France enters the ring against the Muslim world:
PARIS — A French satirical magazine on Wednesday published a series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, setting off a new wave of outrage among Muslims and condemnation from French leaders amid widening unrest over an amateur video that has provoked violence throughout the Islamic world.
The illustrations, some of which depicted Muhammad naked, hit newsstands across the country on Wednesday and were met with swift rebuke from the government of François Hollande, which had earlier urged the magazine, Charlie Hebdo, not to publish the cartoons, particularly in the current tense environment.
The foreign minister stands up proudly for free expresson in France, when the time is right:
“In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined,” Laurent Fabius, the foreign minister, said in a French radio interview. “In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?”
In an interview on France Info radio, Mr. Fabius announced that, as a precaution, France planned to close its embassies in 20 countries on Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, which has become an occasion for many to express their anger although “no threats have been made against any institutions.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the closures would affect French consulates, cultural centers and schools as well.
The BBC has more.
Thank God for French satirical magazines! Standing up for Free Speech...tres bon.
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 09:21 AM
I think the French Foreign Minister would have been better served to "fart in the general direction" of Mecca, and left it at that.
Posted by: NK | September 19, 2012 at 09:26 AM
Seems to me that if Islamists are going to riot/murder/whatever every time someone anywhere in the world publishes something that offends, the logical answer is to publish reams of offensive material daily and wear them out.
The alternative--to ensure nobody says or writes anything that might offend the wildest-eyed Imam--is both impractical and counterproductive.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 19, 2012 at 09:27 AM
It's pretty damn bad when the French have more spine in standing up to these vermin and their perverted "prophet" than the quislings in the State Dept. Maybe it was the Mickey Rourke movies...
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 19, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Amen, Cecil!
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 09:30 AM
CH-- certainly the French Mag has more spine, the French foreign Minister not so much. In any event, comparing anyone's courage against Sharia to the the lying surrenderist bastards at the JEF State Department is a low standard, n'estce pas?
Posted by: NK | September 19, 2012 at 09:34 AM
And he's a French Socialist to boot, speaking of films, where is the vidoe footage of the supposed protests in front of the Benghazi consulates, this strikes me too much like 'Rules of Engagement' presciently set in Yemen,
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 09:34 AM
I like Bruce Greenwood for the Michael vickers role, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 09:42 AM
The BBC link makes clear that the magazine is an religious equal-opportunity offender. They're bravely refusing to make an exception for Muslims.
Magazine editor Stephane "Charb" Charbonnier said earlier: "I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo [magazine], just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe." In November, the magazine's offices in Paris were gutted by a petrol bomb attack after it named the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief" for an issue.
That's an actual, not pretend, "gutsy call".
Posted by: DebinNC | September 19, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Why does seemingly every news article now use "the Prophet Muhammad"?
They don't seem to write/talk that way about any other religions. I don't see many references in thenews to "His Holiness the Pope" or to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", etc.
I mean, I know the answer, but it's still worth making the point.
Posted by: James D. | September 19, 2012 at 09:53 AM
cecil, right on. Honestly, I was thinking of a satiric Mohammed poster on my front lawn, however, my neighbor, a Kenyan diplomat is Moslem.....and down the block is the Malaysian Embassy.
I guess we'll have to do it in print.
Posted by: Clarice | September 19, 2012 at 09:55 AM
While Letterman kibitzes;
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/NI18Aa01.html
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Why does seemingly every news article now use "the Prophet Muhammad"?
Jeez, I don't know; why don't one of you twitter people ask the wonderful JAKE TAPPER? Everybody tells me that he's a GREAT GUY and somebody we can work with who really cuts through all the MFM bull. Tweet Mr Wonderful and I'm sure you'll get an honest answer.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Is he a career diplomat, or more like a Kibaki partisan, clarice.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Speaking of spineless, McMahon and Brown, refuse to get on the ball,
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:06 AM
The first debate is key to exposing all the false statements of Oblammy and company. Within every answer Romney gives must be a revelation of a particular Obama untruth and how the media are lying and covering up for him. Also a jibe about how a party with Jay-z and Beyonce and going on Letterman talking about being naked is very unpresidential and disgusting. Is he going to meet with Netanyahu or not? I mean that is part of his job.
Posted by: maryrose | September 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Well we knew that Jerry Sandusky would still be a free man if it depended on Scotty Centerfold doing the right thing.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM
You would think being up against Madame Lafarge, would give a clue, but that would be asking too much.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM
narciso,
How could David write that spot-on analysis and forget Turkey?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Great point, James D.
