Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Oh, horseshit! When have you known me not to speak out?

Here's JPB speaking out. I believe that her poster and her call to action was a blatant attempt to incite violence. She felt that her position was important enough that she should put her life in peril. Good?... Bully?... Oh.My.God.Does.She.Have.Any.Idea.Of.The.Consequences?... for her!!! She accomplished what she set out to achieve. A WHOLE hellofalot of attention and a death threat to boot.

You don't even know what you're talking about. She simply spoke out in solidarity with Matt and Trey because she didn't think her peers should be scared silent. Shortly there-after; she became afraid herself, retracted her support for Draw Muhammad Day, and even published an apology for thinking it up... all well before May 20, 2010. Anwar al-Awlaki, the piece of **** that added her to the hit-list, knew all of this and did it anyway. How can you possibly have any trouble distinguishing who’s innocent and who’s guilty in this scenario?

She is a victim for doing nothing more than her job, and standing by her fellow artists... and you are blaming that victim instead of the demented piece of **** that's ordering hits on cartoonists for drawing cartoons. Stop arguing your predisposition and think rationally for a minute. Ms. Norris harmed NO ONE, broke no law and is now in fear for her life for having the decency to speak up in solidarity with other artists who've been threatened for harming NO ONE and breaking no laws. She should be admired, not hunted.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Freedom of speech was neither our founding father's to give nor take away. They merely recognized it as one of humankind's inalienable rights. Do you actually disagree?

It has a nice ring to it, Bill, but inalienable, let's get serious. There are limits on freedom of speech everywhere, even in the good ole US of A. If it was inalienable, there would be NO limits. That's what inalienable means.

People are entitled to, theoretically, also in an inalienable fashion, life and liberty, but the USA has trounced on those inalienable rights so often as make the Constitution a big ******* joke.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

First they came for the Cartoonists, but OB was not a Cartoonist but he did speak out, then they came for the Nicaraguans, but OB wasn't a Nicaraguan, so he didn't speak out, then they came for the Vietnamese, but OB wasn't Vietnamese, so he didn't speak out, then they came for the Iraqis, but OB wasn't an Iraqi, so he didn't speak out, then they came for the Afghans, but OB wasn't an Afghan, so he didn't speak out, then they came for the [____], but OB wasn't a [___], so he didn't speak out, ...

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You don't even know what you're talking about. She simply spoke out in solidarity with Matt and Trey because she didn't think her peers should be scared silent.

wrong. She made a call for action that was insensitive and inflammatory.

Bill wrote:

Shortly there-after; she became afraid herself, retracted her support for Draw Muhammad Day, and even published an apology for thinking it up... all well before May 20, 2010.

Agreed.

Bill wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki, the piece of **** that added her to the hit-list, knew all of this and did it anyway.

Agreed.

Bill wrote:

How can you possibly have any trouble distinguishing who’s innocent and who’s guilty in this scenario?

Because it isn't as black and white as you'd like to paint it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

And as a point of international law, her statement was simply incorrect. Anwar al-Awlaki, the cleric whose fatwah calls for the killing of Molly Norris, is a citizen of Yemen. When Yemen joined the United Nations, it committed itself under international law to uphold the UN's rules---including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grates with the values of the Yemeni people, the Republic of Yemen ought not have joined the international organization devoted to it. But it did join, and now Ms Norris could justly expect the Republic to live up to the legal commitment it chose to make.

You make a good point, Thomas. How might Yemen's international responsibilities equate with Pres Obama's directive that the CIA, which is much better equipped to carry out a fatwa than even a large group of angry Muslims, can murder that cleric at will?

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

but even more than that...

I think what bothers me most about this is her insensitivity to millions of Muslims worldwide and your sentiment that they need to be "desensitized".

