"Muslims Not 'Free of Being Mocked,' Danish Cartoonist Says," from Fox News, October 1 (thanks to Phil):
Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire -- and they need to understand that they are not "free of being mocked or being offended," says the Danish caricaturist whose cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad incited rage throughout the Muslim world four years ago.
Kurt Westergaard told roughly a dozen listeners Wednesday night that he will "always" be ready to defend an individual's right to religious freedom.
"As the Danish tradition is for satire, we say you can speak freely, you can vote, you can speak out anytime, but there's only one thing you can't do -- you can't be free of being mocked or being offended," Westergaard said. "That's the conditions in Denmark and so many countries."
Westergaard spoke at a private residence in midtown Manhattan in conjunction with the Hudson New York Briefing Council. It was just his second appearance in the U.S. since the 2005 publication of his notorious cartoon, which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban resembling a lit bomb. In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad is forbidden and considered blasphemy. [...]
Security at Wednesday night's event was heightened, with two uniformed New York Police Department officers stationed outside the building as Westergaard spoke. Additional security measures were also taken earlier in the day when Westergaard spoke during a luncheon at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and at Princeton University. He is scheduled to speak at Yale University on Thursday -- an appearance that is causing some controversy on the Ivy League campus.
Members of the Yale Muslim Students Association have said they are "deeply hurt and offended" that Westergaard will speak on the New Haven, Conn., campus, though they do not plan to protest. The group said Yale fails to recognize the "religious and racial" sensitivities surrounding the matter. [...]
Which race is Islam again?
"Individuals at Yale have deep objections to Mr. Westergaard's cartoon and commentary, but in the Yale community, the avenue to voice disagreement with expression is through more speech, not its curtailment," Conroy said in a statement.
My momma always said "kill them with kindness"!!
Anyone know any good islam jokes?
Members of the Yale Muslim Students Association have said they are "deeply hurt and offended" that Westergaard will speak on the New Haven, Conn., campus, though they do not plan to protest. The group said Yale fails to recognize the "religious and racial" sensitivities surrounding the matter. [...]
I'm deeply hurt and offended by the misogyny, the racism (particularly against black people), the bigotry, the supremacism, the human-rights violations (particularly those of gays, women and non-mahoundian individuals living in mahoundian open-sewers) which are inherent to mahound-worshipping. Yet no Western leaders have started any mahoundian-repatriation program to address my grievances, and rid the West of this threat to its core values and democracy. We're forced to have all of that mahoundian crap shoved down our throats on a daily basis.
At least free-speech in the West hasn't been done away with yet and, if those mahoundian taking advantage of affirmative-action at Yale can't put up with that, maybe they should spare a little money for their tickets back to mahoundistan/opensewerstan. There, they're not going to have their sensitivities offended in any way, shape or form without those responsible for it being put to death.
Oh yeah, and I forgot the Mein-Qurampf thumping, and references to that psychopath pedophile that they worship as a "perfect and flawless model of conduct." That's offensive as hell to me as well.
Islam, Mohamet, the Koran, and "allah" offend me so much words can't begin to describe.
The West in the 21st century is being ruined and destroyed by barbaric, absurd, bloodthirsty, intolerant Islam.
As Kemal Ataturk remarked:
“Islam is an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives."
And he was a Muslim.
LSU student group fights back against Muslims' attempts to muzzle criticism about Islam and Mohammed! A must-read!
Specifically mentioned are the Mo 'Toons:
http://www.lsureveille.com/news/group-plans-for-blasphemy-day-1.1930078#comment1132984
"The group said Yale fails to recognize the "religious and racial" sensitivities surrounding the matter."
The false premise and fallacy of using the racial component is given in an effort to gain a sympathetic ear from those who try to be racially sensitive to issues and don't really understand the definition of the word. Muslims have tried to attach the race card to their efforts to gain victim status anyway they can like blacks among the dhimmis' of the world.
Our Catholics,Protestants,and Methodists a race? The arrogance that somehow a religion is above criticism reflects badly on an evolving civilized society in a modern world. Unfortunately there in lies the problem with Islam ,a religion that remains in the dark ages with its archaic teachings that are considered pure and locked in stone for all time.
I do, I do! Here's my favorite, from the file I keep called Laughing at Islam:
This is your brain: (O)
This is your brain on islam: (.)
Posted here by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 9:57 PM
"Muslims Not 'Free of Being Mocked...
Kufr bullets...
That's good news...I will continue to mock them...Or more specifically I would mock Allah and his mouthpiece Mahound.
Mockery of Allah is the apex of kufr...Allah must learn to take his lumps...He's not as perfect as some people think...
Quran...023:110 "But ye treated them with ridicule, so much so that (ridicule of) them made you forget My Message while ye were laughing at them!
'...made you forget My Message while ye were laughing at them!'...Allah hates laughter...especially kufr laughter...
It makes Mahoundians forget his message...The more laughter the better...The more Mahoundians forget Allah's messages the better...'Always leave them laughing'...
Muhammad with a fuse.
K A B O O M ! ! !
Islam: the religion of heightened security.
From the article - "Members of the Yale Muslim Students Association have said they are "deeply hurt and offended" that Westergaard will speak on the New Haven, Conn., campus, though they do not plan to protest."
It is estimated (by Nonie Darwish) that over 270 million "infidels" have been killed by the continuous Islamic jihad during the last 1400 years. I would how many of them were "deeply hurt and offended"?
Duh_Swami, your bringing up mahoundian hatred of laughter made me remember this story, about how Hamas tapeworms wanted to arrest a female journalist who was seen laughing in public on a beach in A-rab-occupied Gaza. Apparently, mahound's imaginary alter-ego allah doesn't just hate kafir laughter.
Perhaps if a mahoundian's life isn't similar to a slow death sentence, then they're not really true mahound-worshippers...
The cartoonist is not living in the world as it stands right now. In the West, if you obtain "victim" status, and the mohounds have as we all here know, you have the RIGHT to be offended and therefore take action as one sees fit, up to and inluding murder. Now, had the west kept it's wits about it this would never happen. But alas it was the "compassionate" thing to do and here we are, afraid to speak our minds for fear of death. So I hope the cartoonist doesn't lose his idealism but keeps checking his "6".
"Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire "
bwahahahahahaha...ain't gonna happen...
Free speech, even if it hurts
'MORE WOMEN died in the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz."
Is this line more offensive to Jews than an editorial cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad with a turban bomb is to Muslims?
Apparently it is, because the editorial cartoonists are still free, whereas the man who made this statement — British author David Irving — was sentenced this week to three years in an Austrian jail for violating a law that says it is a crime if a person "denies, grossly trivializes, approves or seeks to justify the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity."
That Irving has been, and probably still is, a Holocaust denier is indisputable. In 1994, I interviewed him for a book on Holocaust denial, and he told me that no more than half a million Jews died during World War II, and most of those because of disease and starvation. In 2000, Irving lost his libel suit in Britain against an author, and the judge in the case called him "an active Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist." And in April 2005, I attended a lecture he gave in Costa Mesa at an event sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review, the leading voice of Holocaust denial in the U.S. There he joked about the Chappaquiddick line and, holding his right arm up, boasted: "This hand has shaken more hands that shook Hitler's hand than anyone else in the world."
The important question here is not whether Irving is a Holocaust denier (he is), or whether he offends people with what he says (he does), but why anyone, anywhere should be imprisoned for expressing dissenting views or saying offensive things. Today, you may be imprisoned or fined for dissenting from the accepted Holocaust history in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Given their disastrous history of being too lenient with fringe political ideologues, it is perhaps understandable that countries such as Germany and Austria have sought to crack down on rabble-rousers whose "hate speech" can and has led to violence and pogroms. In some cases, the slippery slope has only a few paces between calling the Holocaust a "Zionist lie" and the neo-Nazi desecration of Jewish property.
