Some random cartoons 2.13.2006

Click on any of the images below to enlarge:

Did I offend you?

Do you feel offended?

Bill Clinton said these cartoons were offensive--sufficiently offensive enough, in fact, that they were morally on par with burning of embassies and killing people. In Europe, where these cartoons were drawn, European leaders are considering sanctions and are considering altering their "freedom of speech" rights to make drawing cartoons like this a crime. In Canada, a newspaper considering republishing the cartoons above may face charges of hate speech. And here in the United States, the above cartoons have been described by the major media as "extremely offensive" hate speech. The New York Times used the term "sacrilege" when describing the cartoons, and has choosen to refrane from printing the cartoons, claiming that they usually "refrain from gatuitous assults on religious symbols." (Nevermind that the very next day the New York Times published an image of the Virgin Mary covered in lumps of shit, which some would consider a "gratuitous assult on a religious symbol.")

Yes, these are the cartoons which were used by various secular religious political groups in the Middle East to commit acts of war protest against the excesses of the west.

What strikes me as insane is that from the descriptions (and the refusal to publish these images), the mind tends to fill in the blanks--and people start thinking that the above cartoons (which are, quite honestly, benign) are the worse things ever drawn. And worse, even those who have seen these cartoons have been sold a bill of goods--lied to--by being told that deplicting Mohammad is a fundamental sin in Islam, rather than the interpretation of a radicalized conservative fringe group of Islam who also flew some airplanes in downtown New York to disasterous effect.

And of course the unspoken result of the Major Media being chicken-shit about the whole cartoon thing is that by describing these cartoons as offensive because they violate the religious teachings of a particular religion, and by bending one's freedoms to conform to the standards of that religion (while openly mocking another, competing religion), the New York Times has essentially placed itself under voluntary dhimmitude. One wonders how long it will be before the New York Times starts paying the Jizya--a poll tax historically collected from non-muslims living under muslim rule for the right to practice their religion.

posted by William Woody at 8:55 AM

Post a Comment Home

A moderate conservative living in the left coast, surrounded by the sureal, wonders if there is a sane life living amongst those who have lost touch with reality.

View Profile
Recent Items:

I'm going to hell for this.
Three types of people.
Food For Thought
On Politics
Less famous lines from our Declaration of Independ...
Dark Fiber
A joke.
Is the Cartoon Wars Islam's USS Maine?
Isolationism! Get your isolationism!
Will they kill Abu Laban?

Powered by Blogger