Patterico's Pontifications

1/9/2015

New York Times Editor Calls Marc Cooper an “Asshole” for Criticizing Paper’s Failure to Publish Mohammed Cartoons

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:49 pm



Facebook is suddenly worth looking at today. USC journalism professor (with whom I had a friendly “dustup” at the L.A. Times Web site six years ago) had some criticism for New York Times editor Dean Baquet today:

Screen Shot 2015-01-09 at 7.38.32 PM

And then, it got good, when Baquet waded into the comment section:

Screen Shot 2015-01-09 at 7.39.48 PM

Bwahahahahaha. I’m jealous:

Screen Shot 2015-01-09 at 7.40.39 PM

In case there is any doubt in your mind, by the way: yeah, that’s really him.

234 Responses to “New York Times Editor Calls Marc Cooper an “Asshole” for Criticizing Paper’s Failure to Publish Mohammed Cartoons”

  1. I bet he wouldn’t call Marc Cooper that if he thought Marc Cooper was going to shoot him over it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole. Unlike Dean Baquet.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. my first thought – and kinda weirdly, I think

    is that maybe some of kort parquet’s breakdown is understandable in the context of the burgeoningly fascist failmerican government’s creepy persecution of NYT propaganda whore James Risen

    but also I think he might just be inept with the social media

    he’s not a young man, our whole wheat baguette

    happyfeet (831175)

  4. Guy talk. They’re probably good friends.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. Patterico – See the explanation Baquet gave Politico for not publishing the cartoons in the article I linked in earlier Hebdo thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  6. It has been pointed out that the people who died in the Kosher deli did not draw any cartoons.
    Some want to make this an issue about free press and the right to print disgusting cartoons.
    I don’t think people should be killed for making disgusting cartoons,
    but perhaps printing critiques of Islam and speeches by Muslims against radicalism would be of more help in the long run,
    in addition to not putting the lives of innocents far away in danger.

    Yes, if enough people print inflammatory stuff they will be relatively safe,
    while non-Muslims in Muslim majority lands pay the price,
    because they are the ones accessible and represent the infidels.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  7. A firing squad of the pink slip kind is warranted

    EPWJ (0e7ed5)

  8. #2, Colonel, check out Francoise Gilot’s Life with Picasso.

    ropelight (7e0118)

  9. daley,

    Yup, the Webcache version of that Politico article is linked above.

    nk,

    They aren’t friends, I am confident. Marc Cooper is liking comments calling for Baquet to resign.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. There is another reasonably decent reason not to publish besides what MD said. Between 60 and 70 journalists a year have been getting killed for a few years now. The majority of them in the Middle East, most recently Syria. Jihadists would not have to travel to France or to New York to strike directly against news organizations that go out of their way to offend the Prophet. They can target their reporters down there.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. What really sickens me the most about the Jayson-Blair-ized New York Times not publishing cartoons that mock Islam is not just because of cowardice on the part of that rag, but because, worse of all, the idiotic belief among far too many liberals (who, after all, dominate the MSM) that such unflattering depictions of a non-Western, Third-Worldish religion and culture are a form of bigotry, or racism, or xenophobia, or homophobia, or…

    BTW, I’m sure the economic turmoil hitting businesses like the NYT, which had to layoff some top employees in its arts section a few weeks ago, is taking its toll, and Baquet’s juvenile, supermarket-tabloid-class response to Cooper probably is a manifestation of that.

    We’re one big happy family, one big happy society, in this era of Obama-mama.

    Mark (c160ec)

  12. “Under the watch of the man who masquerades under the moniker of president of the United States, someone who can barely muster a dopey three-minute speech filled with banalities about the killings in France, radical Islam has metastasized across the world in a manner only dreamed of on 9/11.”

    – Roger Simon

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  13. Uh, hey, Dean, the removal of things like the following has absolutely nothing to do with sparing readers the sight of offensive and insulting images. Nice try, Baquet.

    If certain decisions to publish material worries “progressives” because that may result in violent or deadly reactions, such an outcome would take a back seat to whether the particular decision satisfied the left-leaning urges of the editor or reporter. If it did: “To hell with people’s lives—print it!”

    mediate.com, January 8: The New York Times, which has already faced criticism for its decision not to publish images of the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons that may have provoked the attack on that magazine’s Paris offices Wednesday, is now under fire for apparently removing a quote from an article about reactions from survivors of the attack.

    Earlier today, the website Ace of Spades posted this excerpt from a story by reporter Liz Alderman about the shooting as experienced by those who survived it:

    Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her. Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

    But as The Daily Caller pointed out Thursday afternoon, the Times has since changed that passage to read like this:

    Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed. Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

    “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

    Mark (c160ec)

  14. Media still struggling to find common denominator in incidents of violence by peaceful activists.

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/219280.php

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. From Baquet at the linked article in post:

    We have a standard that is pretty simple. We don’t run things that are designed to gratuitously offend,” Baquet told POLITICO at the time. “[O]bviously [I] don’t expect all to agree. But let’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet. I don’t give a damn about the head of ISIS but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.”


    You don’t run things that gratuitously offend? How about when you ran a salacious and unfounded front page story about John McCain and Vickie Iseman supposedly having an affair and the supposed breach of ethics?? You know, the one where she went after the rag for defamation of character?

    Dana (8e74ce)

  16. Well I’m glad to know that the NYT has a Muslim reader in Brooklyn. That ups the total of people who read the rag to three. Way to go Baquet–certainly you know from “asshole” being a big one yourself.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  17. The NY Times needn’t publish cartoons mocking Muhammad, Islamic terrorism is but a symptom of the much greater malignancy. The danger we face is much close to home. It’s our own federal government. We have met the enemy and he is us.

    If we have the strength of will to put our own house in order our trembling enemies will run and hide like the depraved cowards and frightened dogs they’ve proved themselves to be time after time.

    ropelight (21d82c)

  18. In the America which leveled Germany and Japan, cartoons like Charlie Hebdo’s would have carried long prison sentences for pornography. Just saying.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. The high and mighty Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a filthy hole in the ground. And, it wasn’t cartoons he was running away from.

    ropelight (21d82c)

  20. You consider Iraq anything more than a minor skirmish as compared to WWII?

    nk (dbc370)

  21. I mean, heck, if we could not beat Saddam Hussein, we should all put on burkas. And shave our legs and wear frilly lace panties underneath.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. And Bradley Manning just said, “Yess!” 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Focus, nk, focus. Blaming cartoons is beneath you.

    ropelight (21d82c)

  24. You know, nk, I was talking with a friend about something related to your point of view just the other day.

    Lots of bad things happened in the early parts of the 20th century. But there were lots of good things, too. I would argue that there were many more good things than bad.

    So, to get rid of the bad, we got rid of all the good.

    All the PC nonsense we deal with today is pretty much a response to people not showing courtesy to one another.

    But what about all the bad things? To be sure, Blacks were treated terribly, and so were women.

    Yet I keep hearing that Blacks are treated terribly today, and so are women.

    It may be that we threw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Just my opinion.

    As for freedom of speech…. Years ago, I was furious with that silly fraud Ward Churchill’s statements. I railed to my friends about how he ought to be fired (instead of shunned). Anyway, a friend of mine, Greg Lukianoff, spent some time talking with me. He reminded me that I personally had suffered in my career for expressing my opinion on campus (he runs the wonderful group FIRE at thefire.org).

    Greg convinced me that the answer the speech you do not like is more speech, not less.

    And certainly not bullets and terror.

    When Christine Amanpour calls the filth in Paris “activists” instead of terrorists…for fear of offending Muslims…I shake my head. No decent Muslim would be offended by this, and the ones who would be are…um, not such nice folks.

    But your point that society has gone crazy is well taken. Have you seen this crazytown?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/10/the_plight_of_the_bitter_nerd_why_so_many_awkward_shy_guys_end_up_hating_feminism/

    Life as a gender studies class.

    Simon Jester (083e10)

  25. In the America which leveled Germany and Japan cartoons like Charlie Hebdo’s (what the hell kind of name is Hebdo? Cause I know it ain’t French) would not have been printed out of respect for good taste. And since his cartoons were not published in America but rather France, who cares?

    I don’ care about France. I don’t care about England, Sweden, Estonia, Greece or any other place nk finds so compelling, I care about The United States of America. Moslems have no business here. There is no good reason for any moslem to live in America. They don’t share our values. They don’t believe in a Constitutional Republic. They don’t believe in free speech, freedom of religion, or any other freedom which is the bulwark of our society. We don’t need them and they have no reason to be here!(cab drivers notwithstanding) They hate our country, culture, traditions and values. If we keep letting mooslumms come here and live here under the foolish belief that that is “freedom of religion” which it is not, then we are doomed. Throw them out of all Western culture or prepare to kill them because they will try to kill us. I killed a lot of commies as a yoot and I’m not yet too old to take out a few mulesloms.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  26. I think we do run the risk of losing sight of what is really important by focusing on secondary things.
    In one way freedom of the press is a secondary thing. There is no high virtue, or even low virtue, in putting out disgusting cartoons.
    There is virtue in having the freedom to say important things, to give thoughtful and helpful criticism, to really “speak truth to power” when necessary.
    Allowing trash to be published is a necessary evil because otherwise someone would have authority to pick and choose what they allow to get published.
    Some would like to defend trashy pictures and cartoons but make laws against “hate speech” which is nothing more than expressing opinions the PC crowd doesn’t like.
    A better society would recognize this, and while they would not throw people in jail, and certainly not kill them, for printing things that most find disgusting, they would at least relegate it to places where 8 yo boys and girls don’t have to see it in the grocery store and pick up the message that it is normal and acceptable, to be desired and emulated.

    I don’t think, for example, that it would be any great victory for the LAT to reproduce the cartoons while denying global warming debate.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  27. truly md, they show ‘epistemic closure’ at all points of this exercise, a piece by Erlanger, the same who worried more about the backlash, than the actual murders,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  28. Dean Baquet is smart to limit his criticisms to Sarah Palin’s autistic children.

