Concur. We seem to always be playing to audiences that we don't really need to. We ought made statements of our beliefs and what we'll not tolerate. Any one that pushes when they ought not, should be dealt with. I know that university professors were, and are, toning that mantra "There are no simple solutions to complex problems" or words to that effect. However, some things really are pig simple. One, sadly, is if you hammer people hard enough, they will get the message. I have dealt with military history more than a fair amount. Those who believe that history proves otherwise, haven't done enough research.

Folks have to really, really know you mean what you say and that really intolerable stuff will happen if they cross lines that you've told them (clearly) are unacceptable.

I know this sounds cold and harsh. That is the point. If you fail to clearly do this, much, much worse things will be done by awful men with not one wit of compassion.

Posted by tad at February 3, 2006 10:25 PM

This reminds me of comments of Bill Handle, the host of "Handle on the Law" syndicated nationally from KFI AM in L.A. He made an "insensitive" (to some) comment about Muslims and an apology was demanded by a Muslim-American organizaiton. He responded that he would apologize if they would accept three statements:

Number one, CAIR denounces all bombings, attacks, where the intended victims were innocent civilians. Such as all bus, market, restaurant bombings in Israel, the 2004 train bombing in Madrid, and the 2005 subway and bus bombings in London. Denounce those as terrorism. Number two, Israel is a sovereign nation. Recognized by the world community, has a right to exist with defensible borders. Three, CAIR, and its associates have no ties, nor have they ever had any ties with individuals or known terrorist organizations, whatsoever, financially or otherwise, including but not limited to, Hamas, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda. http://www.kfi640.com/Handeltranscript.html

Sounds fair to me. It's incredible that folks who accept or defend the murders and beheadings of innocent people should demand apologies over a cartoon.

Posted by Woody at February 4, 2006 06:26 AM

Woody, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but they call that hypocrisy and the double standards that arise from it are rampant in the Muslim world.

I'd feel much better about the US response if they had added that these threats were an unacceptable reaction. I hope they don't really think this statement will gain any points with these animals. Israel didn't have a damn thing to do with this and neither did we, yet there they were over there, right off the bat, screaming for our heads over this and trampling and burning Israeli AND American flags.

Posted by Oyster at February 4, 2006 08:22 AM

Good news! It turns out the State Department isn't clueless. It's not surprising, but reporters with a PC agenda slanted this story. (Via Hugh Hewitt.)

Posted by DRJ at February 4, 2006 09:21 AM

I should have known better. Shame on me.

Posted by Oyster at February 5, 2006 01:40 PM

Americans often criticize Europeans of appeasement. Now Glenn Reynolds accuses the US of appeasement:
http://instapundit.com/archives/028399.php

And Americans criticize Anti-Americanism in the European Press. My question: Did any US newspaper publish the cartoons out of solidarity with Europeans?
Sure, some blogs did, but nearly all of them don't have as many readers as newspapers...

Posted by Jorg at February 6, 2006 03:44 AM