The Shotgun Blog
« Does Radical Islam Have Seat in Canada's Parliament? | Main | Paging Canadian University Press »
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Cartoon jihad news
We're publishing them in our next issue, which rolls off the press on Monday. Looks like a small Calgary newspaper beat us to it.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 11, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83455328d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cartoon jihad news:
» Cartoons come to Alberta from Dust my Broom
The beginning of the flood?
Two Calgary-based publications will be among the first in Canada to print controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that have sparked riots across the Islamic world and protests in the West.
The Jewish Free Press... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-02-11 8:44:30 AM
» Conspiracy! Bilderberg Connection to Cartoons from Grandinite
I know, I know, just because someone met with someone or was seen in a public washroom peeing next to them, this does not mean a conspiracy is afoot. But I found this connection interesting:
mathaba.net
Another prominent participant in the Bavaria... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-02-12 1:27:31 PM
» CARTOON JIHAD: THE NEXT GENERATION from Michelle Malkin
My kindergarten-age daughter had the day off from school today because of snow . Hamas gave its students the day off today...to denounce the West and protest the Mohammed cartoons in the West Bank city of Hebron. (Hat tip: Secular... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-02-13 1:56:04 PM
Comments
Good for you and that Calgary newspaper.
Again - these cartoons are political questions, and are legitimate. The Muslim community has to answer them.
1) Belief Versus Behaviour: Please explain the difference between the stated attributes of your religion (peace and tolerance) and the actions carried out in the name of your religion - which include bombing commuter trains, buses, restaurants, hotels; which include beheading children of other religions who don't follow your tenets..etc, etc.
You cannot hide behind excuses such as 'It's Them doing it; or, it's a result of your colonizing us (garbage excuse). Explain why you don't protest such actions.
2)The dictum against representation of Mohammed.
First, this is untrue; it's not in the Koran, and, there are a myriad of engravings, paintings, sculptures of Mohammed in books, museums etc.
Second, even if this were true, it can apply ONLY to followers of the Islamic religion. Muslims have no right to demand such adherence of non-Muslims. Christians, for example, don't riot against Muslims if they don't go to Sunday Mass.
Explain why you insist we behave like you.
3)The riots in the Middle East have nothing to do with the original cartoons published in September - with no reaction from Muslims in Denmark. The riots in the ME are programmed and organized by the Syrian and Iranian gov'ts, as part of their ongoing campaign against the emergence of democracy in the ME.
4) Please explain the three extra fake drawings taken by the imam to the ME; these weren't in the original set of 12, and are obviously fake and geared to incite anger.
5) The Islamic world has no right to demand respect as an inherent right; respect is earned - and the constant threats, the constant bombings of civilians, the constant 'fatwas' issued, the constant hate-filled harangues by imams - do not deserve respect.
Importantly, the 'moderate' Muslims have been almost silent, rather than standing up and loudly rejecting this violence and hatred. IF, IF, they would do so- then, they could be entitled to respect. However, as long as they are silent about the bombs, the threats, the beheadings, the hostage-taking, the utter indifference to the rule of law, and the insistence on 'respect' - they won't get it.
6)Hypocrisy. The Islamic world reacts angrily that we in the West 'paint them all as a stereotyped radical'. But, their reaction against the cartoons, calling for 'Boycott Danish goods' is exactly the same universalism.
7) The crisis is within the Islamic world. In the ME, they have to realize that they cannot continue to govern as totalitarian tribal dictatorships. Democracy is necessary within such large populations - and - within an industrial economy. The fact that their oil revenues enables them to maintain these military dictatorships, doesn't change the reality. Democracy is necessary. The ME tribal dictators will find, create and use any tactic - to stir up hatred against the West...all, with one goal. Trying to prevent Democracy.
8)In Europe, it's a different Muslim problem. These people LEFT their totalitarian dictatorships. However, they haven't, mentally, moved out of a theistic mindset.
