If you want a closer look at them individually, you can do that at this site (hat tip to indyvoter).
Now, I find these cartoons, which first were published in a Danish newspaper last week and caricature the prophet Mohammed, pretty disgusting. Even though I am not a Muslim, I can understand why they are so angry at cartoons depicting, among others, Mohammed wearing a turbin which is shaped like a bomb. And that cartoon certainly does nothing to fight the image that all muslims are terrorists, or that Islam itself is a violent religion, which in general is not true. And they are not even good cartoons; they look kind of goofy and not very well drawn. So why am I publishing them on Deep Thought, where I have in the past been outspoken against prejudice and stereotyping?
I'm publishing them because as a defender of free speech, I feel an obligation to publish them. I'm publishing them because once a death sentence was issued by a bunch of fanatics, it became the right thing for defenders of freedom to do. I'm publishing them in solidarity with the people throughout Europe who have been threatened with death for publishing them. A fatwa, or declaration that those who publish these should be killed, has been issued. I find this kind of thing to be repulsive in the extreme. And so I believe that the best way to fight it is to publish them as far and wide as possible. Make it clear that a handful of cartoons that probably would not have made it far from the lunch counter in Copenhagen, absent the fatwa, have now been seen by people all over the world. In their rage, they defeat themselves.
I believe in freedom of speech, even for speech I deplore.
NOTE: Bloggers on the right have taken the lead in this here in the U.S.; Now, granted, it may be easier for someone who actually agrees with the point of the cartoons to post them, but if there is anything we should be able to agree with them on, it is free speech.
156 comments:
I'm one of those right-wing bloggers, and I'd like to congratulate you on the courage of your consistency in principles. It is regrettably not evidenced by the majority of blogs on the left (dailykos, notably, has been completely silent on this outrage).
However, I have a small bone to pick..its not that the right-wing agrees with those cartoons. Its that we understand that Islam makes serious, significant claims to temporal authority (theocratic government, sharia law), and therefore, is fair game for criticism in the rough and tumble of the political sphere.
You are right, even if we do not agree on much else, it gives me hope to see we agree on something as fundamental as this.
Without free speech nothing else matters.
Another liberal here, and I totally agree this issue transcends the right-left divide. We have much more in common with each other than we do with, uh...them.
Another liberal here watching the dead-silence and/or apologetics for the fanatics (Steve Gilliard has been particularly pathetic on this) on the left half of the blogosphere with dismay.
And shame. I'm ashamed to be a liberal right now. It's a first for me.
It is scary to me that the world of Islam, a world that does little to contribute to modern scientific, technological, medical and economic progress of the human race at large, can seem to direct our thinking and control what we say by their anger and violence toward us. How long do we have to tolerate this kind of behavior. When does the civilized world wake up and say enough.
We in Denmark had said ENOUGH for the past year. The drawings was first posted in a debate on selfcensorship, where writers, cartoonist and other artist was afraid of publishing their art, out of revenge from radical islamists.
Works of art was removed from museums in London and Stockholm, as not to offend muslim visitors.
Where does it stop. Today art is removed not to offent muslims, tomorrow not to offent Jews, next week not to offend christians etc.
When you have covered all the religions taboos, no art is left. I.E. you can not depict a cow, cause thats holy to people in india...
We took the debate here. It was almost closed and done with, when radical Danish Imams took roundtrip to religious leaders in the Middel East, carrying material never publish, and far worse that the 12 drawing, claiming this was what is published in Denmark every day. Then the lid blew off. So this hole thing yuo see now, is the result of disinformation with the purpose of getting Middel east goverments to pressure Denmark to change our legislagtion in direcetion og Sharia law.
Thanks for letting me write.
Just a Dane - who will keep quiet...
A Dane who will NOT keep quiet
sorry
I'm also a conservative and agree that yes, these cartoons are offensive and disrespectful to the Muslim religion. As a Christian we take a lot of criticism for our faith and we have to put up with the blaspheming of Christ, (see Kanye West and Rolling Stone,) but it beats the alternative: a theocratic society where the ultimate price is paid for expressing your dissenting views. You have the right to think my religion is hocus-pocus and I would fight to the death to protect your right to think it and express it.
Read "The Case for Democracy". In it, Natan Sharansky explains that the apparent gulf between liberals and conservatives in free countries is nothing when compared to the REAL divide between free countries and "fear" societies.
This issue is bigger than Bush or Kerry or Red or Blue. I think the Voltaire quote sums it up nicely.
Aren't the Muslims actually reinforcing the concepts exhibited in the cartoons? Threatening to behead anyone that depicts Islam as violent would be funny if they weren't actually serious about it. In the Koran, Mohammed exhorts his followers to kill non muslims- why is that different than showing him with a bomb turban? He is shown in text wielding a sword and slaughtering his enemies, especially Jews: I would think his followers would be proud to have him update his arsenal to include modern weapons. One other observation: I thought I was looking at a parody when I saw the picture of those pious protestors with the signs stating "Europe lacks respect for others". It's so ironic that I can't believe it was unintentional (if you don't get it, you have never studied the history of Islam).
Religious belief has been the source of much misery in the world. Why should it be immune to critisism or ridicule? It's ok to bomb people and fly airplanes into buildings in a holy war aginst the infidel but it's offensive to point out religious hypocrcy in a cartoon? Give me a break! Religious totalitarian societies cannot tolerate democracy because they can't tolerate diversity of thought and expression. As a gay man in the U.S. I find fundamentalist Christian attitudes toward homosexuality offensive and frightening but they seem immanently tolerant compared to the stoning and hanging of gay men in fundamentalist Islamic societies. I'll take the rough and tumble world of democracy over the repressive ideology of religious extremism any day.
Christian Conservative here also. I have to agree with the first poster - it's not that we "agree" with the stupid cartoons, it's that I strongly believe in freedom of speech also. I was appalled at the pics of Bush-as-Hitler but recognized that without the ability to publish those pictures - what the hell are we fighting for? I personally think the Islamofascists still live in the stone ages and are not sophisticated enough to recognize the damage they are doing to their own religion and causes.
I've read about the Crusades & the way the Christians slaughtered the secularists way back then. I'm appalled by those stories, and while I'm a Christian, I don't want to see us go back to that.
I am relieved to see you stand up for this with conservatives and am glad that we have some common ground again. It proves that regardless of our differences, we still have some common beliefs!!
Besides, isn't the belief that Mohammed shouldn't be drawn an "Islamic belief"? It's not our (Christians & secularists) belief, right? Then why are many leftist bloggers not raising hell about this - the fact that they are trying to impose their "religious" beliefs on us by saying we can't draw their prophet?
You have principles. I'm impressed.
I am a Christian Conservative and I appreciate your post.
As a Christian I have to tolerate many intolerable pieces of art, acts, and rhetoric.
Yet I recognize that in order to have my freedoms, as well as the right to exercise my opinions, that I have to "allow" opposing viewpoints/freedom of speech.
We have been lulled into believing that the extremists of Islam have been in the minority.
Now I don't believe that this is necessarily true any more.
If it ever was.
later...
I'm not a conservative, right winger or anything like it, but I am disgusted at the way the left wingers always side with the local opponents. In 1982 the European left suddenly supported the military junta in Argentina. Why? Because they "had to" side against Maggie. A fat lot of good that did them!
Now, many "anti-racists" and "anti-fascists" show their solidarity with a movement where being of a particular faith (islam) and race (arabian) makes you better than the rest of the lot.
I'm glad to see it's not a unanimous decision.
The purpose of it all was to see if self-censorship had in fact been imposed by violent minorities. The answer may seem to be yes, but it will end up being a resounding no.
We'll be Drawing Old Muhammad on the Wall
(music: She'll be coming 'round the mountain,
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/mountain.htm)
We'll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
For even Muslims must admit it,
You don't need a special permit,
To be drawing old Muhammad on the wall.
We'll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
With graffiti that's persisting,
We will show that we're insisting,
On our right to spray the Prophet on the wall.
We'll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
Now some claim that He's angelic,
So we'll paint him psychedelic,
We sure hope he likes His pictures on the wall.
We'll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
The time has come to make our stand
Or our rights they will get banned,
And we'll find ourselves lined up against the wall.
(If you like this, please re-post it elsewhere on the Internet.)
I've come to the conclusion that Western Civilization is not going to be defeated by terrorist--we're going to talk our selves to death.
I beg the Danes to march in the streets, burn ever Koran they can find, shove it in the face of every Muslin they see. If Muslims want war then let the war begin.
Who ties our hands with the bonds of civilization when enemies are marching toward our gates.
I'm a hard-core leftist. I belong to a Social Democratic political party. And the lack of response from the left to this sickens me.
I take issue with the first comment poster who signed in as anonymous -
"However, I have a small bone to pick..its not that the right-wing agrees with those cartoons. Its that we understand that Islam makes serious, significant claims to temporal authority (theocratic government, sharia law), and therefore, is fair game for criticism in the rough and tumble of the political sphere."
Perhaps they should read this article about Sam Brownback, one of their potential candidates in 2008...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator/?rnd=1139168248375&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1069
maria e,
You just couldn't bring yourself to stick to the topic, eh?
You blinked first.
I figure one of my goals in life from now on is to antagonize every Muslim I see any way that I can. So here goes...
Mohammed is a pork eating faggot.
Religious belief has been the source of much misery in the world
All religious beliefs are a source of misery??? Please. Islam is the only that systematically stones gays to death and abuses women. The same Islam that vilifies the Jewish faith in newspapers and textbooks daily. The same Islam that has blown up priceless Bhuddist statues and annihilates Christians in Darfur.
As a gay person your death is guaranteed under Islam. It's time that gays join the rest of us perceived as evil "right wingers" in denouncing Islamofascism. Trust me, it is far more evil than Bush+Hitler.
You are absolutely correct. I consider myself right of center, but here, the left and right can finally come together to denounce the content of the cartoons and praise the ability to practice free speech and press.
I read the Brownback peice--Brownback may want to be President, but not by armed revolution.
Brownback may want to change this country, but not by armed revolution.
He's not taking your right to vote against him away from you.
Religion has the right to speak in a free and open society. Religion has the right to express condemnation about behaivor it deems immoral.
Secularism is as much a religion as Cristianity, Hinduism, et..
It's all a belief structure.
Religion has a right to intimediate by its words. No one has the right to intimediate by violence.
Stick to the subject? Oh please, you guys suscribe to double standards everyday of the week including Sunday! I don't not agree with your thesis. Let's take a hard look at how you all freaked out over The "Book of Daniel" and an upcoming "Will & Grace" with Britney Spears playing a Christian chef!
But of course - silly me - of course you all are against censorship unless it allows poking fun at others, i.e., Muslims...after all they are "all" our enemies, even the innocent ones.
We on The Left know your story...oh and maybe Bill O'Reilly will be inspired by all of the boycotts...it will allow them over at Faux to come up with some new ideas...like from this prominent Right Blog -
"Meanwhile, an Italian Roman Catholic priest was shot dead in his church in the Turkish Black Sea city of Trabzon on Sunday, police said. Motive not known."
The killing of this priest, terrible unfortunate, may or may not have had anything what-so-ever to do with this whole fiasco, but you guys again, must work hard to create your drama.
You all need to attend a 12 Step Program for Drama Queens...you are not happy unless the kitchen curtains are on fire! Create drama, throw it into the Echo Chamber so it becomes the news and them douse it with more polemicy until it becomes a full fledged tradegy.
And guess what? This wasn't even about America, it was about Denmark - but you all had to translate "the drama" into something about us and our First Admendment. You have to stop, you are ruining the world...
Write a joke or draw a cartoon for press freedom in the:
First International Islamic Joke & Cartoon Competition
See: www.laughyourheadoff.org
Also a Mr. Been essay Prize on topic:
"Humor in the New Testament and the Koran."
Charles
And furthermaore, no one has the right to violent behavior, but perhaps you guys will remember "Operation Rescue" in the '80's and '90's...
Again, more double standards from The Right...tell us all about abusing women and taking away their right to choose...
maria e;
you're "stuck on stupid"
maria e,
You said "Let's take a hard look at how you all freaked out over The "Book of Daniel" and an upcoming "Will & Grace" with Britney Spears playing a Christian chef!"
Which embassies did we destroy over Will and Grace? Where did we hold protest signs threatening an apocalpse for the Book of Daniel?
That you don't see the difference convinces me of your total cluelessness.
Oh please! You are clueless -
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
http://www.americandecency.org/broadcasttv.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48333
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/28/114017.shtml
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001738170
You may not be burning embassies but you guys are still dictating what you think is appropiate.
And how about this, as one of the posters mentioned homosexuals -
http://www.boycottford.com/
So I am stuck on stupid - great - you are a Michelle Malkin reader! Wow...
You don't have to be a "right winger" to oppose "Islamofascim" or any other kind of fascism for that matter. Historically, in fact, most fascists have been "right wingers". Any evangelical, proselytizing religion bent on world domination is a danger to humanity whether it be Islam, Christianity or any other religion. In his book "The End of Faith", Sam Harris speaks to the collective insanity of religious belief and how its most radical elements persue their religious fanaticism with the potential for disasterous consequences for the rest of us. The fanatical reaction of the Muslim world to the cartoons makes his point perfectly. Religous belief is irrational but liberal democratic societies tolerate a lot of craziness as long as one person's craziness does not diminish the rights of others who want nothing do with it. Live and let live. Right?
"live and let live" is not part of their dialouge, they will forever tell us how we should live our lives - and I am talking about the Right Wing in general, Fundamental Muslims and the Fundamental Christians, i.e. the dire need for a 12 Step Program in how to avoid drama...
Look how Michelle Malkin flipped out on O'Reilly's show about Laura Bush's comedy routine at the correspondant's dinner. I mean it was a light hearted affair, and she thought that Laura over stepped her boundaries as First Lady over that ridiculous horse joke!
Yeah guys, let's all talk about being stuck on stupid...
Well I must say Blake and the other liberals comments intersesting to say the least. But I do not believe they or the "conservative" poster truly finds these cartoons offensive or disgusting (well, there are two that are pretty tasteless). I believe they think they must say so in order to justify their other opinions on the whole story. So their remarks start off as being disingenuous. Why do you feel it necessary to feign a offense?
Oh my! Let us compare....
The first link, what are the offended Christians urged to do?
"1. Call your local NBC affiliate and ask them not to air the program. You can find their contact information in your local phone book or by Clicking Here.
2. Print out a copy of AFA's pass along sheet, fill in the affiliate call letters and phone number, make copies and pass out at your church. Ask your pastor to announcement it and put information in the bulletin and newsletter. [doc version] [pdf version]
3. If you haven't already done so, send an email to NBC by Clicking Here.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Please help get the word out by forwarding this to your family and friends. They probably aren't aware of it!"
Write letters and get the word out! The horror of it all!
The second link mentions neither The Book of Daniel or Will and Grace. Hmm Moving on...
3rd link, let's see...hmmm incomplete so I couldn't check it out. Moving on...
Oh never mind, the rest of links are truncated on my browser.
So let's compare the letter-writing campaign with those you equate us with....
Burning embassies in at least 2 countries....
Carrying protest signs that read,
"Freedom Go To Hell"
"Be Prepared For The REAL Holocaust"
"Europe You Will Pay. Your 9/11 Is On It's Way"
"Behead Those Who Insult Islam"
So a letter-writing campaign is the same as blowing up an embassy.
Clueless, utterly, you are.
I however did not say you were stuck on stupid, even though you obviously are. That was someone else posting as Anonymous. For the record.
michelle malkin reader!
you bet your sweet bippy--every dam day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
michelle malkin reader!
you bet your sweet bippy--every dam day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know, the truth hurts. You refuse to accept the fact that you want to dictate what we are supposed to see, read, buy, accept and hold dear, no matter what.
What is happening in Denmark had nothing to do with us, i.e., the State Dept.'s opinion on the issue.
Give it up, let go and let God, you can not rule the world, and you cannot rule the people who are not as fanatical as you or the ones who are, period.
Of course, Malkin, Coulter, Schlussel, all the "vavavoom mean girls of The Right"...we know...
Truth, thy name is Saj!
By the way, I check Malkin's blog at least three times a day.
How can we take anyone seriously who is a fanatic? Call my comments venomeous, I could care less, what I wrote was the truth.
Again, I know handling the truth is hard for you guys, we know you all are always Right, or you may not always be Right, but you are never wrong...blah...blah...blah
Angry? You have to be kidding? Perhaps you might run that by Ms Malkin, her blog, on a daily basis btw, is nothing but hate and venom toward The Left or anyone with a difference of opinion. Oh, and how about her most recent book?
I mean you cannot be serious -
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004462.htm
weren't you folks on the right, also in a tizzy this week over a lame editorial cartoon?
maria e;
the only hate and venom I read is yours.
and one other thing--I have been reading the I-net all day and no one of importance is condeming Islam for their behavoir about those Danish Cartoons!!
People, I tell you we're in trouble
"Now, granted, it may be easier for someone who actually agrees with the point of the cartoons to post them, but if there is anything we should be able to agree with them on, it is free speech."
The bottomline is - you guys agree with the content of the cartoons, you love polemicy, it is the foundation of Talk Radio, it fuels your dialouge, it is the substance of your debates, no matter how unreasonable and ridiculous.
