Too bad I don't speak Italian as I would like to send the gallery my thoughts about their exhibit.

But hereis the contact info with email address:
http://www.exibart.com/profilo/sedev2.asp/idelemento/2810

email : info@lucianoingapin.com

If someone could draft here a polite protest letter in their native tongue, I would like to forward them a copy of it.

Posted by: Roland at February 13, 2006 11:55 AM

A yahoo looking to pimp himself to the future tyrannts.

Who will be killing artists like him- in an orgy of iconoclasm- to prevent him from ever changing targets.

And one more abject coward who knows that you can kick your tame guard dog (the freedom-defending West) all you like -and not get even the littlest nip back from it- while never daring to pull the tiniest tail hair of the rabid pit bull of Islamic Imperialism (because then his own head might end up on the floor in front of one of his silly, silly canvases).

Weasels like this think they are saying something shocking (ho & hum) while the real shock is that they abet terrorists who are against the freedoms they speciously squander.

But let him paint his delusions.

Who cares how well he advertises his intellectual bankruptcy?

Freedom of speech lets you make an ass of yourself.

I nominate him for the Lucious Apuleius Award- The Golden Ass.

(And be sure hide the roses!)

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2006 11:59 AM

Man! I hate my parents for not encouraging me to become an "artist". All you got to do is take a dump on a canvas name it something the left supports like "Joorjes Boosh" (yes airyanna huffington) and sit back and collect the accolades and money.

Posted by: Dadzilla at February 13, 2006 12:15 PM

Seeing in the above title of this post, "Fallaci Beheaded," sent a jolt through me. I thought for a second that jihadists had actually beheaded her

Posted by: Archimedes at February 13, 2006 12:24 PM

Hello to Robert and crew

I have nothing else to say other than, as of today I have read it all ---> please read the absolute garbage this jackass has written. I have included the link below.

He is, to my mind a perfect example of what is meant by the old saying..."the best part of you ran down your fathers' leg"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_gore

Hope you have a good laugh, this guy was in the Whitehouse with the guy who only pulled but never inhaled for 8 bloody years!?!?!?!

My oh my...

Posted by: Shunkleash at February 13, 2006 12:25 PM

As Fallaci had predicted, and Bat Ye'or scholarly explained, we can no longer speak of Western Europe, but only of Eurabia, the most recent neo-colony of Islam.

By the way, great Islam/Crusade book, Robert!

Posted by: EdwierdoVU at February 13, 2006 12:39 PM

"Giuseppe Veneziano.."

Not to be confused with Domenico Veneziano, he of the pale predellas, examples of whose work can be found in the National Gallery in the first or second gallery devoted to Italian art(with the earliest Byzantinesque and Umbrian paintings,including that beautiful Duccio painting of a little bark, upon which the apostles Andrew and Peter siit, floating on the sea). Go to that gallery. Look at those paintings. Or go an art museum in London, Paris, Florence, Amsterstam, Madrid. Or Aix-en-Provence or Citta del Castello or Williamstown. Look at those paintings. Oh, are there some sculptures too.

Could they have been produced under Islam? What has been the fate of such things, under Islam? What is left of Coptic art? What is left of those Byzantine churches? How do the walls on the inside of the Hagia Sophia strike you? The Greco-Indian artifacts still contained in the Kabul Museum? What do you think of the treatment of Roman ruins in the Bekaa Valley, or in Libya, or in Egypt? How do you think the Iraqis have done in the discovery, collection, preservation, and study of the antiquities of Assyria and Babylon? Are you impressed?

Do you think that Giuseppe, as opposed to Domenico Veneziano, and the owners of that gallery of "art" (the kind that demands ridicule from top to vacanze-intelligenti alberto-sordoish bottom) has any conception of what is at stake, other than to mock someone who knows as well as anyone alive, from her decades of intimate experience in that world of Muslim despots (those interviews with Arafat, Khaddafy, Khomeini, those years spent in those lands, even with a group of "Palestinians" being bombarded by the Israelis), and has survived to warn her own city, Florence, her own region, Tuscany, her own country, Italy, her own continent, Europe -- and her adopted city, and her adopted continent, as well.

Western art and Islam. Immiscible -- a combination that is inadmissible. Not by us, but by them. Read the texts. Study the history.

Posted by: Hugh at February 13, 2006 12:52 PM

Can someone please explain to me how Harry Potter represents weakness and perversity?

Story motifs include friendship, coping with loss, courage in the face of adversity, etc.

Or is the "artist" too ignorant to understand such ideas?

Posted by: treehugger at February 13, 2006 1:21 PM

Hey Dadzilla,
It still isn't too late. Just find something that's really offensive to Christianity or decent folk. And be sure that you've got enough liberals there to support you with government money. But this is the most important part, Make sure that you have no core of values what so ever. To the liberals, this equates to being "bold and couragous." Just make sure that it's offensive to Christians and all Americans. You'll be an overnight sensation!!! GUARANTEED!!!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at February 13, 2006 1:24 PM

This so called artist Giuseppe Veneziano would be one of the elite in the art world of the left! l wonder if someone could commission him to do the Saudi AMerican beauty? no these false artist are just making it easier for the Europeans people demand changes in their governments!

Posted by: Lulu at February 13, 2006 2:06 PM

I think that this is very offensive, the left is horrible!!!

Posted by: Franze at February 13, 2006 2:20 PM

Starting point
This is the website and information point for the forthcoming March in Support of Free Expression, to be held in London in March 2006.

Information will be posted here about the event, together with updates on supporting organisations and individuals.

If you are interested in helping, attending or supporting this event, please contact us at marchforfreespeech@googlemail.com

http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/2006/02/starting-point.html#links

Posted by: werter5075 at February 13, 2006 2:29 PM

Could someone please tell me how Harry Potter is American?

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at February 13, 2006 3:02 PM

Just another example of the double standard held by many in the West.

Speaking of cartoons, paintings, and other forms of visual art. Batman will now be fighting Al Qaeda in a new graphic novel. I guess the nickname of "Freakin Batman" given to Mr. Spencer by some is appropriate now.

Batman fights Al Qaeda now

Posted by: Itachi at February 13, 2006 4:08 PM

Problem is, Veneziano could plead insanity if he were brought up on charges.

The growing insanity of the left, here and in Europe, is a particular obsession at The Dumb Ox.

Robert, I hope you'll pop by some time! I've been engaged in quite a tussle on the All Things Beautiful blog with moronic, uninformed liberals who can do nothing but negate, negate, negate. That they feel free to condmen the culture that protects them, and in Europe saved their butts from four tyrannies, would be laughable, if it weren't so dangerous.

All the best,
D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

Posted by: Dumb Ox at February 13, 2006 4:16 PM

To Roland:

Just write:

Siete schifosi propagandisti, male di mente, male di spirito, perversi. Ed io vi chiedo, come mai osate di condannare gli Stati Uniti che vi hanno liberato di quattro tyrannie?

I'm tempted to end with a cuss, but nah.

D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

p.s. Fluent in French, German, and Italian, J.D. and Ph.D. Check out our Friday Silly Videos and our Saturday European News Round-Up. Mark your calendars, send yourselves email reminders! We read Jihad Watch daily, and so should you.

Posted by: Dumb Ox at February 13, 2006 4:22 PM

Here is another issue that has been bugging me.

Why is Bush allowing an Arab firm to run our portys. Isn't this a national security issue?

Shouldn't we be discussing this here and elsewhere?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453780.0986111113.html

"United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, February 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has approved a deal in which a United Arab Emirates company would operate six major ports in the United States.

A U.S. government panel has determined that the UAE firm, DP World, would not endanger national security.
DP World, based in Dubai, has offered $6.8 billion for the purchase of a British firm that operates the ports of Baltimore, Miami, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia.

DP World intends to acquire the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation [P&O] Co. The sale was expected to be approved on Monday.

"The P&O directors have withdrawn their recommendation of the offer by PSA, which was announced on Jan. 26, 2006, and unanimously recommend that P&O Stockholders vote in favor of the revised proposals at the meetings, which are now scheduled to take place on Feb. 13," DP World said in a statement.

The company said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection." The committee includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The United Arab Emirates has been described as a leading military ally of the United States. In 2005, the UAE acquired the first 10 of 80 F-16E/F Block 60 multi-role fighters in a $6.4 billion purchase.

But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al Qaida and aligned groups. They said that for years Dubai served as a base for Al Qaida operatives, including those who destroyed the World Trade Center and a Pentagon wing in 2001."

Posted by: scribe10 at February 13, 2006 4:26 PM

Dumb Ox,
Could you please translate this(would like to know what I am saying) and maybe some pointers as to what to click on to send this to them.

Just write:

Siete schifosi propagandisti, male di mente, male di spirito, perversi. Ed io vi chiedo, come mai osate di condannare gli Stati Uniti che vi hanno liberato di quattro tyrannie?

If we can get this translated I hope many of you will take the time to send it.

One has to wonder what kind of patrons will go to view this display.

Posted by: chuck at February 13, 2006 4:48 PM

GM tapdancing Chrysler, that headline sent a chill down my spine at first glance!

The fact that it's the work of one of her countrymen makes it all the more appalling. Total pandering, seeking attention, and selling out his country for his "15 minutes of fame" (paint a soup can, why don't you?).

Remember when the arts had something to do with beauty and the nobler aspirations of humanity? It's high time for the pendulum to swing back from politically-fueled expressionism.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 4:52 PM

There is no question that those who know we are at war with Islam belong on the political right. Lest we not forget, Canada and Germany just elected rightists, so maybe there is some hope.
In the US, there has been a permanent political shift - being regarded as a liberal makes a democrat politically dead, particularly if they hail form the north.
Many wise folks moved to the right after 9/11 - including me.
Islam sucks.
We can't be fooled.
We won't back down.
We are the right.

Posted by: templar at February 13, 2006 4:57 PM

James Zogby's utterance:

PRESS MISSES POINT IN CARTOON CONTROVERSY

February 13, 2006

US press coverage of the “cartoon controversy” has followed a predictable course. It has been event-driven and, for the most part, devoid of context and understanding of its principal subject matter. The motivations and sensitivities of both European and Muslim actors in this unfolding drama have been given only scant, if any, attention.

Initially, news accounts of Arab reaction to the Danish cartoons were relegated to back-page reportage. Only after protests turned violent did the story warrant front-page treatment, accompanied by dramatic photos of angry demonstrators and burning embassies. More recently, major papers and wire services have attempted backgrounders on the crisis, still limiting themselves to a mere reconstruction of the chronology of events. Finally, after the Administration addressed the matter, news coverage followed its lead, pointing an accusing finger at the “usual suspects,” now seen as instigators of the entire ruckus.

Much the same could be seen in opinion pieces written on the controversy. Without reference to context, or any understanding of deeper realities at work in this confrontation, editorial writers and commentators have played out two divergent but equally shallow themes. The best of these commentaries cast the problem as simply a clash between adherence to the absolute principle of “freedom of the press” and the insult that these noxious cartoons represented to pious Muslims. The worst saw only the violence and deemed it evidence of the violence inherent in Islam and its message.

Missing in all of this has been an effort to understand the deeper forces of history and the fears and insecurities, both bad and good, at work in this story.

Ignored, for example, is the fact that the entire controversy began as a deliberate provocation directed, not at the Muslim world, in general, but at Europe’s Muslims in particular. The offending Danish newspaper has a long history of anti-immigrant advocacy. In soliciting and publishing the cartoons, the Jyllands-Posten sought both to “stick their finger in the eye” of Muslims, and in doing so make them understand that, in effect, “you are our subjects and you will bend to our cultural values; we will not accommodate ourselves to yours.”

In this regard, Jyllands-Posten represents a strain of European thought shared by some of the continent’s liberal elites and nativist rabble. Unable to resolve the issue of national integration and incorporate new immigrants into their body politic and national self-identity, these Europeans have recoiled in fear and insecurity in the face of the growing numbers and restiveness of their “guests’” (some of whom are former colonial subjects).

The cartoons were meant to “teach a lesson,” and arrogantly assert authority. Not quite the same as “freedom of the press.”

To declare, as some have, that such freedom is absolute is, of course, nonsense since every culture, by definition, has its taboos. The measure of a civilization is not the freedom it provides to defile taboos, but how respectful and sensitive it is to the taboos of diverse cultures, especially those within its midst.

In the US, for example, we correctly have learned to shun and even prohibit most racist and anti-Semitic displays. In some Western countries Holocaust deniers and/or promoters of hate can be prosecuted. A long and troubled history with bigotry has brought us to this point.

Now, if this deeper understanding of the West’s role in this controversy was absent from the US media discussion, so too was any effort to comprehend the reason why Muslims have been insulted in the first place and the deeper reasons why, among some, the insult came to manifest itself in direct action and, later, in rage.

Ignorance about Islam is at the root of much of the coverage of this story. It would have been important, for example, to note that Muslims were not only insulted by the crude and hostile intent of the cartoons. The fact of the portrayal itself was an issue, as well. The iconoclastic essence of Islam is not understood. Add to that the hostile content, and the insult is compounded.

In a CNN debate I had with conservative “intellectual” William Bennett, he called the violent depiction of Muhammad evidenced in the cartoons, “a peek into the soul of that faith.” Ignorance, combined with bigotry is always a lethal brew.

Given the depth of feelings roused by the cartoons and the fact that they were intended as a provocation, the reaction should have been understandable. What was ignored in most press coverage was the degree to which the response was widespread, spontaneous and largely took the form of non-violent direct action. The boycott of Danish and later Norwegian goods was a peaceful act of empowerment that worked.

To be sure, the accumulated grievances and humiliation felt by many Arabs and Muslims were ultimately exploited by some parties with agendas of their own, but that only occurred later in the evolving story and did not describe the broader sentiment at work among most Muslims.

The tragedy, of course, is that the acts of violence have now been exploited in the West by the very same hostile elements that published or supported the cartoons in the first place. They now self-righteously project the evil deeds of a few Muslims as evidence of the violent nature of the entire faith.

If any lesson should have been learned from this sordid affair, it is the depth of the growing gap between East and West and the dangers inherent in failing to take steps to correct this situation. Press coverage, at least, in the US, didn’t help create understanding. If anything, it mirrored the gap and served in the end to fuel more misunderstanding.

For comments or information, contact James Zogby at jzogby@aaiusa.org

Posted by: Ferdinand Gajewski, PhD at February 13, 2006 5:09 PM

Zogby is freaking Dihmmi and lying traitor.

Posted by: scribe10 at February 13, 2006 6:01 PM

Isnt this the same Zogby who has a brother who has the Zogby polls that regularly makes mistakes.. at election time. he is Democrat,
But the point about this Muslim rage over the cartoons, Christinas and Jews and other non muslims do go on killing sprees, burning buildings,and other extrem violent actions. This anger portrayed by the muslim only proves the point of their cult status of islam.

Posted by: Lulu at February 13, 2006 6:08 PM

Ferdinand, make sure you get that “PhD” in there, my response to you is also three letters, albeit mine were much easier and cheaper to obtain ,“BFD”.

You sir are completely off your rocker, you speak about understanding, but only from the view point of us understanding them, which leads me to believe you must be one of these audacious Moslems with a high sense of entitlement.

We are not misunderstanders of Islam. We know why Moslems went nuts over the cartoons, Mohammad is considered pure and undefiled by his worshipers and Islamic law demands death for any dissents. It’s a pretty open and shut case, no matter what spin you attempt to put on it.

Now why would you being a “PhD”, completely ignore the anti-Semitic cartoons that are run daily in the Arab press, you are “suppose” to be educated, correct? Or you were just indoctrinated and given a expensive plaque?

The reason for the east-west gap Mr “PhD” is, we here in the west have a high moral standard that neither Moslems or apparently Arabs can comprehend or arise to.

Posted by: Bar at February 13, 2006 6:13 PM

Zogby is an ARAB. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: templar at February 13, 2006 6:20 PM

From the James Zogby article, cited by Dr. Gajewski: “The measure of a civilization is not the freedom it provides to defile taboos, but how respectful and sensitive it is to the taboos of diverse cultures, especially those within its midst."

Zogby claims that tolerance of the taboos of diverse cultures is the ultimate measure of a civilization. By "especially those within in its midst" he apparently refers to the taboos of minority cultures within the dominant majority framework.

Polygamy is taboo for Christians but there is no evidence that in Muslim dominated cultures, Muslims take care to shield their polygamy from Christian eyes. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that Muslims make any concessions or show any respect whatsoever to the beliefs of their non-Muslim minorities within their majority-Muslim countries. The west is far and ahead of the Muslim world on that score. We all know about their anti-Semitic cartoons, about the refusal to permit Bibles in Saudi Arabia, about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and the disgusting defilement of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and about all the rest of their despicable treatment of their non-Muslim minorities.

So by Zogby’s own definition of the “measure of a civilization” Islamic culture itself is a colossal failure. Ergo, why should we have any respect for its taboos? Why should we have any respect for the taboos and superstitions of a civilization that is manifestly inferior to our own?. We’re not about to take seriously the taboos of a cannabilistic civilization are we? No. Respect for a culture must be earned. (As an aside, it strikes me that the west as a whole appears to have a genuine amount of respect for Buddhist civilization. I haven’t seen any disgusting depictions of the Dalai Llama lately that I can recall nor any mockery of Buddhist monks in their saffron robes).

Moreover, it is quite obvious on the contrary, that the Muslim world flat out DEMANDS respect from its non-Muslim minorities, with regard to its own majority traditions, going so far as to beat up non-Muslims who dare to eat in public during Ramadan and so on.

Mr Zogby needs to understand that freedom of speech IS a sacred western tradition, earned through much bloodshed and that as free westerners we consider it TABOO to shut it down and take it away from us after all the struggle and bloodshed it has taken to achieve. So how about Muslims in the west show a little respect for one of our sacred traditions – especially since it is a tradition from a patently superior civilization, by his own definition. Muslims just might learn a thing or two about the need for humility and self-criticism and self-reflection, all fruits of our freedom of speech that we consider it TABOO to come under attack. Taking away a westerner's freedom of speech (including artistic expression) is practically equivalent to taking away a Muslim's Koran. So why shouldn't Zogby, and those who share his viewpoint, take their own advice and demonstrates THEIR measure, as civilized people, by respecting what is sacred to us as westerners, especially since we're only demanding it HERE, in our own countries, where we are following our OWN western laws and being true to our own sacred traditions.

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 6:51 PM

Does anyone have any updates about when the English translation of Fallaci's FORCE OF REASON will finally be published? I've had it pre-ordered forever and they keep pushing back the expected arrival date. What's the deal?

Posted by: Anne at February 13, 2006 7:05 PM

I notice a lot of similarities between Liberals and Moslems:

Liberals believe in easy "no-fault" divorce all a Moslem has to do is say "I divorce you" 3 times.
Liberals believe that Govt should control every aspect of life. Moslems believe that their religion should control every aspect of life
Liberals want us to submit to a totalitarian political system. Islam means "submission"
Liberals always "blame America first". Moslems call America "Great Satan"
Moslems believe in having lots of wives Liberals (like Clinton & Kennedy) have had lots of women
Moslems support Palestinians terrorists and oppose the state of Israel. So do Liberals (currently)
Liberals & Moslems both refer to Palestinians terrorists as "freedom fighters", and refuse to call them terrorists.
Liberals have cozied up to Communist regimes. So have Moslem states such as Iraq, Iran, & Syria
* Moslems want to implement their code of law (Sharia) and ban criticism of Mohammed Liberals want to implement speech codes and ban criticism of their people and policies
Liberals don't want Christian prayers in schools Neither do Moslems.
Moslems don't believe in the divinity of Christ Liberal theologians gave that up a century ago.
Moslems believe that it is OK for 9 year olds to get married. Liberals believe that it is OK for 9 year olds to be given condoms
Moslems believe that women should be subservient. Liberals believe that women should be in the workplace.
Moslems believe that a wife exists for her husbands' pleasure. Liberals side with pornographers who believe that women should be exploited for pleasure.
Moslems claim the right to treat Jews & Christians as "Dhimmis" (second class citizens). Liberals would love to.
Liberals opposed the liberation of Iraq, so did Al Qaeda
multicultural Liberals want US to embrace and admire other cultures Moslems want US to submit to theirs!

Posted by: dococ at February 13, 2006 7:06 PM

Bar

Easy on the good doctor, wouldn't want him to have chest pains at his age. A google search tells me Ferdi is but a humble(and I'm sure sensitive)piano teacher at Harvard. He knows not what he speaks about here as you quickly surmised.

Why he has chosen now to 'grace' us with his presence is anyones guess, but I agree with you bar, the PHD thingy is quit inappropriate and misleading.

Posted by: William The Crusader at February 13, 2006 7:17 PM

From the Zogby article: "To be sure, the accumulated grievances and humiliation felt by many Arabs and Muslims..."

What Zogby and apparently many Muslims fail to understand is that there is NO universal RIGHT to avoid humiliation. Even many so-called "liberals" coming to the Muslim defense in this case, fail to understand that.

How are we to guarantee that noone shall ever feel "humilation"? As many have pointed out here, the text of the Koran itself is "humiliating" to non-Muslims. Archimedes has repeatedly quoted its many passages which "humiliate" Jews and Christians and anyone who is non-muslim. Which means that every reading of the Koran is in itself a provocative "humilation" to non-Muslims.
Which makes numerous passages of the Koran itself objectively equivalent to one of these cartoons of Muhammad.

What are we to do about that? Western non-Muslims will correctly acknowledge that there is nothing we can do about that because we don't have the absolute RIGHT to avoid humilation.

Muslims, by contrast, are complete and total HYPOCRITES by claiming grievance, offense and "insult" over these cartoons, while their most sacred books are far far more insulting to the rest of us.

I know this has been stated many times already. But it's always stated so politely that sometimes I feel the real point is lost amidst the polite rhetoric. So, I will exercise my freedom of speech and my freedom to capitalize letters, which as some have pointed out, does come across as yelling. Yet, I feel some yelling is in order here because perhpas the message isn't getting through. So...

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? YOUR OWN SACRED TEXTS ARE THE UGLIEST, MOST INSULTING AND MOST HUMILIATING WORDS DIRECTED TOWARDS YOUR FELLOW MAN THAT EXIST IN HUMAN HISTORY, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF HITLER'S MEIN KAMPF! WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE KIDDING HERE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN, THE CARTOONS ARE INSULTING, YOU NARCISSISTIC, MEGOLOMANIACAL IDIOTS! LOOK IN THE DAMNED MIRROR FOR ONCE! JUST ONCE!

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 7:18 PM

Well said, Caroline.

Of course, from the Muslim point of view, our territory is not really ours, so our rules don't matter. Our territory belongs to Allah, and the Muslim ummah are required to bring it under sharia law, by any and all means. Islam is "to dominate and not be dominated."

Posted by: Stendec at February 13, 2006 7:35 PM

"To be sure, the accumulated grievances and humiliation felt by many Arabs and Muslims were ultimately exploited by some parties with agendas of their own"

That's a good one, Doc. Wonder if the Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts, the Jews, the Spanish, the Persians, the Byzantines, the English, well, any of the hundreds of civilizations that has been enslaved, raped, and murdered by muslim savages on behalf of your "prophet" has "accumulated any grievances"? Would love to see those accounts come due and payable someday. Soon.

Posted by: Infidel33 at February 13, 2006 7:41 PM

dococ - I liked your post. My only quibble is with your use of the term "liberal". Western discourse is lagging rather far behind documenting the changes which the term "liberal" has undergone. Many folks have altogether jettisoned the way you use the term liberal from an American political POV and replaced it with the term "collectivist". "Collectivist" more accurately describes the confluence of hard socialism/Marxism/far leftism and Islamisism that you describe. In Spencer's article that headlines this thread, he uses the term "totalitarian" to sum up the confluence between these traditions that you are describing. David Horowitz, at frontpagemag, has documented how historically, the far left appropriated the term liberal, when it was anything but, which is what forced so many "classic" liberals over to the right, forcing them to call themselves conservatives. These terms are obviously way up for grabs the way things stand right now from an historical POV. What is obvious is that a huge number of folks calling themselves liberal, aren't liberal at all. I think we should simply start calling those who evidence definite tendencies towards totalitarianism - (that means both the Islamists as well as the far left) what they are - "totalitarians". Whatever is left after that of the more middle of the road liberal/conservative distinction can be sorted out later. It has to be I think. Cause I don't think anyone really knows what these terms mean anymore.

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 7:49 PM

Zogby is an ARAB. 'Nuff said. - posted by Templar

I don't think it's that simple. In fact, I think that broad a generalization is a slippery slope.

The Zogby's (Zogbies? Sounds scary) are at least nominally Christian. What's more useful to consider, then, is how Christians become "Islamo-Christians" through, among other forces, the appeal by Muslims to identify with one another on the basis of being from the same part of the Middle East, and speaking Arabic (though it was most certainly forced on them at some point in the Islamic conquests!).

There's precedent from the likes of Baath Party founder Michel Aflaq to try to advance a notion of "Arab-ness" that transcends religion. Aflaq, of course, was a Syrian Christian, thus clearly having a vested interest in sidelining Islam and its dhimmi laws from politics.

However, the "pan-Arab" sentiments have, in the long run, just become a means to coerce/brainwash religious minorities into line with the Islamic agenda by invoking a historically shallow "common ground."

So, Zogby is a puppet, whether he knows it or not. But being "Arab" alone doesn't spell ideological damnation, any more than my primarily German lineage makes me a sympathizer of either Schroeder or Schicklgruber.

PS - Hugh has written quite a bit on this-- Google "Fitzgerald" and "Islamochristians" for a more in-depth discussion.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 7:53 PM

"MEGOLOMANIACAL IDIOTS! LOOK IN THE DAMNED MIRROR FOR ONCE! JUST ONCE!" O but they do Caroline - and through those dark empty orbs they see their envisioned "paradise," the one described by Stendec.
Nice post.

Posted by: Thumper at February 13, 2006 8:05 PM

Stendec: "Of course, from the Muslim point of view, our territory is not really ours, so our rules don't matter. Our territory belongs to Allah, and the Muslim ummah are required to bring it under sharia law, by any and all means. Islam is "to dominate and not be dominated."

EXACTLY! That is precisely the message the Muslims are giving us! WHY don't westerners get that? Take the NYT as an example. If this is about "respect" and "offense" and so on, then why did they choose to publish the Mary covered in dung photo in their article covering this controversy? The fact that they published that photo flies directly in the face of the entire west's argument that this is about "respect" or avoidance of humiliation for people's traditions and so on. NO. If that were the case they would never have published that!

What a massive lie! Christians object to that. They are offended by that. They feel humiliated by that. But the western press didn't give a dman then and they don't give a damn about any of that now - as abundantly illustrated by the NYT decision to run that pic in lieu of running an actual pic of the Muhammad cartoons which actually illustrate the NEWS - NOW!

These are lies from the western press. Respect and sensitivity towards religious faith obviously has nothing to do with this. If it's fear of violence from Muslims (which they would never get from Christians) then they ought to have the guts to write about that. Make cartoons about that - lampooning their fear of publishing the cartoons because of fear. Otherwise, the only remaining conclusion is that papers like the NYT are either outright owned by the Islamists (in which case the staff ought to have the kind of guts displayed by the New York Press staff who walked out) OR everything they've published in the past several years, lampooning right-wing Christian "theocrats" are complete lies. Because they are lying down prostrate before right-wing Muslim theocrats - who are obviously far more frightening and far more dangerous to every value that the NYT claims to care about. Are they selling out their gay constituency? Are they selling out women? Are they selling out atheists and agnostics? Are they selling out ARTISTS for God's sake? What the hell are they doing? It doesn't make any sense. Unless they were just real whores all along, looking to get screwed.

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 8:14 PM

Actually, calling the NYT "whores" is an insult to real whores, who are mostly just trying to eke out an honest living. PIMPS would be a better term to express the kind of low lifes who literally sell people out...

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 8:37 PM

Hm, is this really about 'left and right'? I guess I have some views that could be identified as 'left-wing', and more of us terrible 'lefties' are going to recognise Islam for what it is and find this site, but people could be driven off by across-the-board attacks on everything 'left wing' or 'liberal'.

I also have some views that are currently identified as 'right wing', such as protecting non-muslim countries from islamist theocracies. But on the other hand, protecting secular democracies against theocrats is often seen as a 'left wing' thing.

As for this 'art work', I think it's time we saw islamists for what they are, and freedom of speech can only help with that.

Posted by: Lilith at February 13, 2006 8:47 PM

Hm, is this really about 'left and right'? I guess I have some views that could be identified as 'left-wing', and more of us terrible 'lefties' are going to recognise Islam for what it is and find this site, but people could be driven off by across-the-board attacks on everything 'left wing' or 'liberal'.

I also have some views that are currently identified as 'right wing', such as protecting non-muslim countries from islamist theocracies. But on the other hand, protecting secular democracies against theocrats is often seen as a 'left wing' thing.

As for this 'art work', I think it's time we saw islamists for what they are, and freedom of speech can only help with that.

Posted by: Lilith at February 13, 2006 8:47 PM

Lilith: "more of us terrible 'lefties' are going to recognise Islam for what it is and find this site, but people could be driven off by across-the-board attacks on everything 'left wing' or 'liberal'."

That was the whole point of my post. When you use the term "left-wing" you're presumably referring to "liberal" and that needs to be distinguished from bona fide "leftism", which nowadays means something more akin to "totalitarianism". Far leftists aside, you will nowadays find many liberals calling themselves conservatives, in order to distance themselves from collectivists and totalitarians. So these terms are very confused nowadays.

That said, I do find it amusing that anyone would be so offended by anyone's use of terms that they should be tempted to throw their arms up and storm off with their ball. I doubt that anyone so easily offended would be much use in this fight anyway.

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 9:07 PM

Mr. Spencer

Heard from a friend of mine your Politically Incorrect was doing very well at the CPAP in D.C. last Friday. She said she'd heard "That's the book to have."
-
Not as well as Ann Coulter's books, apparently,judging by the line in the book signing section, but hey, it's hard to match, in our culture, a spirited, witty, and slim female with a mane of blond hair she uses as a stage prop. Irresistible. Some kind of erotic appeal for a crowd of pimpled republican collegians.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 13, 2006 9:08 PM

Has Veneziano forgotten all the victims of Islamic terrorists? Its truly disturbing how those that consider themselves progressives and Islamic radicals have become bedfellows. Where does this love of Islamic fundamentalism derive from? I don't have any answers, but its frightening how so-called leftists ignore the truth, even in pictures:

http://victimsofallah.blogspot.com/

Posted by: barry at February 13, 2006 9:12 PM

If any of you have artistic capabilities specifically in painting and cartoons, you should draw Mohamad having sex with Aisha, but instead of a 9 or a 14 year old, make Aisha a new born infant with umbilical cord, even after-birth... And see the rantings of anti-Islam intolerance, bigotry and racism flow...

Some of these Muslim apologists are actually trying to reform Islam, but unfortunately they are making it easier for those Jihadists to operate...

In other news, Dick Cheney offered to take the senior members of the Democratic Party on a hunting trip, unfortunately there were no offers...

Posted by: vikingskald at February 13, 2006 9:26 PM

Ph.d.-

The Zogby article draws false conclusions from false premises.

No one here will believe it because anyone online can easily research the evolution of the Danish cartoon 'controversy'.

The editorial caricatures were meant to mock, not Danish Muslims, or even Mohammad, per se, but cowardly Danish artists. Who were too chicken to even dare illustrate a little children's book on "The Koran and the Life of Mohammad" by Kare Bluitgen -published in January in Denmark after one illustrator finally came forward, after the 12 cartoonists shamed this fellow countryman into behaving as if he lived in the free world and not an Islamic republic.

Mohammad's personal despotic warlord history, and the violent behavior of his terrorizing followers -currently causing mayhem around the world- were also being commented on in the sense that: artists are intimidated by them, and if the West bowed to threats, we had sold our souls for a mess of pottage. Or petro-influence.

Freedom of speech is painful to the thin-skinned.

And, if it is legally slander, the offender can be taken to the courts. And the problem decided there. (Although, in the case of a dead pedophile, keeping quiet about him would be the nicest thing that Islam could have done, because once the world reads his brutal and bizarre history, the game of the "religion of peace" is over.)

Let the story come out, though false heavens fall.

To pre-empt free expression (except in national security issues) is the death of our Civilization's main root.

With that gone, the rest withers.

Tell the truth, Ph.d.

Or is your doctorate in dissembling?

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2006 9:37 PM

barry: "Its truly disturbing how those that consider themselves progressives and Islamic radicals have become bedfellows."

Yes. I would love to be a fly on the wall in a meeting of "progressives" in which they debate the "progressiveness" of consigning their fellow man (and especially woman!) back to the 7th century. Of course I'm aware of the common anti-capitalist aims of Islamists and hard core lefty/progressives. But still! The 7th century? Or even the 15th century? Or even circa 1800?! I'm way past my college days but I have gleaned from several posters that many college students actually read this site. Assuming that's true, could some of you guys out there possibly do some investigative reporting on this puzzling issue? You know, undercover journalism at a meeting of the campus "progressives". Ask some innocuous questions about Islam and women and homosexuals and Jews and infidels and clitorectomies and honor killings and so on and record it all on hidden tape if need be. Hey. Live a little! Show a little rebellious streak! Isn't that the whole point of being young and revolutionary? Then come back here and report to us really subversive and radical folks what you find out. :-)

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 9:51 PM

prifitsbeard: (Although, in the case of a dead pedophile, keeping quiet about him would be the nicest thing that Islam could have done, because once the world reads his brutal and bizarre history, the game of the "religion of peace" is over.)"

In my mind, you've hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what this is about. Preventing depictions of Muhammad are ultimately about imposing Islamic blasphemy laws in the west. Islam has survived for 1400 years because Muslims have managed to silence the truth about Muhammad. THAT is why this is so upsetting to Muslims. It's not the cartoons per se but about the fact that the west is breaking the taboo against revealing the truth about Muhammad (which is why the Muhammad with bomb in the turban cartoon is themost upsetting, the one that has literally 'lit the fuse' so to speak). Muslims trying so desperately to stop some innocuous cartoons is ultimately about trying to stop the truth about Muhammad coming to light in the free western press. Once it does, and once that truth is widespread, especially should it spread beyond the west to dar al-Islam, it's the death knell for Islam. If they can stop it through violence, they can continue their 1400 year long history of spreading Islam (the way it's always been spread - through violence), which in order to be successful, REQUIRES stopping the truth about Muhammad.

Which is why I love this David Wood article, called "Islam Beheaded", which was published just before this whole cartoon fiasco erupted. How right he was, and how prescient:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20936

"The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false."

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 10:16 PM

The excerpt from David Wood above points out the problem for the world's Muslims. On the one hand, for them, Muhammad is even more important than Allah. He is the center of the religion. His sayings, his acts, his silences, his everything, are essential to fleshing out the 80% of the Qur'an that is comprehensible (the remaining 20% is susceptible of being understood, it seems, if one follows the advice of Christoph Luxenberg and reads parts of it as remnants of the Ur-Qur'an, that text in Aramaic, or Syro-Aramaic, or Syriac (the Aramaic of Edessa), which must have been the language employed for the first versions of the Qur'an because Arabic was not yet a written language).

And here he is, Muhammad, the model for all time, for all mankind. Uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil -- as far as Muslims are concerned.

But not as far as Infidels are concerned. Those not completely brainwashed by the cult will make up their own minds, based on their own readings of the Hadith and Sira.

And the Hadith, and the various biographies of Muhammad, which do not differ in the details of his life, either his acts or his reported sayings, but only in the differing judgments upon Muhammad made by Muslims, and by non-Muslim scholars such as Sir William Muir, Arthur Jeffery, Tor Andrae, and Maxine Rodinson.

Muslims are in a quandary. The Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira are a click away. Any inquiring Infidel can read them, or read as much of them as he can possibly endure. Any Infidel can go to the Muslim websites, of the ask-imam.org variety, and see what kinds of questions Muslims ask, and what answers are given. And the more Infidels do this, and the greater the number of such Muslim sites appear in Western languages for possible converts, and also for Muslims now living in the West, the greater access, as well, for the Infidels.

This is the knowledge that can't be prevented from being spread. And just as American Infidels will be watching keenly to see how Muslims behave in Western Europe, and what damage they inflict there on Infidel laws, customs, manners, and what greater degrees of unpleasantness and tension in daily life, what greater expenses for monitoring and other security measures, what greater sense of physical danger is felt by those Infidels in Europe. In other words, we -- in the United States and Canada -- will be able to draw certain conclusions, and in this respect will be aided by reports from Europeans, as to how Muslims accommodate themselves, or refuse to accommodate themselves, to Infidel laws and ways, and express heartfelt, not feigned, and permanent, not temporary, loyalty to the Infidel nation-states in which they have been permitted to settle with such casual negligence.

Infidels are now alert, and more are becoming more wary every day. Not thanks to any government. Not thanks to journalists on television and radio or in most newspapers. Thanks, in the main, to Muslims themselves, to their displays of violence, hysteria, and hate, as in those demonstrations and attacks world-wide that are prompted by, or take as their excuse in some cases, those utterly anodyne cartoons.

It's an impossible situation for the world's Muslims. Once the Infidels, in every land, start paying close attention to what is happening to Infidels in other places, at the hands of Muslims within those countries or even within Muslim lands (what happens to the Copts, the Maronites, the Assyrians, the Hindus in Bangladesh, the Christians in the Moluccas, the Buddhists in southern Thailand, is now being reported on, and watched, everywhere in the Infidel world).

This is the first time in history that Muslims have had the opportunity to settle behind enemy lines. But it is also the first time in history that those Infidels, in all conventional military respects far more powerful and likely to remain so, have had the ability to monitor Muslim behavior everywhere, and to make judgments based on that behavior.

"Image problem" doesn't begin to cover it.

Posted by: Hugh at February 13, 2006 10:36 PM

Or is your doctorate in dissembling?

Ph.D. = "piled higher and deeper."

Said with love by one ultimately in pursuit of one (but not in dissembling). ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 10:37 PM

Interesting posts.

Just what would the reaction be if this display was Islamic instead of Christian?????

The Texican,

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at February 13, 2006 10:40 PM

Lilith,
I consider myself a conservative, with a
mild libertarian leaning, and I deplore the
partisan sniping we sometimes see here.

Some of the sniping from the right is about
"PC multiculturalism", which is viewed as a
leftwing piety. That may be true, but to be
charitable I think that accepting certain (not
all) differences in culture with some tolerance
is a good thing. It's only when the extreme
position is taken, that all cultures are "equal",
that we have a problem.

On the right, we have a similar problem that
all religion is considered good. Witness the
recent op-ed from paleocon Pat Robertson who
sides with the mohammadans against the Danes. I
guess pat never met a Jew hater he didn't like!

The main problem is Islam, and our struggle
against it. We can continue our arguments about
social spending at some later date. Oh, and BTW,
we on the right were right to insist on the
importance of the Second Amendment. Hopefully,
you on the left will be seeing it that way too,
there's no reason it has to be a right wing
issue.

Posted by: American at February 13, 2006 10:40 PM

Texican - not sure if I follow what you mean by "Islamic instead of Christian" there, neighbor. How do you mean?

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 10:44 PM

Texican - not sure if I follow what you mean by "Islamic instead of Christian" there, neighbor. How do you mean?

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 10:44 PM

The majority of the art is "a series of paintings designed to highlight the “weakness and perversity of the ‘American way of life.’” With one concerning the beheading of Oriana Fallaci which within it self is totally unacceptable, not for the painting, but for the reason for the beheading.

If the display had been all Islamic and not American or Christian per most Muslims, then the rancor from the Muslims would rivial what is currently occuring over a few cartoons.

The Texican,

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at February 13, 2006 11:10 PM

Hugh: "This is the knowledge that can't be prevented from being spread."

Provided that some who have already indicated their intentions to, DO NOT get control of the internet. Beware of any American politican who shows a little too much affection and respect for the U.N. during these most critical times.

For those who abhor violence, TRUTH is the best weapon. Anyone who tries to suppress it (as our western press has so egregiously done over this cartoon controversy, not to mention it's coverage of Islam in general) will be directly responsible for the blood which will inevitably be shed down the road. This is obvious to those who abhor bloodshed more than they abhor giving offense. And there are many who are extremely misguided about this right now, thinking they are doing the right thing, when in fact they are doing the worst thing possible, doing the very thing, in fact, which will guarantee bloodshed in the future.

Posted by: Caroline at February 13, 2006 11:14 PM

Texican-- I see what you mean now. And I agree. Where on earth could one see an art exhibit "designed to highlight the weakness and perversity of the ‘Islamic way of life'"?

Part of the exhibit would have to include the artists' setting fire to it all, since that would happen in short order anyway. ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 13, 2006 11:18 PM

"it is also the first time in history that those Infidels, in all conventional military respects far more powerful and likely to remain so, have had the ability to monitor Muslim behavior everywhere, and to make judgments based on that behavior."

If only our own lens weren't terribly marred, this would be the slam-dunk Hugh implies.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 13, 2006 11:55 PM

Caroline-

Thanks for the heads (sic) up on the Woods article. Don't know his work, but we clearly agree that the disinfection of sunlight is needed to shine on the veiled face of the "prophet" Mohammad.

Muslims then also need to ask:

-What are we hiding from by never looking honestly at Mohammad's face?

And:

-How can a guy so obviously flawed be considered "perfect" and beyond criticism?

The West is waking to these same concerns as the shadowy image of Mohammad is both shoved down their throats and "forbidden to be shown" by the bi-polar Islamic Imperialists.

The upcoming digestion, and regurgitation of the disturbing ideas about Mohammad, found in the Hadiths and Koran, like his "marriage" to a 9 year old "bride", Aiyesha, his joy at the assassination of a woman poet for mocking him in verse, his smug pleasure in having his captured enemies slaughtered, or, if they escaped his clutches, to sadistically consign them to hell with lip-licking curses, etc., will be enlightening.

The "perfect" man comes off more like Genghis Khan, Atilla, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Adolf Shicklegruber than Jesus, the Buddha, Confucius, Epictetus, Jacob Boehme, Lao Tse, Francis of Assisi, Angelus Silesius, or Mother Teresa.

Let the true face of Mohammad be bared.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 14, 2006 12:45 AM

It amazes me that so many people think they can force the world to goodness by the EVIL they themselves commit.
This just shows more strongly how we have to fight this evil with every good method we have.

Posted by: marilyn at February 14, 2006 1:11 AM

Witness the recent op-ed from paleocon Pat Robertson who sides with the mohammadans against the Danes. I guess pat never met a Jew hater he didn't like!

American

I'm guessing you meant Pat Buchanan. Pat Robertson is the one who wished death to Sharon merely for ceding Gaza. Pat Buchanan is the one who would wish death to Sharon for not ceding not just Gaza, but the whole of Israel with it.

One thing that has always struck me is that while much of the Right (and the Left) has generally been pro-Israel, CNN's "Right-Wing" troika - Buchanan, Sununu and Novak - were all strong Israel haters. I actually am disappointed that FoxNews, that has genuinely good Right Wing commentators like Charles Krauthammer, Brit Hume, John Gibson et al chose to hire Novak.

But I agree with Lilith and you that we should suspend our disagreements until we get past this threat. I am willing to support either the Flat tax or Fair tax, but Grover Norquist has outlives his use in the GOP. Similarly, if the Dems could come out with a candidate who was a hawk on Islam, I could hold my nose and support one even if (s)he was liberal on everything else.

It's one thing for those on the left to support Castro and Chavez. I just wish they would draw the line when it comes to leaders like Saddam, Assad, Ahmadinejad, et al, instead of picking them over Bush. Conversely, the president too deserves due opprobrium for his support to Abdullah, Abdullah, Sukarnoputri, Musharraf and Mubarak.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 14, 2006 2:50 AM

I find this alliance between extreme left and islam a bit pathetic. Perhaps they could forge a new slogan: "Religion is the opiate of the masses. With the exception of Islam."

Posted by: restitutor orbis at February 14, 2006 3:47 AM

"Similarly, if the Dems could come out with a candidate who was a hawk on Islam, I could hold my nose and support one even if (s)he was liberal on everything else."

There is no such animal. Joe Lieberman is anethema to the Democratic rank-and-file and therefore is un-nominatible. No other Democrat that I'm aware of has exhibited even the trace of a spine regarding Islam/national-security issues.

The media (and to a degree the President himself) has turned Bush into a political cripple. Unless the pull of events reorders things, we can look foward to three years of drift, particularly if the Democrats do as well as expected this November. How Bush handles Iran may make or break his Presidency.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 14, 2006 4:35 AM

What to do about the picture is simple - appropriate it for our use.

Do a brief bio sketch of Oriana Fallaci. Include a summary of her published works. Then: "If Muslims have their way ..." Then follow that with the picture.

And with a little luck, Veneziano will have to go into hiding when the Muslims blame him for the picture.

Posted by: jay at February 14, 2006 5:05 AM

ZOGBY,THE LEFT,TOLERANCE AND THE DUTCH.
SO? Zogby and the left's measurement of a great society is it's tolerance of other cultures in it's midst?? Interesting point, and one I tend to agree with. If you asked me 10 years ago (and today!) what's the most kind, tolerant, enlightened people on the planet I would without a doubt say, The DUTCH! The story of their Kindness streches back to the renassiance. When all of Europe was Expelling their Jews they welcomed them. When the Nazis came they hid them (AS DID THE DANISH!) remember Anne Frank was in the Nederlands! When the Catholic Church was burning heretics The netherlands offered a refuge, and when Europe was raging with war they always tried to stay neutral. Well The story goes on and on. Now, they predict that about 5% of the Netherlands is Muslim. Surly they would get the same welcome as all the other groups that have sough peace and Tolerance in Holland? NO?................................NO!
Within 25 years of their initial large emmigration into Holland The dutch are now BURNING THEIR MOSQUES! Ever heard the expression "It's not over till the fat lady sings"? well how about this one, "you know you have a problem when the Dutch burn your Mosques!" What is this problem? Is it a Dutch Problem or a Muslim one? 500 years of tolerance and now THIS?? I would tend to see it as a Muslim Problem and not a Dutch one.

Posted by: MataMoros at February 14, 2006 5:54 AM

At any rate, this seems to be proof that violence pays off. I'm sure that the gallery that's hosting this "exhibit" would't dare display the danish cartoons. The owners would be too afraid that some jihadist would decapitate them.

Posted by: restitutor orbis at February 14, 2006 5:55 AM

For the "Green-Red-Brown" Axis (as Alexandre Del Valle calls it, Green for Islam, Red for the hard Left, Brown for Fascism): Religion is the opiate of the masses, and Islam is the amphetamine.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 14, 2006 10:28 AM

I am doing research on a novel right now, basically Jihadists really attack the world; imagine the Paris Intifadah a few months ago, 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, London, Chechnya, the violence over these Cartoons all happening on the same day, Jihadist violence of such a scale that nearly 100,000 are dead... But I still doubt that the west will react...

Posted by: vikingskald at February 14, 2006 12:05 PM

Sick, malicious--and tragically familiar. Who would be surprised by this? Certainly no one who reads this blog.

Here again is yet more proof of a-)the evil and destructive nature of Islam; b-)the truth of the perception that Muslims are happiest when disemboweling another living (and screaming) human being; and c-) the truth behind the idea that one is doing something right when evil people hate him or her (in this case Miss Fallacci).

It's all in a Muslim's day at work---playing al-lah's favorite tune: "Five Billion People Screaming at Once as the Earth Goes Dark."

Posted by: pythagoras at February 14, 2006 9:21 PM