The Muslim mindset has become frozen; totally unable to think, analyze, question, debate. There hasn't been an innovative dev't in the Muslim world since the 11th century. They require the West, for their technology.
The same thing happened in the West in the middle ages - with disastrous results (plagues, famines, wars..because the economy couldn't develop new technology to support the rising population). Finally, the West moved out of dogma and privileged the individual - to think.
Europe must reject this closure of thought that is being forced on it by the Muslims, and insist that freedom of thought and speech is the basis of our world. The reason for this - is that without such freedom, technological developments come to a screeching halt - and - the economy collapses.
Europe is already feeling the effects of this Muslim inhibition, with its economy crumbling and research and innovation slowing and, amid the Muslim requirement for the European gov'ts to support them all within a welfare state - akin to the ME states, which use oil revenues to run their countries as low-economic lifestyles, supported by the state. europe doesn't have oil revenues and cannot afford to support everyone in a welfare state mode. It requires people to innovate, work, and adapt. Are the European Muslims going to change and live this way - or - do they want the oil-revenue lifestyle, (without the terrorism of the ME military police).
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-11 8:44:54 AM
ET if the time stamp is correct you managed that in 24 seconds ;)
Posted by: asdf | 2006-02-11 8:47:05 AM
While I agree that Freedom of the Press is a key to what we as Canadians know as a free and democratic society... there are also two things called respect and common sense.
The last two things would normally compel us to resist the urge to publish these images again.
If you want to make a political statement about the Muslim community supporting terrorism, then that's fine.. there are a billion iterations of images that you could use to do that, WITHOUT using an image of the Prophet Muhammed.
If at this point people continue to publish these photos then they are simply inciting violence.. and they no longer have a right to be outraged at the reaction they get.
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2006-02-11 8:49:42 AM
asdf - yeah, right. So much for the validity of machinery and computer tracking. I'm a fast typist, but heck..'faster than a speeding bullet' I'm not.....(or a Harry Potter)..
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-11 8:51:18 AM
Congrats. If I hadn't just renewed my subscription, I would do it now.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2006-02-11 8:52:20 AM
Chris- I disagree with your conclusion.
Those cartoons are legitimate political (and social) questions. They are asking Muslims to explain the huge discrepency between their stated beliefs of their religion, and their actions. Those require explanation, so far, the Muslims refuse to engage in this dialogue.
You are accountable for what you do. Muslims are accountable for the violent attacks carried out by people, in the name of their religion. They have to explain, to us who are the recipients of these attacks - why they accept these actions. OR, OR, if they do not accept these actions, then, they have to loudly, very loudly, protest against those Muslims who are carrying out these actions. So far, - they are silent.
Respect? For what? For bombing commuter trains?
Respect? For what? For their vicious drawings of Jews and Christians?
Respect? For what? For their silence or their dancing in the streets when their suicide thugs bomb buses and trains and restaurants?
Common sense? To be silent while a fundamentalist group terrorizes you to silence, terrorizes you to submission, such that you cannot question, cannot critique, cannot dissent. Is that common sense - to be silent while these fundamental rights are being terrorized away from us?
Are we supposed to end up like those people in Iran and Syria, terrified of saying anything other than permitted by the mullahs - and beheaded by them if we ask a question?
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-11 9:00:32 AM
"If at this point people continue to publish these photos then they are simply inciting violence."
At this point, criticizing publications that are brave enough to defend the principle of free speech by printing these cartoons is paving the way for more violence and censorship whenever anyone is offended by the expression of an idea.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2006-02-11 9:04:13 AM
Hmm, images of the prophet in question are on display by those protesting against those who published images of the prophet in question. Can we have the clerics explain that one?
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-02-11 9:22:49 AM
The Calgary Herald excuses dont wash either. This is a major news story and people should know the details. If papers refuse to publish those details, they are caving in to fanatics and worst of all, not doing the job we expect of them.