These cartoons give you guys a voice, an opinion which you can hash out until it no longer matters; "red meat" that can be chopped, fileted, roasted and broasted until it is no longer safe for human consumption.
It can travel from Rush to Malkin to Horowits to Coulter to Schlussel to Hewitt to Hindrocket to Goldberg to Barber to Ace to Shannity to Boortz to Anchoress to Margolis until it gets a full throttle into the Echo Chamber and swirls through the blogosphere...
The State Dept. has chosen the High Road, as have the News Outlets, as you affectionately refer to as the MSM, as have The Left Wing Bloggers. They will not show the cartoons, they refuse to become a part of problem.
Correction -
The State Dept. has chosen the High Road, as have the News Outlets, as you affectionately refer to as the MSM, as have The Left Wing Bloggers. They will not show the cartoons, they refuse to become a part of "the" problem.
And yes Jesus, they were all worked up about another lame cartoon by Tom what's-his-name, they also get their knickers in a twist over Ted Rall daily...
Sure we may have "freaked out" about Will and Grace and Daniel, but that's all we did. We did not riot in the streets, burn flags or threaten to behead anybody. That's what free speech is all about. Protest, but respect the others rights to opinions that differ. Besides, if no pictures have ever been printed of their "prophet", why are they so incesned by this depiction?
"We do need people of importance to stand for freedom of speech. If they don't, it sends a message to the extremists of Islam that their violence is working. It emboldens them."
Well in this particular situation it seems that the "people of importance" would rather throw water on the situation than gasoline and you guys are always running for the gas can to make a point!
Again, turn it over to God, these fanatics will never get it, no matter what you all say and do. You may win the battle but you are losing the war. We have our American servicemen in harm's way, we may or may not have upcoming problems with Iran, why add to the drama?
The Left realizes that you can not change Islamfacism, they will never "get it". They will be the way they are until doomsday. We are used to the stubborn behavior of "A Right Wing", no matter where they originate from.
And what do you think will happen or be accomplished if these "people of importance" stand up? This Arab Right Wing is crazy, unlike you all, they have no regard for human life, except of course in the cases of the abortion bombings/doctor killings of the past.
You can send as many messages as you like, but it does not guarantee that they will get them...if they believe they are killing in the name of God you will never change their opinion.
I think this is a record for comments on your blog, Eli
And remember, some of us are Christians, some of us are Jews, some of us are homosexuals, some of us are female, all of us are Americans and from The West - we are automatically relegated to the Infidel column...how does one change a barbarian who doesn't want to change?
How do you demand respect from a barbarian who believes killing in the name of God is the norm?
Maria e said:
"if they believe they are killing in the name of God you will never change their opinion."
Bull. You don't know your history very well then. You don't remember the Crusades? Read up on it, then compare modern-day Christians to the Christians of that period.
You're a hypocrite. You jump all over the conservatives here, yet fail to see that the problem is with the Islamofascists that are trying to impose their form of extreme Islam on a Western country. You and your other leftie buddies would be howling at the moon if any Jew or Christian here were trying to impose the same beliefs on you. You and CNN are not being "sensitive" - you're afraid of the retribution by the fanatics. You choose to bow to their threats -- bloggers who have posted the pics choose not to. What are you so angry about? You obviously don't know any of us, yet you decide to lambast every conservative who has posted here. It's because of people like you that there is so much hatred & partisanship right now. I have to wonder - if you were in a life-threatening situation, would you stop to ask your rescuer if he were a liberal or a conservative? Grow up - this is for real and your hatred is misplaced.
H
maria e;
you have been drulling in your burker all evening long. if you knew anything about history you would know that nations don't enore barbarians they fight and kill them. but then liberals won't defend their own country, unless it's Cuba.
I just read a piece about Australia taking bribes from Saudan Hussein..they wouldn't vote for us to take him out, just like France and Germany and Russia. What do they say--"follow the money".
Kind of like CNN not wanting to piss off their handlers too.
What about that French newspaper, the one owned by the Egyptian, fireing their editor.
I wonder how much influence Saudia Arabia has at Time and Washington Post. Bet they own a lot of stock or influence a lot of advertizing
but then liberals won't defend their own country, unless it's Cuba.
Close to 1/2 the U.S. army is "liberal"
And you're a dick.
So what - you, like Bin Laden, would like to evoke a modern day Crusade? Would that make it all better?
Don't give me the "there is so much hatred & partisanship right now" crap, your type is the reason for it.
Again read my other posts. You push your agenda on people everyday and if you could get away with burning and pillaging some of you, not all of you, would.
Again, The Left is used to dealing with "these types", we choose to take the High Road and be a part of the solution, not the damn problem.
If you want to believe it's fear based, that's your problem. It is none of our business what you think of us or the State Dept, for that matter.
And hate, your post isn't actually filled with hearts and flowers.
You people are aanarchists posing as patriots, plain and simple...less government...no taxes, yeah, uh huh, we get it.
You want to talk about the influence of a Saudi Arabia...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47771
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19652
I gave you the 411 from Conservative side, so I am not accused of not being a partisan Lib..
"Kind of like CNN not wanting to piss off their handlers too."
Is that like Rupert Murdoch not wanting to piss off his handlers at Faux News?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47771
Oh, but it only matters about CNN because they are liberal...again more double standards from you guys.
Oh, but it only matters about CNN because they are liberal
Some pleople think CNN is liberal? That's pretty funny.
I don't but most Conservatives seem too...
...you know like the rest of the elitist MSM...
I have to laugh, Fox has the highest ratings so I guess that crowns them the elite media...but don't tell Bill...
You seem to me to be a strong, passionate woman, Maria. I consider myself fortunate that our paths crossed - if only for today.
Thanks for caring enough to get involved.
05 February, 2006 17:03 ..you know like the rest of the elitist MSM...
Well, reality has a liberal bias.
Is the Saudi Prince allowing Faux to show the cartoons?
05 February, 2006 16:46 You people are anarchists posing as patriots, plain and simple...less government - no taxes, yeah
Not quite anarchists - Libertarians I'd say
Personnally, I think anyone who believes government can't do much good shouldn't be allowed to run for public office.
Dorsano, you speak like a true socialist--and you're right--i like liberterians, they believe in doing things for themselves. you like government so that they can legitimise your perverse activities.
i'am amaised at all the name-calling you and your girl friend do. so much for debate, lets just piss-em off.
Famous Libertarians -
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/michelle-malkin.html
"Dorsano, you speak like a true socialist--and you're right--i like liberterians, they believe in doing things for themselves. you like government so that they can legitimise your perverse activities."
I think they have forgotten that this is a Left leaning Blog....
So much for finding a site where there was hope of a thoughtful discussion / debate on the topic at hand. It's too bad that Maria e's mind has been poisoned beyond any hope. She can continue to bang her head against the wall - the rest of us will surf around to find another place where grown-up, intelligent people can converse about the challenges that face our country - without blaming each other for its problems and getting nowhere- just more of the same ole crap. Thanks, Eli for a thoughtful post and adios!
P.S.....the above was by "H."...and btw, the "other sites" do not include "Free Republic" or "Democratic Underground".
H.
I agree with the State Dept., if you cannot handle it, too bad.
I'am amaised at all the name-calling you and your girl friend do. so much for debate, lets just piss-em off.
The last person posting under anonymous questioned my patriotism and my willingness to defend this country.
"pissing them off" is a pretty mild response - don't you think?
05 February, 2006 17:48 you like government so that they can legitimise your perverse activities.
Government represents what we do together as one people - as in "United We Stand"
I understand that libertarians are a bit contrarian.
Funny thing is, if you take the contrarian out libertarian you get a liberal.
there was hope of a thoughtful discussion / debate on the topic at hand
I guess I'll just have to continue to pursue my "perverse activities" without enlightment from "adults"
Exactly and they call me "full of hate"...go figure.
"Funny thing is, if you take the contrarian out libertarian you get a liberal."
Wow. Witnessing the self-delusion of liberals over and over and over is maddening and entertaining, while at the same time really poignant as well as pathetic.
Let's see, wiretapping around FISA is illegal, unless Clinton does it.
A President is entitled to choose a SCOTUS Justice with whom he shares an ideology, unless it's a Republican President. Then it's a catastrophe.
God, there are so many ways today's DNC is contrarian I could go on forever.
But always entertaining, especially in this newly devolved Moonbat form resulting from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Wow
It was a joke, Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous. What is the discussion at hand? The war in Iraq? Free Speech?
Or are we all shilling for one political party or another?
What should we talk about?
For those who didn't get the complete link Michelle Malkin - Libertarian
The war on drugs is an expensive quagmire that needlessly punishes people who've already punished themselves beyond repair
Like I said - take the contrarian out of libertarian ....
They cannot handle the truth...it's obvious based on how they dealt with me.
