Respect? Or knee-knocking fear?
The state of free speech in the American press, February 4, 2006, as rendered by Sam, courtesy the Jawa Report (thanks to JS).
Respect? Or knee-knocking fear?
The state of free speech in the American press, February 4, 2006, as rendered by Sam, courtesy the Jawa Report (thanks to JS).
This looks like a refreshing show of non-dhimmitude from the LA Times, from Feb 1, not about the cartoon issue, but just about Islam in general:
http://www.calendarlive.com/columnists/rutten/cl-et-rutten1feb01,0,2679167.story?coll=cl-nav-theater
by LA Times staff writer Tim Rutten
(though the article's placement on "CalendarLive.com", an arts & entertainment section of the LA Times, seems odd)
LOL! Nice job
ha ha.. says it all! great cartoon...
Dr. Peppar - that article mentions Sayeed Qutb.
"the power of nightmares" covers Qutbism and the rise of Jihad extremely well - however it goes into Beeboid nonsense such as "al qaeda is a myth invented by the FBI" , but just discount those portions from your brain.
BUT , it does , to be fair, cover stuff like Islamism in the Algerian civil war, and does a great job at explaining the philosophy of Qutb.
worth a look - three episodes - available on google video for free here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares
Your cartoon says it all,
though I wonder whether the American govts upset at the cartoons has also played a part in the U.S. papers decisions to not publish. The papers have failed to do their job.
No paper has published the Danish cartoons in the U.S., U.K., Canada ( of course ), Australia and New Zealand, so the 400+ million people of those countries are, largely, debating an issue without being allowed to see the evidence; stunning censorship or self-censorship by the anglo press. Tnank heavens for the internet, without which, we would be living in total ignorance of many important news items.
Islam is against any depiction of the human form. This is really about killing anyone who mocks the "Prophet," to be determined by creepy clerics like Abu Hamza.
The Boston Globe has gone full dhimmi.
Can you imagine any newspaper saying the New York Times shouldn't have revealed state secrets? Of course not.
Forms of intolerance
The Boston Globe is in favor of surrendering the most basic journalistic freedom to medieval barbarians. They want to 'avoid' a clash of civilizations by giving up our civilization.
"No paper has published the Danish cartoons in the U.S., U.K., Canada ( of course ), Australia and New Zealand, so the 400+ million people of those countries are, largely, debating an issue without being allowed to see the evidence; stunning censorship or self-censorship by the anglo press."
Just a matter of time......is all over the conservative radio talk programs in America. I for one will keep it going and I can tell you Michael Savage, Rusty Humphry and every other up front in your face radio host will take it to the people.
The newspapers can just keep ignoring this news.....but the internet will feed it.
"the 400+ million people of those countries are, largely, debating an issue without being allowed to see the evidence"
That's where the Internet comes in: just email the link to your friends. (This doesn't let the MSM off the hook of course, but it will help to circumvent their PC pusillanimity.)
The Boston Globe's editorial is basing its argument on the same PC Given that Pres. Bush has repeated ad nauseam, that Islam is a "noble great religion of peace". Given that Islam is that, then of course it would tend to be an incitement to intolerance to publish cartoons that show its founding leader as a violent terrorist.
The Boston Globe didn't invent that PC Given, nor certainly did Bush. That Given is part of the dominant culture in the West; it will not be deposed by wishful thinking or by denial.
the News Media had no problem with publishing pictures of nude Iraqi men in jail, no problem when it would harm the USmilitary eh!!! but when it might do harm to themselves. they are freakin cowards!!! well no wonder the News media are laying off people, no one are buying their papers!
archduke, thanks for the link, but unfortunately my computer can't see videos.
From a link above.
",,,Those who want to understand what lies on the other side of that divide will find that Mary Habeck's concise and sober "Knowing the Enemy" creates the accessible bridge they require. The author is a military historian and associate professor in the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and her book is quite simply the best single volume currently available on this topic..."
I have never heard of Mary Habeck and what I read above doesn't sound as if she re-invented the wheel.
Why should this writer be more prominent or more credible or respectable than Spencer or Fitzgerald or Ibn Warraq?
"an incitement to intolerance"
That's up there with "journalistic integrity" in meaninglessness.
Love that cartoon.
It's knee-knocking, teeth-chattering, sweaty-palmed fear, Robert.
And at each concession, each sign of weakness, each giving-in, we strengthen the resolve of the fascist personality. But worse than that, any sign of weakness invites more retaliation, more punishment -- the opposite of what we might expect. Hitler's actions are a case in point -- although he had previously admired the British, Chamberlain's weakness caused him to despise them, and he couldn't wait to conquer them.
As for this cartoon crisis, notice how despite apologies from many countries (some not even involved in the publishing of these cartoons) the rage is escalating.
Another point that explains how our reasonable, logical analysis just can't account for the fierceness of the Muslim reaction (despite the attempts by editors and columnists to link cartoons and the anger we're seeing): the rage was there before any cartoons were published. Those drawings were just the trigger, the excuse, not the reason.
And whence comes this rage? Of course we're told that the West has caused it -- but the role of Islam (and Islamic governments) in suppressing, oppressing, and depressing its followers is by far the more likely explanation. And as I read somewhere today (so much to read, so little time), it’s lucky for those governments that this cartoon crisis came along to allow the populations to give vent to their anger, safely diverted from the true source of their discontent. Anger such as we’re seeing now does not arise spontaneously but is the result of years, if not generations, of smouldering discontent.
Or is this all a manufactured crisis to discredit the West, and defuse Muslim anger?
If islamophobia is defined as an irrational fear of Islam, then what is a fear of being killed by an islamist? That is a real and rational fear. It is not a medical condition. Brave editors all over Europe now have to live with the dread of coming home one day and seeing their loved ones butchered.
An apt cartoon in the DT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Q3IR4BHRPMT5HQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?view=HOME&grid=P18&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=244788
Not all of the drawings depict Mohammad. So, why have the BBC, CNN, and others decided not to run ANY of the drawings?
Consider this:
The only reason that Muslims can possibly be offended by drawing number six, below, is that it violates a none-to-clear Islamic prohibition (which is not universally accepted by every Muslim in the first place) against drawings of animate objects.
From a 'freedom of speech' perspective, can anyone here see any valid reason that Western news outlets shouldn't publish it?
These five images, from the original twelve, DO NOT depict Mohammad
1. Life of a cartoonist (expresses the essence of the problem)
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/life-of-cartoonist_29.html#links
2. Line up (see caption):
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/line-up.html#links
3. PR STUNT (note headwear):
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/pr-stunt.html#links
Note: This was submitted in protest
4. Schoolboy (the original caption read "Jyllands-Posten journalists are a bunch of reactionary provacateurs")
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/schoolboy-muhammed.html#links
Note: This was submitted in protest
5. Under the Thumb (see caption)
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/under-thumb.html#links
Note: This DOES contain a criticism of Islamic teachings and attitudes towards women
These two images of Mohammad are completely benign:
6. Desert Mohammad:
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/desert-muhammed.html#links
7. Crescent of Mohammad:
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/crescent-of-muhammed.html#links
This image mocks an unfounded Islamist belief, and the expectation of some suicide bombers:
8. Out of Virgins:
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/out-of-virgins.html#links
The message of this image is ambiguous, but is probalbly not of a Viking:
9. Glory of Mohammad
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/glory-of-muhammed.html#links
This image, using the Western perception of Islam's treatment of women, expresses the essence of the problem:
10. Censorship
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/censorship.html#links
This image is the one most mentioned:
11. The face of Mohammad
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/02/face-of-muhammed.html#links
This image also addresses the issue at hand:
12. Preaching Jihad
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/01/preaching-jihad.html#links
Jaime,
Fear of being killed by an Islamist is called rational, intelligent deduction.
I once talked to a German lady waiting in line to get on a ride at Disneyland about standing up for what we believe in. I was young and idealistic then (as opposed to older, more experienced and still idealistic now,) and she told me that once you've lived through a war, you'll do anything to not go through it again. That may be feeding the paralysis we see in some European communities. Unfortunately unless we want to submit we have very little choice but to stand up and fight.
The cartoon above is very offensive to journalists. I suppose we will see them rioting tomorrow?
