Cartoon Jihadist Pleads Guilty to Cartoon Jihad
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; no, I didn’t draw this “Mohammed Cartoon” but it is one of my favorites.]
Way back in July, I noted the story that one of the men who threatened the creators of South Park was arrested. At the time I wrote:
I wish I could say he was arrested for threatening the creators of South Park, but no, apparently no one thinks that is a problem, still. Sigh. But at least this jerk might go to jail.
Well, good news. They apparently upped the charges to include his threats and he pled guilty:
Zachary A. Chesser pleaded guilty in federal court in Alexandria to providing material support to a terrorist organization, communicating threats and soliciting crimes of violence.
Chesser admitted that he encouraged attacks on the creators of the television show “South Park” for mocking the prophet Muhammad on their show.
Long time readers know that while back I participated in the Everyone Draw Mohammed protest. For those who don’t know, it was kicked off by Molly Norris who then withdrew. She said she was just kidding, but I always suspected (and I had some evidence I am not disclosing) that she was scared off. The fact she has essentially gone into witness protection is probably the most powerful piece of evidence. Anyway, she dropped out, but in that Army of Davids sort of way, a lot of other people took up the banner. The logic of it, ironically enough, was explained on South Park the first time they dealt with the cartoon Jihad, when one character says the following:
Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want. Look people, it’s been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades, we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it. One of those times is right now. And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won’t defend it.
Anyway, on Facebook they had over 100,000 participants before some pro-islam hacker shut it down. My participation was much smaller, getting around 700 cartoons, although I am proud to say my site was banned in Pakistan and if I dare go to that country and remind them what I did, I would probably face criminal prosecution for blasphemy. JD, a regular on this site was a trendsetter by being the first to introduce the Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy. [I should warn you that JD’s cartoon is an explicit depiction of perverted sex, involving stick figures.] As that tongue-in-cheek reference suggests, the point wasn’t to create a gorgeous work of art, but to create something “fatwah-worthy”—that is, offensive enough to earn a fatwah. And mind you, a lot of the artists were not offensive at all, except for the fact they were depicting Mohammed. The idea was the digital equivalent of that great scene in Spartacus when rebel after rebel stood up and shouted “I am Spartacus.” We wanted to say to the terrorists: if you are going to kill everyone who depicts Mohammed in a cartoon, you are going to have to kill all of us. And at over 100,000 people on the facebook page alone, their beheading arms will get really tired.
And as for why I felt it was necessary to do something that admittedly would also offend many good Muslims who also believed in freedom of speech and religion, this was my explanation:
In this the government has failed us. How is it that Revolution Islam is allowed to threaten these people’s lives, and to extort them into silence, and walk around as free men? Many reports say that they didn’t “technically” threaten them, but the law of extortion doesn’t rest of whether you technically say, “do this/don’t do that or we will kill you.” You only have to communicate a threat in language that an ordinary person would understand to be a threat. Everyone knows they are threatening them. So why isn’t the police in New York beating down their doors?
In every stage of this, the government has failed to protect us. As a generally libertarian guy, this is one of the places where I say that government positively has a role to play—to ensure our freedoms not just by avoiding a violation of our rights, but actively standing between us and anyone who would use violence and threats to take that freedom from us.
So we the people have to step up.
I said over and over again, I never wanted to do this. I don’t revel in rudeness for its own sake. But the government, which has a positive duty to protect my rights, was doing nothing. Indeed, the official position of the Obama administration was to condemn this protest and support Pakistan’s decision to punish blasphemy as a crime, up to and including the death penalty. So this story about this new guilty plea gratifies me that at least one of these idiots will suffer for his crime. Let us hope this leads to more prosecutions.
Was Everyone Draw Mohammed Day a success? It’s been a little more than five months, I am still alive and I haven’t heard of the terrorists killing anyone else who participated. In that sense we called their bluff. I mean this is what I said at the time:
The terrorists threaten to murder anyone who insults or even depicts their prophet in a cartoon. And as long as it is a handful of individuals being threatened—Salman Rushdie, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and the Danish cartoonists—that threat is effective. You might even look at the murder of Theo Van Gogh and conclude it is not a bluff.