I think the part about the crown prince of Saudi Arabia owning a portion of Faux News and Michelle Malkin really being a Libertarian may have been a bit much.
"Wow. Witnessing the self-delusion of liberals over and over and over is maddening and entertaining, while at the same time really poignant as well as pathetic.
Let's see, wiretapping around FISA is illegal, unless Clinton does it.
A President is entitled to choose a SCOTUS Justice with whom he shares an ideology, unless it's a Republican President. Then it's a catastrophe.
God, there are so many ways today's DNC is contrarian I could go on forever.
But always entertaining, especially in this newly devolved Moonbat form resulting from Bush Derangement Syndrome. "
Anonymous (you did not sign a name)-
You are a victim of a movement you do not understand. Your beloved Republican Party has been hijacked by neocon men whose loyalty is not to the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are not true Republicans.
Are you so blind that you can not see that their agenda is more in line with Hitler'ss Nazi Party than the Republican Party that I used to know and love?
Not everybody that disagrees with you is a Democrat or a liberal. You are stuck in a frame of mind that creates the Divide and Conquer mentality that the elite need to destroy this country. Someday you will be sitting in your older trailer home, wondering how could I have been so blind as to not see who was destroying the United States.
Not every fascist dictator will look like Adolf Hitler. Some look like a friendly down to earth pretend cowboy, maybe a cross between Forrest Gump and Mussolini.
I think the part about the crown prince of Saudi Arabia owning a portion of Faux News and Michelle Malkin really being a Libertarian may have been a bit much.
I don't now much about Malkin - the brief search I did does seem to place her in the Ann Coulter mold - at least at this stage of her career.
Between wedge politics and the polarization of media which turns either the right or the left into caricatures - it's hard to know what her core beliefs are
A lot of people call themselves libertarian because they don't want to call themselves Republicans or Democrats - liberals or conservatives.
Her latest book is -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260301/sr=1-1/qid=1139199518/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2184551-0225752?%5Fencoding=UTF8
She hates "Democrats and Liberals", she spouts the same talking points as Rush and the rest, identifies with the Republican party more so these days, writes about Dems and Libs daily.
Maria said:
Again, The Left is used to dealing with "these types", we choose to take the High Road and be a part of the solution, not the damn problem.
*this from a leftie commenting on a leftie's blog that has posted the same pics the righties are posting. Yet she claims "it's not about us". LOL
Let's compare:
this from world can't wait (a leftie group)
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4m6cx/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/4363390-r1-000-55a.jpg
compare to this:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060203/ids_photos_wl/r3443127481.jpg/print;_ylt=AmADtrTLezMGo47tO9P9cLeaK8MA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bXNtMmJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-
what were you saying again, maria? "we choose to take the high road and be part of the solution"?? ROFLMAO!!!
riiiiggggghhhhhtttt.
oops, let's make sure you can get to that second link, it's important:
click here
The subject at hand of this entry on this blog was that the larger percentage of blogs on The Left were ignoring the situation, i.e. the first poster's comments -
"I'm one of those right-wing bloggers, and I'd like to congratulate you on the courage of your consistency in principles. It is regrettably not evidenced by the majority of blogs on the left (dailykos, notably, has been completely silent on this outrage)."
and Malkin's Post entitled WHAT DOES THE AMERICAN LEFT HAVE TO SAY?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004462.htm
Yahoo, yippee-ay-oh, big deal! The World Can't Wait has posted the same picture as Michelle! How do they compute into being the whole Left blogosphere - who the Right Wing bloggers are complaining, have for the most part, ignored the subject?
And your point is or was...? Excuse me while I RO My FLMAO!!!
It sure would be nice if people wouldn't post as "anonymous"
Which anonymous posted this?
Let's compare
Well, Mr. or Mrs anonymous - how about we pretty much lump them both together in the "Democracy is messy" category
and start to create a better world here?
How about you tell us where to start.
They never post using their names, they are at home posting and hiding under their desks...
I would like to know exactly what point anonymous was making. I mean, The World Can't Wait is an orgainization with a blog, not really "a blog" like Kos or Crooksandliars.
05 February, 2006 21:17 Maria E said... They never post using their names
I need to get to bed, Maria - take care - and do stop by when you get a chance. It sounds like you have your own blog - drop us a link.
P.S. I hope you don't mind being my girl friend. :)
Nor does The World Can't Wait represent all of The Left Blogosphere...I love the way he/she called me a leftie and it a leftie organization.
It's the new and improved brand of McCarthyism at it's finest...leftie, commie, pinko...
I love occasionally checking out a blog that I haven't read before. Just when you thought you had found the most ludicrous, nasty bitch on the planet you can come here and get a "breath of fresh air" from Maria E who must be the single dumbest person on the planet. Congratulations! I'm sure your mother and father are proud. Too bad your liberal parents didn't abort you before it was too late.
05 February, 2006 22:12 Anonymous said... the most ludicrous, nasty bitch on the planet ... the single dumbest person on the planet ... Too bad your liberal parents didn't abort you before it was too late.
I'm sure you've got something to say that will make this country even better than what it is.
I hope that someday find the language to express it.
Why bother? She already knows who I am, what I believe and what my ultimate goal politically is. So why should I bother? I just figured i'd be as nasty as her. 2 can play her game. I'll just say what she wants to say and is too afraid to say it. She's a dumb worthless bitch who gets off on judging people she does not know. Do you really think I care if I offend her or anyone else for that matter?
Do you really think I care if I offend her or anyone else for that matter?
You two probably have some history that I'm not of - though given the state of things - I can pretty well guess what it is.
All I know is that there are people in the world who want to kill a couple of million of us
and they don't care too much whether they kill "liberals", "conservatives" or "libertarians"
It seems sort of counter productive to be fighting a civil war at the same time.
Breaking news -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html
An exempt from the article -
"The cartoonists, many of whom had reservations about the pictures, have been shocked by how the affair has escalated into a global “clash of civilisations”. They have since tried, unsuccessfully, to stop them being reprinted.
A spokesman for the cartoonists said: “They are in hiding around Denmark. Some of them are really, really scared. They don’t want to see the pictures reprinted all over the world. We couldn’t stop it. We tried, but we couldn’t.”
They - the artisits - do not want the cartoons reprinted, can someone please tell the blogs on The Right to stop? I think enough is enough...it is not always about being Right.
I'm off to bed for real this time Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous
God bless America
Amen, God Bless America and may He guide us in his intentions -
Peace on Earth and Good Will Toward Men, all Men.
Good Night.
"I'm sure your mother and father are proud. Too bad your liberal parents didn't abort you before it was too late."
"She's a dumb worthless bitch who gets off on judging people she does not know."
I guess she struck a nerve, did she?
maria e said:
"They - the artisits - do not want the cartoons reprinted, can someone please tell the blogs on The Right to stop? I think enough is enough...it is not always about being Right."
will do,...as soon as you tell the guy on this blog who posted the pics above to "stop". We're waiting, or will you once again prove that you can censor the right but don't have the balls to censor your side? Go ahead....I'll wait. We're waiting breathlessly for your post to Eli to tell him to stop and/or take down this post.
Josef
maria e said (LOL-doesn't this girl have a LOT to say):
"We on The Left know your story"
then she whines:
"I love the way he/she called me a leftie"...
make up your mind - having trouble with those multiple personalities? Did one of them forget to take your meds?
oh, and 1 other thing -- maria e said(again): "the left-wing bloggers refuse to become part of the problem".
**Note she places this comment on a "left-wing blogger's" site that has posted the pics (*snicker*).
Anyway, congratulations on your surrender, maria - you have learned well from the threats of violence from the terrorists!! You have graduated in the first step towards obeying Sharia law....your parents and Islamic teachers must be proud! you can go to the head of the class!! (don't forget to stop by your nearest islamic headress depot to pick up your burka!!)
Josef
maria e. -
Do you see the irony in your comments? You equate Christians who express their feelings about being hated and not tolerated in the media with censorship, while you deride O'Reilly, "Faux" news and Michelle Malkin. Apparantly you believe that only you are allowed to be offended, only your side allowed to be heard and respond. What would you do if NBC had a series about gays that only portrayed them as irresponsible sex-addicts? Wouldn't you say something about it? It would be your right to respond - write letters, get petitions etc. That's the appropriate response vs. rioting, threatening violence etc. And btw: Christians denounced the violence at abortion clinics. Get your facts straight.
maria has bent over exactly as the author of the cartoons expected in the beginning. She has given in to the "self-censorship", because of threats of violence. Yet she doesn't criticize the media here in the U.S. for posting disgusting anti-semite & anti-christian cartoons. her hypocritical panties are showing for all to see.
