Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Don't mess with Allah. That's the new, unwritten code in Hollywood following the one-two punch of Islamic extremists' threats against the creators of "South Park" and the failed bombing attempt outside the cartoon’s parent company, Viacom, in New York's Times Square.

In the current, supercharged climate, it just isn’t worth endangering the safety of an entire production staff or network by pursuing a storyline that Muslim extremists might find offensive, media executives and writers tell Fox411.com.

Aasif Mandvi, a self-described “liberal Muslim” and the “senior Islamic correspondent” for Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, said on air after the “South Park” threats that it would upset him to see the Prophet Muhammad depicted in a cartoon. But, he added: “Here’s what’s more upsetting. Someone, in the name of a faith that I believe in, threatening another person for doing it.”

But after the failed Times Square terror attack, "The Daily Show" asked Mandvi not to comment further on the matter, according to his spokesman. In fact, reps for the networks and television shows reached for comment on this article, including Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, FOX, NBC, and CBS, either failed to respond or asked to speak on background for fear of retribution.

And it isn’t just comedians on fake newscasts who are being muzzled. One writer for a scripted drama fold Fox411.com that in one of his show's final episodes, there had been a minor plot point involving a Muslim extremist. Last week it was removed and the script was rewritten, he said.

Full Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/05/07/islam-taboo-topic-tv-wake-south-park-threats-times-square-bomb-scare/)

I thought I'd add some context to the South Park controversy as a long time fan of the show. About 10 years ago (before 9-11) South Park ran an episode called "Super Best Friends" which depicted religious profits from each major religion working together as cartoon superheros to fight evil. This including Jesus, Moses, Buddha, and Muhammad (with the power of fire). When they first aired the episode there was no public outrage.
A couple weeks ago, the writers decided to revisit the idea. However, because of the current political climate they censored the cartoon depiction of Muhammad by putting him in a mascot suit. After receiving death threats for putting Muhammad in a bear suit (actually they didn't it was Santa the whole time), they further censored the cartoon picture of Muhammad by blacking out his image entirely and the word Muhammad was bleeped out. Comedy Central decided to take this a step further and encored out a full minute of the episode. The writers issued the following statement on their website:

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

Additionally the "Super Best Friends" episode has been pulled from their website and is unavailable for viewing.
South Park Episode Player - South Park: Super Best Friends (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103940/)

The censored episode is also unavailable:
South Park Episode Player - South Park: 201 (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267116/)

I wouldn't call it "spineless", I think "prudent" might be a better description.

No, spineless fits. When we give in to threats and fear, those trying to cause it win more than just that battle. Maybe, MAYBE, editing out the full image out of respect is ok. That's one thing. Bleeping the word mohammad, putting a large black box with the word CENSOR on it when someone SOPPOSED to be mohammad is in a suit covering him from head to toe (and he's not even really in the suit), and censoring a monologue about fear and hate that doesn't even mention mohammad, is not "prudent".

Due to the fact that a very small minority of fundamentalist Muslims will think it quite okay to kill anyone who seems to them to transgress their particularly weird view of their religion it's best to be prudent. The majority of Muslims would be rolling their eyes and probably embarrassed to read this sort of stuff. But best not to create victims to fundamentalism.

http://www.seattlepi.com/fun/comic.asp?feature_id=Mallard_Fillmore
Sorry that IMG is off on this section.

This is Mallard Fillmore saying, "In other news, two weeks after Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad admitted trying to set off the Times Square car bomb, the main stream media is beginning to lose hope that the real bomber will turn out to be a white Southern Baptist from Kentucky".

That is so true.

Due to the fact that a very small minority of fundamentalist Muslims will think it quite okay to kill anyone who seems to them to transgress their particularly weird view of their religion it's best to be prudent. The majority of Muslims would be rolling their eyes and probably embarrassed to read this sort of stuff. But best not to create victims to fundamentalism.

I see a few problems with any artist, cartoonist, film director, author, or whoever else publishes their works for the public eye pandering to the demands of extremists, but the most prominent issue to me would be that by nature fundamentalist Islam will not be satiated until the West (and ultimately all the countries of the world) submits entirely to its beliefs. Keeping quiet isn't going to solve anything; if anything, Muslim extremists will start pushing with greater intensity. They believe quite frankly that the West is the epitome of evil--even coining the term "The Great Satan" as a title for the United States. The ideological conflict between fundamental Islam and the alternative beliefs of the world will never be eradicated unless all these other religious/ideological options are abolished. But that's just my two cents.

Agreed, the enemy is indeed fundamentalist Islam. Islam isn't a problem.

But while the fundamentalists are small in number their fanaticism makes them dangerous and it makes sense to be prudent or risk people's lives. No doubt there are plenty of cities in the world where one has to be prudent in how one behaves (eg not walking around after dark in some neighbourhoods - or during the day for that matter!) lest one becomes yet another victim of crime. That's what I mean by prudence.

There are ways of dealing with fundamentalist Islam and some of those ways involve understanding and supporting the mainstream in Islam, which, it goes without saying, is the overwhelming majority of Muslims all over the world. It is truly something which requires an inter-disciplinary approach.

Extremist in any religion are dangerous. Islamic ones are more numerous and have more money though.

There are ways of dealing with fundamentalist Islam and some of those ways involve understanding and supporting the mainstream in Islam, which, it goes without saying, is the overwhelming majority of Muslims all over the world.

I don't think it necessarily "goes without saying", or that the majority is "overwhelming". In fact, I think the numbers who support or are moving to fundamentalism is growing to where there is a danger of them becoming the majority.

I base this on the extreme minority of members who are willing to openly disavow or condemn tactics used by extremist groups.

I'm sorry, but if you don't condemn terrorism and murder, you condone it.

Agreed, the enemy is indeed fundamentalist Islam. Islam isn't a problem.

But while the fundamentalists are small in number their fanaticism makes them dangerous and it makes sense to be prudent or risk people's lives. No doubt there are plenty of cities in the world where one has to be prudent in how one behaves (eg not walking around after dark in some neighbourhoods - or during the day for that matter!) lest one becomes yet another victim of crime. That's what I mean by prudence.

There are ways of dealing with fundamentalist Islam and some of those ways involve understanding and supporting the mainstream in Islam, which, it goes without saying, is the overwhelming majority of Muslims all over the world. It is truly something which requires an inter-disciplinary approach.

But where would it end? Right now it's not mentioning/showing Mohommad. Once they start winning more and more small battles, they'll figure out that they can scare us into bigger and bigger things. Where do we draw the line in the sand? What are we willing to concede to their threats and intimidation? If they're willing to kill over a cartoon (which we give in to), they're going to be willing to kill when they demand something more serious from us. I say stand up to them now, and don't give in to their terrorism.

But where would it end? Right now it's not mentioning/showing Mohommad. Once they start winning more and more small battles, they'll figure out that they can scare us into bigger and bigger things. Where do we draw the line in the sand? What are we willing to concede to their threats and intimidation? If they're willing to kill over a cartoon (which we give in to), they're going to be willing to kill when they demand something more serious from us. I say stand up to them now, and don't give in to their terrorism.

I absolutely agree. That was in fact my whole point. Once we begin to relent, the movement will grow and the demands and threats will become more menacing. The fundamentalist Islamic threat will not disappear overnight, and especially not so if the West keeps submitting to its demands. It's a slippery slope.

I don't think it necessarily "goes without saying", or that the majority is "overwhelming". In fact, I think the numbers who support or are moving to fundamentalism is growing to where there is a danger of them becoming the majority.

I base this on the extreme minority of members who are willing to openly disavow or condemn tactics used by extremist groups.

I'm sorry, but if you don't condemn terrorism and murder, you condone it.

We have to start with the acknowledgement that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate, peaceful people who have no desire to see fundamentalists taking over their religion. If we don't accept that then we may as well start rounding up every Muslim we see and put them in concentration camps to ensure we're all safe.

The voices of ordinary Musllims against fundamentalism and terrorism are there alright, but unless it's a member of a legislature getting up in the chamber and making a formal speech the individual comments against outrages are generally lost in the background. We know know how people, especially young males, are radicalised. We know that they are in the minority still and we have to support the moderates in helping to turn pre-radicalised young men away from those who teach a perverted view of Islam. Without that sort of partnership then the fundamentalists will continue to grow in numbers and influence.

