Beautiful, GM, just PERFECT! I linked to it, but the TB window was giving me an "Error 500. Bugger." message...

-- Kat
www.CatHouseChat.com

Posted by Kat at August 20, 2006 07:48 AM

Outstanding Post!!!!

Like I've said before, we should be grateful to England and other EU countries working so hard not to offend Muslims.

Why?

Because on the theory that the Islamofascists will attack via the paths of least resistance, Europe will be our buffer zone -- the smoking, mid 1980s Beiruts of their cities will be the best examples available to our own useful idiots and maybe they'll finally understand what's at stake.

I like the Brits a whole lot, but they're the only people to blame for their own utter, blind, suicidal stupidity, and I will be pissed off if our govt raises a finger to help them or any other capitulative country that opts to kiss the Muslims' backsides.

Posted by Seth at August 20, 2006 08:07 AM

Cincinnati hosts a Fllying Pig Marathon each year. I've been wondering when someone will bring up that pigs/pork offend Muslims. If anyone ever does bring up the "offensiveness" of the marathon, I'm suggesting we change the name to "The Flying Finger Marathon."

BTW - One nickname for Cincinnati is "Porkopolis" as it used to be the pork processing center of the U.S.

Posted by DADvocate at August 20, 2006 08:13 AM

This comment removed by the site administrator

Posted by GW at August 20, 2006 09:14 AM

York (posting as GW-Global Warming) has finally made an honest comment and is responding to a post at least semi-intelligently, so I will leave his comment up. First York, let me assure you that I am offended by the nonsensical acts of the islamofascists. There is absolutely no reason on God's Green Earth to act in the manner in which they have acted. Being offended by the acts of terrorists is not an "...example of extreme conservatism..." it is the reaction of what should be a totally liberal society. Yes, LIBERAL. Interpret that as what the leftists do not believe in which is the freedom to choose (or not) your own religion without fear of being beheaded. To be gay if you are without the fear of being stoned. To be female or a child and not have to have four male witnesses so that you can prove you were raped. To.... ahhh, nuts, you just don't get it york, you just don't!

The Islamo-fascists are NOT going to liberalize themselves, it is not part of their psyche. For those of them not willing to "liberalize" they can only be exterminated like the pests on the body politic they are.

Posted by GM at August 20, 2006 09:40 AM

G.M., here are a series of comments on this subject from Marc Cooper's post on New Justice News Blog.

After viewing an article from the LA Times, Marc wrote a linked post:
Bush Remarks Anger U.S. Muslims Posted by Marc Cooper on August 10, 2006
President Bush was widely criticized by Muslim leaders Thursday for saying that the breakup of an alleged plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean was a triumph in the "war against Islamic fascists." LOUIS SAHAGUN in the Los Angeles Times.

To which I replied with: Marc, on Bush angering Muslims by calling it like it is…good. I’m angered when they try to blow us up. Write about that.

To which reg replied first with this unrelated statement: Woody, since the information that busted up the London airliners plot was supplied by a Muslim, maybe having the President of the United States making polarizing statements that moderate muslims find offensive isn’t such a smart move.

(Note: reg, seemed to be referencing this one aspect: "...an Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago provided a lead that played a role....", which is so misleading and minor compared to the major intelligence and money tracing activities coordinated by the U.S., U.K., and Pakistan, and the information was not offered voluntarily. But, being misleading is okay to attack Bush, even if off the topic.)

Reg, then continued to the point: And the day that Marc starts making blog entries detailing a list of things that make Woody angry is the day I’m out of here.

Gee, I'm sorry if radical Islamic terrorists blowing up innocent people bothers me. What bothered reg was that I was bothered by that.

Anyway, I responded: reg, Muslims groups only get outraged when the finger is appropriately pointed at them. Then never get outraged or make condemnations when Islaminc radicals kill thousands of innocent people. I think that my “outrage� over innocent deaths by them far outweighs their outrage over being singled out.

To which reg and Marc said nothing. Surprised?

It takes me back to this post. I wonder, now, if the left hates Bush more than terrorists or, seemingly more likely, that the left hates Bush because he fights terrorists--who are trying to put the U.S. in what the left considers its "proper place."

Posted by Woody at August 20, 2006 10:32 AM

Well, you mentioned that she wanted to go to France -- and France IS a Muslim country, so indeed, she should have to follow their rules should she desire to visit.

Posted by Ogre at August 20, 2006 12:03 PM

GM, I will trackback to this today... it just seems so perfect, or is it coincidental?

Posted by Louisiana Conservative at August 20, 2006 12:07 PM

From the article:
"The photograph was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France."

So it's official now? Southern France is a Muslim country?

Posted by Always On Watch at August 20, 2006 01:21 PM

Dude, I feel your "offense."

Posted by Jeremayakovka at August 20, 2006 03:42 PM

Aww, Jeremayakovka, I appreciate that... really... now, I wonder if Bill Clinton will feel my (strike)pain(/strike) offense! ;-)

Posted by GM at August 20, 2006 08:16 PM

In this particular case, France was an innocent bystander. The outrage as GM noted, was perpetrated by a British postal clerk. Once the word got out, the bureaucrats began to play the familiar game of obfuscation and feigned innocence.

This is just one more example of the slow-motion process of British cultural/national suicide, as Melanie Phillips continues to document.

Posted by civil truth at August 20, 2006 09:12 PM

We must ALL strive to be MORE OFFENSIVE from this day forward!! Great photo piece GM!

Posted by chrys at August 20, 2006 09:41 PM

Maybe the question should be:
Why are "moderate" Muslims offended by this girls picture?
Why are "moderate" Muslims offended by the Islamic Fascists remark made by President Bush?
Groups like CAIR are terrorist apologists, and should be marginalized, shunned and ignored (and watched) by Americans!
Great post!

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at August 21, 2006 12:27 AM

How could anyone be offended by that precious child?

Posted by Oyster at August 21, 2006 04:35 AM

I find this story flat out ridiculous for the same reasons that GM Roper cites, minus the huffing and puffing about "islamofacism". Just for information purposes I read that its, thankfully, not in the English Departments policies to bar people from taking pictures with bare shoulders. They are going to look into the matter and hopefully the person who enforced this idiocy will be terminated. I've argued for a long time if diaspora mulsim communities are going to rightly demand that they be treated as equals in countries where they live, then they must fight for equality for all. Enforcing this kind of crap and labelling it as "respect" is simply nonsense which should be rejected on its face. That said, Yorksie, for the first time ever, makes a valid point. This nonsense about enforcing beliefs, and validation of whining, in other words the "culture of respect" im attacking is practiced shamefully every december when woody tyoes whine at loud that Christmas is under attack or suggest that state institutions, whuich belong to everyone, should hang up the ten commandments. Some consistency my conservatives brothers. If not then you come across simply as xenophobes opportunistically attacking those no good rag heads

Posted by Ahmed at August 21, 2006 04:47 AM

"What is completely offensive is asking Israel to respond "proportionately" while not saying one damn word about rockets loaded with ball bearings to inflict damage to civilians being launched into civilian areas by Hezbollah."

What a disgraceful comment. Who are you talking about here by the way? People like myself who were and are outraged at the destruction of of human life in Lebanon, which, it should be said has emboldened Hezbollah also loudly condemned targetting of all civilian life, including Israeli. I already exposed that you were either consciously lying or being sloppy over at Coopers when you falsely claimed that Human Rights Watch doesnt track attacks by Hezbollah. After such embarassment you might want to be more careful in the future. For those whose minds arent already warped with unfettered propaganda deseigned to dehumanise Palestinian and Lebonese lives, cant be many here, this is a video that i was working on

http://tinyurl.com/rx84c

Posted by Ahmed at August 21, 2006 05:14 AM

Ahmed, clearly Christmas is under attack. For 300 years, since this country was settled by Europeans, people have wished each other Merry Christmas and towns allowed displays which reflected the views of its citizens in total if not by overwhelming amounts. Yet, you fully know that Merry Christmas has been replaced by Happy Holidays and that Christmas Vacation is becoming Winter Vacation. It goes beyond political correctness. It goes to the very heart of the left's hatred and disdain for everything Christian. They don't like to hear that there is a Supreme God and that they will be accountable to Him. To them, they are the gods.

As far as the Ten Commandments, you won't find a post of mine saying that they should be posted in every classroom and courthouse, but the left led by the ACLU sure seems all upset when you post something like "thou shalt not steal" in a public place. Why, that might be judgmental against common thieves. They have gone into overdrive lately trying to stop the placement of a cross on private property in New Orleans.

But, it's hard for me to be any more tolerant than I have been to a religion bent on destroying non-believers in that faith and the overwhelming masses of that faith who are afraid to speak up or agree with the mass murders.

You may have said it before without me remembering, but have you spoken out against Islamic fanatic terrorists yourself?

Posted by Woody at August 21, 2006 05:25 AM

Ahmed, thanks for your comments. However, just because you and HRW have spoken out about Hezbollah rocketing Haifa and other cities, the vast majority of the MSM and other pundits, especially those that seemingly openly support the terrorist causes and perhaps including those that decried the (non-existant) massacre at Qana but said not a word about the use of several hundred rockets on Haifa.

you stated: "What a disgraceful comment. Who are you talking about here by the way? People like myself who were and are outraged at the destruction of of human life in Lebanon" Why would you think I was talking about you Ahmed? It should be obvious from the context that I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but about an attitude in general. I'm talking about those who are anti-Israel no matter what the topic, those who can seem to find no wrong in suicide bombings at all.

I will also note, that though I too think that there is a "war on christmas" Christians don't usually strike back by beheading folk, issuing "fatwas" or rioting in the streets. How about a proportionate response from christians? ;-)

Ahmed, you absolutely love to be outraged by the conservative elements, but you seldom exhibit that outrage for those of the left (with the possible exception of your utter disdain for Yorkie - which I totally share). Partisanship perhaps? Nah Ahmed, say it ain't so!

Posted by GM at August 21, 2006 06:20 AM

GM,

You ask, yet again, where is the outrage. I wonder, too. There is a WAR ON....folks. Pay attention.

Whoops, I am mostly talking to myself. They are watching "reality" shows; bashing Bush about the price of gas (gas was rationed in WW II); and whining about one thing and another when Americans have more opportunity and better lives than any time in history....unless, of course, they make "bad choices."

I am disgusted that Israel didn't attack on the ground with audacity, speed and their previous skill. Did they buy into some Americans' silly belief that wars could all be fought from the air and could be concluded without anyone being hurt or killed?

Posted by tad at August 21, 2006 08:00 AM

If the Muslims want to be offended, then they should see the box of .44 Rem Mag shells slathered in pig fat I have for what I hope is an upcoming occasion.

Posted by Vulgorilla at August 21, 2006 08:18 AM

This comment removed by the site administrator

Posted by GW at August 21, 2006 09:16 AM

This comment removed by the site administrator

Posted by GW at August 21, 2006 09:22 AM

Oh for the love of Gawd.

A little child offends? What is the world coming to?

(rolling my eyes and baring MY shoulder for the world to see)

Posted by Raven at August 21, 2006 02:30 PM

On my next passport photo, I'm going to have my gut buldging out from under my shirt. They don't know what offensive is.

Posted by Woody at August 21, 2006 02:46 PM

Guess what. I'm a redneck. I read these today:

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."

You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."

Posted by Woody at August 21, 2006 03:20 PM

This comment removed by the site administrator

Posted by GW at August 21, 2006 06:16 PM

To me this suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or that we shouldn't respect the sensitivities of a culture because a subgroup is really loathsome. A pretty un-guestly attitude for some one who is so opposed to profanity. If you're visiting a different country it is both polite and wise to respect their cultural preference. Also, terrorists are awful. I just want to make sure I don't get in trouble for making that perfectly clear.

Posted by Mavis Beacon at August 21, 2006 08:39 PM

Hi "mavis" (still love that handle). Actually, I am opposed to cursing, but as I note in my rules of commenting http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/171269.php I will occasionaly let a word or two fly in a POST because it is my journal... I very much try not to use foul language in my comments or in my posts, but sometimes ... well, that's the way it is.