Roger
To Jonas Oldacre and thickslab:
I agree! I have been watching certain extreme aspects of "liberalism" take more and more control over the "Left" and in doing so spout more hatred and racism and censorship than anyone on the "Right" short of Pat Robertson. I have seen a distinct lack of response to this, except some embarrassing "siding with the terrorists" on Kos, a site I can barely stand to read anymore, and I decided to start blogging about this. Thankfully I found this blog, one I intend to read carefully when I get home and will probably make my sidebar. It is embarrassing when our core principle of Free Speech is overcome by political greed. I started my blog to have a space to publicly say that we on the Left need to police our side more carefully. The Right frequently says that Robertson "missed his meds" and doesn't speak for them when he makes proclamations regarding foreign leaders and natural disasters. We on the left stand silently by while "liberal" protestors, screeching anti-American hatred and sometimes violently attacking counter-protestors while burying themselves in communist and anarchist literature, proclaim the president to be Hitler. What really did it for me was the "Tookie" mess, a man who murdered 4 innocent people in cold blood being heralded as a liberal "hero". I urge you both (and any other liberal who disagrees with out more "radical" cousins) to take a stand against these embarrassments and bring dignity back to our philosophy.
"to take a stand against these embarrassments and bring dignity back to our philosophy."
By doing what - causing more problems, slinging more of your Right Wing Hate, causng more wars, more riots, more killings to prove your point, have your way?
You guys cannot be this stupid, I will blame it on what I think may be your age - young neocons filled with anger and rage - always Right, never wrong, you will show the world what you got.
Just stop! You have made your point, you all have made the situation worse by bringing attention to it over and over.
Are you proud for what you've done - the big hawks who never serve their country themselves, the big Christians who are about love and goodwill!
"What would you do if NBC had a series about gays that only portrayed them as irresponsible sex-addicts?"
I've got news for you, there was a series on Showtime called "Queer as Folk" who did portray them as irresponsible sex addicts/drug addicts. No one on The Left really got that bent out of shape, more people on The Right did, actually.
"maria has bent over exactly as the author of the cartoons expected in the beginning. She has given in to the "self-censorship", because of threats of violence. Yet she doesn't criticize the media here in the U.S. for posting disgusting anti-semite & anti-christian cartoons. her hypocritical panties are showing for all to see."
Bending over? Panties? Now that sounds orignal from a nice Christian boy...or man/boy.
So let me get this straight Roger - "I bent over exactly as the author of the cartoons expected in the beginning."
So now it's the Danish cartoonists fault - you are telling us that they did the cartoons to make Liberals bend over? So what is it - they drew the cartoons to made Liberals bend over or they where just drawing political cartoons for the obvious reasons?
LOL - snorty snort - typical Right Wing response - it's the cartoonist fault...unbelievable.
I think Roger may be channeling Pat Robertson...LOL
Next you will be asking for the assassination of the cartoonists. You all are just nuts, but very entertaining!!!!
In addition you freaks could care less about our troops in harm ways, if you aren't fighting, you could care less.
Christian - I think not. If you think you are a true Christian you better fall on your knees and ask God for some guidance.
"while you deride O'Reilly"
I am not the first one to come along and deride Big Bill, he's been derided on your side of the aisle way before me...for being a Liberal Republican who is pro-choice and anti-capital punishment.
Bill O'Reilly is a NY Republican which computes into a Conservative Democrat.
Bill O'Reilly, like Rush and Sean, plays a character on TV and the radio. They do not practice anything in their "real lives" that they preach to you dittoheads on TV and radio.
Well, maria - glad to see you're an "equal opportunity" blaster; you blasted Blenster who is "on the left". LOL- looks like a drive-by shooting from a stark-raving lunatic! This is really fun to watch - like a car wreck, I know I shouldn't look, but I can't help myself! You're sooo hilarious, yet pathetic at the same time. I feel sorry for you.
BTW, we're still waiting for you to lead the way and ask the owner of this left-leaning blog to remove his pictures so as not to inflame the muslims. C'mon maria, show us dumb RW'ers that you don't just trash talk. Walk the walk, girl! Stand up & be a leader -- or are you really just wanting to spew hatred here and you're really too chicken-sh*t to stand up to your so-called "moral convictions"? Hmmmmm? Going to prove me right - that you're a hypocrite?
Josef
the point was the majority of the leftie blogs are not showing the artwork, I think she was ordering everyone to take the artwork down, including whoever runs this site.
really? where did she "order" whoever runs this site to take it down? She is demanding that the Right take them down. But I have yet to see a post from her to Eli about taking them down. And it's interesting that you use the term "ordering". Yes, that's typically what people of maria's ilk try to do; "order" everyone around.
Josef
Eli only has one entry on the subject, not a daily fuel base recap of the drama and violence.
Yes, I was asking for everyone to take down the pictures, including Eli. So, nah, nah , nah, snorty snort.
"Well, maria - glad to see you're an "equal opportunity" blaster; you blasted Blenster who is "on the left". LOL"
Well, just maybe I am not the Far Leftie you have all painted me to be, or that you think I am.
Maybe I am really more to the Left of you and the Right of Blenster - in the middle of the scheme of things and life.
Wow. Pretty surprised to check in and find 114 comments on here (the most I've ever had before was 27).
Mostly, I've enjoyed reading them, especially near the top, but please quit with the personal attacks. I believe in free speech, but as the administrator of this blog I reserve the right to delete posts that attack other bloggers (you may repost them on your blog if you wish.)
And no, Maria, I won't take the pictures down unless the people who threatened to kill people for posting them withdraw their fatwa.
I can understand that the artists are apalled at the destruction, or maybe fearful of their own lives, but if people take down the pictures then the interpretation that the fanatics who issued the fatwa have given it would be that their method of supression works. I've already said what I think of the cartoon, and if anyone has been reading this blog very long I've been ouspoken against any kind of violence and stereotypes.
I don't like anyone who tries to shut someone else up through the use of violence or threats of violence. And this isn't the first post I've made that at least tangentially mentioned this topic, several months ago I made a post on the zetas, who don't fool around with fatwas or nonsense like that, thy just do it the old fashioned way and murder people in the press who write too much about them.
The struggle over the cartoons presents quite a paradox for our left-leaning fellow Americans, no? It must be a struggle between their sensibilities - "let's be sensitive & tolerant to other people" and their desire to protect freedom of speech. The latter should win over the former in this case. I think sensitivity & tolerance should have its limitations - as in, once the fatwas were issued it was game over for the fanatics. But if liberals let their hatred towards Bush prevent them from becoming brothers-in-arms with the Danes, in this particular issue, I think it will be a huge mistake for them.
Another point - I believe the islamofascists have proven that they are incompatible with our society and aren't living in the 21st century. I cannot see the entire world changing their beliefs for freedom of speech simply because of fear of terrorism. There will be many more clashes of civilizations such as this...the ultimate question is of course, who will win? I hope that it's us.
Josef
Looks like the same right wing fanatic posted anonymously 75 times! I have never understood why ANY group of people who profess to believe in ANYTHING are so threatened by the actions of someone else. How does a cartoon diminish ones personal faith? How does the word 'holiday' vs 'Christmas' diminish Christianity? How does burning a flag diminish ones patriotisim? If your faith is diminished by the outward actions of others - then your faith is baseless - whatever it is.
The struggle over the cartoons presents quite a paradox for our left-leaning fellow Americans, no?
No paradox to me - Eli summarized my feelings pretty well.
and I pretty much concur with Eli, on the tone of the "debate"
Eli - it is your blog and you can do as you choose.
I doubt or actually I am sure that these people who threatened to kill people for posting them will never withdraw their fatwa.
It is just not within their scope or their agenda. They are fanatical Right Wingers and it is their way or no way, they are unbendable.
Hey Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous - you still here?
Tell me ...
We never got chance to debate in this country about whether or not "liberating" Iraq and installing a "democracy" would would do much good against the likes of al-Qaeda - much good in comparison to the cost in lives and treasure needed to complete the mission.
What we got instead was vision of mushroom clouds.
What would a "libertarian" do if he or she thought the U.S. government was jerking them around?
And even worse, if the government made it look to the rest of the world like "libertarians" couldn't tell the difference between a Pashtun, a Persian, an Arab, a Turkoman - and the people who attacked us?
What would "libertarians" do?
Don't know if you're talking to me or not - I posted under 'anonymous' but I signed my sig as Josef. There were many who didn't register and posted as 'anon'....
to your question:
"We never got chance to debate in this country about whether or not "liberating" Iraq and installing a "democracy" "
We haven't debated that? I've seen it debated in this country ad nauseum for the last 3 years. Tell me, do you also have a problem with the war in Afghanistan?
"What we got instead was vision of mushroom clouds."
Iraq has a nuclear bomb?
Josef
Josef 07 February, 2006 08:50 Don't know if you're talking to me or not - I posted under 'anonymous' but I signed my sig as Josef.
