I have quite a bit from this weekend on this rather curious phenomenon which has now killed at least five people, and probably many more directly and indirectly.
Story: Apparently a Pakistani man participating in the 10,000-person protest in Lahore, Pakistan on Sunday grew ill after breathing the smoke from an American flag and was taken to hospital where he died.
Nathan’s comments: Those DASTARDLY Americans: ANY way to kill brown people and they will do it! It is obvious that the American flag is toxic and must be banned worldwide, especially in classrooms and other confined spaces. What is more:
Story: Hafiz Saeed alleged that the film, Innocence of Muslims, had been produced with the backing of US establishment. He said the director, the producer and all those involved in the production and release of the movie must be hanged publicly. “The US must make a law against blasphemy – or we will not let the US consulates in Pakistan function,” he said.
He said a resolution condemning the movie in the parliament was not enough. Instead, President Asif Ali Zardari must announce jihad against countries like the US that supported attacks on Islam. The Organisation of Islamic Countries Conference should announce a boycott of US goods. Ijazul Haq, the PML-Z chief, said the people had shown their loyalty to Islam.
Nathan: Remember, this is in Pakistan, not exactly a bastion of free speech: this is a convenient way for the anti-West faction in the government to make their wishes known. Let us look briefly at their claims and demands:
(1) The US government (“establishment”) backed the production and distribution of this C-Movie. Right. More on that below.
(2) All involved in the production and release of the movie must be hanged publicly. That involves, at a minimum, several hundred Americans (or at least people with green-cards and maybe a few border jumpers) – do they realize the environmental impact of building all those gallows and growing all that hemp? Or maybe they figure we’d just use lamp posts and copper wire?
(3) The US must make a law against blasphemy. You’d think they were registered lobbyists – and I say, YES, make them register and pay fees for lobbying Congress, and see how they like the results. After what American politicians have been doing to the definition of marriage, I can scarcely guess what the definition of blasphemy might be. But it being an election year, I bet it has something to do with burning American flags…
(4) The Paki president must declare jihad against the US and other countries that support attacks on Islam. Ignoring the fact that the US has not attacked Islam (Stephen Lendman to the contrary) but instead has all but embraced Islam, what happened to this business about “jihad refers to an internal spiritual struggle in Muslims” bit that everyone keeps spouting? If the Paki president wants to declare war on the US, how is he expecting to collect all those tolls on NATO trucks going to and from Afghanistan, which seem to be a major foundation of the Pakistani economy these days? And you just KNOW that there are people slavering over the opportunity to use a few US nukes before they all reach their expiration date on an actual real live nuclear-armed target like Pakistan. And if a few Seals can get Osama’s dead body OUT of Pakistan you want to bet getting a few nukes INTO the country is that hard?
(5) The OIC must announce a boycott of US goods. (Notice, “announce” and not “enact.”) But assuming they really did boycott US goods, where oh where are they going to get all their porn and bourbon and corn and tobacco and cool weapons? Just how much are they going to be able to buy if they only get yuan or yen or rubles or Euros for their oil?
A comment from “Freedom Guy” on ZeroHedge.com about the spreading protests through the Ummah against the United States for that hokey anti-Mohammad movie caught me eye, like a diamond floating in a cesspool:
“I think it is interesting in that these protesters indirectly tell you a lot about themselves. If you saw an offensive (pick any offense) made in India, Europe or a free country would you immediately associate it with their government? We would not. I would not protest the Indian embassy if something offensive to Christianity was filmed in India. Maplethorpe did overtly purposely offensive Christian art and nothing got burnt down. Hell, we could not even stop his government funding.
“My point is these people think in terms of authoritarian government. They assume that everything in a country is controlled and approved by the government because that is the way they operate. I think it is inculcated deeply in their culture and it comes through their religion. They have a religion based on conquest and submission and merging of government and religion. The only type of government acceptable to them is a theocracy of some sort. It raises an interesting question of whether or not they can do some form of pluralistic government as we in the West understand it. I tend to think not. In a direct democracy how many think they would immediately vote to eliminate all the Jews, Christians and other minority religions in their countries? I think they would.
“I would guess it is nearly impossible to move forward on any kind of social or even technological progress. It raises real questions of whom we would support for government and even what trade relations we would want to have. I personally have recently changed my mind on what I think of dictators in the Middle East. I viscerally hate dictators everywhere. H***, I hate bureaucrats who rule all western nations. However, only dictators seem to keep any form of peace in these countries.”
Nathan: This is a very valid point. It is also an answer to those who want to know why countries like Mexico or Brazil who also “have freedom” are not hated by the Islamic World (the Ummah). (Though I do not agree that either Mexico or Brazil have the kind of liberty that Americans enjoyed for several centuries, and still do to a large degree.) It is because neither Brazil nor Mexico, or even countries like El Salvador or Costa Rica or Switzerland or Norway, have the enormous global presence, economic power, or military power that the United States have “enjoyed” for the past seventy years. It is also because (a) American philosophy and the basis of American society (not government) is so fundamentally opposed to the basis of Islamic society (a fact recognized since about 1803) and (b) most of the rest of the nations and societies which were based on something similar to that of America are no longer a serious threat: not the Brits, not the Canadians, not the Australians. They have all in essence surrendered their future to an accommodation with the Ummah, in large part because their secularization is so complete: they have no faith left with which to counter the fanaticism of Islam. As the next story on this same topic relates:
(CNSNews.com) A global ban? Those don’t seem to work out too good, do they? Supposedly we have global bans on nuclear proliferation, but more and more people are getting them. We have a global ban on land mines, yet everyone seems to be making them and using them. Funny, isn’t it? No other religion is harmed by being insulted, and I’ve never heard of any serious effort to make it illegal to “insult” or even viciously attack any type of Judaism or Christianity (at least not since the Reformation). I guess that when you have a really flimsy excuse for a religion, made up in an unsuccessful attempt to get your people (the Arabs) to stop fighting and stealing from and killing each other (by doing those things to everyone else) and a rather more successful attempt to justify your own perversions and lust for power, you have to keep people from attacking it lest it crumble like the pack of cards it is.