East vs. West Part I

The problems are growing. The solutions are not simple.
Both sides need to find a way to come together and end the hatred.

Though we (America) do get mean and nasty, verbally, we do not burn buildings and scream for those who do not agree with us to die. Most of us anyway.
If you have watched the news in the past few days we are led to believe that the majority of Muslims have taken to the streets in violent protest of cartoons printed in a newspaper MONTHS ago.
We are reminded that there are more 'moderate' Muslims than fanatics.
Which is it? And where are they - the moderates?

Radical Muslim Clerics from Denmark go to the Middle East, show cartoons to the 'right' people, the word spreads, and protests break out in a large number of Nations.
'Muslim protests of cartoons widen'
The U.S. had nothing to do with these cartoons, and yet, our troops are also being targeted by the protesters.(Mentioned in article above.)
NATO troops are being attacked.

Last year there were violent protests when an article came out in 'NewsWeek' stating Korans had been flushed down toilets. It was later proven to be untrue but the damage had already been done.
'FLUSH TO JUDGEMENT
Muslim Protests planned in advance?

On C-SPAN2 today, there was an a program(link's to video link) about the Denmark paper that has been accused of starting this whole fiasco. He is correct when he says that newspapers are now being self-censured in an attempt to be Politically Correct when dealing with the Muslims.

'I draw to help prevent a world where others make decisions for me. And I’m willing to risk being called anti-Muslim for it.' By Signe Wilkinson

"The State Department called the drawings "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims" and said the right to freedom of speech must be coupled with press responsibility. ....."

Does this 'responsibility' include things such as National Security or is it meant strictly for issues concerning Islam?

"....."Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said. " read here

In what manner???
Most cartoons are aimed at the 'fringes' not the masses. Most cartoons are meant to spark thought not anger.
The cartoons were meant to show the 'fringes' of the Muslim World and how the rest of us see them. They were not a condemnation of the religion itself.
Is it really terrorism to draw and print such a cartoon?

photo from YAHOO!
Using these cartoons is one little way of showing what people think of the Muslim Radicals. Those Muslims who are 'moderate' and who are understanding of the views of Non-Muslims were not offended, at least not to the same extent.

"Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the publications as a "horrific action."
But in remarks posted on his Web site, al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood.""

It has got to embolden the Muslims who do not raise their swords when cartoons like these being discussed are portrayed.
These Muslims are not able to speak out as they wish for fear of being murdered.
We need to protect the Muslims who do not preach 'death to the infidels' and call for Bin Laden to attack again and again as much as we need to protect ourselves.

We need to see and hear more of this:

"The council spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said ordinary Muslims were "fed up'' with fringe extremist elements and they should be treated as "criminals''.

"It is time the police acted but in a way so as not to make them martyrs of the Prophet's cause which is what they want, but as criminals. Ordinary Muslims are fed up with them,'' he said. "

above quote from: The Hindu

When the world sees protests, such as those over the past few days, it only reminds us of the worst part of Islam. It makes it harder for us to accept that their truly are peaceful, tolerant Muslims.

More of this:
'Abu Hamza jailed for seven years'
has to happen.

This is worth a look also: 'A clash of rights and responsibilities'

Can't wait for the 'Cartoon Wars' to get into full swing!!

Posted by Dawn at February 7, 2006 2:51 PM
Comments
Comment #122045

Boss Tweed complaining about Thomas Nast cartoons said, “I don’t care what they write about me. My constituents can’t read. But they can see the pictures.”

Not all Muslims are doing this. We need to remember this. As for the ones being violent and making threats, we should all condemn their behavior. They should grow up. Let’s not be PC on this one.

This reaction and the apologists for it are really starting to annoy me. Should I go out and set some innocent person’s car on fire?

Posted by: Jack at February 7, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #122047

Dawn

Hold on to your hat my friend because a match has been lit that may lead to another nasty culture war between east and west.

Already mainstream America is beginning to grumble about the violence,and more than one commentator is taking up the mantle on this issue and calling muslims out.

Periodically,nut cases emerge from the East.In 1947 the Mufti of Jerusalem called for the destruction of Isreal and the king of Saudi Arabia said that if 10 million Arabs were lost of the 50 million arabs in the area in the fight to throw them into the sea , that price would be cheap.

Those words were spoken in 1947.

Nothing has changed,has it?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 7, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #122050

Dawn-

Excellent treatment of a very touchy subject. One close to my heart as an ex-journalist(both print and electronic).

The Muslim world is not like any other world that we will ever come in contact with. The thought process taught by Islam is foreign to most of us. Muslim law, based on the Koran, is direct, brutal, and unforgiving. If you steal, we will cut off your hand. If you indulge in drug use or alcohol, we will execute you. If you are a woman who defies her father or violates Muslim law in any way, you are dead. If you insult the Prophet or mishandle the Koran, we will execute you.

What precipitated the “cartoon crisis” is the teaching of Islam that there shall be no depiction whatsoever of the Prophet on pain of death. Radical Muslim clergy have seized on the Danish cartoons as a means of rallying the faithful in their war against the West. Fortunately, as you point out, there are some moderate clergy who see things from a different point of view.

What we in the West have to come to grips with is this: we may have the greatest good intentions in our efforts to bring democracy to the Middle east. But we mustn’t be upset when the people choose a regime that we don’t like, such as Hamas in Palestine.

Posted by: John Back at February 7, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #122059

This is a matter of choice. We should not be acting like Muslims automatically prefer violence to peace. There are billions of them. The real trouble makers number in the thousands. Others simply mind their own business like everybody else. Indonesia, one of the most populous Muslim Countries, is also one of the most moderate.

The key here is whether we create simplistic responses that prompt simplistic backlashes, or whether we start to appeal to common standards of behavior, and understanding their system for what it is, rather than what it’s not.

We will get nowhere by treating the Muslims of the world like children, by insulting their religion and fear-mongering about it. If we want cooperation, we need put a good faith effort into seeking out the common ground with them as adults.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #122064

Dawn,
I don’t think the two sides have any intention of coming together. Each benefits from the polarization.

It really struck me when I turned on the tv last night to channel surf the news. There was no news. What might have been considered news, was a relentless drumbeat for war with Iran. I caught one snippet where Oliver North was saying ‘there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.’ The Fox moderators accepted this statement without comment.

A small number of corporations control the televised news media. We see an awful lot of polarizing, hate-filled ‘news.’ It’s a distraction from truly important issues.

“The country’s average temperature for the month was 39.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 8.5 degrees above average for January, the National Climatic Data Center said Tuesday. The old record for January warmth was 37.3 degrees set in 1953.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/02/07/warm.january.ap/index.html

8.5 degrees above average. That’s… that’s… that’s a lot. 2005 was either the hottest or 2nd hottest on record. They’re still working it out.

Yet we’re talking about Muslims protesting a cartoon. How did it come to this? I think it’s going to get much worse before it gets better, because too many Muslims and Christians want it to get worse. Sometimes it doesn’t even take an intentional war to finally set off fireworks; just a miscalculation, a seemingly innocent error, a minor misunderstanding.

We’re being prepped for another war.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #122065

The word for today is:

MANIPULATION

The radical Islamics are using the are of manipulation to seek control of the earth. They try to manipulate both Islamic and non-Islamic groups to achieve their agenda. They need a reality check. And I think they are going to get it very soon whether they want to or not.
They can insult the world by cutting off the heads of those they choose to. They can kill innocent women and children with their IED’s and suicide bombers. Isn’t that offensive to mankind throughout the world? It is time for the “good” Islamic people of the world unite and work towards the common good of all people. If they don’t they will be labled as part of the “radical Islamists”. They could very easily march in the streets of the US and proclaim that they are opposed to the “radicals” and they also would get a large amout of support from people in general. I for one would cheer them on.
There is far too much to say on this subject, so I’m going to take leave from it for a moment right now.

Posted by: tomh at February 7, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #122066

‘If we want cooperation, we need put a good faith effort into seeking out the common ground with them as adults.’

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2006 06:14 PM

Suggestions??

We need to EXPECT them to act adult about this also…. they - the protesters - think they are.

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #122068

phx8,
‘I don’t think the two sides have any intention of coming together. Each benefits from the polarization.’

For a minute there I thought you were talking about the Dems and Repubs — :)


‘The Fox moderators accepted this statement without comment.’

Almost - they didn’t exactly argue with him but they tried to cut him off… Alan is not the correct person to be on that show. He really isn’t a strong enough voice and he always has practically the same response for everything.
Even I am disappointed in the representation of the left on H&C.

I don’t know if you saw, but they DID have a MODERATE Muslim woman on after that.
Wish I could recall her name but I just love it when she shows up to speak for ‘true’ Muslims and condemns the radicals.
Of course her life has been threatened.

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #122070

Wow, mobs of islamo wackos running around acting like animals. Huh..never would have guessed they were capable of this.

Posted by: me at February 7, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #122072

All I know is that if a large number of people find it acceptable to murder other innocent people because of a cartoon, then that’s it - we’re too different to bother trying to respect one another.

Posted by: Max at February 7, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #122077

What yaall call ‘moderate clergy’ the radical Muslims most likely call libral. I have the hunch that they don’t like your ‘moderates’ at all.
I wounder waht the reaction would be if the Bsptist, or Catholics, or Methdoist rioted because of a cartoon depicting them in bad light. Or blaspheming their beliefs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #122079

Radical Islam is not a minority fringe group.
Wake up people Radical Islam is the Majority.
just watch the finge minority demonstrate the Religion of peace. LOL Please!!

Posted by: CZ Fuller at February 7, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #122080

I will start respecting muslims religous sensitivities when they start respecting others. It is not possible to demand respect when none is given to begin with. The fact that they are violently rioting over a cartoon of a violent mohammed is truely ironic and moronic. Just wait, there is more coming about this, whether it is to take the heat off of the Iranians, or at least shift attention away from the other muslim hot spots. Where do you suppose they got all of those Danish flags for the riot?

Posted by: Scott at February 7, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #122081

one word “NAPALM”

Posted by: me at February 7, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #122084
Can’t wait for the ‘Cartoon Wars’ to get into full swing!!

Dawn, you’ve got that right!

Posted by: Mike Tate at February 7, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #122087

How about the wussie MSM, they have the onions to print cartoons about “Dr. Rumsfeld” listing a qaudrapalegic soldier as “battle hardened”, yet they won’t print these cartoons defacing the islamofascist’s prophet. They think it’s “distasteful”; what ever happened to Freedom of Speech?! They’re a joke! A bunch of lazy, bias liberal trash; they are debunked in front of the US citizens, once again.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 7, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #122095

Who’s burning the Alabama churches?

Just wondering if there is any connection?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 7, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #122104

The great cartoon crisis of 2006 will eventually fade, but the root cause will not. The “religion of peace,” as described by our president, is anything but. Muhammad gave his followers three choices when dealing with non-muslims: convert them, subjugate them, or kill them. Nothing has really changed since 600 AD.

Posted by: Owl Creek Observer at February 7, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #122105

Who’s burning the Alabama churches?

Just wondering if there is any connection?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 7, 2006 07:58 PM

You might be onto something there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #122118

Heh…

And people wonder why the Middle East questions America’s Role as an honest middleman in the Palestinian Conflict.

Posted by: Aldous at February 7, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #122124

I’ve decided to invent a new category: Christofascist.

Hitler Was nominally a Christian. So was Mussolini. Franco was one. So were all the Kings and Queens of Europe going back to the middle ages. A large number of these dictators out there are Christians, too, supposedly.

So lets take all these rulers, disregarding divisions of Geography across thousands of miles, different languages, and differences between the sects and denominations and just throw them out the windo to simplify everything. Because, after all, Christian speaks of Kingdoms, of rulers, of slaves and masters, of lords and other leaders. It doesn’t say a lot about Democracy

Oh, and of course you must speak of that incredibly violent end to the holy book. Those Christians must all be violent fanatics whose only motivations are a misguided religion that preaches reward for those who will murder in God’s name, right?

Damn those Christofascists. They’ve made a mess of Western Civilization.

Or they would have, had they really existed. Like Islamofascism, it’s a conflation. Islamofascism is no less a fiction than the notion of Christendom and the west is when dealing with us. It’s a simplification that drops meaningful information, and leads us to a futile, one-size-fits-all strategy.

Paranoia’s no better. As I’ve said before, Paranoia is a waste of good suspicion. There are plenty of Arabs and Muslims who could care less about Osama Bin Laden’s little adventures, or who might even think ill of him. But if we lash out at them and their societies thoughtlessly, we only end up buying ourselves contempt, especially if we betrary our ignorance with such gross generalization. The more we seem knowledgeable about who they are, what their customs are, what their beliefs are, the greater the respect we can gain.

It’s in our own best interests to make finer distinctions between friends (potential and actual) and enemies, especially if we want to pull the rug out from under the terrorists and the tyrants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #122128

Stephen Daugherty:

You are wasting your time. People won’t understand what they DON’T want to understand. It is convenient to bash Muslims today.

It’s like the Hitler/Holocaust/Arab Nonsense. The only people who ever exterminated Jews in over two thousand years are Europeans and/or Christians. The odds of Muslims doing the same are little to none. Yet there is non-stop association among Conservatives of this which is funny since it was White Christian Conservatives who persecuted Jews in the past.

Posted by: Aldous at February 7, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #122132

Stephen,

There is no Islamofascism.
There is no Islamofascism.
There is no Islamofascism.

No… it didn’t work. Can’t just wish away reality can we?

Face it, you can’t just go on with the premise that everything will just go back to the way it was. Yet essentially, this is the position you are articulating and which the left has accepted.

i.e. that there really is no threat- that Bush and the neo-cons are fearmongering etc.

Posted by: esimonson at February 7, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #122133

esimonson:

Are ytou denying Christofascists exist?

I should point out that Fascism is a European Invention as well.

Posted by: Aldous at February 7, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #122142

Aldous

Almost everything in its modern form is either a Western invention or a Western refinement. You are speaking in tautologies. As Western culture merges with modern culture, it is just getting harder to tell.

Fascism in its collectivist sense is very old, however. Most pre—industrial societies were arranged along lines we would recognize as fascist. You could say that it originated in an organized form in China under the legalists.

I expect you know what I am talking about, but those who don’t can Google China and legalist and read for themselves. Tell me that doesn’t sound a lot like Fascism.

The Baathists, like Saddam and the Syrians, specifically copied Nazi organization. I am sure Saddam doesn’t really believe in Islam, however. But he tried to use it to bolster his own power. The term Islamofascist could be applied to him (and maybe the Syrians) but besides that it doesn’t really make much sense.

People like Osama are plenty evil, but I don’t really think they have the organizational skills to be fascists.

Posted by: Jack at February 7, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #122143

“… A situation in South America threatened to turn into an international war. The discovery of gold in a disputed border area between Venezuela and British Guiana in 1895 prompted the Venezuelan president to appeal to President Cleveland on the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. Many Americans resented the evidence of British imperialism, especially in the Western hemisphere. Cleveland delivered a fiery message to Congress denouncing the British policy and practically demanded that the U.S. be involved in the arbitration process.

Instead of blindly supporting Cleveland… Pulitzer instructed his editors to write balanced accounts…:

Is the integrity of Venezuela ‘essential to the integrity of our free institutions?’ … There is no menace to the boundary line. It is not our frontier. It is none of our business.”

http://www.onlineconcepts.com/pulitzer/yellow.htm

Yellow journalism. We seem to be reliving the 1890’s, and this story about Muslims rioting over cartoons, couched within a large them of islamofascism, calls to mind the glory days of Yellow Journalism.

“The term… refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Most cases tend to be related to journalistic bias, and the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust.”
Wikipedia

Dawn, this isn’t meant to be critical of your article. Actually, it’s quite good, particularly since you’ve provoked me into thinking about this story, stepping back, and making an attempt to assess the situation objectively.

I’m forced to echo sentiments voiced over a hundred years ago. Do the current issues which occupy our media involve anything which is essential to our free institutions? There is no menance to our boundary line. It is not our frontier.

So, what is essential to the integrity of our free institutions? Today AG Gonzales testified before Congress about wiretapping without a warrant. His congressional testimony contradicted his public statements to the media. It is not a crime to lie to the public. He was not even testifying under oath today. But I can’t help wondering why we’re talking about Muslims rioting over cartoons, when there are so many more important issues at home: Global Warming, the domestic drumbeat for war with Iran, and ensuring the integrity of our free institutions.


Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #122148

Sheesh…

We are talking about Cartoons today because there were no Attractive, White Women gone missing recently.

Its really that simple.

Posted by: Aldous at February 8, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #122150

Aldous,

(1) It’s like the Hitler/Holocaust/Arab Nonsense. The only people who ever exterminated Jews in over two thousand years are Europeans and/or Christians. (2) The odds of Muslims doing the same are little to none. Yet there is non-stop association among Conservatives of this which is funny (3) since it was White Christian Conservatives who persecuted Jews in the past.

1. Mein Kampf is a best seller throughout the middle east. Hitler is regularly praised and generally held in high esteem. Are you trying to say there is no hate for jews in the Muslims world?

Do you feel that white supremacists are also ‘just misunderstood’?

“Adolf Hitler was not an ordinary man to be [forgotten] by the wheels of time… Adolf Hitler does not belong to the German people alone, he is one of the few great men who almost stopped the motion of history, altered its course, and changed the face of the world. Hence, he belongs to history.

…”This translation of the book My Struggle has never been presented to Arab speakers. It is taken from the original text of the author, Adolf Hitler. The text was untouched by the censor. We made a point to deliver Hitler’s opinions and theories on nationalism, regimes, and ethnicity without any changes because they are not yet outmoded and because we, in the Arab world, still proceed haphazardly in all three fields.” ~forward to the Arab transalation of Mein Kampf being sold in Palestinian territories

Bestseller in Turkey
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols is accepted as factual in some parts of the world in which people hold negative opinions of Jews or Israel and Zionism. In the current conflicts in the Middle East, the Protocols is sometimes used as evidence of Jewish conspiracy. wikipediamemri

2. The Iranian President seems to think that it’s possible. As do others. Are you aware of the level of villification of jews in Middle Eastern media?

3. I don’t even know how to start with this one, there is so much wrong with this statement… Hitler was actually an occultist who thought Christianity was for the weak. If I recall correctly it was also white christian conservatives (if you can compare the ideology of American conservative christians in 2005 to christians in 1930-40 who were were mostly and more likely Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, or Anglicans than Southern Baptists) who fought a war to defeat Hitler.

But what’s the point of this statement anyway? Since people who could nominally be called white christians killed jews that makes it ok for muslims to do so too? Such moral equivalence should be beneath you.

There is a historical strain of anti-semitism throughout Christian European history, as well as Muslim history. I think if you knew anything about present day American Christian Conservatives (and I have no doubt that ignorance is high on this subject on the left) you’d know that this is not the case today.

Your statements are typical of the liberal hypocrisy on these kinds of issues though. Only the moral failures of the west need apply in any argument. The moral failings of all others, especially those who are willing to adopt the class consciousness and politics of racial/group identity of liberal ideology are protected from criticism.

What we are talking about is rioting because pictures were made of Mohammed, not that Mohammed was portrayed in a disgusting manner per se.

But what is printed every day in Arabic newspapers is far worse.

Hasan Hanizadeh: “First of all, this figure is greatly exaggerated. The number of Jews in the world does not exceed 12 million. Only now, 57 years later, has it reached this figure. Clearly, at that time, considering the dispersion of the Jews, there could not have been six million Jews in Europe alone. In any event, the Zionist lobby and the Jewish Agency use this issue as a club with which they beat and extort the West.

“Unfortunately, the West has forgotten two horrendous incidents, carried out by the Jews in 19th-century Europe - in Paris and London, to be precise. In 1883, about 150 French children were murdered in a horrible way in the suburbs of Paris, before the Jewish Passover holiday. Later research showed that the Jews had killed them and taken their blood. This event caused riots in Paris back then, and the French government found itself under pressure.

“A similar incident took place in London, when many English children were killed by Jewish rabbis. These two incidents still haunt the minds and souls of the Europeans, but due to the growing influence of the Zionist lobby in Europe - or to be precise, the influence of the Jews - these two incidents are, unfortunately, never mentioned.” memri


Posted by: esimonson at February 8, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #122151

phx8,

Do the current issues which occupy our media involve anything which is essential to our free institutions? There is no menance to our boundary line. It is not our frontier.

What sort of threat are you waiting for? If this is no menace… if after 9/11, Islamic hatred of infidels and desire to punish us for our disbelief and blasphemy does not cross the boundary line, what does?

Posted by: esimonson at February 8, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #122153

Here’s the basic problem as I see it. The left sees riots, murder, intimidation of government officials, 9/11, embassy bombings, threats of genocide, and says that it’s really nothing to worry about. It’s not our problem— it will go away.

BUT— Bush listening to phone calls to and from international terrorists is a paramount evil which must be stamped out by any means necessary.

It’s bizarro world logic. How can wiretapping Al Qaeda’s international phone calls equal the threat of another 9/11?

Posted by: esimonson at February 8, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #122161

Eric,
“… If after 9/11, Islamic hatred of infidels and desire to punish us for our disbelief and blasphemy does not cross the boundary line, what does?”

People in jail want out. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If Osama bin Laden could attack the US, he would.

But he can’t.

OBL & Al Qaida can’t cross the border. The hatred and intolerance of a small number of Muslims doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Their hatred and intolerance can’t cross the border, either.

“How can wiretapping Al Qaeda’s international phone calls equal the threat of another 9/11?”

Wiretapping Al Qaida’s international calls is a good idea. Wiretapping the phones of US citizens who are talking with Al Qaida is a good idea, too. Thing is, when that happens, a warrant is required.

That’s part of being an American citizen. We have rights.

The search must be based upon a probable cause, and a warrant must be obtained. Under FISA laws, I understand the warrant can even be obtained days after the search takes place.

Ignoring probable cause and warrants is more of a long-term threat to the essential integrity of our free institutions than Al Qaida could ever hope to be.

Let’s give Bush the complete benefit of the doubt. But what about the next president? And what about the one after that? The precedent is horrendous.

If Clinton were president, would you think this is a good idea? Would you trust him to stop at surveilling terrorists? Suppose ‘national security’ were confused with ‘political security’? It has happened before. Suddenly, anyone opposing an administration can become a threat to national security.

The real story behind the wiretapping issue is a story about checks and balances, of a balance of power between branches of the government. The Bush administration has claimed enormous powers, with no 4th amendment constraints.

There is no reason why this cannot be worked out between Congress & the White House. The obstinancy and obfuscations of the obdurate White House are themselves a cause of concern… unless one is oblivious to the obvious… ok, ok I’ll stop!

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #122164
Wake up people Radical Islam is the Majority.

Hmm… There are about 1.4 billion Muslims, and fewer than 10,000 have taken part in cartoon protests world wide. I’m unsure if many on the right are poorly educated, or merely ignorant.

Almost everything in its modern form is either a Western invention or a Western refinement.

Jack, please explain to us how Westerners refined ‘zero’.

There’s no excuse for rioting and killing, but by the same token, the images were clearly printed with malice.

The argument that this is a free speech issue is complete BS. No one in Europe is being arrested for printing the images

The paper that originally printed them was chiding the rest of the media for self-censoring. It was irresponsible in the same way that printing images in the LA Times of blacks being tortured and raped by whites would have been irresponsible during the Rodney King trial. It just throws gasoline on the fire.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #122172

“OBL & Al Qaida can’t cross the border… Their hatred and intolerance can’t cross the border, either.”
Already crossed the border, a date most liberals would like us to forget.
Also, great job esimonson.

Posted by: andy at February 8, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #122221

WhoⳠburning the Alabama churches?

Just wondering if there is any connection?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 7, 2006 07:58 PM

You might be onto something there.


Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 08:15 PM


Had the same thoughts but I’ll have to admit atheists came to mind also.
(tried to post this last night)

Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #122224

“But I can’t help wondering why we’re talking about Muslims rioting over cartoons, when there are so many more important issues at home: Global Warming, the domestic drumbeat for war with Iran, and ensuring the integrity of our free institutions.”
Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2006 12:05 AM

It’s LA Nina~

The Democrats are beating the loudest.

This doesn’t have anything to do with free institutions?
Maybe someone else will write an article based on your interests. There is plenty of room for them.

“It just throws gasoline on the fire.”

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 01:23 AM

Aren’t you one who supported the article about the Koran and the toilet? Did that not just throw gasoline on the fire?


Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #122244

Dawn, do you really not know the difference between reporting on the contents of a Defense Department report and publishing cartoons designed specifically to piss people off?

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #122245

AP,
“do you really not know the difference between reporting on the contents of a Defense Department report and publishing cartoons designed specifically to piss people off?”

So, the “Dr. Rumsfeld” cartoon wasn’t to pi$$ off the Bush Admin; or at least pi$$ “on” their tactics and strategy? Please. It’s the fact that people are brave when it comes to our own officials, b/c they know they’re protected; however, when it comes to Islam, these same brave people will cower down and not stand up to what they believe is right b/c these sandpigs will kill them. Which means they really aren’t brave after all and the sandpigs aren’t as civilized and peacefull as the PC crowd would have us believe.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #122247

Dawn,

This whole situation frustrates me to no end. These protestors obviously don’t understand the concept (or refuse to accept the concept) of a free press, or they wouldn’t be blaming the Danish government for the actions of a cartoonist. It would be rather like someone here demanding that George Bush apologize for Ted Rall.

I can’t help but be struck by the sign that signs “Blasphemy is a sign of Western terrorism”. Sadly I have heard similar arguments in the US (from the Right): If you criticize the Dear Leader, you are supporting the terrorists.

Niggling point — It isn’t really that appropriate to use an “East vs. West” analogy here, even the the US press does it all the time. Islam is considered a Western religion. Athens (the seat of “Western” civilization) is only about 1000 miles west of Baghdad.

This reaction and the apologists for it are really starting to annoy me. Should I go out and set some innocent persons car on fire?

Jack,

No.

Just come to me with these ethical quandaries. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 8, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #122251
Which means they really arent brave after all and the sandpigs arent as civilized and peacefull as the PC crowd would have us believe.

I thought Arab Muslims were the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. You guys really need to get your story straight.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 8, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #122256

Woody,


They can be free, that doesn’t mean they are “free” to destroy everthing and everybody they disagree with. As I’ve been saying about the liberals, “disagree don’t hate”. Islam has to learn the difference between the two.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #122258
As Ive been saying about the liberals, disagree dont hate.

I invite you to look in the mirror…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 8, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #122263

Way ahead of you, Woody. If only more people would do that…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #122282

AP,

“…cartoons designed specifically to piss people off?”

Piss who off? They were already pissed off. It isn’t always what we do or don’t do. Don’t forget that those who instigated these riots went with 2 real cartoons and 3 FAKE ones.

They need anger management classes, therapists, and understanding. Isn’t that how we solve all of our problems? Don’t forget the mind altering drugs that are being pushed on everyone by the legal drug dealers.

Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #122320

Two faces of rahdigly:

1) “…disagree don’t hate…”

2) “the sandpigs arent as civilized and peacefull…”

And of course, cartoons mocking the central figure of a religion are the same as cartoons mocking a political appointee.

“Sandpigs,” rahdigly? You’re just racist trash.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 8, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #122332

Look maybe this current round of muslem rioting is being misiterpreted. Muslem rabble love to march in the streets with torches and threatening signs. Maybe they just ran out of effigies and set the buildings on fire as a proxies.

Someone (not me) should just go to the mobs and introduce them to comics. A little Andy Cap, Family Circus, and some vintage Calvin and Hobbes, and maybe we can drag them kicking a screaming into civilized society. After all: “Laughter is the best medicine.”

If that doesn’t work, then I suggest mounting mini-guns on foreign embassies.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 8, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #122363

Eric-
There is no such thing as an Islamofascist. Jack may speak of Baathism qualifying, but then you run into a problem: It’s founder was Christian! It’s a socialist, secular form of government, that bows to Islam for the same reason our government officials acknowledge Christian values in their speeches: political gain and popular support. Other than that it’s more Arab than Muslim.

With Bin Laden, you run into the problem that his idea is mainly theocratic. Fascism is more interested in party politics than theology. With Iran, you run into the same issue, with an added layer of discontented, budding Democracy.

If you can make the connection between Islamicist thought and fascist, you run into the problem of asking which kind of Islam, and which kind of authoritarian government. Is it Sunni? Shia? Or something entirely different? (Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s Foreign minister is Christian) Then you run into the issue of how strong and how radicalized the belief system is. Are they fairly secular, fairly moderate, or are they theocratic and radical? Even in one country, the mix can be dizzyingly complex.

Then you run into ethnic issues: Arab? Persian? Kurd? Turkoman There are so many truly profound divides in the Middle East.

But you want to slap this all with the label of Islamofascism. Gee, thanks a lot, but this have anything more than propaganda value, any thing more than emotional meaning?

We don’t need to be playing adolescent games here of “us vs. them”. We need to acknowledge the very real differences and make good use of our knowledge. The alternative is to flail blindly trying to get people to like us as we blindly offend and confront them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #122365

Arr-squared,
“Two faces of rahdigly:

1) “…disagree don’t hate…”

2) “the sandpigs arent as civilized and peacefull…”

“Sandpigs,” rahdigly? You’re just racist trash.”

Whoa! I did not make a racist comment. Sandpig is a term I use for the Islamofascists, b/c they are fascist “pigs” that live in the desert. So, don’t call me names b/c you don’t like my description of those pigs; remember, they are the ones that slammed those planes into the towers and they are the ones that strap their kids with bombs in the name of allah. Those stupid sandpigs!!!!


And, as far as the “disagree not hate” line, that was for American citizens, particularly the partisan politics. Don’t hate your own gov’t, just disagree with them.

“And of course, cartoons mocking the central figure of a religion are the same as cartoons mocking a political appointee.”

You must not remember the elephant dung on the Virgin Mary being passed off as art? Where were you defending the Catholics on that one?! Didn’t think so.

So, you go bark up someone ele’s tree with that racist angle; you won’t find any of that here. Damn skippy!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #122384

“Sandpig is a term I use for the Islamofascists, b/c they are fascist “pigs” that live in the desert.”

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

“You must not remember the elephant dung on the Virgin Mary being passed off as art? Where were you defending the Catholics on that one?!”

I remember it well, thought it was, no pun intended, a piece of crap. Didn’t care for Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” either. I personally don’t support government funding for either of those pieces. As a man whose upbringing was Catholic, I find them pretty offensive. I generally try to treat others’ views with respect, and I believe that as a general rule, art that deliberately denigrates a religion is in pretty poor taste, and that people should exercise better judgment.

Racist is as racist does, and if you feel comfortable dropping terms like “sandpig” in a public forum, I really just pity you.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 8, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #122390

The phrase “Christian” or “Christianity” is thrown around far too freely. There is absolutely no connection between Baathism, Islamism, or any other ism. Christianity is a narrowly defined belief originating in the Bible. Another form or relationship to it is only a twisted approach by mankind.

The Islamic belief is here to conquer the world and they are achieving it. There are some who are using the streets. There are some who are using the battlefield. There are some who are using diplomacy. There are some who are using established government. The main thread that runs thru all of it is they aim to rule the world. The non-Islamic world must act to put a halt to the movement. Today is the day of decision. Tomorrow will be too late.

The Islamic world could have rioted last year when the cartoons first showed up. But, they needed some imam to say “ok guys, now is the time; go for it”. As the cliche goes—you’re either for us or against us. This applies to either side of the equation.

Posted by: tomh at February 8, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #122397

Tom,
“… They aim to rule the world.”

By any measure you care to name, the Islamic world is in a bad position, and the position is getting worse. Their culture is being subsumed by western culture. Their countries are being invaded and occupied. Many Islamic countries are ruled by repressive, authoritarian governments intalled by the West. Their resources are being drilled and exported, and much of the money goes abroad, rather than being re-invested. By the standards of Barnett and ‘The Gap,’ the Islamic world ranks dead last by most economic measures, and by measures of integration into a globalized economy.

The wars are almost exclusively being fought on their turf.

People in jail want out. If horses were wishes, beggars would ride. And if yellow journalism works its magic, people will actually believe the threat of fanatics is more significant than the occasional lucky shot.

Make no mistake. They’re losing, big time. And we’re the aggressors. Have been for the past century. Maybe you’re good with that. But don’t pretend the opposite is true.

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #122420

r squared,
“I generally try to treat others’ views with respect, and I believe that as a general rule, art that deliberately denigrates a religion is in pretty poor taste, and that people should exercise better judgment.”

Where were the Catholics storming the Embassies? Lighting flags on fire? That was reserved for the people you “respect”. When did these sandpigs earn anyone’s respect?!! You should seriously consider reality and figure out what they (sandpigs) would do if they were in charge; you and I wouldn’t be here just b/c we’re Catholics. The Jews, Hindus, and any other religion wouldn’t be here either. That’s reality, bra!!!!

And yes, defining those “sandpigs” as just that does help me sleep better. And, not sticking up for them and respecting them, when they haven’t deserved any respect, with this PC crap will keep me from a (permanent) sleep at the hands of these “Hitlers in headscarves”. Does that quote put it into perspective better than sandpigs? May you sleep better now. :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #122432

rahdigly

They once were called ragheads, but they protested. Someone asked what their turbans were made of and one said sheets. So now they are called shi excuse me, sheetheads.

Posted by: tomh at February 8, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #122475

tomh,

“The Islamic world could have rioted last year when the cartoons first showed up. But, they needed some imam to say “ok guys, now is the time; go for it”. As the cliche goes—you’re either for us or against us. This applies to either side of the equation.”

There were demonstrations in Denmark when these “cartoons” first came out. What has their panties in a bunch, is some “faked” caricatures that were published recently in the Middle East.

As far as Muslims trying to take over;

We cannot try to make this out to be a us or them situation. If it is we will eventually lose. We have technology on our side, they have the manpower and the will to use it.

Unless we plan to nuke all of them (which would be the stupidist thing we ever did), we better figure out a way to get along, or we will be fighting them for eternity.

Posted by: Rocky at February 8, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #122485

tomh,

“They once were called ragheads, but they protested. Someone asked what their turbans were made of and one said sheets. So now they are called shi excuse me, sheetheads.”

So this is really the crux of the problem. You don’t have a clue about the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban#Arab_culture

“In modern Persian Gulf countries, the turban has been replaced by the white or red-and-white checkered scarf (called keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh), though the turban tradition is still strong in Oman (see, for example, Sultan Qaboos of Oman)…..

“In fact, Sikhs make up the overwhelming majority of turban-wearers in the Western world and are neither Muslim nor Arab.”

Your racism is showing.

Posted by: Rocky at February 8, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #122495

phx8,

If Osama bin Laden could attack the US, he would.

But he can’t.

OBL & Al Qaida can’t cross the border. The hatred and intolerance of a small number of Muslims doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Their hatred and intolerance can’t cross the border, either.

Nineteen hateful muslims did so on 9/11, and we can certain that there are likely people already here in the US who would do so again. Or who can walk across either our northern or southern border with little problem. So yes, Pakistan and Iran and Yeman et al are far away, but not as far as you think. It easier to travel to Canada than the US, and from there you walk across the at some point along several thousand miles of unmanned border.

Wiretapping Al Qaida’s international calls is a good idea. Wiretapping the phones of US citizens who are talking with Al Qaida is a good idea, too. Thing is, when that happens, a warrant is required.

That’s part of being an American citizen. We have rights.

The search must be based upon a probable cause, and a warrant must be obtained. Under FISA laws, I understand the warrant can even be obtained days after the search takes place.

We do have rights. I just don’t think this is the same thing Democrats and the left are trying to make out of this. Why is it that the left keeps acting as if they were the defense council for Osama Bin Laden?

From all I’ve read about this so far, there is a technological reason classical warrants would not be issued by FISA judges for how this search operates. I don’t think this is a situation where they say tap this person’s conversation. My assumption is that it is a data mining and or sweeping sort of surveilance tied to known numbers used by known terrorists.

No one is arguing that purely domestic calls should be wiretapped without a warrant. And what we are talking about isn’t being done with no oversite. I think it most likely fall within a different jurisdiction than classical domestic spying.

If we capture an Al Qaeda operative and find 20 numbers in his speed dial, I want the NSA to begin tracing every call made to and from that phone, as well as the numbers those calls are connected to. Do we need a warrant to find out who these numbers belong to? I think there are some exceptions but normally domestic wiretapping warrants require that the ‘suspect’ be notified at some point as well— your rights as an american. Should that also be the case here? Does each warrant have to be followed up with a trip to a judge?

Let’s say we capture Amed’s cell phone. Amed has never been called by Osama, but what about the people that have called him?

Mainly the problem with the left’s outrage about this is that [1] someone in Congress leaked this, [2] the President has full authority to prosecute the war on terror outside of domestic jurisprudence regarding wiretapping rights. domestic law enforcement is one thing, war operation is another. If the Japanese or the Nazi’s were calling to and from the US,

If Clinton were president, would you think this is a good idea? Would you trust him to stop at surveilling terrorists? Suppose ‘national security’ were confused with ‘political security’? It has happened before. Suddenly, anyone opposing an administration can become a threat to national security.

I don’t remember the left up in arms about the 500 FBI files the White House illegally procurred on Republicans. Which is far more along the lines you are insinuating Bush is doing.

Posted by: esimonson at February 8, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #122500

“Unless we plan to nuke all of them (which would be the stupidist thing we ever did), we better figure out a way to get along, or we will be fighting them for eternity.”

Rocky,

I agree about finding a way to get along BUT don’t they have to feel the same way?

The only way I can see to do that is to encourage those who do not burn flags and buildings and shoot guns into the air to speak out and speak louder.
To do this we have to protect them too.
REAL education needs to be implemented. Bouncing your head off the wall while chanting the Koran for 12 years has to be balanced with math, science, …

Truly empowering women will help to make the difference.

Even Schumer said Bush is right about spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #122508

Dawn,

“Had the same thoughts but I’ll have to admit atheists came to mind also.”

Somehow I don’t see atheists as burning churches as part of their agenda.

“I agree about finding a way to get along BUT don’t they have to feel the same way?

The only way I can see to do that is to encourage those who do not burn flags and buildings and shoot guns into the air to speak out and speak louder.”

Cooler heads must be allowed to prevail.

rahdigly, and tomh,

Calling people “sand pigs” and “sheetheads” is racist, and does nothing to further the cause of understanding.

Grow up.

Posted by: Rocky at February 8, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #122509

Eric,
There will always be individuals who pose a threat to society. On rare occasions, dangerous people will form small groups. Fortunately, people like that are rare. So we have to be adult about it, of course, and take measured steps for protection. But we won’t spend the rest of our life worrying about them; we’ll move on, and concentrate on accomplishing things, rather than preventing things.

Instead, the Bush administration encourages us to live in fear, and make it the focus of everything we do. But there is no reason for us to be terrified. The fear is wildly out of proportion to the threat.

As I’ve said before, for all practical purposes the War on Terror ended over two years ago. The Bush administration should take credit. I’m not sure why they don’t- maybe it’s fear again, or maybe the utility of a unifying external threat is to good to let go.

The flap over wiretapping is a little confusing to me. I don’t understand why the White House doesn’t put it to rest. It should be easy, just a few meetings with Republican Senators, a couple compromises, maybe a revised or new law, and it’s done. Instead, the Bush administration keeps changing rationales, and changing stories, practically begging everyone to be suspicious.

Is this a result of miscalculation? Then for crying out loud, fix it! Or is this a result of arrogance? Incompetence? Gonzales doesn’t exactly wow me in the few televised public appearances I’ve seen. Or is this indicative of something worse?

