Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Why Isn't It Ever The Muslims Fault?
"For years, Scandinavian countries have been among the most generous with aid to the Muslim world, but that generosity has stood for little in the scandal over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
In the past week, Scandinavian embassies have been set ablaze in Syria and Lebanon and bans have been put on Danish exports, creating a row that threatens to unravel the substantial goodwill Scandinavia had in the Middle East.
Despite the vast contributions Nordic countries have made, analysts suspect Denmark's heavy-handed approach to immigrants may be one reason behind the Muslim backlash. And they worry that it could take a long time for reputations to recover."
As if the Muslims in the Middle East know anything about the supposed heavy-handedness in Denmark.
So the fault of the rampaging is Denmark's heavy-handed approach to its immigrants. That's right, the Muslims can't be blamed for blowing the situation way out of proportion.
Does the writer of the article remember Theo Van Gogh? It wasn't the Dutch who killed him. Or is Theo Van Gogh to blame because he dared to question their culture? Do the media think he was heavy-handed, too? When will the media rightfully blame the Muslims for their behavior?
I wonder if the writer is part of the "why do they hate us crowd" we heard after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Oops, that's right, to Reuters they weren't terrorists.
Europe was foolish to think that money would buy them respect and protection.
It reminds me of when a child has a temper tantrum because they don't get their way. They scream and complain that the world is unfair (they even wish their parents would die as punishment for being mean). But as a parent you make them go to their room until they stop screaming and then, when they calm down, remind them they were wrong and why. You certainly don't buy them presents after a temper tantrum hoping it will stop them from doing it again or think that buying them loads of presents when their infants will innoculate you from tantrums when they're two.
Update: Betsy Newmark links (here and here) to a piece by Richard Baehr at The American Thinker noting evidence that this may be a manufactured intifada. That along with Gateway Pundit's finding that some of the cartoons being circulated by a militant group weren't published and just happen to be surprise, surprise far more offensive than the one's published in Denmark.
From Baehr: "The new Hamas government of the Palestinian territories needs to continue on life support via cash infusions from the European Union and other donor nations, including the United States. Fear and chastening have usually worked to unlock resources and sympathyin the past, so why not now?"
Meanwhile Iran is facing potentially serious consequences from the referral of its nuclear program to the UN Security Council, not to mention a possible military attack on said facilities. Syria and its clients in Lebanon also face ongoing pressure and consequences from the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri.
"...at a point when the Europeans seemed ready to sanction both Iran and the Palestinians, a new issue diverted their eyes with the cartoon riots- self preservation. It seems strange that all these flags were ready for this crisis to get hot, as several keen observers have noted. Who sells Danish flags in the Arab world, after all?
Betsy follows-up saying, "Richard just emailed me to note that Denmark is scheduled to take its place in rotation as head of the Security Council just as the Security Council is set to discuss Iran's nukes. Coincidence?
The guy was so flustered, especially when Hannity pulled out a bunch of examples. It was classic.He really couldn't answer.
Thanks for the reply!
Links to this post: