Another case of organized Islam putting its worst foot forward

This is just spectacular. They are potentially going to give this nice old lady, a British teacher, 40 lashes and some prison time, because she perpetrated a horribly insulting crime against Islam. What is it you ask? She allowed her class of seven year olds to name the class teddy bear "Muhammed."

Off with her head...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

My favorite bit:

Quote:

---

Although Khartoum officials played down the case and said it was an isolated incident, Sudan's top clerics said in a statement Wednesday that the full measure of the law should be applied against Ms. Gibbons, calling the incident part of a broader Western "plot" against Islam.
Northern Sudan's legal system is based on Islam's Sharia law, which harshly punishes blasphemy. Any depiction of the prophet is forbidden in Islam, for fear it would provoke idolatry. Caricatures of Muhammed in some European media last year sparked riots in several Muslim countries.
The Sudanese clerics said this was blasphemy and believed it was intentional.
"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said the statement.
"It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam," they said.

---

Idiots.

I've been following this story for the last few days. Well as they say "When in Rome....." etc, etc.....even if the Romans turn out to be vicious, sadistic, mongtards.

The poor, poor woman. :shame:

Ahem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ahem.

---

OK.

However, now that this poor women has been charged, I think it deserves a thread of it's own.

BTW, she didn't name the 'teddy', her class did, by a democratic vote. Something that she had to explain beforehand as her pupils had absolutely no clue about democracy. Mebbe that's (one of) the issues here.

Just a thought.

I hope she can expect more British support than the non-Muslim minority in Sudan...

That is wrong. Utterly and completely wrong. My condolences to her.

By the way, was she a citizen of Sudan, or muslim even?

She's a Scouser.

Apparently the private school where she teaches is a Christian school, even though most pupils come from Muslim homes. I think that goes a long way toward explaining the commotion.

Idiots, nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

She's a Scouser.

---

Oh, if she's a scouser then why the hell does she have a thread, let alone evoke compassion within us?
On a serious note, I think this is awful! Is not Muhammed a common name for some areas of the Islamic world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Is not Muhammed a common name for some areas of the Islamic world?

---

It's extremely common. One of the boys in her class was named Muhammed, and they named the bear after him. The prosecution is baseless, stupid, and utterly silly. I can't imagine a better way for Sudan to make itself ridiculous, or to tarnish the reputation of Islamic Law.

Contrary to many claims in this thread, they are not "idiots" just because they take their religion seriously.


The teacher easily could have insisted on another, non-offensive name and avoid this whole issue. That she did not just goes to show that she was likely trying to inflame the Muslim world, or at least indifferent as to whether she would or not. Part of a good teacher's responsibility is to avoid doing irresponsible things like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The teacher easily could have insisted on another, non-offensive name and avoid this whole issue. That she did not just goes to show that she was likely trying to inflame the Muslim world, or at least indifferent as to whether she would or not.

---

Nav, why not do a bit of research before you post?

A pupil of the teacher leapt to her defence yesterday.

The seven-year-old said he suggested the name – after himself, not the Islamic prophet.

And he says he would be upset if jailed Gillian Gibbons never came back to teach at Unity High School in Sudan’s capital Khartoum.

The lad, who spells his name Mohammad, said: “The teacher asked what I wanted to call the teddy. I said Mohammad, after my name.”

He added that most of his class agreed with his choice and described Gillian, of Liverpool, as a “very nice” teacher who never mentioned religion in class.

His mum added: “I’m annoyed that this has escalated in this way. If it happened as he said, then there is no problem here – it was not intended.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Nav, why not do a bit of research before you post?

---

That is just one side of the story, and may not be the true side.

There is also the other side which states:

Quote:

---

The Sudanese clerics said this was blasphemy and believed it was intentional.

---

And in any case, if she did indeed do it inadvertently, then it speaks to her not having a proper level of world religion education to hold a teaching position, especially one where she is teaching Muslim students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Oh, if she's a scouser then why the hell does she have a thread, let alone evoke compassion within us?

---

Exactly what I was thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Contrary to many claims in this thread, they are not "idiots" just because they take their religion seriously.


The teacher easily could have insisted on another, non-offensive name and avoid this whole issue. That she did not just goes to show that she was likely trying to inflame the Muslim world, or at least indifferent as to whether she would or not. Part of a good teacher's responsibility is to avoid doing irresponsible things like that.

---

Muhammed is a pretty common name. It would not have occurred to me, someone who lived his whole life in a muslim society, that this name is more inappropriate than any other for a teddy bear. So I don't see any reason to suspect that the teacher did it intentionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

Muhammed is a pretty common name. It would not have occurred to me, someone who lived his whole life in a muslim society, that this name is more inappropriate than any other for a teddy bear. So I don't see any reason to suspect that the teacher did it intentionally.

---

Jesus is a pretty common name too, but you should still be careful of which things you name jesus. Especially if you live in a theocracy or similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Jesus is a pretty common name too, but you should still be careful of which things you name jesus. Especially if you live in a theocracy or similar.

---

So, why is it okay to give the name Mohammed to a person, and not to a teddy bear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

So, why is it okay to give the name Mohammed to a person, and not to a teddy bear?

---

Because a person is a human being, and thus worth quite a bit more than a teddy bear, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's extremely common. One of the boys in her class was named Muhammed, and they named the bear after him. The prosecution is baseless, stupid, and utterly silly. I can't imagine a better way for Sudan to make itself ridiculous, or to tarnish the reputation of Islamic Law.

---

This is the reputation, and in fact the reality, of islamic "law".

Rule by decree, no rights, no fair trials, incredibly brutal punishments, confessions via torture, and no real concept of justice.

But hey, they came up with script over 1000 years ago, what a beautiful society... ~:wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Rule by decree, no rights, no fair trials, incredibly brutal punishments, confessions via torture, and no real concept of justice.

---

That's the truth of every society who lacks democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Jesus is a pretty common name too, but you should still be careful of which things you name jesus. Especially if you live in a theocracy or similar.

---

Name one place in the world where you would be lashed 40 times for naming a Teddy Bear Jesus. The only fanatics I would worry about lashing me 40 times would be the ones in the Society for Separation of Church and State.

And Navaros, quit using your religious beliefs to troll. It doesn't become you, or the Christ you claim to follow.

Quote:

---

So, why is it okay to give the name Mohammed to a person, and not to a teddy bear?

---

I'm sure naming a child Mohammed is a way of honouring the Prophet, and I believe that in Islamic societies, the choice of a name is designed to impart certain qualities to the recipient. To be named Muhammed is to become like Muhammed.

Furthermore, Islam proscribes the making of images of creation (this extends to human beings generally, not just the Prophet) - according to my Muslim friends, their children are not allowed to have dolls, as these are an infringement of that ruling (of course, it doesn't mean they don't have dolls etc ~D). Which puts teddy bears in an unusual situation - are they "bears" or not? Obviously a teddy bear as portrayed is not a reproduction of a real bear, so can it be idolatrous?

However, all that said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OP

The Sudanese clerics said this was blasphemy and believed it was intentional.
"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said the statement.
"It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam," they said.

---

... is complete garbage. Some people just look for excuses to be offended - it's vanity, pure and simple, and something probably very un-Quranic, too.

If we gave these ulemas the respect they deserve, they would truly learn what an insult is :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Name one place in the world where you would be lashed 40 times for naming a Teddy Bear Jesus.

---

It doesn't exist, because fortunately the christian lunatics don't rule any countries(as opposed to islamic lunatics, who rule a few countries).

Though there have been more than a few idiot cases in the christian world too, like raped women jailed up for having an abortion...

Bah. Dispicable story, really. Story is proof why countries need separation of church and state.(well, there are other examples too) It really doesn't do justice to the vast majority of muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Bah. Dispicable story, really. Story is proof why countries need separation of church and state.(well, there are other examples too) It really doesn't do justice to the vast majority of muslims.

---

Well, a state church can work the other way too, it doesn't have to be the church meddling with state affairs, it can also be the state meddling with church affairs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

Rule by decree, no rights, no fair trials, incredibly brutal punishments, confessions via torture, and no real concept of justice.

---

Sounds like Gitmo to me :clown:

... but seriously, PJ, can't you find a broader brush to paint the situation with? Or maybe you just know bugger all about the intricacies so will gloss over them like they don't exist? "Sharia law" is no more monolithic than "western law" - different jurisdictions have different codes and traditions, rulings are interpretations, it is different between the Sunni and Shia traditions, Wahhabists are different again, some points of law swing on disagreements over the precise meaning of obscure words in Quranic Arabic etc etc.