    They aren’t likely to drive a Ryder truck and park it in from of the Times’ lair.

    someotherguy (37038b)

  29. Hoagie, I don’t think all Muslims would like to kill us infidels, nor even like it when others do.
    If you want to say that’s true but we can’t tell which are which so kick them all out, I would see your point.

    I don’t think we would tolerate a “Christian” splinter group that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, nor should we. There is no reason we should tolerate that kind of behavior from Muslims either. Now you know I don’t equate all religions, and I do think there is much more in Islam that does indeed foster such views, as opposed to Christianity, Judaism, and most other religions. I don’t think we need to kick all Muslims out, but I do think it would be reasonable to let security personnel “infiltrate” public meetings in mosques, etc., and where people can be found inciting riots and violence who are not US citizens kick them out, and the ones that are prosecute them as possible. Make it clear to other Muslims that we are serious about such things and invite their cooperation, and let them know their silence will suggest they are suspect too.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  30. they do no favors for anyone, when like the LA Times, did ‘whitewashed’ the Doha 5 detainees, some months back, when they forward the Levick ‘narrative’ about Gitmo

    narciso (ee1f88)

  31. I’ve read where “the ancients” thought about how to become a better person to live a better life in the midst of the reality of what exists, where the modern thinks about how to manipulate our surroundings to get what we want.
    That is not a universal written in stone truth, but I think there is merit in it.
    We humans have for a very long time simply liked to want what we want and find ways to justify it.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  32. Simon, and MD in Philly, and JD, and DRJ, and daleyrocks, (and others)–At a recent conference in Mumbai Indian scientists went off the reservation (so to speak). I don’t know how Carlitos feels about this particular publication or these scientists but he should at least read the article, I think.

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms

    elissa (9a5d95)

  33. I agree with all your points, except the second part of Hoagie’s, and I guess I expressed mine clumsily. That America had a different ethos back then. That our society would have tolerated neither pornographers nor religious fanatics trying to change our traditional, I repeat traditional, western values. There would not have been all this ambivalence and pearl clutching.

    Hoagie, I am also tempted to say that what went on in French is what went on between Cardinal Richelieu and the Huguenots and none of our business, but I don’t think it would hold up. As for Muslims in American I, personally, am afraid of Anglicans taking their marching orders from the Archbishop of Canterbury and trying to overthrow our Revolution so they can restore the King of England. Witness all the fuss over Princess Kate and the baby Prince.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. Thank you, Elissa. Coyoteblog.com has nice number crunching, too. But I’m not going to fight about religion anymore.

    Simon Jester (083e10)

  35. I share your fear, nk. Those F***ing Anglicans are dangerous!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  36. MD in Philly, I don’t know how to take you comment at #28. Islam is a religion which is a political philosophy, which is a cult which is a backward way of life. It is all-inclusive, pervasive and above all authoritarian. It has zero virtue as a faith and even less as it is used to govern. As such I repeat: there is no valid reason for any practicing moooslam to be in the United States. Our American Values are the antithesis of issslam. They are tyrannical despots, murderous thugs and just plain lousy people. We are the guys that send a fleet to help the Japanese when they got hit with a tsunami. Moslems are the people who pirate defenseless cargo ships. We are the people who inspire Doctors Without Borders. They saw off people’s heads on video. We do not need marlslems in America. They bring nothing positive to the table. They add no worth to our nation (hell, even their food sucks). And even if there are a few (very few in my opinion) who are decent people they could never be good Americans because that would require them to accept people of other faiths, homos, women’s rights and a thousand other things that are opposite the Koran. And yes, I’ve read the Koran several times.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  37. Plato understood ‘the Cave’ he didn’t recommend it as a strategy

    narciso (ee1f88)

  38. One other thin MD in Philly, once you begin to excuse or rationalize bad acts or bad people (mooselems) you fall into the political correct pit of bullshit. We are at the point in history where we must do to isslaim what our forefathers did to England: stand up like Free Men and say “No More!”. If it takes blood, so be it. But as an American I will not go quietly into the night.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  39. No decent Muslim would be offended by this

    Simon, you are approaching the “No true Scotsman” fallacy here. A large part of the Muslim population supports this stuff. Pakistan is convicting people of “Blasphemy” every month.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  40. Hoagie, you are entitled to your opinion, but please read up on this man, if you would:

    http://aifdemocracy.org/about/staff/founder-president/

    He represents what we would like to see in the 21st century, I think.

    Simon Jester (083e10)

  41. narciso, what the heck does your post #36 mean? And what does it have to do with moselems? What does Plato have to do with it?

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  42. There would not have been all this ambivalence and pearl clutching.

    And now everything is upside down, truly ass-backwards. We’ve gone from the WTH?! of the past to the WTH?! of today.

    For example, blatant, excessive forms of pollution were accepted or tolerated in the 1950s, while today the innocuousness of CO2 is being promoted as a major poison.

    Casual, blatant, dejure discrimination was taken at face value in the 1950s, while today the “N” word is used aggressively and rowdily in rap music. Moreover, proposed Congressional legislation to ban lynchings was controversial in the early 1960s, while today Trayvon Martins and Michael Browns are given a seal of approval by the White House and Justice Department.

    There was a time when being a WASP was excessively mandatory, while today being a Nidal Hasan is to be tolerated, even embraced.

    In the 1950s and early 1960s, a famous actress was blackballed by Hollywood (yep, showbiz folks, no less, and not a Christian fundamentalist group in the deep south) for having a child out of wedlock, and comedienne Jack Parr on the Tonight Show was censored for saying “water closet.” Today? No one needs to wonder or ask.

    America in 2015 has become a gigantic Potterville.

    Mark (c160ec)

  43. Dr. K., I’m not sure to what you are referring. But I have never, ever claimed that the Wahabists didn’t need to be removed. They do. There are moderate Muslims, and a few are starting to speak out. That’s good news. I am shocked by folks who haven’t read “The Looming Tower” (as I know you have) and yet carry on about this. I understand the rhetoric and anger, I really do. But we need to appreciate and support the moderates. That’s just my opinion.

    Simon Jester (083e10)

  44. Simon Jester you prove my point. Who ever heard of this guy? He’s one man in a sea of a billion haters. And yes Simon, that is my opinion but it is also a factual and truthful observation. Look around man, what other religion preached subjugation or death?

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  45. the Cave was the semblance of the world, that we see in state run media, the reality is something different. a ‘world that is nasty brutish and short’ where the police, the military and intelligence venture forth,’ yet because there is ‘willful blindness’ for the former to prevail, the latter must be derided,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  46. Simon Jester, what you call “moderates” I call enablers. When the mosques begin to toss out radicals, when the marslem nations begin to give aid to non-moselem nations in need, when they stop killing people because they’re gay, or Christian or Jewish or Hindu then we can talk. Until then your attitude is merely a tool for the evil bastar!s. (see, got around that moderation stuff).

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  47. A large part of the Muslim population supports this stuff.

    Several years ago, I recall Patterico expressing quite a bit of leeway towards people who were Muslims. At that time I too mused about the idea that since Islamicism perhaps encouraged people to follow traditional values, such as sanctity of marriage and intolerance of criminality, that, hey, it can’t be all that bad, and it very well may be a crucial force for good. Then I started reading about the history of Islam, but particularly about the history of its founder, Mohammed, and I was stunned.

    I don’t know if ignorance is bliss, but it sure can make one naive and a fool, and in my case I say “mea culpa.”

    Mark (c160ec)

  48. Hoagie, I will bet a hundred bucks you haven’t read anything about moderates, at all. And that’s fine. But please don’t tell me that my eyes are closed.

    Peace, dude. You have strong opinions and we will all need them in the days to come.

    Simon Jester (083e10)

  49. Thank you narciso! That was very deep. Way too deep for a humble businessman. However, I feel somehow more enlightened.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  50. Simon Jester I can’t take that bet because you’d win. I haven’t read anything about moderates because they bore me. Nothing, absolutely nothing in life is “moderate”. Everything is something (is that Plato?) therefore nothing can be moderate. There is right and wrong, not a little right or a little wrong. A moderate is a speed bump on the road of life. Pick a side or step aside!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  51. Simon, we can’t see each other over the internet but Patterico did a poll not too long ago and we, the commenters, are mostly an aged group. Aged as in old people. And old people want a quiet and orderly life, regular bowel movements, and THOSE DAMN KIDS OFF OUR LAWNS!

    nk (dbc370)

  52. we don’t have infinite resources, so we target the most critical elements, like the NYPD’s demographic survey unit that the Times and DeBlasio put out of commission

    narciso (ee1f88)

  53. Yes Simon Jester, I do have strong opinions. They come from 64 years of experience (I turned 64 on Jan 7th). I volunteered to go to Nam when Nam wasn’t popular. You know why? Because as my daddy said: there has been a Conway fighting for America in every war since the Revolution! And I was not going to be the exception. Families like mine built this country and no we’re not tycoons or famous. We’re just regular Americans and proud of it. For generations my family worked, fought, bled and cried for this country. We built businesses, became doctors and even generals. Our wives had babies to continue the American heritage. All to make America strong. An beneath it all we were making America good. America is exceptional. Because of our people.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  54. narciso, why did I wake up with the sneaking suspicion today that the work slowdown by the NYPD is exactly what De Blasio wants? That he wants to reverse the “broken windows” strategy.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Hoagie, there are many people who claim to be Catholic who prominently declare that they favor abortion and pre-marital sex. There are many who will answer on a poll that they are Evangelical Christians but at the same time say there is no objective truth. I know there are “Jews” that do not follow what some would say is “Orthodox” (though I think the “Orthodox” do not regard any other kind). Until I was 20 I likely would have said I was a Christian because I lived in the US and most people in the US are Christian, right?

    I am quite certain that in this regard that “Muslims” are like any other group of humans. I imagine for some to be Islam is to be modest in dress but not veiled, pray multiple times a day, and to think of Jesus as a prophet but not the Son of God. These people have no interest in “killing infidels”, but also like all other humans, are slow to standup and draw heat for opposing those who do. I think these people have little or no problem existing in American pluralistic culture. I see little reason to throw such people out of the US. I imagine that if we were more serious about people living in the US being willing to peacefully coexist with our overall culture many people who are otherwise noncommittal would need to more clearly “declare their alliances” if not allegiances to either stay here or be forced to leave.

