Blasphemy as a National Security Threat
print
tell a friend
Imran Firasat
Spain has begun deportation proceedings against Imran Firasat, a Christian refugee from Pakistan, for making a documentary about Mohammed and thereby threatening the national security of Spain. If Firasat is deported back to Pakistan, he will face the death penalty proving that it’s a short step from the Spanish Inquisition to the Pakistani Inquisition.
But it’s not really about the deaths, if it were then the United States wouldn’t be senselessly squandering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid offending the natives. It’s not the death of men that our leaders are worried about, but the death of stability.
Knowing that a hundred men will die today in car accidents does not alarm anyone, but knowing that somewhere a dozen men might die in a bomb explosion, anywhere and at any time, can bring a nations to its knees. That is the difference between predictable and unpredictable death. Predictable death makes it possible for most everyone to go about doing what they normally do. Unpredictable death however erodes daily order.
Blasphemy makes terrorism seem predictable. It delivers that false sense of control that is at the root of Stockholm Syndrome, the seductive illusion that the thug can be reasoned with and that we can restore control over our perilous environment by accepting responsibility for the enemy’s violence. If we meet a set of conditions then we will have peace. And what kind of lunatic wouldn’t want peace? The kind who needs to be deported or locked up in the name of peace.
When an entire country goes Stockholm then it is no longer interested in winning the war, only in surviving the peace. In a Stockholm country, national security consists of locking up anyone who can be blamed for sabotaging the peacemaking. The less peace there is, the more the peacemakers go on the hunt for “extremists” who are to blame for the lack of it. The more their vision of a better world fails, the more stern measures they must take against their own people. Peace is always one more denunciation of extremism away.
The same countries whose leaders have spent a century and a half blathering incessantly about a truly progressive order under international law have shown no ability to cope with the old-fashioned kind of war. They can quote verbatim the laws of war, but understand poorly that war makes its own laws. War’s simplest law is that you pick a pretext, any popular pretext, make your demands and then go on the attack. If the other side is foolish enough to meet your demands, then it has shown its weakness and must be attacked again and again.
Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence. Like Khrushchev banging his shoe on the United Nations delegate desk, they did their best to convince the rest of the world that they were violently irrational and liable to do all sorts of things if their demands weren’t met. And their demands were met. Rather than going medieval on their asses, the civilized world instead went medieval on anyone who offended the medieval cult of Islam.
tell a friendAbout the Author: Daniel Greenfield is an Israeli born blogger and columnist, and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His work covers American, European and Israeli politics as well as the War on Terror. His writing can be found at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of The Jewish Press.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Blasphemy as a National Security Threat”
- Kaspersky: One Out of Every Three Israeli Computers Under Attack
on May 23, 2013 8:04 PM - Perry Committee Haredi Recruitment Plan: Sanctions on Draft Dodgers
on May 23, 2013 5:42 PM - Amnesty International: Our World Is a Dangerous Place
on May 23, 2013 5:08 PM - Arabs Attack Girl Near Efrat
on May 23, 2013 4:07 PM - ADL Condemns Detroit Leaders’ Love-In with Farrakhan
on May 23, 2013 3:50 PM - Anti-Iran Legislation Advancing in Congress
on May 23, 2013 12:12 PM - Former Minister Hershkowitz Named Bar-Ilan U. President
on May 23, 2013 12:08 PM - Former Iranian President: ‘Things Have Never Been This Bad’
on May 23, 2013 11:51 AM - London Terrorist Beheading Soldier in Broad Daylight (Video)
on May 23, 2013 11:18 AM - UN Health Assembly, Syria, Slam ‘Inhuman Israeli Practices’
on May 23, 2013 10:39 AM - Yes, There Is an Anti-Israel Media Cabal and They All Meet on Facebook
on May 23, 2013 10:22 AM - Chabad Continues Relief Efforts in Oklahoma
on May 23, 2013 7:21 AM - US Implicitly Backs Peace Now Petition to Destroy Outpost
on May 23, 2013 12:44 AM - Nadler Disappointed by Nixing of Immigration Reform LGBT Amendment
on May 22, 2013 8:38 PM - Two New Jersey Men Plead Not Guilty in Synagogue Bombings
on May 22, 2013 8:06 PM
Loading ...
the americans and the rest of the world, instead of fearing the arabs for talking smack about muhamed, they should fear Hashem the G-d of all peoples when they promote gay marrage and immorality. Hes the one that is pounding america with violent storms and dissabling the "most powerful country on earth" all because of their sick ways. the arabs kill homosexuals and blasphimers. israel should do the same.
Funny how the areas in NYC most devastated by hurricane Sandy included most of the areas that vote Republican in national elections.
Funny how the areas in NYC most devastated by hurricane Sandy included most of the areas that vote Republican in national elections.
"proposed to burn a Koran,".
The guy who wanted to burn the Koran — and did — is a nutcase named Terry Jones. He wanted to burn a Talmud, too — because according to Jones we Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence."
There hasn't been a blasphemy prosecution anywhere in the US since the 1920s, and in the 1950s the US Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional.
I thought that the JP had higher standards for factual content.
"proposed to burn a Koran,".
The guy who wanted to burn the Koran — and did — is a nutcase named Terry Jones. He wanted to burn a Talmud, too — because according to Jones we Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence."
There hasn't been a blasphemy prosecution anywhere in the US since the 1920s, and in the 1950s the US Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional.
I thought that the JP had higher standards for factual content.
I liked Jones better when he was with Monty Python
I liked Jones better when he was with Monty Python
He's saying that we are effectively using such laws now, even if we don't call it blasphemy persecution.
He brings no evidence for such. Although frankly I think Jones should be confined in a mental institution.
"The United States has a man sitting in prison for making another blasphemous movie, which the government spent weeks blaming for worldwide attacks on American embassies. And he isn’t the first man persecuted or prosecuted for offending Islam.""When Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa DJ, proposed to burn a Koran, the commander of the Afghanistan war contacted his girlfriend (who would later be stalked by Petraeus’ girlfriend) to contact the Mayor of Tampa to keep Bubba from burning a Koran. Instead of explaining how the American system works to the Lebanese temptress and her four-star general, the mayor wrote back that the city was working on it."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/bubba_the_love_sponge He's talking about a different person. And people should be able to say they want to burn the Talmud or the Koran. And if they want to, the government should not stop them from doing so.
When a country is at war — and remember we are still in the GWOT — liberties are restricted when expressing those liberties damages the war effort.
Were we in the middle of WW1 or WW2, we would not be having this discussion.
Sure we restrict freedoms. This makes sense to the extent of wiretapping suspected terrorists, for instance, but that often gets liberals up in arms. I do not think they punished Americans for anti-German speech in WWI or II (in fact, there were attacks in the first-which I am not justifying.) There is no reason our freedom should be restricted in order to appease those who threaten us, and the author's point is that the illusion that this will work is dangerous. Furthermore, where does it end? At WWI and II, it was clear when we won; the war on terrorism is ongoing, and we cannot just say we will live indefinitely in fear of offending Islam. If we do, they've won.
" wiretapping suspected terrorists, for instance, but that often gets liberals up in arms"
Never got me up in arms. There has been provision for this in the law for over 30 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
"At WWI and II, it was clear when we won; the war on terrorism is ongoing"
You are sounding like the ultra-lefties on dailykos!