since about 2003 I've been posting the question online:
"Who's winning?"

For a decade my question was mostly ignored.
It seems like others are finally asking, too.

I never bother to answer your question as I have always viewed it as rhetorical in nature!  I think that the answer is clear to both of us.

That is why these events like what has happened in Paris over the past few days are of little interest to me.  Nothing is going to change.  As a whole, Western Civilization has opened its doors full flung to izlam and can only expect more and  more of these events as time passes.  Until the "leaders" (are there any aside from a small handful like Wilders to be found?) of Western Civilizations step up and address your proverbial "Boxcars or Burquahs?" question properly, it will only continue to spiral down the drain. 

izlam needs to be removed from Western Civilization root and branch, anything short of that will not remove the scourge.  Will it happen in our lifetimes??  I don't know, probably not is my answer at the present, but that could change.  In case you haven't see this one, I think that you will appreciate the truthful and somewhat provocative thoughts:  Cut the Crap: The problem is islam, and it has to be exterminated. Period.

[aligncare]

Ridiculous.

We in the west value religious freedom. In America we enshrine that principle in our founding documents. To say Islam must be eradicated is antithetical to our core political and, yes, our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

It is nonsense to think we can wipe out personal religious convictions held by elders and transmitted from that generation to the next. Absolutely ridiculous.

[katzenjammer]

Ridiculous.

We in the west value religious freedom. In America we enshrine that principle in our founding documents. To say Islam must be eradicated is antithetical to our core political and, yes, our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

It is nonsense to think we can wipe out personal religious convictions held by elders and transmitted from that generation to the next. Absolutely ridiculous.

The fatal flaw in your thinking is that you buy into the lie that izlam is a religion.  Until you disabuse yourself of that lie, you will never understand the truth about it.  But, consider yourself in 'good' company, the vast majority of the West also swallows the lie.  If any of us lives long enough, we may see which point of view is correct.  Until then, we will never be in agreement.  That's just the way that it is.

[aligncare]

Lie or not, Islam will not be eradicated. Not in my lifetime–not in my great grandchildren's lifetime.

[katzenjammer]

Lie or not, Islam will not be eradicated. Not in my lifetime–not in my great grandchildren's lifetime.

You may very well be correct, ac.  And if you are, you have provided the answers to Fishrrman's two persistent questions:

1.  Who's winning?

2.  Boxcars

       -or-

     Burquahs?


And never forget Fishrrman's credo: "Reality is what it is.  It is not what we believe it to be."


(If you are interested in the topic, I suggest that you do some research on exactly what izlam is, and its clear history over hundreds of years.  You may want to pay careful attention to those that have been a part of the death cult, and have left it.  They speak out at great risk to themselves, because as apostates, there is a perpetual death sentence on them.  Your choice of course, I am just suggesting that you may want to dig a bit deeper into the topic.)

[aligncare]

Pragmatically speaking, whether Islam is a death cult or a religion, the minds and hearts of billions of people will not be changed in this millennium, whether or not I agree with yours and Fishrrmanns position on Islam.

Welcome to realsville.

So, it seems to me we have very few choices. That's the reason I chose to comment on this particular article that began this discussion. I very much admire Jonah Goldberg's writing and his intellect. And what I got out of Goldberg's take (to borrow from Fishrrmann) is we must work with what is, not what we wish it were.

Islam is not going away. But, its more extreme (and dangerous elements) can.

[katzenjammer]

Realsville is that the stated goal of izlam, which is total world domination, is marching on, essentially unabated at the present.

Had the West been smart about it, they would have been contained in dar al-izlam and not allowed to infiltrate.  But that ship has sailed hundreds of years ago.

Another falsehood is that there are "radical" and "moderate" muzlims.  Pure fiction of the Western intellectuals.  People like al-Sisi and Jasser are either delusional or practicing a sophisticated form of taquia.

Oh, and I will go with Greenfield over Goldberg every day of the week: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/01/lets-laugh-at-islam.html

[aligncare]

I work with Muslims in my practice every day. Some patients, some doctors. You'll have a tough time convincing me of the validity of your statement about radical and moderate Muslims.

[katzenjammer]

Unlike many here I never see it as my job nor avocation to convince anyone of anything.  I simply state my opinions, occasionally provide a link or two for those that may be interested in reading further on some topics, and leave it at that.

You may be interested (or may not be!) in reading more on the topic, beyond your own anecdotal experiences:

- Moderate Islam Is Multiculturalism Misspelled

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until then they find it necessary to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Or something more timely and apropos:

- Ex-Muslim Girlfriend of Murdered Hebdo Cartoonist, “No Moderate Islam”

In the past, Bougrab, a member of the center-right UMP party, had spoken out strongly against Islam.

    A French minister said there was no such thing as moderate Islam, calling recent election successes by Islamic parties in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia “worrying” in an interview published Saturday.

    Jeannette Bougrab, a junior minister with responsibility for youth, told Le Parisien newspaper that legislation based on Islamic sharia law “inevitably” imposed restrictions on rights and freedoms.

    Bougrab is of Algerian origin, whose father fought on the French colonial side during Algeria’s war of independence, and said she was speaking as “a French woman of Arab origin.”

    “It’s very worrying,” she was quoted as saying. “I don’t know of any moderate Islam.”

[truth_seeker]

In AD 793 when the Viking boats came ashore at Lindesfarne in Northeast England, to raid, rape, plunder and murder the locals, it was not a pleasant affair.

It was however reality. My ancestors were on both sides, so I can't just comfortably brush it aside, as those evil "others."

About 200 years later the Viking movement became Christianized. There is an interesting history to be researched and told. Eric who came to Canada was a Christian by the that year, 1000.

[olde north church]

There is but one solution.  Convert or die, then dispatch on the spot.  No time to rethink the conversion.  St. Cyril was able to do 30,000 of them in two days about a thousand years ago.  We are much more efficient these days.