| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Ignore those burning Pope effigies -- no one is really angry
Consistent with the prevailing assumption among most Western analysts that when Islamic jihadists tell us they are waging a jihad, they are in fact mistaken, and what they are doing has nothing really to do with jihad at all, so now in this ABC story about today's "Day of Rage" against the Pope we are told, with Orwellian aplomb, that rage isn't really rage. It's just Islamic culture, doncha know.
As long as this unreality continues to pervade virtually every aspect of analysis of the problem of Islamic jihad, we will never get anywhere in defending ourselves against it.
"'Day of Rage': Anger Not Jihad," from ABC, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
LONDON, Sept. 18, 2006 — - Three words suddenly have a lot of Westerners worried and, it must be said, likely making some wrong assumptions about modern Islam. "Yaum al Ghadab" is Arabic for "Day of Rage."When the Qatari Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for a Day of Rage this Friday in response to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks about Muslims, it might have sounded like a call for street violence.
But if there is trouble Friday, and there could well be, it will not be because of language but because of what some people choose to do after they have answered the call for "Yaum al Ghadab."...
But why do Islamic leaders use what many Westerners regard as inflammatory language?
Because it is not inflammatory, at least not in the context of Islamic culture. "We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas," said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture "ghadab" means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges.
Mimi Daher, a Muslim woman working in the ABC Jerusalem bureau, explained that the Grand Multi [sic] in Jerusalem reflected this cultural mindset today when he said, "Muslims have to express their anger. Was the pope expecting Muslims to clap their hands to him while hurting their faith and prophet? Of course not. We call on Muslims throughout the world to react in a disciplined manner, according to our Islamic faith."
"Disciplined manner" is a repeated theme among Islamic moderate leaders who encourage people to protest. As Gerges reminded me, when the cleric al-Qaradawi called for a day of rage, he stressed repeatedly that it should be civilized, urging Muslims to behave with civility and dignity. "We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved," he said.
Even so, shouldn't Westerners be worried about the use of words like "rage"? As an ABC News Muslim colleague of mine in Egypt, Hala Abukhatwa, put it, "'Yaum al Ghadab' means 'come to the streets,' 'protest,' maybe 'burn a flag.' But it doesn't mean hurt someone. In our culture, expressions are usually in black and white, not nuanced like in the West," she continued. "We are either happy or we are sad, glad or angry. We don't say 'come to the streets and be ambivalent.'"...
So a day of rage, as a term, is deeply rooted. Freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, has improved in parts of the Islamic world, but the old words, the old terms of reference, are so deeply rooted in the language that "Yaum al Ghadab" is still used.
And what about the brittleness of Muslims over criticism of the Prophet Mohammed? Many in the West have a hard time getting their head around the idea that any leader is above ridicule.
There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, "Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."
Fine. The question is how.
Posted by Robert at September 22, 2006 9:48 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I see the taqiyyamasters have built themselves a fine nest at ABC.
Posted by: John Sobieski![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 22, 2006 10:08 AM
"We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas"
Burning flags are not burning flags in the Western sense.
Burning churches are not burning churches in the Western sense.
Shot nuns are not shot nuns in the Western sense.
Threats are not threats in the Western sense.
Bombs are not bombs in the Western sense.
Peace is not peace in the Western sense.
Dialogue is not dialogue in the Western sense.
Logic is not logic in the Western sense.
Religion is not religion in the Western sense.
Yes, it starts making sense.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at September 22, 2006 10:10 AM
Is today "Day of Rage"?
Good. Anybody know times and locations?
Because I'm frikkin ready to go!!!
I'm ready to get in some muslim faces. Just tell me where and when folks..
I'm ready to scream, shake my fists, insult the shit out mohammad and make as much of a disturbance as I can short of getting arrested.
Please, someone, tell me where and when. I'll leave work early.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 22, 2006 10:13 AM
Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously?
I know this forum is NOT intended to discuss theology, but I would think that it is interesting to notice the ignorance of the writer here, since everybody knows that for the Christians Jesus Christ WAS NOT a "prophet" but the Son of the Father, G*d Himself, One of the Three-One Persons of the Trinity.
