Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures

[psi29a]

source

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Thousands of Syrians enraged by caricatures of Islam's revered prophet torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday - the most violent in days of furious protests by Muslims in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

In Gaza, Palestinians marched through the streets, storming European buildings and burning German and Danish flags. Protesters smashed the windows of the German cultural center and threw stones at the European Commission building, police said.

Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the European Union, and the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons "an unforgivable insult" that merited punishment by death.

How far is too far? What are the repercussions? Is it another uniting front for Islamic extremists against the western world?

I seriously do not know what is more important, freedom of speech or freedom of religion, at least in terms of the USA's constitution which I know doesn't hold a light to anything beyond the USA's borders.

Do we respect all religions and curtail freedom of speech out of difference to religious tolerance or do press for tolerance in intolerant religions and encourage freedom of speech?

I'm particuarly fond of Voltaire's

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

and

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

[LordMune]

I cannot imagine the retardedness going around the office of Jyllands-Posten when they decided to publish said caricatures, considering Denmark's rather hostile stance towards islam and islamic immigrants.
However, the caricatures were published months ago in a local newspaper of a small country- the recent riots and embassy-bashings were orchestrated by someone or some group with a political agenda.

[panasonic]

does anyone have a link to these caricatures?

[psi29a]

does anyone have a link to these caricatures?

If anyone does find them, please don't post them here. Perhaps a weblink but don't use the [img] tags please.

Two Jordan editors are arrested

Danish cartoonists fear for their lives

Embassies torched as cartoon furor grows

You know its a problem when you fear for your life, buidings are burning, and people are being arrested.

If you are VERY curious, without trying to offend I offer this google images link and let you browse through it:

Google Images

[Quest]

seesh.
my take is that those morons that started this mess better clean it up somehow. dead or alive, who cares?

this is not an issue of free speech or free religion or freedoms of the press or whatnot.
everyone and their puppy knows how obviously anal-retentive these extremists are.
anyone who kicks the beehive deserves to get stung.

[Astro]

I think the following link might be more interesting than this current discussion: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ehind.html

[Devil_Dante]

How reliable is that source anyway? But if thats true, that imam is the one that deserves to get stung.

[Astro]

It is as reliable as your personal research indicates. My conclusion was that it's credible, and also inevitable. Why wouldn't someone who celebrates 9/11 trump up muslim outrage with fake cartoons? Ethics?

Regarding the bee metaphor, I would like to point out that I certainly do not condone kicking beehives. However, I have been known to write some blistering satires about honey and interpretative dancing, yet no hive has ever threatened me with beheading (thus far). Heck, the last time I was even stung was when I was six, and that's because by and large bee's are decent people. Muslim extremists are not, and I am hoping muslim moderates will confront them someday.

[Killfile]

... yet no hive has ever threatened me with beheading (thus far).

You mis-spelled beeheading.

*ducks*

[Wandering_Mystic]

I thought the riots reeked of being engineered. It is sad, because I am seeing a spotlight in most of the news that I have heard on the (horrendously brainless) violence coming from the enraged "muslim community". Puhleeze, anyone with a brain would realize that offensive (and sometimes tasteless) caricatures have been made of all major religious figures from Christianity to Buddhism and all across the board. As retarded and tasteless as the Mohemmed cartoon was, the proper response is just to ignore it and dismiss it as unworthy of further attention(which was what most people were probably doing in the very beginning).

To add to the stupidity of the so-called "backlash" (so-called because the images of people blasting embassies with rpgs hardly seems like the usual civilian protest to me), there is the fact that they trashed a German embassy which had NOTHING to do with the stupid cartoons (and some idiot even took a German hostage in retribution, but then fortunately released the prisoner soon after realizing he was German).

This is a mess alright, but the debate about what should be censored and how far religious tolerance goes is more a consequence of the denial of oportunities and equality to muslims (in Europe in this case) than a consequence of the publishing of a foolish and tasteless caricature. Without the former, there would be no resentment to fuel what would become an outrage of the latter.

[Astro]

... yet no hive has ever threatened me with beheading (thus far).

You mis-spelled beeheading.