But it is a bluff. Because if enough people do it at once, they will not be able to carry through their threat. They can’t kill us all. It’s that simple.
That is why we must draw Mohammed.
So the ultimate impotence of the terrorists has been shown. But on the other hand we didn’t just want to make the terrorists look weak. We wanted to communicate that weakness to the rest of the world, so that next time someone feels a need to depict Mohammed in a cartoon that they do so without fear. And have we succeeded there?
Well, apparently not. But I hold out the hope that this can change.
As for Mr. Chesser, throw the book at him.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing, who definitely didn’t draw that Over the Hedge cartoon, but appreciates the artist’s show of solidarity. And, yes, that comic was printed on Everyone Draw Mohammed Day itself.]
The Dreaded Stick Figure of Blasphemy !!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (4aa811) — 10/21/2010 @ 8:33 amJuan Williams probably did not support Everyone Draw Mohammed Day and look what it got him.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:00 amJuan Williams supported the Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy.
JD (4aa811) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:02 amAnd now we see how straight the backbones of the Poobahs at NPR are, by their dismissal of Juan Williams after his admission on O’Reilly’s show Monday night that he is not exactly reassured by the presence of “Muslim garbed” individuals on airplanes.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/10/20/juan-williams-commits-the-ultimate-kinsleyesque-gaffe/
“The Ruling Class” will sell us out in a minute if given half a chance, as long as they think the crocodile will eat them last!
AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:03 amHas there been a “mind meld”?
AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:04 amFirst half-dozen words out of Rush’s mouth include “Juan Williams”.
AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:09 amNPR will be hoist upon a petard of their own making here, and it won’t be pretty.
Will this be a reason for defunding NPR in the next Congress?
Why not?
AD
i never understood the need for state subsidized radio anyway. i mean, so many people i know love npr, so they can support it.
i mean dirty secret, i think this is why Air America failed so miserable. A liberal radio network? we already had one.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:11 amDarn right the problem is our government not defending us — worse the government is actively ATTACKING people who exercise their 1st amendment rights, like blaming the victim.
That’s what was so completely outrageous about General Petraus’ comments about the koran-burner. Even if technically correct, having our government tell a citizen not to exercise his 1st-amendment right because it will inconvenience our troops was the clearest sign possible that this administration has no plans to defend us from foreign attack.
Not to mention being attacked by the President, the VP, and the secretary of defense. All of whom are constitutionally sworn to defend us and our rights. Instead, they stood with the enemy and attacked citizens for daring to speak their minds.
Juan Williams — he was fired by our government for speaking his mind — because NPR IS funded by our government, it is PUBLIC radio. Again, this administration actively goes after citizens who exercise their first amendment rights.
We see this in their response to “Citizens United” — again trying to silence people. We see this in democratic candidates filing lawsuits to stop people from saying bad opinions of them. We see this in the lawsuit against Arizona, where the federal government is attacking a state and encouraging foreign governments to join them.
Charles (60406d) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:23 amSome good comments over at PJM (see link above) on NPR’s funding.
AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 9:28 amNPR claims that only 2% of their operating budget is gov’t money.
Someone suggested that Congress not only cut them off, but send them a bill for all of their infrastructure that was paid for with taxpayer’s money.
“NPR claims that only 2% of their operating budget is gov’t money.”
I’ve heard that they also get money from foundations that in turn get money from the government. Has anybody done an analysis of that?
pst314 (672ba2) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:03 amhappyfeet is the staunchest of the NPR supporters 😉
JD (2e7078) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:10 ampst314…Which is another reason for the new Congress to defund ALL of the NGO’s, the “Corp’s” (CPB/NPR), and the “Endowments” (NEA/NEH/etc).