But where would it end? Right now it's not mentioning/showing Mohommad. Once they start winning more and more small battles, they'll figure out that they can scare us into bigger and bigger things. Where do we draw the line in the sand? What are we willing to concede to their threats and intimidation? If they're willing to kill over a cartoon (which we give in to), they're going to be willing to kill when they demand something more serious from us. I say stand up to them now, and don't give in to their terrorism.

Hardline fundamentalists don't need a cartoon to get outraged, they're outraged all the time, usually by the teachings of a charismatic figure. Investigations continue all the time into Muslim fundamentalists in the west, that's hardly giving in or conceding.

I can only generalise now and I don't have any particular expertise in Islam beyond some background reading but it we have to tone things down a bit to avoid inflaming even more the fundamentalists and to avoid causing offence to moderate Muslilms and thereby perhaps giving some ammo to those in a pre-radicalised stage, then so be it. Because Christianity and western society are intertwined and because of the Enlightenment's ability to break the previous stranglehold that Christianity had on European society, thus freeing our cultural ancestors from the grip of religion, we are used to the ideas of freedom of expression even relating to religious issues. Hence the exhibition "Piss Christ" although offensive to many Christians didn't see galleries or artists threatened by militant Christians. Islam - again generally speaking - is, to the best of my knowledge which isn't great as i said, at the moment is still fairly conservative and I think we need to acknowledge that and respond accordingly.

Meanwhile we investigate and charge and imprison the radicals.

I absolutely agree. That was in fact my whole point. Once we begin to relent, the movement will grow and the demands and threats will become more menacing. The fundamentalist Islamic threat will not disappear overnight, and especially not so if the West keeps submitting to its demands. It's a slippery slope.

Who's relenting? And where is the West submitting to the demands of fundamentalist Islam? Aren't your authorities locking them up when radical Islamists are found conspiring?

Who's relenting? And where is the West submitting to the demands of fundamentalist Islam? Aren't your authorities locking them up when radical Islamists are found conspiring?

I was referring to the original context of the thread. By giving into extremist threats, fundamentalists will view that as a sign of weakness and continue to push harder. At the same time, refusing to relent (e.g., continuing to invoke Mohammad's name in a less than positive light) will incite violence as well. You're basically damned either way you look at it. But sitting by and doing nothing will only give them more confidence and perhaps even increase the numbers of those who join the movement.

I will also note that I never said we have begun to relent or submit to Islamist demands. There are instances--such as President Obama's Cairo speech, the South Park incident, etc.--where the West (or those representing or abiding in the West) took on a defeatist tone which radical Islam interpreted to be defeatist. But did that satisfy them? Of course not. And taking a look at the Islamist ideology, it's easy to see why. (But I won't get into radical Islamic ideologies unless you so request.)

On a lighter note this "Muslima.com" advertisement I am looking at stating that you can browse photos for free (I'm assuming of Islamic women based on the pic) is just plain hilarious.

Who's relenting? And where is the West submitting to the demands of fundamentalist Islam? Aren't your authorities locking them up when radical Islamists are found conspiring?


I can only generalise now and I don't have any particular expertise in Islam beyond some background reading but it we have to tone things down a bit to avoid inflaming even more the fundamentalists and to avoid causing offence to moderate Muslilms and thereby perhaps giving some ammo to those in a pre-radicalised stage, then so be it.

You just contradicted yourself. Anything we "tone down" in reply to outcries by extremest muslims is relenting to their threats.

I was referring to the original context of the thread. By giving into extremist threats, fundamentalists will view that as a sign of weakness and continue to push harder. At the same time, refusing to relent (e.g., continuing to invoke Mohammad's name in a less than positive light) will incite violence as well. You're basically damned either way you look at it. But sitting by and doing nothing will only give them more confidence and perhaps even increase the numbers of those who join the movement.

