The Sound You Heard Was The Clash Of Civilizations

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
I believe it was yesterday that I wrote that it is amazing the things that will tip a crisis into a conflagration. I didn't say it quite that way, something more like:
A group called the Black Hand. A loser from Austria. A few drawings from a newspaper in Denmark.

Well it seems the drawings might indeed be the 'spark.' There are a lot, I mean a LOT of links here. I'm not going to 'bold' his emphasis, it's well worth checking out his site:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19801/

Saturday, February 04, 2006
Identity Politics, Free Speech, and the Future of worldwide Liberalism, 2: a follow-up

From Islam Online:

Danish Muslim leaders warned on Saturday, February 4, of grave consequences if copies of the Noble Qur’an were burnt in a rally planned by Danish extremists to protest Muslim anger over cartoons mocking Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

"All hell will break loose, if those extremists burn the Qur’an," Raed Halil, the head of the European Committee for Defending Prophet Muhammad, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the Danish capital Copenhagen.

“A female member of a racist party circulated a message calling for burning copies of the Noble Qur’an in Saturday’s march,” he said.

Halil said the message incited young Danes to burn the Muslim holy book in retaliation for the burning of Danish flags by angry Muslims across the world and the boycotting of Danish products.

The extreme-right grouping Danish Front was to start its own march at 2:00 pm (1300 GMT) in Hilleroed, northeast of Copenhagen.

The 12 cartoons, first published last September by the mass-circulation Jyllands-Posten and then reprinted by several European dailies, have caused an uproar in the Muslim world and drawn a new cultural battle over freedom of speech and respect of religions.

Incensed Muslims have demonstrated against Denmark, burnt its flags and boycotted its products, while several Muslim ambassadors have been recalled in protest.

[all emphases mine]

Note the bolded text, because it draws clear (if to be expected) lines of demarcation between the actions of the rival “protest” groups:

the Danish protesters are “extremists” from the “extreme-right”—many of them members of a “racist party”—while those Muslims outraged by the publishing of the cartoons in the first place (who “protested” by burning flags, firebombing embassies, and—even here, through a spokesman, issuing active threats of “grave consequences” and promises that “All hell will break lose” should counterprotests seek to address “Muslim anger") are mere victims of some minor misunderstanding in the “new cultural battle over freedom of speech and respect of religions.”

That last bit of spin is key, because it not only shows the force of a cynical Islamic identity politics still trying to write itself in strokes that aren’t quite so obvious [update: this story seems to fit well with the thesis that the “outrage” is part of an identity politics strategy]-- but it also highlights the dilemma western proponents of identity politics have (and always will have) to face: namely, the point at which the necessary clash of soft, boutique mulitculturalism and the kernel beliefs of identity politics groups threaten to erupt into something much larger than a minor disagreement that can be fixed with a bit of superficial policy manipulation. Which is why even now you have Kos commenters contorting themselves into positions of self-righteous progressive onanism that are a wonder to behold—suddenly, free speech is not a universal right worthy of the crafting of puppet heads and the defacing of Starbucks’ windows, but instead is a culture-specific gift that needs to be filtered through the religious precepts of the culture of the Other. Unless, of course, that “Other” happens to be, say, Evangelical Christians. In which case, such extremists MUST BE SHOUTED DOWN with free speech.

Pretzel logic, clearly—and the dilemma that is at the root of an incoherent philosophical system that favors the sociology of group identity over the universality of individual rights. Ironically, George Bush, each time he argues that freedom is universal, is acting in a manner far more progressive than self-styled progressive activists.

Again: note the crux of the debate, as framed by the voices for Muslim protest, and take care to listen for the broad-stroked rhetoric—usually more carefully crafted by those who have perfected its vocabulary, cadence, emotional appeals, and key words—of the “tolerance” movement, the justificating force that cynically underpins all identity politics:

"The 12 cartoons ... have caused an uproar in the Muslim world and drawn a new cultural battle over freedom of speech and respect of religions."

Translation: “Free speech is good so long as it tolerates our right, as an identity group, to dictate which free speech is authentic and allowable. Otherwise, y’know, we get to torch shit.”