I didn't really have any particular person in mind.
We haven't debated that?
Not before we invaded - no we didn't - we heard:
1) WMDs
2) operational ties to al-Queda
3) liberation
whichever was most convenient at the time - never the notion
that creating a Democracy in Iraq would effect a paradigm shift Middle East and make it less likely that it would breed terrorists. (which sounds pretty naive right now actually)
Tell me, do you also have a problem with the war in Afghanistan?
No - I thought that Afganistan was conducted very well by and large until intelligence assets were diverted to Iraq and then troops and then money.
Iraq has a nuclear bomb?
The administration implied there was an imminent threat of Iraq developing nuclear weapons (within a 3 year time frame I believe was the quote).
Don't get me wrong - I want a good outcome in Iraq - and I believe that we'll get a satisfactory one - though at more cost than either we or the Iraqis needed to pay
What would a "libertarian" do if he thought the U.S. government was jerking him around?
Interesting - back to the cartoons - Michelle Malkin appeared on Hannity & Combs this evening with all 12 cartoons mounted on large white poster board for display. When she held them up, much to her disdain, the camera cut to the footage of the numerous protests.
Even Fox, amazingly enough, is not subscribing to the "malatov cocktail syndroome"...
Maria:
Interesting reaction by Ms. Malkin. And where I differ with her is that I posted them once because I support free speech, she seems to be coming back to it every day.
The American media rarely makes political statements (largely because they have been so cowed by the right that, for example, a modern day documentary of the quality of 'Harvest of Shame' or 'Hearts and Minds' would never make it onto the TV screen.)
Now, there is one and only one progressive statement that can be made with these frankly Islamophobic cartoons. And that one statement is free speech.
And if you make it, once is enough.
You hit the nail on the head. This has been my point all along about your posting of the photos - you did it only once. As I posted and duly noted in a former entry -
"Eli only has one entry on the subject, not a daily fuel base recap of the drama and violence."
The bottomline with Malkin and the rest of her blogmates on The Right is that they agree with the cartoons, they like poking fun at those who disagree with them and they are out for drama and polemicy. Sort of like what they did back during the election to John Kerry. On Faux News they spent the whole day making fun of him, from Fox and Friends to Neil Cavuto's show to Shannity's show, calling him French, all day long. Silly? Yes, but not beyond their realm.
The Freedom of Speech is a minor point, believe me, it is hardly their motivation, or her's. Malkin is also vying and eyeing the position of Coulter's "Lady in Waiting" if you will.
I heard someone's analysis of the artwork, I think on Dan Abrams show, and the guest felt it would have been more productive if the cartoonists had addressed the real problems of Islam. A more in depth message could have been delivered in their work, rather than just resorting to drawing silly pictures poking fun of Mohammed in a bomb turban.
This has been through the Echo Chamber and back again. It is far worse than their silly War on Christmas...people have actually died.
Eli - I answered you but it isn't showing up...
Nevermind - there is it :)
Maria:
Right.
It looks like the 'anonymous' barbarian hordes have moved on to pillage elsewhere, but welcome to Deep Thought and I hope you drop by sometimes on other boards (which I noticed that you did once.) Dorsano is a regular here, as is EAPrez, but I didn't recognize too many others.
The other thing is their absolute need to "be right". They are going to show these Muslims whose boss, and blah, blah, blah the liberals...who let these Muslims walk all over us...yada, yada. It's a broken record with diplomacy no where in sight.
They will go over the edge to prove a point with no regard for the collateral damage left in their wake of "that adament sense of righteousness". But do not disagree with them or you are instanteously aiding and abetting the enemy.
I don't subscribe to terrorism, I live in NYC and in 2001 I was living 3 miles from the WTC. I know what happened, I lived through it, I know people who died. I do not need some extreme Rightwinger living miles away to lecture me on the subject and what they think we should be doing and how we need to inflame these people even more, not to mention, while are troops are on enemy soil in harm's way.
Some of Islam may make significant and far fetched claims to temporal authority but not all of Islam. Just like some crazy Evangelicals and Catholics ran around bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors and patients, 10, 20 years ago, I remember it all too well.
There are extremeists in every bunch and you cannot reason with them. The Right Bloggers are proof of this with the way they have worked daily to make the situation worse.
"anonymous barbarian hordes" vs. "change the tone of the debate".....well, eventually everyone's true colors shine through. No, some of us had not moved on because there was hope of having a fair exchange of ideas at this site, unlike some of the other extremist sites (both sides).
Extremists in every bunch, there is indeed, & it seems like we found Michelle's left-wing dopplegangers here. Do you people even know how to have a civilised conversation & debate the real issues without pointing fingers & blaming? You can point to the other extremist RW posts here and say, but,but,but they did it. I guess that gives you the opening to do the same, eh? Funny, I hear that from my 3 yr. old.
Do you even remember that Denmark is the very heartbeat of liberalism in the world? Larry Flynt could print his worst garbage there and fathers could have sex with their children and they have printed much worse anti-semite & anti-christian cartoons. How ironic that a couple here have blasted Denmark for publishing these particular pictures.
You don't even recognize that the threats of violence are instructions to westerners to either obey the laws of Islam (a religion), or suffer the retribution of the terrorists. Funny how left-wingers used to speak out against religious fanatics telling them what to do...of course, when their life & limb are threatened they change their tunes. Maybe the christians could take some lessons from the islamists.
Josef
p.s. Eli, some of those "anonymous barbarians" left you some nice messages. It's interesting to see your real impressions of what you think of them.
And still you haven't spoken about the posts by the left-wingers that came here and were embarrassed by the lack of posts from other left wing blogs. What was it you said?
"publish them as far and wide as possible".
"How ironic that a couple here have blasted Denmark for publishing these particular pictures."
I think you are responding with Eli and myself in mind - I merely repeated what a guest said on The Dan Abrams' show about the lack of substance and content in the message of the cartoons.
I am not blasting Denmark, I am blasting the bloggers of The Right who need their daily dose of drama, or they will self-implode. Again, high drama is their drug of choice.
With that said, I do not think Eli did any blasting of any Danes, thank you very much.
"Do you even remember that Denmark is the very heartbeat of liberalism in the world?"
True statement, but again, what does that have to do with us, i.e., the USA? Why is it neccessary for us to question what they do and have been doing for the last 40 - 50 years? Are you suggesting that we invade Denmark on the basis of them being too Liberal?
"Funny how left-wingers used to speak out against religious fanatics telling them what to do...of course, when their life & limb are threatened they change their tunes."
Americans speak out against religious fanaticism of any kind, regardless of whether we are threatened or not. Last week, before the escalation of this tradegy, these cartoons posed no direct threat to Americans, unless you considered the violation of Free Speech/Freedom of the Press in Scandanavia a direct threat to us on American soil.
"Do you people even know how to have a civilised conversation & debate the real issues without pointing fingers & blaming?"
The problem is this - most of the debates from The Right are ridiculous, the issues are not real!
They take a insignificant non news-worthy incident, or something that isn't valid or never happened (The War on Christmas)or even worse, something that just doesn't concern us. Their idea is to spin it into legitimate subject matter that is supposed to warrant "real" converstaion or an exchange of ideas.
It's preposterous, and you can subscribe to it if you choose, but don't drag the rest of us with you. IMHO chicanerious flummery just doesn't cut it, it doesn't warrant justifiable debate.
I find it's ironic that Condi Rice thinks many of the countries have used these cartoons to exploit and imflame.
Perhaps she should contact Michelle Malkin as well...
Josef:
And I stand by what I said that the left has been unfortunately way to silent on this. I've not edited my post, and have no intent to no matter what anyone says.
And yes, the left in Europe (not just the Danes, but others in Europe as well) have been outspoken, which makes me wonder why the reticence in the U.S.
And if you want to have a reasoned debate, feel free to come in. I've a few conservatives who occasionally drop by.
Since you sign your name, you aren't entirely anonymous at that, but I allow anonymous posts for the reason that I do support the right of people to say what they want to, even anonymously. That is unlike a lot of blogs which don't allow it, and also which Republicans in Congress recently voted to make a crime.
Go point, thanks for the article. I am forwarding it to the people at craigslist, I am not sure they are aware of this.
No, some of us had not moved on because there was hope of having a fair exchange of ideas at this site, unlike some of the other extremist sites (both sides).
I was hoping you'd answer my question, Josef.
I am interested in a "fair exchange" of ideas.
Eli,
I read the whole 'barbarian hordes' comment as being motivated by having about 138 posts on this blog. I've never seen you get more than 20 or so comments.
That also speaks to how rare it is for a blog on the left to post this. But I read that differently than you. Us on the left are more sensitive to offending people, and see no reason to do it on purpose. By now, it is well known that these cartoons piss off muslims, so why post them in the first place? Are you trying to piss off a muslim?