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #122515

Rocky,
“Calling people “sand pigs” and “sheetheads” is racist, and does nothing to further the cause of understanding. Grow up.”

Calling them those names is no different than them calling us infidels; it’s not racist, it’s true. And, until the PC crowd actually wakes up and realizes this, they’re never going to see that Hitler is alive and well and, instead of swastikas they are wearing headscarves.


So it’s not “grow up”; it’s “WAKE UP”!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #122516

phx8,

“Instead, the Bush administration encourages us to live in fear, and make it the focus of everything we do.”

To be fair this can be blamed on both parties.

My husband and I were watching a story about the new security measures in a train station.

My question was- Will those things be removed when the threat is no longer there? or under enough control that such measures are no longer needed? My husband responded - Are you kidding? They’ll never take those out.

I believe I already knew that.

Is it the same people who blame Bush for the lack of security in the train stations and say we are no more secure than before 9/11, who are complaining about our nation becoming a police state?
The same people who like to point out all our vulnerabilities?

Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #122519

rahdigly,

“Calling them those names is no different than them calling us infidels; it’s not racist, it’s true. And, until the PC crowd actually wakes up and realizes this, they’re never going to see that Hitler is alive and well and, instead of swastikas they are wearing headscarves.”

Sticks and stones. What a load of crap.

Like I said.
I don’t know what’s sadder.
That you actually accept this tripe, or that you can feel comfortable saying it out loud.

Posted by: Rocky at February 8, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #122522

Go ahead and keep ignoring it and (actually) thinking I’m the enemy; or Bush is the enemy. That’s it, keep it up. It’s sad that you’d have to see what happens when you defend these hateful islamofascists.

As I’ve said before, just ask yourself how many 9/11’s you need in order to wake up. Keep it to yourselves though, b/c my number is zero. Later!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 8, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #122526

Stephen,

Eric- There is no such thing as an Islamofascist. Jack may speak of Baathism qualifying, but then you run into a problem: It’s founder was Christian! It’s a socialist, secular form of government, that bows to Islam for the same reason our government officials acknowledge Christian values in their speeches: political gain and popular support. Other than that it’s more Arab than Muslim.

Essentially you are trying to make a semantic argument here. (Also saying Michel Aflaq was a christian is doing preciscly what you accuse labelers of Islamofascism of doing.)

Fascist accurately describes the totalitarian nature of the form of Islam being promoted by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saudi Arabian elements, the Sudan, and quite a few other places.

I prefer the analogy to the Klu Klux Klan in the south. They called themselves ‘christians’, and yet denied most if not all of it’s essential doctrines. Islamofascism is a branch or corruption of what we are told is a peaceful religion. If you disagree with the term then, ok, Islamofascism is not the same as western industrial national socialism, but then Mussolini’s Italian Fascism, Franco’s fascism in Spain, and Hitler’s German fascism all differed in minor aspects too.

What makes it ‘Islamo’ and ‘fascist’ is not it’s exact likeness to western fascism, but it’s brutal totalitarianism based on religious doctrine.

The Taliban as the prime example of Islamofascism was every bit as controlling, brutal, and based on absolute fear as Nazi Germany, or even the Soviet Union. Except in my opinion the Taliban was far more extreme in it’s control and irrational brutality.

Secondly, when we look at the goals of Al Qaeda and other pan-arabic movements the one thing they have in common is the ultimate goal of a new caliphate. In essense, total Islamic domination of the world. You may argue that this is preposterous and unfeasable, but you cannot argue that it is not the goal.

So if you want to argue the semantics of the word Islamofascism, then please do come up with a better term. But also tell us what it is you are attempting to define as well. Because you seem to have no problem conflating (mislabeling by ignoring a wealth of detail) Michel Aflaq as a christian, but are intent on nuancing the differences between various Arab megalomanias as being widely divergent and completely disimiliar.

But you want to slap this all with the label of Islamofascism. Gee, thanks a lot, but this have anything more than propaganda value, any thing more than emotional meaning?

We don’t need to be playing adolescent games here of “us vs. them”. We need to acknowledge the very real differences and make good use of our knowledge. The alternative is to flail blindly trying to get people to like us as we blindly offend and confront them.

I have to wonder about this. Is it the left who should be lecturing about how not to offend? I’m sure that gay marriage and the next NEA funded masterpiece by Serrano will do to promote peace and understanding.

It is about power, and using the religion of Islam as a cover and means to weild that power ‘legitimately’. In this respect there is little difference in the ends of Saddam’s regime and the Taliban. The Taliban was not an international power, nor a military power with sufficient reach to hit the US and yet, on 9/11 Al Qaeda, as a hosted organization did.

Posted by: esimonson at February 8, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #122527

rahdigly,

“Go ahead and keep ignoring it and (actually) thinking I’m the enemy; or Bush is the enemy. That’s it, keep it up. It’s sad that you’d have to see what happens when you defend these hateful islamofascists.
As I’ve said before, just ask yourself how many 9/11’s you need in order to wake up. Keep it to yourselves though, b/c my number is zero. Later!”

Perhaps I am being too subtle or perhaps you are incapable of understanding what it is I am saying, as witnessed by the above rant.

Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the terrorists.
Nowhere.

“Calling them those names is no different than them calling us infidels; itⳠnot racist, itⳠtrue.”

This is schoolyard crap, and does nothing to further the conversation. There will come a time when we either push the button or not.

God help us all if you are the man to make the decision.

Posted by: Rocky at February 8, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #122528

rahdigly,

As I’ve said before, just ask yourself how many 9/11’s you need in order to wake up. Keep it to yourselves though, b/c my number is zero. Later!
.

You mean one here, not zero.
Or did you knew *before* 9/11 that it will happened? In such case, as you didn’t warn the government, you should be shameful.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 8, 2006 11:21 PM
Post a comment