Posted by: MikeP | 2006-02-11 10:00:43 AM
Yes it is freedom of the press. I am in favour of the paper taking a stand on this matter.
I do have a suggestion though; why not print some of the cartoons of muslim depictions, of their view, of Jews and Christians and Western Civilizations? (ET's aricle is an example of the way many Canadians feel about tis.)
The sad part is, "muslim extreemests" are (indirectly) painting ALL muslims as inciting hatred towards all but themselves. You have the freedom to print the cartoons (and that is all they are - cartons) and you also have the right to depict how the "muslim extreemests" view mainstrem Western civilizations.
Posted by: clownpartyofcanada | 2006-02-11 10:46:57 AM
ET's talking points in his first post should be copied and repeated over and over and over again in any debate involving the reprint of these cartoons. This is what must be asked of Islam. This is the REAL dialogue that has to take place in not just the ME, but the world.
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-02-11 10:59:39 AM
Good for you - you little hateful man !
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-11 11:15:08 AM
Overall a good move, Ezra, and one I endorse. It has been rather surreal to see the amount of ink and television time spent covering the subject while never actually printing the cartoons they're talking about.
But really, it's kind of old news now, isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to commission your own cartoons, perhaps lampooning the insane reaction to them?
Posted by: Kevin Jaeger | 2006-02-11 1:34:28 PM
Every self-respecting newspaper, magazine, trade journal, etc should publish those cartoons in the name of freedom of the press. Further, every individual in the civilized world that wants to preserve the right to free speech should post them. Lets see a Fatwa issued for all non-Muslims on earth... or has that already happened?
Posted by: John Chittick | 2006-02-11 3:41:49 PM
For the Western Standard to publish these cartoons is foolish. Intentionally insulting people is uncivilized and will only inflame them further. If Islam is our enemy, which I believe, then we should deal with them in a rational and effective manner, not like kids in the schoolyard.
You are dealing with fanatics who believe in violence, so you might want to review your insurance policies and prepare to protect your property and staff.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-02-11 3:45:31 PM
Good. Should of shown em sooner. Why do canadian soldiers have to protect girls schools in Afghanistan?
Posted by: s. | 2006-02-11 4:07:57 PM
I'm very pleased that the Western Standard is going to publish the cartoons.
If we had the kind of solidarity that allied countries had in World War II, we already would have been able to deal with Islamic threats, both intellectual and physical. Regrettably, Islam challenges us when we have huge amounts of intellectual dissension in our own ranks.
In the final analysis, I believe we need 2 things in order to successfully confront Islamic fanaticiem.
1) We need to be on the same page politically and militarily. No more voting against the US in the UN. No more putting the US in the position of doing all the heavy lifting militarily. Militant Islam needs to understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that the West, and in particular North America, is absolutely united on the levels of ideals and guns.
They need to understand that North American simply will not put up with the kind of crap they have been pulling in Europe. We want them to be convinced that from the point of view of their malicious activity, Canada and the US will respond in concert and with whatever amount of force is needed to eliminate any threat that they pose. That's the easy part.
2) Islam needs to understand that we will not respect their religion if they do not respect ours. They can't go around insisting on beheading our citizens and wishing death to the infidel and also want respect for their religion.
We need to impress upon them that people who believe in Christianity and Judaism do not have to care what someone who believes in Islam thinks. It's not a very subtle point, but it's about as subtle as you are going to get with the Islamic street.
This is a problem for us, because we're all very accustomed to the debate between science and religion. In the West, we can be as disrespectful as we wish for our religions without any consequences.
The problem is that Islam is a few centuries too early in its life to comprehend this.
Our military and our religious traditions represent the only bulwarks we have on the level of force and on the level of the intellect with the populations of Islam.
We can't have raging debates over here about whether God exists and expect Islamic fundamentalists to respect the West intellectually. They have to see that the West, at least, respects their own religious traditions before there will be enough of a purchase on the situation for them to even comprehend the debate.