"I have never heard of Mary Habeck ... Why should this writer be more prominent or more credible or respectable than Spencer or Fitzgerald or Ibn Warraq?"
She should not be more prominent or credible than those you mention; my point was just that someone critically analyzing Islam in the same spirit as those you mention was given a wide audience recently through the LA Times.
Incidentally, a Google search of Habeck and jihadwatch garnered only 18 hits, none apparently dealing with main Spencer or Fitzgerald articles about her (only in the comments sections). That strikes me as odd, considering the work she has done.
Love the new cartoon and i'm currently circulating it to as many people as i know, maybe it will land on Jack Straws emails and he'll wake up to the fact he's an appeasing dhimmi
though i wont hold my breath for it to happen
About 4 years ago on LGF, I raised the question of BBC bias against Israel. This bias is not just anti-Israeli but pro-muslim.
Even now and after 7/7, this bias continues and one has to ask, who governs the BBC and who defines its policy.
The BBC is paid for by the tax payers, the money coming from Foreign Office coffers, but it is the government that really controls the BBC. The BBC and the "established" Anglican Church as well, have to follow the government line.
Why is Britain appeasing and appeasing yet again? I hope, because the moment and time is not quite right just yet.
There is also the matter to consider that there are thousands of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their task is difficult enough without having the entire population of both these countries turning on them. If that happens their task will become untenable, and withdrawal will be the only choice. That will mean victory for OBL and muslims everywhere, and they will loudly proclaim it.
I do not find it surprising that the President Bush and PM Blair, and official announcements of these countries have been restrained in this matter. It would not surprise me as well, that editors of newspapers in the UK, Australia and the US, have been asked to restrain themseles, as our soldiers are over there.
This is a burden of responsbility for the lives of our troops, as well as the outcome of the fighting war, that we have not considered so far.
The LEFTISTS are now Quaking in fear
Backpedalling so fast there running over
their own hypocrytical policies..
they compare that printing these cartoons
is the same as printing
Racist images of Blacks..
Nazi cruelty to the Jews...
But notice they never realy mention
the Things the LEFT Loves to be offensive about..
Including attacking day and night for months
1. Christianity which our foreathers believed in.
2. Catholacism (the press went after ALL)
Catholics like hungry wolves.. when only a few were guilty (and were punished)
3. Our military (Leftists met with the enemy) continue to coordinate obtaining video from Islamic Terrorists instead of doing the right thing by telling the Authorities (even if it means our soldiers deaths)
4. The So called RED states where there is an active attempt to minimize their votes by brining in illigally millions of illegal mexicans (whom of course would vote for the LEFT)..
5. Our soldiers now have to worry that when KILLING the Islamic terrorists that
Some leftist reporter will take video and then send it to al-jazerra so our soldiers will be courtmartialed..
6. Our President (the Left HATES) President bush so much that they have George sorous and other Millionairs doing everything they can to Oust a sitting president...
Even if it means the Overthow of our own Government..
7. The First and Second ammendments which the LEFT has decided only Belong to The PRESS and the Perverts..
So much hypocrisy on the LEFT i really hope that they will get a taste of their own Treasonist MEDICINE...
rumoret - The 'Courier Mail' in Australia published one of the cartoons (The "stop we are out of virgins" one)
I was amazed - as they are normally a suckhole paper for Muslims.
However - we have had more (very violent)stabbings in Sydney - Bondi beach by "men of middle eastern appearance".
None of the major news channels - except channel ten are reporting it. The newspapers that have reported it are telling us that
"it has nothing to do with racial violence"
At least I agree with the papers on that one - it has everything to do with how infidels are treated by Muslims!
For there to be a fight of civilizations there must be at least two! Islam and the resultant "culture"/"civilization" do not constitute a civilization in my book!
"One cannot practice too rigid a fast from the charms of worldly talk."--Fenelon
DP111, you make sense. If I were the president, I would be quiet too. Timing...that is the real issue. And of course, keep my eyes on Iran.
