Does your doggy bite?

Posted by: MP at June 19, 2008 8:00 PM

If Mr Westergaard didn't have a dog then, does he have one now?

If he still doesn't, he needs one. Actually, he needs more than one. Nice big ones with big sharp teeth.

He needs a trained WOLF.

Oh, and a double-barrelled shotgun would be a good idea, too.

As for those two Tunisian MUSLIMS who were planning to murder an unarmed 73-year-old man - once they're tried and convicted, tie them to chairs and let Mr Westergaard draw satirical cartoon portraits of them, to be turned loose on the internet to circulate merrily along with the original drawing of Ubul Kassim Ha-Meshugga aka 'Mohammed'.

Then: out they go, and any relatives they may have in Denmark get evicted, too.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 19, 2008 8:18 PM

All for the greater glory of Allah (who has no sense of humor). And peace be upon the last and greatest of the prophets (ditto on the humor thing).

Posted by: Wellington at June 19, 2008 8:22 PM

How long will it take for Danes to grasp, and act upon, the simple fact that if there were NO Muslims living in Denmark, then there would be no camouflaging 'sea' for these barbaric murderers to swim in?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 19, 2008 8:23 PM

I wonder if Mr. Westergaard -- or, for that matter, -- other victims of Muslim intimidation have ever considered suing Islam for attempted murder? They could name the Grand Mufti of Mecca as the conspiritor, since he would be most representative of the Islamic faith, and a respected authority on Islamic theology.

This wouldn't be unheard of in U.S. courts. After all, many Catholic Dioceses have been sued for the conduct of Pedophile Priests, and huge judgements have been awarded to their victims.

Why shouldn't the Islamic clergy be held accountable for abeting muslims in their crimes against innocent people? Why shouldn't they have to pay huge judgments to their victims?

If the Grand Mufti won't show up in court to defend his teachings, he should be held in contempt, and a warrant sworn out for his arrest. Isn't that what we've done to Osama Bin Laden?

Posted by: rational at June 19, 2008 8:57 PM

I wonder if Mr. Westergaard -- or, for that matter, -- other victims of Muslim intimidation have ever considered suing Islam for attempted murder? They could name the Grand Mufti of Mecca as the conspiritor, since he would be most representative of the Islamic faith, and a respected authority on Islamic theology.

This wouldn't be unheard of in U.S. courts. After all, many Catholic Dioceses have been sued for the conduct of Pedophile Priests, and huge judgements have been awarded to their victims.

Why shouldn't the Islamic clergy be held accountable for abeting muslims in their crimes against innocent people? Why shouldn't they have to pay huge judgments to their victims?

If the Grand Mufti won't show up in court to defend his teachings, he should be held in contempt, and a warrant sworn out for his arrest.

Isn't that what we've done to Osama Bin Laden?

Posted by: rational at June 19, 2008 8:59 PM

Don't get me wrong, but I believe this to be more stealth jihad.

Tie up the bureaucratic legal systems of the West with implied and real threats of murder and mayhem.

The West bites, then spends millions of Euros and Dollars in investigations, attempted prosecutions and successful defense costs (passed down to the decent taxpayer). Then, democracy exonerates the whole stinking lot.

Bit by bit and piece by piece, these parasites drain the host with their blood-sucking methods -- all in service to the doctrine of Muhammad, and all at the expense of the infidel.

Ingenious, tenacious and disgustingly insidious.

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at June 19, 2008 9:12 PM

This guy needs a couple of very tough Rottys, German Shepards, etc. The best working guard dogs are bred over in Europe! Civilians are not allowed to keep guns, so l think thats why they are reliant on good dogs. l would fancy both, good ol hand gun, along with my trusty dirty bearded dog, great Belgian breed. You think the ruling elites can connect the dots of islam equals terrorism?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 19, 2008 9:50 PM

I find it amazing that the islamic culture has so many within it who find cold blooded murder so natural and easy.

Posted by: pismopal at June 19, 2008 10:10 PM

I wonder if Mr. Westergaard -- or, for that matter, -- other victims of Muslim intimidation have ever considered suing Islam for attempted murder? -- rational

That's a great idea! But, you also have to sue their Murder Book, the Qur'an. Then, the Q would have to be read, and the West could not claim ignorance about Islam anymore, or be in denial.

Posted by: darcy at June 19, 2008 10:24 PM

and the fact that he didn't have a guard dog

Here's hoping that all of our favorite anti-jihad authors have large guard dogs. Seriously.

Posted by: special_guest at June 19, 2008 10:29 PM

And we're supposed to be surprised by this??????

Posted by: DownWithIslam at June 19, 2008 11:44 PM

And we're supposed to be surprised by this??????

Posted by: DownWithIslam at June 19, 2008 11:45 PM

Give Us Liberty, Give Them Death

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at June 19, 2008 11:48 PM

Aren't Tunisians supposed to be 'moderates?'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 20, 2008 12:58 AM

Good work by the danish Intelligence Agency PET. At least these guys know who/what they're dealing with. Too bad the Danes have come a long way since the old Vikings days. A merciful Viking chief would have put these Tunisians on a row boat and told them to beat it to their own country.

