Muhammed is een vuile rothoer
 

The first one is funny. I don't really get the relevence of this second two.

Muhammed is een vuile rothoer
 

How about this one?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/ima..._cartoon_3.jpg

Muhammed is een vuile rothoer
 

Mark Steyn explained this in an op-ed piece earlier this week:

Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.

That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.

One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.

Have Fun, RT
 

Why would you do something that you know will be horribly offensive to millions of people (violent lunatics and non-violent saintly sorts alike), just to show that you can, when everyone already knows that you can?

Just because you can do something, or have the right to do it, doesn't mean that you should. I think the reprints were misguided at best, because there really is no larger principle at stake here.

If there were actually laws barring their publication, or if the editors actually lived ina country with an oppressive majority-Muslim population, then doing so might be an act of courage, and a blow for free speech. Those papers also would mostly not have done it in that case.

Given that there are no such laws, and that the publication bears no adverse consequence for the publishers/editors, it means nothing.

Your last sentence says it all. The point of the re-publication was essentially a big "F-You" or "Nyah-Nyah!" to all Muslims everywhere. "Your laws don't apply here and you can't stop us, and you can't scare us, and we'll say whatever we like, so there!!"

Well, that will show them. Nice.

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

So, what? What is your point?

confused
 

It is an expression describing what happens when a post not only does not engender a response, but when there is a _lengthy_ gap before another post.

I asumed that everyone was busy looking up the statistics on the overhead for Medicare, but Diane tells me that they were all busy using blaspehemous butt plugs. How disappointing.

S_A_M

Mod response to email
 

Board:

FYI, I still moderate the board, remotely, albeit in retirement.

I have been emailed by an anonymous poster who has requested that I delete certain posts and/or portions of posts that show certain offensive "political cartoons". I am not going to do so yet as it offends my notions of open forum, but will consult with my co-mod Ty and deliberate on the appropriateness of such action.

Please feel free to email me with any input.

Thanks,

penske

Have Fun, RT
 

Are you kidding. So you think the fear that McCarthy generated was a good thing? Why would you complain about McCarthy's tactics if your complaints are going to offend thousands of Americans?

This is the supression of political speech through intimidation and threats of violence. That political cartoon had a serious message. It showed the absurdity of suicide bombing. And yet the Muslims are trying to supress the publication of it through fear.

The point of printing it was to show them we would not be intimidated by the Muslims who are burning embassies. I would never consider printing it until Muslim countrys started asking western nations to ban it - and the lives of the cartoonist were threatened. We need to demonstrate that their intimidation tactics won't affect our policies in the west.

Are you kidding - a Dutch politician was killed for statement about muslims in his own country and Rushdie had to hide for his life in the west. This is getting out of hand.

Except that their lives have been threatened.

My last sentence said that would should not let ourselves be intimidated.

Do you think the NEA should have paid for an artist to depict Jesus on the cross in urine?

Have Fun, RT
 

if there hadn't been images of that Mohammed before, how do they know these were supposed to be that Mohammed?

Mod response to email
 

If such cartoons are deleted, I will never post on this board again.

Mod response to email
 

Duly noted, although do you think Ty will find that to be a cautionary deterrent or an incentive?

You are an idiot. These are news organizations that operate internationally.

Do you really want to get their reporters, camera-men, local staff employees, etc. assaulted and/or killed ? It would happen in a number of countries if they published the cartoons, and I think that is part of why they have not done so. You should understand, given that you created another sock just to talk about the subject.

That is why the posting here means nothing, and the posting in the European newspapers means almost nothing -- no consequences. Like limousine liberals in NY in the 1960's talking about civil rights at cocktail parties. Hooray for you. Wow, you are great!

I am not in any way defending any of the actions of any of the rioting lunatics -- though peaceful protesters have every right to bitch about whatever they want. I think that this type of violent reaction is a sign of an immature, primitive culture and politics which has never grown up in part because of poverty, lack of education, and a lack of true democracy.

That said, there are a whole lot of Muslims, including American Muslims, who aren't reacting violently, but are saddened and/or offended by what seems to be an equally primitive desire to shove a stick in their eyes.

I would have thought that those of you who profess to have been Christians offended by the various gross depictions of the Virgin Mary or Christ in publicly-funded art here in the 1980s and 1990s would be a little more sensitive to the religious sensibilities of other devout believers. Instead, your attitude seems to be -- "since we had to put up wth it, let's do it to them!" Why?

S_A_M

I also would have thought that Spanky, etc. would respect their use of boycotts as a legitimate example of the market in action. Christians do it all the time here in the U.S.

Mod response to email
 

dissent. I look back on my decision not to delete them as a mistake. When muslims killed people, either by crashing planes into buildings, or killing hundreds of school children or killing and burnings civilians in Iraq I judiciously deleted the photos. I knew they would only serve to cause people to have anger with the Muslin murderers. With these cartoons, they were the response of people angry with muslim murderers and in fact they caused muslims to murder. At the time I thought this an important distinction, but now i realize we need to cave in to muslims every time we can.

Have Fun, RT
 

So, it could have just been Joe Mohammed the baker?

I'd think the caption would have been a giveaway -- or maybe the accompanying piece in the newspapers talking about how these cartoons were bravely being published by the brave newspapers as a blow for freedom in their own countries (where it was perfectly legal).

S_A_M

Mod response to email
 

You either a droogkloot or a whiny little flamoes. Either way, go neuken yourself.

And delete this while you are at it:


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/ima..._cartoon_8.jpg