Once again, the talk is about acceptability, not accuracy (i.e., the Truth). Q: Was there anything inaccurate in any of the cartoons? A: No. So they're fine, right? Uh, no, cuz Moslems find Islam deeply offensive.

The Moslems and I now can agree on something, cuz I find Islam to be deeply offensive, too.

MORE APOLOGISTS MORE APOLOGIES MORE HAND-WRINGING MORE MOSLEMS!!

Conversations about the wrong subject will make you subject, to Islam.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 9, 2006 11:50 AM

Kudos to Karen Murdock for recognizing what college is supposed to be for: Learning and discussion in an intellectually free environment.

The fact that they refused to allow the posting of the cartoons even when a curtain was put up shows just how absurd the situation has become.

The curtain does allow anyone who's offended by the cartoons (or who believes they will be offended by them!) to not open the curtain. This really is bending over backwards. But this is not good enough for the Islamist-enablers Lyons and Bruner...shame on them. Whatever relatively minor offence happens now will be minor compared to what will happen if this type of accommodation-of-Islamic intolerance is allowed to continue.

Suggestions to Karen Murdock: Consider suing them. You have a good case. Also, how about posting on that same bulletin board an account of how the administration forced you to take the cartoons down.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 9, 2006 12:26 PM

"Whatever relatively minor offence happens now will be minor compared to what will happen if this type of accommodation-of-Islamic intolerance is allowed to continue."

By that I mean accommodation makes Islamists worse, makes them even more intolerant and makes them want to grab even more and expect even more. The way to deal with Islamists is to refuse to accommodate them.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 9, 2006 12:32 PM

Isn't it amazing what fear can do to the freedom of expression that Universities so aptly love to embrace, and cloak themselves in, no matter how offensive the subject is to those who are less prone to violence;

Hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to freedom of speech in our so-called halls of higher learning unless you might be subject to a fatwa of course.

Posted by: Mackie at March 9, 2006 12:34 PM

Archimedes:

Yes! Mohammed went up to the top of a mole hill and then came down from the top of a mountain.

Posted by: Mackie at March 9, 2006 12:37 PM

Meanwhile, long live Karen the Brave - the only American academic of whom I have heard such a story told.

Posted by: Paolo at March 9, 2006 12:41 PM

Come now, this is Minnesota. You cant swing your arms here without hitting a swooning multiculturalist.

My home state is also the place where, one week after 9/11, an apartment owner was forced by the city to take down a brand new American flag flying on the flagpole outside.

The reason was that the majority Somali muslims tenants didnt like it, and they complained to the authorities. If, God forbid, dhimmitude ever reaches our shores, it will happen here first.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at March 9, 2006 12:56 PM

The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) will not come to the aid of Karen Murdock. The ACLU, which one can well imagine would scream bloody murder if someone's photograph of Castro or Lenin were repeatedly torn down, will not utter a word. The ACLU (and the AAUP) are not in in the business of defending free speech, at universities or elsewhere, if that free speech offends Muslims. All of the evidence supports that bleak assertion, none of the available evidence contradicts it. So why should anyone join or support either the AAUP or the ACLU, two phony organizations, phonily defending -- in highly selective fashion -- the liberties that they phonily claim to protect, one on campus, and the other supposedly everywhere.

But others can. Alumni can. Students can. Columnists can. And above all, those who are willing to withhold donations -- to noisily insist that those donations or other kinds of support, that might have once gone to Century College, will now not be going there -- can have an effect.

The only thing that matters now is money. Who gets it, and who doesn't. The beating heart of Century College is the Development Office. It is the same at Columbia, at Harvard, at Brandeis, at Georgetown. Only when alumni, in sufficient numbers, deny those colleges and those universities amounts of money that, in size, are large enough to outweigh whatever Saudis and other Arabs might supply, will they change their policies. Stop giving them money. And make sure they know why.

Any visitors to JW who are alumni of Century College? Or know, or know those who know -- six degrees of separation -- alumni or trustees of Century College?

Appeals to the right of free speech, or allusions to the writings on education of Milton, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Alfred North Whitehead, Michael Oakeshott, Jacques Barzun -- will mean nothing to this new breed. The president and adminstrators will not have the faintest idea what you are talking about, or why you bring up these names. They're interested in their salaries, their benefits, how much they can get away with spending on redoing the president's house. They're interested in campus peace at any price. If free speech, if free and skeptical inquiry, are squashed -- too bad. What's that got to do with my salary, my pension, my travel allowance, that Miele refrigerator and stove I want installed in the President's kitchen?