Just for the sake of precision.
Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at September 22, 2006 10:17 AM
Leave it to the Western media to grovel before these losers. As always they accept their lies, excuses and distortions.
If Muslims ask why Christians don't defend Christ vigorously that is a legitimate question. However, why do they worry about the "infidels" so much? Leave the "infidels" alone so they can try to clean up their own act rather than having to defend against the murderous assaults of the Islamaniacs.
at September 22, 2006 10:20 AM
The day of rage doesn't mean hurt someone. Mmmhmmm. Try telling that to the poor soul who happens to cross in front of the mosques when the muslims are puffed up, enraged, frenzied after the clerics fiery sermons, and gets beat up by the mass of "brave" muslim males.
The day of rage may not MEAN to hurt other muslims. But how many have been "accidentally" hurt when embassies are burned, businesses are burned, people rampaging and stampeding , shooting weapons and the "innocent" muslim is accidentally injured or killed.
If these people cannot evolve to become productive citizens of the world, they need to stay in the middle east, don't bother us in the civilized west, and do without the technology and the wonderful advances we've made in all aspects of life. They would only be hurting themselves and their future generations. Which, they don't seem to care for anyway, except for weapons technology.
Their emotions are either black or white. So be it. Live without anticipation, real pride, as in doing something worthwhile, joy, friendship and everything else humans feel. It's their loss.
Posted by: freewoman at September 22, 2006 10:26 AM
"Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."
Is that so? Get the hell out of our countries then; Islam is not compatible with Western ideals. Ridicule is a free expression in the West.
Their excuse of Muslims' reaction is not adequate, nor is an excuse or rationalization acceptable. It is an outrage, in fact, and constitutes a moral denigration of our societies. Therefore, I request those sweet-talking girly moderate Muslims leave as well. To fail to recognize and admit to the present problems of the Muslim mentality makes you dangerous!
Posted by: ofcourse at September 22, 2006 10:28 AM
I just need to let my rage out right now:
I HATE FAWAZ GERGEZ AND THE BLIND, IDIOTIC AMERICAN LIBERAL MEDIA WHICH SLOBBERS AND PROSTRATES BEFORE THESE ASSHOLES AND THE SATANIC CHAVEZES AND AHMADINNERJACKETS AT THE UN!!!!!!
AAARGH.
Thank you.
This moral equivalence, practiced by the American media with such ferver during the era of communism, continues today. Unbelievable. They should all be sent to live as a woman in Afghanistan before they are allowed to write and publish ONE WORD about the Islamic anything. Fawaz is the tool of CAIR and MPAC. You want a real take? Listen to Waleed Farez and Fouad Adjami. They're Arabs who will tell you exactly the truth: "rage" here is exactly the same as "rage" there. Uncacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. Period. Full stop. NO EQUIVALENCE. Yet, despite other ARABS telling the media this, ABC chooses to carry water for the Jihadis by allowing Fawaz Gerges to spew his CAIR talking points all over the media.
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 10:30 AM
Freedom of Expression Alert to all media types, "artists" and civil liberties advocates. Jesus, may not be the Son of God in Islam, but he is a revered prophet. One of these days it's going to occur to Muslims that they can score some easy propaganda points, and perhaps pave the way for more conversions, by defending the prophet Issa and his beloved mother against the slurs of western artists dunking crucifixes in urine, spreading dung on pictures of the Virgin and making films or books casting slurs on these prophets of Allah.
Then all of your appeasment will come back to bite you where it really hurts - forcing you to give up your favorite sport of Christian-bashing.
at September 22, 2006 10:31 AM
"The day of rage doesn't mean hurt someone. Mmmhmmm. Try telling that to the poor soul who happens to cross in front of the mosques when the muslims are puffed up, enraged, frenzied after the clerics fiery sermons, and gets beat up by the mass of "brave" muslim males."
I'll do you one better, Freewoman! If the "day of rage" against Christians is not ment to hurt anyone, then the Pope's comments were not ment to hurt anyone either. So, either you either they shut the f-ck up or we have an equivalent day of rage of our owne were we storm your neigbourhoods with firebombs, kill your clerics, burn your mosques and kick you out of our countries.
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 10:35 AM
Unfortunately the West can't recognize Truth anymore. The blindness is certainly diabolical.
Posted by: genevieve at September 22, 2006 10:40 AM
Do Muslim men in Muslim countries have a job?
Do they ever participate is a community clean-up day, picking up trash and otherwise improving their community?
Seems to me , all they do is litter and complain.
Did you ever notice how all men in the protest photos dress poorly.
Did you ever notice how they never just hold a peaceful protest. Always with the clenched fist, the burning fire, the vulgar language, the hate rhetoric, it seems they all are suffering from a mental disorder (known as the Islam complex).
They did have a day of rage, in fact, every one of their days is a day of rage.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2006 10:47 AM
They did have a day of rage, in fact, every one of their days is a day of rage.
Heh, you beat me to it!
at September 22, 2006 10:50 AM
Picture of the week ( this was not a day of rage also ???)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Posted by: Mackie at September 22, 2006 10:51 AM
Isn't every day a day of rage for these loonies?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 22, 2006 10:55 AM
I'm glad I found this website. Here I get to vent my rage at the most monstrous stupidity of all times without having to burn,kill,rape,etc.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 22, 2006 10:58 AM
Because it is not inflammatory, at least not in the context of Islamic culture. "We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas," said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture "ghadab" means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges.
On the other hand, the islamist can interpret something like a 1000 year old quotation as a justification to murder nuns and burn down churches.
Yes, I see now -- it all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: witness at September 22, 2006 11:01 AM
"I'm glad I found this website. Here I get to vent my rage at the most monstrous stupidity of all times without having to burn,kill,rape,etc."
Where's the fun in that?
Seriously, though, I know what you mean. That's why I can't stay off of it.
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 11:01 AM
You want a real take? Listen to Waleed Farez and Fouad Adjami. They're Arabs who will tell you exactly the truth: "rage" here is exactly the same as "rage" there. Uncacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour.
I am curious...Waleed Farez I believe is no longer a Muslim...Can the same be said about Fouad Adjami?....Everytime Adjami speaks, I am impressed with what he has to say...I looked up his bio and it says he was born in Lebanon to a Shia family, but it makes know mention of his current religious affiliation...does anyone know????
Posted by: Oiznop at September 22, 2006 11:01 AM
You would hope for some glimmerings of enlightenment at ABC as they continue to lose marketshare with other MSMs.
They've just got to get rid of the relics quietists, cowards, and cupboard (closet) cheerleaders for Chomsky.
What else can one say about the current set of "liberals". If you find one in a foxhole next to you, get them to the rear and make sure they have no ammo in their weapons. Then you will likely win.
Posted by: dgene at September 22, 2006 11:03 AM
Even so, shouldn't Westerners be worried about the threats to "slay the infidel wherever you find them"? Not at all, as this is simply in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad. We cannot take words like "behead" and interpret them in a Western context. In Islam, "behead" simply means to "remove one's head, in order to subdue the individual and to encourage others to accept Allah as the true god". As one can see, within the proper context, there is nothing to be concerned about.
Posted by: special_guest at September 22, 2006 11:09 AM
Oiznop,
There are muslims (few and far between, I know) who are not IDIOTS. Our own esteemed Robert Spencer himself has said this and has provided examples of the few. This organization: http://www.freemuslims.org/ is a small collection of them. They actually think the Pope did Islam a FAVOUR by pointing to the obvious, plus they want equal rights for everyone, separation of religion and state, capitalism, democracy etc. They also think that Islam is a religion - not a state.
I realize it's difficult to understand in light of everything else. However, matters of faith are deeply personal and I don't have any special knowledge of the deep personal beliefs of Farez and Adjami. All I know is that they aren't utter FOOLS who live to feed idiotic excuses to non-Muslims and non-arabs.
Here's an Iraqi blogger who falls into the same camp: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Why doesn't ABC quote THEM?
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 11:10 AM
SandMonkey, an Egyptian blogger in Cairo, suggests we "rebrand" from "Religion of Peace" to "Religion of the Perpetually Pissed Off".
Anyone here have an objection??
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 11:13 AM
@special_guest.
You hit the nail on the head with this:
In Islam, "behead" simply means to "remove one's head, in order to subdue the individual and to encourage others to accept Allah as the true god".
I read the Quran to see if there was something there. The problem was that to believe any of it, let alone take it seriously, I would have had to remove my head. Then I could be a mindless, moslem moron.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 22, 2006 11:15 AM
They are also justifying waring on all non-Muslims: people who are not citizens of the Mohammad monarchy, who don't hold Islam's long-dead king Mohammad as sacred, and who have justfiable criticisms of Mohammad. The intolerant truth about Muslims is clearly displayed by them.
Posted by: ofcourse at September 22, 2006 11:23 AM
POITIERS-LEPANTO said
everybody knows that for the Christians Jesus Christ WAS NOT a "prophet" but the Son of the Father
The writer's use of Islamic terminology (Christ as just one of the prophets) is interesting, as is his fictitious quote in which he made up what the Muslims would say:
many devout Muslims will ask, "Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."
The writer here seems to be inciting Christians to violence, if he is exhorting Christians to act as Muslims do (burning churches, shooting 70 year old nuns in the back, etc.).
The writer's name is Mike Lee, and he's based in London. He has a story here that questions whether Christ was crucified. Of course it's all very scientific, but since ABC news wasn't there to record what really happened, there is no way to prove/disprove what happened 2000 years ago. They would know that, and they are just trying to raise doubts on one of the core beliefs of Christianity.
One wonders if he will soon write a piece doubting that Mohammad actually flew across the Middle East on a carpet to "the furthest mosque", which obviously cannot mean anything other than Jerusalem, or whether Allah actually spoke to Mohammad and told him it was okay to take his nephew's wife as his own sex partner.
Posted by: special_guest at September 22, 2006 11:39 AM
I believe you're referring to Walid Phares and Fouad Ajami.
Posted by: PRCS at September 22, 2006 11:50 AM
You can believe what you like. I will defend my freedom.
Posted by: MP at September 22, 2006 12:10 PM
"I see the taqiyyamasters have built themselves a fine nest at ABC."
The nest was already there -- and everywhere else where the sun shines on public conversation of political issues in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. PC Multiculturalism is an entirely Western construction; Muslims have only been taking advantage of it.
Posted by: remote_control at September 22, 2006 12:14 PM
Words have meaning. If they don't mean rage, just what do they mean? Day of minor annoyance? Day of mild distrubance? What a crock from those tools at ABC. Ot - is that Arab Broadcasting Corp.?
Posted by: MP at September 22, 2006 12:16 PM
When you don't stand for anything - people try to stand on you.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 22, 2006 12:24 PM
I put this story up at the Politics forum at craigslist. I headlined it as "Burning Pope effigies--no one is really angry". Here are the responses I got from the American Leftists there:
1) not really. should I be?
2) because we all know the worst thing that could ever happen to any one of us ever, is being burned in effigy.
3) Didn't the Catholics do the same thing to Sinead O'conner?
4) didn't I have a photo of GWBush on my dartboard?
5) Happy Rage Day everyone!
[The only response apparently critical of the Day of Rage was one that said: "My answer to the DAY OF RAGE" and then had a pic of gay men flaunting their near-naked rear ends in a shower stall]
at September 22, 2006 12:49 PM
Welcome to our new Orwellian world, thank you for your blackwhite thinking ABC.
Posted by: s at September 22, 2006 1:17 PM
We don't ridicule Muslims for sticking up for Muhammed. We ridicule Muslims for being brainless killer-Zombies.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 22, 2006 1:20 PM
ABC is right, it's not "Day of Rage" just "Day of Burning, Looting and Killing". Sounds more pleasant than rage.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at September 22, 2006 1:34 PM
"When you don't stand for anything - people try to stand on you."
Why did the image of the UN immediately upon reading that?
PRCS,
Indeed I am. Just too lazy to look up the spelling of their names. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 1:58 PM
"Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."
perhaps we are confident enough to know that Christ is the Son of God and does not need to be propped up. the inferiority complex from muslims is apparent by their violent reactions across the world particularly in the mid east. that means in Rio Linde your mohummad is one dumb ass!
at September 22, 2006 3:05 PM
In Islam, "behead" simply means to "remove one's head, in order to subdue the individual and to encourage others to accept Allah as the true god".
Question:What do they do with all those heads?
I'll say this for Islam-if the guy next to me had his head lopped off I'd convert in a hurry (even if it wouldn't be sincere). Pretty good recruiting tool even if it creates a lot of insincere believers.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 22, 2006 3:18 PM
"Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously?"
If he refers to Jesus, the Son of God, then I just did. If his is Mohammed, I will repete what he, Mohammed said, "I am just a man".
If this is the choice, I walk within the body.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 22, 2006 3:22 PM
Day of Rage??!!
Wonder how many churches, private property, cars and other things they will trash as the mosques are let out.
Wonder how many other people will be murdered, as they show their rage.
Shoot a OLD lady in the back with 4 shots,, day of rage?
The Infidels ARE paying attention, they are noting how many RAGES these fools seem to have.
They are coming to these sites, like Robert's and are educating themselves to the mortal threat this 7th century is putting on EVERY single LIVING thing on this planet.
We spend TRILLIONS to protect ourselves from these maniacs,, and our planet is dying by the day.
Imagine a World Without Islam,, because our world, this living breathing world we all share, cannot wait for them to become civilized human beings.
Our species will not evolve to a TYPE 1 Civilization, when our planet is dead.
Posted by: solsticewitch13 at September 22, 2006 3:52 PM
ABC is owned by Disney, and Disney is a partnership between a Jew and the Saudis (Prince Walid bin Talal).
.
Disney has been widely criticized for barring its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore's documentary examining 9/11 and the ties between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens
Also of interest, Rush Limpballs and the rest of the Bushonian proto Fascists, dissed Farenheit 9-11 (and these people - "conservatives" have never seen the movie that they critique) because it also critized Bush, his relationship with the Saudis, and the fact that he interceded with the FAA and FBI to enable the bin Ladens and Saudis to flee America in the three days after 9-11 when all commerical air traffic was grounded (them be facts folk).
Guess what the name of the family was that gave Dubya his start in business by financing Arbusto Oil? Answer: Bin Laden.. ROFL.
Guess who the senior partner in a law firm that represents the Saudis, Exxon and Bush family is: James Baker III of Baker Botts (and also the Saudis chief lobbyist in Washington).
Gees facts that Limpballs, Coulter, Oreilly and Scarborough don't tell you.. how embarassing, no wonder he (Dubya) distinguishes between the ROP and them "terrorists" that distort a "peaceful religion".
LOL
at September 22, 2006 4:09 PM
Islam is in a panic mode and is dying.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2006 4:25 PM
Is there much difference between muzzy ranting and current day "liberal" ranting ?
Hate hate hate hate: jihad hate or anti G.W.hate.
To be safe it is important to keep both at bay.
The muzzies will kill you and the libs wont defend or keep you safe.
Posted by: dgene at September 22, 2006 4:27 PM
"The muzzies will kill you and the libs wont defend or keep you safe."
That's not true. The libtards will hand them the sword with which to kill you.
Niraz,
So TF what? What are we supposed to do? Kill all of Ted Bundy's family because they can't possibly be any good because ole Ted is a serial killer? Nice. Moore has fallen into the same tribal bullshit thinking that plagues the Middle East.
The Bin Ladens were interrogated by the FBI. The rest of the family is rather more westernized and has never been linked to terrorism. They were OBVIOUSLY in more danger of suffering retribution after 9/11, so they were allowed to leave. Even your anti-Bush poster boy, Richard Clark, has said that emphatically! Who cares if they invested in Bush's company?
If it weren't for Bush, we wouldn't have gone to destroy the Taliban or Hussein. We wouldn't have important anti-terror legislation. Libtard Gore would be busy prostrating himself before the Muslim world and apologizing for fake oppression.