*ducks*

I don't know how to judge a fine wine or cigar, but I do know how to judge a good pun. First, it must be unexpected, and should immediately cause a wincing type of pain the frontal lobe. The anguish then spreads like wasabi to the back of your brain and perhaps travels again to the front, before finally it dissipates and leaves behind a mildly pleasant sensation. It's like a punch in the stomach from an old friend, or perhaps the bittersweet memories of your first love. It has an eternal quality despite its simplicity, and it is thick with the oaky aroma of an era gone by, but never forgotten. In short, it is life

I believe I just moved my own self to tears, please excuse me

[Wandering_Mystic]

... yet no hive has ever threatened me with beheading (thus far).

You mis-spelled beeheading.

*ducks*

I don't know how to judge a fine wine or cigar, but I do know how to judge a good pun. First, it must be unexpected, and should immediately cause a wincing type of pain the frontal lobe. The anguish then spreads like wasabi to the back of your brain and perhaps travels again to the front, before finally it dissipates and leaves behind a mildly pleasant sensation. It's like a punch in the stomach from an old friend, or perhaps the bittersweet memories of your first love. It has an eternal quality despite its simplicity, and it is thick with the oaky aroma of an era gone by, but never forgotten. In short, it is life

I believe I just moved my own self to tears, please excuse me

Heh, that gave me a few tears too, but for different reasons. A beautiful explanation

[Astro]

Wandering_Mystic,

The first time I saw the cartoons I thought a couple of them were needlessly inflammatory, particularly the turban bomb. Most of the rest were pretty neutral; one of them even mocked the whole thing as a PR stunt by the newspaper.

But due to the severity of the retaliation, the Onion-esque headline that best captures these last few days is:
Angry Muslim Terrorists Protest Cartoon Stereotypes of Angry Muslim Terrorists

I think this reveals that the ideas behind these "retarded cartoons" are real concerns, and something we need to be proactive in addressing. For example, I've seen several websites encouraging people to buy Danish goods to fight the Saudi boycott, and that can be anything from ham to porcelain to Lego Mindstorms. For those interested, here's a starting point: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21097.html

This isn't about supporting the Jyllands-Posten, but about supporting the Danish government and its people who allow all sorts of newspapers and religions to coexist in a free society. And it is about the Butter cookies, which sound especially tasty right now.

[Wandering_Mystic]

Astro, I'm not sure what you mean by "the ideas behind these 'retarded cartoons' are real concerns". What ideas are those exactly?

The one cartoon that I am aware of depicting Mohammed with the bomb turban and his remark about the virgins in heaven would strike me as more of a clumsy attempt at satire than an indicator of anti-muslim sentiments. But I don't entirely know the context or intention of the grafic either.

I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech, and I don't think the Danish (or european or american, etc) free press should be handicapped. An apology should be expected, but not by the government. It's not like the muslims are the only ones who have been the brunt of crude, stereotypical and racist jokes/expressions.

I am deeply concerned about how out of proportion this whole affair has become. From my viewpoint, people normally don't get that angry about cartoons they deem offensive, at least not angry enough to incite violent riots, protests, trade embargos and more, all at once. The strong and angry reaction, the election of Hamas, the Saudi boycott, all are obvious signs of discontent with current relations and attitudes between the mid-east and euromerica. I don't like the way things are escalating, and I think all involved governments are to blame, perhaps especially the US gov for its central role in stirring up the mud over there.

[Astro]

Astro, I'm not sure what you mean by "the ideas behind these 'retarded cartoons' are real concerns". What ideas are those exactly?

The ideas I was referring to are the ones behind the turban bomb cartoon; that the Danish as well as the rest of Europe are starting to see Islam as a whole (not just the extremists) as volatile and dangerous. This is the same as saying Pat Robertson represents the rest of Christianity, except most Christians will renounce Robertson, whereas mainstream muslims do not vocally renounce their fundamentalists. And now the paper's caricature of Mohammed has been illustrated by the muslims themselves far better than the artist ever could.

I am not sure at this point, but these cartoons could prove to be a turning point in world events. First and foremost, it demonstrates again that crazy people don't have a problem with the United States, but with the entire Western culture. The incompatibility between our cultures regarding free speech cannot be apologized for, and the cartoons spreading across the EU show surprising solidarity in that regard. This could also help in the days ahead by toughening the EU's stance on ending Iran's nuclear ambitions.

