http://www.newsweek.com/id/236828?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newsweek%2FTopNews+%28UPDATED +-+Newsweek+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/muslim-group-says-it-is-warning-not-threatening-south-park-creators/

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/south-park-episode-is-altered-after-muslim-groups-warning/


South Park episode not aired or streamed.

How about we put these people in prison too? These are the so-called Americanized Moderate muslims too. These are the good muslims.

Haha! so a show that satirizes everything with no pulling of the punches in expressing points of view, often depicting other blasphemy and heresy of various other religeous backgrounds, gets the scientology treatment? Congratulations, ratings were faltering anyways....... that should stir them up a bit.

How about we put these people in prison too?It's not a crime unless there's an actual threat. As I read it they weren't actually saying they were going to do anything.

There's still some freedom of speech left in America and I would like to keep the little that remains. Even for scumbags.

But I wonder whether the show's producers would have pulled the show had they made fun of atheists. Rhetorical question really, since we all know the answer.

The crime should be belonging to a criminal organization. Islam.


The notion that there are good muslims and bad muslims is a stupid erroneous one.

There's still some freedom of speech left in America and I would like to keep the little that remains. Even for scumbags. Even when that freedom treads on the freedom of speech of others, I presume.


"If you air this episode, you will end up like Theo Van Gogh"
While broad is, in this instance and context, a direct threat of death.

The crime should be belonging to a criminal organization. Islam.If you start criminalizing religion, you're as bad as they are.

We need less thoughtcrime."If you air this episode, you will end up like Theo Van Gogh"
While broad is, in this instance and context, a direct threat of death.Not really.

Predicting that bad things might happen to you if you do X is not, in and of itself, a threat, and is protected free speech.

Now, if the individual who said it was responsible for violent acts in the past, and has shown a willingness to commit them in the future, you might argue it's a veiled threat, depending on the context. But I don't see evidence of that here.

Who cares about the Muslims anyway; Christians are far worse and are actually in power.

Ok, so my name is Pauly.

And my family comes from Sicily. And I'm Catholic. And wear a 2000 dollar silk suit, with Italian loafers. And my brother owns the Recycling Management company that takes out your trash.

And I warn you, that bad things will become you if you don't do a certain thing.


You, really, are not going to take that as an honest threat.
Really.

Question mark is not there for a reason, Tuda.

You want to protect Pauly's freedom of speech here?
Because Pauly himself is not going to kill you, himself. But members of his culture and group are.


Do you really think, that is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment?

Tudamorf,

You have read my stuff for a very long time.

You have taken some of my even extreme opinions and run with them. Others you take and run into the ground.


ark my words.
One day, you too, will totally discount the idiotic obscene notion that there are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims.

Just read the Koran.
You will get it, eventually.
They want you dead, just as much as they want me dead.
/shrug



psssst, there are no good muslims
psssst, you don't have to be tolerant of people who will not tolerate of you, or who want you to die. And want to kill you.

Because Pauly himself is not going to kill you, himself. But members of his culture and group are.People are responsible for their own acts, not those of others.

No man should ever be held responsible for the criminal acts of his "culture", unless he personally directed those acts, in which case it is his own actions that make him responsible (through aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and the like).

It's shocking that you would think otherwise, in a free nation.Do you really think, that is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment?Freedom to express political and religious views is EXACTLY what the framers had in mind when they drafted that amendment.

Because they were coming from a culture that denied those freedoms and knew all too well how dangerous that is.

You've taken those freedoms for granted for so long, that you apparently never gave any thought to what it might be like to like under totalitarian rule where you're not allowed to criticize the prevailing opinion.One day, you too, will totally discount the idiotic obscene notion that there are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims.I don't believe in any such notion. No religious person who tries to impose their opinion on others is good.

It's more accurate to split them into two camps, the ones that pose a threat and the ones that don't. And in the United States, they virtually all fall in the latter category. Muslims don't cause any trouble here because they know they could never get away with it. So I'm not really concerned about them.

Christians, on the other hand, pose a serious threat.

Another GOOD Muslim

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-nyc-bomb-side_N.htm

Related:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/05/senagalese-muslim-vendor/

Extremists are the enemy. Some of them happen to be Muslims.