    I think the refusal to acknowledge the problems with a significant part of those who consider themselves Muslim comes from the ideological mandate to “treat all cultures equally” (except for traditional Judeo-Christian). The logical outcome of faulty logical assumptions is more faulty logic.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  56. But I have never, ever claimed that the Wahabists didn’t need to be removed. They do. There are moderate Muslims,

    I agree with your first point but have my doubts about your second. Pakistan is a relatively advanced Muslim country. After all they have the Bomb and newspapers. But they not only prosecute blasphemy but kill those released .

    Even HuffPo gets it.

    I just don’t see evidence of the “moderate Muslim” except for one. al Sisi, who is not in favor with Obama, made the moderate speech and it is ignored. He seems to doubt the numbers of moderates.

    I was much impressed when a Muslim limousine driver living in Irvine a few miles north of me, suddenly got the jihadi impulse, left his wife and children at home and drove to LAX and shot up the El Al counter killing a couple of people It would have been more if an unarmed El Al guy had not tackled him. Why ? And which “moderate Muslim” is next ?

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  57. PEW study about Muslims’ views of Sharia around the world. As I expected, few European Muslims want it as the law of the land. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ (The “Russians” are Chechnyans, Dagestanis and such.)

    nk (dbc370)

  58. I’m on my way to the Brick Tavern to join some friends for lunch, but I want to deliver this parting shot. As Mike K pointed out in # 55 above I’d like to make clear for you all. There are as many moderate moslums as there were moderate Nazis. Read that twice if you need to. Let it sink in. Especially you MD in Philly. Then think about how silly that statement is. There are no moderates. You’re either with us or you’re agin’ us.

    Fact: one cannot be a good moslem and a good American! The two are mutually exclusive.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  59. Peace, dude. You have strong opinions and we will all need them in the days to come.
    Simon Jester (083e10) — 1/10/2015 @ 7:50 am

    Well said, Simon. We will, indeed, need the strength of people like Hoagie and Steve57 before these days are done.

    There is right and wrong, not a little right or a little wrong. A moderate is a speed bump on the road of life. Pick a side or step aside!
    Hoagie (4dfb34) — 1/10/2015 @ 7:55 am

    Very true, hoagie. Consider Revelation 3:15-16:

    “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

    – New International version

    felipe (56556d)

  60. Robert Spencer demagoguery.

    nk (dbc370)

  61. Spencer is derided by those who have less information.

    Here is another “demagogue” with examples .

    This is just in America.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  62. Yeah, nk, I prefer the language of love. But it (RSd) has the virtue of not being “moderate.” This is not sarcasm.

    felipe (56556d)

  63. I think the irony of his statement is lost on Dean Baquet.

    But, Mr Copper is not being honest. This has nothing to do with the amount dead. If this was one person dead with a KKK scrawled on their leg, the NY Toms would print it.

    The NY Toms are scared and don’t like to deal with the disgusting double standard they deal in daily. So the NY Toms simply do name calling and try to bury the truth (Like they did with Stalin).

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  64. nk – You’ve used as many strawmen in this argument as Sammy so far. Starting yesterday after I posted a link to this Baquet dialog:

    Re the NYT not printing the cartoons: It would have been dishonest to run the tamer Charlie Hebdo cartoons which are fit to print, and not the filthier ones, such as Mohammed naked in a doggie-style position or the one showing God, Christ and the Holy spirit in an anal threesome, which are too dirty even for the back pages of Hustler.

    Followed by:

    There is another reasonably decent reason not to publish besides what MD said. Between 60 and 70 journalists a year have been getting killed for a few years now. The majority of them in the Middle East, most recently Syria.

    And now:

    In the America which leveled Germany and Japan, cartoons like Charlie Hebdo’s would have carried long prison sentences for pornography. Just saying.

    Did anybody call the Hebdo cartoons published on this site this week pornographic?

    nk – Don’t resist your authoritarian impulses any longer. Go full retard.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. Well, as long CAIR’s lapdogs in the Justice Department do not sue municipalities to force them to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids with fluoridated water.

    But Islamist supremacists and organizations like CAIR called upon their lapdogs at the Department of Justice, who sued Bridgewater. What small town can go up against the U.S. government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle? – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/pamela-geller-breitbart-jihad-in-america-2014.html/#sthash.BxaOfahf.dpuf

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Nice tweets from Ben Shapiro and Erick Erickson this week:

    Leftists: You’re biologically male, but if you say you’re a gal, ok. Leftists: We’ll judge if you’re a real Muslim, no matter what you say.

    — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 8, 2015

    If these activist are not true Muslims as so many say:

    Dear France, wrap their bodies in the carcasses of pigs. —
    Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 9, 2015

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. the pig carcass thing only goes so far

    happyfeet (831175)

  68. nk – The media already submits to censorship in the Middle East. Look at the reporting out of Gaza this past summer. Hamas attempted to control access to virtually everything and anything that was said, hence the slanted coverage.

    Caramels in her mouth Amanapour has admitted to slanting her coverage in the past to gain access.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. you might need wilds boars or really large pigs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. islam sucks hog dick
    look it up its science b*tch
    fatwa on islam

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. Pam Geller has more in common with Simon the Zealot than with Simon of Cyrene.

    felipe (56556d)

  72. al Sisi, who is not in favor with Obama, made the moderate speech and it is ignored. He seems to doubt the numbers of moderates.

    And he should know better than all of us who are on the outside peering in. But why should that be surprising when even an outsider can note that when devotees of Islam say that moderation is necessarily an intrinsic facet of their faith, that runs counter to the ruthless, vengeful nature of its founder, Mohammed. IOW, when you come right down to it, the terrorists on 9-11 or in Paris really can say, “hey, don’t make us out to be such theological outliers of our religion! We’re merely mimicking the wishes and behavior of the great founder of Islam.”

    BTW, I’ve seen various liberals rebut this point by proclaiming, hey, there are some ruthless, vengeful things in the Bible, so what does that say about Christianity?! But the retort to that is such aspects of Scriptures are not a reflection of the teachings and philosophy (and history) of Christ.

    Mark (c160ec)

  73. So Baquet has a reason for not running the cartoons. Whoop-de-do. Although he acts like having a reason is all he needs to justify his decision, he is wrong. Every single time a man does a cowardly act,he will always try to rationalize or justify it but try as he might there is a point where you either have stand on yours principals or betray them. Of course, the New York Times has been a hypocritical propaganda rag for quite some time but Baquet likes to cling to fantasy that it still represents journalistic integrity. Thus when someone like Cooper claearly exposes him and his paper for what it really is, he responds with anger. Note that Baquet alludes to, but does not cite his rational, opting instead to insult and call names. I take that to mean that even he realizes how pathetic it is when contrasted against Cooper’s question of how many dead bodies does it take to make the cartoons qualify as news.

    In the end what you have a paper that considers itself brave when it routinely offends those who will not retaliate violently but suddenly finds itself sensitive to offending someone when it appears that they might. But of course they cannot admit that because then they would have to admit as well that they embraced a false narrative in that Islam is not a violent religion

    Thresherman (07789c)

  74. I used to follow Cooper’s blog, but it was…too much, in many ways.

    BTW any women here feeling micro-agressed today? Yesterday and today both, the hunt for the “wife” of the kosher market killer was described as a “manhunt.” Quelle horreur!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  75. opting instead to insult and call names.

    When people sense that they are guilty as charged or have been made to look really foolish — particularly due in part to their own actions — they often turn to good ol’ ad hominem-ism.

    Mark (c160ec)

  76. I know what you mean, Patricia. At least she was not described as African-American.

    felipe (56556d)

  77. Cherchez la femme?

    nk (dbc370)

  78. Interesting link, elissa. Thank you.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  79. Hoagie, I don’t know if you disagree with me or are missing my point.

    There are many people who are NOT “good Muslims” in the opinion of some, but who nonetheless consider themselves “Muslims”, somewhat analogous to those who consider themselves “good Catholics” but feel free to have premarital sex and abortions. I have met people who considered themselves “Christian” because they were from Syria and not “Muslim”, but whose actual belief system and lifestyle were not at all consistent with any semblance of Christian orthodoxy. I only imagine there are those from Syria or Egypt who consider themselves “Muslim” because they are not eastern orthodox or Coptic Christians. Those are the people who I think are just fine to be happy living in the US.
    Perhaps the commitment to sharia law is a good first round test. I agree that anybody who believes that sharia law should be the political structure that governs any jurisdiction in the US has a belief incompatible with being anything but a brief visitor to the country, even if they profess no intent to commit violence.

    I think there were likely many people in Germany, including some that at some time wore a Nazi uniform of some type, who would have loved to be in England or elsewhere and would have happily condemned Nazism. I think there is a big gap between having the courage to resist and be martyred and those who eagerly engaged in Nazism or any other form of oppression. I imagine there even would be people who are culpable for crimes and deserve punishment for aiding and abetting that given the chance in the US or Britain would have never considered being pro-Nazi.

    I do not know the percentage of such people who consider themselves “Muslim”, who may turn the other way at Christian persecution in Pakistan or elsewhere, but here in the US are happy NOT to have sharia law and have no animosity to non-Muslims.

    Do you not believe that such people exist? or that if they exist you would not call them Muslim but “non-Christian Arabs, or “non-Christian Persians”, etc? or would you say that they are “bad Muslims”? or “bad Muslims” with a chance of becoming “good Muslims” and not to be trusted?

    I have a number of friends who have been missionaries in Muslim countries. I know that Islam that adheres to the writings is incompatible with US life, but I also believe that there are many people who may call themselves “Muslim” that have no interest in living under strict sharia law, let alone impose it on others.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  80. with these islamists
    the beginning was The End
    of everything

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. Clearly the world needs more assholes.

    Where do I sign up?

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  82. The issue of support fro terrorism among Muslims has been polled and the results are not promising. The left makes much of the fact that one guy has spoken out .

    They make a big deal out of this: Al-Azhar: “Islam Denounces Any Violence.”

    Al-Azar is the place where al-Sisi made his speech. Why did he think it needed to be made and why there ?