But of course, freedom of speech—reduced (for purposes of this debate) to its core, animating mandate and protection—is PRECISELY the ability to look religion in its pious face and flip it the bird. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize religion, just as freedom of religion is supposed to protect the rights of the religious not to have their religion established for them by a government—a counterbalancing right that is lacking in theocratic states and in religions where pluralism is denied legitimacy.

But this lack of balance between the freedoms—rather than being exploited by the west to make its case for free speech and its necessity as the guiding principle of liberalism—is instead being exploited by neophyte identity politicians in the Muslim world, who have learned to play the victim card so quickly that our own State Department has bought into their affected outrage at victimization and religious “intolerance."¹

Somehow, it seems to escape those raised on westernized Orientalism that by calling the intolerance of intolerance “intolerant,” they have reduced the concept of tolerance itself to a cruel semantic joke—the idea being that groups formed around cultural similarities, once they have honed their group message and excommunicated the dissenters—own the narrative. Outside criticism is therefore inauthentic—always tainted by the gaze of the Other, and so only to be considered secondarily (if at all) as a valid critique.

From there, it is a short journey to asserting the absolutism of a cultural paradigm—and this happens necessarily where universality (or, for postmodernists, social contracts that rely on the trappings of what is metaphysically untenable) is surrendered to competition between identity groups over primacy of “rights” in the global sense.

This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.

One regret I have is that this battle should have been fought and won in favor of intentionalism and individualism inside our own western universities years ago; instead, the victory went to our progressive academic collectivists, whose fidelity to PC culture, identity politics, free-speech zones, tolerance training courses, et al manifested themselves in a “tolerance” culture that now has the goverment looking inside individuals’ heads (hate speech, hate crime) and effectively chilling all speech by defining tolerance in an Orwellian sense of tolerating only that speech which is so bland and banal that it is unlikely to offend anyone. And now we might be forced to battle with guns and chemical weapons and fissile material rather than with confidence in our own intellectual rigor and rectitude.

The idea of liberal democracy was NEVER about such nonsense—nor was it ever about balkanizing into identity groups who, by asserting a self-defined narrative, could claim an authenticity that put them beyond criticism.

So yes, the clash of civilizations has begun. But, to fall back on a useful cliche’, we have seen the enemy, and he is us (too).

[editor’s note: this post is a follow-up to an earlie and more detailed post on the subject]

(h/t Allah)

related: See Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU ("Danish embassy set ablaze"), Danish Cartoons (via the Corner and Craig C), Reason (via Brian T), Wretchard (via Terry Hastings), The Boston Globe, and ABC News (via Craig C)

See also, Rick Moran, “At War with Modernity"; additional thoughts from Dave Price, Neil Stevens, Bill Ardolino, and Jawa Report, whose “Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism” touches on many key aspects of the debate. An excerpt:

Many of us would like to think that Islam is just another religion. That sentiment comes from a good place. Most Americans want to believe that about our fellow Americans. In fact, I would argue that America has always had a national ecumenical spirit. But such thinking is also ignorant of Islam as it is, and not as it should be. I would like Islam to be just another religion which asks only for the soul of the Muslim and not his political fealty, but that is not the case.

Rusty defends the State Department (and both a pragmatic and practical case can be made for such a defense) while taking several conservative bloggers to task for what he essentially sees as an attitude of strained equivalency that leads to a form of apologia that is, at its heart, precisely what I’ve noted identity politics relies upon.

See also, TacJammer, who writes:

We are in the midst of an ongoing struggle, culture against culture, and there is no guarantee of victory. But fight we must, in big ways and small. Some of us can don a uniform; many of us have done so in the past. Most do other things, making their own individual stands right where they are, not surrendering to the ideologies of fear or tolerance of evil, but by living the lives of free men and women and exercising dearly held freedoms.

Including the freedom of speech.

In this, I don’t care how you vote, nor does it matter what church you attend, or not. I don’t care whether you’re red state or blue, pink or green. If you value your freedom to make choices, to live your life as you see fit, respecting the rights of others, even though you disagree on some or many things… if you will not surrender your fundamental liberties merely to save your own skin, and will not submit to dhimmitude, then stand.

****
¹I want to stress here that I am most interested in the structural philosophy underlying this ostensible “clash of civilizations”; I recognize that there are often pragmatic reasons for individual acts of compromise and conciliatory action. But when those acts become a philosophy unto themselves—and it is western liberalism that is modifying or finessing its core beliefs in order to get along—then I think we’ve reached a point of serious concern. As a real world example that doesn’t single out the failures of activist progressivism, I would suggest that foreign policy realism, today most prominent in the entrenched bureaucratic thinking of the State Department, suffers from similar philosophical difficulties

²It is important to distinguish between the pointing out of—and the protesting against—what some may see as needless provocation, and what others might characterize as effective, pointed political speech. Hell, Ted Rall teaches us that every day. Nevertheless, the potential rhetorical force is in the eye of the beholder, which is why we don’t hold back fair criticisms simply out of fear of giving offense. The restrictions we put on free speech arise out of practical concerns, one of which should not be the threat of intentional violence by those who disagree with the substance of a critique that is not meant as an act of instigatory violence. Re: the necessity of provocation, see Christopher Hitchens (h/t IP)
Posted by Jeff Goldstein
 
I think the most telling statement was this:

Danish Muslim leaders warned on Saturday, February 4, of grave consequences if copies of the Noble Qur’an were burnt in a rally planned by Danish extremists to protest Muslim anger over cartoons mocking Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

"All hell will break loose, if those extremists burn the Qur’an," Raed Halil, the head of the European Committee for Defending Prophet Muhammad, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the Danish capital Copenhagen.

Sure, burning Qurans is just too far, but burning embassies and attacking people is perfectly alright.

Reminds me of a book I read called the Martyrs of Cordoba. Basically these Christians in Muslims controled spain during the middle of ages who were executed for saying they believe Mohammad was a false prophet. You would have thought things would chance over a thousand years. Sadly they havent changed at all.

People are going to die over a cartoon and burning a book. This conflict is coming. Even if it doesn't start immediately the ball has started. Hopefully we will have good and decent people to rise up and overcome what the wicked in this world are about to throw at us.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I think the most telling statement was this:



Sure, burning Qurans is just too far, but burning embassies and attacking people is perfectly alright.

Reminds me of a book I read called the Martyrs of Cordoba. Basically these Christians in Muslims controled spain during the middle of ages who were executed for saying they believe Mohammad was a false prophet. You would have thought things would chance over a thousand years. Sadly they havent changed at all.

People are going to die over a cartoon and burning a book. This conflict is coming. Even if it doesn't start immediately the ball has started. Hopefully we will have good and decent people to rise up and overcome what the wicked in this world are about to through at us.

I'm afraid you right on this Avatar.
 
Stephanie said:
I'm afraid you right on this Avatar.

I'm afraid I am too. As much as I hate to admit it, this world is going to get alot more violent. We will see death and destruction like never before in our lives. But if we continue to seek what is right and stand up for our values, we can overcome the world somehow and we will see the greatest hope for the future arise up out of the ashes.
 
eroupe is very nationalistic and very tollerant.....for thousnads of years the european nations concqured the rest of the world then came to the realization that that was wrong....so they have been tollerant for a long time......

muslim radicals have made a huge mistake
 
Can anyone say World War 3? Iran, Muslims, Islam, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, North Korea, all of this, it's like WW1's "gunpowder affect" and how the assasination was the spark that blew it all up.

I'm afraid to say but our lives aren't going to be peaceful, hell is about to break loose...
 
USMCDevilDog said:
Can anyone say World War 3? Iran, Muslims, Islam, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, North Korea, all of this, it's like WW1's "gunpowder affect" and how the assasination was the spark that blew it all up.

I'm afraid to say but our lives aren't going to be peaceful, hell is about to break loose...

You don't have to remind me of that. I'm within draft age.
 
HA!. I was flying over the pacific, reading an international newpaper. There was a picture in the middle of the page with palestinians using machine guns to bang on the door of an embassy and were threatening violence on the occupants because their govt wouldnt apologize for a "CARTOON"!

Then reading the article next to the photo, a muslim apologist was explaining that the cartoons capture Islam as a "violent" religion, but he claims that Islam in no way supports violence. OH MY GOD! I forgot to save that one, I wanted to put it up on my wall.
 
heh, so am I, I'm planning on joining the Marines in June. I might not even have to sign the dotted line now, i might just get shipped off.

I'm just happy to know we're not the only ones going to fight this battle, but ontop of the Middle East there's also a plan on a Peacekeeping force for Sudan after the recent militia attack against Darfur. War is everywhere.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I think the most telling statement was this:



Sure, burning Qurans is just too far, but burning embassies and attacking people is perfectly alright.

Reminds me of a book I read called the Martyrs of Cordoba. Basically these Christians in Muslims controled spain during the middle of ages who were executed for saying they believe Mohammad was a false prophet. You would have thought things would chance over a thousand years. Sadly they havent changed at all.

People are going to die over a cartoon and burning a book. This conflict is coming. Even if it doesn't start immediately the ball has started. Hopefully we will have good and decent people to rise up and overcome what the wicked in this world are about to through at us.

"...to THROW at us..." :)

I agree, I do think there will be enough. The effects of radical Islam are now getting too widespread. Im finding alot , ALOT of public opinion in Asia is the general public is becoming extremely disgusted with what the muslims are doing. When the powers to be and in place in Europe continue to get attacked, verbally, idealogically and physically, more of them will begin to understand the real threat most Americans and in particular President Bush and the Administration see, from Islam.
 
USMCDevilDog said:
Can anyone say World War 3? Iran, Muslims, Islam, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, North Korea, all of this, it's like WW1's "gunpowder affect" and how the assasination was the spark that blew it all up.

I'm afraid to say but our lives aren't going to be peaceful, hell is about to break loose...

The 20th century was the most violent ever. I do think we will improve on that though. As long as we can keep nuclear under control. I dont think Iran is going to be able to get away with what they are trying. Even Russia and China now are getting weary of what they are pulling.

Wars have always been going on. The last 50 years or so has actually been RELATIVELY less violent than before.

If I were in my twenties still, I would volunteer. As a father of six, I feel it would be irresponsable for me to put my life in harms way. I do support my son who is 24 when he discusses the idea of joining. For any who do join, my sincerest thanks to you. The best I can do at the homefront is support and get others to support those in office who give our military the best chance at victory. Its no wonder the military vote 85% republican, and that the evil vile dems tried to supress the military vote in the last two presidental elections. Its really sad also that the MSM didnt make a big deal out of it.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
The 20th century was the most violent ever. I do think we will improve on that though. As long as we can keep nuclear under control. I dont think Iran is going to be able to get away with what they are trying. Even Russia and China now are getting weary of what they are pulling.

Wars have always been going on. The last 50 years or so has actually been RELATIVELY less violent than before.

If I were in my twenties still, I would volunteer. As a father of six, I feel it would be irresponsable for me to put my life in harms way. I do support my son who is 24 when he discusses the idea of joining. For any who do join, my sincerest thanks to you. The best I can do at the homefront is support and get others to support those in office who give our military the best chance at victory. Its no wonder the military vote 85% republican, and that the evil vile dems tried to supress the military vote in the last two presidental elections. Its really sad also that the MSM didnt make a big deal out of it.

I'm thinking of joining up, too. WWIII won't fight itself, you know. However, my parents aren't so supportive of the idea, and haven't been since my ordeal at the Naval Academy, after which, one of my, like, cousins once removed, a 20 year Navy vet, said that the Navy was no place for me. I think they'll support me if I do join, but I'm getting resistance. I, personally, think they just want me live a long life, but my uncle put his life on the line in the Cold War to keep me safe from the Soviets and his father (my granddad) spent 4 years of his life fighting in the biggest naval and amphibious battles ever fought by manking, and he was on the outer ring of the carrier group, too. I'm feel it's time I carry on the family tradition and make sure my kids don't have to fear suicide bombers or beheadings, after I finish college.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
"...to THROW at us..." :)

I agree, I do think there will be enough. The effects of radical Islam are now getting too widespread. Im finding alot , ALOT of public opinion in Asia is the general public is becoming extremely disgusted with what the muslims are doing. When the powers to be and in place in Europe continue to get attacked, verbally, idealogically and physically, more of them will begin to understand the real threat most Americans and in particular President Bush and the Administration see, from Islam.

Im tired so sue me.
 
This is sad. The libs are so pathetic on this. For years they've been telling us that as christians we're intolerant for insisting christ is divine. Yet they're mum when muslims go insane over free expression. Double standard much, libs?
 
Ralph Peters and Niall Ferugson said it best: (summarizing argument)

"Europeans have been relatively peaceful for the past 60 years, but for ANYONE to assume that the continent that spawned global empires, global war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the rise of countless extremist and mainline political idealogies will remain so for the future is engaging in a fool's errand.

Europeans still have war, hate and violence in their blood. Their words and actions may sometimes say and show otherwise, but its still there. It will be rekindled in the future."

And the future may be now. The Muslims may be in for a very, very rude awakening if they keep this crap up. I would not be surprised if some of these far right groups and extremists start slaughtering Muslims en masse, and vice versa.

The Europe after this war in the streets will be an entirely new Europe.... one that may very well be to the right of American politics on immigration, Islam and the use of force to protect their freedom and safety.

The Muslims cannot and will not win. The only question is how high the death toll.

No Islamic power exists or will exist in the near future to do much of anything in retaliation to the Europeans. They can and will only resort to terrorism, which will provoke a response from the Europeans that will make America's responses look childish instead.
 
NATO AIR said:
Ralph Peters and Niall Ferugson said it best: (summarizing argument)

"Europeans have been relatively peaceful for the past 60 years, but for ANYONE to assume that the continent that spawned global empires, global war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the rise of countless extremist and mainline political idealogies will remain so for the future is engaging in a fool's errand.

Europeans still have war, hate and violence in their blood. Their words and actions may sometimes say and show otherwise, but its still there. It will be rekindled in the future."

And the future may be now. The Muslims may be in for a very, very rude awakening if they keep this crap up. I would not be surprised if some of these far right groups and extremists start slaughtering Muslims en masse, and vice versa.

The Europe after this war in the streets will be an entirely new Europe.... one that may very well be to the right of American politics on immigration, Islam and the use of force to protect their freedom and safety.

The Muslims cannot and will not win. The only question is how high the death toll.

No Islamic power exists or will exist in the near future to do much of anything in retaliation to the Europeans. They can and will only resort to terrorism, which will provoke a response from the Europeans that will make America's responses look childish instead.

Agreed. Paraphrasing Peter's from "New Glory", 'Don't trust that the 'new pacified' Europe is anything of the sort. No continent has exported as much slaughter and mischief as has Europe. The last time Europe exhibited widespread pacificism was just before 1914 and again during the period prior to WWII.'
 
US and UK MSM not even doing a little:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007925

Europe's New Dissidents
Middle Eastern repression comes to the Continent.

BY DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
Sunday, February 5, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

BRUSSELS--Four months ago, Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper published 12 caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. At first, the cartoons elicited little interest.

But in December Danish Muslims circulated them in the Islamic world. They added two particularly inflammatory drawings that had never been published by the paper--one involved a pig's nose and the other an indecent act with a dog. Street protests erupted from Lahore to Gaza. Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait withdrew their ambassadors from Copenhagen, calling for an apology and punishment of the editors. Danish products are being boycotted in the Middle East, where state-controlled media speak darkly of a conspiracy against Islam. Palestinian terrorists have declared Danes and other Europeans as legitimate targets. Journalists at Jyllands-Posten have received death threats. Danish flags, whose design is based on a Christian cross, are being burned. So much for religious respect.
For anyone that doesn't think this a 'war', think again. There is strategy on the part of the Muslims here.
For four months, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jyllands-Posten staunchly refused to apologize. But last week, with little support from the rest of Europe against this orchestrated assault on Denmark's press freedom, the paper caved in, much to the government's relief.
While I think that the US/UK are wrong for not at least being part of the 'piling on', the point that there was no support until AFTER the apology was given is true. If you read through the Brussel's Journal for the past 5 months, you too can follow along. Still and all, the West, way before there was a US has been down before and come from behind. Except for that long period, following the invasion of the Germanic hordes.
Were the cartoons disrespectful? Certainly. In Islam the drawing of any image of Muhammad is forbidden and so religious Muslims might feel offended. As might millions of Christians when Jesus is depicted as gay or defiled in a thousand other ways every day. But that's what letters to the editor are for.