Maria, your problem is twofold: 1 - you lack reading comprehension skills, and 2- you hate "right-wingers", Bush and anyone else that disagrees with you, more than you hate the islamofascists that threaten your life & freedom.
Several visitors to this site have pointed out your deep-rooted anger & bile. You can't see because of your rightwing hate blinders. You can't see the big picture in all of this....the global implications, either because of your hatred or your myopic view of your tiny world.
Here, let's try an experiment with you. Take a look then post your reaction. I already know what it will be...I doubt you'll surprise me.
Islam will dominate
Josef
ooops, left off the description of the above linked picture:
Live, from New York, it's Islamic jihad: the picture above comes from the United American Committee, some members of which encountered these charmers at the site of the 9/11 jihad terror attack in New York City during the UAC Rally Against Islamo-Fascism on February 1. Note the black flag of Islam, the battle-flag of jihad, flying over the White House on the placard at left.
Josef
Ok, dorsano - you seem like you are sincere in your request, so here you go:
Not before we invaded - no we didn't - we heard:
1) WMDs
2) operational ties to al-Queda
3) liberation
The president listed many reasons why in his address to the nation - one being, "if you harbor terrorists". These fellows were in Iraq:
Al Zarqawi (Al Qaeda)
Abu Nidal (labeled world's most dangerous terrorist)
Abu Abbas (for the Achilli Lauro (sp?))
Al Zawhiri (2nd in command of Al Qaeda)
Congress authorized the president to declare war. Now I know your response is going to be, "congress didn't see the same intel". They had the opportunity. The intelligence was laid out for them and there were only a few that made the effort to review the documents that were made available. Next: even if congress didn't see the intel, how do you explain 5 other intelligence agencies coming to the same conclusions about the WMD that saddam was known to have for the prior decade? Our govt. is setup to prevent a single man from taking this country to war. If you believe the left's argument that "bush lied", then you would have to believe that he convinced the ~1000-1500 people in his admin, both houses, state dept., pentagon, cia, etc. to go to war single-handedly.
Last point on this issue: if you had just seen ~2500 of your American citizens die on U.S. soil, and you knew there was an unpredictable fanatic in the M.E. that possessed WMD that was harboring the above-listed terrorists, would you want to take a "wait & see" stance & risk more Americans being killed? Regurgitate the line of "sanctions", if you must, but surely you have read the reports in the last few years about the state of the sanctions, the UN oil for food, etc.
What do you think those meetings were about between Osama & Saddams intel fellows? Just having tea? I don't think so.
until intelligence assets were diverted to Iraq and then troops and then money.
ever read any books on how & why the soviets were defeated in Afghanistan? Deploying 1000's of troops across the mountains of afghanistan is a poor strategy...if you knew anything about the history & the terrain there, you would understand that "dragnets" would be impossible in that region. Covert & infiltrating activities would be more effective. I'm ex-military (Navy) so war strategy is of particular interest to me.
imminent threat of Iraq developing nuclear weapons (within a 3 year time frame I believe was the quote).
never said he was an imminent threat, he said "before he becomes an imminent threat. Once an enemy becomes an imminent threat, it's too late.
Ever read the Duelfer report? Ever read the former Iraqi scientist's book, "A bomb in my garden"?
What would a "libertarian" do if he thought the U.S. government was jerking him around?
I'm an independent-leaning libertarian --- I suppose I would work my damnedest to get the people who represented me into office so that he/she could affect change.
Look, I was for the war, but I'm not happy that we're still there. To some extent, I thought that Murtha's plan should have been considered and everyone should have gotten together & tried to compromise on it. But instead, it turned into a partisan slug-fest.
This country is not going to make any headway in our international concerns until we re-unite as a country. The nastiness has got to go- it's tearing us apart.
And lastly, I wanted Lieberman to win the democratic primaries - I would have voted for him. To me, Kerry was too much of a socialist, IMHO.
Josef
Maria,
"right wingers" are causing the problems, eh? Try, "those people who truly believe in freedom of speech" and don't just espouse the words when the words serve their selfish purposes and sticking to their beliefs.
Charlie Hedbo draws a new cartoon
Here's his cartoon:
cartoon
In case you don't know who he is, google his name, and btw, he's in France.
Reading comprehension? Perhaps you have a problem making your point, which is what about the picture of the muslims at Ground Zero?
Josef, this is NYC, there are all kinds of people carrying signs on any given day, our city is over run with many different kinds of people with strong opinions.
In the summer I moved to the gentrified section of West Harlem and their is a house of skinheads - they walk openly through the streets of Harlem with full sleeve tattoos (shoulder to wrist) of roses, ivy, swasticas and Celtic crosses - on both arms no less, female and male.
I have lived in Chelsea where Far Right Christians have protested homosexuals calling them sodomites.
I don't understand what you would like me to say - that we live in a free society where the First Admendment protects the bottom of the barrel?
This has gone on in NYC way before September 11th. I've lived here for many years.
And Charlie Hedro isn't American. My inital response was that none of this has anything to do with us. So I guess your point is because he is French he is assumed a leftwinger?
Correction -
...there is a house of skinheads...excuse my spelling, I am not feeling well, I have that dreaded 24 hour stomach bug...
Dialog!!! :)
Josef said ...
if you harbor terrorists". These fellows were in Iraq:
There are more al-Qaeda in the capitals of the EU countries than there were in Iraq when we invaded - perhaps still today
estimates for the number of al-Qaeda in Iraq now are hard to get but some estimates place them at around 200.
Saddam killed extremists like Moqtada al-Sadir's father and his Uncles - al-Qaeda and Saddam did not have operational ties
but disagree if you like - that's NOT MY POINT
WMDs, "liberation" and ties to al-Qaeda were all "debated" and I don't care much to redebate them because that's not the real reason we invaded.
We invaded because because we thought by transforming Iraq into a Democracy we'd transform the Middle East.
Do disagree with that? Honestly? Have you listened to the President's rhethoric now that we are committed to Iraq?
That notion was NEVER debated.
Last point on this issue: if you had just seen ~2500 of your American citizens die on U.S. soil
I saw the same as you - I remember where I was and what I felt - do you think that I felt any differently than you?
and you knew there was an unpredictable fanatic in the M.E. that possessed WMD that was harboring the above-listed terrorists, would you want to take a "wait & see" stance & risk more Americans being killed?
I wasn't misled - those WMD's have a shelf life of less than 5 years - Saddam would have had to have active production facilities.
=======
Josef - I don't fault you for what you felt and how you acted and what you thought was the right thing to do
But tell anyone who thinks any differently of me
that they are bunch of dicks.
Congress authorized the president to declare war. Now I know your response is going to be, "congress didn't see the same intel".
Don't mistake me as an apologist for anyone who voted to give this president authorization to invade Iraq - including John Kerry.
I read Bill Kristol's testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee - many months before the invasion of Iraq - the same testimony that John Kerry heard
and it had NOTHING to do with INTEL and EVERYTHING to do about spreading Democracy to the Middle East in order to effect a paradigm shift in the region.
And I decided that I would do just what you said you would do ...
I would work my damnedest to get the people who represented me into office so that he/she could affect change.
And I worked my ass for Dean.
Ironic - isn't it - that the "right" tries to make him into a whipping boy.
Why is that do you think?
Josef said This country is not going to make any headway in our international concerns until we re-unite as a country. The nastiness has got to go- it's tearing us apart.
I agree with that 100% And I'd add that we're not going to make headway in ANY of our concerns.
never said he was an imminent threat, he said "before he becomes an imminent threat. Once an enemy becomes an imminent threat, it's too late.
That's pretty much how Japan felt when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Not only do I think that notion set a dangerous precident - one that threatens our national security because it legitimizes any pre-emptive action a country like China might take
I think we're better than that.
Think as you will, Josef - just remember, I love this country as much as you do - and I'll defend it no less vigorously than you will
think on that - when you think on all us liberals.
Dorsano,
one thing I have learned in all this is that "lefties" & "righties" communicate differently - so extra effort must be made to make sure the point is made! :)
in re:
Last point on this issue: if you had just seen ~2500 of your American citizens die on U.S. soil.....
I saw the same as you - I remember where I was and what I felt - do you think that I felt any differently than you?
I was referring to how the president must have felt when citizens of his country were killed by terrorists and his subsequent reaction of wanting to take out all brutal dictators. That was not meant as an attack on you.
I believe all Americans (except for a handful) were indeed truly heartbroken and we became united on that day.
No need to take this further...we are on the same page.
Josef
We invaded because because we thought by transforming Iraq into a Democracy we'd transform the Middle East.
Do disagree with that? Honestly?
I'm torn over this, to be honest.
The pessimist in me:
With the recent cartoon idiocy going on, no, I'm not sure that the M.E. is ready for democracy or even entrance into the 21st century. From their reactions, it appears they are living in the 12th century right now.
I think as an empathetic "human" being, I would have wanted someone to rescue me from tyranny, but I think their "tyranny" extends far beyond a single person. I think part of their problem is that they are hostage to the extremists' (imans, etc.) interpretation of the Koran (ie, as in to their religion). Religion / people's engrained beliefs are a hard thing to change.
The optimist in me:
With the recent retreat from Lebanon by Syria, the (however restricted) elections in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and yes even Palestine (be careful what you ask for, eh?) it appears they are making some attempt at democracy.
I thought Sistani's reaction (from Baghdad) about the cartoon ruckus was very hopeful.
History proves that change can be effected - look at where we are today compared to the Christian Crusades from centuries ago.
Would it be "human" to have left these people under the iron hand of Saddam, simply because we didn't want to make waves? I don't know. They were just one country that is having the same problem as many others (ex. Darfur). We can't rescue them all...on the other hand, doing something is better than standing by & watching them die.
---------------
Somehow we need to engage the "moderate" muslims in this. But it is going to be difficult to do that and not compromise our beliefs and ideals at the same time (ie, "freedom of speech"). Many countries are already bowing in apology for the cartoons, and firing people from newspapers for printing them. This shows the extremists that threats of violence work. What "cause" will they take on next so as to eliminate it from our culture in the name of "religious sensitivity"?
Anyone that has ever experienced "change management" knows that with "Change" comes lots of pain, acceptance then growth. It's similar to the steps of going through a great loss (death). I just don't know how much more of this the people are willing to tolerate.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. I guess the short answer is, "I don't really know"....and I think anyone that has any certitude on this issue hasn't considered all the possibilities.
the above was by Josef.
Dorsano, as to this one:
Ironic - isn't it - that the "right" tries to make him into a whipping boy.
Why is that do you think?
Because Dean has made it easy for them to do so. He's passionate and WAY too emotional and let's face it, has said some stupid antagonistic stuff (ie, the Pres. *knew* about 9/11 beforehand). Come on...even if he believed that, he should have had proof before saying such outrageous stuff.
I didn't think the "scream" thing was such a big deal...but politics is cut throat and not only the republicans, but the Kerry campaign seized on the opportunity to make him a laughing stock.
If he could get control of his emotions, he would probably make a good chairperson.
Josef
Think as you will, Josef - just remember, I love this country as much as you do - and I'll defend it no less vigorously than you will
think on that - when you think on all us liberals.
I have no doubt as to your love of this country. There are extremists on both sides right now that are making both our sides look really bad. Ironic, isn't it that the extremists in the muslim world are doing the same thing to their culture?
And unfortunately, all the extremists have the megaphones right now. I have come to the web trying to find other "moderates" such as myself. I have remained quiet but now feel like it is the people in the middle, or center-right or center-left who are going to lose in this struggle for power. I do think it takes a good balance of both sides - left & right - to ensure that our country both progresses, yet still respects its deep history & citizens (only as an example, partial birth abortion is taking the "pro-choice" issue too far).
My stepfather is a democrat and my mother is a republican. We're all flabbergasted by what's going on in politics right now.
And just so you know, I don't think "all liberals are the same". It is easy to quickly identify the extremists in any group. I think the DU'ers are just as crazy as the Freepers.
Thanks for the reasoned dialog! :)
Josef
Dorsano,
I'm curious about why you think democracy will fail - at least I think that's your opinion, no?
I'm torn over this, to be honest.
You misunderstood my point - as did anonymous when he or she asked I'm curious about why you think democracy will fail
My point is we that never had THAT debate before invading - we weren't allowed to - we got intimidation, propoganda and visions of mushroom clouds.
What would a libertarian do if faced with intimidation and propoganda from the government?
I don't know what side of that debate I would have taken.
Given what I know now, I'd likely argue against it.
We have "transformed" the Middle East alright - We don't have good metrics for measuring the advance of extremism, but those we do have
* the election of extremist governments in the region
* the number of terrorist attacks
* the level of anti-western and anti-american sentiment
Are all trending in the wrong direction. We are not "winning" strategically.
----------
One thing I WOULDN'T do, if I were trying to "transform" the Middle East is tell them that
we're turning your country into a war zone so we don't have to fight our enemies over here
As to anonymous's question about whether or not I think democracy will fail
I hope that the people of Iraq end up with a government that is accountable to them at least in some measure - and it seems that is still attainable
If it comes to pass, it will be something distinctly Iraqi - and not a western style democracy.
I don't think it will do squat in reducing al-Queda's influence.
When people from all over the world come to this country and decide to become citizens, they take a Civics Exam. The study materials for this exam are here.
One of the questions that pops up in the study guide is How was the United States affected by the war of 1812?
Even after the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and ratification of the constitution, we were still more a collection of republics than one nation.
There were still arguments between federalists who advocated for a strong central government and anti-federalists who wanted less central government.
After winning the war, those arguments pretty much ended
* there was a great surge of nationalism and unity of purpose.
* and we proved to the world that we were indeed one nation - one that could defend itself against the greatest military power of the day
---------
The war in Iraq has divided the nation and it's made plain the limits of U.S. military power
I place the blame for that on this administration and on the media.
Josef:
Democracy is a great thing. And where we help people genuinely achieve it, but THEY achieve it, they value it (hence the respect for it in places like Eastern Europe and Latin America). But it is like anything else-- if we, as a foreign power, invade, then gift wrap it and hand it to them, then we should not be surprised if it is disrespected.
Further, I would agree with you-- the Middle East has always been a place where people respect a strongman, but really don't know any other way to live. And a place where religious fundamentalism remains such a powerful force particularly for a religion that is in many ways in its adolescence (think about it-- what was Christianity like when it was 1400 years old? Crusades, pogroms, inquisitions, forced conversions and persecutions, torture in the name of God, well you get the idea.) In fact, it is noteworthy that the only Muslim democracy* (Turkey) was founded by a group of strongmen led by Kemal Attaturk, and recognizing the biggest threat to the state he put in place a number of laws that suppress radical Islamicism (such as banning the wearing of burqas).
I did have a thought relating to the free speech issue yesterday while listening to muslims who demanded that Europe pass laws banning cartoons like these. They did not include the U.S., settling for telling Condi Rice and President Bush to 'shut up.' The thought was that the Europeans have opened themselves up for that by already having some laws that ban certain kinds of speech (for example Nazi speech or literature). They already know that no speech is banned in America, in fact it is protected by our Constitution, so they won't try to make us do that.
*-- there were actually two muslim democracies until a few years ago when Mr. Musharrif took power from the Benazir Bhutto government in a coup; our continuing support for him reflects an acknowlegement that our commitment to Democracy, Mr. Bush's words notwithstanding, is iffy at best in the region.
These cartoons are not showing there profet at all , more like an
expression of the way islam is projected to the rest of the world
during the last 30 years
Eli,
yes, I agree with you - *they* have to want it, to take ownership of it. True freedom cannot be given to them. I think that's what I have found to be the most disappointing issue during this whole campaign. They are starting to show some very small signs, but as of yet they have not taken 'ownership'. And this is how dictators are able to impose their will on people. Of course, I don't speak from the experience of living in a dictator-controlled country for the last ~30 years, under constant threat for my life.
All we should do is remove the obstacles for them. I don't agree with "nation-building". I thought we handled Afghanistan much better, so I'm a bit perplexed over the Iraq troubles. One question that keeps coming to mind is: Why did the terrorists swarm to Iraq to fight us so aggressively, but did not come with the same aggression to Afghanistan? What is so special about Iraq?
Josef
I reserve the right to criticize all organized religion. No religion represents universal truth. Most religions are just tools for the oppression of the willfully ignorant.
Josef:
My take on the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is this: In Afghanistan, al-Qaeda were (and in fact still are) partners with the Taliban. Fight one, fight both. People in the non-Pashtun areas don't miss the Taliban, hence they won't help cover al-Qaeda. And even among the Pashtun, where they retain some support, they are stuck fighting an actual war, and can't really expand terror operations to the rest of the country.
In Iraq, al-Qaeda was not part of the government, so insofar as an insurgency sprang up to 'fight the foreign invader' (us) they were able to latch on to it, gain cover from it, and in some cases usurp it. Remember that bin Laden released an audiotape shortly before the Iraq war began in which he said that muslim warriors could fight side by side with socialists (meaning Baathists). At the time the media seemed to think that bin Laden was trying to put the final nail in Saddam's coffin. With the benefit of hindsight, it was to urge his followers to seek out the Baathists after the initial invasion and form a 'partnership' of insurgencies, as in fact happened.
Post a Comment