How Not to React to Rioters Demand to Limit Free Speech

First off, let us realize that much of the recent disturbances and all of the American dead in Libya had absolutely nothing to do with any perceived insult by Muslims, these were actions set to commemorate the 9-11 attacks and as payback for the death of the al-Qaeda number two leader al-Libi who was from Libya. Just a few days before the raid on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Ayman al-Zawahiri called for the murder of any Americans in Libya as retribution for the killing of Abu Faraj al-Libi by a drone attack on a meeting he was attending in the tribal regions of Pakistan by the United States military. The riots in Egypt were also related to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as they were organized and led by his brother, Mohamed al-Zawahiri. There were also claims that the riots in Egypt were sparked by demands for the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the Blind Sheik. Whatever the motivating factor in Libya or Egypt, the alleged U-Tube video of a so-called anti-Muhammad film was not the real cause. But, despite the facts, that film has been used to explain other Muslim protests and riots and utilized by the Obama administration as the cause for all the recent violence and have led to some very dangerous that defames Islamic leaders and faith. Such calls are misguided and dangerous in many ways.

Despite the recent calls for limitations on the right to free speech and despite the guarantee of such in the Amendment I of the Bill of Rights, there should not be any considerations given pursuing such a policy. The reason behind ignoring a call for limiting free speech if it offends anybody has been a point which has been bandied about for a few decades. The idea that speech needs to be curtailed so as not to offend is plainly ridiculous. Let us first take the current case in point where the demand is for making any speech deemed blasphemous illegal and punishable under law. The first question would be who gets to decide the definition of blasphemous? The current examples have called for Muslims to decide what is blasphemous. So, would it solely be Muslims who get to make such determinations or does every religion have the right to define what is to be considered blasphemous. Will Muslims be held to the same restrictions of not blaspheming other faiths or is it to be only Islam which must be protected. The one instance I discussed this with a Muslim I was informed that it is only in Islam where negative references to Allah, Mohammed or Islam was a blasphemy and that there are no such items defined as blasphemous speech by other religions. I was informed since the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, did not define any speech as blasphemous it was impossible to blaspheme either Judaism or Christianity. I would assume there is a similar argument for most religions and their holy writings. But this would present an interesting argument for a court of law if we should bend to such pressures. If such laws or legal codes were adopted, would speaking in favor of same sex marriages now be instantly illegal as to even consider such is against Islam? This would present a dangerous road.

But there is worse and it comes from a Supreme Court Justice. Last year Supreme Court Justice Breyer of the United States Supreme Court seemed to indicate that the burning of a Koran might be equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a dangerous road to go down as soon you will be splitting hairs as to what is and is not allowed as part of free speech. Once it is decided that any speech or action protected under free speech becomes unprotected once it causes violent rioting or other dangerous reactions, then all speech can be immediately called into question providing a sufficiently large enough group takes to violent actions in response to any encroachment into areas they hold as sensitive. Imagine allowing all speech to be restricted simply because some other might react violently, much like currently seems to control speech limitations on all too many college campuses in the United States, Europe, Canada and the rest of the Western World. We would very rapidly find riots breaking out whenever anybody made even the least controversial viewpoint as there would still be enough people to make an appearance of sufficient violent response. Political speech would be silenced. Religious speech would be silenced. Very soon, all speech would be silenced. Debate and free discourse would become very very un-good. Candidates for office would no longer be allowed to disagree, actually would not even be allowed to agree as any stance could likely erupt into riots even of those who came to hear what they had to say. Imagine a debate between President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney where the moderator asked if they favored or opposed same sex unions. To claim one was against could easily cause riots in the streets in every city in the country. And as soon as the other one claimed to support them another segment of the population would riot. Once it became evident that all speech against any position could be silenced simply by rioting there would be people who would hire out to riot whenever anybody said virtually anything. All speech would be squelched, possibly even saying it was a nice sunny day if somebody simply hated sunshine. This would be one way to end every political discussion and make governance impossible as how can laws be enacted if simply by rioting people can prevent their discussion? This would not even produce a polite society; it would produce a silent society. Freedom from hearing or reading anything anyone considered to be offensive material, is that even possible?