Disgust. Disgust and horror.

Posted by: Hugh at March 9, 2006 12:58 PM

What if the professor had required her students to visit a link that shows the cartoons? Do you think she still would have been reprimanded?

Posted by: Rafa at March 9, 2006 1:06 PM

What do you expect of Minnesota? It was settled by Swedes. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Suzan at March 9, 2006 1:11 PM

Somalis ruling the roost in Minnesota? The state that elected Jesse Ventura? (or, poor Cannuck that I am, am I confusing Minn with Mich?)

In either case, I'm amazed they could stand the long, hard winters.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 9, 2006 1:35 PM

Actually, Suzan, there are more people of German than of Scandanavian descent in the Peoples Republic of Minnesota. This probably will change, however, as the Federal Gvernment continues to settle tens of thousands of Muslim Somalis in the state. As a result, I expect Minneapolis or Mankato to be renamed New Mogadishu as soon as the Jihad breaks out openly.

You would be amazed at the rate that Sharia-compliant regulation is being imposed here.

Posted by: Norseman at March 9, 2006 1:37 PM

The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) will not come to the aid of Karen Murdock. The ACLU, which one can well imagine would scream bloody murder if someone's photograph of Castro or Lenin were repeatedly torn down, will not utter a word. The ACLU (and the AAUP)...

Where is the hell the American Association of University Women (the AAUW) in all of this? Hey, not only are they academicians, they're feminists too. And mostly gay.

So, here they are not, cowards all, accommodating a Holy Prophet who was never holy, never prophesized a damned thing, and would quash intellectual freedom, uppity women, and homosexuals in a single violent jackboot stomp.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 9, 2006 1:50 PM

If anyone would like to tell the Governor of Minnesota their thoughts about Century College:
tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Posted by: sonnyboy at March 9, 2006 2:13 PM

"If, God forbid, dhimmitude ever reaches our shores, it will happen here first."

Dead Infidel Walking,

And then you'll be saying, "Welcome to Dhimmisota - the once friendly and fruitful - but now barren "L'Etoile du Nord".

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 9, 2006 2:36 PM

Yet another example of the LLL's mantra:

Free speech for me..... but not for thee...

Posted by: CrazyFool at March 9, 2006 3:53 PM

The moment any law prohibits insult, offensive expression, or blasphemy, is the moment that freedom of speech ceases to exist. Without freedom of speech, democracy itself dies. Without democracy, we all live under the yoke of tyranny.

The clash of ideologies to which we are the hapless witnesses, will no doubt soon reach its crescendo. The attempt of the Muslim community to insulate itself from offensive expression is an assault on personal liberty that will be agressively and if necessary, violently, resisted by non-Muslim peoples around the globe, especially in the West where such liberties have been earned and retained by generations of bloodshed and expenditure of extraordinary wealth. Over the course of the history of Western civilization tens of millions have died in conflicts precipitated by assaults on liberty by despots. Woe to the present generation that may yet experience another.

Posted by: DrMack at March 9, 2006 4:03 PM

I was enjoying a beautiful spring break at my home in Minnehopeless(Minneapolis), until I saw this...

For those who don't know, Minnesota is now the favored destination for various people migrating to the US. We now have the world's largest Hmong population, the country's second largest Tibetan population, and large populations of Somalis, Oromo(Ethopia) and Central and South Americans of all types. Then you have pockets of Eastern European/Balkan/Russian types, and Hindus.

You can walk down Lake Street one way and see billboards in Spanish. The other way is to Addis Ababa and Mogadishu. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Islamicfinder.org listed 31 mosques in this area. Maybe I should startup a dialogue with one about Sura 9 and the Hadiths.

My parents are moderate conservatives from N. Dakota and northern Minnesota but have been in the Twin Cities for a long time. I wonder if they know anyone with links to Century College.

In a couple of days, it's back to MTU and the Upper Peninsula for me.

Posted by: Itachi at March 9, 2006 4:36 PM

Sounds like the teacher needs to post this:

__________________________________________________

They came for the Danish cartoonists, but I wasn't a Dane, or cartoonist, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the croissant-makers, but I only ate them a few times a year, so I said nothing.

Then they came for those in the visual erotic media, but I didn't think this would include the internet, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the film-makers, musicians, and artists, but I wasn't in those arts, so I said nothing.

Then they came for those who used words in any capacity, but by then there was no one left to say anything in favor of me.

