« I wonder if I had a little something to do with this | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

"Just Words"

This thought has been brewing around in the back of my mind for some time, but it finally crystallized recently.

Over at the Jawa Report, Dr. Rusty Shackleford linked to this study that says that 55% of all Muslims believe that "offensive words or behavior" are grounds for a physically violent response.

Now we in the civilized world have, for the most part, rejected the "fighting words" argument. But it seems that those whose religion got started in the 8th century (and seems, by and large, still stuck there) embrace it. Further, their definition of "fighting words" seems incredibly lax.

But that's not the fun thought I had.

I was thinking to myself "self, if mere words are enough to drive them into a frenzy, why bother even curtailing even more offensive actions? How much more can they hate us? They already killed one guy and are trying to kill another for making a movie, they want some other of guys beheaded for drawing cartoons, and they killed a bunch of people over a bullshit story about a Koran getting tossed in a toilet. They're already crazy; why cater to their craziness at all?"

Kris Kristofferson wrote one of the most profound phrases I've ever heard, and it applies here as in so many other places: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

There's really nothing to gain by making more concessions to the crazy Muslims. Why bother even trying to mollify them?

Speaking for myself, they can only behead me once.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29036.

Comments (12)

Actually, I think most soci... (Below threshold)

Actually, I think most societies recognize the concept of "fighting words" - but set the bar much, much higher than these Muslims do.

For example, to serve as mitigating or extenuating circumstances, "fighting words" would need to be uttered directly to you by a particular individual and be of such nature as to provoke a "reasonable person" to violence in the heat of the moment - there may also be an expectation that there was reasonably clear intent to provoke such a response.

Perhaps we need a color-cod... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

Perhaps we need a color-coded Seethe Alert for these people?

As a Christian I often hear... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

As a Christian I often hear comments designed specifically to insult followers of Christ. Liberal TV hosts and programs often seem to go out of their way to insult Christians. Artists have been known to disparage Christian symbols seemingly to prove their avant guard bona fides to the liberal art crowd.

To none of these do I take offense. First, many of these would be insultors are provable idiots who, through self-delusion, concluded they are smart and because they are smart they are liberal. Second, and more importantly, I believe Jesus is who the Bible says He is. God doesn't need me to defend Him, and everyone will give account to Him on judgement day. Apparently, Muslims believe God needs to be defended by mere men as if their religion is for this life only. Their faith in God's ability to deal with people is week.

We see how liberals readily insult followers of Christ, but their courage to defend their right to free speech falters toward doing the same to Muslims, because Muslims extract a price. Once again, it's conservatives who are left to defend freedom.

I've always maintained that... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I've always maintained that the Passivism of the majority has been misread as being 'moderate' or siding against the extremists. That's a false assumption.

Here's a concept:H... (Below threshold)
epador:

Here's a concept:

How about we lower our bar to their level:

Every time a cleric calls for a jihad, we give them one?

Every time we're referred to as devils we burn a few hundred mosques to prove it?

Every pathetic anti-semitic cartoon published in an islamic publication we riot in their streets and burn donkey carts and falafel stands, and stop buying their oil?

Death to islam by the shock... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Death to islam by the shock and awe of humor. When we laugh, muslims slaughter each other. Did you hear the one about Mohammed and the hen that

What islamist ignore is the wrath of a free people, which will be visited upon them again, and again, and again. John C. Calhoun wrote: "Beware the wrath of a patient adversary." America moves patiently forward, righing its wrongs, giving opportunity to more generations, pushing back the forces of darkness.

Reminds me of an internet chat I had with my son when he was on watchtower duty in Iraq. The Iraqi army was engaged in the distance with the enemy, and he could see the flashes in the night sky and hear the explosions. I asked him whom he wanted to win. He wrote: "I hope they kill each other."

Islam is the enemy of freedom and Christianity. Leaving Iraq, now or in the future, will not change the long-range goal of islam. Islam is an anathema, doomed to a bloody future and a bloody end. God's Will Be Done.

For the ignorant, the barba... (Below threshold)

For the ignorant, the barbaric, and the backward, violence typically seems a valid response . . . to almost anything.

How do you deal with people who can whipped into a murderous frenzy by ranting from an illiterate "mullah" alone? There is none of the rationality there which distinguishes civilized humans from primitive savages and beasts in the wild.

How do you "seek common ground" or "conduct a dialog" with a rabid animal?

This really is one of those... (Below threshold)
Glenn:

This really is one of those cases where laughter is the best medicine. Along with a really big stick. Laugh at their 8th century culture (and it is laughable), when they protest (on our turf) hit 'em with the stick.

"But it seems that those wh... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"But it seems that those whose religion got started in the 8th century..." -- Jay Tea

Get your facts straight, Mr. Tea: Islam started in the early 7th Century, when Muhammad began claiming to others that he was receiving revelations from supernatural sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

JT, you are right. The argu... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, you are right. The argument the left makes in regards to Iraq is "Now we are fostering their hatred of us" as if the 80's, 90's and the twin towers did not happen. They hate us for being who we are. They want us dead because we don't believe the way they believe. I think most of America and the liberals thing "Oh, they'll get over it." ww

Herman, you're quite right.... (Below threshold)

Herman, you're quite right. I should have made note that they had another whole century to piss away in their ongoing war against progress. I deeply regret the error, and appreciate your correction.

For the record: Islam has not been trying to keep humanity enslaved since the 8th century, but the 7th.

J.

Oddly enough, Islam does ha... (Below threshold)
Devshirme:

Oddly enough, Islam does have examples of the principles of free speech in its history, although they're not often mentioned for obvious reasons. What isn't said is that they only have restrictions on speech against Islam, and to a much lesser degree those monotheist religions they claim are corrupted versions of it. You can insult polytheists and their religions as much as you like. It's only because the West in general and MSM in particular are so apallingly and wilfully ignorant of what Islam actually says that the Muslims get away with it.

One of the best examples is Abu Talib who was Muhammad's uncle, guardian, and sheikh of his tribe. When Muhammad first started to preach openly against Arab Paganism, claiming all their gods were false delusions and only Allah existed, the religion of the locals was offended. They came to Abu Talib and said "Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god." Muhammad refused, and though Abu Talib was not a Muslim, and faced serious political trouble as a result, he would neither order him stopped, or hand him over to the tribes' justice. (Al Tabari, Ta'rikh al-rusul wa'l-muluk vol VI, 1176.)

Do you think Muslims would say that Abu Talib was wrong to protect Muhammad? That he should have been stopped, or handed over to the tribe's justice?

But you will never, ever, see any BBC or CNN interviewer ask such a question. For that matter, you won't see many counter-Jihad commentators ask it either. Possibly they see the Muslim reaction as their most potent argument. Maybe they're right.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy