How else do you interpret the news that the French newspaper France Soir, which published blasphemous cartoons of Muhammed, fired the editor that had run them? If not a capitulation to threats of violence by intolerant Muslims, then what?
It's not like France's large Muslim population hadn't gone on rampages before. And if there is a single one of you who would be shocked to find Jacques Lefranc murdered in the streets of Paris, then you truly are ignorant.
See how that works? It's not the fault of millions of Muslims for wanting to murder blasphemers, they were
.
UPDATE: Reader Kir tells us that Raymond Lakah is actually from Egypt, which, if true, might also explain a whole lot and remove the fear of violence explanation. But, I would also remind you, that the only thing radical Islamists hate more than a kufir blaspheming the Prophet is one of their own blaspheming the Prophet. An Egyptian would be much more likely to understand the ramifications of blasphemy than an infidel Westerner.
1
Notice the French were the first to surrender (again).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 09:06 AM (8e/V4)
2
If only the 3+ weeks of riots last year could have been seen as an act of "real provocation towards the millions" of non-muslims living in France.
Posted by: Graeme at February 02, 2006 09:19 AM (CQyra)
3
Actually, the guy who owns the newspaper is Egyptian. So it's probably a whole lot simpler than that.
Although I do expect that the newspaper owner will find himself in court - you can't sack people for their beliefs in France, unless you enjoy paying ridiculously huge compensation. And I look forward to that event.
Posted by: kir at February 02, 2006 09:21 AM (JXvZe)
4
Just when you think Europe is growing some balls, they promptly shrivel up like raisens.
Oh why, do people fear offending the "religion of peace"?
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 09:50 AM (CcXvt)
5
Good point, kir, and I sincerly hope that the cash award will be large enough to discourage any more firings.
Graeme, as usual you put in words what the rest of us are thinking. Great post!
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 10:02 AM (rUyw4)
6
The goal of "radical" muslims is the real, read "true" goal of Islam-the takeover of the entire world by any means, including killing of those who will not convert. Islam is not, nor has it ever been "the religion of peace" as portrayed in world-wide media. Accepting "their way, or the highway" by being "sensitive to differing viewpoints" to the extreme and "not seeking to offend" plays directly into their hands. If you cannot be made aware of their agenda and seek to prevent it, it will simply happen while the "deaf and dumb" idly stand (or sit) by.
Posted by: Don Riley at February 02, 2006 10:29 AM (pNVAi)
7
http://www.jesusdressup.com/
Posted by: william smith at February 02, 2006 10:37 AM (+pjSG)
8
No Way, The French surrendered to Muslims? Just goes to show again that those who forget history are destined to repeat it! Won't be much longer till the peace loving French are all praying 6 times a day to the East in the name of the religion of peace.
Posted by: Andy at February 02, 2006 10:54 AM (tMU4W)
9
Hondo knows Western Euros.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 10:56 AM (3aakz)
10
Consider what would happen if an anti-Christian cartoon had been published. For instance, what if a cartoon depicted Jesus firing a white phosphorus bomb into a crowd of Iraqi women and children? Pat Robertson would immediatley call for the assassination of the paper's editors. Of course, no newspaper would even dare to print such a cartoon, however accurate that it may be. American newspapers already recieve death threats from the Christofascists for printing far more benign cartoons. We hear a lot less about it, because the censorship usually occurs before publication, not after. This is sad, because the Christofascists pose a far greater threat to American democracy than the feckless Muslims.
Posted by: Tom Foster at February 02, 2006 11:10 AM (jzJ95)
11
Tom, I hope you die in a terrorist attack real soon. You and all other liberals are scum and should be killed for the good of humanity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 11:13 AM (0yYS2)
12
These "cartoons" were mild compared to what is in the Koran. No pictures of the prophet laying with young girls...
The West must stand up to the islamofascists.
I'm a liberal, "The Nation" reading American. I believe in freedom, which is why I'm a liberal.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 11:15 AM (BJYNn)
13
Tom Foster
Anti-Christian material is quite widespread in the West & the USA. Don't seem to recall Pat R. (whom I don't like) calling for assinations - if fact - if he did you would gleefully tell us. So, what's up with that?
You fear and hate your neighbors and fellow Americans - fine with me.
PS - Hugo is not an American - just in case you try to use him as a comeback.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:33 AM (3aakz)
14
I wonder what the reaction of the U.S. religious right would be if cartoons mocking Jesus appeared in foreign newspapers? My best guess is that they would be up in arms, screaming "sacrilege", demonstrating, demanding apologies, and calling for boycott of imports...