I will also note that I never said we have begun to relent or submit to Islamist demands. There are instances--such as President Obama's Cairo speech, the South Park incident, etc.--where the West (or those representing or abiding in the West) took on a defeatist tone which radical Islam interpreted to be defeatist. But did that satisfy them? Of course not. And taking a look at the Islamist ideology, it's easy to see why. (But I won't get into radical Islamic ideologies unless you so request.)\

Realistically it would be a reckless public official who decided to tough it out and then watched the evening news to see the damage. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, fundamentalists are being pinched.

Radical Islamic ideologies? Go ahead, since I know next to nothing about them it would be good to be educated about them.

You just contradicted yourself. Anything we "tone down" in reply to outcries by extremest muslims is relenting to their threats.

I don't know if I did contradict myself but never mind. What I am arguing is that public policy demands a prudent - not spineless - response to these threats. And that may well be deciding that it's not a good idea to publish cartoons which whip up Islamic fundamentalists. Not that I'm arguing for censorship, just sayin' that a bit of common sense might be needed. And again, the conspirators can be locked up. It's about what's important and what's not so important.

People aren't going to be locked up for saying things like, "remember what happened to that Dutch (or wherever he was from) cartoonist who showed Mohommad in a cartoon? Think about that when you make your decision whether or not to show him in yours"

You're absolutely right that we need to lock up those actively planning acts of terrorism. No argument there. But how do you deal with something like the above? That's the point of this thread. They're using thinly veiled threats to intimidate people into bending to their will. That's not something we can lock them up for. That's when we have to stick up for what is right and not be bullied.

That's when we have to stick up for what is right and not be bullied.

Appeasement is viewed as weakness and compounds the problems.

We have to start with the acknowledgement that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate, peaceful people who have no desire to see fundamentalists taking over their religion. If we don't accept that then we may as well start rounding up every Muslim we see and put them in concentration camps to ensure we're all safe.


I don't think most people are condemning them as a religion. I don't see nor hear that at all in this country except by a few Christian nutcases who, like the Muslim extremists condemn any and everybody that doesn't follow their line of thinking. The difference is, it's a smaller group of Christians and very few of them go around killing people (particularly innocent ones). The Muslim people around here are assimilated into the community quite well.

Screw appeasement, it only makes them more powerful and will cause them to attract more followers. Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler and those acts of acceptance made Hitler even more bold. Which is why he was shocked when England and France declared war on him after invading Poland. He'd already taken territory from France and Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain had done nothing. We embold any enemy by showing they can intimidate us and things will only get worse. There are a lot of people on their fringe that will join them if they see them as more omnipotent.

People aren't going to be locked up for saying things like, "remember what happened to that Dutch (or wherever he was from) cartoonist who showed Mohommad in a cartoon? Think about that when you make your decision whether or not to show him in yours"

You're absolutely right that we need to lock up those actively planning acts of terrorism. No argument there. But how do you deal with something like the above? That's the point of this thread. They're using thinly veiled threats to intimidate people into bending to their will. That's not something we can lock them up for. That's when we have to stick up for what is right and not be bullied.

And this is where the particulars are important. The people who make the decision to self-censor are not being told by government what to do, they're responding to threats of harm. They're free to ignore those threats or they're free to take them seriously and act accordingly, in a prudent manner. Are you suggesting that their rights to act to protect their own interests should be restricted? Should they be forced to be not "bullied"?

I don't think most people are condemning them as a religion. I don't see nor hear that at all in this country except by a few Christian nutcases who, like the Muslim extremists condemn any and everybody that doesn't follow their line of thinking. The difference is, it's a smaller group of Christians and very few of them go around killing people (particularly innocent ones). The Muslim people around here are assimilated into the community quite well.

Screw appeasement, it only makes them more powerful and will cause them to attract more followers. Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler and those acts of acceptance made Hitler even more bold. Which is why he was shocked when England and France declared war on him after invading Poland. He'd already taken territory from France and Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain had done nothing. We embold any enemy by showing they can intimidate us and things will only get worse. There are a lot of people on their fringe that will join them if they see them as more omnipotent.

First point, not condemning the religion is important if we want to be able to operate effectively against the nutters, so point taken.