Simon Jenkins in the Times Online has a lot of positive things to say about Islam, which he calls "an ancient and dignified religion", and a lot of negative things to say about the "right-wing" Danish newspaper which defied Muslim precepts and printed images of Mohammed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511,00.html
so... let me get this straight... someone makes a cartoon of muhammud depicting him with a bomb in his turban. muslims get upset so they threaten to KILL lots of people thereby proving the author correct?
noah
Scaramouche,
As you've probably noticed, Mr. Jenkins missreprents several key issues surrounding this controversy.
He states, "To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory."
Of course, no rational Westerner who has actually seen the original twelve drawings would come to that conclusion about all of them.
He also states, "to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation."
Perhaps he is unaware that Islam is practised in locations as geographically and racially diverse as the Sudan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines. It has nothing to do with race, but rather with how literally any given Muslim interprets Islamic texts and teachings.
And he also states, "...but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons."
Muslims are entitled to their beliefs. But he fails to mention that others are not obliged to play along. And that if their aversion to icons involves the very benign drawing of Mohammad in the Desert, by a non-Muslim, then the Muslim community really does have internal problems.
And this, "The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims."
No doubt the turban drawing was intended to insult, but none of those drawings was of Allah.
There are more, but I'm burned out.
I have a hard time imagining that Jenkins doesn't actually know that he is misrepresenting the issues.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
The United States condemns in the strongest terms the burning of the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Damascus, Syria today, which also damaged the Chilean and Swedish Embassies. The Government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is inexcusable.
The State Department has told the Syrian Ambassador that Syria must act decisively to protect all foreign embassies and citizens in Damascus from attack. We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.
We urge all governments to take measures now to lower tensions and prevent violence, including against any diplomatic premises and against businesses and individuals. We stand with our friends and allies in urging a constructive and peaceful dialogue emphasizing respect for all religious faiths.
We commend Danish Prime Minster Rasmussen's responsible statements in recent days urging tolerance and respect for all faiths and for freedom of the press. We stand in solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today.
Interesting. The official US stance on this seems to be changing a little in the right direction now, and all it took was a burnt down embassy.
Robert, I am curious if the paralyzing fear of the MSM has resulted in an increase in hits on JW / DW.
Seems like this might be a real silver lining. Millions of non-moslems must be wondering what these "offensive" cartoons must look like to elicit such outrage. Then, directed to sites like JW / DW, LGF, Michelle Malkin's blog, and a host of others to the innocuous cartoons. Once they've been exposed to the truth about islam, to explanations that don't insult one's intelligence, or deny what one has witnessed, or do violence to reason itself, the sychofantic MSM will have lost yet more paying subscribers.
Did you know that Muhammed is on the US Supreme Court building?
Adolph Weinman, a "respected and accomplished Beaux-Arts architectural sculptor" during the years 1931-1932 designed a series of stone friezes for the walls of the US Supreme Court building under the direction of Cass Gilbert (1867–1934), architect of the Supreme Court building.
Weinman on one frieze depicted 18 "great lawgivers" of history. Guess who one of those "great lawgivers" was -- and holding a Koran no less.
To download a pdf of the frieze:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
The 18 "great lawgivers" are:
Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall).
Designed in 1931-1932, eh? We can now definitely include the 1930s as part of the historical roots of the PC pathology that dominates our culture now.
PS: a curious note: "According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law?" [!]
"[architect] Gilbert relied on [Weinman] to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law."
[And Mohammed is among them???!!!]
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Dr. Pepper, if you read the text in the PDF you link to it actually says that Weinman made sure that figure did NOT look like Mohammed, but was a representation to honor him. Its a bunch of blah blah blah, but in the end the message is that its not really a depiction of Mohammed or at least the artist refuses to admit that it is.
death threats because "feelings" were hurt....as we Kafirs all know this results in riots, pillage and plunder throughout the world to show the KAFIR that Islam is the religion of PEACE!!!! Just watch the peaceful demeanor of those protestors! Read the wonderful signs of those protestors!
I still have not found any Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, etc group filled with such HATE for those not of their religion as Muslims have for non-Muslims - the only peace in Islam is you submit to Islam to be left in peace or you will be left in pieces!
pillage and plunder throughout the world to show the KAFIR that Islam is the religion of PEACE!!!! - posted by Jihan
Funny you should mention that. I was talking on the phone with my mother this evening, and she mentioned the coverage of the cartoon issue on the evening news (something I can watch "together" with the family in spite of being 1100 miles away).