Posted by: Devils' Advocate at February 02, 2006 11:36 AM (VpkLq)
15
You and I are clearly wasting our time trying to have an elnightened discussion. The people on this blog clearly have a double standard and are too blinded by their fear and hatred of the unknown to have a real intellectual exchange.
Whorever on this blog said that he hopes that you die in a terrorist attack is un-American, and certainly not a Christian.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at February 02, 2006 11:41 AM (VpkLq)
16
Does anyone have a link to the cartoons? They must be on the web somewhere, but have yet to see a copy of them posted or even a link to them.
Posted by: tarylcabot at February 02, 2006 11:46 AM (BYavs)
17
scream sacrilege - demonstrating - demanding apologies - calling for boycotts of imports ...
ALL LEGAL DA! Unless you think they should be against the law! (you probably due for select groups)
Its the implied (and real) threats of violence thats involved here (and you know exactly what I'm talking about). So, since some have the desire to coyly play an exaggerated game of turning the tables - then is it safe to assume you are in full support of the muslims on this issue. That is the point of a DA, isn't it?
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:55 AM (3aakz)
18
Hondo,
You are missing the point.
What I am pointing out is that, under similar, circumstances, the Christian Right would behave excatly like the Muslims in response to cartoons mocking their religion. And I certaily did not say anything about the legality of protests.
Zealots are zealots. It does not matter whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc... They are all equally intolerant and dangerous.
And no, it is not safe to assume, anything, ever, when you don't have enough information.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at February 02, 2006 12:03 PM (VpkLq)
19
Well, it took only three minutes for Improbulus Maximus to prove my point. No doubt I'll recieve more death threats from Christian fanatics. As for my dying in a terroist attack, well, terrorist attacks are quite rare so he will not get his wish. The closest I ever came was when a Kurdish terrorist bombed a tourist bus when I was in Kusadasi, Turkey. The bomb was made from American C-4 explosive smuggled from Iraq. As for Pat calling for assassinations, remember, such anti-Christian cartoons have not appeared in newspapers. He has, however, called for the deaths of some of our more liberal Supreme Court members. Last I checked, these guys are American. And, yes, the is plently of anti-christian literature available, just as there is plenty of anti-Muslim literature. But the anti-Christian stuff never appears in editorial cartoons in widely circulated newspapers. That was my point. That said, I support the right of any newspaper to print this material, no matter how offensive. And, as a Buddhist, I would support the right of any publication to publish a cartoon mocking the Buddha. And I will support the right of anyone on this site to mock my religion. I was simply pointing out a double standard here. If anyone wants to prove that there is no double standard, then they should come out in support of anti-Christian cartoons as well.
Posted by: tom foster at February 02, 2006 12:04 PM (jzJ95)
20
Woulda coulda shoulda - Let me see if I got this straight - with our own eyes we are seeing whats actually happening in Europe now as we speak - your saying "well er Christians woulda too ..."
What kind of idiotic argument is that? What kind of DA are you? Comparing something real to something imagined (and subjectively no less!).
Please define zealot - my impression is you define it as broadly and as exaggerated as possible for your own purpose.
Since events happening now are specific to muslim reaction to cartoons - I can indeed safely assume your attempt to sidestep and turn the issue back on Christians and others as a defensive ploy for the said muslim position. Yes! Safely assume - or else - why would you try?
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:28 PM (3aakz)
21
If Pat R had called for the assination of Supreme Court Justices the details would be available and advertised to great heights constantly by his many detractors.
Is detail to much to freakin' ask for?
Pat R is a fool - but you are hellbent to outdo him - and succeeding.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:35 PM (3aakz)
22
I love how Tom Foster assumes that IM is Christian because he posts here, I'll let him break the news to you.
Tom, as usual you've missed the point, you can make fun of pretty much all religions without getting death threats, or in some cases killed, you cannot do that to the Islam faith.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 12:44 PM (CcXvt)
23
Religious zealotry is a real threat no
matter where it comes from.
Posted by: JesusloonK at February 02, 2006 12:54 PM (bFKHq)
24
Indeed Jesusloon, I was thinking that same thing only the other day when I read about a bunch of Mormons running into a Krogers supermarket before detonating their suicide belts, all because they carried a paper making fun of Joseph Smith!