Appeasement. Yes Chamberlain was an appeaser, the reasons are probably complex but no doubt about it when he came back from Munich waving that piece of paper he had indulged in appeasement. But I’m not arguing that point. I’m simply stating that being prudent in response to serious threats isn’t “spineless”.

\

Realistically it would be a reckless public official who decided to tough it out and then watched the evening news to see the damage. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, fundamentalists are being pinched.

Radical Islamic ideologies? Go ahead, since I know next to nothing about them it would be good to be educated about them.

There's a whole lot to cover on that subject, and most of the information is available at hand (via the Web, books, etc.)...so I'll just cover one basic topic: jihad. Radical Islam draws pretty much its support from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and ahadith (the most common/widely accepted ahadith which I'm familiar with are the Hadith of Muslim and Hadith of Bukhari) just as "moderate" Islam does. However radical Islam--often recognized as "Islamism," "militant Islam," etc.--tends to focus on the political aspects that will lead to the Islamization of the world. One of the methods by which fundamentalists push their goal is through corporate jihad: holy warfare guided by Islamic law.

Jihad is twofold in that it involves the internal struggle with self as well as the often militant efforts to convert nonbelievers to Islam in order to benefit their community (ummah). The physical efforts of jihad of the sword is invoked more frequently by Islamists. Support as well as instructions for jihad is drawn from the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, in multiple passages: Surah 22:40; 3:157-8, 169-72; 9:81-2; etc. (You can look these up for yourself if you so wish.) Jihad is centric to the Islamist agenda; they view jihad as their primary religious duty mandated by "Allah" in the Qur'an. In fact, martyrdom is the only method by which the individual has absolute assurance of salvation in Islam. Through their authoritative texts, fundamentalist Islamists interpret this to be through militant jihad.

There is a term passed around associated with Islamism to describe those countries or officials who submit to even the smaller demands of the movement: Dhimmi. Literally, in accordance with Islamic law, dhimmis are individuals under jurisdiction of an Islamic government who are granted a separate status from those abiding by Islamic law. However, in order to retain the rights of the average Muslim citizen, dhimmis are required to pay a tax (jizyah). The dhimmi status is rarely evoked in contemporary societies, but the term has often been coined (perhaps in a mainstream sense) to describe those who submit to Islamic rule/demands.

America, frankly, cannot play the dhimmi in the midst of a war on terrorism--or I suppose now it's an overseas contingency operation? By remaining inactive or withdrawing in any area--even being prudent as you call it--militant Islamists will simply attack stronger and harder. Even if the West is taking action in other areas, Islamists will exploit any inactive or "weak" areas they can find. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

Appeasement. Yes Chamberlain was an appeaser, the reasons are probably complex but no doubt about it when he came back from Munich waving that piece of paper he had indulged in appeasement. But I’m not arguing that point. I’m simply stating that being prudent in response to serious threats isn’t “spineless”.

The results would be the same. Appeasing or kowtowing to their demands does nothing more than empower them. How far are you willing to go to keep them from making "serious threats"? We fold on the freedom of speech or the press? I personally think not.

They're nuts. No matter what we do, they will never stop making "serious threats". It's like an abused spouse constantly trying to adjust behavior so they don't get hit again.

The results would be the same. Appeasing or kowtowing to their demands does nothing more than empower them. How far are you willing to go to keep them from making "serious threats"? We fold on the freedom of speech or the press? I personally think not.

They're nuts. No matter what we do, they will never stop making "serious threats". It's like an abused spouse constantly trying to adjust behavior so they don't get hit again.

I agree 100%. If the extremist mentality is to convert all the infidel (and if that doesn't work then kill them), there will be no leeway, no middle ground...hence the term extremist.

People have to remember that these guys are crazy. How can you appease anyone who flies a bunch of innocent people into a building containing thousands of other innocent people? The very fact we are breathing annoys them. Even thinking, "If we don't do this or that, maybe they'll leave us alone" is not rational when you think of the mentality of these people. They don't think like rational human beings.

I don't like South Park. I don't think it's all that funny and in reality, I'm offended by the way they portray Jesus and Christianity. Therefore I don't watch it, but killing people is hardly a remedy for my attitude towards the show.