And as we have witnessed repeatedly, Europeans have a different history and culture of free speech than we do in this country. In Germany, for example, the "Auschwitz lie" law makes it a crime to "defame the memory of the dead." In Britain, libel law requires the defendant to prove that he or she did not libel the plaintiff — unlike U.S. law, which puts the onus on the plaintiff — and the British recently debated the merits of banning religious hate speech. In France, it is illegal to challenge the existence of the "crimes against humanity" as they were defined by the military tribunal at Nuremberg; another law, on the books until just a few weeks ago, required that France's colonial history (which was not always "humane") had to be taught in a "positive" light.
In traditionally liberal Canada, there are "anti-hate" laws against spreading "false news." In late 1992, Irving went to Canada to receive the George Orwell Award from a conservative free-speech organization, whereupon he was arrested and deported on the grounds that his German court conviction for denying the Holocaust made him a likely candidate for future hate-speech violations.
Even in the land of Thomas Jefferson and the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech does not always ring. On Feb. 3, 1995, Irving was invited by the Berkeley Coalition for Free Speech to lecture at UC Berkeley. More than 300 protesters prevented Irving and the 113 ticket holders from entering. (That, however, is quite different from passing a law that bars him from speaking.)
Austria's treatment of Irving as a political dissident should offend both the people who defend the rights of political cartoonists to express their opinion of Islamic terrorists and the civil libertarians who leaped to the defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he exercised his right to call the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns." Why doesn't it? Why aren't freedom lovers everywhere offended by Irving's court conviction?
Freedom is a principle that must be applied indiscriminately. We have to defend Irving in order to defend ourselves. Once the laws are in place to jail dissidents of Holocaust history, what's to stop such laws from being applied to dissenters of religious or political histories, or to skepticism of any sort that deviates from the accepted canon?
No one should be required to facilitate the expression of Holocaust denial, but neither should there be what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the "silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form."
The point was poignantly made in Robert Bolt's play, "A Man for All Seasons," in which William Roper and Sir Thomas More debate the relative balance between evil and freedom:
Roper: So now you'd give the devil benefit of law.
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh? And when the law was down — and the devil turned round on you — where would you hide? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Call David Irving the devil if you like; the principle of free speech gives you the right to do so. But we must give the devil his due. Let Irving go, for our own safety's sake.
Comments of hypocrisy welcomed.
"Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire..." -- according to Kurt Westergaard
No, actually Westergaard is wrong. One only uses the locution "X needs to develop Y" when X has the capacity to develop Y. But in fact, Muslims will never develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire -- at least not in numbers sufficient for our #1 priority: our security.
In fact, then:
Members of the Anti-Islam Movement need to stop saying "Muslims need to do this, that and the other thing".
We have to graduate from the position of expecting Muslims to change so that they will become the relatively harmonious co-existent partners on Earth with the West that other peoples are, such as (with a few kinks and rough spots to work out) Russia, Eastern Europe, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, non-Muslim Africa (perhaps excluding the violently anti-white racist South Africa), Central and South America (excluding two or three countries infected by the pathology of Marxism), and so forth.
Muslims, however, will never change, not in numbers sufficient for our #1 priority: our security. We thus must evolve to a position of eternal segregation -- because
a) Muslims themselves virulently and violently erect an eternal barrier between themselves and all Others (though their conceptual barrier moves them not to an isolationism but rather to a supremacist expansionism);
and
b) they will forever foment too much destabilizing and dangerous fitna in the world.