As to offending someone, If the child were going to a Muslim country, maybe a point could have been raised, but the Passport office of England says that it is NOT a problem AND the child was going with her parents to "Southern France." Not a muslim country anyway...

Again, thanks for commenting, I always appreciate your input.

And no not all muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists today are infact muslims of a certain pathology... Islamofascism if you will.

Posted by GM at August 21, 2006 08:55 PM

"perhaps including those that decried the (non-existant) massacre at Qana"

According to Human Rights Watch there were 28 people killed at Qana, 12 of them children. That this qualifies as "non existent" in your books is IMHO quite disgusting and a sign that Arab lives, even those who are clearly civilain simply dont matter. As for your so called critique of the MSM on this issue youre either woefully ignorant or plain out lying. Perhaps this kind of racism is simply the price of admission for "I stand with Israel" no materr how many people it kils, homes it demolishes or kids it arrests. Ive argued my entire life for peace anbd reconciliation on the basis of a just solution and a acknowledgement of history, a basic understanbding that the israeli state has comne at the expense, nay was built on the dispossesion of palestinians. almoist every serious israel8 historian now says this yet the ignorance we see, from both american right wingers and libs is astounding. GM name me one book of history youve read on the conflict. The opposite is the case in just about every American newspaper. Every Israeli victim of a disgusting suicide bomber is usually given a name and an identity yet Palestinian victims of Israeli brutality remain nameless before a silent world. The MSM, ill remind you showcased the biography of the one israeli soldier captured in gaza while never once doing the same for the thousands of palestinian political prisoners in israeli jails, captured under a brutal occuaption, many of them there with no charges. Im tired of debating people on this issue who show such a stunning ignorance

As for Woody please. Have you for example once condemned israeli state terror? if you have ive yet to see it. My politics have always put me in direct oppostion to religious fundementalism of all stripes, including those who have utilised some warped version of islam to declare an uterrly immoral holy war. That i even have to go through and explain this to you is a bit silly, no?

Posted by Ahmed at August 22, 2006 02:28 AM

Ahmed, you are terrific as a cherry picker, did you know that? No one said that the death of the children wasn't tragic, I said it wasn't a "massacre." Which is, of course, the meaning of the used phrase; "non-existant) massacre at Qana..."

As for "I Stand With Israel" that is not a stand of racism as the last I checked both Arabs and Jews were both semitic. It is however a choice of a functioning democracy over the kleptocracy of the PA, the state within a state nonsense of Lebanon etc. I suppose according to your lights, that your standing with the Palistanians is also a statement of racism? Your statement: no materr how many people it kils, homes it demolishes or kids it arrests. Ive argued my entire life for peace anbd reconciliation on the basis of a just solution and a acknowledgement of history, a basic understanbding that the israeli state has comne at the expense, nay was built on the dispossesion of palestinians. is entirely unsupportable. When Israel was founded, 650000 palistanians left israel most of them "voluntarily" and a lot of arabs chose to stay... one point one million jews were forced out, yes, forced out, of arab lands. you can pick and choose all you want, but the reality is that there are no cleaner hands on the arab side of this war. The Arab states including Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon could have set up a Pali state anytime between 1948 and 1967 and chose not to, they instead chose to keep the "dispossessed" pali's in internment and refugee camps because they cynically thought that would look better as anti-Israeli propaganda. The Jordanians even went to war against the PA (talk about a stab in the back) when the PA tried to take over. Arafat was a major thief who's wife is now living in luxury based on what he stole from the Pali's. The Pali's are fighting their own war of PA vs Hamas.

Posted by GM at August 22, 2006 06:13 AM

"When Israel was founded, 650000 palistanians left israel most of them "voluntarily" and a lot of arabs chose to stay"

This is entirely my point. Using Israeli archieves,Benny Morris (who is politically on the ISraeli right) has condcuted, by far, the most extensive documentation on the plight of the 1948 refugges. His conclusions are broadly shared amongst almost all serious historians on this matter and the interesting thing is that in Israel no one would even dare to claim that the palestinian refugees left "voluntarily". The level of historical ignorance here is frankly astounding and sickening. Morris argues that there wwre many factors wh9ich forced refugees to leave. The massacres were far spead (most notably in deir yassin) and word of these attroacities made there way into palestianin villages. More so Israeli leaders were quite frank at the time that Israel should use the opportunitty provided by war to force as many palestinians out of their land in order to establish a jewish majority, which as you probably know has long been the stated claim zionist ideology. In the course of the war over 400 arab villages were wiped out and an estimated 800 000 people were made refugees. Morris calls this an ethnic cleansing. Most Israeli right wing propagandist argue that yes there was an ethnic cleansing, but it was justified in order to create a jewish state. I disagree with this arguent but at least its more honest than suggesting that people left "voluntarily" something that no serious person auggests anymore. In fact i dare you to put up some evidence, some scholarship (which has not been discredited) to back up your point. YOu wont find any. Referencing the historical record and giving voice to the plight of a people who have been focibly driven off their land is not to excuse Rab vioence, anti semitism in Arab countries (although ive argued before with woody that Christaibn anti semitism has been hostorically far more prevalant) nor to deny that regimes has exploited and used palestianisn for their own interests. Ive argued that palestinians has in fact become the victims of a victim. That they have paid the price for european crimes, namely the holocaust. im not willing to argue with someone who thinks1948 refugees left mostly voluntarily. Thats more then silly its perverse. Let me suggest that debating this issue with you is no different than arguing about the SHoah with a holocaust denier. Denying and falsying the historical record in the service of ideology is digusting no matter who is the perpretrator. I should mention as well that the palestinians who "chose to stay" is so utterly dishosnest when what you mean to say is the palestianisn who were not forced out, and now have second class citizenship in israel proper (for examly according to israeli law. christain and muslim arabs cannot by law own land on 94 per cent of israel proper which is reserved for exclusive use of "jewish land") If you respond can i suggest that you do so using serious documentation and scholarship about the conflict not simply cut and paste stuff from transparantly biased "pro israel sites" and no little green xenophobes, this is a serious discussion. I will letyou know that i probably wont continue a discussion predicated on falsying history, flat out ignartance and pereverse racism

Posted by Ahmed at August 22, 2006 10:21 PM

"one point one million jews were forced out, yes, forced out, of arab lands"

The best scholarship ive read on the question of the jewish refugees come from an Iraqi jew and Israeli historian Avi Shlaim. Id also recommend that you read this excellent piece "the forgotten refugess" , quite balanced too, which gives a larger historical and political context.

http://tinyurl.com/gkrum

Posted by Ahmed at August 22, 2006 10:34 PM

"No one said that the death of the children wasn't tragic, I said it wasn't a "massacre." Which is, of course, the meaning of the used phrase; "non-existant) massacre at Qana.."

You also claimed at coopers, at the time of the when people were hurrying to find the bodies of their loved ones in Qana, that given the history of "these people" that the whole thing mat have been "staged". A totally disgusting claim that not even the IDF made, with no evidence operating again, i suppose, on the basis that those lives meant so little to you that you were willing to simply make something up. You never apologised for such an offensive and disguting claim. This site is in fact so predicated on this kind of unhinged, ignorant xenophobia that its starting to give me the creeps. IM gone

Posted by Ahmed at August 22, 2006 10:45 PM

Ahmed, as a commenter and pseudo-pundit, you remain as I said previously, a great cherry picker.

You also claimed at coopers, at the time of the when people were hurrying to find the bodies of their loved ones in Qana, that given the history of "these people" that the whole thing mat have been "staged". A totally disgusting claim..."

Hmmm, does cherry picking pay very well? You seem so good at it.