Moreover, the cartoons didn't mock Islam as such but its abuse by militant Muslims. One cartoon showed Muhammad with a turban in the form of a bomb. The issue, though, is much larger than the question of how to balance press freedom with religious sensibilities; it goes to the heart of the conflict with radical Islam. The Islamists demand no less than absolute supremacy for their religion--and not only in the Muslim world but wherever Muslims may happen to reside. That's why they see no hypocrisy in their demand for "respect" for Islam while the simple display of a cross or a Star of David in Saudi Arabia is illegal. Infidels simply don't have the same rights.
Again, there is 'war' and it's not the West that was seeking it. On the contrary, looking at government response, as compared to what the media did, late but they did react, appeasement is still the order of the day.
The murder in 2004 of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim fundamentalist in Amsterdam demonstrated the kind of risks critics of Islam are exposed to these days--even in Europe. Fundamentalists can find good cover--and followers--among the millions of Muslim immigrants on the Continent. Jyllands-Posten decided to publish the cartoons after complaints from an author that he could not find an illustrator who dared to draw images of Muhammad for his book. It was this atmosphere of fear and intimidation that the newspaper wanted to highlight. The Muslim reaction to these pictures only confirmed how relevant the topic is.
And that is the nexus, the governments that have an obligation to protect free speech, even when offensive, were simply rolling over. The newpaper, the Danish newspaper, wanted to highlight just how suppressive the atmosphere had become in Europe. The only thing close to this we've seen in the US, is CAIR'S attempts to quash any criticism of Islam on radio and news editorials. Truth is, they've had some success, in spite of the relatively small Muslim population here.
Using their combined economic muscle, death threats and street protests, a combination of state and nonstate actors are slowly exporting to Europe the Middle East's repressive system. What Jyllands-Posten's editors are enduring is not unlike what dissidents under communism had to go through. The Islamists can't send the journalists to a gulag but they can silence them by threatening to kill them. Bomb threats twice forced the journalists to flee their offices last week.

Reminiscent of Stalinist show trials, the paper was in the end forced to show public remorse. The cartoons "were not in variance with Danish law but have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize," the paper said Monday. "I would have never chosen to depict religious symbols in this way," the previously defiant Mr. Rasmussen added. But just like the original show trials, the "admission of guilt" won't cut the Danes much slack. Muslim organizations in Denmark rejected it as not "sincere" and the death threats, protests and boycotts continue.


Just as was the case with communism, Islamic totalitarian impulses find their apologists in the West. Last Monday in Qatar, former President Bill Clinton decried the "totally outrageous cartoons against Islam." EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said the journalists "have to understand the offense caused by cartoons of this nature."

The support shown in the past few days by newspapers around Europe reprinting the cartoons is very welcome. But the vast majority of Europe's media didn't join the battle. And so in the end, it was too little, too late, coming just after the Danes were forced to "confess."

"Those who have won are dictatorships in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia, where they cut criminals' hands and give women no rights," Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief, Carsten Juste, told the AP.

But what really sealed the Danes' fate--and possibly Europe's--was the lack of solidarity from other governments. The European Union likes to call "emergency meetings" for the most trivial topics, from farm subsidies to VAT rates. But when one of their smallest members came under attack for nothing else than being a European country, for defending the values and norms the EU is based on, there was nothing but silence from Europe's capitals. That silence has been heard and understood in the Muslim world.


Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
 
If this war does come, which it will, how will Europe and the U.S. fight it? I'm trying to find a strategy there but all I can think of is just running right through the Middle East, but that'd cause riots and such from Muslims in America and Europe, so, if and when this war starts, how will we fight it?
 
USMCDevilDog said:
If this war does come, which it will, how will Europe and the U.S. fight it? I'm trying to find a strategy there but all I can think of is just running right through the Middle East, but that'd cause riots and such from Muslims in America and Europe, so, if and when this war starts, how will we fight it?
I hope I'm wrong, but I think it will play out not just in the ME, but Europe and US too. I fear now, but it's early days, that nukes, chemical, and biological may come into play. Granted, I've got a lot of stress, so I'm pretty pessimistic right now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top