Building a better mousetrap
So I guess it's time I waded into the general babble on those cartoons depicting Mohammed (piss be upon him) and the demonstrations and violations thereto attributable.
I think we should have more Mohammed (piss be upon him) cartoons. Then, when sub-humans start burning down an embassy, or committing some other violence against a person or property, we can gun them down like the animals they are. I think the term is "baiting" -- if you use the right cheese, the mice cannot resist.
Okay, that woudn't really work: a lot of persons who have no intent to actually harm anyone or destroy property join demonstrations all over these countries (like journalists covering the demonstrations, for example). "Death to America", even "Death to America", are as often as not simply expressions of anger and frustration (like the WWII Japanese soldiers' oath, "To Hell with Babe Ruth"), and if an actual American showed up in the middle of one of these things, the worst that would happen to him or her would be bruises as he or she was shoved out of the camera shot -- and the demonstrators might offer the American tea. The point is that it is not appropriate to assume intent from rhetoric in most situations (I, for example, would probably not urinate on the Prophet Mohammed), and with the "Arab street", it can be especially misleading. So gunning 'em all down, while admittedly fun, would hit too many individuals guilty only of being loud and annoying.
Still, property has been damaged by these buffoons. And, like many others, I wonder where the moderates are. When watching The News Hour's selected moderate Islamic spokesguy, all I heard was that it was wrong to publish inflammatory cartoons -- burning down embassies and consulates in response is apparently okay. So, apparently, is promoting anti-Semitic lies (like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Note that I'm not just singling out the Muslims in this. It is the logical extension of all religious ideas to convert, drive off, or kill individuals who do not believe in a given religion, even if the religion is a "secular" one, like communism or fascism. Consider the response to Corpus Christi and The Last Temptation of Christ: bomb threats at the very least (some sources claim that theaters were burned down, but as believable as that is, I can't find documentation of that). Indeed, for every individual out there, there is some image or statement that would be offensive. But anyone who carries out violence against persons or property -- especially, as the Muslim demonstrators, or those who rioted in the wake of the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King, against individuals not directly or even indirectly responsible for the offense -- are subhumans who are unfit to live in human society.
So let's have some more of these offensive images: Mohammed (piss be upon him); Jesus butt-fucking a boy; a Jew . . . geez, there's already so much Jew-baiting literature out there, so pick something. Um, the Buddha . . . eating a cheeseburger, I don't know. The point is, find something that'll piss off some persons so much that they'll commit violence, then let the trap slam shut on their sub-human heads.
I think we should have more Mohammed (piss be upon him) cartoons. Then, when sub-humans start burning down an embassy, or committing some other violence against a person or property, we can gun them down like the animals they are. I think the term is "baiting" -- if you use the right cheese, the mice cannot resist.
Okay, that woudn't really work: a lot of persons who have no intent to actually harm anyone or destroy property join demonstrations all over these countries (like journalists covering the demonstrations, for example). "Death to America", even "Death to America", are as often as not simply expressions of anger and frustration (like the WWII Japanese soldiers' oath, "To Hell with Babe Ruth"), and if an actual American showed up in the middle of one of these things, the worst that would happen to him or her would be bruises as he or she was shoved out of the camera shot -- and the demonstrators might offer the American tea. The point is that it is not appropriate to assume intent from rhetoric in most situations (I, for example, would probably not urinate on the Prophet Mohammed), and with the "Arab street", it can be especially misleading. So gunning 'em all down, while admittedly fun, would hit too many individuals guilty only of being loud and annoying.
Still, property has been damaged by these buffoons. And, like many others, I wonder where the moderates are. When watching The News Hour's selected moderate Islamic spokesguy, all I heard was that it was wrong to publish inflammatory cartoons -- burning down embassies and consulates in response is apparently okay. So, apparently, is promoting anti-Semitic lies (like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Note that I'm not just singling out the Muslims in this. It is the logical extension of all religious ideas to convert, drive off, or kill individuals who do not believe in a given religion, even if the religion is a "secular" one, like communism or fascism. Consider the response to Corpus Christi and The Last Temptation of Christ: bomb threats at the very least (some sources claim that theaters were burned down, but as believable as that is, I can't find documentation of that). Indeed, for every individual out there, there is some image or statement that would be offensive. But anyone who carries out violence against persons or property -- especially, as the Muslim demonstrators, or those who rioted in the wake of the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King, against individuals not directly or even indirectly responsible for the offense -- are subhumans who are unfit to live in human society.
So let's have some more of these offensive images: Mohammed (piss be upon him); Jesus butt-fucking a boy; a Jew . . . geez, there's already so much Jew-baiting literature out there, so pick something. Um, the Buddha . . . eating a cheeseburger, I don't know. The point is, find something that'll piss off some persons so much that they'll commit violence, then let the trap slam shut on their sub-human heads.
posted by heavynettle at 09:51
5 Comments:
A couple months ago there was car-bombing or some such thing (sorry, I forget the inciting incident) in Pakistan for which Shi'a were the victims of Sunni attacks.
In response, the Shi'a in the area rioted, attacked a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and murdered all the (Pakistani) employees working there. This was because, according to spokesmen for the crowd, the Musharref government is supported by America and the Musharref government has been slow or ineffective in prosecuting those responsible for killing Shi'a, so, you see, America is responsible for the Sunni fanatics who murder Shi'a civilians, making employees of an American-based restaurant chain legitimate targets for brutal murder.
I do not think an American would be offered tea at one of these rallys. It brings to mind those Korean grocers in L.A. who were murdered by angry black mobs (and their apologists) because of the actions of a white jury; that is, the response is indefensible by reason. Logic has flown the coop and bloodlust and violence to assert one's supremacy are all that are left. It's an unfortunate thing, but once a sectarian war or race riot or some such thing gets started, individuals no longer have the option of choosing sides. Ask a moderate, rational Serb. Yes, you can refuse to participate, but you cannot expect to be treated as a neutral, non-combatant by either side, or, ultimately, by outside observers.
All the more reason for those who can to calm tensions and curb violence while they are still able to.
Here the links to that KFC riot.
Apparently, the rioters attacked the symbol of American chicken because they were angry Shi'a were being targeted by Al-Qaeda and in a circuitous logic somehow blamed the U.S. for being in cahoots with Bin Laden & Co.
It's just insane.
Buy Danish.
Mmmm . . . a danish does sound good right now. Gotta go.
Anyway, I was just about to add that I had heard some moderates, who were saying that these riots et al. were giving Muslims a bad name. It's the Marcus Garvey argument, but it's better than nothing.
Yeah, Islam sucks. The Southern Baptists appear to be stumping for second place (a distant one, to be sure, as their threats and commission of violence is much more focussed), and, as I wrote in the post, every unquestionable dogma surrounding every untestable assertion presents the same hazard to humans everywhere.
And let's not forget the tolerant Danish attitude towards, say, Jews. (Did I forget to put tolerant in quotes?) Let's not forget the skinheads throughout central Europe targetting any darkies they find.
It's just one of those days when you don't want to wake up. Everybody sucks and everything's fucked. You don't really know why, but you want to justify ripping someone's head off. Everyone sucks, man.
And, of course, these attacks are polarizing the world: I heard today about an American company selling t-shirts with the Mohammed (piss be upon him) cartoons on 'em. The Christians are getting more annoying by their completely unanalyzed stridency. Sigh.
Oops, think I screwed up: I think I meant the W.E.B. DuBois argument, not the Marcus Garvey argument. Sorry for the confusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home