And that eternal segregation must be reflected concretely in terms of geography -- a line in the sand, so to speak, drawn around the Dar-al-Islam, a new Iron Curtain: an Iron Veil. This actual spatial boundary (roughly comprising the traditional swath of land from Indonesia to Morocco) must be militarily enforced: any Muslims caught stepping outside it will be killed. And, of course, concomitantly with the creation of this spatial boundary: all Muslims outside of that perimeter must be deported from the Free World and sent into that Gulag of a Hell on Earth, that "House of Islam" that will house their chosen way to live out their wretchedly fanatical existence where they can abuse each other to their heart's content, cut off from, and thus inoculating, the rest of Mankind so that we can get on with our own imperfect lives without having to worry about unpredictably exploding Muslims and without having to put up with all the other outrageous crap they have been shoving in our faces for 1400 years. Life's hard enough without having to put up with Muslims. That old desert adage comes to mind: the straw that broke the camel's back. We have enough problems in our societies without having to shoulder this additional, intolerable burden of a people who are stark raving maniacs and fanatically follow a blueprint of hostile supremacist expansionism based on ludicrously insane beliefs. Enough's enough. No, Mr. Westergaard, Muslims don't "need" to do anything -- except get the hell out.
Security at Wednesday night's event was heightened, with two uniformed New York Police Department officers stationed outside the building as Westergaard spoke.
The 6th Pillar of Islam has been a hit management technique since its inception with the contract murder of Abu Afak nearly 1,400 yrs ago.
*** 2:191 ***
It's a hit that the NYPD can understand. We Infidels of course have every right to speak as we see fit; Moslems of course have every right to intimidate and murder as they see fit.
*** Tabari 8:141 ***
It's a good deal all around. Fair and Square. Prez Osama seems to be cool with it, and he's half Moslem and half JudeoChristian, half Caucasian and half-African American. But above all he's half-assed.
Do you have any idea how offensive that is?
http://mysite.verizon.net/rogmios/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/the%20jew.jpg
Why would an Ivy League school accept Muslims - is beyond me! And if Muslims in these schools are offended, then they should enroll in an Islamic university outside the U.S.!!!
I can't wait for Islam 2 Bomb! ...an in *implode*
Because Muslim governments and wealthy Muslim individuals "donate" millions of dollars to the schools...the schools are bought off...and are literally forced to hire Islamic minded instructors to teach...it's all part of the Islamic stealth jihad...
that was a good joke, I wasn't expecting Remember 911, nice.
It is nice to see someone can honor the day, in many ways.
Most people I know, wish to ignore it now, as if it never happened. Like the Monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) they can't see it, can't speak of it, and wish to never think of it. Or even worse, there are those that wish to deny it- and spread the blame for it- on ourselves.
Least Remember 911, go down in history as a slogan, like "Tippecanoe and Tyler too", we should honor it through speech, deed and thought, including appropriate humor.
I agree.
I've been reading Robert Spencer's book, "The Truth about Mohamed" and the main thing I see is that Muslims need to do is also know the truth about Mohamed and then make their best choice.
I think he had spiritual potential - but his big test was that he did not say, "Get thee behind me satan" when that rude being first came to him and scared him half to death. So - he was spiritual enough to attract that "test" - but then flunked.
You see this duality continue to play out - sometimes some sincerity and then more and more haughty "spiritual" ego (kill those who disagree, etc.
So - by their fruits ye shall know them.
The best part of Mohamed are the things he learned from monotheism (Jews and Christians) - For the most part - he did stick with that.
So again - the only thing I think Muslims "need to do" is read Robert's book - or others like it - if they exist.
ML
Guy walks into a sex shop and says, "I'd like a sex doll, please -- one of those inflatable ones."
The clerk says, "Certainly, sir -- we have a wide selection. Would you like a black one or a white one?"
"I'll have a black one, please."
"OK. Christian or Muslim?"
"Christian or Muslim? What's the difference?"
"Well, the Muslim ones blow themselves up!"
You might be Taliban if....
You refine heroin for a living, but have a "moral objection" to beer.
You have more wives than you have teeth.
You'll kill anyone that says you’re not peaceful.
You wear eyeliner but you have been acquitted at least once for murdering your wife, sister, or daughter because they wore make-up.
You’ve ever had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.
You believe masturbation is evil but beating your wife is OK.
Your comments are entirely off topic. Also, trying to place Irving in the same category as Westergaard is offensive and mind boggling. David Irving should not have to face imprionment for his views, but that does not make in him in the least worthwhile. As for the U.K. court result, it was entirely justified. Mr. Irving had tried to silence a critic through a libel action, but failed miserably in his effort. There are plenty of legitimate journalists, scholars, and ordinary people who deserve our concern, but not Mr. Irving. He provides aid and comfort to Islamists, who cite him as Western source for their anti-Semetic views. In short, he is an enemy of those who support freedom of speech and oppose Islamist Supremacism.
Someone asked for a joke.
Okay, what do you call one Muslim on the moon?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A problem.
What do you call 1000,000 Muslims on the moon?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A big problem.
What do you call all the Muslims on the moon?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem solved.
Very apropos, Yankel! ...especially since allah is their moon god, lol.
Westergaard - anti-Dhimmi of the year candidate.
YANKEL
THOSE ARE GREAT I SHARED!
I would like to see a cartoon of this man-whore, Muhammad, behind bars where he belonged! He deserved much worse, of course, but a drawing of Muhammad being hung about the neck miiiight be a bit much. Or would it?
KW is 74years old, so he's not afraid. I'm a relatively young man, but I'm not scared of any muslim. The prospect of living in a Muslim-dominated Europe makes me angry, not scared. Just "Bring 'em on" as George Bush once said.
Ask champ, and you shall receive:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=picture+of+muhammad+in+hell&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7d15299a959dbb33
Do you have any idea how offensive that is?
That is a powerful little cartoon.
As the saying goes " a picture worth a thousand words"
Thanks for posting.
Hello Worry01,
I'm not sure how my topic is "entirely off topic" since the topic is: Danish cartoonist Westergaard: Muslims "not free of being mocked"
The similarities between Irving and Westergaard is freedom of speech. How come, one can argue, that one group, ie the Jews are given protection from criticizing a topic such as the holocaust, but the other group, ie the Muslims, are not?
If Irving is "mocking" the holocaust, causing him to be imprisoned, why it is not equally the same for Westergaard?
Do you see a double standard here?
It has been said "there is no fun in Islam" No kidding.Theres a religon I can wrap my soul around.
This "David Irving" character is an obvious mentally-deficient imbecile.
Anyone who gives a Holocaust-Denier the time-of-day is the same.
What happened? Irving was dropped on his head at birth? He's as evil and barbaric and idiotic as Ahmadinejad. And Hitler.
Don't bother with this David Irving character - he belongs in a mental institution.
Paul you omitted the judge's words preceding his remark that Irving was racist and an active Holocaust denier and it this, "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." What Irving does as a Holocaust denier is tantamount to libel, the same offense he sued Lipstadt and Penguin Pub. for and lost. Irving isn't punished for offending anyone but for libeling, which is a criminal offense and not protected speech.
If Westergaard's cartoon is a case of libel then prove it.
Members of the Yale Muslim Students Association have said they are "deeply hurt and offended" that Westergaard will speak on the New Haven, Conn., campus...
....................
Are they also "deeply hurt and offended" that so many of their co-religionists are threatening the life of a non-violent septuagenarian cartoonist? Oddly, no mention of this. sarc/off
Kurt Westergaard is a hero of mine. A strong candidate for international anti-dhimmi of the year.
Note to Paul Benheimer: despite my revulsion at holocaust denial--both on rational and moral grounds--I am no fan of jail terms for holocaust denial. I understand the profoundly disturbing history in Europe, but I don't believe this is the way to handle things, even in Germany and Austria. Such speech, in my opinion, should be protested, and--yes--mocked--but not suppressed.
That being said, while Irving has been protested and denounced--quite rightly--the crowds howling for his blood have been--well--conspicuously absent, I'm glad to say. Not so for Westergaard and his excellent cartoon.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you hoped that JW posters would claim that the situation between Irving and Westergarrd was categorically different, so you could accuse them of hypocrisy.
In reality, though, with the exception of neo-nazis and people like Irving, the holocaust deniers and people who want to see Westergaard murdered for "blasphemy", are in many cases the *same people*--hard-line Muslims.
darcy,
Whether he's a mentally-deficient imbecile or not, that's not the point I'm raising. I'm for free speech, whether it's for or against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on. If the law applies to one, it should apply to all.
thank_god_im_an_infidel,
I could give a damn about the cartoons of anyone, that's not my point. Why is it that one cannot criticize the holocaust, but one can criticize one of the largest religions today? Where's the fairness in that? Just as I see no problem with Westergaard's cartoon of Muhammad, I see no problem with Irvin's comments about the holocaust. That's their opinions and they are entitled to that. Fair game.
Thanks, Yankel ...now that's more like it, haha!
Hooper can stuff it. So can the Yale Muslim Students Association whose spokesman lied and said "racial" sensitivities were at issue. He only said that because Yale MSA know that if they told the truth -- that only religious sensitivities were at issue -- they'd have absolutely no basis whatsoever for complaint. =Sorry Yale MSA, Islam is not a race, no matter how much you use that as a fig leaf to hide your efforts to kill free speech about your supremacist and totalitarian religion and its totalitarian leader, Muhammad.
In the traditions considered most canonical by mainstream Muslim scholars (Sahih Bukhari), Muhammad said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, then kill him." He is reported to have said as much in many different canonical Islamic traditions. That's why all the schools of Islamic law call for the death penalty for apostates from Islam. And that should be sufficient reason for any decent human being to utterly reject Islam. But many Muslims speak no Arabic, and yet only speak the Qur'an in Arabic. Thus many Muslims are more or less innocent of the totalitarian thrust of their own religion. But many are not innocent.
Paul, Irving wasn't simply offering an opinion. In the judge's ruling, he puposefully manipulated historical evidence to present his view of history as FACT. I think if there's a double standard to be found it's with Irving and his supporters who felt it was well and good for Irving to sue Lipstadt and Penguin for libel when they criticized his professionalism as a historian and then cry foul play when the tables are turned and Irving is found guilty, essentially, of libeling millions of people.
Hesperado
"And that eternal segregation must be reflected concretely in terms of geography -- a line in the sand, so to speak, drawn around the Dar-al-Islam, a new Iron Curtain: an Iron Veil. This actual spatial boundary (roughly comprising the traditional swath of land from Indonesia to Morocco) must be militarily enforced: any Muslims caught stepping outside it will be killed. And, of course, concomitantly with the creation of this spatial boundary: all Muslims outside of that perimeter must be deported from the Free World and sent into that Gulag of a Hell on Earth, that "House of Islam" that will house their chosen way to live out their wretchedly fanatical existence where they can abuse each other to their heart's content, cut off from, and thus inoculating, the rest of Mankind so that we can get on with our own imperfect lives without having to worry about unpredictably exploding Muslims and without having to put up with all the other outrageous crap they have been shoving in our faces for 1400 years. Life's hard enough without having to put up with Muslims. That old desert adage comes to mind: the straw that broke the camel's back. We have enough problems in our societies without having to shoulder this additional, intolerable burden of a people who are stark raving maniacs and fanatically follow a blueprint of hostile supremacist expansionism based on ludicrously insane beliefs. Enough's enough. No, Mr. Westergaard, Muslims don't "need" to do anything -- except get the hell out."
LOL, never heard that more aptly put. Love it.
Agreed.
I think in Dhimmi and Anti-Dhimmi, American and International, we need a few sub-categories - e.g. 'Arts and Media (covering Journalists, Cartoonists, Visual Artists, Authors, Film-makers)', 'Religious' (this would apply to religious leaders or laypeople in the various non-Muslim faiths, who either stand up to Islam, or submit), and 'Politics/ Government' That way, Mr Westergaard, who would be in the running for 'Anti-Dhimmi Internationale (Media Division)' wouldn't be going up against Wilders, who would be going for 'Anti-Dhimmi Internationale (Law/ Government/ Politics)'.
Further thought: we have some artists among us - Bosch Fawstin, Gravenimage, SpiritWolf.
Let's make the Dhimmi and Anti-Dhimmi Awards something *real*, with a real prize: so that, perhaps, Mr Wilders or Mr Westergaard or whoever else qualifies as Anti-Dhimmi of the Year, gets a surprise gift in the mail containing, for example, a beautifully-calligraphed certificate of anti-dhimmitude together with the prize - say, a nice cheque from all of us here, to encourage them to fight on, and a framed portrait of themselves (I recall SpiritWolf, in her IntenseDebate avatar as Chick Cartoonist, doing quite a nice 'take' on Geert Wilders as a lion) or a T-shirt depicting, say, St George and the Dragon, or St Michael and the Dragon, or Shivaji about to go into battle against the Muslims.
I leave it to people's imaginations to consider what the 'prize' for Dhimmitude might be...the prize that no-one should want to win. Perhaps just a copy of 'The Infidel's Guide to the Koran', or an English translation of Mr Spencer's blackly-comic pamphlet 'Guide for Dhimmis', which was recently published in the Netherlands.
Westergaard doesn't earn Anti-Dhimmi award until he stops expecting Muslims to be rational humans.
We thus must evolve to a position of eternal segregation --
I am with you on this Hesperado. A gulag for the Islamists to live out their miserable lives.
But your dream is a utopian one that is impossible to implement.
Perhaps what is needed is another prophet, a Messiah if you will, to sweep them off their feet. replace the old Muhammad, and put them on the true path to peace. But I doubt that will happen either.
The final solution is just that...the "final solution" and I would rather not even think about that.
However, if it came to the "final solution" for Jews and Christians, would a Muslim grant us life or would they cut off our heads?
To be, or not to be? That is the real question!
I believe it is coming down to a World-wide Holy war!
It's not goig to be pretty but Islam is forcing the hand of God into conflict for the third and final jihadist war for the caliphate.
After that, thanks to nukes in the hands of assholes, we'll probably only be capable of throwing snowballs at each other.
Which race is Islam again?
This may be arguable but..."Arabs are a minority of Muslims, but there is little data about Islam as an entire civilization and so the Arabs have to represent all of Islam. The Arabs are the oldest Muslims and Saudi Arabia can make a claim to being the most perfect Islamic nation. Mohammed was from there, and the Koran makes special claims about the Quraysh tribe and Arabs in general. So the Arabs are not a perfect measure but they are the best measure".
From the article: The Fruit of Islam
al-Kidya,
My proposal is impossible now. It will not be impossible in the future.
"Why is it that one cannot criticize the Holocaust, but one can criticize one of the largest religions today?"
If you cannot see the difference, I don't know what.
Also, what does "large" have to do with anything? As Anatole France remarked, "If fifty million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing."
In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad is forbidden and considered blasphemy. [...]
I consider islam and muhammad blasphemous. They are an insult to God and humanity.
As for the "offended" muslims at Yale---is there any given moment that muslims are not either offended or outraged about something? Muslims are consummate hypocrites. They come to the immoral, corrupt West to get educations from filthy infidels because their islamic wastelands cannot produce quality institutions of higher learning except for the study of terrorism and jihad. While they are here, they disrupt and pollute our college campuses with islamic filth and attempt to dictate or influence university policies and protocol. To elicit sympathy and support and to recruit players for their grievance theater of the macabre, they accuse all critics of "racism". They have become the masters of manipulation of that magic word.
The sensitive muslim students at Yale should consider transferring to a fine islamic university in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Yemen. Good riddance!