__________________________________________________

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 9, 2006 5:01 PM

"Finally, she says, her academic division head, David Lyons, removed the cartoons himself,"

The cowardly dhimmi Lyon can be reached at this address:

david.lyons@century.edu

Posted by: Elad at March 9, 2006 6:06 PM

Get off your respective keysters and fire off an email of protest to the President of the college on Mr. Lawrence Litecky, President, Century College; 651-779-3342; larry.litecky@century.edu

If we cannot have freedom of speech in the marketplace of ideas (college) where will we draw the line on Muslim intolerance?

Its the most minimal action I could think of but it felt great let President Litecky know his actions do not happen in a vacum.

BTW that islamicfinder.org is a very scary website more of the "evil-doers" than I would have thought.

Posted by: bigdog at March 9, 2006 6:11 PM

Almost two years ago I posted this

The distinguishing characteristic of Western civilisation is the freedom to think and disseminate ideas that are uncomfortable, and to do so, without fear for ones life or danger to ones family. It is this freedom that was fought for through successive generations and it was the attainment of this that leads to the blossoming of civilisation as we know it.

It is a fact that the presence of Muslims in the West has seriously compromised this most cherished of all Western values, or as V.S.Naipaul would put it, this most cherished of all Universal values. The consequence of this is that the progress of civilisation is itself threatened, and may well bring about its demise. We see this in every aspect of our society, from authors of books critical of Islam, newspapers that are in fear in a similar manner, Muslims who are afraid to leave Islam, and right down to ordinary citizens. The signs were there for anyone to notice it at the time of the Rusdhie affair. I wrote to the Telegraph at the time, in the same vein as I write the above, pointing out the huge implications of appeasing Muslims and Khomeini's fatwa. We now are paying for such appeasement.

Fear has, and always has been the first symptom of a society that is being ravaged by Islam and is in decline. This fear is inculcated and encouraged by all Muslims, whether they be Jihadi terrorists who promise us pools of blood or moderate Muslim leaders, who warn us that if we do not listen to the growing alienation of young Muslims, there will be an explosion of anger from the Muslim community in the West. In every case, Muslims try to paralyse the victim society with fear of the Muslim. The way forward of course is straightforward. We must not be frightened to take actions, even if they are not inimical with some of our cherished values. The stakes are far too high for that now.

It is a fact our internal tranquillity is destroyed and we are unlikely to gain it as long as we have the Enemy Within.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11851#c0072

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2006 8:06 PM

Hugh - I beg to differ on the ACLU. I did a Google search on ACLU cartoons, and found this on the first page.

Posted by: Kathy K at March 9, 2006 9:21 PM

The reason was that the majority Somali muslims tenants didnt like it, and they complained to the authorities. If, God forbid, dhimmitude ever reaches our shores, it will happen here first.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at March 9, 2006 12:56 PM

So they found the flag offensive, did they? What in the hell are they doing in America if they don't like our flag? Did anyone ask that question? Who are the "authorities", the police, the landlord, who? The police cannot stop an American citizen from flying an American flag on private property; nobody can. Someone should have told those Somali bastards to go back to Mogadishu if the American flag offends them. Stories like this make my blood boil!

Posted by: Susanp at March 9, 2006 9:52 PM

It's Minnesota. Home of the DFL, and a particularly rabid strain of multiculturalism. The Twin Cities are very PC and characterized by a very loopy brand of liberalism. It's no surprise that they are welcoming dhimmitude with open arms. To do otherwise would call into question their institutionalized belief in multiculturalism. They will never do that.

Posted by: Lepanto at March 9, 2006 9:57 PM

The position of FIRE appears to strongly support Murdock, and FIRE's general position on the cartoons seems to be at odds with the AAUP. But, if one searches the articles even at FIRE's Website on find this,

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6850.html

an article about a University of Chicago student who evidently drew a cartoon of Mohammad with the caption 'Mo Mohammad, Mo Problems' and posted it in a residence hall. The article, which seems to be written by Hasan Ali, president of the local Muslim Student Association, seems to support the right for the student to post the cartoon, but the article strongly suggests that even though the student has a right to post the cartoons, the cartoons should be considered hate speech that deserve strong reaction from offended parties and university administration.

Ali (at least it appears that Ali wrote this about himself) writes this cryptic, ominous paragraph,

"Fourth-year in the College Hasan Ali, president of the U of C Muslim Students Association, said that while he feels the cartoon was “an act of stupidity,” the gravity of the incident should not be diffused just because of the cartoonist’s apology. “We’re working with the administration to combat the perception that such actions can be resolved by an apology,” Ali said. “People need to know that there’s more going on than just an apology.”

