Local Muslims say reasonable things
In an ongoing discussion on our message board re: the Muhammad cartoons, I said:
The longer there is a lack of outspoken moderate muslims, the more people will think Muhammed wears a bomb turbin.
I realize that “moderate” and “outspoken” typically do not describe the same individual. But when the several continents have gone nutz, those who have reasonable things to say need to say them loudly.
Luckily for us some local (moderate) Muslims have said some very reasonable things regarding the Late Unpleasantness. Reasonable things typically aren’t good press, so I think it is important to draw attention to them whenever possible.
Via nic.
I’m glad that you gave this more importance.
I think this is the best part: “‘There is no reason to use something like that. Especially now when the world is so far apart, and we need to bring people together. I don’t know what it serves to use religion to cause fear . . . If you want to make a point, you can do it another way,’ he said.”
— nic | @
I think this cartoon has done wonders for elevating the dialogue of the Middle East past–troop levels in Iraq, to a more monumental and long-lasting dialogue of how the average non-western muslim feels, cares about, worries over, and looks forward to.
One can almost see this cartoon as one factor in the “Plays Well With Others Test.”
What is on the mind of the average non-western muslim–is it what his cleric tells him is on his mind?
In understanding motive, reasoning, rationale, perhaps we can then formulate policy and dialogue of significance between cultures.
This reminds me of that case in the 1930s in Virginia where it was found unlawful for a white and black person to marry.
When this inevitably did happen, and the world did not end, I think it stretched what people assumed society could handle.
When I returned from Iraq, I said in the Times Dispatch that when Muqtadi al Sadr, a Shi’a cleric that often rebels from then Coalition government–that his followers reminded me of someone in a new set of clothes, they were testing their new found freedoms.
This cartoon issue, perhaps while relations between West and MidEast are so pitched, has put a new problem set. I think many objectively feel, unless they protest and stomp it out, the very fiber of their society will implode. When they see that a mere cartoon does not, perhaps their reaction to the next cartoon or image will be less dramatic–they either tune it out or realize it is not the end of their belief system. Much like it must have been a shock to see that first interracial marriage.
I have, as I always tend to do, oversimplified the problem. Religious questions are never that simple, especially since words from the Kuran expressly denounce such imagery.
On the other hand many non-western muslims see places like Dubai and Lebanon, and equate western “liberalness” or secular influence as the degradation of Islam, and thus the fall of their society. As society becomes more liberal, women wear less clothes after all.
This, too, is a real fear.
I also know that the media, as it does with EVERYTHING in the Middle East does not tell the full story. Just as it didn’t with the Coalition or Elections, so now it will not with this struggle over a cartoon.
An image of a burning building or riots seems dramatic, but for instance consider Lebanon. A protest recently read: Lebanon Riots. In actuality it was Syrian and Palestinian radicals that were quickly caught. An interior minister from Lebanon was fired, and then, the Prime Minister issued an apology. Lebanon did not riot.
Islam does suffer from an explosive radical thread that it has continually failed to suppress or overcome. Maxpower is right. Moderate voices must stand, lest they be drowned out by a small radical sect.
Perhaps they already are drowning and silenced. That is why terrorism is so effective a few can hold so many in fear. And that is why terrorism must be separated from the religion, and this separation must start in the pulpit of Islam, with a clear voice, crying out–on the contrary……
— vanimal3000 | @
to be honest, i didn’t see where many reasonable things were said at all in that article. the commentary by the write who summarized things made people out to seem reasonable. break it down to the quotes that people actually said and you get (while perhaps this was just poor writing):
“It’s something Muslims absolutely stay away from. If you have a photograph or drawing, then it could become an object of worship,” he said. “A cartoon is a shade or two worse. It’s a caricature, and the Prophet Muhammad is being lampooned . . . That’s why we see the unrest, the furor and the anger.”
“Regardless of whether we live in the West or the East, we have to show respect of that which is sacred. As responsible citizens, we shouldn’t cross the line. [Those who published the cartoons] did cross the line. They should have showed respect by not even coming up with those caricatures,” he added.
“Even freedom of the press has limits,” he said.
“Why give them the satisfaction?” she asked. “I am prepared and expectant of opportunities for people to abuse symbols that belong to Muslims.”
“It was either intentionally malicious or a display of incredible stupidity.”
Muslims “are very offended and feel there should be an apology,” he said.