We can no longer carry small useful items onto planes; we are forced to produce photo ID constantly in our daily life; we are expected to monitor our speech at all times in case we offend some follower of the world's most backward religion; 'refugees' and immigrants from Islamic countries continue to cost us millions because taxpayers are forced to fund their welfare lifestyle and provide them with religious amenities; we are forced to hide our distaste at masked women in our streets; and most important of all, we are forced to accept the erosion of our society by people whose beliefs and customs are entirely alien to our values and aspirations.
The Somalis recently arrested in Australia for planning a terrorist attack were refugees, or came from refugee families, were all living in public housing - ie at the expense of Australian taxpayers - and had been given refuge from the horrors of Somalia by being allowed to live in an advanced Western country.
I predict a massive backlash - I can't predict when it will happen, but I think the seeds have already been sown.
I frankly don't predict any backlash. If we can't even see a major march on Washington or any Western capital, 9 years after 9/11, and we continue to see most people even within the anti-Islam movement waffle on the subject of exactly what is the culprit ("not all Muslims are bad..." whine most people within the anti-Islam movement; or "I'm anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim", "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit...). Nah, thousands, hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- are going to die before we wake up.
A bit of humor critical of the Mohammedan "faith"?
Q- What does Allah do for a laugh?
A- Takes the medieval Arabian Three Stooges, Mo, Hamm, and Ed, compresses them into one total idiot, calls it Mohammed, and has the moron start a "religion" to see if anyone will fall for it.
One billion Muslims later...
*rimshot*
Hesperado- Even if a billion people died we'd still be singing the "Islam is Peace" "It's only a tiny minority of extremist" lines and wonder if the latest nuclear attack will lead to "islamophopia". However i don't think anyone is going to die. They don't need to kill anyone. Europe,Japan,Russia, South Korea are all going extinct. They will win by default. We are losers.
Believe me, I'm tempted to give up hope.
Mark
still hammering away at the old theme, eh? 'All is lost. We are doomed. The Muslims - vile, violent, cruel and stupid - will inherit the earth. etc. Nobody is having children. etc.'
You need shock treatment, mate.
Here:
read this.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c8.htm
and then read this:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part2c6.htm
And bear in mind also that everything Chesterton says of the Church can also be said, with equal propriety of the House of Israel: of the Jews.
*You* are of course free to suppose and to assert that YHWH is nonexistent, or utterly powerless to do anything about Islam or about modern nihilism; and as a result, you are free to continue what looks like a relentless hammering aimed at killing hope and freezing the minds and paralysing the will to live and the desire to act of every person who reads here. But I really don't see what you hope to achieve by making everybody as pessimistic and despairing as you are; because what if your black and bitter words, constantly hammering on the theme of inevitable and crushing defeat, were to convince a crucial five, or ten, or a hundred or a thousand people, who might otherwise have done something - and turned the tide - to simply give up and do nothing? "For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost..."?
You are not a Tokyo Rose, you say; but you might as well be one. In fact you remind me very much of Denethor in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'.
Has anybody got an idea what Westergaard is all about?
Is this why he went to the US?
Events included a “Blasphemy challenge,” a contest in which participants were invited to submit videos containing phrases, poems or statements that would be considered blasphemous and were required to include the phrase "I deny the Holy Spirit."
The day featured De-Baptisms, where former believers denounced the Christian sacrament, and an artist’s exhibit with an irreverent depiction of the crucifixion of Christ, entititled, “Jesus gets his nails done.”
It was blasphemous, as intended.
“It strikes me as completely cracked,” said Diana West of the International Free Press Society, which sponsored Westergaard’s trip to the U.S. “The probable threat to freedom of expression is not coming out of Christianity.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558901,00.html?test=latestnews
No one seem to want to 'offend Islam'.Not femminists,leftists,gay rights groups,human rights groups .
Communism,
Dang! I came back to read Mark's long reply to dda, and Hesp's long reply to Mark, after I fixed breakfast - and now they're gone!
I wanted to read those Comments! What happened?