Beyond the Cusp

Iranian Brash Talk Demands World Recognize Their Nuclear Expertise

The Iranian Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Chairman Alaeddin Boroujerdi demanded in a statement this weekend that the World and the Western nations in particular must respect Iranian mastery of nuclear capabilities or face serious consequences. This warning was pointedly aimed at Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany according to the exclusive interview given to the Islamic Republic News Agency. Chairman Alaeddin Boroujerdi was quoted boasting, “In recent months, the U.S. and its allies have witnessed the Iranian scientists who produced the required fuel for the country’s nuclear power plants and fuel Tehran’s research reactor with domestically built twenty percent enriched rods to yield radio medicines for treatment of 800,000 Iranian patients.”

 

In reference to the recently announced resumption of nuclear talks between the Security Council five permanent members plus one (Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany), Chairman Alaeddin Boroujerdi insisted that, “Lawmakers expect the Iranian nuclear negotiating team to bring about change to the present situation, to obtain the cancellation of (UN) resolutions on Iran, and that the Iranian nuclear issue is taken from the Security Council and put back before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors.” He concluded bluntly stating that Iran would not compromise over its nuclear energy program.

 

His statements and demands were in response to the increased level of sanctions, particularly the move by the Belgian Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) freezing the utilization of their services to Iranian based banks and financial institutions. This has the effect of paralyzing their ability to transfer funds making international trade near impossible for Iran. Responding to the SWIFT sanctions, the Islamic Republic warned on Sunday it may impose a blockade on oil exports that threaten the world’s economies. These warnings were also perceived to be a shot across the bow lowering any expectations of making a breakthrough in the upcoming talks. These comments were also a direct challenge which basically rejected the recent warnings that this was the Iranian leadership last chance to satisfy Western suspicions by ending uranium enrichment in order to relieve the belief that Iran is attempting to attain nuclear weapons breakout ability.

 

These comments appear to stand in stark contrast to a Friday statement by a senior Iranian official that Tehran is prepared to allow “permanent human monitoring” of its nuclear program in exchange for “Western cooperation.” Mohammad Javad Larijani, advisor to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the West should accept Iran’s “peaceful nuclear program,” and begin to sell Iran twenty percent enriched uranium providing the customary assistance nuclear nations provide to nations whose nuclear programs are in their initial stages and also enabling their use of nuclear energy. All these somewhat conflicting statements from the different Iranian sources are having their usual effect of muddying the water and lowering or even obliterating the solid goals set for the resumed negotiations.

 

Do these challenging and abrasive language and implied threats being released by the various spokespeople out of Iran have an unstated message we should take from them? My guess is that there is an implication behind the statements where some were made simply to lower expectations but the offer to allow “permanent human monitoring” of their nuclear program raises some discomforting suspicions here at BTC. Our suspicions fall into two basic suppositions. The first is the Iranians have successfully built a core number of auxiliary nuclear sites which could serve as the core for a nuclear weapons program completely independent from the known sites where monitoring would be permitted. The other possibility is even more frightening in that it assumes Iran has already enriched sufficient uranium and has manufactured the individual components of a half dozen nuclear weapons which they could assemble and deploy at their discretion. The worst result could be that both situations now exist which would allow further nuclear weapons development until the secret hidden sites become known.

 

The one advantage Iran possesses which makes a clandestine system of nuclear sites conceivable is the existence of raw uranium as a resource. If Iran built some of their nuclear sites within close proximity to these mines their nuclear signature would be more difficult to discern by satellite due to their proximity to raw uranium present in the surrounding soil. Such difficulty is compounded if those seeking to locate such sites were more set on ignoring as much evidence as can be excused by giving other reasons for potential discoveries. There is also the possibility that Iran has attained nuclear weapons capability and is going to allow full inspection in order to allow the IAEA to announce their accomplishment thus allowing for the world to be informed that Iran is now a nuclear armed nation without having to set off a test explosion to prove the fact. This would assume that those countries who have the technology would affirm that their nuclear weapon plans are a valid and workable configuration.