She finished expressing her distaste for it all by saying, "And I thought Islam was a religion of peace!"
As a Jihad Watcher, this is one of those moments where one wants to cue the "Hallelujah" from Handel's Messiah as balloons fall from the ceiling.
Taking that opportunity, I think I brought her up to speed a little. :)
My point: Even though the mainstream media has finally gotten wind of this story, it's up to us to make sure our families and friends who are following it know the rest of the story.
Expatriate:
"Weinman made sure that figure did NOT look like Mohammed"
How would one go about making sure of that, when no one knows what he DID in fact look like?
"...but was a representation to honor him."
That's all that matters to my point: Muhammad is on the walls of the US Supreme Court.
At any rate, that mealy-mouthed doubletalk, whether it's Weinman's or someone else's at the time, simply typifies the standard incoherence of PC Leftism.
Looks like that mad-infant posing as the Iranian president has upped the stakes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562601.htm
dby: "No paper has published the Danish cartoons in the U.S., U.K., Canada ( of course ), Australia and New Zealand, so the 400+ million people of those countries are, largely, debating an issue without being allowed to see the evidence; stunning censorship or self-censorship by the anglo press."
Not true concerning NZ: "Protests against cartoons' publication
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10366913
05.02.06 4.00pm UPDATE
Hundreds of people have marched in Auckland protesting over the decision by two New Zealand newspapers to publish cartoons which have angered Muslims worldwide.
The protestors carried placards denouncing the publication of the cartoons by Wellington's Dominion Post and The Press in Christchurch as they walked down Queen Street. "
Not completely true about the USA, either: "The New York Daily Sun published two of the cartoons Thursday. Several conservative bloggers and Web sites also posted the drawings. The Philadelphia Inquirer's Web site included a link to the cartoons posted on a European site, and one cartoon appeared in the paper." http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/114519
Three cheers for the Dutch!
"Now, newspapers in various parts of the world, including the Netherlands, New Zealand and France have decided to reprint the cartoons. The Dutch Volkskrant published them on Thursday, and after receiving email threats, decided to print them again in their Saturday's edition. The paper's editorial also strongly reprimanded the publisher of France-Soir for firing its chief editor over the reprints, accusing the paper of being 'weak in the knees'. An excerpt from this editorial follows:
(Translated from Dutch) "A French leading Muslim compared the drawings to anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi era. However, a loose collection of prints, of which possibly two or three are rather distasteful, is of a completely different stature than the systematic Nazi-propaganda, which depicted the entire Jewish community as an inferior "rat people". This latter tradition is rather continued in some of the same Arabic countries that are currently making a big fuss".
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=02050615944
The Washington Times explains why they haven't published the ccartoons (so far): http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060204-110145-6060r
Newsweek ran an interesting interview with Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's Culture Editor who had made the decision to publish the cartoons:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/
The good old Apartheid tradition: "A South African court banned the country's Sunday newspapers from reprinting the cartoons." http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48674
Dr Pepper
Now that you mention it, we should seize the opportunity to demolish Mohammed's stone representation on the Supreme Court. After all, it encourages idolatory, and is insulting to Muslims, and we wouldn't want the State Department to be unhappy, would we?
After all, we don't have Larry Flynt or David Koresh on the Supreme Court wall, and they are far more worthy. Not to mention the sacred wall of separation between church & state (or does that just not apply to mosque & state)? Also, more seriously, how did Mohammed have any more influence on US law than did Buddha, Shogun, Confucius or Taoism?
Anyway, answer to your question - "How would one go about making sure of that, when no one knows what he DID in fact look like?", it is more likely than not that he did have a beard, and probably a long one, and no mustache. The one on the supreme court shows him clean-shaven, and he seems to resemble Alexander the Great in this depiction.
Okay, I shouldn't have mentioned Confucius, since he is on the other wall.
But to any constitutional scholars out there, is there any portion of the US constitution that is derived from the Shariat? Don't make me throw up.