AD-RtR/OS! (a1a38a) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:46 amLet them raise their money from the Fords/Packards/Gates/Tides/etc. It’s not like there isn’t any money out there; plus, those foundations have to spend it every year.
NPR is a 501(c)(3) — it’s not a government-run entity; it’s a non-profit corporation. Most of it’s revenue comes donations from individuals (“listeners like you”). Others come from charitable foundations, universities, etc. Direct grants from the federal government are less than 5%.
So the over-the-top hyperbole that the gubmint is trying to silence Juan Williams is just plain silly.
That said, I don’t think the comments Williams made, while bigoted in the strictest sense of the word, were the kind of thing that should get him fired. If I understand the context, Williams was acknowledging his bigotry, as a way of saying “It’s there, but we need to get past this and not assume all Muslims are scary people out to do us in”.
On the other hand, I think Williams has had a serious conflict of interest in his dual capacities at Fox and NPR, and probably should have been let go by NPR a long time ago.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 10:52 amNope.
Most of its money is funneled from governments (such as local public radio and public universities) that pay for its content.
Famous BS canard.
That’s actually the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. How telling. You think he has a duty to shill that he is breaching. Pathetic. A liberal can speak on Fox (and no doubt, Juan does this, giving the democrat talking points a bit too frequently for me). It’s not clear a conservative is allowed on NPR these days, but there’s no ‘conflict of interest’ rule against such a thing. Your position is radically more extreme than even NPR’s.
Sometimes I wonder if you just say the opposite of whatever Aaron says because you’re jealous of him.
At any rate, it’s time to cut all funding for public radio and television. We do not need a state propaganda outlet.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:02 am“Funneled”?
Local NPR stations also get their funding primarily from donations from listeners and businesses. Obviously, if a local station is affiliated with a public university, then there will be more gubmint $ in the mix, but it’s still not federal money.
What is pathetic is telling me what I “think”.
Actually, the conflict of interest isn’t the politics that he “shills”, but the different ways that NPR and Fox deliver news and information. It’s kind of hard to be a credible analyst at NPR while simultaneously being a shouting head on Fox (or MSNBC, for that matter).
Has he even weighed in on this?
Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:15 amKman’s ‘conflict of interest’ rule for NPR liberals amounts to fascism style loyalty.
Kman is really weird.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:23 amYou know when Helen Thomas or Rick Sanchez come out with statements that embarrass their employer (or run counter tothe employer’s mission), I think their employer — like any employer — can and should have the right to let them go.
And doing so doesn’t amount to “fascism style loyalty”.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:41 amguys, lets take this over to the juan williams thread.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/21/2010 @ 11:49 amA.W., you’re still working way too hard to rationalize behavior that you admit was deliberately rude.
There are better uses for your talents, my friend.
Beldar (fa3a16) — 10/21/2010 @ 12:58 pmA.W
Please remove the deliberately rude and insulting cartoon that is wrong on sooo many levels one cannot begin to engage them all.
When all religions of the world have successfully purged their extremist idiots then ,even then, you wouldnt have had a point.
Interesting that you would deliberately endanger the lives of everyone living in the Middle East, our soldiers, our aid workers, defensless women and children who strive and live everyday to show that we are definitely NOT someone of as low moral character as yourself and your “project”.
You are NOT a victim of extremist muslims, you drive everyday on cheap petrol and products that are delivered to you on cheap petrol sent from the middle east or indirectly aided by the vast development umbrella that Arabian petrol resource funds have developed in other countries as well, including our own.
Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Arabs have given their lives since 9/11 many on our side – to further show your total lack of understanding or basic comprehension on the subject you have assumed that instead of directly condemning the Taliban, and their willing hand maidens – you insult everyone world wide of their faith.
You seem to want a confrontation – I’m sorry no one is going to oblige you –
I sent you an article before you published this – ironically how it contrasted to your igonrance today.
Its really about your faith isnt it? You feel your extremism in the new “Faith” of freedom of expression – gives you the right to “violate” the rules of common decency by acting in your own extremist manner.
Instead of taking the long hard road of reconciliation, of understanding, of common ground, of working to reach an accord with those muslims who are just as disgusted with the extremists as we all are – you decided to push them away
Niice…
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 2:31 amAW – did Breitbart get indicted?
JD (ae2c41) — 10/22/2010 @ 6:00 amBeldar
There are some people who think the worst thing in the world is to be rude. I’m not one of them.
I mean the tea party was rude (the original one—what year was that?). And it had innocent victims. Someone owned that tea that was thrown into the harbor. But today we celebrate those patriots and name a whole political movement after them, of which I a proud member. And don’t even get me started on tarring and feathering people. That seems kind of rude, too, not to mention painful.
By the way, do you condemn South Park for making its episodes on the subject? Do you condemn them for suggesting exactly this kind of act?
How about Theo van Gogh? Should he have been condemned for making his movie?
And Salmon Rushdie? What about him?
Eric
> Interesting that you would deliberately endanger the lives of everyone
On the contrary, I am seeking to diffuse a threat that was already there.
> You are NOT a victim of extremist muslim
When our discourse is censored by threats of violence, we are all victims. When Comedy Central actually goes back into Netflix and removes old episodes of South Park because it had inoffensive depictions of mohammed, we are all victims. When South Park is free to depict Jesus and George W. Bush defecating on each other, on the United States flag, and random people, but they can’t show an inoffensive cartoon of mohammed, we are all victims.
Freedom of speech goes to the heart of whether we are even a democracy or not. I said it before but it bears repeating:
> Freedom of expression goes directly to the heart of whether this is a republic or not. A nation that has no freedom of expression is not a republic or a democracy, even if you have the right to vote. I mean the syllogism is pretty direct. The right to make a choice implies the right to make an informed choice. The right to make an informed choice requires me to hear lots of information regarding that choice. That means in terms of speech, that people and yes, even corporations, must feel free to express themselves so that you can get the maximum amount of information about that choice, so you can make an informed choice. Thus the right to choose between two candidates is meaningless without the right to speak freely about them.
And similarly freedom of religion cannot exist without free discourse about religion. Let me give you a concrete example. Would you tell me I should not call Mohammed a pedophile? Well, its actually true. He married a girl named Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the relationship when she was 9. This is an open secret in islam which I have never seen denied, only rationalized away.
One man I corresponded with in Pakistan stated that when he learned of this his faith was broken by it. He couldn’t follow a pedophile. So that knowledge was vital to allowing this man to intelligently decide whether to continue being a muslim. And you would allow that knowledge to be censored.
> you drive everyday on cheap petrol
Well, I will dispute the word “cheap” but I didn’t realize that in buying my gasoline I was giving away my freedom.
> Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Arabs have given their lives since 9/11 many on our side
A fact I regularly highlight on my blog. I fully acknowledge that some innocent people will be offended. But its better than innocent people being silenced.
> Its really about your faith isnt it? You feel your extremism in the new “Faith” of freedom of expression
You seem to imply that I believe in freedom of expression with the vigor of faith. And you are damn right I do. Read our declaration of independence. We are endowed by our creator certain inalienable rights, including freedom. Among those God-given rights is freedom of religion.
You say [that this is a matter of faith for me] like it’s a bad thing. [Aaron: slightly edited after the fact to make my point clearer.]
> Instead of taking the long hard road of reconciliation, of understanding, of common ground,
The common ground is mutual respect of each other’s freedom of speech and religion, and learning how to take insults. There is no common ground between freedom of expression and censorship by violence of the state or private individuals. Freedom of expression is a non-negotiable.
