War ... and Mel Gibson

In my last blog I wrote something like "war is not wrong." I have already had a little buzz in my ear. Look, it should be avoided at all costs and no sane person wants it ... but sometimes there is no other way. Remember that from Muslim eyes, there might be no other way. If you take the premise that Western ways and culture is irreparably damaging their traditions, their way of life, their culture ... their fundamental beliefs, then you just might come to the conclusion that in their eyes they must attack and stamp out Israel, the West and all infidels.

Of course, that has been the case since the Bedouin tribes with the fervour of Allah in their veins came storming out of the desert in the great conquest of Islam: to Poitiers, to Vienna. They were really good at it. And were the repositories of culture and science (particularly medicine at the time in which our ancestors were taking two baths per lifetime). Somehow, they lost track. Got overextended ... and somehow lost to the infidels.

I was in Cordoba this Spring and went to visit the Grand Mosque of the Mesquita built in next to no time (of course by slave labor) at a time when we Westerners were barely able to start our cathedrals, many of which simply fell into themselves before we got it right. This place is huge -- awesome. So incredible that a Spanish king built a cathedral right in the middle of it and ... it is more than faintly ridiculous, the cathedral, that is. The mosque is simply incredible, beautiful and impressive. The place has more than 5 football fields under a single roof. The mosaics are stunning, the best of the Golden Age of Islam.

So notwithstanding Islam's former glory which has never quite been recaptured, the culture is rich and old ... and under threat from McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts, California Pizza Kitchen (all of which do crazy money in the Gulf), etc. And mall culture thrives, to the detriment of Islam. So the theologians are angry -- furious in fact and want Jihad to bring back the old days. But the Genie (djin) cannot be put back in the bottle -- and that is what Islam fails to perceive. Islam must adapt, as Christianity has, as Judaism has. For example, women should have rights (it was the Ottoman Turks who really did away with those, FAR after the Prophet). But ignorance and the desire to maintain real power -- over men's souls -- will create the life or death struggle which will fuel the Fourth World War. I'll bet there are plenty of guys in the Vatican who wish they could revert to the time when they held sway over all Europe through the threat of excommunication. But with Christianity, a few things got in the way: Martin Luther and, just maybe, Henry VIII, geographic realities such as the (re)discovery of the New World (in which Islam did not participate) all worked to break down the strangle hold of unthinking belief. But let's not just point at Islam as a bunch of unthinking savages: until the Christian breakdown, we Westerners pretty much took the prize of unthinking savages who may have made the Mullahs and Ayatollahs look like paragons of mercy and reason. Think, for example, "Inquisition," or "Spanish Conquest," or "80 years war," or "Indian Wars," or "Crusades,"... the list is truly endless, stretching from the dark ages pretty much up to the last few years, the dawn of the information age.

So here we find ourselves incredulous that Islam might feel that it wants to protect itself. However it is quite reasonble, really. But, sorry Charlie, that boat has already sailed: we are in the 21st Century. Information cannot be supressed anymore. Belief is fine -- if you practise it at home.

Then:-

Jordan's King Abdullah just came out and proclaimed support for the Hezbies:"The Arab people see Hezbollah as a hero because it's fighting Israel's aggression," he said. "This is a fact that the U.S. and Israel must realize: As long as there is aggression, there's resistance and there's popular support for this resistance."

As far as they are concerned Israel's failure to hand back all lands to the Palestinians is an aggression. And in Iran's view, all of Israel. And for that matter the very lives of the Jews. Sort of aggression by merely being.

All of which places Israel in the position of "no other way."

Now to Mel:-

If he was not a "star" and an anti-semite, would things have been handled differently? Uh ... what I mean is ... uh, (how to put this?), IT TOOK THEM A FRIKKIN WEEK TO CHARGE HIM WITH DRUNK DRIVING? He is a CRIMINAL. Not because he chose to (or tried to) exercise his Frist Amendment rights to hate Jews, but because he was charging around town drunk off of his ass with an open bottle of tequila in his car at speed WAY above the limit.

Look, we have totally lost sight of the ball in this country: you should be able to hate who you want and tell everyone that you hate them. THAT is freedom. And the hated should in turn be free not to buy things from you, not attend your movies, say hateful things about you in return - whatever. So long as you do not use your hatred for inciting violence or inciting treason. I think the whole notion of hate speech is bullshit. I hate those who hate hate speech. You see, I actually believe in freedom of speech as the framers (and the Bill of Rights) thought of it. You always have slander and libel to consider when telling everyone who you hate. You can't legislate who to like and who to hate (it is OK to hate people who hate ... at least in the PC world, but doesn't that make you a person who hates, ab initio?).

Net of this is that any thinking person, any person who is unbiased, not a bigot and civilized will henceforth do everything they can to avoid enriching Mel Gibson in any way, all because he is an anti-semitic prick (by the way I don't hate him, but kiss off my Lethal Weapon movies). Burn his DVDs and VHS tapes. Boycott anything he stands for. But do not charge him with hate crimes. He is ignorant and asinine in that regard and to be pitied, but he is not a criminal ... at least for that. BUT HE IS A CRIMINAL DRUNK DRIVER and he should have been charged that night, spent the night in the tanks with the other criminals and have be arraigned the following morning.

But it begs the question (ooooh, here it comes): would he have been thusly protected or subject to public pillory if he had instead insulted Blacks, Irish, Frenchies (may they all choke on their escargots while flying Airbus products), Muslims (now that is an interesting one ... would the press have infarcted about a tirade against Hezbollah?) ... you get my point. Or is because to insult Jews in any way is to tred on truly taboo and forbidden ground - at least in this country? In France, nobody would have cared too much, and regretably maybe many would have even agreed with him (wasn't it Mme Chirac who voiced the EXACT same opinions?). The dude has long been suspected of being a rabid anti-semitic (remember the Christ movie?) loonie and we are shocked when in a drunken rage he proves it?

But the principle is there and if faced with a drunked Mel Gibson, hopefully, my Jewish friends and I would shake our heads sadly at the uncouth ignorance. But touch my Jewish friends or me, Mel, and I reserve the right to break your anti-semitic face. Similarly, the Arab nations and Iran can say what they like towards Israel. Fine. But if you launch missiles at them, you must expect the right hook and they have EVERY right to throw it.

Hmmm ... tied up the Hebaloonies and Mel into one blog with the First Amendment thrown in!!!