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 01:03 PM (CcXvt)
25
Wow! The media caving in for religous extreme interest. I can't imagine that ever happening in the good ol' US of A
*snicker*
Posted by: liberul elite hippy commie at February 02, 2006 01:23 PM (YClF7)
26
It really seems that everyone here is saying the same thing, but tripping over the liberal/conservative ways of saying it. The liberals such as Tom Foster get lost on the road attempting to 'understand' and 'point out double-standards' which do in fact exist, while the conservatives seem to see this as a simple matter of more 'islamofascists'. Personally, I believe that this is kind of simple. As a blog-friendly paraphrase of an old saying goes - 'Freedom of speech is best expressed by the freedom to be quiet.' Meaning that just because we have the right to say something, and that right should be vigorously defended, does not make it cool to go around offending everyone. In this case, however, with people being threatened and embassies closing, I have to say that the damage from these CARTOONS is done, and backing down now is giving in to people who don't want freedom of expression. Freedom from censorship is the important issue, and multi-culturism works both ways. Muslims have to be tolerant, too. If they don't like it, then just turn off their TVs, close their doors, and hum real loud. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Joe at February 02, 2006 01:36 PM (P1gjy)
27
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both publically asked for all Americans to pray for the deaths of justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall in the late 80's. Those were pre-internet days, so it would require searching through microfilm at the library to get further detail. Notice I avoided the use of the word 'assassination' in my post. Regardless, asking people to pray for someone's death is most definately advocating the death of that person. The outcry over their calls for the deaths of Brennan and Marshall was quite widespread. As a result, Pat and Jerry have moderated their stance and now call for the retirement of those with whom they disagree. But their past statements cannot simply be wiped from memory. That one may make fun of any religion but Islam without recieving threats seems to be contradicted by IM's post. And, apparently, even non-Christians like IM will attack anyone who dares to even suggest that Christianity, like all religions, may have their own wackos. And I never assumed IM was a Christian. A hate-filled advocator of violence, yes. But Christian, no. I'm glad, at least, that we can all agree that Pat Robertson is a fool. And I think we can all agree that the Islamofascists are also fools (and dangerous, too). But the Islamofascists have exactly zero chance of taking over America. The Pat Robertsons of this world are very close to doing so or already have. Did Karl Rove ask for Osama bin Laden's blessing for the administration's court nominies? No. Did he ask Pat Robertson? Yes. My concern here is not any particular religion. It is the danger that America might become a theocracy, which I would oppose even if it were Buddhist. Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have both publically stated that they believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the states. In other words, Louisiana could make Catholocism their official religion, Mississippi could make Baptism their official religion, and California could make New Agism their official religion. That two (possibly four) Supreme Court Justices would allow this is a very serious threat and cannot be ignored. This is a threat that fundamentalists of all religions pose. But the threat is much more serious if it comes from a majority religion.
Posted by: tom foster at February 02, 2006 01:59 PM (jzJ95)
28
Well, it took only three minutes for Improbulus Maximus to prove my point. No doubt I'll recieve more death threats from Christian fanatics.
Oh, you didn't?
I guess "more" and "from" means something different where you come from.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 02:04 PM (CcXvt)
29
lol CNN just ran one of the cartoons on one of it's segments, and it was "scrambled" so you could not make Mohammed's face.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 02:13 PM (CcXvt)
30
Tom, your argument falls completely apart just as soon as I remind you that the current issue of Rolling Stone has a bloodied Kanye West on the cover with a crown of thorns on his head and mocks Christianity by comparing himself to Jesus. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the publisher of the magazine be assassinated.
You are confusing being a supporter of anti-Christian cartoons with proving there isn't a double-standard. Most will not like them but also believe in free speech. I don't have to support it but I also have a right to cancel my subscription instead of setting off a bomb at the newspaper's loading dock. That's not a double-standard. It's also not a double-standard if I don't cancel my subscription when the Islam cartoon doesn't offend me.
The liberals were out in force when those ignorant, out-of-touch Dixie Chicks offended their conservative fan base. They tried to preach that they should have the right to speak their minds without worrying about album sales. Sorry, but inflamatory language or cartoons comes with a price. I can support the right to free speech but don't call me un-American or a fascist when I stop buying your product and you go out of business or never sell another album. You don't think it's a coincidence that ticket sales to movies theaters is at one of it's lowest points in history do you? You simply can't piss off half of the country and expect them to put another dime in your pocket. Sean Penn, George Clooney, and others may be terrific actors and the movie may be the 'can't miss' movie of the year, but they will never see any more of my money. There are a lot of us out there that feel the same way.
As for your comment about newspapers 'already receive death threats ...', that's absolutely pointless. If my favorite NFL team's quarterback comes to your town, he'll get death threats left at his hotel. The point is a newspaper will get death threats from some nut just for saying the sky is blue. These would rarely be serious enough for the person to follow through with but if some Imam issues a death threat for an anti-Islam cartoon, someone could very well die.
Why don't you come back once in awhile? Nobody here has a problem with free speech, but don't call us intolerant or hateful when we disagree with it. If you come in here, you'd better bring your 'A' game. The logic of liberalism just doesn't work. There is a reason why a record 63 million people voted for Bush and until you look inward at the flaws in your own beliefs, your political party will always be on the outside looking in.
Free speech is a two-way street. It doesn't mean you aren't going to be called out on it.
Posted by: slug at February 02, 2006 02:16 PM (wcNc2)
31
>>>Well, it took only three minutes for Improbulus Maximus to prove my point. No doubt I'll recieve more death threats from Christian fanatics.
Except improbulos Maximus is an avowed ATHEIST. lmao! Boy, you people are dopes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 02:51 PM (8e/V4)
32
>>>lol CNN just ran one of the cartoons on one of it's segments, and it was "scrambled" so you could not make Mohammed's face."
hahaha! If only these Libtards were as scared of christian "death threats" as they appear to be of muslim ones.
You Libs are cowards. You only disrespect and mouth off to christians because you know they'll do absolutely nothing to you. Your fear of muslims is proof.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 02:54 PM (8e/V4)
33
... praying for someone to drop dead : this is the same as advocating/endorsing assasination? Yeah - OK
As a Nu Yawker who has probably told hundreds if not thousands of people to drop dead - or pray for a piano to fall on them over the years - I now know that constitutes assasination or desire of. You really are a fool.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 03:06 PM (3aakz)
34
I believe the publisher, Raymond Lakah, is a French Egyptian and most likely a Muslim himself. He has holdings in a number of Muslim-based companies also. His firing of Mr.Lafranche, the editor, is probably based on business pressures.
All the same, the French ought to boycott his paper for caving in -- it was not a decision of principle but of principal...
Since France Soir is Muslim-owned and Le Monde is not, the pressures aren't there.
I'll bet Lafranche knew he'd get canned and went with the pictures anyway. *That's* principle.
Posted by: dymphna at February 02, 2006 03:47 PM (noTMu)
35
I rarely see someone as completely stupid as Tom Foster, and by stupid I don't mean a lack of education. Slug's fisking of Tom was about as good as I've ever seen, and I'm just laying back and enjoying the action.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:30 PM (rUyw4)
36
Slug,
There is a reason why Bush's poll numbers are at 40% or less -- the lowest since Nixon.
One reason is that his brand of "conservatism" is ethically flawed. The overall incompetence of his administration is, of course, another factor.
Note that I didn't say all conservatives, instead I said "his brand."
When you say "The liberals were ..." you're making a generalization that all liberals are the same, or think the same. That's ignorance on your part.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 05:28 PM (BJYNn)
37
Hehe, I love it when the whining leftards point at my comments and scream "SEE, SEE, A CHRISTIAN IS THREATENING ME!!!", and then comes the news that I'm an orthodox atheist, i.e., supposed to be "one of them", and they just can't get a grip on it.
See little children, I just hate liberals, hippies, commies, etc., because you're nothing but a bunch of worthless parasites and should be stuffed into an old oil tanker, towed out to sea, and sunk to make a reef/fishfeeder, because that's about all you're good for. Why don't you all be quiet, go hide under the bed, and let the evil white Republican men do what we do best; save civilization. Again.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 05:56 PM (0yYS2)
38
Steve, you better leave, or you're likely to be eviserated by slug. And your guts laying on the floor would not be a pretty sight.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:07 PM (rUyw4)
39
>>>Why don't you all be quiet, go hide under the bed, and let the evil white Republican men do what we do best; save civilization. Again.
lmao! love it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 06:12 PM (8e/V4)
40
Thanks for the advice Jesusland Joe.
There is a lot of hate on this blog -- I guess when one can't compete intellectually, hate increases.
Slug may want to rip my guts out, and improbulus wants to send "liberals" out to sea because.it seems to me, Slug and improbulus just can't compete with ideas anymore.
