<< DANES TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM ~ MAIN ~ OUTLAW EARL >>

MEDIA TOLD

Australians have received their orders:

A senior Islamic cleric has called on Australia’s media not to publish the cartoons which have sparked riots across the Muslim world.

Sheik Fehmi El-Imam, the general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria, warned reprinting the cartoons here could “disturb people who can do things that we don’t want them to do”.

Oh, I doubt it. Cartoons mocking various religions have been previously published in Australia thousands of times, and nobody went nuts. Why would things be different now?

“In some parts of the world there is rioting against the Danish and the Dutch, we don’t want that in Australia,” the sheik said today.

No, we don’t. So behave yourselves.

“Unfortunately, New Zealand has (published the cartoons) ... I’m trying to avoid, to put far away, any possibility of disturbing the peace in Australia.”

Odd that this concern over maintaining the peace doesn’t limit Muslim commentary on other religions or communities. The Islamic Bookstore in Lakemba, for example, sells vicious anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as various anti-Christian titles (Crucifixion – or Cruci-FICTION?). Sheik Khalid Yasin, a regular guest lecturer in Australia, declared that “there’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend” and denounced modern clothes as the work of “faggots, homosexuals and lesbians”; Christians, he said, deliberately infected Africans with AIDS. Yasin wouldn’t merely draw cartoons of homosexuals—he’d have them put to death in accordance with Koranic law. One Imam told Australian students that Jews put poison in bananas. Local Iraqis voting in their country’s elections were shot at and otherwise intimidated by Islamic extremists whose banners announced: “You vote, you die.” These friends of free speech were also observed photographing those who dared to vote. Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a supportive Bankstown crowd last year that women deserve to be raped if they wore “satanical” garments, including anything “strapless, backless, [or] sleeveless”, and also “mini-skirts [and] tight jeans.”

All of this is far more hateful and moronic than those twelve Danish cartoons, not one of which depicts the Prophet eating babies, poisoning fruit, or infecting Africans with AIDS. Far from being against hate-speech, many Muslim spokesmen seem to be aggressively for it; until, of course, someone contemplates publishing harmless drawings of an old beardy guy. At that point Sheik Fehmi El-Imam warns that we risk “disturbing the peace”.

Warning politely declined, Sheik:

image

UPDATE. Michelle Malkin maintains a list of MoToon posters (add the WogBlogger). And The Agesensitive as ever—runs a picture gallery of reactions to the cartoons ... but won’t run the cartoons themselves.

Posted by Tim B. on 02/05/2006 at 08:55 AM
  1. Sheik Fehmi El-Imam…“In some parts of the world there is rioting against the Danish and the Dutch, we don’t want that in Australia,” the sheik said today.

    How many tanks you got here, Colonel? Too bad if one had an ... accident.

    Wow, is the sheik related to
    Doug and Dinsdale Piranha?

    Posted by bc on 2006 02 05 at 09:24 AM • permalink

  2. The one second from the bottom looks like the ice cream cake at my 12 month year old niece’s birthday party.

    Posted by geoff on 2006 02 05 at 09:50 AM • permalink

  3. Now you’ve done it, Tim. Prepare for more Muslim riots.

    I suppose if I republish the same cartoons on my flatmates blog, Sheik Fehmi El-Imam will swim across Bass Strait and kick my arse too? The AFP certainly shouldn’t let him on a plane after his threats.

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 02 05 at 09:52 AM • permalink

  4. Bloody Excellent Tim!!
    If the MSM won’t publish them, may the blogosphere show them what for.
    I hope blogs around the world will do the same.

    Posted by Melanie on 2006 02 05 at 09:53 AM • permalink

  5. You know, a few months back I suggested to my friends that if we really believed in free speech, the basic falsity of religion (although now being in my 40s rather than my 20s, I don’t burn with the desire to proselytize for atheism)(unlike Penn Jillette, say), we ought to announce International Flush a Koran For Freedom Day.  They all thought this was in dreadful taste, needlessly provocative, etc. 

    So now I announce International Flush a Koran For Denmark Day.  We are all Danish now.  (Cheese, preferably.)

    Posted by Mike G on 2006 02 05 at 09:57 AM • permalink

  6. Well done Tim. Now, to please and mollify the Muslim clerics, let’s show the home made videos of the high-minded representatives of the Religion of Peace cutting off mens (infidels) heads,  which these reps subsequently showed on live TV.

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 05 at 10:01 AM • permalink

  7. I blame high levels of estrogen for it all.  Somebody should test the Middle East.

    Posted by rhhardin on 2006 02 05 at 10:04 AM • permalink

  8. Good move Tim.

    Posted by crash on 2006 02 05 at 10:20 AM • permalink

  9. Sheik Fehmi El-Imam
    Feel free to leave, Ill buy the ticket.
    You are not my countryman, you cant be, Australians arent 7th century barbarians.
    Heres a promise, “in some parts of the world if your followers riot “someone” may get a big juicy bacon rasher and put it in every Koran at my local library, and we wouldnt want that to happen in Australia”
    Up to you buddy.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 05 at 10:22 AM • permalink

  10. Hmmm… so many Quran’ic options, frollickingmole…

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 02 05 at 10:26 AM • permalink

  11. Blah! forget it, silly link didnt work… I can’t even delete my failed post now :(

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 02 05 at 10:27 AM • permalink

  12. Oh and thanks to Tim for displaying the bigbrassy shiny ones he keeps tucked away…

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 05 at 10:33 AM • permalink

  13. Good shot, Tim.  A lot of Muslims need to pull their head out of their arse, this particular cleric among them.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 05 at 11:33 AM • permalink

  14. Sheik Fehmi El-Imam, the general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria, warned reprinting the cartoons here could “disturb people who can do things that we don’t want them to do”.

    Just as Shakin’ Fehmi’s warnings disturb me and make me want to do things that he wouldn’t want me to do. Bring it on.

    Posted by Jim Geones on 2006 02 05 at 11:34 AM • permalink

  15. Take a look at this.

    ...the Anglo-US policy of sensitivity and appeasement towards Muslims appeared to fail as 28 people were wounded in Beirut last night when the Danish consulate building was torched.

    An obvious conclusion.

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 02 05 at 11:39 AM • permalink

  16. Aussie school children cast judgement on Muslims

    “the findings showed a need for educators to develop new ways of promoting multiculturalism among children.”

    That’s right, it’s got nothing to do with Muslims needing to stop threatening to kill infidels.

    Posted by Melanie on 2006 02 05 at 11:42 AM • permalink

  17. Well done, Tim.  I only wish that the craven media admit their abject cowardice and do the same.  How can NBC execs do anything but hang their heads in shame?  I can see being against the war, but isn’t free speech supposed to be their special issue, the reason they try to bring down presidents and reveal national defense secrets and reprint photos of Abu Ghraib over and over again?

    I hope I live long enough to see them disgraced before the world.  I hate to think, though, of how high the cost of that moment will be.

    Posted by Patricia on 2006 02 05 at 11:47 AM • permalink

  18. #8 Er I don’t wish to trash religion but to protect freedom of speech…

    Posted by crash on 2006 02 05 at 11:48 AM • permalink

  19. Suddenly it seems as if we are living in one of the less pleasant parts of “The Lord of the Rings” - our culture and civiliztion are being pushed to the point where the only possible defence is some form of attack.

    Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 02 05 at 11:54 AM • permalink

  20. Best. Post. Ever.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 02 05 at 11:55 AM • permalink

  21. Thanks, Tim. We needed that. IMHO, we can’t have enough of this satire. My only fear is that we get bored with it before it has any real effect. OTOH maybe the muzzies will get bored with it as well, and we’ll all be better off. Let’s flood the airwaves with stuff Mo’s followers might take offense to. Git cher red hot offense of the day right here! Go seethe and burn your neighbor’s car or his business, rape and stone your sisters, man what fun. Go ahead and toss a couple of nukes around, then see what hell is really like. We’ll do some things you really don’t want us to do.

    Posted by Abu Qa'Qa on 2006 02 05 at 12:04 PM • permalink

  22. I haven’t the talent to do it. But it seems to me one of the things we need now - not the only one, by any means - is Artists who can inspire the West. Someone to give us some good songs, pictures, images to make us proud of our civilization and willing to defend it. I don’t mean satire, I mean strength and celebration - like the British soldiers singing “Men of Harlech” in “Zulu” before the attack.

    Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 02 05 at 12:06 PM • permalink

  23. MikeG, the brave, brave Penn & Teller derided the Bible on their show, “Bullshit.”  How revolutionary!  They have not attacked the Koran yet, but I am so very sure they will.

    So very very sure.

    Posted by ushie on 2006 02 05 at 01:02 PM • permalink

  24. “In some parts of the world there is rioting against the Danish and the Dutch, we don’t want that in Australia,” the sheik said today.

    So, the sheik is admitting that Australian Muslims would go on a bloody rampage if the cartoons are published in Australian papers (incidentally, good for you, Tim!).  Why doesn’t he just come out and say in plain words:  “We’re a bunch of uncontrollable savages who can’t abide by the rules of a civilized society.”  Because that is certainly what he implies.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 02 05 at 01:14 PM • permalink

  25. Blair!  Submit yourself immediately to re-education camp D114, Durka Durka Durka Street, Lakemba, by not later than 10:00 a.m. Monday 6th February 2006.

    Allah Fubar!

    Posted by Kaboom on 2006 02 05 at 01:16 PM • permalink

  26. #1 bc

    “A beautiful town you have here, Lord Mayor, with your fancy Opera House and lovely Harbor Bridge. I’t be such a shame if somethin’ was to happen to it…”

    Great post, Tim!

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 05 at 01:23 PM • permalink

  27. My own blog is but an insignificant microbe, but if some kind soul will tell me where I can get a file of these toons, I’ll gladly post them there.

    PS: Thanks monkeyfan and all the other blogwise and helpful folks for my making it up to microbe status!

    Posted by Achillea on 2006 02 05 at 01:33 PM • permalink

  28. Mark Steyn nails it again!

    A must read!

    Posted by Kaboom on 2006 02 05 at 01:39 PM • permalink

  29. Nicely done, Tim.

    Posted by Matt in Denver on 2006 02 05 at 03:41 PM • permalink

  30. [oafish]
    Arrrrgh!!! My eyes!!! They’re burning!!

    Big Mo is punishing me for the blasphemy I have seen!

    No, wait. I just need to clean my contacts.

    Nevermind.[/infantile]

    Posted by rinardman on 2006 02 05 at 04:00 PM • permalink

  31. Firstly- congrats Tim for not avoiding solidarity towards our LURPAK producing bros overseas.
    Secondly -read IBN WARRAQ in today’s Australian
    ‘Unless we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamisation of Europe will have begun in earnest.’ As I said two days ago these event are a watershed in our struggle against our attackers.

    Thirdly- make a note of the leftist arguments to justify the mayhem being caused worldwide by Muslims in response to the cartoons.
    what is coming through to the surface is that Muslims coming from non democratic Backgrounds cannot be held accountable for the detritus they print on an almost daily basis regarding Jews and Christians too. Cartoons that outclass even those of ‘der Sturmer’ in the thirties.
    Yet we must be held to different standards because of our democracy.
    Most of the left wing intellects making those arguments are of course only too pleased to chip away at the democracy they use to excuse the mayhem.
    But what comes through is nothing short of racism ,IE- primeval barbarians cannot be held accountable to the same standards as us intellectual folk from civilised countries.

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 05 at 04:09 PM • permalink

  32. From one of the PJ Media ‘agents’

    Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History


    Controversy over the publication of images depicting Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has erupted into an international furor. While Muslims worldwide are calling for a boycott of Denmark and any other nation whose press reprints the cartoons, Europeans are trying to stand up for Western principles of freedom of speech and not cave in to self-censorship in the name of multiculturalism and fear.

    While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world. The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are nothing new; it’s just that no other images of Mohammed have ever been so widely publicized.

    This page is an archive of numerous depictions of Mohammed, to serve as a reminder that such imagery has been part of Western and Islamic culture since the Middle Ages—and to serve as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression.

    zombie

    via

    InstaPundit

    It’s all bullshit Islamists.

    Posted by El Cid on 2006 02 05 at 04:20 PM • permalink

  33. There is one danger here:  once Europe realizes Islam is a totalitarian movement and not a religious one, they’ll embrace it out of force of habit….

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 05 at 04:28 PM • permalink

  34. I’ve been looking and looking at these ‘toons.  I guess I’m a moron, but I think they’re hardly so offensive as what I see lambasting the US, Jesus, etc., every other day in the MSM. 

    Incidentally, bravo, bravo, bravo TIM!

    Posted by ushie on 2006 02 05 at 04:29 PM • permalink

  35. BUY DANISH!

    Posted by flyairdave on 2006 02 05 at 04:35 PM • permalink

  36. Congratulations Tim.

    We have had a composite image of the cartoons on our site since the weekend linked to one of the other sites carrying the full images.

    Achillea, all you have to do to get the files is right click on each of Tim’s images above and select ‘save picture as’. Blogger makes it simple to upload images but you may wish to try flickr.com to store multiple images.

    —Nick and Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 05 at 04:44 PM • permalink

  37. #24. Actually, the Sheik is correct. We don’t want rioting against the Dutch and Danish here in Australia.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 05 at 05:01 PM • permalink

  38. “Ich bin ein Dane.”

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 05 at 05:11 PM • permalink

  39. Excellent Tim. Geez I thought I was up late enough last night but I missed this posting.  Huh - I was probably too overcome with watching the cricket.  Either that or too much red.

    But well done! Say what are the odds that Fairfax in Australia will follow their NZ stablemate and publish the cartoons here?

    Posted by Wand on 2006 02 05 at 05:15 PM • permalink

  40. So, what shall we call threats made by Muslim expats? In honor of Sheik Fehmi El-Imam, I suggest “fehminism”; that ought to really piss him off.

    Posted by paco on 2006 02 05 at 05:24 PM • permalink

  41. I am with the sheik on this one. Anyone who suggests that Islam is anything but a religion of peace deserves whatever rioting or burning of buildings comes their way.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 02 05 at 05:25 PM • permalink

  42. And the beheading, Margos Maid.  Don’t forget the beheading.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 02 05 at 05:32 PM • permalink

  43. More cartoons from the Nederlands. BTW, may I gently remind everyone that it’s time to oil up the equipment?

    Posted by Mike H. on 2006 02 05 at 05:38 PM • permalink

  44. Is this really Mo? If depictions of the beloved Profit are banned, how the hell do they know what he looks like? An old guy with a beard and a turban? That could be Ibn Humpn Camlz, the local beggar, for all they know.

    The only clue to his real visage must have been the explosive turban. That’s what set this whole thing off.

    Posted by CB on 2006 02 05 at 05:49 PM • permalink

  45. While we are on the whining bandwagon, could Andrea please change the text of the button that puts comments here.

    I SUBMIT to no one. Change it, or there may be….trouble.

    Posted by CB on 2006 02 05 at 05:50 PM • permalink

  46. Never! You submit to ME—cough—I mean to Tim Blair, leader of the Right Wing Death Beasts!

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 05 at 05:53 PM • permalink

  47. Well, you’ve been given fair warning. I call on my brothers to join me in condemning the infidelic administrator and prepare for the return of the 12th Dummy by starting a commenting jihad.

    Allah Fubar!

    Posted by CB on 2006 02 05 at 06:13 PM • permalink

  48. The meaning of #46 seems pretty clear to me.

    Has anyone ever seen Andrea and Tim in the same room at the same time?

    This comes as no surprise to me since Margo used to keep a whole drawer full of “Mungo” beards.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 02 05 at 06:14 PM • permalink

  49. Ushie #34 - I agree, very bland. Thinking back to the final scene of Life Of Brian, by comparison…
    Telling suicide bombers that Heaven has run out of virgins would be a spanner in the recruiting programme, though.

    Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 02 05 at 06:17 PM • permalink

  50. It appears that the original 12 cartoons were added to by Muslim Fascists in the ME to promotote the controversy. see here for the links

    http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/02/mohammed-cartoons-deliberate.html#links

    Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 02 05 at 06:18 PM • permalink

  51. Aha.  Thanks, N ‘n’ N.

    Now I’m off to learn this flickr thing.

    Posted by Achillea on 2006 02 05 at 06:32 PM • permalink

  52. Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza?

    Mark Steyn’s question gave me an idea for a new startup business.
    It would be supplying highly flammable flags of the infidel country du jour, to the inflammable hords of offended muslims. This would save them from the trouble of soaking flags in a dangerous accelerant before doing their monkey dance with the immolated flag.
    I just need a name for the company, and a advertising slogan. And a venture capitalist. The market is already there!
    And growing at a good rate.

    Posted by rinardman on 2006 02 05 at 06:34 PM • permalink

  53. Bravo, Tim! A well depicted, and well commented stuff. Thank you.

    Posted by tmciolek on 2006 02 05 at 06:39 PM • permalink

  54. Cartoon wars check it out

    Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 02 05 at 06:43 PM • permalink

  55. It would be supplying highly flammable flags of the infidel country du jour, to the inflammable hords of offended muslims.

    How ‘bout making the flags explosive instead? That would really liven up those idiots’ “demonstrations”.

    Posted by PW on 2006 02 05 at 06:45 PM • permalink

  56. Cartoon Comps are starting all over this internet

    Allu Akbar what is the world coming to?

    Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 02 05 at 06:53 PM • permalink

  57. The theory is supposed to be that you don’t break the law because a. you respect it and b. if you do so you will be punished.  This gets watered down when you say “oh but this particular law breaker never had a chance, for the following reasons….” and is therefore innocent.

    You follow this line of reasoning and you get to where we are now: we are making the rules to suit the possibly criminal. So we make it a rule not to show the cartoons so that Islamic extremists have no reason to break the law and riot.

    It’s not about cartoons its about weak minds.

    Posted by allan on 2006 02 05 at 06:54 PM • permalink

  58. I was infuriated to hear on the ABC news last night a snippet describing these people troglodites burning embassies as ‘protestors’.
    I thought they were rioters, myself.

    Posted by kae on 2006 02 05 at 06:58 PM • permalink

  59. How ‘bout making the flags explosive instead?

    Well, killing your customers is probably not a good business practice, but I’m not really a businessman, so sounds that good to me PW!

    Posted by rinardman on 2006 02 05 at 06:59 PM • permalink

  60. Cowering only emboldens a bully. Mazeltove and contact me if you need a safe house in walking distance ;)

    Posted by captain on 2006 02 05 at 06:59 PM • permalink

  61. Courtesy of
    the Purveyor.

    we regret

    You are Jewish and so you are marked for death.

    You are Christian and so you are marked for death.

    You are an infidel or atheist and so you are marked for

    death.

    You are American and so you are marked for death.

    You are Western European and so you are marked for death.

    You are Australian and so you are marked for death.

    You are a homosexual and so you are marked for death.

    You are Salman Rushdie and so you are marked for death.

    You are a Danish cartoonist and so you are marked for death.

    You are a member of the European press who has reproduced

    offensive Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and so

    (you guessed it) you are marked for death.

    You are the rare and brave Muslim who has vocalized serious

    reservations about coreligionists who demonize Jews and the

    West, derogate other religions, praise anger as the noblest

    of all emotions, position victimhood as the ultimate

    dignity, choose violence as the tactic of first resort, and

    blame others for all the ills of society, and so you, too,

    are marked for death.

    Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 02 05 at 07:07 PM • permalink

  62. Way to go dude!  I’m sure that Mohammed feller is looking up from hell right now shaking his fists at you!

    Posted by Supercat on 2006 02 05 at 07:09 PM • permalink

  63. Does ROP’ers approve of this depiction of Mohammed?

    Posted by Ross on 2006 02 05 at 07:11 PM • permalink

  64. That should obviously be “do” not “does”. The image is one which upset a few Palestinians in 1997 so there was much rioting and Benjamin Netanyahu apologised, and the cartoonist was jailed. So apologising for the cartoons will make us as well loved in the muslim world as Israel.

    Posted by Ross on 2006 02 05 at 07:15 PM • permalink

  65. rinardman, Flammflags.  “Burn the flags of the infidels to give them a foretaste of Hell.  Ignition guaranteed.  Full satisfaction or we give you a new book of matches.”  I can’t help you with the venture capital, sorry.

    Given that Aussies are subjects of ‘er Majesty and Sheik El-Imam is threatening violence if Aussies don’t dhimmify themselves, I am reminded of a line (suitably amended) from “Bonnie Dundee”: Ere the Queen’s crown go down there are crowns to be broke.”  If the Muslims in Oz want to riot over trivia, if they insist their prejudices and crankiness must be law under threats of death and violence, then it’s time for some Muslim crowns to be broken.  You want a rumble Sheik?  I’m sure there are Aussies who will accomodate you and yor crazed followers.  And the Government should stomp hard on any Muslims starting violence.

    This whole fracas is Muslims trying it on, attempting to force people in the West to conform to the standards and bigotry of the militant Islamist radicals.  If they get away with this, what will be their next demand, chador?  We must resist this stuff now, for it will only get worse if we surrender.

    Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 02 05 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  66. Islamic law forbids the showing of the “prophets” visage. What are they ashamed of?

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 05 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  67. Allu Akbar what is the world coming to?

    I dunno Battlestar.  I would have thought that someone who calls for the sacrifice 5 million Israelis for the sake of appeasing these lunatics, might be able to fill us in.

    Posted by murph on 2006 02 05 at 07:25 PM • permalink

  68. Go back and read the thread murph, I did some research clicked on a few links that you guys priovided, changed my mind, and retracted, If anyone is still upset I apologise.

    Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 02 05 at 07:32 PM • permalink

  69. 58. kae, I think it’s great the way muslims are exercising their freedom of speech to protest at our complete disregard for their sensibilities.

    Democracy in action.!

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 05 at 07:51 PM • permalink

  70. The original publication in Denmark of these cartoons was supposed to be part of a statement about censorship.
    Was this ever available in English?
    It would be interesting to read if it is still available.

    Posted by Local oaf on 2006 02 05 at 07:55 PM • permalink

  71. #67.  BSG is okay, was not rude or threatening in presenting his (her?) original opinion.

    Incidentally, I went followed that link.  Interesting that the site invites you to leave a comment on their cartoon, but wants your phone number (so they can track you down and blow your house up?).  I tried it.  The comment takes without the personal information.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 02 05 at 08:24 PM • permalink

  72. rinardman, PW — I found your flag suppplier

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 05 at 08:31 PM • permalink

  73. Tim, man! Why’d you have to go and dig your own grave like that?

    Now the allah boogie monsta’ gonna come and burn your place down!

    Posted by quickrob on 2006 02 05 at 08:37 PM • permalink

  74. #68 BattlestarGallactica

    Maybe you might change your mind again if you put it in Context.

    As for the cartoon contests, what are people supposed to do?  Satire is a pretty normal human response whether you (or I for that matter) like it.

    Posted by Wand on 2006 02 05 at 08:41 PM • permalink

  75. #63 I’m sorry Ross but that depiction of Mohammed as a pig writing the Koran IS terribly wrong.
    I mean everyone knows the old stunt was illiterate!
    The Pimp God will have your hide for this!
    Allan Border ackbah!

    Posted by 81Alpha on 2006 02 05 at 08:50 PM • permalink

  76. I am having some trouble comprehending that otherwise rational commentators are castigating the Danish newspaper cartoonists and pretending that we are not having a clash of civilizations. We ARE involved in a clash of civilizations – the West is at war, like it or not, with radical Islam, Islamonazis. The parallel between the rise of “modern” Islamofascism and that of the Nazis has limitations but also parallels. Not all the Germans were Nazis, but paid the price. Not all Muslims are terrorist barbarians, but unless they wish to share the fate of “good Germans” they best tumble to the fact that MYOB (mind your own business) is a far more prudent path than yowling about what citizens of a sovereign nation do within their own borders. We often take our freedoms lightly and assume they entail no obligations, but we do take our freedoms seriously when some 7’th century Islamonazi starts yowling about defaming Islam and killing us in retribution. This includes their nominally 20’th century governments. Go bark at the moon.