If you took the Muslim out of the man what could he ever be extreme about?


Besides what exactly is extreme? He is following the teaching of Moe. And this guy was pretty moderate.
Define extremist.

How do you define it before he blows you up, I mean.

We all know that after he blows you up he was extreme.
So how do YOU tell the extremists from then non extremists before the bomb is made?

We all know that after he blows you up he was extreme.
So how do YOU tell the extremists from then non extremists before the bomb is made?He didn't wake up one morning and decide to bomb a city block. He had ties with terrorists, and admitted to being trained by terrorists abroad.

Anyone who goes to a known terrorist organization for training would easily fall under the "extremist" category.

The real problem here is the total failure of the authorities to have a clue as to what's really going on. Our civil liberties and pocketbooks have been raped for nearly a decade now, with absolutely nothing to show for it -- nothing positive at least.

The only reason this attack failed is that the guy was incompetent at bomb making. He was even allowed to board a plane to escape despite being on the no fly list.

Because he was one of the good Muslims.


As is evident here in this thread, you want the good Muslims left alone.

And only go after the BAD Muslims.



The only difference is the difference I mentioned. A good muslim becomes a bad muslim when he builds a bomb. You really have no other tangible difference which can be assessed.

And I'm pretty sure they are gonna try and keep that a secret.

What the hell is a 'tie to'? Did he look at a website? I go to all kinds of websites. Did he get email? I get all kinds of email. I'm not gonna build a bomb and put it in a mosque.

A good muslim becomes a bad muslim when he builds a bomb.He doesn't wake up one day and randomly decide to build a bomb.

There are always events that precede that, just as there are events that precede those frequent suicide shooting sprees (by non-Muslims) at schools/post offices.And I'm pretty sure they are gonna try and keep that a secret.Well, duh. But if the U.S. government knew what they were doing, they would have intelligence on foreign terrorist organizations, and be clued in when a U.S. citizen goes to a country known to harbor terrorists, and gets trained at a terrorist camp. At that point, they would prevent the guy from coming back and making a bomb.

The sad part here is even when they got clued in late in the game, they still almost let him escape.What the hell is a 'tie to'? Did he look at a website? I go to all kinds of websites. Did he get email? I get all kinds of email. I'm not gonna build a bomb and put it in a mosque.There's good evidence he got money. That's usually the "tie" you're looking for.

quote"U.S. citizen goes to a country known to harbor terrorists, and gets trained at a terrorist camp"

This strikes me as a little bit odd for some reason. It is work aroundable. Considering many of the pedo businessmen that fly to Australia as an example, then hop a boat to southeast asia for their prostitution for little boys and girls, without any one being the wiser, and no stamp on their passport..... Shoot as a kid I used to hop a fence for cheap candy in Mexico as well as squeeze through the Berlin wall for some good chocolate in East Germany, sometimes lunch in East Germany, had this real nice cafe with all sorts of cheese, bratwurst all sorts of yummy things, and be back before anyone knew I left. Sometimes I would hop the Canadian border to watch the Canucks play, board whistler......

Also, consider, places like Ireland with the IRA. Israel, with the various organizations in and surrounding their countries. Bosnia, Czech republic, half of Africa, China, Korea, Russia, France, and so on. How about Latin America? How about the terrorist organizations in the US, KKK, televanglists, 4 chan( some honestly consider them internet terrorists) as well as many other groups.

He doesn't wake up one day and randomly decide to build a bomb.

There are always events that precede that,
ya, he was taught the Koran.
And raised Muslim.



It is your Franz Boaz, Cultural Relativity, and feely good goody Political Correctness which tolerates these people. And allows them to got unchecked.
While we waste billions on frisking blue haired old white ladies at airports.


If an alien came down and observed what you people do it would think you are all freekin insane.

Tudamorf.

I don't think that anyone really needs to fly to a Pakistani training camp to learn how to build a bomb.

Kinda overkill.

Don't you think? I think most readers to this board have the technical knowledge to do it. They just don't have the motivation or inclination.

Islam gives that motivation.

ya, he was taught the Koran.
And raised Muslim. So are about 1.5 million Americans. You just don't hear about them in the media because 99.9999% of them don't cause any trouble.

That stands in contrast to Christianity, where a significant percentage, of a much larger number, causes trouble.It is your Franz Boaz, Cultural Relativity, and feely good goody Political Correctness which tolerates these people. And allows them to got unchecked. Nope, it's self-preservation.

If you give the government the right to condemn any minority group based on the actions of any of its members, you screw over every minority.

Today it's Muslims, tomorrow it will be atheists (more so than usual, at least).

Don't you think? I think most readers to this board have the technical knowledge to do it. They just don't have the motivation or inclination.

Islam gives that motivation.The guy who flew his plane in the IRS building wasn't Muslim. All of the school/workplace suicide shooting sprees, except for that one recent military guy, weren't done by Muslims. That Oklahoma bombing wasn't done by a Muslim.

Try again.

They did not belong to a group did they.

Well, except for the Texas airplane guy, I suppose, he belongs to a group of people the IRS harasses for years on end. We could always watch them better.

uslims belong to a group, which have a common belief system.
We watch other groups which have similar belief systems. KKK, White Aryan Nassis, Black Panthers. All of those people, who belong to those groups are surveillanced and watched and monitored.

The only difference is that this Hate group has a god involved.
They get a pass because they also believe in an invisible man in the sky.

You people are weird.
Atheists aren't a group. No more that people who don't believe in Santa are in a group.

Regardless, if you still want to believe that their are good Muslims and bad ones...go for it. Self delusion is a very valid defense mechanism to inner conflicts, dissonance, and discordance. It just also happens to be a lie. But know one needs to know, or care.

Franz Boaz and Margaret Mead, I'm sure never ever thought their little idea would take such a hold in the collective behavior and belief system. They just wanted to make sure there were untouched savages that they could study in the future, and keep their jobs.

Cultural Relativism is a paradox. And therefore it is false.
y culture believes that there are some cultures which are superior and inferior to others, and that the superior cultures should be elevated and the inferior cultures put down, exterminated even. And my culture, is superior to all others.

As a Cultural Relativist you must not only tolerate my culture, you must accept and believe that it is equal to all other cultures, including your own. My culture is just as good as your culture is and has the same rights as yours.

The paradox is as plain as day follows night, Tudamorf. It's pretty simple.

They did not belong to a group did they.Of course they did.

For example, all the school shooters belonged to the group of gun owners.

So because a few gun owners went out and killed people, we should condemn all gun owners as inherently dangerous and take away their rights.

That's your reasoning, isn't it? If ANY member of a group does something bad, the whole group is bad?

Well my reasoning is, is that they certainly never belonged to a group that wanted to kill me.

uslims do.
Systemically. Codified by their Koran. They want to either enslave me or kill me.

It is an INFERIOR belief system. Founded by a child molester in the desert.

There are NO redeeming qualities in their belief system, that could not be bettered by NOT believing in it.

The only reason we tolerate them is because of Political Correctness and Cultural Relativism. If we had neither of those, we would treat them worse than neo nazzzis. Last time I read, Adolf Hitler never fuucked a 12 year old.

If they had their way, they would systemically eradicate you. And me. We tolerate that only because it is a religion. Because they believe in things which do not exist.

The only reason we tolerate them is because of Political Correctness and Cultural Relativism. If we had neither of those, we would treat them worse than neo nazzzis.No, we tolerate them because the atmosphere of tolerance is in our self-interest.

The atmosphere of "neutralize anyone who might be a threat" invariably leads to killing/enslavement of all minorities.

Are you a minority?

What I thought.

Fear of being called a Nazzi.

/shrug


If the Nazzis made the trains run on time do you support late trains just so that someone don't call you a Nazzi?


Second point. Islam culture is intolerant of you and your culture. What do you mean by invariably? I don't mean that they would not enslave you if they could, they would if they could. But that nixes your absolutism.
You suggest tolarance for a culture which does not return it.
I know you're trying to be noble. But it's not. It's stupid.

What I thought.

Fear of being called a Nazzi.No. Fear of being persecuted.