Yes, they are good writers, but their minds seem to be closed.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 06:35 PM (BJYNn)
41
Oh, I thought slug's game was great on ideas and writing skills. And I didn't perceive any hate coming from slug, and thought he was being quite polite by inviting you to an occasional visit. And someone on the Left accusing others of having a closed mind is riduculous. The Left could learn a lot if they would open their minds, but the propaganda is hard to displace. Why don't you open your mind, Steve?
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:55 PM (rUyw4)
42
>>>There is a lot of hate on this blog
Steve,
try Daily Kos. You aint seen nothin yet.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 06:59 PM (8e/V4)
43
I apologize if I offended anyone. There is too much hate in this world.
Why do you say I'm "left?" Is "left" the same as liberal? I think not. My understanding of "liberal" is one who believes in personal liberty or personal rights as being most important. Today, it is the "left" and libertarian who believe in personal libery, not the "right." I think it used to be the "right" that was pro-personal freedom. It's changed.
Personal freedom: The right to do with my adult body as I please -- it's none of the government's business if I want to kill myself, use heroin or smoke pot, have sex with my adult neighbor, believe in God.... The right to breathe clean air and drink good water.
There is no one point of view that is "left" like there is no one point of view that is "right." So those of you who rant at the left or liberals, please be more specific.
I looked at this Blog because I am aghast that some newspapers are giving in to the islamofascists. I'd like to see every newspaper in the free world reprint the cartoons, as a show of support for freedom of expression.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 07:17 PM (BJYNn)
44
Steve,
the Left is less concerned with "liberty" than they are with libertinism (i.e., fucking and sucking).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 07:48 PM (8e/V4)
45
Carlos,
Yes, liberals are concerned with sexual freedom. Don't confuse this with the "left." Recall the USSR (was that "left"?) did not condone sexual freedom.
Why are certain elements of the "right" so concerned with what others do sexually?
PS You may want to read "Evolution's Rainbow" by Dr. Joan Roughgarden to understand the essential sexuality of most animals in God's universe.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 08:21 PM (BJYNn)
46
JC
Steve is attempting (poorly) to make a distinction between liberals and the Left. Truth is - there is. Liberals believe they can modify and control the Left - but at times are actually figthened by them. Most "leftists" we will encounter here on the board and in this country are "young obligatory wannabes" - they tend to fade with time - being a wannabe and ineffectiveness go hand in hand.
I've known true leftists and they can be a scary lot! They are by nature quite authoritarian with a self-rationalizing vicious streak.
They may walk down the same street, but they are two different animals. Being purely opportunistic (for what I believe) - I have no problem using the Left against Liberals - as they have no problem attempting to use the Liberals.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 08:40 PM (3aakz)
47
Steve,
sexual freedom is great-- in the privacy of your bedroom. The problem with Libs is the like sucking and fucking where the whole world has to watch them. It's disgusting.
But why is the Left so obsessed with bashing christianity? And why is the Left so obsessed with my pocketbook? Stay out of my pocketbook and away from my religious faith, and I'll let you suck and fuck to your heart's content in the privacy of your bedroom.
hondo,
the only difference between Liberals and the Left is temperament and conviction. Liberals aren't as nasty, nor as committed to their socialist paradise, but they play for the same team.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 09:15 PM (8e/V4)
48
I guess we're making progress. At least you now know there is some difference between "the left" and "liberals."
I'd like for you to understand that there are "liberals" (personal liberty people) who are anti-abortion and pro Iraq war; and there are liberals who are pro-choice and anti-war. You cannot, with any validity, say "Liberals belive" or "the only difference between liberals and the left." It's a wide world out here, it would be hard to find two liberals who agree on everything.
I was hoping to find intelligent conversation here; I did not. I'll look for a group that understands diversity of opinion.
Posted by: Steve at February 02, 2006 09:37 PM (BJYNn)
49
JC
There are indeed some really big distinctions, and their agreements are often connected by simply matters of degree.
If its any solice - history bares out that where Leftists come to power, liberals literally get slaughtered the worse pretty fast.
Anyway - leftists are the albatross around liberals necks. Liberals often run away from the label, not because of us, but because the left succeeds in re-defining them by their antics and positions in the eyes of the general populace.
The paralysis (yes) we see within the Dems doing anything effectively is due almost exclusively to the current influence of the left on that party.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 10:55 PM (3aakz)
50
Unfortunately, I'm reading a lot of ignorant comments on this blog.
I'll sum up the reason Muslims everywhere are up in arms about this cartoon: The Islamic faith bans any depictions of God or His prophet Mohammed. No pictures, statues or any physical representations of their likeness.