In other words, this should be considered hate speech and apologies just won't do. More is expected. And what might that be?

Also, the article leaves the impression in the end that Charles Mitchell, a Program Officer of FIRE considers the cartoon 'hateful speech'. Here it is:

“Nobody’s ever said free speech is neat,” Mitchell said. “The best way to fight hateful speech is by more speech.”

And what will be the nature of 'more speech' if it is assumed that this cartoon constitutes hate speech, and university administration has a responsibility to react strongly to it?

So, if someone draws a cartoon of Jesus with the caption 'Mo Jesus, Mo Problems', will this person be accused of hate speech?

Once again, we confront even in the archives of FIRE the idea that any criticism of Mohammad or Islam deserves to be considered, at least prima facie, motivated by hatred, and, hence, suspect.

Will FIRE acknowledge and protest this false assumption that obviously has enormous implications for the limitation of speech on Islam on our campuses? If FIRE dares to do so, then this article in their own archives should be deleted.

Posted by: JTF at March 9, 2006 11:01 PM

"Hugh - I beg to differ on the ACLU. I did a Google search on ACLU cartoons, and found this on the first page."
-- from a posting above by Kathy K at March 9, 2006 09:21 PM (where link can be clicked on)

I'm amazed. I heard nothing about any stand, principled or otherwise, on the pusillanimity of American newspapers and Muslim intimidation. To find this statement from the Massachusetts branch is good, and surprising, considering the influence, and position within it, of one Nancy Murray, who for a while was in charge of stoutly defending our threatened Constitutional rights --which was their way of discussing attempts to track agents and promoters of the Jihad the way, during World War II, the FBI tracked agents and promoters of the Nazis -- the kind of people written about in John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover." So much of what comes out of the ACLU is sinister, that I interpreted their silence -- and while I have you here (and don't worry, we're alone, and no one is listening in) can you tell me if the national ACLU, or the Donna-Lieberman chapter in New York, is also on record as denouncing attempts by Muslims to undo the First Amendment, the Virgina Remonstrances, John Peter Zenger, and Milton's Areopagitica?

Aside from the ACLU's hysteria over the Patriot Act, there is the question of its personnnel. You may reall Bowles, of the National Office, who was caught trying to organize a shout-down of Daniel Pipes (google "Bowles" and "Pipes" and "Jihad Watch"). And as for Nancy Murray, past postings that mention her may refresh everyone's memory about the person in charge of the ACLU's attempt to whip up hostility to the Patriot Act (the war in Iraq is one thing, the Patriot Act quite another) among benighted or innocent members of the Great and General Court, through her phony but plausibly named "Bill of Rights Education" project.

Here's one excerpt from an article by Alyssa Lappen posted previously at JW on April 4, 2004:

"Upon his November 4, 2002 arrest in Rhode Island for alleged U.S. immigration violations, [Palestinian Arab Amer] Jubran redeployed tactics he had successfully used earlier. The federal proceedings helped him generate reams more sympathetic ink in radical outlets worldwide; the Irish anti-War Movement, Muslim Civil Rights Center, Independent Race and Refugees Network and American Civil Liberties Union all bemoaned his “illegal” detention and U.S. government “abuse.” They screamed over infringements of his free speech. Even Amnesty International took notice. "ACLU advocacy on [Palestinian terrorist Amer]Jubran’s behalf is not that surprising, since Nancy Murray heads the Massachusetts chapter’s “Bill of Rights Education Project” and efforts for the state to join Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont and Maine by passing a resolution that would give unquestioned sanctuary to illegal aliens. Coincidentally (or is it?), Murray is mother of International Solidarity Movement leader Rebecca Murray, who two years ago made a fawning visit to Arafat in the Mukata and has since spent her time glorifying the memory of senior Fatah terror official Ziad Dias, [1] and on road shows to accuse Israel of war crimes."

And here's my comment on the thread under that April 4, 2004 article, about the ACLU of Massachusetts and raises questions about those who rise in the ACLU, and their motives and interests:

"Roger Baldwin, the aged sage of Beetlebung Corner in Chilmark, Mass., one of the founders of the ACLU, would not have been pleased with how the ACLU is behaving. It is supposed to be a neutral defender of rights, not a defender of those who would not, for one minute, allow free speech or free thought. This excellent piece mentions Nancy Murray, the Massachusetts' ACLU's Director of its "Bill of Rights Education Project." She is not only the mother of Rebecca Murray, a dedicated pro-PLO activist (who was at the Mukata "protecting Arafat"); she shares the same views and has a long history of so doing. One wonders if the ACLU, if Nadine Strossen and the national organization, care about having someone who is up to her neck in promoting the pro-shari'a policies of Arafat and company, as the director of a "Bill of Rights Project."

