First, you get something on the group you want to blackmail. Then, you release a little of it and present your demands. You infer what'll happen if the demands aren't met. Make the demand small - because you want to ge them to accept the demand as valid and too big a payoff will make the mark balk. Once the original demand is met, you ratchet things up and get more as time goes on. But if that original demand isn't met - you escalate things. A few threats, a bit of violence... Sooner or later, the mark will give in and pay off, or suffer serious damage.
But what if the mark goes "No - it's a free speech issue and it's not gonna happen."? Then, a little coordinated action is required.
Telegraph | Opinion | If you get rid of the Danes, you'll have to keep paying the Danegeld
It's some time since I visited Palestine, so I may be out of date, but I don't remember seeing many Danish flags on sale there. Not much demand, I suppose. I raise the question because, as soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn. (In doing so, by the way, they offered a mortal insult to the most sacred symbol of my own religion, Christianity, since the Danish flag has a cross on it, but let that pass.)
Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.
The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.
It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.
I guess it would, wouldn't it?
Over on DU, looks like they know who the culprits are. I leave it to you to read and decide on the validity of the opining there. One thing I did notice in subsequent comments..
What all fundamentalists have in common is an aversion to progress. This is not so much of a "clash of civilizations" as it is a war against progress and modernity. In my opinion, the Abrahamic religions no longer have a place in the modern world and we are seeing thier death throes. It make take hundreds of years, but eventually I think they will go the way of the Greco-Roman pantheons, the Druids, etc.
Yes there are still millions of adherents and believers, most of them kept that way out of ignorance. I believe that if we do not act now to stop the tide of rising religious fundamentalism, then human society had no chance.
Thing with that, though, is that a lot of the Abrahamic religions have made it through their periods where progress and reason have been discouraged. Islam hasn't passed through that yet - there's a big difference between a televangelist extorting money from his flock and Muslim Imams insisting on stoning gays and keeping women barefoot and burqua'ed, with FGM as a cultural staple. They're right in the middle of their Dark Ages, I think, where any change is viewed as apostasy and to be cleansed with fire. I do tend to agree with the second paragraph, though that 'religious fundamentalism' he/she worries about is, IMHO, vastly much more to be feared from the Cresecent than the Cross. Your mileage may vary, of course.
The Guardian article closes with the following:
Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan "God loves F***ing".
Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn't I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.
There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.
In time it will be done - but I fear that before then millions are going to die. We are at a tipping point - in one direction lies the tyrrany of the angry offended, who will burn that which they don't agree with and have control over everyone who won't stand up to them. In the other - well, you've no right to never be offended - but your response had better be in accordance with law. You can write a nasty letter, but you can't burn anything and you can't silence those who offend you with the threats of violence or lawsuits.
It's an interesting time we find ourselves in. And a perilous one, too. It almost makes me long for the certainties of the Cold War.
J.