    I defend without apology the right of the Danish cartoonists to mock Mohammed and defame Islam, frankly because there is much that is despicable about both. The Danes have had it up to their eyeballs with unassimilated islamonitwits pushing their fascist agenda and frankly pissing on their host nation’s carpet. From what I am reading here Australia is of like mind.

    The Newspaper cartoons were pretty tame stuff compared to this - for a real hoot take a look at http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C  (purloined from http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/  ) Yes, it is over the top, and yes, it is funny as hell. But I will be damned if any foreign national, or immigrant is going to tell me I can’t create it or laugh at it. In an Islamic country that’s a different matter. The Torah was highly offensive to the Nazis should we have suppressed it to assuage their sensibilities? How many Christian churches are there in Saudi?

    The Cartoons neither hurt nor helped Jordan or Syria as Hugh Hewitt argues in Weekend ’Toons Part II http://www.hughhewitt.com/  It helps show the apathetic west exactly how foreign our enemies are and how dangerous. Al Qaeda and the other Islamonazis would love the West to make war on Islam, and in a limited sense we will – on the virulent strains and those that support them. Most Muslims have as well developed sense of self preservation as anyone else. Islam is riven by faction and sectarian conflict. It is not likely we face war with all.

    The MSM is by and large SCUM. They may as well be on the Al Qaeda payroll. They kiss-ass the Islamonazis and castigate the west for its sins. These same jackals fabricated a story about US soldiers at Gitmo flushing Korans down a toilet. The story was an absolute lie – byline bin Laden. This I most strenuously object to. Those who wrote it should be prosecuted criminally and bankrupted civilly to compensate THEIR victims. They caused the deaths of several “infidels.”

    I could not give a fig less what Islam thinks. I care a great deal about what they do. The only knowledge I require of Islam is to “know your enemy” and any friends we may have. Best advice to them? MYOB.

    Sooner or later these nutjobs are going to acquire a nuke and likely use it, either on America or Israel. Israel will solve Islam’s population problem for a millennium. It will probably take something this horrific to unite the US behind the war on terror, rather than leave it hamstrung by partisan politics and treasonous politicians groveling before terrorists.

    Right now one of my favorite fantasies is a certain loudmouthed Wahabi Mullah in Saudi Arabia growing a third eye from a .308 bullet. I have had enough of these damned people.

    null

    Posted by markmc on 2006 02 05 at 08:52 PM • permalink

  77. Not that I care what’s what, sensibility-wise, but how come none of them are funny? Well, they ARE Leunig funny, but that’s about it.

    And don’t gimme none o’ that “Lost in translation” bizniss! I guess Arabic and Danish as well as the next Aussie.

    Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2006 02 05 at 09:01 PM • permalink

  78. markmc — Easy there, sparky.  Next thing you know, you’ll be Questioning Their Patriotism if you’re not careful…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 05 at 09:13 PM • permalink

  79. We are at war with Islam.

    Fudge

    Posted by fudge on 2006 02 05 at 09:14 PM • permalink

  80. markmc,

    to gave a clash of civilisations you need at least two civilisations.

    Posted by jpaulg on 2006 02 05 at 09:31 PM • permalink

  81. Islamist scum need to lie in pig shit along with the leftist that support them.

    Posted by swassociates on 2006 02 05 at 09:39 PM • permalink

  82. #77 I think the one about being out of virgins is pretty funny. The others??

    Posted by Villeurbanne on 2006 02 05 at 09:50 PM • permalink

  83. 52, 55, 59, 65, & 72:
    Could you make ‘em with, like, white phosphorous staffs?  And/or with det-cord trim around the edges?

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 05 at 10:14 PM • permalink

  84. Something very curious here:

    The Australian appears to have lifted a piece on the history of Mohammed illustrations almost verbatim off of LGF operative “zombie"s website.

    Heh™.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 05 at 10:15 PM • permalink

  85. Pictures of the Mohameed


    Brought to you by Heinekins

    Posted by Go Canucks on 2006 02 05 at 10:31 PM • permalink

  86. but wait, there’s more!  http://drawmohammed.com/

    Posted by darrinh on 2006 02 05 at 10:38 PM • permalink

  87. Speaking of curious things to note: even with everything going on, we still manage to have a laugh about it all.

    I know muslims are supposed to have a sense of humour, but it seems to be hiding.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 05 at 10:38 PM • permalink

  88. You know the thought just occurred, coz i read a comment from Kevin Rudd that in relation to these cartoons Australia shouldn’t allow itself to be stood over or intimidated by anyone, i wonder if a politician with a set of balls could come out and say that if all (or a majority) of the mainstream newspapers refuse to publish these cartoons, if they are setting a new benchmark in terms of not wanting to offend against certain people’s religious beliefs, that a law should be passed by the government banning all such offensive images or remarks, against all religions????

    We won’t leave it to the newspaper, television and magazine editors to decide what they will and won’t censor, who they will and won’t offend, letting them feel free to continue to offend the masses but protect the few…  they either decide if they really want freedom of the press in this land and they publish what all the furore is about, or else the government will impose a blanket ban against religious vilification, with large fines and/or jail sentences against any religious offence…

    The publishers and ediotrs can then either come out and defend their cowardice on this occasion and explain why a few mainacs whould get special treatment now and in the future, or they can sacrifice their precious press freedoms which they claim to hold sacrosanct…  it will stop their hypocricy dead in it tracks????

    I wonder if any pollie would have the balls to even suggest it to the media and see what the media reaction would be???  i wonder how the media outlets could defend their current actions????

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 05 at 10:42 PM • permalink


  89. A Canberran sells a non-existing Auckland riot to The Australian:

    On Feb 5, 2006 “OneNews” reports that the 700 strong crowd of NZ Muslems in Auckland “reached Aotea Square a small scuffle broke out and police held one man back from the crowd, but apart from that the protest was peaceful.

    On Feb 6, 2006 “The Australian” publishes (without verification) a claim that “ANTI-Muslim cartoons, which sparked riots in New Zealand and Denmark, would fuel similar outrage in Australia.”

    Posted by tmciolek on 2006 02 05 at 10:47 PM • permalink

  90. And at news.com.au

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18054076-29277,00.html

    Now you’ve done it Blair… ;)

    Posted by Quentin George on 2006 02 05 at 10:49 PM • permalink

  91. Stoop Davy Dave —

    Magnesium staff with WP core, $24.95AUS extra
    Nitrocellulose flag fabric, $11.95AUS extra
    Watching them try to put it out by stamping on it — Priceless.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 05 at 10:51 PM • permalink

  92. This could lead to more cheeze-burning.

    For my part, I will vigorously grill some haloumi tonight.

    Posted by Henry boy on 2006 02 05 at 10:56 PM • permalink

  93. Well, you’ve made it to the Herald.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/blog-hits-back-over-cartoons/2006/02/06/1139074147958.html

    Funny, I could have sworn you and your cheer squad were lining up to metaphorically bury Leunig a few weeks ago, and all because of a little cartoon he did. So it’s Leunig good, Danes bad?

    Posted by gra_factor on 2006 02 05 at 10:59 PM • permalink

  94. Its a pity none of the buggers robes don’t ever catch on fire…  i keep watching and hoping during their stupid demonstrations…  but nope, never happens…. 

    maybe from centuries of experience of this type of retarded beaviour they have developed some sort of fire retardent material to use in their outfits….

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 05 at 11:00 PM • permalink

  95. #94, Leunig a dunce and a hypocrite, but I think you’ll find most here completely supportive of his right to openly be so.

    Posted by HC44 on 2006 02 05 at 11:04 PM • permalink

  96. richard mcenroe
    As part of the kit how about some nice shiny polyester, hooded tracksuits. You know, the sort that go sticky and black when burning?

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 05 at 11:10 PM • permalink

  97. Gra Factor

    Now listen carefully.  This might be a little difficult to comprehend:

    DID WE BURN FUCKING LEUNIG’S HOUSE DOWN YOU STUPID FUCKWIT?

    Posted by murph on 2006 02 05 at 11:11 PM • permalink

  98. Great post Tim.  This is just an example of the type of work product you publish on this blog.  And why you have many loyal persons who come here every day and leave comments.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 05 at 11:19 PM • permalink

  99. #98, not suggesting you did, and I’m not suggesting that burning embassies is a legitmate form of protest. I was talking about the publication of cartoons that a group of people find offensive. Jyllands-Posten are heroes of free speech and Leunig/Age is a bag of asses. Sorry to introduce an oppositional note into all this ra-ra.

    Posted by gra_factor on 2006 02 05 at 11:22 PM • permalink

  100. Top stuff Tim!

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 05 at 11:29 PM • permalink

  101. This in the SMH amazes me:

    The editor of the Daily Telegraph, David Penberthy, has told ABC radio publishing the images could have nasty consequences, especially given racial tensions in Sydney.

    And just who is responsible for these tensions? The people involved in incidents in Maroubra/Lakemba/Bondi, the idiots who beat a man to death in Auburn two days ago, or the average person in the street?

    Posted by Nic on 2006 02 05 at 11:55 PM • permalink

  102. Casanova — Go check my link in #72

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 05 at 11:57 PM • permalink

  103. #100 - Lenuig is entitled to draw what he wants.  This does not mean that he is exempt from criticism.  Similarly, Jyllands-Posten are not exempt from criticism.

    The difference, however, is that Leunig was not threatened, The Age editorial building was not razed and his colleagues were not attacked.  And if they were, then Tim and his regulars would condemn such actions.

    Posted by murph on 2006 02 06 at 12:37 AM • permalink

  104. These articles in the australian MSM are their way of excising their guilt at their own lack of support for their Journo brethren in Europe. Wait for the English press to do likewise, tomorrow.
    In the meantime Tim, congratulations on being the only Aussie with guts!
    And take care.

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 12:49 AM • permalink

  105. I guess it shows on one level how inconsequential blogging is that Tim publishing the cartoons has caused bugger all uproar.  And I don’t mean that to be an insult.

    I find this to be a difficult area.  There seem to be two issues: 1) Subject matter - i.e. the depiction of Mohammed.  2) Intent.

    I found a couple of the pictures to be funny, a few incomprehensible, and others vindictive.

    What seems to be the problem with some extremists is 1, which is based on a superstitious belief, as are all religions.  I have a problem with 2.

    In other words, anything is fair game so long as its funny.  There should never have been this reaction, but there should never have been the intent to stir up hatred. 

    What were your motives for publishing the cartoons Tim?

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 12:56 AM • permalink

  106. It’s also made the ninemsn site:

    Australian website publishes cartoons

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 02 06 at 12:59 AM • permalink

  107. So it seems that the Pope can take a joke and Muhammed can’t—the Pope seems to have a sense of humour—now I have seen everything.

    As our left-wing cousins would say, solidarity, comrade!  Tim, I wholly support your decision to re-print the cartoons.

    #70, the Jyllands-Posten editorial reads, in part:

    The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]

    You can also read one of their follow-up editorials here

    And Wikipedia has an ongoing history of the event

    Posted by Kathryn on 2006 02 06 at 01:02 AM • permalink

  108. Reuters’ current story contains about equal parts moderate Muslim voices disparaging the violence, one reason given being that it’s bad for Islam’s image.  No sh*t, Sherlock.

    Concern over what’s bad for your image is one step towards internalizing civilization, and not to be put down as superficial.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020500259.html

    Posted by rhhardin on 2006 02 06 at 01:34 AM • permalink

  109. I showed the cartoons to the people at work here (they’d not seen them before).

    Overwhelmingly the reaction has been “this is what they’ve been rioting over?”

    And flutee, that’s the reason Tim (amongst others, Nicky and I included) have published these cartoons. It is an active demonstration of the ridiculousness of this Islamic custom.

    BTW The Taliban banned images of anything - no personal photographs, no paintings, no art - on the belief that depictions of anything was idolatrous.

    Banning the depictions of Muhammed today, the burning of the Sistine Chapel tomorrow.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 01:34 AM • permalink

  110. I want to hear Tim’s reasons from Tim if it’s all the same.

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 01:47 AM • permalink

  111. #111- I want! I want! I want! WAHHH!!11!!

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 06 at 02:34 AM • permalink

  112. I want to hear Tim’s reasons from Tim if it’s all the same.

    Why must he be answerable to you, flutee? Try reading his previous entries on this subject. Maybe if you had actually been paying any attention to this blog over the last few days, it would be obvious.