Posted by GM at August 23, 2006 05:28 AM

Youre probably right that i come here for some bizarre reason that ive yet top figure out. Although stubborness and a willingness to debate anyone has lone been weaknesses of mine. That said youre not getting off the hook that fast. More than a dozen children and at least 28 people were killed in a brutal attack, which HRW rightly called a war crime (more civilains than any single hezbollah launch on Haifa, i may add) yet you want to talk about the media feast. Well if you can debase yourself to that point, be my guest. But lets forget about this issue for the time being, since id love to read your response to the far more substancial historical point that iwas making via a vis palestinian refugees of 1948. You made the rather crude, ahistorical and simplty false calim that "600 000" of them left vountarily. I rebutted you and challenged you to cite any proof, scholarship or otherwise to back up a claim that not even far right propagandsit in Israel would make anymore. It matters since apologist for stae terror like you lie so much, pass off bullshit as "facts" and have done so much to distort both the history and reality of the palestinian narrative. But lets forget politics, for now, please provide some Serious evidence or once again admit youre wrong. By the way that essay i forwarded was IMHO a senstive, challenging and complex look at the jews who were expelled from arab lands (it argues for push and pull factors and suggest, rightly, that they reallycant be compared to palestnians ethnically cleansed) anyways i hole you read it. any how im interested in your reply.

Posted by Ahmed at August 24, 2006 06:22 AM

Ahmed --

I am one of the most tolerant people I know, literally.

I'm a Jew. Most of my friends are Christians.

That said, we exist together with Muslims on the same planet.

Problem: Islam believes it should rule the world.

No other religion is as intrusive as Islam, all other dogmas believe in co-existence -- that people who don't worship as they do have the right to believe as they wish, to live and to worship as they wish.

Islam is not a religion, there is no creator that could possibly condone the brutal mass murder of His people as Islam does. Islam is a murder cult, a quasi-religion based on brutality and murder, the suborning of women as something just below fesces and the execution of anyone who doesn't worship as such.

You are commenting at a blog wherein most of the folks who read your comments have read the Koran and know the bloody psychosis of Mohammed.

Islam, unlike the other major religions of the world, is still living in ancient times and has not made even the smallest attempt to join the rest of us in the present, where we are not torturers for amusement, decapitators or suicide bombers. We co-exist.

Islam has no desire to co-exist, it wants only to rule the world and place everybody under the oppressive thumb of Sharia law. If Muslims want to live that sort of pitiful life, that's Muslims' business -- just don't try to force it on anyone else.

But you can't -- the Koran dictates that you guys make Islam the global religion and the inherent slavery the status quo.

Posted by Seth at August 25, 2006 05:32 AM

I have no clue as to what or who Seth is responding to. I suppose its me, yet the thing is that he doesnt even engage me in anything i wrote or said. His rant is not only ignorant but its stupid in the sense that it offers up some broad defintion of "islam", rigidly defined, generalised then it confuses it with a bunch of other statements about culture and civilisation. Again no references to history, nor to scolarship nor to anything really. As for me, Seth, the stupid moron then makes a whole bunch of assumptions such as i support "sharia law" when ive made it quite clear that i rigidly believe in seperation of church and stae. More so my own politics were forged in south africa, under the anti aparthied stuggle which, gasp, yes many muslims were active in. They lend themself not to relgion but more to secular humanism and social justice. Yet because my name is "Ahmed" this mendatious idiotic moron makes all sorts of racist and stupid assumptions about me and still has the gall to call himself the most "tolerant person". What a joke. If this is truly the intellectual standard of the american right, then youre in some trouble fellas. Back to buisness, you know serious stuff seth, not idiocy you trade in, im still waiting for gm to substancially respond to this whole buisness of him claiming that the 1948 refugees left voluntarily. i studied history at university and i finrly believe that ne of the most dangerous and in fact dispicable things we can do is to falsify the historical record in the service of our politics or propaganda. More so i think that if we are to reach a peace and truly just solution for all the people of palestine and israel, that is a solution predicated not on domination or occupation but equality and justice, we need to acknowledge and speak to the painful truth of what happened in 1948 and the course that it set us on. Certainly there is alot of blame to go around and british colonail policy hardly gets off scott free. But the factual as oppossed to idelogical question is what i want an answer to from Gm roper.

Posted by Ahmed at August 25, 2006 09:36 AM