The Jewish faith has the exact same restriction.
This is not *just* about the prophet being drawn with a bomb for a turban, it is about the fact that the prophet mohammed is being drawn *at all*.
That is why the owner of the magazine fired the editor "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual"
Posted by: Sum Guy at February 02, 2006 11:16 PM (GFvXE)
51
Sum guy,
if christians threatened terrorism and kidnapped people (like muslims do) every time you Leftwing creeps defaced some christian symbol, you'd find it within yourself to "respect" us too.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 11:26 PM (8e/V4)
52
hondo,
maybe so. But they march in all the same protests.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 11:26 PM (8e/V4)
53
JC
Agreed - more or less. But knowing the differences can be vvvvvvvvery useful in defeating both. Ask my drinking buddie - Karl.
Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:38 PM (3aakz)
54
I love how Steve whines about "competing intellectually" when nobody buys his snivelling libtard crap. If this is the same Steve I know from Sistertoldja's blog, he plays the role of rectus for them, and is an apologetic for muslims and other fascists, and is always ready to make excuses for them, and compare muslim mass-murders of innocent people to naked man pyramids in Abu Ghraib.
Steve, I don't want to "compete intellectually" with you, for the same reason I don't compete in the special olympics. You're a typical slimy liberal who hates your country, George Bush, and conservatives in general, and you want desperately to see America lose because you think we need taught a lesson. You probably support Castro, Chavez, and Morales because they constitute a threat to America, and you probably get a kick whenever Osama or Zawahiri release a new tape or video in which they basically cover the dhimmicrat talking points du jour. You are scum and should just hang out over at kos with the rest of your kind.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 09:41 AM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 03, 2006 09:48 AM (8e/V4)
56
I will defend liberals by saying the views of Tom are NOT liberal. The idea that Christian leaders would or even could make a realistic call to violence is absurd. So no, Tom, if you consider yourself to be liberal, defend the freedom of expression. This was not hate speech, this was criticism of a religion. Fair game, end of story. In a pluralist society, free speech is allowed. Also allowed is the the freedom to ignore it. So what are Muslims complaining about? Turn the page, don't pick up a gun. Cultural catch-up is in order.
Posted by: Chuck, a bleedin heart at February 03, 2006 09:49 AM (P0X3q)
57
By the way, here are the cartoons if anyone's lookin for a link. you republican scum.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698
Posted by: Chuck, a bleedin heart at February 03, 2006 09:57 AM (P0X3q)
58
Chuck, you seem to be a tolerable liberal, so make sure to smear some lamb's blood over your door so as to save yourself.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 10:40 AM (0yYS2)
59
>>>you republican scum.
After criticizing Tom, Chuck couldn't leave without first flashing his Liberal credentials.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 03, 2006 10:48 AM (8e/V4)
60
Muhammed would not be pleased with anything less.
Posted by: Chuck, a bleeding heart at February 03, 2006 11:07 AM (P0X3q)
61
But why does the Anglo press shrink from reprinting these images? I would suggest that the US Press is fearful of fanning the flames of fanaticism, but is fear a healthy justification? If all papers were together publishing these cartoons to support free expression, the unwelcome negative reactions of the Islamic world (boycott, threats, etc.) toward the Danes, would be diffused and after a period of furor toward the West, the issue would pass. American and British papers are showing a cowardice to take this issue head-on and make clear the values of Western society.
According to the French daily Le Figaro, the US State Department has come out in condemnation of those parties willing to publish these images:
De leur côté, les Etats-Unis ont jugé que la publication des caricatures controversées constituait une incitation «pas acceptable» àla haine religieuse ou ethnique.
The US has judged that the publication of the controversial cartoons constitutes an inacceptable incitement to religious and ethnic hate.
«Ces caricatures sont évidemment blessantes pour les croyances des musulmans», a déclaré le porte-parole du département d'Etat Justin Higgins, en jugeant que «l'incitation àla haine religieuse et ethnique n'est pas acceptable».
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said, "The caricatures are obviously wounding to the beliefs of Muslims," and further declared, "the incitement to religious and ethnic hate is inacceptable."
But how is this really hate speech? This is a controlling religion which we are not allowed to criticize, and the US Government is trying to hush the exchange of critical viewpoints on a sensitive topic. I call bulls___.
Posted by: Chuck, a bleedin heart at February 03, 2006 11:57 AM (P0X3q)
62
>>>...but is fear a healthy justification?