What I hope is that this terrible surfacing of anger will give us a better chance to be realistic and deal with it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist and letting it grow even worse. There are legitimate complaints against Western culture, but free speech is not one of them and we need to let everyone know that.

[Tempest]

Religion of Peace strikes again.




From what I've heard its not just the caractures being in a negative manner that has got Muslims all up in arms, it's portraying the prophet irregardless. I guess it is a big no-no in Islam to draw or interpret Mohammad's appearance in any way, shape, or form, even if it is in a positive manner.

(Yes, that was photoshoped)

[vtwahoo]

...the Danish as well as the rest of Europe are starting to see Islam as a whole (not just the extremists) as volatile and dangerous. This is the same as saying Pat Robertson represents the rest of Christianity, except most Christians will renounce Robertson, whereas mainstream muslims do not vocally renounce their fundamentalists. And now the paper's caricature of Mohammed has been illustrated by the muslims themselves far better than the artist ever could.

As far as I can tell, however, the European impression of Muslims as violent and dangerous is exactly what we've seen in the United States for several years. This is a dangerous attitude and one that is becoming internalized into the American culture. What I disagree with is your assertion that mainstream Muslims do not renounce Islamist fundamentalists. I have a lot of Muslim friends. Many of them are extremely critical of American foreign policy but equally disgusted by the methods used by Islamist terrorists in the name of Islam.

I am not sure at this point, but these cartoons could prove to be a turning point in world events. First and foremost, it demonstrates again that crazy people don't have a problem with the United States, but with the entire Western culture. The incompatibility between our cultures regarding free speech cannot be apologized for, and the cartoons spreading across the EU show surprising solidarity in that regard.

I think it's important to remember that this recent outbreak of violence was committed by Syrians. The Syrian government has been a destabilizing force in the Middle East for years. It has been implicated in the asassinations of the Lebonese Prime Minister as well as several prominent Lebonese journalists. It is unfair to generalize these actions to the Islamic community as a whole.

I also have a serious problem with the very common conception that there is an unalienable divide between "the west and the rest." Those who conflate the anger directed at these cartoons and critiques of US foreign policy with "a problem with the entire Western culture" make a serious analytical mistake. The political cartoon in question was designed as a critique of radical Islam but it did so in a way that targeted the entire Muslim community. It was bound to incite anger. The violence in Syria was unforgivable but we cannot equate it with a fundamental divide between Islam and the West. Moreover, it is even more unfair to equate the critiques of US foreign policy with a similar divide. The overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims have no problems with Western values---including free speech and the free exercise of religion. Turkey is a prime example of a "Muslim" country that embraces those values. Not all people who critique the West are crazy. I recommend that you again look at Bin Laden's Letter to America. Take away his name and you would not take it for the ramblings of a homicidal maniac.

When we ascribe to Huntington's vision of the "Clash of Civilizations" we are giving the likes of Bin Laden exactly what he wants...he wants a war between the West and a unifed Muslim world in which the Muslims will be victorious. Why are we giving him exactly what he most desires?

What I hope is that this terrible surfacing of anger will give us a better chance to be realistic and deal with it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist and letting it grow even worse. There are legitimate complaints against Western culture, but free speech is not one of them and we need to let everyone know that.

Hoiw do you propose that we deal with the anger and what makes you think that we have been pretending that it doesn't exist up to this point?

I don't argue against free speech but it was in extremely poor taste. We need to reach out to the non-radical Muslim community. All such examples of "free speech" accomplish is to convince Muslims that we hate them and have no respect for their religious convictions. We do not need to convince Muslims that we see them as the enemy. They may choose to live up to the expectation.

[Astro]

As far as I can tell, however, the European impression of Muslims as violent and dangerous is exactly what we've seen in the United States for several years. This is a dangerous attitude and one that is becoming internalized into the American culture. What I disagree with is your assertion that mainstream Muslims do not renounce Islamist fundamentalists. I have a lot of Muslim friends. Many of them are extremely critical of American foreign policy but equally disgusted by the methods used by Islamist terrorists in the name of Islam.

I have for the most part assumed on good faith that moderate muslims are disgusted by terrorists. I do stand by my feeling, which I feel is reasonable, that they are not vocal enough in renouncing these acts. Some of this is due to fear of retribution that the Danes are seeing, and some of this is due to shared feelings of discontent. An example that comes to mind is how people rally behind Cindy Sheehan because she's on their side, despite the fact that she is basically crazy herself. They wouldn't agree with the craziest stuff, but they aren't going to weaken "their side"by quibbling over such semantics.