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM
James:
Using the word Prophet is to legitimize their war on the West. People need to look at history. Review Charles Martel and the Moorish invasion of Spain. We have to crush the terrorists. Unfortunately Obama is soft on terrorism. If anything this will delay the movie about Obama icing Osama. Oh but wait , the Navy Seals did that. Obama just sat in a chair, shaking.
Posted by: maryrose | September 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Btw Pinette has weighed in that if Mitt loses it proves that the Tea Party has ruined the GOP.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Look I don't think it's proper to be gratuitous in the treatment of any religion, that is why Maher sticks in my craw, and Rushdie should know better. But
Tom Holland doesn't garner any sympathy for his admittedly revisionist but scholarly take on the subject,
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Okay...I sent the tweet to Tapper, Captain. I don't know what the hell I'm doing on twitter though.
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM
I don't know, narciso. He seems a trifle paranoid and we've had little contact. His predecessors were quite different for the most part.
Posted by: Clarice | September 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Thanks Janet; I'll await any response you get other than him ignoring or blocking you.
Speaking of Rushdie: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444709004577651734257991936.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_8
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Obama just sat in a chair, shaking.
Squatted in a chair might be truer. Hah!
He looks so Photoshopped in to me...
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM
UPI relates BOzo's schedule today: daily briefing, meeting w/Hillary, and this:
"Receive the credentials from foreign ambassadors recently posted in Washington in a ceremony marking the formal start of an ambassador's service in Washington"
Yet, the WH site re BOzo's schedule today says only "no public events". Is the word "ambassador" anathema now? They'd rather sacrifice the politically crucial "receives daily briefing" notation than mention this foreign ambassadors ceremony, fearing Amb. Stevens would immediately come to mind? Very telling.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 19, 2012 at 10:32 AM
If you notice, Jib, he does mention Turkey, he just doesn't think they will be a dominant position.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM
--the logical answer is to publish reams of offensive material daily and wear them out--
If we had an effective intelligence service, oh yeah, and a collective pair of state testes, we'd be publishing reams of offensive material and attributing it to various islamic subsets and different ethnicities so they'd be burning each others embassies and murdering their own frickin envoys and mbassadors.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | September 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Cecil:
The alternative--to ensure nobody says or writes anything that might offend the wildest-eyed Imam--is both impractical and counterproductive.
OK. We have a choice between going out and insulting a religion in a non-substantive way, reminiscent of mooning the crabby deacon at the church, or going into censorship mode. Straw man? False choice? There's really no other option?
How about this -- we don't endorse people who feel the need to gratutously insult a religion, but we don't go around tossing them in jail, or harassing them either.
What strikes me about this sort of thing is that it is parallel to the idea of sticking a mosque at Ground Zero. Certainly, we live in a country where you can do that, and we're glad about it. But we sure don't have to like, or support the act, and we recognize the right of folks to be upset about it. (Rioting and muder over such stuff, however, is the kind of response that makes the Middle East the charming cesspool that it is).
Posted by: Appalled | September 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM
No, Appalled, the GZ Mosque, as with the Blue Mosque, and Cordoba is a whole other message, Rushdie was gratuitous as well as Nakoula, who should as a Copt have known better to be so provocative without a point.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM
OK. We have a choice between going out and insulting a religion in a non-substantive way, reminiscent of mooning the crabby deacon at the church, or going into censorship mode. Straw man? False choice? There's really no other option?
Well, I suppose we can watch our embassies burn, and just put up with the periodic mayhem.
How about this -- we don't endorse people who feel the need to gratutously insult a religion, but we don't go around tossing them in jail, or harassing them either.
I'd point out we are currently going a lot farther down the "censorship" road:
I'd also point out that as a solution, it leaves something to be desired.Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Dennis Miller comes up with another great idea. One of his callers suggested flags for burning made from marijuana to mellow the crowd....now Dennis suggests effigy pinatas that drop "drug" candy. Oh yeah...thinkin' outside the box!
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM
That stupid war-room pic makes us look so weak. The whole team, staring in awe at the execution of an old has-been, holed up in his lair with his four hags. I could see if he had an army of bodyguards, but no. Just an old bearded dude trying to get his TV antenna working.
They couldn't even take him alive, and the whole world gets to see the war-room pic.
I wonder what Putin or the Chinese thought of that pic. Actually, I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Well we know how Putin does it, he blows up the likes of Zandabichev, who at last recollection, was a political leader, in the middle of Doha, with a car bomb, with practically little attention.
Volodya does say he appreciates Mitt's sincerity.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM
bgates early morning masterpiece has been instalaunched.