Don't you understand, that once you create a totalitarian police state to protect yourself against one minority, all minorities (or really anyone not directly in power) will be in danger?

I thought you didn't believe in slippery slopes.


Anyway, I guess it will be 50 to 100 years or so before the 1940s are forgotten.

Then Westerners can go back to doing what should be done, without fear of being called Nazzis, or fear of becoming Nazzis. Maybe more, after second thought, many of you people still feel guilt and fear about stuff that happened 400 years ago to people who are long dead, by people who you never knew.

Did you know that you can't even buy a copy of Disney's The Song of the South today? That **** happened 400 years ago, and you have to hide it now from your minds and censor it.

I thought you didn't believe in slippery slopes.A slippery slope is a concern that situation A will lead to B, will lead to C, will lead to D, and so on, until it leads to something bad. It's a typical libertarian argument when they have nothing better to say.

I am not saying that. I am saying A is bad, right off the bat. The minute you say we should restrict the rights of 1.5 million minorities just because 10 of them prove to be dangerous, you have already created the bad situation. You have already created the police state, the danger.

And I am not afraid being a called a Nazi, or feel any sort of guilt over what Nazis did. I don't know where you get that, or how it's relevant.

A slippery slope is a concern that situation A will lead to B, will lead to C, will lead to D, and so on, until it leads to something bad. It's a typical libertarian argument when they have nothing better to say. It is the fact that when one thing become acceptable or rational, that something else which is now unacceptable or irrational, will become acceptable and rational. Or vice versa. You are old enough now to see that that happens. Just look at your other thread. It once was ok for a 19 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old woman. It is illegal now.

I am not saying that. I am saying A is bad, right off the bat. The minute you say we should restrict the rights of 1.5 million minorities just because 10 of them prove to be dangerous, you have already created the bad situation. You have already created the police state, the danger. I am saying that Islam right off the bat is bad. It is an intolerant inferior culture which should not be. I don't have to tolerate a culture because of culture relativism, which does not tolerate me.

And I am not afraid being a called a Nazi, or feel any sort of guilt over what Nazis did. I don't know where you get that, or how it's relevant. Of course you are.
It is evident in virtually every line of reasoning that you write here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

I would find it hard to find something you have written that does not follow this tract.

Fear of becoming a Nazzi. Or guilt about having traits the Nazzis had. Or fear that the Nazzis will come and take you away.

At the expense of common sense and rationality.

I have no Cortez guilt, or Columbus guilt. Or Hitler guilt. Or slave owner guilt. Or pope guilt. Or small pox blanket guilt.

It makes it easier to think rationally, Tudamorf, when you are not always feeling guilty for things that other people did.

Fear of becoming a Nazzi. Or guilt about having traits the Nazzis had. Or fear that the Nazzis will come and take you away.

For all their faults, the Nazis were very good spellers. I don't know why nobody talks about it but it's true.

I am saying that Islam right off the bat is bad. It is an intolerant inferior culture which should not be.I agree.I don't have to tolerate a culture because of culture relativism, which does not tolerate me.So you believe this country should be based on religious INtolerance.

That the majority should get to say what religions should be allowed, and what religions shouldn't.

That the majority should have the right to arbitrarily imprison anyone indefinitely if they follow the "wrong" religion.

Is that what you're saying? Seriously?

Or fear that the Nazzis will come and take you away.

At the expense of common sense and rationality.This is coming from the person who is too afraid to publicly admit he's an atheist because of the discrimination he'll face.

Oh the irony.

It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

I agree. Good.

So you believe this country should be based on religious INtolerance. No. I don't really believe a this country can have a unified basis. Irrational people should not be tolerated in positions of power, certainly. That is just insane.

That the majority should get to say what religions should be allowed, and what religions shouldn't. I don't know what you mean by allow.
No person who believes in ghosts, magic, invisible men in the sky, angels, demons, devils should be allowed to be in a position that affects other people's lives. These things are irrational, thus these people are irrational. I don't want a person who believes in magic treating my cancer. Or making laws. Or judging other people. Or enforcing the law. They really should not be scientists either.

