"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

In a different cultural or legal environment, they might. After all,
people in this country did (and sometimes still do) burn crosses on lawns,
as an editorial comment on someone's color or politics.

That was terrorism, pure and simple. Calling it "editorial comment" is only
about 2 steps away from defending it.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message .

.... Heard it on at least 3 news sources within 48 hours of the initial
occurrence. But, it really doesn't matter.

Probably Air America.


You've been left in the dust. Another visitor here already confirmed that
the cartoons were re-published by some Christian publication. And, I have no
idea who Air America is.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


You've been left in the dust. Another visitor here already confirmed that
the cartoons were re-published by some Christian publication.

from Wikipedia:
"....Magazinet is a conservative Protestant Norwegian newspaper which is
published three times a week. Its average daily circulation as of 2004 is
5,307 copies."

Not even a daily - obviously a huge player in the world of journalism. Of
course, what no one is reporting is that after the initial publication LAST
SEPTEMBER, there was so little response, so little reaction from the world
at large (including muslim populations) that a European group of Islamic
leaders sent a delegation to Egypt and other mid-eastern countries to try to
whip up some outrage. It was only in response to this renewed pressure that
Magazinet republished the cartoons. What your seeing in the news is pure
Hollywood. The fact is that nobody cared at all until the robed and bearded
mad dogs started spewing their crap from every available mosque.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

But while the demonstrations were inflamed at least in part by the
cartoons' republishing by newspapers across continental Europe, the
media in the United States have largely abstained from representing the
cartoons, citing them as "too offensive to run," reports Editor and
Publisher.

more self-serving, dishonest, ass-covering crap from establishment media.
The only honest response I've heard of so far (among outlets refusing to
publish the cartoons) was from the Boston Phoenix in their 2/10/06
editorial: [in part].......

"There are three reasons not to publish the Danish cartoons depicting
Mohammed with his turban styled as a bomb and the other images that have
sparked violent protests and deaths throughout Europe, the Middle East, West
Asia, and Indonesia:
1) Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical
and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not
believe as they do. This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing
any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being
terrorized.........."

The Herald didn't have the stones. The Globe, no doubt after consultation
with their play-callers in Manhattan, decided that the 1st amendment isn't
really THAT important........

Yet every day major market papers across the country will run cartoons
making George Bush look like Alfred E. Neuman. These ball-less parasites
accord a higher level of respect to nations full of unbathed mad-dog whack
jobs than they accord to the presidency of the United States. Shameful.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

Yet every day major market papers across the country will run cartoons
making George Bush look like Alfred E. Neuman. These ball-less parasites
accord a higher level of respect to nations full of unbathed mad-dog whack
jobs than they accord to the presidency of the United States. Shameful.



I was about to say that because religion is in a category of its own,
publishing an offensive picture of someone's god is different from
publishing a picture of a politician. But, in some instances, there *is* no
difference, and that's one sign of something VERY wrong. No politician
should generate that kind of devotion. It's just a management job, no
different than any other.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


You've been left in the dust. Another visitor here already confirmed that
the cartoons were re-published by some Christian publication.

from Wikipedia:
"....Magazinet is a conservative Protestant Norwegian newspaper which is
published three times a week. Its average daily circulation as of 2004 is
5,307 copies."

Not even a daily - obviously a huge player in the world of journalism. Of
course, what no one is reporting is that after the initial publication
LAST SEPTEMBER, there was so little response, so little reaction from the
world at large (including muslim populations) that a European group of
Islamic leaders sent a delegation to Egypt and other mid-eastern countries
to try to whip up some outrage. It was only in response to this renewed
pressure that Magazinet republished the cartoons. What your seeing in the
news is pure Hollywood. The fact is that nobody cared at all until the
robed and bearded mad dogs started spewing their crap from every available
mosque.




True. But tell me two things, please:

1) Are you able to find the first thing I said about all this in this
thread?

If yes:

2) Briefly, what do you think my point was in my first post?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

1) Are you able to find the first thing I said about all this in this
thread?

I believe so.

2) Briefly, what do you think my point was in my first post?


OK....stop the special bus at the next corner, open the window, and tell
me about your delusion:

I've never had any success at determining the point of gratuitous wise-ass
remarks.

1) A (typically) stupid Christian publication starts this whole mess by
publishing a picture that offends an (equally) stupid bunch of Muslims.

Point indeterminate. Apart from the continued wise-ass, anti-religious
sarcasm (which is pointless on its face), your statement is simply wrong.
The [small, inneffectual] Christian publication did NOT start the whole
mess. The original publication of the cartoons in question first occurred
over four months ago in the Jyllands-Posten, a national, non-aligned
newspaper published in Copenhagen. If any "whole mess" was started, it was
at the behest of the muslim representatives who travelled to the mid-east
with thy sole purpose of stirring up trouble.

2) The Danish government responds by saying it supports free speech,

And your suggestion is what? The Danish government should alter one of the
basic tenets of its own government in response to pressure from a small
group of lunatic religious whackos?


3) The Danish government sees its holdings around the world being
attacked, and you think we should say one friggin' word in its support,

What is your position? That we should NOT support the preservation of free
expression in a friendly nation, simply because they COULD have caved to
terrorist demands but chose not to? ARE YOU SERIOUS?????

Anyway --- your original point? I don't know. Though I usually disagree
with you, you usually have a point. I can't figure this one.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


I was about to say that because religion is in a category of its own,
publishing an offensive picture of someone's god is different from
publishing a picture of a politician. But, in some instances, there *is*
no difference, and that's one sign of something VERY wrong. No politician
should generate that kind of devotion. It's just a management job, no
different than any other.

Doug, you've hit the real point but have missed it in your zeal to turn
everything into an anti-GB rant.

publishing an offensive picture of someone's god is different from
publishing a picture of a politician.

Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some have
supposedly elected theocratic governments, others have merely allowed,
through inactivity, radical lunatics to take over their countries. In any
event, notwithstanding all the rabid rhetoric, muslim societies have made
their religion into their politics. The cartoons published in Denmark --
the two that were most "offensive" -- were, in reality, POLITICAL cartoons!

There is no reason on earth why non-muslim societies should be bound by the
precepts of Islam, any more than, for example, Christians should eschew pork
products simply because their Jewish neighbors do. Muslims are free to
never produce a likeness of the Prophet, but that means nothing to me.

Likewise, I see no reason why non-muslim nations should offer any show of
respect to muslim societies that claim to be mainstream but refuse to
respect their own religious precepts; that stand by and say nothing while
the most vile acts are performed in the name of their God and Prophet; and
that allow their religion to be corrupted and compromised by a lunatic
fringe.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some
have supposedly elected theocratic governments...

...as this country would be, if checks & balances were not in place.

well, I can see you've gone past the end of the paved roadway. Let us know
when you've returned, so you can rejoin the world.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some
have supposedly elected theocratic governments...

...as this country would be, if checks & balances were not in place.

well, I can see you've gone past the end of the paved roadway. Let us
know when you've returned, so you can rejoin the world.


Some religions are non-intrusive. Some are very intrusive. Their followers
believe everyone should see things their way. Can you name one or two
examples of each?