I hated hearing the South Park crap too. I was really surprised that after all of the controversy and complaints on that show from Christian groups, that they bowed that easily to another religion. But it's happening everywhere.

The saying about "give them an inch and they'll want a mile" keeps coming to mind...

There's a whole lot to cover on that subject, and most of the information is available at hand (via the Web, books, etc.)...so I'll just cover one basic topic: jihad. Radical Islam draws pretty much its support from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and ahadith (the most common/widely accepted ahadith which I'm familiar with are the Hadith of Muslim and Hadith of Bukhari) just as "moderate" Islam does. However radical Islam--often recognized as "Islamism," "militant Islam," etc.--tends to focus on the political aspects that will lead to the Islamization of the world. One of the methods by which fundamentalists push their goal is through corporate jihad: holy warfare guided by Islamic law.

Jihad is twofold in that it involves the internal struggle with self as well as the often militant efforts to convert nonbelievers to Islam in order to benefit their community (ummah). The physical efforts of jihad of the sword is invoked more frequently by Islamists. Support as well as instructions for jihad is drawn from the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, in multiple passages: Surah 22:40; 3:157-8, 169-72; 9:81-2; etc. (You can look these up for yourself if you so wish.) Jihad is centric to the Islamist agenda; they view jihad as their primary religious duty mandated by "Allah" in the Qur'an. In fact, martyrdom is the only method by which the individual has absolute assurance of salvation in Islam. Through their authoritative texts, fundamentalist Islamists interpret this to be through militant jihad.

There is a term passed around associated with Islamism to describe those countries or officials who submit to even the smaller demands of the movement: Dhimmi. Literally, in accordance with Islamic law, dhimmis are individuals under jurisdiction of an Islamic government who are granted a separate status from those abiding by Islamic law. However, in order to retain the rights of the average Muslim citizen, dhimmis are required to pay a tax (jizyah). The dhimmi status is rarely evoked in contemporary societies, but the term has often been coined (perhaps in a mainstream sense) to describe those who submit to Islamic rule/demands.

America, frankly, cannot play the dhimmi in the midst of a war on terrorism--or I suppose now it's an overseas contingency operation? By remaining inactive or withdrawing in any area--even being prudent as you call it--militant Islamists will simply attack stronger and harder. Even if the West is taking action in other areas, Islamists will exploit any inactive or "weak" areas they can find. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

It’s useful that you made a distinction between political Islam and Islam as a religion and a way of life for its adherents. Political Islam and especially its fundamentalist interpreters are rightly the focus of the secular state. No religion should be allowed to be imposed on the people, the right to live free from religion is surely a basic civil liberty and I mean free from the secondary effects as well as the primary effects.

I don’t have a problem with Islam, just as I don’t have a problem with any religion that manages to keep its practices within the secular laws of the state. I do have a problem with forced conversions, with religious imperialism

I’m not well versed in Islam but I know enough about it to say that of itself it isn’t a threat to the western way of life. Yes, in its radical, fundamentalist forms it is and it’s those forms to which I object. And to properly deal with that aspect of Islam will mean the state has to accept that Islam is not, of itself, a problem, nor are its believers.

As for using sacred texts to justify certain actions, today’s Islamists – as despicable as they are – are just one group in a long line in human history that have invoked God’s words for their own purposes.

The results would be the same. Appeasing or kowtowing to their demands does nothing more than empower them. How far are you willing to go to keep them from making "serious threats"? We fold on the freedom of speech or the press? I personally think not.

They're nuts. No matter what we do, they will never stop making "serious threats". It's like an abused spouse constantly trying to adjust behavior so they don't get hit again.

Of course they’re nuts and we deal with nuts all the time. And we have to get used to them being nuts and making “serious threats” all the while looking to lock them up. I’m not advocating sitting around and doing nothing.

The freedom of the press - doesn’t that mean letting the press make up their own mind about what they publish? So if they decided not to publish - a prudent course of action perhaps - isn’t that them expressing their freedom?

I agree 100%. If the extremist mentality is to convert all the infidel (and if that doesn't work then kill them), there will be no leeway, no middle ground...hence the term extremist.