Chuck,
no, it's not. It's called dhimmitude. It is based on fear, not respect. If respect were the issue, you Libs wouldn't be defaming christianity 24/7 because you don't fear christians. But you fear muslims, so you take cover behind "respect" and not wanting to fan the flames of fanaticism. You people are GUTLESS cowards.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 03, 2006 12:59 PM (8e/V4)
63
and ps., Chuck, I don't mean you, I mean Liberals/Leftists.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 03, 2006 01:01 PM (8e/V4)
64
The real cowardice is being displayed by those on the editorial staff of Anglo publications, who defer to the tastes of a) advertisers, who don't want controversy and b) state authorities, who denounce such publication. Liberal media, my *.
Posted by: Chuck, a bleedin heart at February 03, 2006 01:27 PM (P0X3q)
65
devils advocate talks about how common it is for christians to commit terrorist acts as it is common for the religion of peace.
let me think for a minute! it seems timothy mcveigh who seems to be claimed to be christian, has committed only one terrorist act. i can't think of any others from the religious right. now how many can i think of terrorist acts by the religion of peace. would it exceed the number of acts committed by the religous right? by God i must be a genious, because the religion of peace has committed the flying of airplanes into new york city skyscrapers (thats 1), bombed trains in madrid spain (thats 2), bombed the london subways (thats 3), destroyed the buddist statue by orders of the taliban (thats 4), bali hotel bombings (thats 5), the bombings in istanbul turkey (thats 6) etc.
can someone help me because ever since first grade i never felt confident in knowing if the number 1 is less than the number 6 or any number after 6. could it or is it true that 6 is greater than 1?
devils advocate and others like you, you are more hillarious than what i find in the series of books the darwin awards (of which i use to think was the funniest 2 stories in darwin awards was a person who while at a wildlife preserve for some reason wanted to tell his friends about the greatness of crazy-glue he so happened to have with him and to demonstrate the person put some crazy-glue on his hands and then placed his hand on the buttocks of a rhinosaurus. the second funniest darwin award story was how a tree hugger in wanting to commune with nature had the urge to evade the guards at sea world and got into the water with an animal as big as a bus - and becuase of this episode with the whale the tree hugger assumed room temperature)
a joke about the french - why do the french line the streets of paris with trees? answer - so the german army could march in the shade when they are marching through.
Posted by: hillary doesn't see the light at February 04, 2006 03:49 AM (G3FUH)
66
Many posters praised Slug for "eviserating" [sic] Tom. Yet not everything Slug said holds water. For instance, he says "Nobody here has a problem with free speech, but don't call us intolerant or hateful when we disagree with it."
Well, excuse me, but when IM said to Tom that he hopes he dies and that all liberals should be killed -- I'm sorry, Slug, and all his many fans on this page, but honestly -- that's NOT intolerant and hateful? Please explain to me how saying you wish all liberals should be killed isn't "hateful."
Similarly, hillary . . . says "Devils advocate talks about how common it is for christians to commit terrorist acts " and goes on to attack this supposed stance of DA. Except, DA (nor anybody else on this page) said ANYTHING of the sort. That's what I don't get about some of these posts. They accuse people of saying things they didn't say -- when you just have to scroll up a bit to see they didn't! The only thing close to what hillary. .. is claiming was said by DA (who didn't say a single thing like that) was said by another poster, who pointed out that Pat Robertson has called for assasinations. He has. He called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez. He later apologized. But it's a fact, and it's a very recent event. Why do people on this site insist on twisting people's words and opinions the better to insult them?
Posted by: Dan at February 04, 2006 06:51 PM (fhxhN)
67
dan comment on 2/4/06 651PM is incorrect.
devils advocate said 2/2/06 at 1203PM in the 3rd line
'under similar circumstances the Chritian Right would behave exactly like Muslims in response to cartoons mocking their religion'
well Judeo-Christianity has been undergone much ridicule and timothy mcveigh was a survivalist who hated government- however he is considered by liberals to be the Christian Right. thus even with this false assertion, the number 1 is considerably less than the number of muslim terrorist acts of which i only mentioned 6
Posted by: hillary doesn't see the light at February 06, 2006 08:30 AM (Wbzhd)
68
also dan
your claims about Christian Right reacting like muslims - where is the violence after the crucifix in urine incident, or the violence after the last passion of Christ?
Posted by: hillary doesn't see the light at February 06, 2006 12:56 PM (Wbzhd)
69
Dear Hillary . . .
