Chris Navin

‘The debate, which took place in a cafe, was described on a personal website of Lars Vilks as a talk on whether any limits should be placed on artistic expression or freedom of speech.’

Some eager attendees contributed bullets and a few words in Arabic, before heading out for some fresh air:

‘Eyewitness Dennis Myhoff-Brink: “We heard…20 or 30 shots…and a person yelling something in Arabic…”

Gunmen have killed one person and injured three police officers at a free speech debate in Copenhagen attended by a controversial Swedish cartoonist, officials say…

The French ambassador was also present at the seminar….

Reports say up to 40 shots were fired and a manhunt has been launched…’

Vilks is no stranger to needing security detail.

Nothing says your cause is just, your efforts noble, your suffering righteous, like trying to kill cartoonists in cafes, and murdering others in the process.

Addition: And here you go, an attack on a synagogue in Copenhagen as well:

Shots fired at Copenhagen synagogue, Danish police say: http://t.co/uyRs6UxFzQ #cphshooting

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) February 15, 2015

More here:

Barely a Month After Charlie Hebdo, Twin Terror Attacks Hit Denmark http://t.co/Cet3UJsy8d via @csdickey

— Chris Navin (@chris_navin) February 15, 2015

From the magic vault:

Mark Steyn discussed complaints brought against Macleans, Canada’s largest publication, by the President of the Canadian Islamic Congress (who sent three representatives) to TVOntario. They were upset at the pieces Steyn had published there. The complaints went through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for alleged “Islamophobia” and “promoting hate:”

Notice the unholy alliance between Muslim grievance and Left/activist identity politics and the unsettling incentives it creates.

=================

It takes a special kind of ideological commitment to call the Ft. Hood shooting an example of ‘workplace violence.’

A Few More Thoughts On The Marathon Bombing: Free Speech Is Key

Tariq Ramadan speaks both multicultural-ese and the language of Muslim Brotherhood, and ironically it’s the 68er and socialist who stands for neither religious belief nor multiculturalism confronts him

Repost-From Beautiful Horizons: ‘Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan at the 92nd Street Y’

When you add it all up, it’s a lot From Kenanmalik.com: ‘Introduction: How Salman Rushdie Changed My Life’… Via YouTube: ‘Christopher Hitchens Vs. Ahmed Younis On CNN (2005)’… ‘Mohammad Cartoonist Lars Vilks Headbutted‘During Lecture’……From The OC Jewish Experience: ‘UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Suspended’…From Volokh: ‘”South Park” Creators Warned (Threatened) Over Mohammed’… More From Spiegel Online After The Westergaard Attacks Via A & L Daily: ‘The West Is Choked By Fear’

Matthew Continetti-‘Don’t Authorize Obama’s War:’

Perhaps we’re getting to that six-year point when the politics of the nation start becoming all about the next election and the changing-of-the-guard.

Continetti:

‘Far better for us all if the Congress refused the president precisely because he is unserious and untrustworthy with the security of the United States and the world, and spent the remaining two years of his presidency making the case publicly and robustly for the roll back of ISIS and the removal of Assad, an end to the Iranian nuclear program, a military buildup, and a renewal of the alliance system and of American support for Western principles of liberal democracy’

I suspect if the President wanted to fight ISIS the way a new AUMF implies might be necessary, he’d already be doing so. Rather, I think he wants to cement the idea the U.S. troops will be very limited on the ground and thus, his legacy. Hence, Continetti’s piece.

So, is a lower probability, higher-risk strategy of withdrawing most American military influence from the region while simultaneously working alongside strategic non-allies working (mostly Iran…the Moscow, Tehran, Damascus alliance…and by proxy Hezbollah and old Revolutionary Guard types)?

Do we have closer relations with our allies as a result? Have we set up incentives that would lead to the ‘international community’ the President so often invokes while using American military leverage to gain it?

As posted:

Here’s a quote from Anne-Marie Slaughter, on liberal internationalism (addition: which is probably a few ticks center-ward of further Leftward progressive, semi-radical peace and democracy advocates)

‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’

Michael Totten At World Affairs: ‘Syria’s Regime Not Worth Preserving’…A Few More Syria Links-’Unmitigated Clusterf**k?’…

From Reuters: ‘Analysis: Syrian Kurds Sense Freedom, Power Struggle Awaits’

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘What Did The Arab Spring Really Change?’…Liberal Internationalism is hobbling us, and the safety of even the liberal internationalist doctrine if America doesn’t lead…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Two Monday Links On Syria And Iran