Posted by: Hedgehog at June 20, 2008 1:29 AM

Thus saith the good Sheik Yermami:
"Aren't Tunisians supposed to be 'moderates?"

Tunisia is supposed to be neutral, kinda like the way Switzerland and Sweden were...
you know, a wretched hive of scum and villany.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at June 20, 2008 2:56 AM

Why don't we just put the hate speech laws above freedom of religion laws and get this islam nonsense out of the way altogether ?

Posted by: Marvin at June 20, 2008 4:19 AM

The cartoonifada continues.

Talk about perseverating!

Posted by: Always On Watch at June 20, 2008 8:19 AM

"After all, many Catholic Dioceses have been sued for the conduct of Pedophile Priests, and huge judgements have been awarded to their victims."
-by rational

The victims were members of the dioceses that were sued, so those courts had jurisdiction. Someone in California probably couldn't sue the Boston archdiocese unless his child had been victimized by priests in Boston. Even then, he would probably have to file suit in Boston.

Maybe you could name the Grand Mufti an unindicted co-conspirator but you probably couldn't sue him any more than you could sue the Vatican. He is beyond the reach of an American court - at this point anyway.

Posted by: PMK at June 20, 2008 9:48 AM

I noticed that the account did not publish their names. This is the right approach to prevent them from becoming hero's and role models in the ummah, or fame in prison.
The article also failed to mention Islam or muslims,
jihad or terrorism, which is the wrong approach.
All such actions by muslims are on behalf of Allah, and that should be stressed while names, except for important players, kept out of it. All credit goes to Allah...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 20, 2008 11:51 AM

"...had planned to strangle their target..."

What! They weren't going to videotape a beheading of the cartoonist? Have Muslims gone soft on us? More humane? Nah.

Posted by: champ at June 20, 2008 12:01 PM

Repulsive plot--so glad Danish intelligence was on the ball this time. Is it too early to nominate Kurt Westergaard for Anti-Dhimmi of the year?

Bosch Fawstin, thanks for posting "Give Us Liberty, Give Them Death". Reminds me of WWII posters, which I'm sure is intentional.

I really look forward to Pigman updates. How's the book coming? Any news yet on a publisher?

Posted by: gravenimage at June 20, 2008 3:45 PM

No, they were not sent back to Tunesia - these guys....
The entegrationminister in Denmark was against that, since "they would be in danger of their lives" in their own country.
(Well, that would properly be because they failed the "mission")
And they were not put in jail either, but they asked for political asylum, was placed in an open camp for foreigners waiting for residens - and now they can walk in and out this camp into the Danish society as they please.
How is that for political correctness?????

Posted by: thefugitive at June 20, 2008 4:11 PM

"Maybe you could name the Grand Mufti an unindicted co-conspirator but you probably couldn't sue him any more than you could sue the Vatican. He is beyond the reach of an American court - at this point anyway."

I'm not so sure of that, PMK. It's not unprecented. The president of Panama spent years in a U.S prisons after being indicted by a U.S. court.

If I have evidence that the Vatican has caused me great mental or physical harm, I can't see any reason why I couldn't charge the Vatican in a U.S. court. The Pope might not show up to answer my charges, but I could certainly get a judgment against the Vatican anyway.

It would be interesting to know if there are others out there who've had some experience in this area of the law. I'll stand corrected if if proven wrong.

Posted by: rational at June 20, 2008 5:44 PM

The president of Panama spent years in a U.S prisons after being indicted by a U.S. court.

rational,

That only happened after the US invaded Panama. Noriega eventually surrendered to the US military, which then extradited him to the US to answer an indictment that had been issued a year before. Without the US invasion or Noriega giving up power and a new government consenting to his extradition, Noriega would have remained beyond the reach of any American court. What is the likelihood that anyone is going to send the military after the Grand Mufti?

Also that was a criminal matter. Even there, Noriega would still be living large in Panama without the US invasion. He would have had no incentive to travel anywhere else without a guarantee of diplomatic immunity. It took the US military to get him before an American court.

Osama bin Laden is wanted in connection with a criminal act - 9/11. We still can't get our hands on him because the people around him won't give him up. If we had caught him in Tora Bora he'd be in an American prison today.

It's harder for one of us to sue the Mufti. Sure you can file suit but isn't it just for show? How does anyone force the Grand Mufti to answer a civil lawsuit in an American or other Western court? He's not going to come here, so you can't serve him. He is not bound by the laws of the US.

In 2000, the Tehran hostages and their families tried to sue Iran, unsuccessfully, under the Antiterrorism Act. They originally won the case when Iran failed to provide a defense, but the U.S. State Department tried to put an end to the suit, fearing that it would make international relations difficult. As a result, a federal judge ruled that nothing could be done to repay the damages the hostages faced because of the agreement the U.S. made when the hostages were freed.

I would expect something similar in the wake of any attempt to sue the mullahs or the Grand Mufti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

Posted by: PMK at June 20, 2008 7:04 PM