Basically, I want to hear multiple muslim organizations condemn the atrocities done in their name. It is not enough to whisper such things to one another in safety, while the jihadists are screaming for death.

I think it's important to remember that this recent outbreak of violence was committed by Syrians. The Syrian government has been a destabilizing force in the Middle East for years. It has been implicated in the asassinations of the Lebonese Prime Minister as well as several prominent Lebonese journalists. It is unfair to generalize these actions to the Islamic community as a whole.

Syria certainly upped the ante, but threats and violence have been happening in Palestine, London, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia is preparing to boycott an entire country because of an independent news organization. Denmark has even apologized for something it has no control over, and it is still being hung and burned in effigy. The Syrian violence is the background music to the protests going on in Europe, where people wield signs threatening beheading to anyone who maligns the prophet.

I also have a serious problem with the very common conception that there is an unalienable divide between "the west and the rest." Those who conflate the anger directed at these cartoons and critiques of US foreign policy with "a problem with the entire Western culture" make a serious analytical mistake. The political cartoon in question was designed as a critique of radical Islam but it did so in a way that targeted the entire Muslim community. It was bound to incite anger. The violence in Syria was unforgivable but we cannot equate it with a fundamental divide between Islam and the West. Moreover, it is even more unfair to equate the critiques of US foreign policy with a similar divide. The overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims have no problems with Western values---including free speech and the free exercise of religion. Turkey is a prime example of a "Muslim" country that embraces those values.

If we compare the West with a place where it is illegal to openly wear a crucifix, or where gays are stoned to death by law, or where young women are killed to restore their honor after being raped...I do not know what you consider these things to be, but I do not find them compatible with our society at all. These things and free speech have nothing to do with US foreign policy, and everything to do with the fundamental divide between us. On these issues we can't join them, they have to join us. Many already have. But we are still dealing with those who haven't, and they are the ones promising death to Denmark right now.

Not all people who critique the West are crazy. I recommend that you again look at Bin Laden's Letter to America. Take away his name and you would not take it for the ramblings of a homicidal maniac.

I don't mean to be unfair, but are you really saying "Not all people who critique the West are crazy, take Osama Bin Laden for example..." ? As in, if I put aside my personal feelings I might learn he has a point whenever he murders 3000 innocent civilians? I find it unsettling that you would so carelessly phrase this without explanation.

When we ascribe to Huntington's vision of the "Clash of Civilizations" we are giving the likes of Bin Laden exactly what he wants...he wants a war between the West and a unifed Muslim world in which the Muslims will be victorious. Why are we giving him exactly what he most desires?

Because we don't want to have to kill every single terrorist ourselves. We need a muslim community that is strong enough to stop its own extremists, but that community doesn't exist yet. We can't get muslims to take responsibility by coddling their cultural problems to avoid conflict. It will simply get worse.

Hoiw do you propose that we deal with the anger and what makes you think that we have been pretending that it doesn't exist up to this point?

To clarify, we all know there is a problem, but my argument is that people haven't realized the full magnitude of that problem. As far as I know there is only one real proposal for addressing this, and most people in the world don't support it. I would wager most people on this forum do not either, so I will offer to discuss Iraq in a different conversation so this one stays manageable.

I don't argue against free speech but it was in extremely poor taste. We need to reach out to the non-radical Muslim community. All such examples of "free speech" accomplish is to convince Muslims that we hate them and have no respect for their religious convictions. We do not need to convince Muslims that we see them as the enemy.

Are you not worried about appeasing the violent? If muslims are only listened to when they go crazy, it does not bode well for future conflicts. Since this issue revolves around a core issue of Western civilization, I think leniency or sympathy can be just as dangerous as pissing them off. If terrorism gets them what they want, you are making terrorists just as surely as if you bombed their village or ate their children.

They may choose to live up to the expectation.

For many, they already have.

[Astro]

Tempest,

It wasn't photoshopped, it was fortified with irony and other essential nutrients.

My current theory is that some clever capitalistic muslim won like a lifetime supply of Denmark flags and thought of a quick way to make millions. That would explain the three fake cartoons they were showing people, ones that were ridiculously vile and had never been printed in a newspaper before (link to it on page one). Nothing gets those flags sold and burnin faster than lies coupled with an already ample spoonful of distrust.

From what I've heard its not just the caractures being in a negative manner that has got Muslims all up in arms, it's portraying the prophet irregardless. I guess it is a big no-no in Islam to draw or interpret Mohammad's appearance in any way, shape, or form, even if it is in a positive manner.

Typically muslims draw Mohammed without the face, but I remember looking through some old artwork online where that wasn't the case. So sometimes it is okay to draw Mohammed, just not right now I guess.

[vtwahoo]

Saudi Arabia is preparing to boycott an entire country because of an independent news organization. Denmark has even apologized for something it has no control over, and it is still being hung and burned in effigy.

But boycotts are a positive response. In the great tradition of the Western world, let the markets do what the markets will do. That goes to the very heart of economic freedom. If boycotts against the Danes prevent them from publishing similar works in the future, that's great! It's called heteronomy and it's a good thing. Just as we should be condemning the violence we should be encouragint the boycotts. Economic choice is as much about free speech as satire.

If we compare the West with a place where it is illegal to openly wear a crucifix, or where gays are stoned to death by law, or where young women are killed to restore their honor after being raped...I do not know what you consider these things to be, but I do not find them compatible with our society at all. These things and free speech have nothing to do with US foreign policy, and everything to do with the fundamental divide between us. On these issues we can't join them, they have to join us. Many already have. But we are still dealing with those who haven't, and they are the ones promising death to Denmark right now.

Let's see...it's illegal to wear religious symbols in France. Homosexuals in the United States are tied to trees and stoned then dragged behind cars just because they're gay. Just this weekend an American walked into a gay bar with a gun and a -=hatchet=- specifically to kill homosexuals. And that's not to mention all of the civil rights violations faced by gay Americans every day. The suicide rates among rape victims is outrageously high both in the US in Europe where most rapes aren't even reported because people blame the victim. I consider all of these things compatible with our society.

You are also incorrect about "honor killings." Honor killings are about intergenerational sustainability. Women who are impregnated through rape could destroy the sustainability of an entire kinship group should she decide to have the baby. Honor killings emerged from that reality. I don't like it and I think there are more effective ways of dealing with rape but the reasons for honor killings have nothing to do with Islam and are practiced primarily in NON-Islamic cultures.

Besides...are you sure that you're talking about Turkey? With the exception of the ban on religious symbols I thnk you're way off the mark here and would ask that you document your examples as part of a systemic cultural phenomena rather than isolated incidents for which there are correlaries all over the world.

I reiterate, Muslim outrage at the United States has everything to do with American foreign policy.

And why do you assume that "they have to join us." This entire argument reeks of ethnocentrism.

I don't mean to be unfair, but are you really saying "Not all people who critique the West are crazy, take Osama Bin Laden for example..." ? As in, if I put aside my personal feelings I might learn he has a point whenever he murders 3000 innocent civilians? I find it unsettling that you would so carelessly phrase this without explanation.

Yes. That's exactly what I said. Read his Letter to America. There's hyour explanation. And you might. Because don't pretend that the United States doesn't murder innocent civilians under similar auspices of war.

Because we don't want to have to kill every single terrorist ourselves.

But "we" do want them dead? That's the only answer?

It's that attitude about us that led Syrians to the streets. It's our cultural biases that incited violence. It's disgusting. But what makes "us" different from "them"?

To clarify, we all know there is a problem, but my argument is that people haven't realized the full magnitude of that problem. As far as I know there is only one real proposal for addressing this, and most people in the world don't support it. I would wager most people on this forum do not either, so I will offer to discuss Iraq in a different conversation so this one stays manageable.

Care to vague this up a little for us? There are several threads on Iraq already but what is the "one sulution" (and is it final?).

[Killfile]

Astro, kindly fix your double post. Naughty naughty naughty.


As to the "why doesn't the Muslim community speak out more," please see an earlier blog entry of mine on the topic.

Posted at 9:53 pm - Nov 30th, 2005 : Despite my best efforts, from time to time I stumble across a right wing radio station, blog, or editorial. In the process I’ve heard the following question asked a number of times.

“We hear a lot about how Islam is a religion of peace, but if that’s the case, why doesn’t the Muslim world ever protest or react to terrorist attacks carried out in its name?”

Much as it pains me to admit it – it’s a good question. So I found the closest thing I could to an expert on the Arab world and asked him. Martin Mayerchak is a founding member of the Kazien Company, an international consulting firm that works primarily with international economic development assistance projects. Mr. Mayerchak’s company has worked with the US Agency for International Development and the World Bank and has done work in Jordan, Lebanon, The West Bank, Egypt, Morocco, and the Sudan.

When I put this question to Martin he came up with three answers, to which my wife added a fourth.

First – Public protest is a tradition of democratic countries. The Muslim world, which does not share this tradition, is unlikely to erupt into spontaneous demonstrations about anything. It is not that people don’t reject the ideals of radical Islamists, but that the idea of rising up in protest is simply unlikely to occur to them.

Second – What demonstrations actually occur in the Muslim world are often orchestrated by powerful clerics and political leaders. People are rounded up, given the various signs and banners, and told where to go and what to say. These demonstrations, not shockingly, reflect the political and religious ideas of those that make them happen. When you see thousands cheering “Death to America,” it’s because they’re ordered to do it and well paid to boot.

Third – The United States has done little to win the friendship of the Muslim world. From Brittney Spears to troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia long after we had worn out our welcome – the Muslim world does have legitimate grievances with us. While most Muslims don’t consider violence to be an appropriate way to dealing with those grievances – few are inclined to feel particularly sorry for the United States when disaster strikes.

Finally – Protest to a government is a fairly novel idea that stems from the idea that the opinions of the individual matter. This idea arose in Europe through the Protestant Reformation. While Protestantism does not create democracy, nor democracy create Protestantism, the idea must arise that the opinions of the lowest individual are significant in some way. This has yet to become widespread in the Islamic world.

I think vtwahoo was referencing bin Laden in a similar vein. We, as a culture, tend to assume that anyone who commits horrid acts is - in fact - crazy. This generalization is weak, and weakens our ability to counter the actions of dangerous individuals. Bin Laden, despite his willingness to do unspeakable things, is not crazy. He is articulate, intelligent, and logical. He takes issue with specific portions of American foreign policy and turns to violence because it best suits his aims. Why is Bin Laden crazy for being willing to sacrifice American Civilians to achieve his social, political, and military goals - but (presumably) GW Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt etc aren't? Attacking civilians is a time honored tradition in war. Just because we disagree with our enemy, doesn't make him a madman. To assume otherwise hamstrings our ability to predict his movements and counter them.

[psi29a]

Astro, kindly fix your double post. Naughty naughty naughty.

Bzzzt, double post is one posts the same content twice. Give or take 50% of same content, which is just retarded.

[Libaax]

As a muslim im angry and annoyed at what the danish paper did but at the same time, i dont like what happened in Syria iether.

Still the danish paper is the cause of all this and i hope something is done so nothing like this happens again. The paper isnt stupid they know what would happen when did this,they apparently thinks bad pr is good pr too,without caring for the reaction.


I heard in a radio when i was on the bus a week ago where a swedish so called expert said that what the danish paper did was nothing serious to get angry over and burn flags over. Stupid....... i wonder what he would say if they did the same thing to jesus.

Im pretty sure the christians power around the world would do something to the danmark and that paper so that they never forget what they did.

[Astro]

Astro, kindly fix your double post. Naughty naughty naughty.

Bzzzt, double post is one posts the same content twice. Give or take 50% of same content, which is just retarded.

Do I get some sort of consolation prize for the violence Killfile's libel has wreaked upon my mind? When I read his shameless accusation I must have fainted at least four times before the doctor reminded me that I need to eat every few weeks to keep up the blood sugars. Oh lordy no, I think I feel anothe

[vtwahoo]

I heard in a radio when i was on the bus a week ago where a swedish so called expert said that what the danish paper did was nothing serious to get angry over and burn flags over. Stupid....... i wonder what he would say if they did the same thing to jesus.

Im pretty sure the christians power around the world would do something to the danmark and that paper so that they never forget what they did.

Yeah...like bomb them.

I'd love to know what Swedish "expert" has the right or legitimacy to expalin to the Muslim world what they should or should not get angry about.

But then this expert was from the West so he must be right...