Do you want a scientist making theories about the real world when he or she believes in magic and ghosts. Unless they are scientists dedicated to studying ghosts and magic, like Dr. Venkman.

That the majority should have the right to arbitrarily imprison anyone indefinitely if they follow the "wrong" religion. You made a sharp right turn there.

Is that what you're saying? Seriously? No, I am saying applying the same level of intolerance to religions that religions apply to their non believers. Seems fair to me.

Do you want a scientist making theories about the real world when he or she believes in magic and ghosts.
Isaac Newton was a pretty religious guy and his theories defined the real world for hundreds of years. They are still used for applications that don't require relativistic physics.

For the most part, I don't care what scientists believe as long as their science is sound.

No. I don't really believe a this country can have a unified basis. Irrational people should not be tolerated in positions of power, certainly. That is just insane.Who decides who is "irrational"? Christians, including ones in power, think you're irrational for believing in evolution and that the Earth isn't really 6000 years old.No person who believes in ghosts, magic, invisible men in the sky, angels, demons, devils should be allowed to be in a position that affects other people's lives. These things are irrational, thus these people are irrational. I don't want a person who believes in magic treating my cancer. Or making laws. Or judging other people. Or enforcing the law. They really should not be scientists either.Well, you can choose only atheist doctors I suppose, but judges, enforcers, legislators, and so on are going to be largely Christian because they're chosen by the majority.

You have no say in the matter, because you're a minority, and your guns are smaller.

The question is, how much power do you want the majority (Christians) to have over minorities (you)? You are arguing for more, against your self-interest. I am arguing for less.

One day, in the far future I suppose, humans will be without all this magic and mythology nonsense.

And they will look back at us with incredulity and dismay(or humor), as we look back at savages who threw rocks or banged drums at eclipses.

You can wallow in your irrationality if you like.
I am able to decide what is rational, by the way. And get to.
I don't need your permission.

One day, in the far future I suppose, humans will be without all this magic and mythology nonsense.Not until human instincts change. And by then the species will either hit a dead end or evolve into some other species.I am able to decide what is rational, by the way.But NOT able to enforce your opinion.

You mean enact my opinion systemically?

Of course not. Who believes they can do that?

I mean even the Pope who has more than a billion people under his sway probably thinks that he should have all of them. And that those under him, don't do what they 'should' do.

If reason and rationality is an evolutionary hereditary trait, I should just donate sperm, I suppose. I know the evolutionary advantages to believing in ghosts and spirits, and having gods to proto humans. I know where those traits came from. I just happened to be born without them. I have an ex girlfriend who has the genetic trait of hairless armpits. That trait should be passed on to everyone too. Even told her to look into the Korean cloning thing, it is a marketable, and sellable genetic trait, gene therapy wise..Oh well.

The only thing that, for all I can tell, that all(or most) Americans agree on is changing the clocks back and forth, in fall and spring. I still can't figure out how that was accomplished. That is something vitally important, changing time, yet we all do it without objection twice a year. Even though DST is obviously superior. Someone was able to convince someone that moving the dates out was a good idea, and that was implemented. I was never consulted on the matter, were you? They just did it, Mustafa Mond style. Which is probable the best way to do things of that nature.

Again, if aliens came down in a saucer and looked at you and studied you, I am sure they would blast the planet to non existence. Barring that, they would at least quarantine it.

You people wallow in your irrationality like pigs wallow in their own feces, and then proclaim the benefits of the **** bath. I don't get you all.

You mean enact my opinion systemically?

Of course not. Who believes they can do that?Christians enforce their opinions successfully all the time.

How many of your opinions, which the Christians oppose, are enforced?

I get away with breaking their rules, just fine. Thank you very much.
Or at least the ones I need to.

And, I don't need my opinions 'enforced'.

I wanted to have sex with Pam Dominguez from across the street when I was 8. I didn't get what I wanted back then.

I have had to adapt to live in this society. Living under their rules has not changed in all that time.
/shrug.

like pigs wallow in their own feces.

Funny you mention that since pigs, if they get any chance at all to avoid it, do not do that. They are actually fairly clean animals when left to their own devices. They do however take the occasional mud bath to try and fight parasites and to help stay cool, just like elephants.


Eri