You've imagined that by taking me out of context. I disclaimed my drawing with a sincere apology to the Billion plus Muslims who would never dream of threatening the life of a cartoonist for drawing cartoons. The fanatical few were the target of May 20, 2010 precisely to inform them that they will not be superimposing Sharia Law by way of intimidation in these United States. The net result of their heinous threats was more depictions, not less. Try placing the blame on the people who actually caused the dust-up, rather than those who defiantly opposed oppression (a position you would find yourself in, more often than not... and probably on this issue too if you took some time to think it through.)

JPB wrote:

"**** 'em if they can't take a joke", eh?

Well, no. Not exactly.

Yes. Exactly. NOTHING is off limits to cartoonists in this country and that is precisely how it should be. Freedom of speech requires that fun can be poked at Christ, God, the President, Muhammad, Budda, everything and everyone else. NO person or special interest has the right to interfere with this freedom, and make no mistake; it is worth defending. So absolutely unequivocally YES; ****'em if they can't take a joke.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Yes. Exactly. NOTHING is off limits to cartoonists in this country and that is precisely how it should be. Freedom of speech requires that fun can be poked at Christ, God, the President, Muhammad, Budda, everything and everyone else. NO person or special interest has the right to interfere with this freedom, and make no mistake; it is worth defending. So absolutely unequivocally YES; ****'em if they can't take a joke.

Molly's cartoon went outside of the USA and though it wasn't particularly offensive [ I think I saw the right one] a different one could see her in a court of law in the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, ... .

You ignorant pricks who think you and what some white assholes wrote a couple of hundred years ago are god's gift to humanity are really the trouble here.

You are the originators of all this trouble. There are probably, what 20 or 30 nations, that if they had the military clout, would bomb the **** out of the USA and they would be much much much more justified than you assholes have been for, well at least those 20 or 30 countries.

Grow a brain, hypocrite Bill.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You make a good point, Thomas. How might Yemen's international responsibilities equate with Pres Obama's directive that the CIA, which is much better equipped to carry out a fatwa than even a large group of angry Muslims, can murder that cleric at will?

Two wrongs don't make a right, and you won't find me defending Obama for this kind of ****. Indeed, I have long ago started a thread criticizing Obama for similar human rights abuses.

2 Replies

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41rJoB9BU4L._SS500_.jpg

Listen, Mr. al-Awlaki, I swear, swear to you, that's not who you think it is! It's Muhammad Ali walking across that sand dune. You remember him...Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...Muhammad Ali!

Sincerely,
Deepak

0 Replies

@Thomas,

You make another excellent point, Thomas. Could you please **** up once in a while? Smile

I just kinda wonder sometimes why oh so many, way too many, always keep pointing to their white hats.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

If I might, Thomas. In your mind, is Obama's threat as bad a wrong as the cleric's fatwa or is it more "justifiable" given that it's retaliatory and, as an officer charged with protecting Molly, kinda being used to save her life/assert a USA position/... /..., I think that it gets kinda sticky, legally and morally.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I have no interest in making this a contest; but in my mind Obama's hit list thing is even worse because, unlike Anwar Al-Aslaki's fatwah, it raises a really awful precedent of international law, which has been maimed badly enough by the US as it is.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

JPB wrote:

"**** 'em if they can't take a joke", eh?

Well, no. Not exactly.

BILL wrote:

Yes. Exactly. NOTHING is off limits to cartoonists in this country and that is precisely how it should be. Freedom of speech requires that fun can be poked at Christ, God, the President, Muhammad, Budda, everything and everyone else. NO person or special interest has the right to interfere with this freedom, and make no mistake; it is worth defending. So absolutely unequivocally YES; ****'em if they can't take a joke.

It really all comes down to this, doesn't it? Those in this country who feel as though they have the right to "****'em if they can't take a joke" putting themselves and everybody else on point to defend their right to do just that.

1 Reply

A never before discovered tribe is found in the Amazon, and the good ole US of A takes it upon themselves to show them the way to grace and salvation, not to mention how to treat their womenfolk, kids and animals.

And the menfolk, well they have to start taking on some of the child raising responsibilities and at least share in loading the dishwasher.