My god, you did it again, in BOTH your replies -- you characterized people as saying things they clearly didn't say, even though, again, the evidence that they didn't is on this same page!!! First re: your second comment -- my "claims about the Christian Right reacting like Muslims" -- EXCUSE ME???? My one and only previous posting is right above yours -- I said nothing of the kind! WHAT are you smoking???? I didn't say a damn thing about the Christian Right reacting like Muslisms! I said Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, and later apologized. That's ALL I said on anything close to the subject!!
And regarding your first reply to me -- this time, you quote Devils Advocate as saying 'under similar circumstances the Chritian Right would behave exactly like Muslims in response to cartoons mocking their religion'. Very good -- you're getting the hang of actually responding to people's REAL words. Yet you characterize this as his saying that it's common for Christians to commit terrorist acts. Then you get yourself all worked up over this "claim" (which exists only in your mind) and talk about McVeigh, etc. ARE YOU ABLE TO READ WHAT YOU ARE APPARENTLY ABLE TO CUT AND PASTE??????? What you've correctly quoted DA as saying says NOTHING about Christians frequently committing terrorist acts! Again, WHAT are you smoking? By all means, disagree with people -- but disagree with what they actually say, not what you WISH they said!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Dan at February 06, 2006 09:31 PM (fhxhN)
70
The Qur'an does not have the word "love" in its index. Thus, with a absense of love all you have is strife and hate leading to early death. This is the Muslim world.
Posted by: Donna at February 08, 2006 09:22 AM (HYYzc)
71
I support these cartoons and am tired of Muslims attempting to control my own freedoms of religion or speech. I am especially concerned about how Muslims (mainly those that follow strict Islamic laws) treat woman. Personally, this last points makes me feel that a great majority of Muslims are bigots and ignorant to the rights of others. When most Muslim women are given the “choice” to do X or Z, then I will be more open to listing to Muslims concerns about cartoons.
Posted by: SB at February 11, 2006 01:52 PM (ZHOaM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is Laura Alito truly hot? When Rob Port says the daughter of a Supreme Court justice is hot you never really know--let's face it, the long North Dakota winter will do that to a guy. But when Jonah Goldberg agrees? How you gonna argue with that? 
One of the distinguishing things about Islam as practiced today is that it demands respect. Dr. Shackleford's remarks reveal moral values that even religions are subject to in the West. Man judges God, and if God demands unniceness, God is shown the door. And that's how I like it.
It's been many years (and happy ones at that) since any church in these parts managed to evoke serious killings for Jesus from the congregation. Even hinting at it is mighty fringe. Nobody sings "Onward Christian Soldiers" if he ever intends to hold public office in the U.S. While I like this, I wonder if the modern unwillingness to kill heretics, heathens and witches for the Church reflects a decline in zeal that will end in unwillingness to kill for the right to *go to* church.
For whatever faults they may have, this isn't going on with the Muslim. Quite the contrary. They demand respect for their religion, and they get it. Just ask our recently unemployed French newspaper editor. They get respect from me too. I respect Islam, the power of nature, rattlesnakes, and a big, drunk trucker whose wife I bumped into. A wise man might make jokes about these things, but only from a safe distance. It doesn't look like Europe will be safe enough.
- Mohammed
We can speak and understand Latin can't we? Classical Arabic has the added benefit of there always having been a portion of the populace that can speak it, understand it's meaning and have memorized an entire book in the language. It was never forgotten, it's just not spoken in common langauge anymore.
That said, I can appreciate the confusion over the meaning of "jihad", yet the fact remains that it has multiple meanings. To think of it in terms of modern language, it's common meaning is simply "to struggle or strive against". It's application, as preserved in the Quran, is both to physical and spiritual struggle, the goals of which are also preserved in the Quran.
Some of the actions of the West (and certainly the sentiment on JR) leads one to believe that often the fight is the West vs. Islam. I know that's not the complete story though. There is also Islam vs. the militants. As I actually discussed in the JR thread I linked to earlier, the situation will require time, understanding, knowledge, money, and lives to correct. There are injustices being committed by both the West and the militant Muslims... plenty of blame to go around.
Really, a discerning individual will see that the bigger struggle for Muslims is against ourselves rather than against the West, but the West should adopt the position of doing everything it can to not inflame the situation. The West needs to offer respect for a serious chance at peace. Likewise the Muslims need to wisen up. There is a serious need for education and englightenment both amongst Muslims and amongst the ilk that hang out on JR.