Posted by: Clarice | September 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Well they do need a touch of Bryan Mills, the CIA guy from 'Taken'
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Cecil:
Part of being engaged with the Middle East is putting up with the periodic mayhem. We have interests there -- we really don't have a choice. What we should NOT do is kowtow to the mayhem, like Obama has done (and gotten away with, because our media can't seem to focus on anything that does not emphasize the incompetent evil that is Mitt Romney)
Of course, Obama has been much of the problem here, as his policy has been to concentrate on pretexts, and not pay any attention to the simple fact that political Islam does not like the United States (probably because it does not much like Modernity), and will never like the United States, and will always find the US a convenient scapegoat from time to time.
Posted by: Appalled | September 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Not only 'launched, but bgates' masterful channeling of Obama is designated blog comment of the day and deservedly so.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 19, 2012 at 11:12 AM
breaking- 4 Injured in blast a Kosher Grocery in Paris.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Congrats Bgates!
Posted by: NK | September 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM
The Brits had sporadic problems in their relations in the NorthWest Frontier, the various incursions into Afghanistan, the whole Governor General Mayo matter in 1871,
Charles Allen's 'Warriors of god' sums it up, but the arrival of Wahhabism made it worse, in many ways Kim Philby is a piker compared to his pop, in terms of treachery.
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Congrats, bgates!
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Wonderful comment, bgates and congrats on the well-deserved attention it got.
Posted by: centralcal | September 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Congrats Bgates
Posted by: narciso | September 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Sheesh! French Jewish group blaming CA guy's "movie" for kosher store attack.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM
When did the NYTimes or the media in general start referring to Muhammad (Mohammed, Mohammad?) as the Prophet Muhammad? This seems like a recent development. Do they ever refer to Jesus as Lord Jesus Christ?
Posted by: Forbes | September 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Jennifer Rubin writes today about all of the media (right and left) failures at predicting Romney's doom.
I will only excerpt her close, because I think it is worthwhile to read the full (short and sweet) column in full:
Posted by: centralcal | September 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Forbes, please show due respect to Islam. A certain amount of respect is due people with bombs.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi | September 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM
"Pinette has weighed in that if Mitt loses it proves that the Tea Party has ruined the GOP."
The Repub Party is quite capable of ruining itself, thank you very much. :)
Seriously, no one is allowed to call for reduced spending? What a crock.
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | September 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Extraneous wrote:
That stupid war-room pic makes us look so weak. The whole team, staring in awe at the execution of an old has-been, holed up in his lair with his four hags. I could see if he had an army of bodyguards, but no. Just an old bearded dude trying to get his TV antenna working.
They couldn't even take him alive, and the whole world gets to see the war-room pic.
I wonder what Putin or the Chinese thought of that pic. Actually, I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know. (end quote.)
Not only that but since that time they have managed to off several of the Seals and captured one of our stealth helicopters.
Posted by: peter | September 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM
And didn't they just take out 6 Harriers?
Yup.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Prof Jacobson on Islam "By the way, in what other religion are the faithful more likely to riot after attending services?"
Posted by: Clarice | September 19, 2012 at 01:29 PM
peter, as far as I know they were staring at a blank screen because there was no live feed available as we learned later.
Posted by: Clarice | September 19, 2012 at 01:30 PM
A blank screen? Obama thought he was looking in a mirror.
Posted by: MarkO | September 19, 2012 at 01:33 PM
Shouldn't that be an "empty" screen?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 19, 2012 at 01:43 PM
JiB:
"Shouldn't that be an "empty" screen?"
LOL! Reminds me of the empty Oval Office desk that makes Obama look so small when he actually sits at it.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 19, 2012 at 02:09 PM
Part of being engaged with the Middle East is putting up with the periodic mayhem.
Is turnabout no longer fair play? ANd speaking as a former tactics guy, this is just too easy.
And didn't they just take out 6 Harriers?
Actually, it's 8. And the Squadron CO.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 19, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Here is the cartoon - at Weasel Zippers
Posted by: Janet | September 19, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Tom Friedman has a rare moment of lucidity:
I read several such comments from the rioters in the press last week, and I have a big problem with them. I don’t like to see anyone’s faith insulted, but we need to make two things very clear — more clear than President Obama’s team has made them. One is that an insult — even one as stupid and ugly as the anti-Islam video on YouTube that started all of this — does not entitle people to go out and attack embassies and kill innocent diplomats. That is not how a proper self-governing people behave. There is no excuse for it. It is shameful. And, second, before demanding an apology from our president, Mr. Ali and the young Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Sudanese who have been taking to the streets might want to look in the mirror — or just turn on their own televisions. They might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews, Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist, Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize their own potential.
Posted by: Neo | September 19, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Really good blog, this is very similar to a site that I have. Please check it out sometime and feel free to leave me a comenet on it and tell me what you think. Im always looking for feedback.
Posted by: furniture movers chicago | September 25, 2012 at 03:51 PM