And no, I won’t take it down. Patterico is free to overrule me, because it is his blog, but my inclination is to keep it there. Indeed look at both comics really. Is it that horrific? I thought the non-professional one was cute and clever. It actually made me laugh. It didn’t say anything mean about mohammed, it just twisted the controversy in a fresh way. And believe you me, if you think that is bad, you should not, under any circumstances, witness the dreaded stickfigures of blasphemy. 🙂
JD
Breitbart hasn’t been indicted for anything as far as I know, but honestly I am not sure where you are going with this one.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:10 amAW
Given a reread of the body of your comments on this subject, last time you accused everyone of being a coward because they failed to heed your call.
Again it looks like zilch participated – maybe that should be telling you something
Freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy?
Where? this is not political speech, this is not something that even concerns you
Nothing you typed was even remotely true or accurate – for someone who decries the strawman tactic – you seemed to erect a forest of them
You do not have a right to free speech at the harm of others simply put thats it.
Like NK said last time you are free to come over here and express your views directly or to guard those who you think are at peril
Like I said please remove the offensive post and perhaps rexamine just how you think defaming other religions most revered figures is going to defuse anything?
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:36 amAnd Aaron, its difficult to have a conversation with someone of such poor character and personal morals such as yourself, but if you drive a vehicle, you are giving direct support and it is cheap – we have the cheapest gas prices in the world.
We need to co-exist = working towards a peaceful way is not deliberately trying to endanger your fellow citizens
You can wrap yourself in all the strawman you want but in the end – there are other ways to accomplish your aim
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:41 amOh good Allah, not this sanctimonious verbose crap again.
AW – it was a good natured barb directed at an idiot.
JD (b49131) — 10/22/2010 @ 7:48 amEric
I never said that everyone who didn’t participate was a coward. i called a specific person who refused to participate a coward, and i apologized for it (admittedly it was like pulling teeth, but oh well). Patterico reasonably said I should not be attacking other commenters, and I agreed. As we will see in a moment, you didn’t get the memo.
> Again it looks like zilch participated – maybe that should be telling you something
Well, you can call 700 people zilch, not to mention the 100,000 people on facebook (a site I was no affiliated with, mind you), but I don’t.
> this is not something that even concerns you
You bet your @$$ I am concerned about freedom of speech, especially as it relates to freedom of religion.
> Nothing you typed was even remotely true or accurate
Come now, you can’t actually mean that. Several of them are beyond reasonable dispute.
> for someone who decries the strawman tactic – you seemed to erect a forest of them
Where have I mischaracterized your words?
> You do not have a right to free speech at the harm of others
If you define “harm” as offense, as you seem to in this sentence (correct me if I am making a supposed straw man, here), you bet your @$$ we do. See, e.g. Texas v. Johnson (the flag burning case). See the Nazis who marched through Skokie.
> you are free to come over here and express your views directly
Chickenhawk theory. Sigh.
> its difficult to have a conversation with someone of such poor character and personal morals such as yourself,
Well, let’s not get personal, right?
> there are other ways to accomplish your aim
Well, you don’t even seem to agree with my aim, but I have always said I was open to a better idea. So what is your suggestion?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:00 amEric
And let me add, i was always in favor of one alternate solution. We arrest every person threatening them in our jurisdiction and everyone outside of it, we tell them this “you are on notice. we have accused you of a crime in the united states. you can either surrender and go through a full criminal trial, or we will use our war powers to kill you where you live.” then bam, bam, bam, kill them until they stop threatening us. terrify the terrorists.
its targeted, and collateral harm will be generally limited to the actual jerks making the threats. But alas, we don’t have a government willing to do that, although to be fair, none of our presidents have been willing to do this since Salmon Rushdie way back in the 1980’s.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:07 amAW
your version of freedom of speech?
We arrest every person threatening them in our jurisdiction and everyone outside of it, we tell them this “you are on notice. we have accused you of a crime in the united states. you can either surrender and go through a full criminal trial, or we will use our war powers to kill you where you live.”
Wow! Now how far are these goalposts going to move?