 

Anyway one looks at the situation, most possible ends are less than the most desirable and favorable of situations. Hopefully my fears are unfounded and Iran does not achieve nuclear weapons capabilities but I seriously doubt they can be prevented for much longer. This should have been resolved by President George W Bush and the vast amount of all blame sits with him for taking the easy road and simply kicked the can down the road thus avoiding taking responsibility for choosing to act. May the future prove that his was not a fatalistic error in judgment leading to miseries and distresses nearly beyond imagination. Maybe this is where we need to hope for that change we were promised.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Islamic Method; Good Muslim, Bad Muslim

Everyone is probably familiar with the age old police theme when questioning a suspect utilizing the good cop bad cop approach where one threatens while their partner attempts to befriend by feigning to protect the suspect from his overly vehement counterpart. The Islamic approach to conquest in the modern world has seemingly adopted a similar approach with the so-called totally separate groups, one the Muslim extremists which includes the terror groups and more militant components and the other the political Muslims who preach coexistence, cooperation and decry Islamophobia. Though having the appearance of operating completely independent from each other, the two arms manage to form a double sided attack which threatens on one side while attempting to excuse and sooth from the other. The Islamic extremists claim that they are on a Grand Jihad and will conquer the world by the sword or any other means that prove necessary. The political Islamics decry every attack by the terrorists assuring those who were the victims that the terrorists do not truly represent the entirety of Islam while also warning all not to overreact by striking back at innocent Muslims while decrying the massive increase in Islamophobia. One must note that the data on religiously motivated attacks does not support the claimed increase in acts against Muslims throughout the West but have shown massive increases in attacks against Jews and Christians in areas where Muslim neighborhoods have a large presence.

 

Another theme utilized by Islam is to absorb the histories and great people of other religions and claim them as actually having been Muslims. Nowhere is this more obvious than with Judaism and early Christianity. The Hagia Sophia, one of the grandest and greatest of cathedrals ever built was transformed by the conquering Muslims into a Mosque until recently when it has been made into a museum representative of both religions. The renaming of Constantinople to Istanbul or of Spain to Andalusia and the more recent one of renaming Kosovo to Kosova, not the most inspired of new names are examples of the Islamification of places and landmarks of great importance. The claims that Moses, Abraham, Noah and Jesus were all Muslim prophets that was twisted and misrepresented in the Old and New Testaments is an example of a stealthy way of abducting the history and great prophets from other religions rendering them Islamic and thus claiming that Islam is the true replacement or form of the object religion.

 

There have been Islamic claims that the United States was inspired and founded upon Muslim principles with the proof being the Jefferson owned Koran. The true reason and story behind Jefferson owning a Koran dates to during his time after the founding of the United States when while in Europe he had asked the Muslim representative for one of the Barbary States why they attacked American ships. Jefferson found his answer that it was a religious edict for them to do so to non-Muslims to be preposterous and impossible for him to believe. He procured a Koran and when it was later printed for study in the United States, the first edition included a warning to the reader in the preface. Jefferson’s Koran was not a likely source of inspiration but the confirmation of an inconceivable basis for the attacks by the Barbary Pirates on American shipping which spurred the first war declared by the United States.

 

These good and bad sides of Islam are simply a coordinated one-two punch utilized to deceive and confuse the issue of the threat from Islam. They use this to obscure the small fact that it is a tenet of their religion and that this tenet commands them to spread Islam to the whole of the world by any and all means necessitated including by the sword until every person on earth succumbs to Islam. Just like with the good cop bad cop where neither policeman is your friend and ally, they are just battering you and plying you in an attempt to break your will and gain the confessions they seek. The good Muslim bad Muslim are doing exactly the same thing in order to get you to confess to belief of Allah and Mohammed being his prophet; your actual acquiescence will be expected later. It does not matter if you actually believe, once they have forced all to state belief, they will educate your children or their children or take over somewhere down the road. It is all about submission.

 

Beyond the Cusp