"Here is the place to note that Matt Bowles, National Field Coordinator for the ACLU, helped to disrupt a talk by Daniel Pipes at American University -- see Pipes' article, complete with a picture of a smiling Bowles, at his website.

Bowles, Murray....how many high-ranking ACLU employees are connected to the promotion of the Islamist agenda, either through the PLO's Jihad against Israel, or by attempting to supress the free speech of those who, like Pipes, are attempting to suggest that something is very wrong."

So, Kathy K. (say, weren't you the heroine of a story by Kafka?), I am chastened in part by the information you provided in your posting above. But only in part. I would need to know a great deal more about what other branches of the ACLU have done, and what the national organization has done, to express outrage at the attempts to initimidate newspapers, including campus newspapers (any firm and publicized interventions by the ACLU to protect those campus editors from bullying administrators or Muslim student groups?) and of course the outrageous treatment of those lonely and stubborn souls, like Professor Murdock above, who insist on exercising their right of free speech. When the ACLU starts giving out its annual award for freedom to the editors of those campus newspapers, to the assorted academic Murdocks, to the editors of Jyllands-Posten, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then they'll impress me.

Otherwise I remain deeply suspicious of the ACLU. It's not your grandfather's ACLU -- and deserves to be regarded with great wariness unless it gives further evidence that it has come to its senses.

Posted by: Hugh at March 9, 2006 11:34 PM

This statement notwithstanding, since the ACLU has thrown its lot with the Jihadists in the name of Civil Liberties, it deserves to be treated with downright suspicion and contempt, regardless of how loudly it stands in support of the publication of the cartoons.

If an organization decides to participate in a Jihad on the side of Islam, albeit unwittingly, should they be patted on the back for simply breaking ranks in one particular battle in that Jihad?

And that's not even counting the other anti-social activities they indulge in, such as NAMBLA, children's privacy on abortions, et al.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2006 12:57 AM

Artists try not to offend Muslims as satire festival treads softly By David Rennie in Valencia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PFBYWEYPIEDSJQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/10/wsatire10.xml">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PFBYWEYPIEDSJQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/10/wsatire10.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PFBYWEYPIEDSJQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/10/wsatire10.xml

Posted by: DP111 at March 10, 2006 4:36 AM

#*#%!!

Thanks for the link above, DP111!

What do you tell cowardly-low-life-creep "artists' like those?
To go eat S#*t an die? I can't believe the hypocrisy. How can these fools live with themselves?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 10, 2006 6:02 AM

To the poster who coined the term Dhimmisota, thank you, I guffawed openly at work over that. Now, in the finest tradition of Chinese businessmen everywhere, I will steal the term and claim it as my own.

SusanP, it was the landlord who started flying the flag. Basically what happened is that immediately after 9/11, the landlord installed a new, very high flagpole and flew a large American flag on it.

The building is one of those places where new immigrants are first settled, we have many of those buildings...want to guess why?

The majority-Somali tenants of said building took offense to the flag and contacted an organization called the 'Somali Justice Advocacy Center' (think CAIR), who then contacted the local ward official who made a big enough stink that the landlord took the flag down.

Its the Minnesota way.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at March 10, 2006 7:45 AM

It's Purim next Tuesday -- the holiday on which Jews around the world recall the triumph of Persia's Jewish Queen Esther over the machinations of the evil prime minister to the King, Hamen. Unlike most other Jewish holidays, Purim is not a solemn holiday, but one for dressing in costumes and telling jokes, eating triangular pastries -- hamentashen -- that are a reference to the hat reputedly worn by Hamen and writing his name in chalk on the bottom of our shoes and stamping our feet. I hate to think that the PC types in the Jewish community would consider contraints to avoid insulting Iranian Muslims, especially now that we've seen the rise to power of Hamen's 21st century alter ego, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 10, 2006 8:15 AM

Dead Infidel Walking - Do you know any details about the specific grounds on which they found the American flag offensive? Did they come out and say, "Our loyalty is to the Muslim ummah and not to the United States"? While this is no doubt the truth, I can't imagine them actually saying it outright so I am very curious as to how they would have described the reasons for finding it offensive to fly an American flag after an attack on our homeland.