Then "good luck with that" I'd say to them. Not going to happen is it?

People have to remember that these guys are crazy. How can you appease anyone who flies a bunch of innocent people into a building containing thousands of other innocent people? The very fact we are breathing annoys them. Even thinking, "If we don't do this or that, maybe they'll leave us alone" is not rational when you think of the mentality of these people. They don't think like rational human beings.

I don't like South Park. I don't think it's all that funny and in reality, I'm offended by the way they portray Jesus and Christianity. Therefore I don't watch it, but killing people is hardly a remedy for my attitude towards the show.

Appeasement, as I’ve said, isn’t a useful way of dealing with the threat.

I need sub-titles to watch South Park, I haven’t got a clue what they’re saying. But if they decide not to run an episode or to self-censor then that’s their business.

I hated hearing the South Park crap too. I was really surprised that after all of the controversy and complaints on that show from Christian groups, that they bowed that easily to another religion. But it's happening everywhere.

The saying about "give them an inch and they'll want a mile" keeps coming to mind...

Generally speaking I think most Christian groups won't threaten to kill the producers or bomb the studio. Even at the height of the debate over "Piss Christ" I don't recall - apart from the odd nutter I suppose - galleries being threatened by Christian groups. Christianity has had its murderous aspect. but that's in the past, it has developed as a religion although it still has fundamentalist adherents, and it has been part of the modernisation of the western world. That's where I think it differs from Islam right now.

Couldn't agree with you more, Pathos. I was getting ready to type the same response to our friend across the pond, but then I saw you had already written it, lol. There is no peaceful coexistence in their minds.

A couple general responses to all the comments made on this thread. The only thing Muslim extremists respond to is strenth. The only answer is to help them enjoy their 42 virgins in heaven. I've lived or worked in six Middle East countries in the past five years and I learned some other truths. One is that among my many, many moderate Muslim friends, whom I assumed were as tolerant of other religions as we are of theirs, it became apparent that many of them didn't really believe in coexistence either. Not deep down. Many believe they will ultimately convince the whole world to become Muslims, just that these folks thought this evolution would take place through persuasion and not through violence. While this also occurs in other religions, other religions seem to show an understanding that the world will have multiple religions. I'm referring to a difference in outlook that was subtle but would give you this sensation in the back of your neck.

A couple general responses to all the comments made on this thread. The only thing Muslim extremists respond to is strenth. The only answer is to help them enjoy their 42 virgins in heaven. I've lived or worked in six Middle East countries in the past five years and I learned some other truths. One is that among my many, many moderate Muslim friends, whom I assumed were as tolerant of other religions as we are of theirs, it became apparent that many of them didn't really believe in coexistence either. Not deep down. Many believe they will ultimately convince the whole world to become Muslims, just that these folks thought this evolution would take place through persuasion and not through violence. While this also occurs in other religions, other religions seem to show an understanding that the world will have multiple religions. I'm referring to a difference in outlook that was subtle but would give you this sensation in the back of your neck.

Yep the Taliban - who are Muslim extremists - are certainly responding to strength, but their response is to go harder and harder.

As for Muslims in general, of course they're convinced their religion will eventually prevail, religious people are like that. People don't believe in a religion because they think it's going to wither away and die one day. It's a state of mind shared by many other religions, hence the evangelical and missionary nature of many other religions, people who are convinced that their religion is right and that non-believers should be persuaded to adopt it. This is something deeply embedded in the human psyche when it comes to those who strongly believe in religion. In England up until the Enlightenment you could be executed for being a Catholic or a Protestant (depending on who was running the show at the time). Jews have been subjected historically to pogroms and enforced conversion (death or conversion) by Christians. All these things too place in cultural contexts. The West, the Christian West, has advanced beyond its previous barbarous ways, some Muslim-dominated nations are still way back there despite the appearance of modernity, the culture is still mediaeval and barbaric - Saudi Arabia being the classic example.

For me religion is just another superstition that will eventually be driven out of the human psyche, the irony is that while I may decry the mindless prejudice against Islam I'd be one of the first with his head on the block if the more reactionary Islamists had their way.