More strawmen? – aren’t you getting hay fever = come back when you have something – TANGIBLE – and not a whatsyify
Trying to cause dissent so our government will undertake mass arrests is so Makmoudy
Tell em about your website and explain to them your ideas how to bridge the divide
dont mention me
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:13 amDo you get the vapors when your panties get in a bunch, EPWJ? Do you hyperventilate when you go off on your martyr complex diatribes?
JD (b49131) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:20 am“We need to co-exist = working towards a peaceful way is not deliberately trying to endanger your fellow citizens”
EricPW – How do you envision this happening? Obama said he would sit down with Imadamnutjob and magic would happen. So far, zippo, nada, zilch.
You’re great at telling people they don’t understand what’s going on because they aren’t where you are, but you offer nothing as usual on your end as solutions, just criticism. You also seem very distanced from sentiment in the U.S., which is very real, in spite of your feelings to the contrary.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:31 am____________________________________
of working to reach an accord with those muslims who are just as disgusted with the extremists as we all are
But people of the Islamic faith are already standing on rocky ground since the founder of their religion was a well-known assassin who had a history of killing people who merely mocked him. Sort of the flip side of Christ’s “turn the other cheek.”
Mark (411533) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:45 amEric
was that supposed to be coherent? It reads like a jackson pollard painting.
If you say i erected a straw man, name it. I am genuinely trying to understand your point.
And you seem–and you are being really unclear so don’t get upset with me if i am wrong about what you meant–to think that arresting or killing those who threaten to murder our citizens for blasphemy is somehow a suppression of free speech. But the fact is that freedom of speech has long been read to exclude threats from its protection.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:47 amDaley
I maybe distant from the sentiment – because for 6 years – I’ve been here and there.
Look, Obama sitting down with that dipshat from Iran isnt the approach.
Its not a easy solution – but being deliberately insulting and TRYING to make matters worse – somehow is an emotional and vindictive response rather than an approach to somewhat normalizing relations
This I sent to Aaron before he posted his hate (yes – given Aarons further responses – Aaronyou wants to kill – sorry it went that way but Aaron wants to kill people – good luck with that Aaron)
Inter-faith dialogue facing tough challenges, says al Ghanem
IHSAN YOUSSEF
http://www.qatar-tribune.com/data/20101020/content.asp?section=nation2_1
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 8:50 amFricPW – Thanks. You have mentioned that interfaith conference previously. Will it stop acts of terrorism, no. The tone at the top, heads of state and Imams needs to change.
I see Islam as an intolerant religion, but not all Muslims are intolerant.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:02 amDaley
HAving 160 clergy from the Christian world, Islam and the Hebrews all praying and conversing together is better than posting inflammatory cartoons or worse than posting inflammatory cartoons?
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:15 amEric
> TRYING to make matters wors
Eric, you are not a stupid man. Are you incapable of understanding that if we say to them, “if you are going to kill any of us who offend islam, well, you will have to kill all of us” that this might demonstrate that their threats are impotent?
> Aaron wants to kill people
How do you propose making them respect our culture, our traditions, of freedom of religion? You think a hippie drum circle dedicated to understanding will stop the terrorists from doing what they do? You can wish for peaceful coexistence all you want, but if WWII taught us anything, it is that not everyone agrees about the value of freedom, and in order to preserve freedom sometimes you have to use force.
So you don’t want the people who are trying to literally take our freedom dead. You don’t want to offend anyone. Again, what do you propose we do?
And if you say interfaith dialogue again, I will puke, put it in a plastic bag, and mail it to you. (no, not really, but seriously, what a complete non-solution)
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:17 amAW
Rabbi’s and Inmans together in a Sunni country – some people would call that progress = some people
Go enlist, you seem to need a fight
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:28 amAW
Why dont you post a let’s have Martin Luther King having sex with a white woman – contest – or even when Dr Laur used the N word – maybe you can post something on that here
Hey – we can have a frank talk on why do some people fear young black males at night walking towards them
I want to see ho far you are going to take this meme of no consequences for your actions thingy..
Hey – its the CORE of of VERY Freedom – isnt that what you are spouting today?
Have at o defender of all that is just and good in the world..
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:32 amHe is a profoundly mendacious man, AW. Stupid remains debatable.
JD (4aa811) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:32 amDo pictures or depictions of MLK Jr cause people to threaten and kill others?
Here comes the avalanche of asshattery,AW.
JD (4aa811) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:41 amEricPW @35 – What have been the tangible positive outcomes of the prior interfaith conferences?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:44 amEric
> Martin Luther King having sex with a white woman – contest
Well, I am opposed to necrophilia. *rolls eyes*
But if you are asking if I would have stood up to klan terrorism during the 1960’s, you bet your @$$ I would have. I would have joined the marches and subjected myself to the same beatings as any of them. You on the other hand seem to think freedom is negotiable, so I guess you wouldn’t have.
And, by the way, the word is protest, not contest. There were no prizes given out, except freedom. Well, reason turned it into a contest, but that is them.
> or even when Dr Laur used the N word
She lost her job. Apples and oranges.
> this meme of no consequences for your actions thingy
When did I say no consequences? I said no violence by government or thug. Do you disagree with that?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 9:47 amDaley
Jewish historical sites (one day a Synagogue) are being negotiated in – Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
More Christian churches are being built
Saudi clerics have been turning in 100’s of Al Qaeda
King Abdullah spoke at length about Hamas recognizing the Jewish State of Israel in accordance with a continuing peace process
Kuwait ended its exit permit process and sponsorship
The Emir has declared Qatar to be an interfaith center, churches have been built and more are planned – there ae xmas trees in the malls in Bahrain and even at the airport. Same for Dubai and even in Abu Dhabi
Is peace and harmony breaking out all over?
In 2005 in Doha about 1000 yards from my Villa a bomb was detonated kille
Yemen is allowing Jews to worship openly now
But all this pales in comparison to the cartoon contest… that has advanced peace and harmony far greater than people risking their lives to lead their people towards tolerance and understanding at the risk of their lives – I realize sipping a wine cooler on a leather lazyboy is much more effective than explaining hy rabbi’s are checking into hotels in Doha in plain view of Al Qaeda sympathizers
Yes we are not as bravely rapped in 1776 parchment and old glory
(that last bit was not directed at you Daley)
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:02 amWell trying to edit this I hit the enter key by accident however – Daley most of that was directed at AW
EricPWJohnson (3c68d7) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:15 amWhat did I tell you, AW?
JD (4aa811) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:19 amEric
Let’s look at your accomplishments:
> Jewish historical sites (one day a Synagogue) are being negotiated in – Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
Wow, they are thinking of doing this. Yawn, is that all?
> More Christian churches are being built
If you have 1 and you build two more, you are building “more Christian churches.”
> Saudi clerics have been turning in 100′s of Al Qaeda
Because actually AQ kills more Muslims, especially ones they don’t think are sufficiently radical, than non-Muslims.
> King Abdullah spoke
To quote a president who was cribbing off of a governor… “just words.”
Wow, that is all so awesome that I am totally willing to give up the first amendment for it!
Btw, if you need to edit a comment, tell me what you meant to say and i will put it in for you. But then you think i lack all honor, so i guess you won’t trust me to do it right. sigh.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/22/2010 @ 10:36 am“More Christian churches are being built
Saudi clerics have been turning in 100′s of Al Qaeda”
EricPW – Where are these churches being built exactly? Rumors have been going around for years, sort of like speeches about Hamas recognizing Israel and recognition of Jewish holy places.
Imams turning in Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia? Given the targeting of Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda is this really a surprise?
Instead you get upset about cartoons which merely say we’re going to play by our rules, not yours, this country is not a theocracy and we’re tired of your attempts to intimidate us. Europe has already proved multiculturalism is a failure. Do we have to follow the same path?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/22/2010 @ 12:23 pm