I have argued that people in the West who disbelieve in our religious traditions should at least find value in Western cultural traditions (I mean, masses have been written by a large number of our most famous composers, religious paintings dominate our most imporant galleries, Chartres and Notre Dame cathedrals, etc.).
We may be at a stage of evolution in the West to have these debates, but Islam is not. And we weakan our position whenever we are not united politically and militarily and when we act as if Islam should have sympathy for people who do not respect their own religious traditions. We're dealing with the 12th century here, folks. It's unrealistic to expect some kind of postmodern intellectualism to be an argument in the minds of people who are simply not advanced enough to comprehend it.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2006-02-11 4:45:11 PM
Interesting.
Perhaps, we should submit a cartoon of Jesus with a cowboy hat sitting on an oil rig slowly draining the blood of society? You Albertans can then send this to every media outlet and christian organization - cause hey - it's freedom of expression.
Yes, our freedom of expression comes from our Charter of Rights & Freedoms. However, the Charter also comes with responsibilities. Do you think respect may be a responsibility we can all handle?
I can't believe what I'm reading on this blog. Islam our enemy?? Calling Muslims fanatics but not a coyboy hat wearing coward dropping bombs from a plane? To play on Greg's words, it's unrealistic to expect some kind of postmodern intellectualism to be an argument in the minds of rednecks who are simply not advanced enough to comprehend it.
I'm ashamed to be labelled an Albertan.
Posted by: oil bust | 2006-02-11 6:09:27 PM
I am against this magazine for re-printing these cartoons. I dont think the resutlt of this is going to make you happy
Its going to result to the same thing that is happening around the world.
Posted by: moe | 2006-02-11 6:13:07 PM
I agree with Josphe 110%.
Posted by: moe | 2006-02-11 6:28:31 PM
It's sad so many Canadians think the Charter of Rights and Freedoms granted us freedom of expression, as though it was some kind of favour done for us by Trudeau and polished up by the Supreme Court. False. Our freedom of expression began with Common Law and the Charter has done little for it. Actually, it's probably limited it, as seen by the mealy mouth attitudes of people like oil bust.
Posted by: nazz rune | 2006-02-11 6:35:21 PM
hay Herman have you ever thought about why us muslims have so much rage in us ??
why is america still in iraq?
why were the americans in lebanon 3 hours befour the xplosion that cost former lebanese prime mister rafik al hariri his life?
why do americans and jews have to be every ware at everytime something happnes in the world ?
Posted by: I am muslim | 2006-02-11 6:37:41 PM
I as muslim in calgary and I really feel insulted with the cartoons that are going to be published here. Freedom of speech, I believe the Danish Editor did not intended to insult muslims, but Western Standard knows how muslims feel about the cartoons and they have seen the demonstration all over the world and kept on printing the cartoons. I heard Ezra saying" with the demonstration going over the world I had show the public what it was about".But to whoever wanted to see them they would have gone to internet to see them.It is the internet era. To me it was arrongance and hate message to the fellow muslim in calgary.To those fellow calgarian who are really saying good for muslim show the cartoons, I know the true islam does not advocate hate. Prophet Muhamed was sent as Mercy to Mankind.
Posted by: khadija Farah | 2006-02-11 6:37:57 PM
Ezra Levant said that publishing these cartoons that caused such an uproar around the world was important to the magazine's story about that very subject, and that the Western Standard was not bound by Islamic law and could publish what it saw fit to describe the story. However I question wherether this is an act of good journalism or racist American-style propaganda taking a shot at Muslims around the world. If the western stadard was running a story on the holocaust would you publish images of Jewish people being tortured and killed? No, it would be distasteful and offend people. Similarily, if there was a rape/murder of which photos were taken of a woman being declothed, violated, and killed. would the western standard publish these images uncensored in all their glory? The truth is that this is not a matter of cencorship or freedom of press, no one has challenged that right. This is a matter of respect of which the weekly standard has none.
Posted by: Kyle | 2006-02-11 6:41:40 PM
My comment deals only with respect for different cultures, not the greater issue of radical muslim behaviour.
When we, as a western society, are informed by another culture, or a culture that represents a minority within our own population, that an image published in our press is particularly offensive, I really believe that we need to respect their position. I can accept the initial argument that someone over there really didn't understand the degree to which the images were viewed to be offensive. I can understand the need for the press to exercise "freedom of the press" to examine such images when they are viewed as controversial. I do not, however, condone the press' behaviour in continuing to hide behind "freedom of the press" in repeatedly publishing these images when it has been explicitly explained that these images are extremely offensive to one culture. Muslims have told us (Christians) that the images are not just a little offensive. To Muslims, the images are grossly offensive, and entirely prohibited in their culture. The first publication was a misunderstanding. Subsequent republications mean that we are just looking for a fight. Freedom of the press is not without responsiblities. In western society, we trust our press to continually edit images that we would find too offensive for the general population. When a child pornography ring is uncovered, we do not need publish the photos in order to examine the issue and have a public discussion on the topic. We destroyed the Karla Homalka (sp?) tapes out of respect for victims' families. Should Muslims be blowing things up in response to cartoons? No. Should we, as a culture that values respecting minorities within our own culture, refrain from publishing images once we have been informed that they are grossly offensive to that minority? Absolutely. I say shame on you (the press) for publishing what is "child pornography" to Islam. I pray that those of us who respect different cultures will not suffer harm due to your arrogance.
Posted by: Chris | 2006-02-11 6:42:33 PM
Excellently articulated Chris.
Posted by: Kyle | 2006-02-11 6:45:27 PM
nazz rune - my apologies on referring to the charter as the source for freedom of expression. i was just quoting Western Standard's interview this evening on Global.
As for the Charter limiting freedom of expression, I don't understand how it does. Do you have some examples? I guess I was referring to having some form of responsibility to go along with our freedom. I don't believe responsibility will limit our freedoms.
'mealy' mouth? I actually had to look that one up..good one.
“I only know two sorts of boys. Mealy boys, and beef-faced boys”(Charles Dickens)
Posted by: oil bust | 2006-02-11 6:46:44 PM
Keep up the good work Ezra!
It's commments like the one from Joseph (a representative of the "religion of peace" I gather!) that re-enforce the need print these editoral cartoons.
It's funny, how the Muslim world (and their Multi-cultural liberal apologist) are silent when anti-semetic and anti-Christian garbage is spread in their dictatorships (they won't even allow Christians to open churchs in most of their conuntries (afraid of the truth maybe?).
Where was the outrage when Egypt was broadcasting a ridiculous tv program about the blood libel of the jewish people?"
Gee, I also remember all my Liberal friends kicking up a storm when the "piss on Christ" artwork was being displayed in New York.
The salability of your position is clearly represently by the age old Liberal ploy of name calling and twisting the truth. By the way oilbust, I'm ashamed also--- to have people like you in Alberta.
What did Christians do when they were offended by "The Book of Daniel" tv show? Threaten to kill people? Burn buildings? Riot? No, they did something civil--they sent letters, complained to advertisers of the show etc.
What does the "religion of peace' do to show they are outraged at being labelled as violent terrorist? Um..engage in violence and mayhem. Burn flags of the US (no that't not offensive to an American!)
Print the cartoons to show the true character of "The religion of peace." If it offends you, that's too damn bad. I don't see anyone being to concerned about offending me!
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 6:55:40 PM
I disagree with your decision to publish the cartoons. The reason is simple. It is disrespectful.
It doesn't matter what others do or what has been done in the past. We must conduct ourselves with good values and respectfulness is one of them. Freedom of the press can never trump this value without a negative effect. We need to build bridges to the world of Islam, not chasms.
Posted by: Gord | 2006-02-11 6:57:24 PM
Comes as no real surprise that a Calgary Publication would be the first to venture into William Randolph Hearst's world of "Yellow Journalism".
Posted by: Jon Greywolf | 2006-02-11 6:57:45 PM
ET, you are an ignoramus. Muslims are not any more responsible for bombing commuter trains than Cristans are for the bombing on Oklahoma City. And if Muslims are so "out of touch" with their own values then I guess it must say somewhere in the new testament that every good cristan should kill abortion doctors and execute criminals or is "thou shalt not kill" from some other book I read? And the fact that PEOPLE, not just muslims but PEOPLE in general, support acts of terrorism is NO DIFFERENT than the fact that PEOPLE in general support the United States in their slaughter of thousands in the name of the true western religion: Money.
The truth is the majority of Muslim people are decent human beings, and your idiotic remarks about how "muslims support terror" and should haveto "earn respect" through falling-in-line with your views is blasphemous in itself.
Posted by: scooby-dooby-doo | 2006-02-11 7:00:30 PM
Yeah Scooby-dooby its People in general that support terrorism.. I always read about those Jewish and Christian suicide bombers!
what are some recent examples?
1) bombing in London--Muslims
2) bombing in Spain-Muslims
3) glorifying blowing yourselves up amongst woman an children in Israel--Muslims
4) 9/11--Muslims
Yeah we are all the same
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:04:55 PM
Wow the western standard is going to publish offesnive cartoons that have resulted in the deaths of 12 people overseas, and now there is outright ratial hatred happening on their message boards. Does anyone have any hardcore pornography I can post? In the name of "Freedom of the press".
Posted by: Kyle | 2006-02-11 7:05:28 PM
The cartoons no more caused the violence than Israel caused the problems of the Palestinian people. Look in the mirror if you're a beliver in Islam.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:08:55 PM
Hay ace u can take ur bombing examples and shove em up ur ass ok
Posted by: moe | 2006-02-11 7:10:33 PM
Okay fine ace, lets play that game. I can think of sopme really awesome things christans did:
1)The holocaust
2)The Crusades
Recent examples you ask?
1)using weapons of mass destruction against Iraqi civilians
2)every current clandestine opperation under the controll of the united states military.
3)I already made mention of oklahoma city
so lets just hold every member of every religion responsible for every act ever commited by someone of the same religion... ass.
Posted by: scooby-Dooby-doo | 2006-02-11 7:11:32 PM
I love the witty repretoire of a Liberal. You always come back with such strong counter arguments!
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:12:41 PM
oh, okay let's attack annother group of people for 1 person's actions.
Posted by: scooby dooby do | 2006-02-11 7:15:21 PM
The Crusades? hahaha, that's really relevant. When did they end again? Oh yeah 1290. Not to mention they were in response to Muslim encroachment into Europe.
The Holocaust? Maybe committed by people from a Christian country BUT not committed in the name of Christ.
Oklahoma city? What did that have to do with Christanity?
Iraq? Brought it upon themselves
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:17:01 PM
Would anyone opposed to the publishing of the cartoons on the grounds they are offensive please explain something.
The cartoons were originally published in September in Denmark and an Egyptian paper, Al Faqr, printed them in October during Ramadan.
Why was there no outrage until late January?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-11 7:25:41 PM
You are a racist pig Joseph!
The fact that you are calling Ezra names shows that the cartoon isn't the issue. Your countries spread hate and lies and intolerance and it shows in your comments.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:29:04 PM
Ah yes, cartoons that have resulted in the deaths of twelve people.
Note the complete absence of pesonal responsiblity - the cartoons did it!
Don't they have free will? Are they helpless pawns, forced into the street to riot because of some freaking cartoons?