    Why is it the self-indulgent trolls find it necessary to insist on a personal response to each and every one of their petulant demands?

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 06 at 02:37 AM • permalink

  113. I read through the blog they had on this issue at The Age, i was surprised by how many posts there made perfect sense in terms of sticking up for the right of these cartoons to be printed, and condemning the muslim’s over reaction…  i thought The Age readers were mostly dyed in the wool lefty moonbats (and admittedly some of the posts made u shake your head at the stupidity of some people…)  Perhaps many people only post in these types of blogs and have their say on issues, but don’t buy the hardcopy of The Age and support the Fairfax organisation with their hard earned money???

    But one post particularly summed up the stupidity and cowardice of these dingbats…

    I agree whole-heartedly with Sam. The image of Muhammad is sacred to Muslims and this should be respected. Free speech is a right, but not the right to offend. No one should take the piss and provoke entire communities while under the ‘free speech’ banner, or it may be taken away eventually. Let’s not abuse our right to speak freely.
    Posted by: Luke at February 6, 2006 10:03 AM

    Not much of a freedom if in using it u lose it, dopes!!!!  i wonder if the concocted, contrived story about Bush’s service record in the Air National Guard would illicit the same response???

    And thanks Rich, pity a few more of ‘em don’t get their overgrown, vermin-infested beards singed(???) by their stupid activities…  :o)

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 02:43 AM • permalink

  114. I don’t think you’re in any position to criticise anyone else for “stirring up hatred”, flutee.

    Your own cartoons and blog posts are full of hatred, and targeted both at groups and individuals. So take that log out of your own eye before you go looking for splinters in others’.

    Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 02 06 at 02:47 AM • permalink

  115. #27- just right click on the posted images, they’re one big jpeg; you might need some imaging software to post them. I’ve got them on my site if you have trouble copying them here.

    Posted by Habib on 2006 02 06 at 02:54 AM • permalink

  116. The only way we can save the Danes and Kiwis is for every newspaper in Western countries to publish the cartoons. Then the Muslims can go back to hating us all equally, just like they did before!
    Who blew up the giant buddhas by the way??

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 02:55 AM • permalink

  117. Draw Mohammad I think the genie might be out of the bottle!

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 02:55 AM • permalink

  118. Banning the depictions of Muhammed today, the burning of the Sistine Chapel tomorrow.

    ... or blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas yesterday.

    Posted by Ahriman on 2006 02 06 at 03:00 AM • permalink

  119. Free speech does require people who have that liberty to think before speaking.

    Moreover, it is designed to be a free and frank sharing of ideas with the goal of increasing our understanding of the world at large.

    Publishing these cartoons, while undoubtedly offensive to Muslims, is important because it give us non-Muslims a voice, of sorts, to help explain why half of Australian school children, for example believe Muslims are terrorists.

    The correct response in a free society is for the ‘other side’ to use logic, reason and (heaven forbid) perhaps even humour to present their point of view. We are then equally free to agree or disagree.

    The problem is we don’t get that. Instead from the visible face of the Muslim community we confronted with irrational emotion, violence and hate.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 03:05 AM • permalink

  120. And I see that in that great Bastion of Religious Freedom, the Police State of Victoria, the Police Commissioner (God Bless her little cotton socks) has decreed that Publication of blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Victorian newspapers could damage community relations. 

    Oh dear, could some peoples sensibilities be disturbed.  So in this State with its new Religious Anti-vilification laws, would this mean that the police would have to arrest rioting Muslims? 

    Maybe she should mobilise her cohorts from the Victorian Equal Opportunities Commission to be ready?  They surely could find a way at diverting attention elsewhere to invent some other complaint.

    Posted by Wand on 2006 02 06 at 03:11 AM • permalink

  121. I think the mainstream media must print the cartoons.

    Not to prove any point about freedom of speech, or demonstrate bravado.

    Merely to raise the question: “Was this worth rioting and threatening to kill people”?

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 02 06 at 03:12 AM • permalink

  122. The MSM in Australia is making use,in a cowardly way, of Tim’s web site to air views that they are afraid to print. By referring to the third party publication on this website they can claim they can say that they never published the cartoons, if they are attacked by the Muslim community.
    Jeez where’s the old digger mentality gone!
    I expect a hyperspace overload as readers flock to see what the fuss is about.

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 03:13 AM • permalink

  123. Your own cartoons and blog posts are full of hatred.

    Excellent point Evil Pundit.

    Flutee I find your religious ‘satire’ on
    December 15, November 30, October 28, August 15, July 7, July 4, April 24, April 20, April 10, April 3, February 3, to be highly offensive.

    What were your motives for publishing the cartoons Flutee?

    I want to hear Flutee’s reasons from Flutee if it’s all the same.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 03:14 AM • permalink

  124. Interesting to know why this issue flared up now.

    Larvatus Prodeo raised it in October last year.

    Posted by Guido on 2006 02 06 at 03:15 AM • permalink

  125. #125
    The reason is the Muslim world has only just heard about them. To the rest of the world, the cartoons were old news in September.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 03:20 AM • permalink

  126. Gross over-reactions to everything little thing that is contrary to ones own beliefs or behaviours seems to be the order of the day. A few (harmless?) drawings and huge uproar and promises of bloody vengeance are the results - worldwide. It is unbelievable.
    Freedom of speech is just that - the freedom to speak openly and without fear.
    It is not only the Muslim world that would seek to curtail that freedom, although they seem to be the most strident in their opposition.
    Many Christian groups sought to have the movie about Christ banned (I can’t remember what it was called - starred Mel Gibson) and some groups even went so far as to threaten violent demonstrations. 
    There seems to be a common thread of religion through many attempts to curtail free speech.

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 03:20 AM • permalink

  127. So, when is someone going to torch Tim’s embassy?

    Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2006 02 06 at 03:22 AM • permalink

  128. Re # 124

    Good Point Guido,

    so what is really going on. Sounds like a disraction arranged for order.

    Posted by Louis on 2006 02 06 at 03:23 AM • permalink

  129. while the lefties are feeling for the offended muslims, it’s worth asking where they were when Piss Christ was hanging in the national gallery of victoria

    Posted by KK on 2006 02 06 at 03:23 AM • permalink

  130. #100 G’day gra_factor - you seem to be displaying an inability to understand certain distinctions. 

    Leunig had some offensive cartoons published - that was an exercise of his freedom of speech.  Many posters here made comments critical of Leunig - that was an exercise of their freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is a good thing. 

    Criticising Leunig does not infringe his freedom of speech.

    Various people have posted images of Mohammed - this is an exercise of free speech.  Various muslims have threatened to kill them and some have even burnt down embassies in various parts of the world - this is not an exercise of freedom of speech - this represents assault, menaces, violence and, in the case of the embassy burnings, an act of war. 

    Freedom of speech - good(!!!!).

    Assault, menaces, violence and acts of war very bad(!!!!).

    The difference between the good thing (Freedom of speech - yay!!!) and the bad things (Assault, menaces, violence, act of war - boo!!!!) seems to be hard for you to appreciate - maybe you could see it if you stood back a bit and squinted.

    Posted by Russell on 2006 02 06 at 03:28 AM • permalink

  131. Janet, everyone has their “holy cows” of which your not allowed to speak of…  whether it be the feminists, the multi culti’s, criminals, or people of religion….

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 03:29 AM • permalink

  132. Janet
    the Da Vinci code is highly offensive to many Roman Catholics.
    The Mel Gibson Film Is highly offensive to many jews.
    The der Sturmer cartoons published almost daily by the Arab press are highly offensive to all non Muslims.
    the blowing up of the Bhamiyan Buddhas is highly offensive to Many Buddhists.
    Have any of these groups set fire to embassies and threatened the authors with death ? are the perpetratotrs in hiding under armed protection?

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 03:30 AM • permalink

  133. And in this whole furor, it seems to me that people are explicitly saying that if you don’t want to be offended, just threaten to react violently and the MSM and others will pay you the respect of giving u a wide berth….

    the christians have had all sorts of crap thrown at them and they don’t over react so its fine to keep doing…  the muslim’s take their religion much more seriously than we do in the West, and threaten to flip their wig at the slightest offence, and so we really should be knowledgeable enough to know not to interfere or insult them…

    It looks like it pays to be easily aroused to violence and the MSM will respect that….

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 03:34 AM • permalink

  134. Note the <a href =“http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/speaking_of_dan.html”>date</a> Timbo.  No wonder you made the news.

    Posted by saint on 2006 02 06 at 03:36 AM • permalink

  135. I agree Davo, right of reply is a form of free speech, threats of violent reprisals are not. Whether they result in the “offender” cowering under the bed or not. It seems to be a matter of degrees of intolerance to free speech.
    And I don’t think I would go so far as to call the destruction of the Bhamiyan Buddhas an act of free speech - I think provocation might be a bit closer to the mark.

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 03:42 AM • permalink

  136. ‘and so we really should be knowledgeable enough to know not to interfere or insult them’
    that is rubbish casanova and you know it.
    There a re plenty of christians and jews who are highly offended by Islamic insults to their religions.
    Insults that are far far worse than the cartoons above .
    The difference is that these religions are not supremacist religious cults that insist on dishing out aggression and calling any form of defence racist.
    Appeasing Islam is a grave mistake when it is unwarranted, and will ultimately put western civilisation on the road to perdition.

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 03:43 AM • permalink

  137. Good on you, Tim Blair. It’s about time someone posted these illustrations on the Internet. But I must say, the ones you posted don’t look all that bad. I can’t understand anyone getting upset by them. Shame on them. They should just go and take a cold shower and get on with their lives.

    Happy Antipodean

    Posted by Happy Antipodean on 2006 02 06 at 03:48 AM • permalink

  138. Militant Islamists fail to recognise that freedom of expression protects them from persecution for what we might consider offensive behavior.

    Living by the creed ‘if you offend me,I will kill you’ is a religion of hate. To single out any particular subject for exclusion from caricature or criticism is totalitarian censorship.

    Islam does not, and will not hold a monopoly as a target for caricatature, past or present; why the positive discrimination in the form of bans?

    Militant Islam is nothing more than a perversion of Islam and it should expect any criticism generated.

    Posted by JKonstant on 2006 02 06 at 03:51 AM • permalink

  139. #127 - ‘Many Christian groups’ burned flags and diplomatic offices?
    Get a grip - freak.

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 06 at 03:52 AM • permalink

  140. It’s a sad, sad day when Australia and the US need to follow the example of France in defending the freedoms of the press.

    Posted by Ahriman on 2006 02 06 at 03:53 AM • permalink

  141. Davo…  Davo, mate….  i think if u read the content of all my posts, u might have understood that i was saying that is what some people’s opinion out there seem to be, not that i don’t condone or hold that view myself…

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 03:57 AM • permalink

  142. 130. They were queueing up to see it, of course.

    Regarding the cartoons, I had a bit of a chat with one of the rellos today and got told that they should never have been published in the first place.

    The rationale, of course, was that whomever published them was asking for a kicking and should have known better.

    I did ask if we should stop printing things that offend one segment of society, and got told yes!!

    Looks like he’s on my list for Robert Spencer’s books.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 03:58 AM • permalink

  143. You’re a good man Tim. Thanks mate.

    Posted by Pericles on 2006 02 06 at 03:59 AM • permalink

  144. What will they do when they see this !

    Posted by Nic on 2006 02 06 at 04:02 AM • permalink

  145. #140 - Whilst I don’t agree with you I will defend your right to say it. There now that’s not so hard - why can’t the Muslims try it!!

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 04:02 AM • permalink

  146. Any Queenslanders seen today’s CourierMail? According to the nooz tonight, CM published one of the cartoons today. I’ve looked on the website, but can’t find it.

    I see Keysar and Ameer were out in full force today decrying the backlash against muslims and the gross offense of publishing anything resembling a picture of Mohammed.

    Swat Womble (I love that name, but can someone please tell me why??) spoke in favour of freedom of speech and left it up to the meeja.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 04:09 AM • permalink

  147. Hi Nilk. It was in Saturday’s Courier Mail, not today’s. I don’t have a copy but I think I’ll be able to lay my hands on one tomorrow. If I can I’ll send a JPG to our site.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 04:13 AM • permalink

  148. What these broadsheets need to understand is this: you’re either with us or against us.

    If you don’t support me, I’m not supporting you.