Jangda said he has not seen the cartoons but has read descriptions of them. “There is no reason to use something like that. Especially now when the world is so far apart, and we need to bring people together. I don’t know what it serves to use religion to cause fear . . . If you want to make a point, you can do it another way,” he said.
“Religion is not one day for us. For many Muslims, it’s every day and it’s part of their life. The prophets are sacred,” he added.
“There are certain things that you should not allow. Muslims do not make a cartoon of the pope. We don’t make caricatures of Jesus or Moses,” he said.
“Demonstrations should be peaceful and say we disagree. There should be no burning of embassies and cars,” he said. [in my opinion the most reasonable thing anybody actually said.]
“If the Danish government had apologized, the whole thing would be over. Now it’s out of control.”
it’s not reasonable to want to ban things. it’s not reasonable to blame things being out of control on the danish government- it’s the rioting idiots that are the lack of control.
even nic’s quote:
“If you want to make a point, you can do it another way,’ he said.”
i read this (go back and look at the entire paragraph) to be about how cartoons shouldn’t be used, not that the violence should not be used.
i’m not saying people are saying some reasonable things in some places- i’m sure you could find some truly great quotes somewhere, but i just don’t find this article or it’s interviewees to be particularly inspiring or different.
i’m disappointed that muslims, even ones that denounce violence, do not understand or value free speech. for me it is not reasonable to want to legally ban or censor images of anything, even though i can understand how they might be offended.
— Wolf | @
i guess reasonable is subjective. i don’t find those thoughts reasonable by my standards, although when compared to burning buildings they seem quite reasonable. i do not want this violence to lower our standards of what is reasonable. i don’t want to say, well they only beheaded a few people instead of flying a plane into a building- that’s pretty reasonable.
— Wolf | @
Wolf is absolutely right. I appreciate the desire to see these people as reasonable, but they are mostly reproaching the free Danish media in these quotes.
Iran is holding a Holocaust cartoon contest. It’s a game for Ahmadinejad but I find it just shy of genius: Europe should face the hypocrisy of a press free to do anything but doubt the pervasiveness of evil in the 1940s. This is just the latest of many trick plays in his book. Am I the only one who finds his strategy brilliant, in a too-smart-for-his-own-good sense? He’s a fiend. But oh, he’s good at it.
— Coulie | @
well the interesting twist in that story is that Iran’s leader, I believe, denied the Holocaust even happened late in 2005. To then have a cartoon contest on the subject confirms my long-held suspicion–he’s a flip flopper!
— vanimal3000 | @
“On Saturday in Vienna, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against a resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over a nuclear program the West suspects is weapons-oriented.”
There’s an interesting after-vote party crowd, I’m sure.
— vanimal3000 | @
I don’t know where you freedom of the press people came from all of the sudden. If I remember correctly (and I probably don’t) haduken was against that lady leaking top secret secrets to the press. I mean there *is* a limit to the freedom of press, some of them include libel and slander. There are probably some more limits.
That is a completely reasonable thing to say. Responsible citizens *should* try to be respectful. What is unreasonable about that?
Also, this keeps reminding me of Germany, which wouldn’t allow the cartoons of the holocaust to be published. In Germany you can’t show the nazi symbol in public. It is against the law. I mean we should hate those freedom hating krauts too. But you know, whatever works for their sovereign state.
— MaxPower | @
After rereading all the quotes that you thought would make me change my mind, i still think it is a voice of reason. You can not expect any Muslim to take a picture of their prophet much less a characture with out some degree of anger. It is hard for me to tell you how awful that is to them. Islam is very strict when it comes to images, go look through some art history books and try to find a picture of the prophet, or any of the first Caliphs. You won’t be able to. A few years back a movie was made about the prophet’s life. It was shot in the first person so that no actor would have to be picked to play the prophet. He never speaks so that no actor’s voice would be used as the prophet’s. Starting to get an idea about how serious they are about not making images of him?
“It was either intentionally malicious or a display of incredible stupidity.” - agreed.
So they are mad, rightfully so. What benefit is there from these cartoons? The guy is right, the freedom of press does have its limitations, just like any other freedom it ends at the other man’s nose. I don’t think that the line was crossed, but imagine the NYTimes printing the manafesto of White Supremisists, then ask a black man if maybe the line was crossed. He just might say yes, and I wouldn’t call that unreasonable. I agree with the local Muslim, there are better ways then such terrible sacrilege to make a point.
Is the Danish government at fault? No, but they could be a little better at smoothing the waters.
Muslims “are very offended and feel there should be an apology,” he said.
I think they got one, but probably not a good enough one.
— nic | @
There was a muslim on the radio this morning trying to shed some light on what was going on, and I found it very interesting. After hearing it, I felt that there are much fewer differences between us and arab countries than I thought.
Most interestingly, he said that some muslims feel threatened, as though “The West” has declared war on Islam.
But I mean, some Americans think Islam has declared war on us, both us and Muslims pointing to the actions of extremists or the extreme interpretation of rational action. See e.g. this blog, or alternately listen to talk radio, or even just watch TV news. Any TV news channel will do. Plenty of people get a lot of power, money, or attention from playing on fears.
— RMSzero | @
I don’t think apologizing for this sort of behavior is the way to go.
According to the Wall Street Journal today, these riots have heated up lately as a result of political desires by islamic extremist organizations, that has then fanned out into some of the otherwise normal populace.
There certainly is misunderstanding. And cooler heads should prevail, but I wouldn’t write off this extreme reaction as mainstream–it certainly appears to be fired up from Syrian radicals, to other places.
Rather than the face of Muhammed which is so alarming, what I find alarming is the level of support and deference muslims give to their cleric-elites. Perhaps they are considered the divine link to the prophet, but this smells like the divine king-thing that Europe went through 500 years ago.
Consider: crusades: emanating from religion or stirring from “religious” leadership?
— vanimal3000 | @
MaxPower, I just don’t agree that that quote is reasonable. “No individual, nation, or religion has the right to tell another what to say or what not to say, what songs to sing or what songs not to sing, what images to display or what images not to display.” This seems more reaonable to me.
And clearly, just by volume, these quotes condemn the cartoons more than the reaction to them.
Here are some offensive cartoons from Islam: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
Christopher Hitchens makes some good points, some bad:
http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/nav/tap2/
— Coulie | @
yeah that is interesting, because in Islam, there isn’t supposed to be an hierarchy at all. Like one guy “leads” prayer times, but really that just means he gets to sit up front that day. And they have imams to give “sermons” but they too are supposed to be just a lay-man. So it seems to me that if practiced properly this would be avoided? Maybe I am just over generalizing, or have forgotten what I was taught? Do you remember any of this Max?
— nic | @
Coulie condemning the cartoons != being unreasonable.
Protesting because of the cartoons != being unreasonable.
Violent protest = unreasonable.
Local muslims manned up, and said that the violence is unreasonable. But their still mad. And they have every right to be. Iran sponsoring holocaust cartoons is obviously not going to help the situation, but both sides need to realize that they were a little thick headed, and meet somewhere in the middle. That’s how peace happens.
— nic | @
yes.
— midas | @
things:
1. nic, i’m not sure why you’re attempting to explain islam to me. i said this: “i’m disappointed that muslims, even ones that denounce violence, do not understand or value free speech. for me it is not reasonable to want to legally ban or censor images of anything, even though i can understand how they might be offended.” i also said that i found that one quote denouncing violence as reasonable. i understand why they’re upset, and that’s fine- be upset, peacefully demonstrate, don’t buy that newspaper (as if they did); but do not expect free people to put limits on their free speech/press for your religious beliefs.
2. there are images of mo in textbooks, magazines, museums (even mid-east museums) and nobody’s been pooping their pants. i just can’t help but believe this has less to do with mo beyond portrayed at all and more to do with him being portrayed negatively.
3. i find the cartoon of bomb-head mo to be extremely poignant, witty, and expressive. i don’t think it was done for the sake of pissing people off, although i see very clearly how offensive it is. i think it makes a very very clear point. the cartoonist said “your religion is a religion of terrorism and destruction” and muslims responded by committing acts of terrorism and destruction, thus making the publication of the cartoon even more legit.
4. i’m amazed that anybody on liberal ol’ haduken would be interested in legally banning publications for religious reasons. that whole idea makes my mind explode.
5. the danish prime minister apologized that people were offended, although it was a half-ass apology at best. he shouldn’t have apologized at all considering it was a private newspaper’s issue. most of the protesting places probably do not understand this concept bc their publications are typically sponsered or censored by their governments.
6. have you noticed that the violent protests are in places that openly HATE christianity and judaism- syria, iran, afganistan, etc.. and i mean HATE. not publish cartoons about them, but ban them and kill people who practice them. hypocritical bastards. they have religious hate in their laws and policies and they are upset that someone published a cartoon??
— Wolf | @
“Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes,” Condoleeza Rice said.”
— vanimal3000 | @
Oh I am not interested in banning anything at all. I was just suggesting that there are infact limits to the freedom of press.
I think this proves even more we have no clue about non-western muslims and their culture. I mean we just don’t understand their point of view.
Also there here is a sweet quote about freedom of the press from TJ:
— MaxPower | @
Oh also, can’t the caliph’s and maybe other people in charge issue/cancel jihad’s? I thought their deal was they were wise so people are suggested to listen to them? I will read about this more sometime.
— MaxPower | @
“I think this proves even more we have no clue about non-western muslims and their culture. I mean we just don’t understand their point of view.”
i don’t feel like this has much to do with the deep cultural mysteries of islam that us westerners don’t understand. sure, we have plenty to learn, but people get pissed and burn stuff (see: rodney king). there’s a lot of tension already built up and it doesn’t take much for things to boil over. this, of course does not justify their actions.
we really need to do things to help muslims understand that this is not a war against them. it’s a war against terrorism. unfortunately for them, terrorist call a religious war or jihad against us, so when we fight back it seems like we are fighting against their religion. we need some serious pr or something to counter this idea.
— Wolf | @
I didn’t say that I thought that the cartoon should be banned either. But there is something called common sense. If there is one group of people that it would be a bad idea to piss off, it is obviously Muslims. And printing something that is prohibited by their religioin is OBVIOUSLY going to piss them off. So why do it? Or now that it is done, why not be more willing to be the first to admit that it was a poor decission? Standing around expecting the other party to be reasonable will get you no where.
— nic | @
more pr would be good, but i think it might need to come from within to be believed
— nic | @
again, aggression done in the name of religion but for political purposes. A fighter steps in the ring for respect.
And that is what they are after. All in the middle east want RESPECT. They do not receive it in many ways, b/c they are so materially poor. So they become rich in the text of their religion.
The text is all they have in many cases. It empowers them. Their religious leaders also assume the presence of judge, counselor, and politico. When a family member dies, the cleric gives money to ensure the family is taken care of. Its like the pastor of a mega church w/ people just wealthy enough to give, but have little else.
There is no give to ceasar what is ceasars text in the koran. No outlining or recognition for the nation state. Only the state of Islam. The Hajj does what the UN did for the Western world–brings cultures together.
The only rifts in Islam seem to come out of a religious sect where one of the caliphs became a founding “minor prophet” of the shi’a sect. It is a famed story of Hosayn where his arms were cut off after a warring secular tribe had encircled his people, the water was for children.
Hosayn’s rememberance is akin to Jesus dying on the cross for the Shi’as. The Sunnis disagree with this devotion of a figure below mohammed. so when the shi’as mourn his death, sunnis blow shi’as up. it will happen this spring, just like it has for years.
So beside these two great rifts, Islam is a unified force where state and religion have no boundary in society. Its clerics preach against liberal tendencies, etc. The moderates speak nothing of the violence. The radicals encourage it. The liberals preach tolerance, but these are often in pulpits located in more liberal or westernized countries–like Bosnia.
Where the cleric-elites have most control on society–we see the most jihad, the most terrorists–syria and Iran. Lebanon, the most liberal, we see very little. Jordan, though a kingdom, is liberal and open, we also see little violence and tolerance to the West.
I think this is a case with an area that needs more contact with the healthy outside world. More education–it is no wonder that Lebanon and Jordan are well educated and the most tolerant. We also need to develop a working class in the Middle East–not tied to the kingdoms or clerics for sustenance.
— vanimal3000 | @
“If there is one group of people that it would be a bad idea to piss off, it is obviously Muslims.”
so people shouldn’t be able to draw a cartoon in FEAR that muslims will burn things?? it’s ok to bash another group, bc they protest peacefully, but don’t challenge islam bc they will burn things? i’m not ok with limiting freedoms bc of fear of terrorists. no, i don’t think governments should apologize for a private company expressing an opinion. to apologize is to admit that islamic religious beliefs override personal freedom to speak about islam in whatever method one wishes.
maybe we should outlaw pork too. i’m no longer eating pork bc muslims might blow up richmond.
the danish women, with their uncovered faces! oh dear! hide the petrol!
it’s a good thing the amish don’t burn things or we’d all be riding horses again.
japan, apologize to the amish bc one of your people has a car!
why do it? cartoonists use cartoons to express themselves just like writers use writing. if this opinion can be expressed by writers, then it should be ok to be expressed by cartoonists. let’s be honest- this isn’t really about medium, it’s about content. as i said, there’s depictions of mo everywhere and nobody cares (or hardly anybody) bc in those he’s all glowing and happy.
— Wolf | @
“so people shouldn’t be able to draw a cartoon”
I didn’t say that.
I said it was a stupid decision.
I have the freedom of speech, but if I’m in the same room with Mike Tyson I’m not going to use that freedom to call him an idiot, I just might get pummeled.
I never once claimed that poeple should not be allowed to do things because it is offensive to Islam, I did say that this one thing that they did was a very, very poor decision.
“i don’t think governments should apologize for a private company expressing an opinion”
I’m glad that you don’t work for the State Department.
“to apologize is to admit that islamic religious beliefs override personal freedom to speak about islam in whatever method one wishes”
I disagree. Admitting that something was in poor taste is not the same as saying that it should not have been allowed to be said.
van - about “There is no give to ceasar what is ceasars text in the koran” Maybe this is more due to the fact that the Jews were living under the rule of a foreign power during Christ’s time and the time that the cannon came together, while the first Muslims were nomads used to a more tribal culture.
— nic | @
Actually, it was to signify that power on earth, physical attainment of political power was not the goal of Christians. To abide, peacefully, if possible under the rulers *God* placed above you, and to live for life after death.
That line or distinction is not drawn with Islam. Therefore the relative political power of their clerics signifies higher spiritual fulfilment. This is contrary to what Christ taught.
— vanimal3000 | @
This is also why Pastors moving into the political arena seems like a bastardization of the Christian faith to me. Some may truly be called, but for others the thrill of short term political success lures them away from the role of leader of their church.
They may justify it as yet a larger medium from which to preach from, but I believe Billy Graham was the best model of balance between evangelical leader and political dynamo.
It is a very tough line to walk. When religious leaders become overly concerned with current events, they have lost their way. Even with justifications of remaining “culturally relevant.”
— vanimal3000 | @
my point Van, was that early muslim’s didn’t have a king or emperor above them, while the Jews did. It wouldn’t have made sense to address an issue that didn’t exist.
— nic | @
Kingdoms have always existed. The first sets of Kingdoms came out of the Middle East. However, you are right, much of the middle east is tribal.
However the focus of the religion is dominance in this world and supremely in the next. Their rulers are encouraged to have seats of power, and in fact a vacuum of leadership exists when they do not. This is contrary to what is encouraged in the Christian faith. Imagine if Pat Robertson ran for President….err….wait a minute. The very issues people have with that here, do not exist there. The point of this being that clerics are tempted and often do, put short term political gain in terms of religion which is dangerous, exploitive and in my view, wrong.
However, the very nature of this relationship btw cleric and people has held them back. Clerics are not known to advance science, prefering instead theocracy training. That is why so many “ex-pats” or foreign workers do so much in the middle east, the middle east largely lacks the training!
We are somewhat off-track.
Point is, their religion and its presence so dominating in their political leadership–puts them in the precarious position to demand allegiance for their policies, and tie it directly to their religious devotion. This dangerous mix is exactly what the judeo-christian model avoids–and to good results.
Also, as predicted in an earlier post on Hosayn and Shi’as. There has been violence today against Shi’as celebrating that holiday by Sunnis.
— vanimal3000 | @
I think it would be important for us to understand the origins of the religion, how it spread, and how the states of the Middle East now look the way they do. I don’t have time to do it, but it would be interesting to lay out for this disc.
Sigh, I should have been a professor.
— vanimal3000 | @
i don’t support timidly living in fear bc mike tyson or muslims are around. so you think it’s a bad decision to voice one’s opinion bc we should fear the powerful? what a terrible world we would live in if everyone lived that way. goodbye declaration of independence! england is big and scary!
“Admitting that something was in poor taste is not the same as saying that it should not have been allowed to be said.”
admitting something was done in poor taste is not the same as apologizing. apologize says we were wrong or guilty. denmark can say they think the cartoon was in poor taste all they want, but what are they guilty of?? what did they do wrong?? THIS IS A CARTOON. we would need an entire state dept. just for southpark and the onion.
— Wolf | @
This is what happens when you run out of options: I’m sure this is done in the name of Allah, but in reality for much more of a short term political gain: Underscoring the need to keep the two–religion and politics–at a friendly distance:
Abducted American journalist Jill Carroll appeared in a video broadcast on Kuwaiti television Thursday, urging the U.S. government to meet her kidnappers’ demands. “I’m here. I’m fine. Please, just do whatever they want. Give them whatever they want as quickly as possible. There is very short time. Please do it fast,” she says. Carroll, 28, was kidnapped January 7 in western Baghdad after attempting to meet with an Iraqi official.
I believe if we capitulate from the cartoons, we again fall prey to the mentality that the right amount of disorder = your desired result.
I would be willing to say, oh hey danes, chill out on that sort of thing…but the reaction has been so vehement from cleric elites on down–and this reaction condoned largely, that we are at somewhat of a stalemate. If we back down, it may send a message like this kidnapped journalist.
— vanimal3000 | @
vanimal makes an excellent point about moderates standing up to speak out. I think that we need to do the same in our country. Most of the rest of the world sees us as war-mongering cowboys. The rest of us should stand up and tell them we are not. I don’t mean to begin a debate about the war, but this war is only beneficial to a very few, and quite possibly may not be in the best interest of the US. We need to decide how our country should be viewed and improve our image to the rest of the world, and we can no longer rely on a few to represent all of us. We have allowed a radical few to stand in our stead and reap profits from our declining stature. I don’t know how much longer the rest of the US can afford it.
— RVAkid | @
there was a website called http://www.outragedmoderates.org or something like that during the prez election. i dunno if they are still around, but it sounds like you might enjoy them?
-midas
— midas | @
Cliche as it sounds, there’s a double-standard in some of the comments. Should the private Danish paper be ‘the bigger man?’ Yes.
But I couldn’t say that we, in the U.S., should understand outraged muslims without insisting they understand west. I couldn’t accept that it’s OK for certain muslims to act out their frustrations any more than I could justify abortion clinic bombings. Nic, should abortion doctors admit it’s a “very, very poor decision” to practice? Should blacks have admitted it was a “stupid decision” to march in Alabama?
RVAkid, Bush was re-elected. I make no judgement on that fact, but it flies in the face of your closing statements.
— Coulie | @
Or perhaps you are levying a charge against our entire Constitutional republic?
— Coulie | @
would it be wrong if i got that shirt featured on drudgereport?
just wondering…
— fetzer | @
i think you should get it. and wear it to iran.
but seriously, it’s genius- flood the world with images of mo so that much that it becomes no big deal to see any more. kind of like how nudity used to be bad and now it’s in every ad and you don’t even notice it anymore.
there should be Mohammed wall paper.
— Wolf | @
genius
— Coulie | @
Yet another example of that so-called ‘religion of peace’. As much as these people burn and desecrate the symbols Americans hold dear, what are these folks cryin’ about.
Lets put this in perspective. Someone made a cartoon depicting Mohamad with a turbin shaped like a bomb.. First of all, this is funny. I would guess the about half of the people reading this are gasping.. “how could he say that”… Well just admit it, it’s funny. I believe that this is the christian equivilent to a cartoon depicting Jesus having anal sex with a young boy. You know what? That’s funny too. The only reason that these are offensive is because there is some truth to it.
Some muslims explode bombs to kill people and they get to go to heaven and have sex with virgins.
Some christian priests have sex with little boys, and then say 10 hail Marry’s and get to go to heaven and remain celibate. I would suggest that it is this release of the seed against gods will that keeps the priests from throwing gas filled bottles at foreign embassies.
Now lets talk about the double talk coming from these assholes. They are allowed to call for the complete extinction of the Isreali state, but someone makes a little Mohamad bomb turbin cartoon, and they feel so disrespected that they have to go completely insane and act like animals. These people need to get laid, or at least jerk off. Perhaps we could start a Bush like propaganda campaign telling them that it’s OK to get laid and jerk off. Only then will we see peace in this world.
— Gypsy | @
I have no idea what to say to that last comment, but I do know that I’m feeling very uncomfortable and looking around shiftily to make sure nobody is reading it over my shoulder.
— Couch | @
))((
— midas | @
that didnt come out right.
— midas | @