Eventually, I would assume, the muslim world will be forced to grow up and stop killing each other in senseless rioting. Hey, maybe they'll even realize they're hurting each other far more than the reviled, blasphemous West. But that would require a real leap in awareness, wouldn't it? Not to mention a leap to 2006 from the year 1006.
Posted by: nazz rune | 2006-02-11 7:30:16 PM
Right no Nazz!
It's amazing how nothing that has happened in the Middle East is ever their fault (I love all the inventions and cultural advancements you've brought to the world in the last 200 years!). It's Israel, the US, or if at all possible George Bush.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:33:35 PM
You ignorant, prurient, drooling anti-semites above here, you who avoid the issue of free speech point just so you can incite yourself and others,
you can tacitly support the threats and the fear tactics of violent thugs all you want, but the bottom line is this: Islamists have absolutely no right -- none -- to forbid line drawings published in Europe. Those who think otherwise, that Islamists should be able to vet the contents of a newspaper in Norway or Denmark, are deeply and profoundly mistaken.
As Christopher Hitchens said: "Let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these (prohibitions). But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent..."
DO you understand that? That their right to dictate behaviour doesn't extend into Europe?
Herman, btw, you are an exemplary ass. You add nothing to the debate. The last century is littered with your ilk. Don't worry, though, other people will continue to take responsibility for the results of the moral cowardice of you and your ilk. You're in no position to give warnings or advice to anyone.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-11 7:34:08 PM
Joseph you have a good opportunity to make money suing whatever back-water 3rd rate school you went to--they have failed you terriby in your education! Get a lawyer.
As for Palestine, where were the peace loving Muslims that care so much about those poor misgotten people up until 1967? Help me out here, why does Israel control the territory? Oh yeah, they were attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked..and took a buffer zone.
Jewish people controlling the world? Please..see my first comments.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:42:30 PM
yo ace i told u shut ur ass no one cares wat u think
Posted by: moe | 2006-02-11 7:47:28 PM
Wow. That is all I can say to the comments I am reading above.
>Calling Muslims fanatics but not a coyboy hat wearing coward dropping bombs from a plane?<
It bears pointing out that "cowboy hat wearing coward" and his allies has at his disposal an arsenal that could obliterate the better part of the Muslim world off the face of the earth in a split second. But instead his nation and his people have paid in blood to try and free these people from the perversion that is Islam. He knows only to well the true victims in all of this are the Muslim people who have been hijacked by this so called "religion of peace".
It is no such thing. The so called, self proclaimed "Prophet Mohammed" was a tyrant and a terrorist who used violence and bloodshed to build his wealth and empire. And worse yet it is written down for everyone to see in his book of terror the Qur' an. Why don't you read it?
The Muslim people are truly at a crossroads, it is obvious that many of them are to far down the road to "Islam". These are the people blowing up everything in site and burning down buildings. The moderate Muslims if they are serious about their survival simply have to start standing up to the radicals. That includes speaking out against the ridiculousness that is happening all over the world right now. Will that happen? Judging from the comments from the Muslims and of course the left wing loonies above it leaves one to wonder.
As for me, if it comes down to survival of the races, my money is on the cowboy. When push comes to shove I know the Americans value their freedom enough to ensure its survival. And as many Canadians take for granted, because of our geography that probably speaks well for us.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-11 7:50:25 PM
The key word in your response is "think"..at least I do. I can't say the same for you.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:50:30 PM
I can think of one thing, of the top of my head. that is wrong with Jews: They have been far to lienent with Palestine.
I would have taken them out a long time ago. They are far to patient in waiting for a group of people not the least bit interested in peace, to come to their senses.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-11 7:54:56 PM
So why DON'T you speak your mind, joseph? You're right, that you've got the green light. Ezra has walked-the-walk on all issues regarding freedom of expression.
So do you wanna use that freedom, or just attack others who defend it?
C'mon, joseph, don't be a coward, tell us what you think of Jews.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-11 8:02:57 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.