Lessons start after the weekend, your culture, forget that ****, we'll show you the way, the truth and the light.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

JPB wrote:
"**** 'em if they can't take a joke", eh?

Well, no. Not exactly.

BILL wrote:
Yes. Exactly. NOTHING is off limits to cartoonists in this country and that is precisely how it should be. Freedom of speech requires that fun can be poked at Christ, God, the President, Muhammad, Budda, everything and everyone else. NO person or special interest has the right to interfere with this freedom, and make no mistake; it is worth defending. So absolutely unequivocally YES; ****'em if they can't take a joke.

It really all comes down to this, doesn't it? Those in this country who feel as though they have the right to "****'em if they can't take a joke" putting themselves and everybody else on point to defend their right to do just that.

That's certainly a big part of it, yes. But you're too focused on that angle to see the big picture.

Fact: There is no record Muhammad ever commanded people not to depict him.
Fact: There is no mention in the Koran prohibiting depictions of the prophet, and the the Dutch Cartoonists were not by any stretch of the imagination the first to do so.
Fact: The supposed ban against depicting the prophet was created by a man. Said man may have had the authority to demand that his followers obey him; but he had zero authority to regulate the free speech of ANYONE else. This is the root cause of the dust up, and this is the guy your anger should be directed at.

Fact: People have been depicting the prophet for centuries. This only became an issue when cartoonists chose to ridicule Muhammad in satire.

Conclusion: Just like every other major religion on earth; there are is a percentage of Muslims who believe theirs is the one true God... and armed with this knowledge believe they have the right to force their will on the rest of humanity. Fact: They have no such right.

Anwar al-Awlaki called for the execution of Molly, because she ridiculed his faith, plain and simple. WHICH OTHER RELIGIONS DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS TO CARTOONISTS? Your consistent avoidance of this question highlights the obvious fact that answering it would expose the flaw in your reactive stance.

Fact: Rules against depicting the prophet are in no way sacred; they are the advent of men who seek to superimpose Sharia Law over all of humankind.

Opposing the superimposition of Sharia Law over the constitution of the United States is a noble cause. How can you call for "sensitivity" on behalf of the asshole whose intent is to superimpose his religious beliefs on you, your family, and everyone else on this planet at the point of a gun? Make no mistake; that is precisely what he is doing.

First, they came for the cartoonists... and Molly courageously spoke out. Respect her for that, JPB. She is the vanguard resisting the encroachment of Sharia Law... and you don't want Sharia Law.

http://generalbrock.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ishr-burka1.jpg?w=450

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

there are is[sic] a percentage of Americans who believe theirs is the one true way... and armed with this knowledge believe they have the right to force their will on the rest of humanity. Fact: They have no such right.

You can hardly get out a sentence without being a hypocrite, Bill.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Anwar al-Awlaki called for the execution of Molly, because she ridiculed his faith, plain and simple.

Obama called for the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, which constitutes a violation of international law, gross interference in the realm of another sovereign country, a gross violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed him as an American, numerous laws of both the US and Yemen and once again, Bill stands on hypocrisy.

Quote:

Fact: Rules against depicting the prophet are in no way sacred; they are the advent of men who seek to superimpose Sharia Law over all of humankind.

Stop with your fatuous boogeyman arguments. They show you up as yet another childish slurper of government propaganda.

The US stands now as the country, pretty much the only country that is trying to take over the world but you seem to miss this every time though it's often been pointed out to you. Just how thick are you, Bill?

Quote:

WHICH OTHER RELIGIONS DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS TO CARTOONISTS? Your consistent avoidance of this question highlights the obvious fact that answering it would expose the flaw in your reactive stance.

You're dumber than a sack of hoe handles too. JPB DID NOT say that there should be any religions that are off limits to cartoonists. She specifically, more than once denied your silly assertion.

Quote:

First, they came for the cartoonists... and Molly courageously spoke out. Respect her for that, JPB. She is the vanguard resisting the encroachment of Sharia Law... and you don't want Sharia Law.