    Can I suggest all readers here boycott Muslim goods, including the SMH, and buy Danish instead.

    Posted by Pericles on 2006 02 06 at 04:13 AM • permalink

  149. (1) Did you see Christopher Hitchens last night on CNN tearing into a pompous booby who was rationalising Islamist thuggery and intolerance?  Wonderful.

    (2) Can we declare a ban on being ‘offended’?  Free societies are robust places where opinions should be put to the test.  The fact that I am ‘offended’ often shows that my opponent has touched a sore spot I would rather not admit to.  It is a word used by ninnies who have given up on argument and rational discussion and want to trump opponents with tantrums.

    (3) Some have declared they will not publish what is offensive to Muslims but one feels that the real reason for their ‘sensitivity’ is only the most ignoble fear.  If not, why are they less squeamish about publishing what is offensive to Jews and Christians - and stuff which is far more pungent than these anaemic Mohammad cartoons?

    Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 02 06 at 04:16 AM • permalink

  150. #146 - ‘whilst’- That’s a word you dont hear too often nowadays. You vote National Party right?

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 06 at 04:18 AM • permalink

  151. I wonder if our MSM won’t show the cartoons in question, to put some context to the hypocrisy of the mussies, is it reasonably simple to collect a whole swag of the types of images THEY run against the jews and the West??? 

    or do most of these newspapers in the arab world not have internet editions, do u have to get hard copies of them???  it would at least be interesting if the MSM would say “you’ve been hearing a lot lately about cartoons considered offensive to our Middle Eastern cousins, now here’s a selection from their papers and school text books etc, etc, etc…  U be the judge of who is routinely being intolerant, inflammatory etc”

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 04:21 AM • permalink

  152. Inubanus, that was when Hitchens kept talking over the guy saying he was just talking more babble and nonsense… 

    he was good…

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 04:22 AM • permalink

  153. Old enough to vote Deo Vindice? But seriously I thought the issue was the offensive cartoons - or is your attention span really that short?

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 04:23 AM • permalink

  154. #111, flutee:

    !squeak!

    Posted by Henry boy on 2006 02 06 at 04:27 AM • permalink

  155. Found a translation of the text in the cartoons:
    •An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women “Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!”. In English the poem could be read as: “Prophet you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke”

    •Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: “Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde” (loosely, “Relax guys, it’s just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander”. The reference is to a common Danish expression for a person from the middle of nowhere.)

    •An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into “The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs”. The boy is labelled “Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A”, implying that this Muhammed is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written “Fremtiden” (the future).

    •Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with “Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!” (“Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!”), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.

    •Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription “Publicity stunt”. In his hand is a child’s stick drawing of Muhammad, referring to Bluitgens upcoming illustrated children’s book on the life of The Prophet. The proverb “an orange in the turban” is a Danish expression meaning “a stroke of luck”, here the added publicity for the book.

    •A police line-up of seven people, with the witness saying: “Hm… jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham” (“Hm… I can’t really recognise him”). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) a generic Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: “Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud” (“Kåre’s public relations, call and get an offer”)

    Posted by SandiM on 2006 02 06 at 04:29 AM • permalink

  156. I’m all for free speech, but not at the cost of offending a large minority. And using what Muslim clerics said first as an excuse? They’re hardly people to emulate.

    Posted by vero on 2006 02 06 at 04:30 AM • permalink

  157. I’m pleased to see that such an atmosphere of free speech has been created.

    Mr Blair, you may have heard of Palestinian cartoonist, Omayya Joha.  She has been drawing for many years, however, has never reached an audience of any note due to the proclamation by Israeli authorities that her cartoons are anti-Semitic.

    I’m trusting that Mr. Blair will see fit to reproduce her cartoons here?

    No doubt, there will be some resistance from various groups, however, I’m sure that Mr. Blair’s enthusiasm for free speech will transcend these protests, as clearly his motives are free speech rather than deliberate provocation.

    I’ll look forward to seeing these images posted shortly.

    Gustov

    Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 02 06 at 04:33 AM • permalink

  158. Gustov,
    The Omayya can find her own media outlets and appreciative audience.

    Better still shouldn’t she be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? What’s she doing working?

    Although I suppose she could work from home where no man can look at her… Does her husband approve?

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 04:37 AM • permalink

  159. There is one way to get these things on the news. Possibly there’s even a term for this now - they’ve been occasions where important people have fronted the courts and people have gotten in close with their placard or whatever, I think even Crazy John style mascots have tried this, and in doing so get themselves in the footage that the news cameramen capture. I believe this happened when Vizard fronted the courts over his investments. Throw on the standard Islamofacist face scarf if you want to remain anonymous.

    (I’m using work as an excuse to hand-ball that one to some other more ballsy crusader)

    Posted by HC44 on 2006 02 06 at 04:38 AM • permalink

  160. #154 - I fish and shoot and I vote -
    p.s - the cartoons arent offensive.
    bye

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 06 at 04:42 AM • permalink

  161. When this started (was it only last week !) I went to google and typed in <whatever the Danish paper was called> + cartoons. I must have got 100+ links and took less than 10 seconds to get the images. Some of the links had other links that had images that went way beyond the Danish cartoons.

    So how come some papers are only now saying “Aussie web page prints images ....”.

    Looks like it’s a Machiavellian plot by the MSM to nail you Tim ?

    Posted by Rainbow on 2006 02 06 at 04:43 AM • permalink

  162. By the way, if this is an Auusie web page how come the posted time is

    “Posted by Rainbow on 2006 02 06 at 04:43 AM “

    It’s 18:45 in beautiful Queensland.

    Posted by Rainbow on 2006 02 06 at 04:47 AM • permalink

  163. Rainbow, the Tim’s server is in Florida.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 04:49 AM • permalink

  164. PIMF That should be The Tim - as in The Great Tim.

    ;-)

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 04:50 AM • permalink

  165. Here’s a few strange quotes from some islamic dude…..

    THE president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils will approach the Federal Government to try to prevent Mohammed cartoons being printed in Australia.

    Dr Ameer Ali said publishing the cartoons in Australian newspapers would further offend the local Islamic community.

    and

    “(Australian) Imams are already giving sermons in mosques saying that these sorts of actions can only create more Bin Ladens than reduce them,” he said.

    First of all, why does he think the Australian Government has the right to determine what can and can’t be pusblished in papers????  And secondly, i know it sounds strange, but wouldn’t it be better if these imams acted semi-responsibly and were teaching that there are smarter ways to react to this issue than violence and immaturity, rather than telling their followers this will result in more OBL’s??? 

    How exactly does that help the situation, or is it just our responsibility to completely cave in and roll over on this issue???

    Posted by casanova on 2006 02 06 at 04:52 AM • permalink

  166. casanova

    Right. Fire in the belly - he was at the same time bloody angry and as cool as ice.  Hitchens wasn’t ‘offended’; he was stylishly indignant.

    The booby - you know, the sort they truck in from the Islamic Association for Double Talking Kafirs - was spouting nonsense of the kind that might impress undergraduates and Hitchens sat there for a moment and said simply, ‘Babble.’

    I let out a whoop of joy.

    Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 02 06 at 04:53 AM • permalink

  167. And Kerry O’brien and the 7:30 report have made the their brilliantly insightful contribution to the dabte - with the close parralels of a story of a Mebourne artist having his exhibited burnt Australian flag pulled down and Bronwyn Bishops rumoured private members bill.

    Of course the brave artist gets to complain about the paranoid political climate of the Fascist HowardHitler BushChimp state.

    There is no need really to comment - as Kerry O’Brien has become self parodying, are people really prepared to fall for this sort of bullshit?

    Posted by genwolf on 2006 02 06 at 04:55 AM • permalink

  168. Well they’re not very funny and they did offend a large number of people. It’s those people’s reaction to the cartoons that is the issue here - not your guns cowboy! I think there has been a gross over reaction to the cartoons and to call for boycotts and bloody revenge is extreme and ridiculous. As is any attempt to curtail free speech - regardless of who is trying to stop it. Christians, Jews, Muslims or gun toting cowboys.

    Posted by Janet on 2006 02 06 at 04:56 AM • permalink


  169. has never reached an audience of any note due to the proclamation by Israeli authorities that her cartoons are anti-Semitic.

    Is that really why?  It’s more likely a combination of trying to fill a niche that’s already pretty crowded and not being a very good cartoonist.

    Posted by Sortelli on 2006 02 06 at 04:58 AM • permalink


  170. And in Damascus . . . .

    Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 02 06 at 05:06 AM • permalink

  171. Gustav
    I see no cartoons of christian phalangists celebrating the incursions at shatilla and sabra camps and the sweet revenge for the slaughter of Hobeiki’s family and others at Damur
    Nor are there any PLO “freedom fighters celebrating the massacres of Tel az-Zataar and the Lebanese Christian towns of Damour, Aishiye, Beit Mallat and Tall Abbas. Massacres committed at these places by Palestinian militia under the control of Yasser Arafat, where it is estimated that about 100,000 Lebanese Christian civilians were killed.
    No only cricatures of jews with blood dripping from their mouths

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 05:08 AM • permalink

  172. And then we could also mention HAMA where some 30,000 lost their lives massacred by the Syrians.
    But who has heard of these massacres of some 150,000 Christians in lebanon, when most of the news was censored by the likes of ROBERT FISK and his obssesion with blaming Israel totally for Sabra and Shatilla, his hate for his own soceity and love of Islamic extremism.

    Posted by davo on 2006 02 06 at 05:14 AM • permalink

  173. Gustav,

    I somehow seem to have missed the worldwide protests against Omayya’s cartoons, the threats to cut her into little pieces, and the burning of her country’s embassies and boycott of its products which followed their publication.

    After all, if these things didn’t happen, then there would be no reason for us to be interested, would there?

    Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 02 06 at 05:16 AM • permalink

  174. Well done Tim. Big thumbs up for having the balls to defend our freedoms. I have a feeling a number of papers mentioning your puting these pictures up and merely getting around people asking them to publish the cartoons by giving them an easy way to do it themselves.

    I hope a few newspapers do publish them - the prevailing reaction will be “what’s all the fuss about”, and anyone that wants to riot, let them riot. Only doing themselves and their religion more damage.

    Well done again Tim.

    Posted by Mr Brightside on 2006 02 06 at 05:19 AM • permalink

  175. A somber but prescient warning from Winston Churchill, written as a young correspondent in 1899

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

    Posted by Straf on 2006 02 06 at 05:23 AM • permalink

  176. It has been stated we are at war, or something similar. But I really don’t see that, I see one very noisy, aggressive and violent side and almost nothing from the other (some writing, some cartoons).

    I see non-muslim Australians not saying anything because we are trying not to offend the muslim extremists and do not want to wrongly pigeon hole the muslims we work with and know in day to day life. We don’t want to see riots in “give ‘em a fair go” Oz.

    But the extremists in the meantime are starting to dictate our behaviour, our freedom of speech and our right for satire (“taking the piss”) and to express an opinion. Such as the example Mark Steyn gave with Burger King, withdrawing its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word “Allah” in Arabic script. We don’t defend, question why or otherwise.

    But because of us not wanting to be seen as racist, extremist or just not understanding of the Muslims we do know in our lives, we seem to just be lying down and not saying anything. I had to think long and hard about whether or not is was appropriate for me to send an email out to family and friends with the cartoon and Tim’s comment. But it angers me that I had to review and self censor something that I would normally send out for information.

    We aren’t at war, we aren’t even leaving our homes, and we are afraid of having a voice on this issue. Some ground swell movement should happen with both concerned non-muslims and muslims against the extremists in our society (on both sides). I don’t know how, but something should happen to show unity and stop the stupidity, violence AND censorship.

    At least Tim is willing to have a voice for many of us. Thank God/ Allah for the Internet.

    Posted by othello on 2006 02 06 at 05:27 AM • permalink

  177. What is with the Age? These are new lows, especially considering what they let Leunig get away with!!

    I am flabbergasted by the Age this afternoon reporting on your posting of the cartoons and not providing a link! This is truly shocking. Any other similar story would have had a link to the blog so it is incredibly conspicuous to have it missing. I’m sure they must know that.