The idea is that Muhammad was a lawgiver, same as on the front of Sterling library at Yale
http://www.yale.edu/sfli/libdoors.jpg
Re: Muhammad and the Supreme Court
Weinman's excuse is not good enough. Any pictoral representation of Mo is forbidden by Islam, it doesn't have to look like him (a typical 7th century Arab). You cannot "honor" Muhammad by creating an image of him. I don't see what the big fuss is about though. American law is not inspired anyway by sharia and it's not inspired by Confucian law either. It's just showing the evolution of law through the ages. Granted, all of the law givers are not all secular. Moses is up there as well with the Ten Commandments. And the evolution is a little skewed. There is no way that sharia law can be seen as an evolution from Roman law. The law of Muhammad ranks up there with the laws of Draco, yet both are included. I think we are making a mistake of assuming that Weinman ENDORSES sharia law. He's just showing the evolution of various law systems in the world that can be associated with historical figures. That's probably the reason why we don't see the Indian laws of Manu up there because we can't trace it back to an historical person. Muhammad is up there for the same reason Confucius is up there, although neither influenced American law, they are both major forces in their respective areas (the Middle East and North Africa for sharia and East Asia for Confucian law). Other figures like Jesus and Buddha are not included because they did not give civil laws.
I say leave the statue up. If anything, it will serve to embarrass the Muslims even more. It shows how undeveloped sharia law is (outranked by 7 more law givers on the evolutionary scale), and comparatively it's even outranked by its predecessors (Confucius and Solon). And to think that Muslims are the ones that are petitioning for a return to the purity of sharia law. East Asia is Confucian by culture, but even they are not demanding a return to the wisdom of Confucius. They have their secular laws and they are content. The statue should not be taken down. CAIR can cry all they want, but they will have a hard time convincing anyone to take it down since Weinman didn't intend to offend like Jyllands-Posten. Inform them of this blasphemy though, it will just make them look silly and hopefully lead to discrediting them.
But to any constitutional scholars out there, is there any portion of the US constitution that is derived from the Shariat?
In an indirect sense, the Bill of Rights. ;)
Why not print pictures of aishia as 6 years old and then 9 when she married the man Mohammad.I
If the Press fails with this issue then they have utterly abandoned their calling as "reporters" to the Imperialistic Islamic terrorists.
Why not do something like-
A blank editorial page area, where cartoons are usually shown, with the words:
"We are too afraid to publish the 12 Danish caricatures of the Muslim figure "Mohammad" -concerning his use by Islamic extremists to promote violence- because of death threats we have noted, so this editiorial page area will be left blank from now on out of a show of our abject cowardice. We are sorry for abrogating our essential 1st Amendment priniciples. P.S.- And don't look forward to anything really serious ever being covered again by our publication, because we just don't have the stomach for it. UNCLE!"
This is the email I have just sent to the Washington Times:
"No one thought we should hold back because of the threat of violence; that part was easy". Was it ?
Come on David, just admit you are scared, please.
I know France is betrayed by its coward press and leaders but I thought things were more encouraging in the USA, the country of Freedom.
As a French citizen, I am appalled. I thought the US was a free country. It is very concerning that even the US press is scared. You feel free to criticise your politicians etc. but when it comes to Islam then the freedom of speech disappears.
Very concerning. Very disappointing. If you give in, who will resist ????
Elisabeth, Paris, France.
highbg,
I'm in the process of writing a letter to David Jones at the Washington Times. I am flabbergasted that I, a regular guy with access to the internet, have been following this since the first week in October (primarliy at JW/DW) and they just got wind of it a week or so ago.
Note: Diana West wrote a piece about this IN the Washington Times in a while back, but apparently no one at the Times bothered to read it.
I looked at the Newsweek article, too. Their intro defines their ignorance:
"Back in September 2005, the liberal Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published several cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad—at least one as a terrorist—although any physical representation of the prophet is forbidden in Islam. There was no immediate backlash, but last week, after several other European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, the reaction went global.
No immediate backlash?
Our Western press is truly pathetic.
Isabellathecrusader,
That is exactly why we should stop immigration now and start deportations.
Borg,
I'm with you. Where's a big slingshot when you need one?