Actually I'd say that many people do. Some, of course, aren't happy with some of the turns it has taken, but those radical elements come directly from US government/CIA involvement in Afghanistan and other places, playing with people's lives in order to deal the Russians their own Vietnam.

How fuckin' immoral can a country possibly be, Bill? How many Afghan lives were lost because the USA wanted to play politics?

And where is hypocrite, Bill. He's in there pitchin' for poor ole Molly.

Molly never missed a fuckin' meal in her life, Molly never had to watch her relatives get shock and awed into indistinguishable little pieces, Molly never had to watch her brothers and sister get their hands, arms and legs blown off, be killed by mines and bomblets scattered around the US countryside, Molly never had to worry about increased risks of cancer from depleted uranium, nor does she have to worry that a future child of hers will have two heads.

And where's hypocrite Bill?

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

First, they came for the cartoonists... and Molly courageously spoke out. Respect her for that, JPB. She is the vanguard resisting the encroachment of Sharia Law... and you don't want Sharia Law.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Take a chill pill, Bill. She's the vanguard resisting the encroachment of Sharia Law? No, she's not. She's an arrogant American who thinks the right to do something makes it a good thing to do. Your equating her action to the civil rights movement of the 60s is, quite frankly, insulting.

How many different times to I have to say that she was well within her rights to do what she did. Should she have to lose her identity because of it? Of course not. I've already said that too. We're still talking in circles.

You keep fighting the good fight against the encroachment of Sharia. I'm much more concerned about the Christian Right in this country than I am the lunatic Muslim fringe.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Occom Bill replied to this posting. I read some of it, hit REPLY, got a message saying something to the effect of "does not exist" and guess what, OC's reply does no longer exist.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Anwar al-Awlaki called for the execution of Molly, because she ridiculed his faith, plain and simple.

Obama called for the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, which constitutes a violation of international law, gross interference in the realm of another sovereign country, a gross violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed him as an American, numerous laws of both the US and Yemen and once again, Bill stands on hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? In March of this year, al-Awlaki himself declared that he was an enemy of the state by telling the Times the Jihad against the United States was binding on him and every other able bodied Muslim. All Obama did was recognize him as the enemy he is self-proclaimed to be. If you wish to argue the merits this response; start a thread and link it. But I won't cooperate with you derailing this one with your standard "America's the great satan, and Bill's a hypocrite" idiocy.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Fact: Rules against depicting the prophet are in no way sacred; they are the advent of men who seek to superimpose Sharia Law over all of humankind.

Stop with your fatuous boogeyman arguments. They show you up as yet another childish slurper of government propaganda.

al-Awlaki is no boogieman. He is ranking al-queda and is a party to the crime of several terrorist attacks. Boogieman= fiction. al-Awlaki is quite real and has proven repeatedly to be very dangerous.

JTT wrote:

The US stands now as the country, pretty much the only country that is trying to take over the world but you seem to miss this every time though it's often been pointed out to you. Just how thick are you, Bill?

How thick am I? You are the only idiot here dumb enough to believe the U.S. is attempting to take over the world. You're probably also the only one here ignorant of the fact the proponents of Sharia Law have repeatedly stated their intent to do just that. This is propaganda only to the deliberately obtuse. The rest of us believe them when they state their purpose for themselves.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
WHICH OTHER RELIGIONS DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS TO CARTOONISTS? Your consistent avoidance of this question highlights the obvious fact that answering it would expose the flaw in your reactive stance.

You're dumber than a sack of hoe handles too. JPB DID NOT say that there should be any religions that are off limits to cartoonists. She specifically, more than once denied your silly assertion.

Nonsense. She remains wishy-washy over whether or not Molly's actions make her innocent or guilty, and unlike YOU; she has a mind that may change with persuasive reasoning. I realize you're only here for the trolling purpose of railing against the great satan; but perhaps you'd care to identify what precisely you think Molly did wrong; and list the other entities you think she shouldn't lampoon in her satire. I triple dog dare you.

2 Replies

Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

Quick Links

My Account

able2know