    Not only are they afraid to publish them but afraid to even help people see them!!

    Posted by Ben on 2006 02 06 at 05:43 AM • permalink

  178. #158 Not so much a gust of de left as a fart of de left in de dark. You are in catch-up mode, pal.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 02 06 at 06:00 AM • permalink

  179. EP and thin man, why not see what I think before soiling your daks.
    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/02/04/danish-cartoon-furore/

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 06:01 AM • permalink

  180. I’m a black, originally African, and now very proud Australian. I count myself as one of the incredibly lucky few who have been allowed to make my home in a sane, free country after coming from the madness that is the reality of most of the Third World. The reason why I chose Australia was because of her staunch defence of fair play, and her general tolerance of difference whilst still standing up for her core democratic beliefs.

    Which is why I’m astounded at the pandering to a ridiculous overeaction by people who one would think have better things to worry about than a cartoon published by a newspaper they’d never even heard of.
    On the local news here in Australia, I’ve just seen a fairly intelligent Muslim-Australian warning of undefined consequences if the cartoons are published here because they are “offensive” and show Muslims in “a negative light”. What is going on here? I hope Australia won’t be bullied by people who want nothing more than to destroy Western civilisation’s way of life. How can it be that free democratic countries such as Denmark, France, New Zealand etc feel they have to apologize to a “peaceful” people so offended by a cartoon (a DRAWING, for goodness’ sake) that they torch buildings and go on a rampage. How can it be that free democratic countries are wringing their caps in their hands as brutal, closed, hypocritical, intolerant crybabies overeact to a CARTOON? I say that this should serve as a reminder to the free world that whatever we do, however much we apologize and go to ridiculous PC lengths, we are still infidels to the people we are bending over backwards not to offend; an ideological (not racial) war is looming. By apologizing to despotic evil for being free and democratic, we are being evil ourselves. It’s time to show these few pathetic people (I can’t bring myself to believe that the entire non-Western world can be so idiotic) that the free world has the spine to defend itself from those who threaten centuries of social evolution. Good on yer, Tim Blair! Good on yer, Aussies!

    Posted by Black Chick on 2006 02 06 at 06:01 AM • permalink

  181. Black Chick, welcome to Oz, and welcome to the blogosphere. :)

    I think you will find that the infidels here are not the sheep that the non-infidels think.

    There are a lot of people who have no desire to roll over and continually appease those who have no wish for appeasement. Just because the media are saying one thing doesn’t mean that everyone believes them.

    All you have to do is read here a bit!

    It’s a matter of getting the information out, and while it’s taking time, it’s getting there.

    This is why we love Tim and his blog. :)

    (Tim, you so rock!)

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 06:32 AM • permalink

  182. The extremist here in London can call for murder of infidels (and x# of other things) but feel hurt because of a cartoon!!!??? Hypocrisy in its clearest form.

    One good thing I can see in this is that it puts westerners (and other non radicals) together to stand for our right to live the we want. If they hate the way we live why the f##k they keep coming to Europe. I think deportations to east should start soon :-)

    Posted by Obor on 2006 02 06 at 06:37 AM • permalink

  183. EP and thin man, why not see what I think before soiling your daks

    Word up flutee, you are a disgusting ill-mannered, juvenile troll.

    I’m sure it goes against Christian superstitions to put an effigy of Christ into a bucket of wee, but we stuck up for free speech then, didn’t we?

    I read your drivel on the Lost Rodeo and stay by my original assertion that you are an offensive clown.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 07:04 AM • permalink

  184. Congratulations Tim.  Now we better get ready for the impending clash.  It is clear that someone has stirred this up for a reason, and they mean business.  Could it be because Denmark chairs the UN Sec Council that will hear the referral re IAEA? or could it be in response to growing liberalisation in the ME?  Either way they mean business and they are prepared to mobilise the people and conduct violence against all and sundry (think Cronulla revenge on a global scale). It’s time to stand up and be counted and get ready for the war that will decide whether the West stands or falls.  It is as simple as that.  As soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be a nuclear war with Isreal.  Are we ready for that?  The world is scary, but we must be strong and stand firm by our principles.

    Posted by platey mates on 2006 02 06 at 07:16 AM • permalink

  185. You disagree with me Nora?  You think the cartoons should not have seen light of day?  What will you want to censor next?

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 07:17 AM • permalink

  186. cheap shot to get a bit of free publicity for your website Tim! Anyone with a bit of sense would know how easy it is to find these images online simply by performing a google image search… still, you right wingers are eager for all the populist hype you can generate.
    Why should newspapers jump of the bandwagon of hype created by a couple of silly cartoons - thus making this a bigger story likely to generate a bigger and uglier response than it already has. Surely we would all be better off if they were just ignored.

    Posted by james norman on 2006 02 06 at 07:20 AM • permalink

  187. I have read your blog for a while with great pleasure. Thank you. The French (left wing) Nouvel Observateur published them yesterday, the French are not all that bad when it comes to freedom of expression.
    Meanwhile in Jorrdan, Jihad Momani, editor of the weekly Shihane was arrested for publishing three of the caricatures. He argued that “pictures of hostage-takers slashing the throats of victims on camera were more prejudicial to Islam than the cartoons”.

    Posted by Media Monitor on 2006 02 06 at 07:24 AM • permalink

  188. #188

    I see you are in need of a strawman! 

    Now, it just so happens that I’ve struck on an idea that can earn us both large sums of money.  See, every day on the internet, people like yourself find themselves in need of a strawman to knock over.

    They are very handy when you are unable to summon the wit to respond to people who are smarter than you. 

    Why, the next time someone infers that you a ridiculous, attention hungry clown, get your handy strawman, picture them with the face of your foe, and KNOCK THEM DOWN WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!  It helps to pretend yourself to be heroic in the act.  Accuse them of censorship or something.  Whatever make-believe games float your flute.  I don’t care.

    What I would need from you though, is some venture capital.  The price of straw is pretty steep these days.  So, for the small sum of $500 dollars I would be glad to professionally construct your very own strawman to savage to your heart’s content.  You won’t even need to come online anymore, man! 

    For $5,000 dollars, I will start a whole strawman company and give you a major share or something.  I think that’s how business works.  The returns will be better than Webdiary, I can assure you of this!

    Posted by Sortelli on 2006 02 06 at 07:25 AM • permalink

  189. Flutee at #188

    It’s been obvious that you haven’t been reading what I’ve written.

    You are a foul-mouthed self-righteous hyprocrite.

    But at least I don’t want to kill you for it.

    That’s the difference, geddit?

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 07:27 AM • permalink

  190. #189

    cheap shot to get a bit of free publicity for your website Tim! Anyone with a bit of sense would know how easy it is to find these images online simply by performing a google image search… still, you right wingers are eager for all the populist hype you can generate.

    I’m confused.  If the images are so easy to access that posting them would be a meaningless cheap shot, how could tim generate any publicity by doing so?

    Why should newspapers jump of the bandwagon of hype created by a couple of silly cartoons - thus making this a bigger story likely to generate a bigger and uglier response than it already has.

    I’m glad those newspapers have finally learned that spreading information just stirs things up and should be avoided.

    All it took was a little hype.  And threats of violence.  And actual violence.

    Surely we would all be better off if they were just ignored.

    I agree!  Please tell that to the embassy burners.

    Posted by Sortelli on 2006 02 06 at 07:35 AM • permalink

  191. #189, James ask yourself why it is they are so easy to find by jumping on google and doing a search, it is due to the likes of Tim who are not bowing to the threats.

    The fact is there is some serious rioting going on over these “silly cartoons” and that is itself headline news. Being central to the matter the cartoons are then relevant and should be published. The only reason our media would not show them is due to the craziness that these sub-humans see fit to resort to, do we want them to dictate to us what is fit and unfit for publication in our media?

    In the end news or not we shouldn’t give a shit, publish them because we friggin can.

    Posted by HC44 on 2006 02 06 at 07:35 AM • permalink

  192. lol James Norman. Like Tim needed more publicity or readership on his blog?

    In any case it’s not about the cartoons - it never was. It is about how much of our freedom of speech we are prepared to hand over to those who would destroy it.

    Sounds all dramatic, I know, but when someone says the cartoons shouldn’t be published because someone else will get upset, well, we have a problem.

    As a catholic I get annoyed at the assertion that there is no God, no Jesus, and I’ve got a few screws loose because I have faith. But that’s okay, because in the long run it’s only someone else’s opinion, and it’s not worth burning a few embassies down over.

    In this case, because those upset have a habit of not turning the other cheek we should shut up.

    Uh, not going to happen. Especially when it’s taken 4 months to bring it all to the boil.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 07:35 AM • permalink

  193. I can’t be bothered reading what you’ve written Nora, hang on - no one else can either.  Keep writing, they will come.

    Insults aside, can’t you see that we share the same opinion on some points of this issue?  Or does it hurt so much to think that?

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 07:36 AM • permalink

  194. I seem to recall that your first post in this thread was questioning tim’s motives, flutee.

    Why the need to assume he did it out of bad faith?

    Posted by Sortelli on 2006 02 06 at 07:42 AM • permalink

  195. These offended muzz sound just like the rapist who says to his victim, “this is happening because you deserve it, now just lie back and enjoy it! After it’s over it’s soon enough to apologize to me.”

    Posted by Abu Qa'Qa on 2006 02 06 at 07:44 AM • permalink

  196. It was not an assumption of bad faith, why do you assume I thought that?  It was genuine curiosity.  Dialogue and all that.  Never mind.

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 07:46 AM • permalink

  197. #189 James, if you’ve checked a number of Australian publications across the internet today, you’ll see the story is exactly the syndicated same in each case. And the text is entirely lifted from this post and presented as if an interview with Tim Blair had taken place. It seems fairly clear to me as a former working journalist (and I must admit that a large part of this ‘clarity’ is simply intuitive as a trained member of the Fourth Estate) that this has not been a case of Blair seeking publicity but of members of the MSM becoming aware of his publication of the cartoons plus his unreserved accompanying comments and seeking to achieve what they really, really want to do themselves by referring to someone else’s actions. A common trick in the same vein is to put to an interviewee who you are too cowardly to challenge directly that ‘People are asking why you are (insert accusation here)’.

    As for anyone with a bit of sense being able to find the images, not everyone has either unfettered access to the Internet or thinks immediately of Googling everything they hear about. Just today, we surprised a relatively Internet-savvy senior executive with the ability to not only produce ‘those cartoons’ he’d been hearing so much about but also scare up the theme song to his childhood favourite TV show in 30 seconds flat.

    —Nick

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 07:47 AM • permalink

  198. #189 - the problem with your premise (“Surely we would all be better off if they were just ignored”) is that we would be the only ones doing the ignoring. Freedom is not free - it needs to be worked for and fought for. It’s embarrassing for everyone that a simple set of cartoons has sparked all of this, but the flame has been steadily burning for a long while now whilst far too many of those who were born into democracy, and have lived all their lives in a democaracy, pretended that if they self-flagellated enough the bullies would just go away.

    It doesn’t work that way.

    Not publishing the cartoons because they were of inferior quality or were not topical would be one thing…however, not publishing because of fear that your printing presses could be blown up or your embassies burnt down is another. Australia (and the West) has worked too hard to make freedoms a lot of people take for granted an entrenched right…surely you would agree that giving away those freedoms to appease bullies who don’t like or respect you anyway is a slap in the face of the people who built this country - white, black, Asian, Arab etc?

    Posted by Black Chick on 2006 02 06 at 07:50 AM • permalink

  199. It was not an assumption of bad faith, why do you assume I thought that? 

    Hey, hey, hey, why the assumption that I assumed you assumed he did it out of bad faith?

    I was just asking.  Dialogue and all that.

    Posted by Sortelli on 2006 02 06 at 07:53 AM • permalink

  200. 196 Flutee, cheap manipulative shots all. Yes, indeed, we do share the same opinion on some points and it does not hurt me in the least to admit that - except that it gives you some smug little pleasure to take to bed and think about while you play with your flutee.

    Sweet dreams!

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 07:56 AM • permalink

  201. Speaking of dialogue and all that, it appears that this is one thing the moonbats and the deathbeasts agree on.

    (Okay, not all the moonbats, but some of them and that is a great thing).

    As someone said: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    (too lazy to google it but I think it was Voltaire).

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 06 at 07:57 AM • permalink

  202. Great one Tim.  Your comment about the Cruc-fiction book on sale at Lakemba is a case in point.  To Christians this book is both blasphemous and heresy, not to mention offensive in the extreme.  The call of the Imam not to publish offensive material should be applied to these jokers as well.  How sad that we now have censorship imposed upon us by a minority group who feel so insecure in the religious beliefs

    Posted by Zimboon on 2006 02 06 at 07:58 AM • permalink

  203. And I’m the foul mouth juvenile one ay Nora?
    Nighty night.

    Posted by flutee on 2006 02 06 at 08:00 AM • permalink

  204. #199 Flute: It was not an assumption of bad faith, why do you assume I thought that?

    Brcause you do think like that. I haven’t forgotten your charming behaviour on other blogs.

    If you make a habit of acting like a dickhead, don’t be surprised when people assume you’re acting like a dickhead.

    Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 02 06 at 08:03 AM • permalink

  205. It’s rare (like blue moon kinda rare) that I ever agree with you, Tim, but kudos here - you’re spot on.

    Also -

    Inurbanus said: “Can we declare a ban on being ‘offended’?  Free societies are robust places where opinions should be put to the test.  The fact that I am ‘offended’ often shows that my opponent has touched a sore spot I would rather not admit to.  It is a word used by ninnies who have given up on argument and rational discussion and want to trump opponents with tantrums.”

    - Hear hear.

    Posted by Brad L on 2006 02 06 at 08:08 AM • permalink

  206. Just saw this:

    Catholic Priest Shot to Death in Turkey

    ANKARA, Turkey—A teenage boy shot and killed the Italian Roman Catholic priest of a church in the Black Sea port city of Trabzon on Sunday, shouting “God is great” as he escaped, according to police and witnesses… The police official would not say if the attack might be linked to the printing in European newspapers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which has caused anger in Muslim countries. Earlier Sunday, hundreds of Turks protested in Istanbul against the cartoons.

    —Nick

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 02 06 at 08:20 AM • permalink

  207. Greetings from Canada!  I fail to see what all the commotion is about, since American cable TV has the marvelous cartoon shows South Park and Family Guy broadcasting internationally ( well at least to Canada).
    These shows have appearances by Jesus, God, Satan, and Mohammed, and are not what one would call ‘ahem’ reverent. Perhaps the imams don’t get cable…

    Posted by notsnowbound on 2006 02 06 at 08:41 AM • permalink

  208. The big problem in London in the police are being cowardly. They bust people for saying nasty things about Muslims but when Muslims incite murder nothing is done. The letter in today’s Telegraph gets it spot on:

    Sir - If you carry a banner inciting the beheading of innocents and scare the police with your militancy, you’ll walk free. Peacefully read out a list of war dead by the Cenotaph, and they’ll arrive in force to arrest you. What cowardice.

    Cyril Berkeley, Kuala Lumpur

    Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2006 02 06 at 08:42 AM • permalink

  209. Absolutely spot on.  It’s almost though as if we are living in a black comedy… it’s just too bizarre to be really happening.

    But the trouble is, people are already dying.  Islamic fanaticism is only too real.  And mixed with barbaric national cultures and corrupt beliefs, it’s bloody dangerous.

    What are you going to teach your kids?

    Now I know why scientists are developing nano-technology… it has to be small enough to get inside a Muslim Fanatic’s brain.

    I’ll end up on a note to Western, civilised society.  A very famous journalist once said: “Good night and good luck.”

    Posted by AdamsApple on 2006 02 06 at 08:51 AM • permalink

  210. I’m a newbie, so might be wrong, but is Nora and Nick aka “The Thin Man Returns” the real Lord Tim ?

    PS Is it possible that the MSM identified this blog rather than the dozens of other “Aussie Websites” that have published these pics because this blog is actually a far better read than trash you have to pay for ?

    Posted by Rainbow on 2006 02 06 at 08:55 AM • permalink

  211. Has anyone considered the possibility that the riots may have had nothing to do with the cartoon at all?

    I discuss this point on this post:

    Carton Craziness vs Cartoon Comedy

    Please feel free to comment.

    Posted by Kayelene Murphy on 2006 02 06 at 08:57 AM • permalink

  212. #214 Kayelene, I both agree and disagree. It appears for normal, ordinary rioters (I know, I know…not sure what an abnormal rioter would be like!), this is about a cartoon that offends the central theme of their religion. On the other hand, the timing and the mechanics of the thing (which is very ably highlighted in the link you gave) speaks to a greater power initiating and fanning the flames. Someone wants Us and Them to fight, perhaps reaffirming to Muslims that Christianity and the West are out to get them and to Christians that Muslims are out to destroy them. Either scenario, we all lose unless the West stands its ground - respecting the rights and dignity of all, and showing that it won’t compromise its structure for a (probably) temporary and false friendship.

    Posted by Black Chick on 2006 02 06 at 09:10 AM • permalink

  213. #182 Is that a flute or are you just enjoying the show?

    Posted by crash on 2006 02 06 at 09:46 AM • permalink

  214. Hi Tim,
    Great blog and comments. Just wanted to say the pics are nothing compared to other online stuff such as http://drawmohammed.com/
    Over the years I’ve seen muslim web sites depicting Jews as pigs and showing a video of rabbis killing a gentile child and drinking his blood.
    Here in the UK people I know are just as incensed as are Australians at their governments’  sucking up to trouble makers at both our expense and our freedom of speech.
    Incidentally, though UK papers did not publish those little cartoon, they would post (my) link to them.

    Posted by gerryzm on 2006 02 06 at 10:11 AM • permalink

  215. Best Work, Tim. Sorry you’ve been subject to just a couple of inane (insane?) bugholes as in
    #106 Flautit, #158 gustov_deleftoid:
    #106 questions your motives and, with hands on hips and groin thrust forward, insists you answer His worship directly. Tim’s motives are clear and pure and Tim need not answer any nutwit who can’t understand them. The Muslies are threatening freedom of speech by the West through intimidation, REAL intimidation, through murder, all forms including beheading, arson,  torture kidnaping,etc. These are not empty threats since they have been on the rampage for quite awhile. (Read the newspapers, twit.) The purpose of printing the cartoons is to demonstrate that we will not be blackmailed, intimidated into submitting our values to thuggery.
    #158 gustav_leftoid:“I’’m trusting that Mr. Blair will see fit to reproduce her [Omayya Joha, the anti-semite] cartoons here? No doubt, there will be some resistance from various groups…”
    Publishing all things offensive to anyone is not the issue. (Anti-semitic cartoons have no problem being published world wide. Joha can’t be very good because, even with the help of the Israeli government, the Arabs world wide have not published her crap.) The point is, as stated,it is necessary to show that we will not be blackmailed, intimidated into submitting our values to thuggery. Your snide “No doubt, there will be resistance from many groups…” Whatever groups you’re referring to will not behead, sacrifice their children in acts of suicide homicide, and perform ingeiously conceived atrocities against innocents. You seem to believe that peaceful objections (resistance) is undesirable, but it is indeed the most desirable character of a free society, BTW, you use the Groups”. Why not say it out, coward, it’s the JOOOZE! 
    One comment to Janet #127 who says, “It is not only the Muslim world that would seek to curtail that freedom, although they seem to be the most strident in their opposition.” Are you sure “strident” is the word you want? Ummm?

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 06 at 10:13 AM • permalink

  216. Tim,

    A straightforward question: would you have reproduced anti-semitic cartoons?

    A silly move really.

    A proverb: High levels of courage are associated with high levels of ignorance.


    To Freedom of Speech supporters and all that,

    Freedom of speech is not freedom of insult. It should not be tested by insulting people.
    If one says I am insulted, s/he is insulted. There is no point to say, no, you shouldn’t be insulted, or ask, why are you insulted. At some stage you have to take people’s feelings as given, unless you have a robotic mind. You can wave your hands freely in the air, provided that you do not slap anybody.

    Why don’t you agree… You simply do not have any respect for muslim beliefs…Freedom of speech is an easy escape here.


    To the “clash of civilizations” advocates,

    Yes, that’s what we are observing here. Thanks to Westerners, who will never ever understand Easterners in their hot and comfortable beds, and to Easterners who see Westerners as arrogant puppy dog holders.

    To non-muslims of developed countries like Australia,

    I wish you had been able to understand that muslims take their beliefs very seriously. Just because you have the so-called civilized life, which I associate with dog hair, urine smell and sex-driven relationships, you cannot expect them to degenerate their beliefs.

    To muslims,

    OK, you are taking your religion very seriously, but you are harming it with unreasonable actions, which in turn attract further insults.

    Posted by osiozi on 2006 02 06 at 10:13 AM • permalink

  217. Sounds like we’ve got our first actual Muslim apologist. Hurray.

    Posted by PW on 2006 02 06 at 10:17 AM • permalink

  218. There exists a cultural vagueness in the West. This vagueness results from the presence of two different concepts. The first is a great Western concept that we respect, appraise, and need. That concept is freedom of speech. This is a great humane and civilized concept. On the other hand, there is the great Islamic concept of dignifying Allah’s Messenger (SAWS). The problem arises due to the lack of understanding of the Islamic Civilization and the Western Civilization regarding these two concepts.

    Accordingly, We do not want to refuse the concept of freedom of speech, absolutely not. However, the West should alter the freedom of speech so that it does not collide with the very important Islamic value of dignifying the Prophet (SAWS). Here lies the vagueness and ambiguity. The West understands very well the freedom of speech (which we appreciate) but it does not understand Islamic values, such as dignifying the Prophet (SAWS) and other Islamic sanctities. This is where the Western cultural vagueness lies.

    I clearly say to the West, you have a problem. You cannot comprehend how much the Muslims love Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). You are still unable to understand this point. If you had really encompassed its significance, you would never have accepted what happened. The West, in general, governments and people, does not apprehend that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to us than our parents, dearer to me than my father and dearer than my mother. 
    O West, I affirm that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to all Muslims than their own parents. , than our children and grandchildren ,than our money, dearer to us than our own selves. He is dearer to us than our own countries.
    Being a true believer is conditioned with loving Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) more than our own selves.

    I know that the West resists racism as they realize very well what it means. I also know that they stand up against any anti-Semitic assaults as they recognize the serious consequences of such acts. Yet, true contradiction lies in respecting Semitism and resisting racialism on the one hand, while humiliating the most valued figure for Muslims, the Prophet (SAWS), on the other

    This offense does not aim at the Prophet (SAWS) alone, but rather to one billion, two hundred thousand Muslims; or rather to all humanity. To explain this further to everyone, whether Muslim or not, I believe that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) is the greatest personality that existed on earth. There is no doubt that his model of reform was most successful so far and whoever denies this fact is indeed most ungrateful. Slandering him is actually slandering humanity. Great men that existed throughout history were qualified as such due to a certain trait in their characters. Gandhi for example, was a great politician, Shakespeare a great dramatist,Napoleon a great military leader and so on. They were all great in one aspect or the other, while the Prophet (SAWS) was great in every aspect of his life. He was so great morally that he never hit or humiliated a soul, never beat a woman, never betrayed or lied, never went back on his word or avenged himself. He was always called ‘the truthful and honest one’ before bearing the message of Islam, and after becoming a prophet, the values and principles of the Qur’an were the model for his behavior.
    He was great in the way he believed in freedom of opinion. In the Battle of Badr, he changed the location of the battlefield upon the advice of a soldier.  This is how he respected freedom of speech 1400 years ago!

    He was great in his mercy. When he was persecuted by the people of At-Ta’ef and stoned until his feet kept bleeding, the angel of the mountains asked for his permission to destroy them. Yet his response was to supplicate Allah to guide them and to save them.

    This is our Prophet and this is how great he was. Unlike that of other great human figures in history, the Prophet’s greatness is lasting throughout the generations.

