The Evil Cartoons
Well-- aside from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- it appears there was some sort of media blackout on publicizing what all the fuss is about.
Because the "liberal" American Fourth Estate--so "courageous" in its criticisms of homegrown administrations in power (especially Republican ones) and always pouring gasoline on the fire of the American Culture War (if it would burn a few Christians)--is terrorized...
...AND EVEN ACTING AS APOLOGISTS FOR THE RELIGIOUS FANATICS WE ARE AT WAR WITH.
(Well, I guess it is easier to attack a government that champions freedom and a religion that promotes Peace and Love)
Even toughguy President Bush chided the "insensitivity" of the cartoonists (who now have fatwahs on their heads).
Okay, Republicus understands that the President has to do his "Uniter Not Divider" and "Compassionate Conservative" and "We Are Not At War Against Islam" shtick between military operations against the very same type of hypersensitive, fanatical, psychopathic Islamicists who are now holding up signs saying "Damn Democracy!" and "Bush Bites!" (or somesuch), but come on, Dubya, at least throw in a plug for FREE SPEECH and express a little disapproval for the OVER-THE-TOP SPECTACLE OF WHAT LOOKS TO REPUBLICUS LIKE A TROOP OF SCREECHING MONKEYS INFECTED WITH MAD-COW DISEASE AND PLAYING WITH MATCHES.
Is Republicus being "insensitive?"
Were the cartoons showing the Islamic crescent submerged in a tub of urine, a la the NEA funded American Piss Christ exhibit (which caused those radical red-state "Christo-fascists" to riot and torch the NEA building---no, wait, they didn't do that)?
Were the cartoons portraying a sexually-active Mohammad a la the American films The Last Temptation of Christ and the upcoming The Da Vinci Code, which did and will do so for Jesus Christ (even though Mohammad was historically married with children, and Jesus Christ by tradition was not)?
No.
From what Republicus could glean, the cartoons essentially implied--rather strongly--that Mohammad/Islam inspired violence.
Apparently, the Islamists who are violently rioting beg to differ.
Because the "liberal" American Fourth Estate--so "courageous" in its criticisms of homegrown administrations in power (especially Republican ones) and always pouring gasoline on the fire of the American Culture War (if it would burn a few Christians)--is terrorized...
...AND EVEN ACTING AS APOLOGISTS FOR THE RELIGIOUS FANATICS WE ARE AT WAR WITH.
(Well, I guess it is easier to attack a government that champions freedom and a religion that promotes Peace and Love)
Even toughguy President Bush chided the "insensitivity" of the cartoonists (who now have fatwahs on their heads).
Okay, Republicus understands that the President has to do his "Uniter Not Divider" and "Compassionate Conservative" and "We Are Not At War Against Islam" shtick between military operations against the very same type of hypersensitive, fanatical, psychopathic Islamicists who are now holding up signs saying "Damn Democracy!" and "Bush Bites!" (or somesuch), but come on, Dubya, at least throw in a plug for FREE SPEECH and express a little disapproval for the OVER-THE-TOP SPECTACLE OF WHAT LOOKS TO REPUBLICUS LIKE A TROOP OF SCREECHING MONKEYS INFECTED WITH MAD-COW DISEASE AND PLAYING WITH MATCHES.
Is Republicus being "insensitive?"
Were the cartoons showing the Islamic crescent submerged in a tub of urine, a la the NEA funded American Piss Christ exhibit (which caused those radical red-state "Christo-fascists" to riot and torch the NEA building---no, wait, they didn't do that)?
Were the cartoons portraying a sexually-active Mohammad a la the American films The Last Temptation of Christ and the upcoming The Da Vinci Code, which did and will do so for Jesus Christ (even though Mohammad was historically married with children, and Jesus Christ by tradition was not)?
No.
From what Republicus could glean, the cartoons essentially implied--rather strongly--that Mohammad/Islam inspired violence.
Apparently, the Islamists who are violently rioting beg to differ.
posted by John | 7:10 AM
2 Comments:
This is the same liberal media that doesn't mind airing TV shows that belittle/taunt/work to destroy Christianity.
But they will defend to the death, almost, for the right of Islam to get angry at similar attacks.
BTW...I have nothing against Islam itself...it is the radical side of Islam that I have my issues. There are many good people within Islam.
Yes, of course. And it is those very people we hope to see empowered.
I'm encouraged to know that there ARE Mulim leaders who are decrying the violence.
The thugs (i.e. terrorists) need to be marginalized within their own cultures, and that appears to be happening here and there to one extent or another.
And yes, the double-standard here is obvious.
Post a Comment
<< Home