Posted by: Caroline at March 10, 2006 8:17 AM

Ive looked for it, but you have to understand that such things dont make the front page of our big newspaper, the Star and Sickle...er...the Star Tribune. It was a byline story buried in the paper and such things are not normally archived.

Ive requested multiple times that the Star provide me with a microfiche copy of the article, but my attempts never bear fruit. They always seem to get lost in the beureaucracy.

The official line from SJAC is that the muslim tenants of the building (called 'New Americans' by their sponsors) were still enduring culture shock in their adopted country and were afraid of being targeted after 9/11. Also, that many of them were from the Mogadishu environs and as such still had 'traumatic memories' of the American presence from the 90's.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at March 10, 2006 9:46 AM

Dead Infidel, yes, please elaborate. Just exactly what was the argument against the American flag, and did the landlord ever state why he took it down (capitulated)?

Posted by: Vee at March 10, 2006 10:00 AM

Come now, this is Minnesota. You cant swing your arms here without hitting a swooning multiculturalist.

This is where the feds have actually done some good. The officials running the airport had arranged for dozens of Somali cab drivers to await fares directly across from the fuel dump and a runway.

Against its better judgment, the so-called Dept. of Homeland Security brought in a USAF expert to review the airport’s security. He took one look at Moslems prostrating towards Mecca on their prayer rugs --- just a few hundred feet from surface tanks holding thouisands of gallons of Jet-A --- and pointed out that the trunks of any of those cabs could be concealing an RPG or SAM.

The DHS ordered the dim-witted local officials to move them immediately.

Now the Moslem cabbies are forced to sit around on their dead asses elsewhere. Btw, each of these cabbies also receives welfare, some of the fattest checks in the nation.

The best part, though, is that virtually all of the DHS security personnel in the terminal are rug-totinge card carrying Somalis.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 10, 2006 10:34 AM

Dead Infidel Walking: "Also, that many of them were from the Mogadishu environs and as such still had 'traumatic memories' of the American presence from the 90's."

I see - these Somalians were so traumatized by memories of the American presence in Somalia that they felt compelled to emigrate to America! As to being afraid of being targetted, which Muslims would more likely be targetted for retaliation after 9/11 - those proudly flying an American flag or those demanding its removal? SJAC is totally full of crap. What's amazing is that anyone let them get away with arguments like that.

Posted by: Caroline at March 10, 2006 10:50 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer: "This is where the feds have actually done some good. The officials running the airport had arranged for dozens of Somali cab drivers to await fares directly across from the fuel dump and a runway."

Apologies for OT but related to above:

Good heavens why don't they do the same at La Guardia (and other airports?) ? After 9-11 all the cab drivers .. for 'security' purposes!!! ... have been shuffled off to a (very private) area adjacent to the Arrivals exit (confusing airport jargon) .. If one wants a cab, one now must wait on a long line .. the police hover annoyingly all over the customer-line all the while ignoring COMPLETELY the mass of largely Muslim cabbies in their private oasis just around the bend.

Upon departing with your cabbie (who is invariably and illegally yakking Arabic or whatever non-stop into his cell phone) .. you then get to see all the other drivers - tons of them - outside their cars - right next to La Guardia -- ignored by the police and airport "security" -- (often wildly) talking away with one another.

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 10, 2006 11:13 AM

What's wrong with this picture?

The picture is lurid and distorted for one very simple reason: the Fictive Reality that Islam is a religion, which it is not.

If we thought of Islam as a political ideology, which it is, not only would the Moslem cabbies not be cabbies, they would not be on American soil.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 10, 2006 1:17 PM

Am just reading a book written by an Australian journalist, Geraldine Brooks, a Jew who has spent many years from 1980 to the present travelling in the middle east..........the book is called
"Nine Parts of Desire" "The Hidden World of Islamic Women"
It has some very telling stories and the attitude of this college sounds so similar.
It was ridiculous that the professor had to cover the cartoons with a curtain anyway and then criminal that she was instructed to no repost them.

We have to fight these stupid, stupid, stupid attitudes. We are allowing attitudes just like the Saudi Arabian muttawain to get into our own societies instead of pointing at them and laughing and ridculing such attitudes.

They really are stupid but we are allowing such idiocy to be taken seriously.

LETS RIDICULE THE IDIOTS.

Posted by: marilyn at March 10, 2006 7:08 PM