    The human race should be proud that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) existed one day, whether they were Muslims, Hindu, Jews, Christians, believers of any kind, or even non-believers. He is a turning point in the course of humanity. This is Muhammad (SAWS) and this is how humanity was humiliated the day he was. People around the world are demanding an international law that protects the dignity of this great Prophet
    [1]this whole comment was taken from this site:
    http://www.amrkhaled.net/articles/articles1244.html

    please try to read more about the prophet and about islam before talking about him.

    these are useful sites to know all about the merciful great prophet(p.b.u.h)
    this is a brief documnet about him:
    http://www.daar-ul-ehsaan.org/truth/must.htm
    this is a link where you can see all topics related to the prophet and islam:
    http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad.htm
    and this is a link to all the biography of the prophet:
    http://harunyahya.com/prophetmuhammad01.php

    Posted by hanawat on 2006 02 06 at 10:35 AM • permalink

  219. The Prophet Muhammad not only insulted (and massacred) people of other religions, but he also had people murdered if they ‘insulted’ or poked fun at him. At other times he ‘blessed’ those who murdered ‘insulters’. This lovely fellow is the primary role model to the Islamic world, yet he was nothing but a terrorist and a criminal.

    Posted by Narnian1 on 2006 02 06 at 10:35 AM • permalink

  220. #219, let’s phrase the question appropriately shall we.

    Would Tim have reproduced anti-semitic cartoons if they were of seemingly minor offense, juvenile in nature even, and had inspired Jews across the world to protest violently against nations who had broken no local laws and if our mainstream media had refused to publish the cartoons despite their significance as a news item, and you might add if such reactions were typical of Jews and there were calls from local Jews to not publish the cartoons… I could go on.

    There’s more to it than just cartoons osiozi as you no doubt realise so the question isn’t as simple as you put it. The idea that anti-semitic cartoons could be the subject of a controversy such as this one just isn’t realistic, Jews tend to keep to themselves and behave.

    I’d imagine Tim would have much to write anyway if Jews sought to corrode the values that we hold dearly, they don’t though.

    Posted by HC44 on 2006 02 06 at 10:44 AM • permalink

  221. hanawat, I’ll just take you up on one point. Islam is NOT A RACE - it is a belief system. Muslims come in every colour, and from every race and ethnic group on earth. There was even a Jew who embraced Islam. It is the IDEOLOGY of Islam that we are critising and will continue to critisise, especially now we have the freedom of the internet where noone can kill us :-)

    Posted by Narnian1 on 2006 02 06 at 10:44 AM • permalink

  222. A straightforward question: would you have reproduced anti-semitic cartoons?

    What a load of crap, Osiozi. The Danish cartoons are in no way comparable to any kind of anti-Semitic drivel. Jews wouldn’t get angry if Moses was portrayed as having a speech impediment (my understanding- thanks to an episode of Lost- is that he did, and his brother Aaron spoke for him much of the time).

    But you portray Mohammad as a child f***er, murderer or generally intolerant bastard, and BAM, suddenly all the worlds Muslims have an ‘excuse’ to rise up against the Western world. Despite your Prophet being many things (and if you want to talk about a Clash of Civilisations- many, many things Christ was not) he is not sacred from criticism or ridicule simply because you will it so. And he shouldn’t be, a free society allows free debate over matters- including religion.

    Wake up and smell the Muslim faith, you dodo. There’s something truly sick with anyone who threatens Europe with a 9/11 because Islam is criticised as producing a disproportionate number of suicide bombers and terrorists (i.e., the cartoon dipicting Mohammad with a bomb on his head).

    You talk about Western society as immoral- that’s a clear indication of your unwillingness to accept the liberty of the individual.

    No one is forcing you to view cartoons you don’t like.

    No one is forcing you to accept what you consider a degenerate lifestyle- just allow it to ensure the individual is sacred from an arbitrary government (i.e, every Government in the Middle East except for Israel).

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 02 06 at 10:45 AM • permalink

  223. SO GET USED TO IT!

    Posted by Narnian1 on 2006 02 06 at 10:46 AM • permalink

  224. James Norman, #189:

    “Surely we would all be better off if they were just ignored.”

    The thing is, James, that these cartoons were printed in September 2005.  They were ignored by most people until now….including the Muslims now rioting.  Now those Muslims are rioting.  Too bad the Muslims didn’t keep on following your advice, eh?

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 06 at 10:46 AM • permalink

  225. #219 The only thing in your post that I agree with is that “freedom of speech is not freedom of insult” (along with my belief that we shouldn’t confuse good old fashioned politeness with political correctness…but that’s another issue for another day). So I guess we should both thank the Deity of our choice that dog-loving, urine smelling, sex crazed westerners don’t exact “retribution” a la sharia for your insults, the beheadings we have been gleefully shown by those so insulted by things like a cartoon or women wearing nail polish, and the anti-Semitic rantings that are common in your mainstream press? Otherwise…no more replies from me on your -ahem- argument.

    Posted by Black Chick on 2006 02 06 at 10:48 AM • permalink

  226. Yet, true contradiction lies in respecting Semitism and resisting racialism on the one hand, while humiliating the most valued figure for Muslims, the Prophet (SAWS), on the other.

    hanawat, one must give respect to get respect.  That’s a Western proverb.  So it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand Western culture….which makes your little admonishment more than a little ironic, cynical, and hypocritical.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 06 at 10:53 AM • permalink

  227. hmmm…

    All this classification by religion. Henceforth, perhaps I shouldn’t be Australian, but Catholic!

    *shakes head*

    People need to get over themselves.

    Posted by Kat on 2006 02 06 at 10:53 AM • permalink

  228. Spot on, Black Chick!

    BTW, Tim…...great post!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 06 at 10:55 AM • permalink

  229. hanawat, #222, LOL, dude! You made me LOL! (SAWS)

    “I believe that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) is the greatest personality that existed on earth.”(SAWS)

    I LOLled! (SAWS)

    I used to think it was Grahame Kennedy, but no! (SAWS) Turns out it was The Prophet! LOL!(SAWS)

    Swiftian satire at it’s absolute greatest! (SAWS)

    Dude, keep it up (SAWS)!
    You rock the Mountain! (SAWS)!

    Islam! LOL (SAWS)!

    Posted by heethcliff on 2006 02 06 at 11:02 AM • permalink

  230. If freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to say what others find insulting, how free is it? The people who do not want you to speak—regardless of your message—will simply declare your statements insulting in order to silence you.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 02 06 at 11:04 AM • permalink

  231. Hear hear.

    A clue for the screaming muslim demographic: Neither God nor your prophet needs your protection.

    Posted by mojo on 2006 02 06 at 11:10 AM • permalink

  232. #219 the so-called civilized life, which I associate with dog hair,

    I myself positively exude dog hair.  http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/annie.html

    I mention Vicki Hearne’s footnote in _Adam’s Task_ ``How To Say Fetch!’’

    (1) It is impossible to say enough in defense of the deeply civilized hearts possessed by most members of the working breeds, especially Dobermans…

    because of her inclination to mention the word on the topic.

    Posted by rhhardin on 2006 02 06 at 11:10 AM • permalink

  233. Osiozi asks:

    “A straightforward question: would you have reproduced anti-semitic cartoons?”

    I have (or at least linked to them). Search the archives, Osi.

    Posted by Tim B. on 2006 02 06 at 11:21 AM • permalink

  234. #219: “Just because you have the so-called civilized life, which I associate with dog hair, urine smell and sex-driven relationships, you cannot expect them to degenerate their beliefs.”

    The psychosexual pathology of full-blown racism. I’d feel less freaked by a simple threat of violence.

    Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 02 06 at 12:05 PM • permalink

  235. #219: Freedom of speech is not freedom of insult.

    But it is, Blanche, it is!

    Posted by Brian O'Connell on 2006 02 06 at 12:25 PM • permalink

  236. #219 hanatwat: Rather be covered by dog hair from my beloved Lab than covered by the s**t you export in the form of child suicide-homicide bombers.
    #221 hanatwat on freedom of speech: “He [the Prophet]was great in the way he believed in freedom of opinion. In the Battle of Badr, he changed the location of the battlefield upon the advice of a soldier.  This is how he respected freedom of speech 1400 years ago!” Poor warped Hanatwat. I suggest you read a primer on Freedom of Speech. Try the “Federalist Papers” for starters. No wonder the Muslies don’t know what they’re doing.

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 06 at 12:44 PM • permalink

  237. Excuse last blog #219 is osiozi.

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 06 at 12:46 PM • permalink

  238. 92

    “Magnesium staff with WP core, $24.95AUS extra” ... “Watching them try to put it out by stamping on it — Priceless.”

    hee hee hee hee hee !!  Watching (from a safe distance) what happens when the firehose hits it might be priceless too.  Especially in an enclosed area.  Of course even these idiots probably don’t burn flags indoors.  Still ...

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 12:47 PM • permalink

  239. Apologist 221

    There exists a cultural vagueness in the West.

    Well keep on rioting then, and maybe you’ll help us focus better.  That’s what you want, right?

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 12:52 PM • permalink

  240. “Western Civilization: The last thing you want is our COMPLETE and UNDIVIDED fucking attention.”

    Posted by mojo on 2006 02 06 at 01:16 PM • permalink

  241. Ahmed: “You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.” Well, that is exactly what it is all about. It’s about not letting threats of murder, kidnap, child suicide bombers and other vicious intimidation force us to submit to the belief of religious madmen and force us to give up freedoms fought hard for us by those who came before.
      I wonder if you even have a vague idea of the meaning and practice of freedom of speech. In the last blog, your co-religionist, #221 hanawat, wrote to ilustrate The Prophet’s employment of “freedom of speech”: “He was great in the way he believed in freedom of opinion. In the Battle of Badr, he changed the location of the battlefield upon the advice of a soldier. This is how he respected freedom of speech 1400 years ago!”
    Clearly, there is no suggestion here that there is any understanding of the give and take required in a free society when it comes to opinion making. Good taste in doing so is preferred, but when one group resorts to beheading, and other non-verbal attacks, insult is required.

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 06 at 01:19 PM • permalink

  242. #244.OOPS. Wrong Bolg.

    Posted by stats on 2006 02 06 at 01:21 PM • permalink

  243. #222.  Accordingly, We do not want to refuse the concept of freedom of speech, absolutely not. However, the West should alter the freedom of speech so that it does not collide with the very important Islamic value of dignifying the Prophet (SAWS). Here lies the vagueness and ambiguity.

    Hanawat, what you are saying is that the West should alter centuries of political and cultural tradition culminating in freedom of speech in order to accommodate YOUR religious belief.  Here lies the vagueness and ambiguity in Islamic thinking.  You simply do not understand us, because you are steeped in a religious tradition that upholds blind obedience and prohibits independent thought.

    #219.  Just because you have the so-called civilized life, which I associate with dog hair, urine smell and sex-driven relationships, you cannot expect them to degenerate their beliefs.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 02 06 at 01:51 PM • permalink

  244. Woops.  Hit the submit button too soon.  Apologies.

    #219 I wish you had been able to understand that muslims take their beliefs very seriously. Just because you have the so-called civilized life, which I associate with dog hair, urine smell and sex-driven relationships, you cannot expect them to degenerate their beliefs.

    Osiozi, I’m offended by this.  Is it okay for me to come and burn down your house?

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 02 06 at 01:52 PM • permalink

  245. 221

    When he was persecuted by the people of At-Ta’ef and stoned until his feet kept bleeding, the angel of the mountains asked for his permission to destroy them. Yet his response was to supplicate Allah to guide them and to save them.

    Yeah, right, that happened, sure thing.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 03:02 PM • permalink

  246. #214 has hit on an important point before I could post in re. A large part of the Islamonazi outrage is an attempt to extort money and concessions from the West - surprise, surprise. The outrage is genuine; the ends are a fraud. The Islamonazis are particularly interested in funding the newly elected Hamas government of Palestine, Paleoswine, or whatever one calls these turds. See Betsy’s Page at http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/

    There are links to articles by Litton & Baehr which are really interesting http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5223

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5224

    BTW #222 you are remiss in not mentioning Mohammed was also a pedophile when slagging the bastard.

    Posted by markmc on 2006 02 06 at 04:25 PM • permalink

  247. His feet bled???

    Shit he got off lightly. Lucky he wasn’t a chick.

    Posted by Henry boy on 2006 02 06 at 04:31 PM • permalink

  248. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.