    Maybe he knows something that Media Matters doesn’t.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  83. charlie hebdo charlie hebdo

    bored now

    president food stamp’s third whirl justice department thinks us army general david “love me some on-the-side chippie” belongs in prison?

    that’s kind of interesting

    happyfeet (831175)

  84. general betrayus —–> prison

    countless gitmo terror monkeys —–> disneyland!

    happyfeet (831175)

  85. Clearly not publish cartoons to avoid reporters getting killed is the correct response by many in our hive mind leftist media, because killing reporters demonstrates that Islam is a peaceful religion and anybody who claims otherwise is a hopeless Islamophobe.

    Here Brigitte Gabriel brings the boomstick to another useful idiot spouting off about mostly peaceful Muslims:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. The problem with radical Islam is that it’s followers assume it’s the one true unchanging faith. And, it’s true the Koran absolutely does in fact support just such an extreme jihadi ideology. It’s the moderate Muslims who’ve strayed from the violent provisions of their religion and accepted a bastardized version of the faith, a more passive live-and-let-live version, one watered down by contact with more civilized cultures, Reformed Islam if you will.

    The way to defeat the intolerant bloodthirsty fundamentalists is to recognize Reformed Islam as the only legitimate expression of Allah’s grand vision in this time and place. It’s still important to acknowledge the older, outdated, version as appropriate for the time and conditions in which it was first revealed. But it’s more important to condemn today’s jihadi troglodytes and their dogmatic attempts to impose yesterday’s rigid strictures in the modern world they hate but thoroughly misunderstand. Their ignorance and hatred bring embarrassment and insult to Muslims worldwide.

    Christians are not so foolish as to insist that all men live according to the Old Testament, even though it says that God will have no other gods before him. No matter how dogmatic the founding principles of any particular religion might be, religions naturally grow and evolve over time. Islam can be no different. Growing pains are both normal and terrible, long periods of internal conflict and even organized mass murder too often accompany the process of putting aside the destructive hatreds of the past and learning to live among others who have every right to follow their own stars.

    ropelight (21d82c)

  87. Any chance putting Petraeus under threat of imprisonment and the possibility/necessity of a presidential pardon is upping the ante of the power play to keep him quiet?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  88. #78

    I think I signed up a long time ago… there is an office for the sign up in everyones head.
    My branch doesn’t issue an AK47 to go with that like some of the muslim offices seem to do.

    The office for self preservation has been ringing a bell for a while and says I may be overdue for a visit.

    steveg (794291)

  89. 83. The problem with radical Islam is that …

    ropelight (21d82c) — 1/10/2015 @ 11:23 am

    There is NO problem with radical Islam.

    carlitos tells us there’s violence in the Old Testament.

    Leviticus plays soccer with Muslims who aren’t out to kill him.

    Obama has staked his presidency on defending the faith.

    Clearly the fault is ours. Islam is perfect, we are not. I know. Let’s have Obama make another speech before the general assembly of the UN to apologize for America’s existence. And Furgeson.

    That’s what’s missing; we aren’t talking about Furgerson enough. Racists.

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  90. Mike K (at #54) asks, “And which “moderate Muslim” is next ?”

    To quote the Bard, “Aye, there’s the rub”:

    The thing about “peaceful”, “moderate” Muslims is: THEY (themselves, individually) may be all for freedom of religion, speech, etc; THEY may be willing to abide by Western secular law; THEY may be willing to acculturate to our language, customs, mores, holidays, festivals, secular education, and all-that-is-American (or, “Western”, or “Liberal” in the old sense) – – –

    BUT…
    There is no, repeat, *NO* guarantee that their children and grandchildren will also become Americanized/ Westernized. As it turns out, MOST of the “homegrown jihadis” we read about have come from well-to-do immigrant families who SEEM to have assimilated well. But when their offspring go looking for “meaning” in their lives, they quite often decide to seek it in the Koran.

    And since the literal words “Kill the Unbeliever wherever you find him” (etc, etc, etc) are right there in The Holy Book (which Muslims take to be “Allah’s Eternally Perfect Plan for Mankind”, so no part of it can EVER be modified or criticized or re-interpreted, it can only be Submitted to) the next generation of True Believers will start doing the same damn thing all over again.

    It might be useful to consider jihad a virus that is never eradicated, although it may sometimes skip a generation in its expression. Over 14 centuries, it has NOT stopped erupting and infecting the world. It works to the benefit of Islam-as-a-whole, so although SOME Muslims may express a distaste for it, they benefit from the expansion of the Ummah just as much as the “radicals”/ “fundamentalists” do. (I would imagine if you ask the “moderate, peaceful” Muslims whether Islam is destined to take over the world, and whether there should and will be a Universal Caliphate ruling over every nation and every soul on earth, they would happily answer “Yes”.)

    I conclude that the ***ONLY*** place for Islam and its believers (even the “peaceful” and “moderate” ones) is somewhere FAR -–VERY *VERY* FAR–- AWAY from the First World a/k/a Western Civilization.

    Though I admit I have NO idea how we’re supposed to do that, since we are a just and humane people, grounded in Judeo-Christian morality, etc.

    But at some point, the “not a suicide pact” thing has GOT to kick in, or else Western Civ falls and we’re back in the Dark Ages.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (b4f083)

  91. Ferguson

    Whatevs

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  92. Clearly the world needs more assholes.

    Where do I sign up?

    Indeed. Far better to be an asshole in these times than to be a coward.

    JVW (60ca93)

  93. Any chance putting Petraeus under threat of imprisonment and the possibility/necessity of a presidential pardon is upping the ante of the power play to keep him quiet?

    I wondered about that too. How many Senators, Congressmen, aides, other flag officers, etc. let slip classified information during pillow talk, and how many of them are ever prosecuted? Something about this just seems off-kilter, especially in an administration that doesn’t seem to care much about effective management of the Middle East.

    JVW (60ca93)

  94. ropelight@83
    There are plenty of times I do not agree with you, but this time I agree 100%.

    kishnevi (a5d1b9)

  95. Je suis ass****?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  96. Heads up. Don’t kneel.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. I don’t see the call being anywhere near close, if you consider yourself a USAian newspaper. Devote the entire lower half of the front page to them; for the Sunday, Daryl Cagle’s two collections Draw Mohammed and Charlie Hebdon Terror Attack, a quarter of a page to each. http://www.cagle.com/

    I’m not sure what the NYT is anymore. Neither fish nor foul, but full of stink.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  98. Delicious – A few disagreements in the Al Jazeera newsrooms over how to cover the Hebdo massacre.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-emails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  99. Mollie Hemingway destroys Dean Baquet at The Federalist. Part of her post:

    I thought of that when I found this prescient letter to the editor in the New York Times from Aaron Shmulewitz in mid-December:

    I agree wholeheartedly with your editorial that Sony’s decision not to release “The Interview” constituted “capitulation,” “will establish a dangerous precedent that could further embolden rogue regimes and criminals” and “sends a signal to Mr. Kim and other criminals that they can succeed in extortion if they are creative and devious enough.”

    You’re absolutely right that an organization that deals in ideas should not allow itself to be cowed by threats over an unpopular expression of them.

    So when can we expect The New York Times to publish the Danish cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that you chose not to, several years ago?

    RTWT

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/stop-lying-media-are-censoring-charlie-hebdo-out-of-fear-of-islam/

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. The names of the four victims in Vincennes have been released..
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/victims-of-terror-attack-in-paris-kosher-market-named/
    Hattab and Saada are names that suggest their families were among the many Jews forced out of the former French North Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. IOW, they came from the same area as their killer.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  101. but I also believe that there are many people who may call themselves “Muslim” that have no interest in living under strict sharia law,

    The only Muslims who I won’t flinch at are the ones who are also totally ignorant of the history of Mohammed. Or who’ll be as ignorant as, for example, a non-Muslim like George W Bush, who proclaimed right after 9-11 that Islam was a “religion of peach.” It would be interesting to know exactly how many of the faithful are as similarly oblivious to the details.

    Mark (c160ec)

  102. Good readin’, daley!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. I also have questions about the Petraeus story. He supported the Administration since the Bengazhi attack. Is this designed to keep him quiet for two more years?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  104. What a tragedy, kishnevi.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  105. What we need around here is more victim blaming and more empathy for the activists who had trouble assimilating into French society.

    Hop to it people!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  106. Hoagie, hebdo is short for hebdomadaire which means weekly in French. The mag is simply Charlie Weekly.

    Gazzer (c44509)

  107. The skirts those cartoonists were wearing were too short.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  108. A_Nonny_Mouse (b4f083) — 1/10/2015 @ 11:59 am

    That is a worthwhile point to raise. I guess it might be worthwhile to get some detailed info on how widespread this is and if there are things that can be done about it, including not letting people go to training camps overseas and letting them come back.

    I’m thinking though how much of this could be prevented if we do not allow pro-sharia mosques to operate. I mean to advocate for sharia here in the US is in one way to advocate for the overthrow of the US government, perhaps in a tangible and legally significant way.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  109. I would love to see the French marching today throughout the country carry placards of the cartoon rather than the Charlie one. That would be a serious stand made in mass numbers.

    Dana (114255)

  110. The way to defeat the intolerant bloodthirsty fundamentalists is to recognize Reformed Islam as the only legitimate expression of Allah’s grand vision in this time and place.

    Moderate clerics have been replaced in mosques in the US by far more radicals. Some of thesis funded by our friends the Saudis but some is spontaneous in the congregation.

    The Aussies are worried.

    They simply couldn’t be fanatics without the tacit approval and acknowledgement of the much greater number of the non-fanatical. The head couldn’t live without the body. How do I know all of this? I was a fanatic in my youthful days, suffering serious funk when Liverpool lost and exhilaration when they won.

    We have to start coming to terms with the painful fact that extremism does not exist in a vacuum. Rabble-rousers are successful only when there are sufficient numbers willing to be roused. Even then a mob will quickly run out of steam if people are booing and/or making fun on the sidelines. That is why Sir Oswald Mosley flunked in England while Herr Hitler swept all before him in Germany.

    This is not the whole story. I remember reading about a mosque where a moderate imam was replaced by a fire greater.

    More about this from Oz.

    So did you hear about the mass demo of Muslims in Sydney worried about Islamic extremism? Did you catch the big turnout of Muslims in Paris denouncing jihad? Did you notice the tens of thousands of Muslims marching in London to stand against Islamic bloodshed and violence in Iraq? Did you read about the anti-jihad protests by concerned Muslims in Amsterdam?

    Neither did I.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  111. And so the New York Times continues its headlong march towards cultural irrelevance.

    C. S. P. Schofield (848299)

  112. i’m just grateful that, given the strict gun control we have here in #Failifornia, i don’t have to worry about any jihadis running around Lost Angels with AK-47s…

    redc1c4 (34e91b)

  113. Interesting to read the wishy-washiness that went into Baquet’s decision-making. Here is NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan’s first-hand discussion with Baquet. In part:

    Mr. Baquet told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

    He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

    “I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

    Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so. “We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult.”

    “At what point does news value override our standards?” Mr. Baquet asked. “You would have to show the most incendiary images” from the newspaper; and that was something he deemed unacceptable.

    I asked Mr. Baquet about a different approach — something much more moderate, along the lines of what the Post’s Op-Ed page did in print.

    “Something like that is probably so compromised as to become meaningless,” he responded, though he was speaking generally, not of The Post’s decision.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  114. From daleyrocks’ link about Al Jazeera above:

    His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

    Hours later, U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman sent an email quoting a paragraph from a New York Times’ January 7 column by Ross Douthat. The op-ed argued that cartoons like the ones that drove the radical Islamists to murder must be published, “because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

    That precipitated an angry backlash from the network’s Qatar-based correspondents, revealing in the process a deep cultural rift at a network once accused of overt anti-Western bias.

    “I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings because as I said in 1.5 billion there will remain some fools who don’t abide by the laws or know about free speech.” [sic]

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-emails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support

    It would seem that as a result of this tragedy in France influential Al Jazeera had a golden moment here to make a real difference, and to both reach and represent the billions of “moderate” muslims we hear about. But they did not. And I think that means something to which the world should pay attention.

    elissa (2c1d12)

  115. So did you hear about the mass demo of Muslims in Sydney worried about Islamic extremism? Did you catch the big turnout of Muslims in Paris denouncing jihad? Did you notice the tens of thousands of Muslims marching in London to stand against Islamic bloodshed and violence in Iraq? Did you read about the anti-jihad protests by concerned Muslims in Amsterdam?

    Neither did I.

    That’s all I can say about the Moderate Muslims. STOP immigration of Muslims !

    But they won’t.

    Like most other refugees resettled in the United States, they will get help from the International Organization for Migration with medical exams and transportation to the United States. Once they arrive, networks of resettlement agencies, charities, churches, civic organizations and local volunteers will welcome them. These groups work in 180 communities across the country and make sure refugees have homes, furniture, clothes, English classes, job training, health care and help enrolling their children in school. They are now preparing key contacts in American communities to welcome Syrians.

    Like CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, but I repeat myself.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  116. Will the real Muslim Martin Luther please stand up?

    ropelight (21d82c)

  117. Keep in mind that the mentality leading to the following type of dark-ages activity is emanating from a supposed non-terrorist part of the world of Islam. Simply put, it’s merely a small leap from what the official hierarchy carries out in Saudi Arabia to what secretive terrorists do when activating their own form of punishment.

    And nary a peep from all the liberals that dominate the MSM.

    bbc.com, January 9, 2015: A Saudi Arabian blogger has been publicly flogged after being convicted of cybercrime and insulting Islam, reports say. Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, was flogged 50 times. The flogging will be carried out weekly, campaigners say.

    Mr Badawi, the co-founder of a now banned website called the Liberal Saudi Network, was arrested in 2012. Rights groups condemned his conviction and the US appealed for clemency. On Thursday state department spokeswoman Jen Psaki urged the Saudi authorities to “cancel this brutal punishment” and to review his case.

    In addition to his sentence, Mr Badawi was ordered to pay a fine of 1 million riyals ($266,000; £175,000). In 2013 he was cleared of apostasy, which could have carried a death sentence.

    Mark (c160ec)

  118. 114.
    Not dark ages, but 19th century, as many a slave, sailor, and tsarist prisoner could attest.

    kishnevi (294553)

  119. 111.
    Elissa, you seem to be implying that the proper course of action is to keep repeating the original insult, which was intended purely to insult; that no one has the right to be insulted by it*, and that Muslims who do not repeat the insult are not “moderate”. In other words, that they must participate in blaspheming their own religion (the Qataris at least must be Muslim).
    That is like saying the Catholic League, to prove its free dpeech bona fides, must put Serrano’s P— Christ on its websites, or that I must go see that recent Exodus movie (which beyond the vast liberties it takes with the Biblical text, commits outright sacrilege by having G-d appear in human form) to prove my bona fides.
    Everyone in that alJazeera exchange was agreed on the truly important thing, that violence is never acceptable. There is a difference between defending an insult and defending the right to insult. The Qatari journalists understand that. Do you?

    kishnevi (294553)

  120. * in 116 ….because that is the mirror image of the Leftist idea that everyone has the right to be not offended.

    kishnevi (a5d1b9)

  121. Hey! No comparisons with other religions!

    Leviticus (c1d138)

  122. I don’t think I’m implying that Kish. But I just think that the guy implying that he knows 1.5 billion people were insulted by a drawing is pretty over the top. YMMV.

    elissa (2c1d12)

  123. new post hello

    dead french wamkers is stale

    happyfeet (831175)

  124. *wankers* i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  125. you know the whole point about mileage is that is varies

    if it were a constant it wouldn’t be a thang

    happyfeet (831175)

  126. for christ’s sake i mean *wankers*

    happyfeet (831175)

  127. hello failmerica

    what part of *wankers* do you not understand?

    happyfeet (831175)

  128. Elissa, he is after all one of those 1.5 billion, so he probably would know…but since I read you wrong, I withdraw tge objection.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  129. Adding to my comment @4:43–. They did not need to necessarily “participate” in the sense you suggest, Kishnevi. Do you consider Al Jazeera a “religious” newspaper/channel, BTW? Or is Al Jazeera a newspaper/channel with the accent on news? It would seem that Al Jazeera had other ways of dealing with and exploring the complexity of the issue in words, via essays or possibly even in developing their own original cartoons. Has Al Jazeera editorialized on the brutality of the western journalists’ beheadings or the myriad Boko Haram obscenities etc? Like I said before, Al Jazeera clearly wants to be influential. Paris was their moment to shine the light on the Muslim world and to the Muslim world in a new way. They kind of went pfffft and whiffed the ball as far as I am concerned.

    elissa (2c1d12)

  130. they both pffft and whiffed?

    yeah

    they failed

    happyfeet (831175)

  131. We can all denounce the terrorism at the grocery (or deli). Those people were not only innocent, they were also the victims of Charlie Hebdo’s antisemitic cartoons. Victimized twice.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. new post hello

    Patience, happyfeet. There are some in the works.

    JVW (60ca93)

  133. Elissa, they seem to be doing that, albeit they can not keep complaining about Israel and “us poor Muslims” in doing so.
    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-deadmuslimjournalistsfreedomofspeech.html

    kishnevi (a5d1b9)

  134. Our Windy City barrister wrote:

    I mean, heck, if we could not beat Saddam Hussein, we should all put on burkas. And shave our legs and wear frilly lace panties underneath.

    And what makes you think that Islamic women either shave their legs or wear frilly lace panties under their burkhas?

    The sarcastic Dana (1b79fa)

  135. i’m a count to ten

    s

    l

    o

    w

    l

    y

    happyfeet (831175)

  136. I don’t think the circulation of Charlie Hebdo is 1.5 billion or that the purpose of the cartoons was merely to insult Muslims. Plus I don’t think the people who were killed at the grocery or deli were victims of Charlie Hebdo rather than the bug nucking futz intolerant fanatics who held them hostage.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. And what makes you think that Islamic women either shave their legs or wear frilly lace panties under their burkhas?

    No clue. I was talking about our Bradley Manning-ised country.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. Our Philadelphia physician wrote:

    Hoagie, I don’t think all Muslims would like to kill us infidels, nor even like it when others do.

    When the Reverend Fred Phelps was carrying on with his protests — and remember: he never actually killed anyone — other Christians quickly, loudly and persistently condemned his “church” and himself. There was never any doubt that the vast majority of Christians wanted nothing to do with the Phelps clan.

    Yet, from the Muslim community, we hear a few condemnations, most of which I would characterize as half-hearted, but mostly silence. The vast majority of Muslims, both in the United States and around the world, are not terrorists, but they very much enable those few who are.

    Due to our freedom of religion, which I very strongly support, we cannot take any government action against people for being Muslim; that’s a danger we must accept as part of the price of freedom. But private individuals need not be welcoming or tolerant of Muslims.

    The coldly realistic Dana (1b79fa)

  139. There were a couple of interesting comments attached to that post weren’t there, Kish? Thanks for the link.

    elissa (2c1d12)

  140. I’m pretty sure I wrote “victims of Charlie Hebdo’s antisemitic cartoons”. You can find them here, alongside the anti-Muslim and anti-Christian cartoons. https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+hebdo&biw=1025&bih=457&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=j9SxVN-SPJCPyASk64HIBw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Charlie Hebdo’s circulation has been about 60,000. The 1.5 billion is the usual number of Moslems. (And remember that if 10% of them support jihad..the usual number given..that means 1.35 billion of them do not.) But the whole point of Charlie Hebdo was to offend and insult. Anti Catholic cartoons that were meant to insult and offend Catholics, antiMuslim cartoons meant to insult and offend Muslims. Etc.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  142. Mr Jester wrote:

    Hoagie, I will bet a hundred bucks you haven’t read anything about moderates, at all. And that’s fine. But please don’t tell me that my eyes are closed.

    The supposedly moderate Muslims are the ones ISIS kills when they get their hands on them. To the Islamists, a “moderate” Muslim is little different from an apostate.

    But the problem isn’t what ISIS thinks; the problem is that the moderate Muslims are the enablers of the radicals. The moderates are the ones who don’t report the radicals’ activities before the rads start shooting people, the moderates are the ones who hide the rads in their communities, the ones who help support them physically and financially.

    Talking about moderate Muslims, until those supposed moderates take action themselves against the Islamists, is like talking about all of those good Germans, the ones who weren’t Nazis and didn’t particularly like Adolf Hitler, but still grew food and built weapons for the Wehrmacht.

    The historian Dana (1b79fa)

  143. if tomorrow it happens that another newsroom of propaganda sluts has been liquidated by these or that terrorists

    i’m still going grocery shopping

    if only cause i need to move my car

    yeah

    it’s a thing

    happyfeet (831175)

  144. Ya’ll keep bringing up the Nazis while spewing hatred against an entire religious group. Does the [I don’t know what to call it] escape you?

    nk (dbc370)

  145. you know i’m only here in chicago cause of my muslim friend M

    he fought for me to get this job

    he fought really hard actually

    and so i bought him the tastiest steak in chicago

    which is aged a ghastly number of days – i think it’s older than ebola

    but none of our sides had any bacons

    i think we were limited to mashered up tatos and roasted vegetables

    and while i had two manhattans (with some fun n special notes of vanilla) he just had water

    but at the end we had the red velvet cake in a can

    which, i ate more of, to be honest

    he’s thinner than me cause of he makes better choice

    is what i suspect

    but that’s no call to wrap his still-warm corpse in the carcass of a pig i don’t think

    i mean

    are we gonna vote on this?

    happyfeet (831175)

  146. *choices* i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  147. I would have been born in Chicago, unless I had not been born at all, if my grandfather had not left it in 1912 and gone to Greece to kick 3 million Muslims out of it. (He kept some in Western Greece kind of like we keep Indians in the Nations in Oklahoma.) I hope your friend will let bygones be bygones if we ever meet.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. Ya’ll keep bringing up the Nazis while spewing hatred against an entire religious group. Does the [I don’t know what to call it] escape you?

    By the same token, nk, you don’t sense you’re creeping towards the mindset where if a woman is dressed up in a really sexy manner, and she is raped, she kind of, sort of deserved it? In the case of Charlie Hedbo’s publications, think of their cartoons as sort of a slinky, peek-a-boo negligee.

    Moreover, if a religion is founded by a bloodthirsty, vengeance-seeking, pro-assassination leader, and the people following that religion are fully aware of that facet of their religion’s history, doesn’t that say something about not just segments of the people in that group, but that entire group in general?

    Mark (c160ec)

  149. you don’t sense you’re creeping towards the mindset where if a woman is dressed up in a really sexy manner, and she is raped, she kind of, sort of deserved it?

    Nope. More like “the Hitler of my Stalin is not my Churchill”. The Charlie Hedbo people I would not piss on when they were alive. I won’t shed crocodile tears for them now that they’re dead. The policemen, the janitor, and the innocent people at the grocery I do very much feel sorry for.

    nk (dbc370)

  150. he’s super-sweet i swear to allah

    plus his daughter is the cutest freaking thing ever

    so let’s just focus on the kooky muslims not the real-life ones

    happyfeet (831175)

  151. That is like saying the Catholic League, to prove its free speech bona fides, must put Serrano’s P— Christ on its websites, or that I must go see that recent Exodus movie (which beyond the vast liberties it takes with the Biblical text, commits outright sacrilege by having G-d appear in human form) to prove my bona fides.

    Can you identify which Christians are killing people due to these offenses?

    The problem with people who kill people over speech is that it makes it mighty convenient to claim you’re not engaging in the offensive speech because, well, you just have some other reason not to.

    If nobody is threatening to kill anyone, the “bad taste” argument carries more credibility.

    And if people are threatening to kill people over speech, those who defend enlightened liberty are more likely to publish that speech, as a statement of its own, even if they might not absent the threat. Because they consider the need to stand up to the threat to be more important than whether the speech is always in the best of taste.

    If Christians started killing people over “Piss Christ” I would probably publish the image here. The NYT would probably remove it — even though right now, they have it on their Web site.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  152. I have Muslim in-laws and a lot of Muslim family friends, happyfeet. And don’t tell anybody, but I even have a Jewish doctor, the one who operated on my eye.

    nk (dbc370)

  153. i think my orthodontist was jewish, back in LA

    i miss her so much

    oh christ i need a tissue

    happyfeet (831175)

  154. i have two in-laws

    one has white supremacist tattoos he tries to remember to cover

    my sis wants to pay him 20K out of her 401K to go away

    i told her that she’ll end up with *at least* an 8K tax liability out of that transaction

    she told me she can’t talk right now cause her pet chinchilla died

    the other in-law is a minnesota farm girl who teaches physics

    she likes to tell physics jokes

    sometimes i kind of chuckle

    the reality of minnesota is something i’ve yet to really really understand

    happyfeet (831175)

  155. No, not necessarily. There’s an IRS rule for dividing up retirement accounts due to divorce. She should talk to her tax accountant, and I’m surprised her divorce lawyer hasn’t told her.

    nk (dbc370)

  156. “But the whole point of Charlie Hebdo was to offend and insult. Anti Catholic cartoons that were meant to insult and offend Catholics, antiMuslim cartoons meant to insult and offend Muslims.”

    kishnevi – I disagree. I think the whole point of the cartoons was to mock religion and I understand Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity mocker of religions. I don’t think their target market was Muslims just as I don’t think the anti-semitic cartoon published in Iran are designed to offend Jews because that is not their primary audience.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  157. she’s making a point of not listening to her divorce lawyer

    so I’m making a point of telling her she’s tarded

    happyfeet (831175)

  158. Mr. daley come Monday if you’re still yammering about Charlie effing Hebdo I’m a say a prayer for you

    happyfeet (831175)

  159. “I’m pretty sure I wrote “victims of Charlie Hebdo’s antisemitic cartoons”.”

    nk – I saw what you wrote and your logic is the same as the left used in claiming Sarah Palin’s targeting imagery caused Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Gabby Giffords. Good luck with that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  160. omg

    what happened to Gabby????

    nobody tells me anything

    if Sarah Palin was involved I’ll never forgive her

    NEVER

    happyfeet (831175)

  161. daley, that’s a common mis-conception. Palin used a surveyor’s mark. It wasn’t a target at all.

    Gazzer (c44509)

  162. Oh, I see. No, I meant the simple fact of the antisemitism of the cartoons made the Jews victims of Cahrlie Hebdo’s own antisemitism. Not that the cartoons aroused antisemitism in the terrorists. That would be silly — I know Arabs don’t need French pornographers to make them hate Jews.

    nk (dbc370)

  163. who has time for facts when you’re slandering Sarah Palin?

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  164. jews are effing awesome

    they’re like new zealanders

    happyfeet (831175)

  165. Mr. feets – You’re still on this thread yammering so Ima pray for you too.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  166. “Not that the cartoons aroused antisemitism in the terrorists. That would be silly — I know Arabs don’t need French pornographers to make them hate Jews.”

    nk – Exactly, just another straw man you’ve thrown onto the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  167. You created the straw man because that’s the way you wanted to interpret my comment. Now, you’ve had your clarification so quit the nagging.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. I have the impression (perhaps an incorrect one) that Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity mocker of anyone who happened to cross their line of vision. They mocked far more than than religion, rather like the 12 year old wise guy who mocked everyone and everything.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  169. it keeps me off the streets Mr. daley

    god bless america

    happyfeet (831175)

  170. Happyfeet — as a native Minnesnowtan, I can try to explain some of our strange customs, if you ask. Some of them I’m not aware of, like the fish not noticing the water he swims in.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  171. btw this is a C. Hebdo thread

    moveon.org shall we

    dead french cartoonists still dead, yes?

    text me if this changes

    happyfeet (831175)

  172. Mr. htom I’m curious about how the cities/villages own the liquor stores there

    is that everywhere or is that a county thing?

    does minnesota have counties?

    happyfeet (831175)

  173. And if people are threatening to kill people over speech, those who defend enlightened liberty are more likely to publish that speech, as a statement of its own, even if they might not absent the threat. Because they consider the need to stand up to the threat to be more important than whether the speech is always in the best of taste.

    I disagree. You would be right to republish it, if you did not think the image was offensive. (BTW, I think the most publicized images, of Mohammed weeping over “those jackasses”, of the turbaned man threatening 100 lashes, and the Muslim cleric engaging in a kiss with a cartoonist, ought to offend no one. But there are others that are not so innocent.) But if you think the image is offensive, then you are purposely offending people for the sake of offending them. And in the case of Charlie Hebdo, not only were most of the images offensive and insulting, but they were obscene.

    kishnevi – I disagree. I think the whole point of the cartoons was to mock religion and I understand Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity mocker of religions. I don’t think their target market was Muslims just as I don’t think the anti-semitic cartoon published in Iran are designed to offend Jews because that is not their primary audience.

    Well, the antiSemitic cartoons in Charlie Hebdo certainly offended and insulted me. Just because they were murdered by terrorists does not make the staff of CH into saints.

    kishnevi (4cea7c)

  174. Talking about moderate Muslims, until those supposed moderates take action themselves against the Islamists, is like talking about all of those good Germans, the ones who weren’t Nazis and didn’t particularly like Adolf Hitler, but still grew food and built weapons for the Wehrmacht.
    The historian Dana (1b79fa) — 1/10/2015 @ 5:47 pm

    I don’t know if you saw what I wrote about this previously. I imagine there were many Germans who grew food and worked in factories for the Nazis who would have preferred to live elsewhere and would not have been Nazi sympathizers at all.

    I do not glibly ask people to make martyrs of themselves unless I am certain I would make the heroic act myself. If the US would get serious about acting against jihadists I would expect “Muslims we can trust” to stand up with us, and those that don’t would be suspect.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  175. i disregarded precisely 23.8 offensive and/or potentially offensive cartoons today

    but tomorrow is another day

    happyfeet (831175)

  176. Q: Two Muslims jump off the top of a very tall building. Which one his the ground first?

    A: Who gives a f*ck?

    Harold A. Halal (2601c0)

  177. Moreover, if a religion is founded by a bloodthirsty, vengeance-seeking, pro-assassination leader, and the people following that religion are fully aware of that facet of their religion’s history, doesn’t that say something about not just segments of the people in that group, but that entire group in general?

    That does not mean the people following that religion are in favor of bloodthirsty, vengeance seeking, assassination, etc.
    No more than followers of another religion think the ideal life is to wander around in groups headed by an itinerant anti establishment apopcalyptic preacher, living off donations, being harrassed by the authorities, and performing faith healings along the way.

    BTW, did you ever read Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword? This review touches some of the main points. While Hollad’s theory did not entirely convince me, it is actually much stronger than the review makes it seem to be.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/may/04/in-shadow-of-sword-tom-holland

    kishnevi (4cea7c)

  178. The Charlie Hedbo people I would not piss on when they were alive. I won’t shed crocodile tears for them now that they’re dead.

    If you feel the same way about Muslims who end up being collateral damage in the war on Islamic fanatics/terrorists — such as the folks in Palestine who feel warmly towards the “activists” who use their town’s schools as camouflage, but are themselves not personally involved in the struggle — then that will be a good consistency.

    Mark (c160ec)

  179. A Muslim woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: “That’s the ugliest baby that I’ve ever seen. Ugh!”

    The woman goes to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: “The driver just insulted me!”

    The man says: “You go right up there and tell him off – go ahead, I’ll hold your monkey for you.”

    Harold A. Halal (2601c0)

  180. That does not mean the people following that religion are in favor of bloodthirsty, vengeance seeking, assassination, etc. No more than followers of another religion think the ideal life is to wander around in groups headed by an itinerant anti establishment apopcalyptic preacher,

    Damn, kishnevi, that’s quite a good exercise in moral equivalency. Congratulations.

    Mark (c160ec)

  181. The policemen and the janitor were collateral damage. I feel sorry for them. The people at the grocery were intentional targets of terrorism. I feel sorry for them. The Palestinian civilians whom Hamas hides behind are collateral damage. I feel sorry for them. The Israeli schoolchildren whose schoolbuses suicide bombers blow up are intentional targets of terrorism. I feel sorry for them. You have a tendency to conflate, Mark.

    nk (dbc370)

  182. ******************************
    A Catholic nun was sitting on a train opposite a Muslim man wearing a turban, who was eating fresh shrimp.

    Every time he ate one, he spat the tail in her direction, requiring her to deflect it.

    He finished the box and threw it out the window.

    Seeing this, she had enough, and pulled the Emergency Cord.

    The Muslim looked at her and said, “You’ll get fined $250 for doing that, you stupid, Infidel… worthless Catholic b*tch.”

    She laughed and said, “When I cry out rape and they smell your fingers, you’ll get 10 years, you dimwitted camel-f*cker!”

    Harold A. Halal (2601c0)

  183. “Just because they were murdered by terrorists does not make the staff of CH into saints.”

    kishnevi – Add that statement to the list of strawmen in the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  184. Mark, it’s not moral equivalency, it’s pointing out the fallacy of the original comment. Christians obviously don’t follow the actual lifestyle of Jesus, yet hold him to be human perfection. So why would you expect Muslims not to do the same, even if they adhere to the belief that Mohammed is human perfection?

    kishnevi (4cea7c)

  185. sometimes, about muslims, y’all are not always really very nice

    but i still like you anyways

    happyfeet (831175)

  186. The Palestinian civilians whom Hamas hides behind are collateral damage. I feel sorry for them.

    And if they cheer on the terrorists in their midst, is your sorrow actually crocodile tears? It should be.

    So why would you expect Muslims not to do the same

    So Christians who don’t expect to live the life of a person wandering around in the desert, as Christ did, is somehow analogous to Muslims who don’t expect to be bloodthirsty, vengeful and ruthless, as Mohamed was? If you can’t see the difference between the two, kishnevi, I’m reminded of the quip: And other than THAT, Mrs Kennedy, how was Dallas?”

    Mark (c160ec)

  187. My feelings for them are not relevant, Mark. What’s relevant is that the Israeli forces do not intentionally target them, but it’s Hamas who puts them in harm’s way.

    nk (dbc370)

  188. That’s not all the New York Times didn’t publish:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/nyregion/a-statue-of-muhammad-on-a-new-york-courthouse-taken-down-years-ago.html?&_r=1

    “They probably didn’t know he was there,” George T. Campbell, the chief clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department, said in 1955, when the statue was finally removed out of deference to Muslims, to whom depictions of the prophet are an affront.

    (For the same reason, The New York Times has chosen not to publish photographs of the statue with this article.)

    It is possible it might be in the archives, in one of the articles referenced that I didn’t check.

    There’s also a statue of Mohammed on the United States Supreme Court building, which has NOT been taken down. (The one in New York was removed after complaints by Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan.)

    Here’s something about it from Mental Floss in 2008, which has a picture, but crops off the head. This statue also has a sword or scimitar.

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/17802/how-mohammad-statue-ended-supreme-court

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  189. But, nk, people cheering on ruthless terrorists are no better (and some will say are actually worse) than cartoonists mocking religion at Charlie Hedbo.

    Mark (c160ec)

  190. Is that what they say?

    nk (dbc370)

  191. i would hope, me personally

    that even in barack obama’s america

    “ruthless terrorists” is at least something of a tautology

    look up in the sky

    it’s a bird

    it’s a plane

    nah it’s just me ain’t a damn thing changed

    happyfeet (831175)

  192. hebdo cartooners you bespeckle the night sky

    with your awesome sky-puncturing awesomeness, probably cause of you’re french

    not unlike eggs benedict, which are actually american

    and french fried potatoes, which are actually american

    and liberty

    happyfeet (831175)

  193. 165. htom (4ca1fa) — 1/10/2015 @ 7:10 pm

    I have the impression (perhaps an incorrect one) that Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity mocker of anyone who happened to cross their line of vision.

    They were sort of like militant atheists from an anti-clerical tradition.

    They mocked far more than than religion, rather like the 12 year old wise guy who mocked everyone and everything
    Also politics and they didn’t like Le Pen or anti-Moslem proposals. They were leftists.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  194. under the laws of land warfare, any legitimate target that is placed in an otherwise protected location (school, home, hospital, what have you) is still a legitimate target, and may be struck by the other side without any war crime being committed.

    rather, the party responsible for the placement is guilty of the crime, and responsible for any and all collateral damage. the Paleostinians are lucky that the state of Israel and the IDF aren’t as immoral as they, and their apologists, are.

    but what can you expect from barbarians like the moose slimes?

    redc1c4 (dab236)

  195. “So why would you expect Muslims not to do the same, even if they adhere to the belief that Mohammed is human perfection?”

    kishnevi – Why do dead, perfect, infallible, whatever prophets or gods require protection from cartoons?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  196. The New York Times Saturday would not even print (or is it reprint?) a picture of a statue of Mohammed.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  197. Oh the booze laws are strange. We have counties, and we have several kinds of legal cities. If you sell intoxicating beverages, you need a license, for on-sale, off-sale, or both. Some legal cities can and do preempt their enclosing county’s licensing powers, and some of those allow off-sale licenses only to municipal sales locations. It’s really beyond my understanding, an entire chapter of the Minnesota Statutes is devoted to it. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340a

    htom (4ca1fa)

  198. It’s a frieze. I recognize Constantine next to him, is that Justinian on his other side? And they have Hammurabi and Moses too. Meh.

    nk (dbc370)

  199. Moses is the only one without a sword, I think.

    nk (dbc370)

  200. if you can part seas with a staff, you don’t need a sword.

    😎

    redc1c4 (34e91b)

  201. this thread, it runs thick with the patriarchy

    i eschew it

    happyfeet (831175)

  202. i eschew it

    that’s because you’re exercising your white privilege, you racist.

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  203. FREEDOM. FREEDOM of THE PRESS. FREEDOM of SPEECH. These concepts enshrined in our Constitutions 1st Amendment, does not differentiate AS TO WHETHER….MUZZTARDS, LIBS, COMMIES, WHITE SUPREMECISTS (such as exist) say, publish or exclaim “DISGUSTING….HATEFUL…UGLY…or HOMOPHOBIC..(hahahahahaha, had to toss that in) thoughts, words, drawings or pics of a Pedophilic Muhammad!!

    Ironically, the PURPOSE of FREEDOM, discludes the CENSORSHIP of the aforementioned NAUGHTHY THOUGHTS.
    Not a difficult concept. ONE LAST THOUGHT. Bill Ayers stomping, standing or disrespecting OLD GLORY, the U.S. FLAG!! PUBLISHED again IRONICALLY on 9/11/01. DISCUSS!!! I was offended!!!

    Gus (7cc192)

  204. hey Gus: you might wanna get a new keyboard… looks like yours has a problem with the CAPS LOCK key sticking.

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  205. i try so hard not to exercise my privileges

    i really do

    i have this egg-timer i set for so between exercisings i go longer and longer each time

    i’m a driver i’m a winner

    things are gonna change i can feel it

    happyfeet (831175)

  206. Yes Redcic4. I apoligize. Got anything of substance?? Nah. You’re a clown.

    Gus (7cc192)

  207. 118. Hey! No comparisons with other religions!

    Leviticus (c1d138) — 1/10/2015 @ 4:34 pm

    Those ferkin’ Amish!

    Try going to a Condom Sense store in Dallas without wading through several buggies full of “Pants up,
    don’t screw” screaming idiots.

    I feel bad for the horses. Like they asked for this.

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  208. Steve57

    Watch out for all those Quakers and Shakers armed with AK-47’s, you must also!

    Yoda (d89de1)

  209. Our Philadelphia physician wrote:

    I don’t know if you saw what I wrote about this previously. I imagine there were many Germans who grew food and worked in factories for the Nazis who would have preferred to live elsewhere and would not have been Nazi sympathizers at all..

    Oh, I’m sure that you’re right about many Germans who didn’t like the Nazis . . . and we took no distinctions concerning them when we bombed factories and rail terminals and utilities to rubble. Whether the good Germans wanted to help the Nazis was irrelevant; that they did help the German war effort was all that mattered.

    I do not glibly ask people to make martyrs of themselves unless I am certain I would make the heroic act myself. If the US would get serious about acting against jihadists I would expect “Muslims we can trust” to stand up with us, and those that don’t would be suspect.

    And what, in everything we can see happening around the entire world, would lead you to that expectation? Do we see this amongst the Palestinian population, where very few are Hamas, but most bear the brunt of Israeli retaliation precisely because they don’t turn in Hamas? Did we see this in France, where the terrorists weren’t isolated, but lived among the other Muslims? Do you see this in the black neighborhoods of your own fair city, where the thugs and the gang bangers run wild, or is the “stop snitchin'” culture more prevalent?

    Der Führer was only one man, and as far as I know, he never actually killed anyone. The problem was that a whole lot of good Germans chose to go along with him, do do what he wanted. In the end, even dictators and terrorists need the support of the people around them.

    The historian Dana (1b79fa)

  210. 192 Daley, I am not saying that. The comment you quoted from me was a response to a completely different point.
    Nobody needs protection from cartoons. But offending for the sake of offending is no moral virtue.
    I am against republishing offensive cartoons not because they happen to offend Muslims, but because they are offensive, period.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  211. 198
    Apparently you have not seen the new Exodus movie.

    kishnevi (294553)

  212. So a Russian Jewish family migrates to Israel and their eight-year old goes to catechism for the first time. When he comes home, his mother asks, “What did you learn, today?” He says, “We learned about the Exodus. How Moses organized the tribes of Israel and they started marching across the desert. And then, the Pharaoh sent his armies to bring them back and it looked that he would catch them when they got to the Red Sea. But the IDF Corps of Engineers built pontoon bridges and the Israelites all crossed. And then the Pharaoh’s tanks tried to cross on the pontoon bridges, too, but Moses radioed in for an air strike and the Israeli Air Force bombed the pontoon bridges and sank them and the Pharaoh’s army too.” His mother is aghast. She asks, “Is that what they told you?” “Nah, you wouldn’t believe me what they tried to tell me.”

    nk (dbc370)

  213. kishnevi wrote:

    Nobody needs protection from cartoons. But offending for the sake of offending is no moral virtue. I am against republishing offensive cartoons not because they happen to offend Muslims, but because they are offensive, period.

    Yet the major media chose to publish the picture of “Piss Christ,” even though the “art” was condemned as offensive, because how else were the readers to know why the “art” was offensive?

    Oh, wait: the very description of a crucifix photographed in a jar of urine is descriptive enough for people to visualize. The description “cartoons insulting to the (false) prophet Mohammad” does not tell readers how or why they are offensive, but simply that some other people have judged them to be so.

    Between the two, it ought to be more important to republish the cartoons than the picture of the repugnant Mr Serrano’s work, to better inform the readers.

    The journalist Dana (1b79fa)

  214. Mark wrote:

    But, nk, people cheering on ruthless terrorists are no better (and some will say are actually worse) than cartoonists mocking religion at Charlie Hedbo.

    I would certainly say that they are worse, a lot worse. The cartoonists mocking religion at Charlie Hebdo never killed anyone, and anyone who didn’t want to patronize the stuff was perfectly free not to buy it. Terrorists are killers. I see a rather large difference between the two.

    The practical Dana (1b79fa)

  215. 211. Valid point. But it does not justify Patterico’s stance, which is to republish for the sake of informing, but for the sake of repeating the insult in the name of free speech.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  216. *not* for the sake of informing.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  217. Our Windy City barrister wrote:

    The Palestinian civilians whom Hamas hides behind are collateral damage. I feel sorry for them. The Israeli schoolchildren whose schoolbuses suicide bombers blow up are intentional targets of terrorism. I feel sorry for them.

    Hamas “hides behind” Palestinian civilians only because those Palestinian civilians allow such. More, those Palestinian civilians provide real support for Hamas, in food, in supplies, in places to live and hide, and in logistics. They are as essential to Hamas’ operations as were the German farmers and munitions workers who supplied the Wehrmacht.

    The Dana who tells cold, hard truths (1b79fa)

  218. Mr Kishnevi wrote:

    Valid point. But it does not justify Patterico’s stance, which is to republish for the sake of informing, but for the sake of repeating the insult in the name of free speech.

    Are you stating that it is our host’s position that the cartoons should be republished to insult? That certainly isn’t what he said in the original article!

    Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. It means that people are free to choose not to speak, for any reasons they choose, but it also means that every choice to speak, or not speak, regardless of what is said and irrespective of whom might not like it, is a defense of the freedom of speech.

    The confused Dana (1b79fa)

  219. I took the push to republish the cartoons to be for the sake of “in your face” not just, or necessarily, from Patterico but from all the proponent on the intertubes.

    nk (dbc370)

  220. 197. nk (dbc370) — 1/10/2015 @ 9:36 pm

    Moses is the only one without a sword, I think.

    On the United States Supreme Court building?

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  221. “In your face” is something I approve of as a general principle, BTW. But in this instance, I find Charlie Hebdo too loathsome to stand next to.

    nk (dbc370)

  222. Yes, Sammy. It’s a parade of lawgivers, it seems to me, and most of them, including Justinian(?), Constantine, Hammurabi and Mohammed backed it up with a sword. I find it allegorical. Where’s Leviticus?

    nk (dbc370)

  223. The historian Dana (1b79fa) — 1/11/2015 @ 2:31 am

    Der Führer was only one man, and as far as I know, he never actually killed anyone.

    He may have killed his niece.

    http://www.historicmysteries.com/did-adolf-hitler-kill-his-niece/

    Well, half-niece.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geli_Raubal

    Raubal was in effect a prisoner, but planned to escape to Vienna to continue her singing lessons.[3] Her mother told interrogators after the war that her daughter was hoping to marry a man from Linz, but that Hitler had forbidden the relationship. He and Raubal argued on 18 September 1931—he refused to allow her to go to Vienna. He departed for a meeting in Nuremberg, but was recalled to Munich the next day: Raubal was dead from a gunshot wound to the lung;[1] she had shot herself in Hitler’s Munich apartment with Hitler’s Walther pistol.[6] She was 23

    And that’s not counting what he may have done in the German army during World War I (which he was very anxious to join.) He was an Austrian citizen.

    And we don’t know maybe everything else.

    He personally led a raid during the “Night of the Long Knives” (but probably didn’t fire any shots himself – just gave orders to other people with him.)

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  224. He was awarded the Iron Cross; if he didn’t kill anybody in the War it was not for lack of trying. John Chisum never carried a gun. His gunmen, among them Billy the Kid, killed a lot of people for him.

    nk (dbc370)

  225. Hamas “hides behind” Palestinian civilians only because those Palestinian civilians allow such.

    The voting record of the Palestinians does makes them accessories to terrorism and the blood and ruthlessness thereof. By contrast, the German public in the 1930s at least never went to the ballot box and gave its majority support to Hitler, who grabbed onto power by politically finagling his way into the system.

    Mark (c160ec)

  226. Related: The Public Editor on “What’s fit to print”

    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/does-the-times-have-its-act-together-on-vulgar-language/

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  227. The historian Dana (1b79fa) — 1/11/2015 @ 2:31 am

    Are you in favor of kicking every “Muslim” out of our country ASAP?
    The point I am trying to make is what kind of risk do we have here in the US at this moment.
    We did not put every person with a German name into a camp during WWII, even thought likely most of them would have planted their fields and gone to their factories had they lived in Germany instead of the US at the time. They may have been “part of the problem” had they lived in Germany, but in the US they were (overall) part of the solution.

    That is the point I am trying to make. I am sure there are many Muslims here who would not risk their life for a Christian in Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria, or Iraq, etc., but who at the same time have no animosity against anyone here in the US,
    the fair question is how much would they enable here, where the risk is not so great. (I think it does require a degree of heroism to die and leave your family alone in accomplishing nothing by fighting a mob in Pakistan, etc.)

    As I said before, if we said that advocating sharia within the US was a traitorous activity, undermining the rule of law under our Constitution, and took steps to enforce it,
    and “Ibrahim Muslim” said he was cool with that and would report any Imam that preached otherwise,

    do you feel it necessary to deport such a person?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  228. 66. you might need wilds boars or really large pigs.
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/10/2015 @ 9:26 am

    Who doesn’t?

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  229. nk wrote:

    He was awarded the Iron Cross; if he didn’t kill anybody in the War it was not for lack of trying.

    Actually, he was primarily a dispatch runner, and was at least exposed to fire, and wounded, but it wasn’t his job to engage the enemy; it was his job to evade the enemy. The job certainly required courage, but Gefreiter Hitler wouldn’t normally have been chosen to attack the enemy.

    The Dana who looked it up, (78d5b0)

  230. Our Philadelphia physician asked me directly:

    Are you in favor of kicking every “Muslim” out of our country ASAP?

    If they are not citizens, certainly. If they are citizens, that presents other problems.

    Now, I doubt that we actually can do so, due to the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion, and I prefer to support an absolutist reading of the First Amendment to expelling Muslims; that’s the price we must pay to keep our Constitution.

    What we are actually left with is the actions of private citizens to make Muslims unwelcome. That’s something we can do, and I heartily advocate it. It’s kind of easy for me to say that, because I live in a lily-white town, with no Muslims (of whom I’m aware) nor any obviously Middle Eastern people. (There are a few Indian families around here.) If I lived someplace where I encountered Muslims in business, I would choose not to patronize their businesses.

    The government cannot disfavor any religion, but the people certainly can, and we can make it obvious that Islam is an unacceptable choice here.

    The Dana who tells the truth (78d5b0)

  231. Is the Smith Act, more to the point the Supreme Court rulings upholding it, still good law? I didn’t look hard but I only found Red Scare prosecutions.

    nk (dbc370)

  232. 228. The First Amendment does not apply when it comes to immigration law. It can be a condition of some benefit that a person does not hold certain views, or does not belong or did not belong to some organization where membership is not criminal.

    But all this is ridiculous.

    You need to go after the teachers, not the students.

    Forf the most part, really radical imams are too scared to go to the United States since 2001, or they are not sent here, because they’ll be accused of supporting terrorism.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  233. You know, Anwar al Awlaki left the United States.

    And then he left the United Kingdom.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6523 secs.