In fact, Gore is doing just that. He recently told a large Saudi audience in Saudi Arabia that he thought the treatment of Muslims in the US is "appalling" and that we're racist because we've limited the number of Visas and increased the scrutiny of Saudis (which comprised 15 out of 19 attackers on 9/11).
Give me a f_cking break.
Posted by: citycat at September 22, 2006 4:46 PM
"In our culture, expressions are usually in black or white... we are either happy or sad, glad or angry"
I'm reading a book at the moment called "Working with monsters" by Dr John Clarke.
This book is about psychopaths, and it makes the point that most psychopaths are not just serial killers and rapists, but are people who live amongst you, and who work in the same places that you do.
About 1 in 200 people are psychopaths.
Psychopaths have no conscience. They have an inability to feel empathy with others. While they do have access to basic emotions such as being happy or sad, they DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR DEEPER EMOTIONS, and they cannot feel empathy for others.
I'm always reminded of muslims whilst I'm reading his book, because muslims act in the same way as psychopaths: impulsive anger, inability to reason, a lack of conscience.
Posted by: Voltaire
at September 22, 2006 4:50 PM
citycat, and if Bush had detained other members of the bin Laden family, Michael Moore and his Leftist ilk would have raised a stink about Bush's "abuse" of human rights. Either way, Bush can't win.
Posted by: remote_control at September 22, 2006 4:51 PM
Muslim rage is not rage, it's a colorful form of cultural self-expression. And ABC news is not news, it's denial raised to a whole new level.
Posted by: snowpea at September 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Let's see: Westerners should avoid terms like "rage" when describing what the mufti has called a "Day of Rage."
Check.
And astute western theologians, such as H.H. Benedict XVI, should avoid quoting texts that might offend Mulsims.
Okay.
I suppose that if a follower of Mahomat were to kick me in the groin, I probably should consider the action in the context of Islamic culture, and avoid expressing pain or regret, because it might cause a reaction from my assailant.
Well, ABC, and Ilk: NO WAY
at September 22, 2006 6:06 PM
Looks like Saudi prince al-talweed is getting a return on his investment. The liberal left and the mainstream media is just as much a threat to this country as the islamofascists.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 22, 2006 8:32 PM
Naturally, ABC has to make a smokescreen for the muslim use of the term "Day of Rage".
First, as others have pointed out, ABC and the rest of the enemy media want to avoid offending muslims, and so provide excuses and exits for them.
Secondly, ABC et. al. cannot escape their own built-in bias that they have established with their connotations to the word RAGE. (After all, muslims and non-muslims are in perfect agreement on the meaning of the word DAY. That's not the problem.)
RAGE, according to the liberal left, is something a white man exhibits just before he beats up his wife and makes her flee to the women's shelter. RAGE is that irrational emotion that a white man feels on the freeway, just before he opens fire on another motorist. RAGE is what causes a man to beat his kids. RAGE is the primary emotion of "The Angry White Male."
The term RAGE must be reserved for the white man, as a code-word for all motivation behind spontaneous violence against women, children, and other innocent victims. This violence is always unforgivable. And, of course, unforgivable violence cannot be attributed to muslims, or to women. It can, in certain circumstances, be applied to men of "oppressed" races, but then it must be styled as, for example, "black rage" which is a special forgivable rage, being a legitimate expression of oppression, a mirror of the white man's pathology and probably caused by the white man, somewhere, at some time or other.
The left, ABC, etc., have not yet arrived at the point where they will coin the phrase "Muslim Rage" to codify and legitimate the anger response of muslims, but, believe me, it's coming.
In the meantime, my wife REMINDED me today that our wedding anniversary is coming up. She (get this!!) suggested that she would like me to send her to obtain a concealed handgun permit. She is so practical. What a woman!!
And the war goes on.
at September 22, 2006 9:09 PM
More of that lying double-speak horse-manure. Even if our groveling news-monkeys propagate it, more and more of us are disgusted by them and their subservience to a foreign idol (albeit an invisible one)and its inventor.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 23, 2006 2:11 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)