Now, I agree that currently some Islamic courts seem to be under the sway of a bunch of virulent dingbats, but not all. Some secular, Western societies have some pretty crazy judges too, but to brand the whole tradition with the excesses of the extremes is not helpful at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Some secular, Western societies have some pretty crazy judges too

---

I think Fragony can expand on that topic :laugh4:

You mean like the guy from Niagara who locked up the entire courthouse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You mean like the guy from Niagara who locked up the entire courthouse?

---

When did Nigeria become a western country? :inquisitive:

Truly absurd case, very stupid on behalf of the Sudanese government, for what reasons i'll explain in a second. Opened the letter page of The Times the day after the story broke, and there was a single letter that pretty much sums up the whole situation, from a muslim bloke in Glasgow and went something along these lines.

'This makes me embarassed to be a muslim and to be Sudanese.'

And then i read The Times article on it where they made a pretty good point - nowhere in the Koran does it say you shall not make idols of Mohammed (pbuh). Nowhere does it forbade it - it just frowns on it, but it does not say that adorable English teachers should get a flogging for allowing some little kid to name a teddy after himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When did Nigeria Niagara become a western country? :inquisitive:

---

IIRC it's on the Canadian/USA border, there's a little waterfall there as well. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

IIRC it's on the Canadian/USA border, there's a little waterfall there as well. :clown:

---

Dang! I curse my eyes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because a person is a human being, and thus worth quite a bit more than a teddy bear, perhaps?

---

there is no consensus on the use of Mohammed, some consider it idolatry whereas others do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Name one place in the world where you would be lashed 40 times for naming a Teddy Bear Jesus. The only fanatics I would worry about lashing me 40 times would be the ones in the Society for Separation of Church and State.

And Navaros, quit using your religious beliefs to troll. It doesn't become you, or the Christ you claim to follow.

---

Navaros is a Jew, not a Christian. He stopped following Jesus when it became clear to him that the latter's turn the other cheek philosophy was plain wrong and immoral, and he now follows the Old Testament, especially the blood and thunder parts, exclusively. Can't remember in which thread he explained this epiphany, but I'm sure some other Backroomers may remember it.

Thinking about it, I'm surprised Nav isn't criticising the Sudanese for their over-leniency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Navaros is a Jew, not a Christian. He stopped following Jesus when it became clear to him that the latter's turn the other cheek philosophy was plain wrong and immoral, and he now follows the Old Testament, especially the blood and thunder parts, exclusively. Can't remember in which thread he explained this epiphany, but I'm sure some other Backroomers may remember it.

Thinking about it, I'm surprised Nav isn't criticising the Sudanese for their over-leniency.

---

after all this time I still have a hard time deciding if Navaros is serious in the stuff he posts here....or if he is just sitting in front of his computer joking around and adopted this identity in this forum trying to get a rise out of all of us....

if the second case is true I must applaud his tenacity....I have never seen the mask slip....if the first one is the truth then well.....I better not say anything that will get me a warning point.

I´m entertained nevertheless.

I think the "commandment" is actually more that Mohammed is not holy, he is not be equated with God, the message is not his but God's, and that he was capable of sin (many of the biographers, Muslims, mention his sins).

To me it definately, and sadly, seems that many Muslims truly have become worthy of the old name for them, Mohammedans, in that they worship and revere Mohammed. Many (likely not including the "learned" Imams) probably don't even know that Jesus is included in there, and contrary to Mohammed, he is mentioned as having been without sin.

By the way...
(don't look if you don't want to...) Picture of Mohammed from the 15th century... notice the body... and the face...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0/0d/Maome.jpg

I'm not really commenting on anything anyone here said, just saying what I think about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

I think the "commandment" is actually more that Mohammed is not holy, he is not be equated with God, the message is not his but God's, and that he was capable of sin (many of the biographers, Muslims, mention his sins).

---

He certainly is holy, but not holy like a god. Priests/imams/prophets are almost always "holy men".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Furthermore, Islam proscribes the making of images of creation (this extends to human beings generally, not just the Prophet) - according to my Muslim friends, their children are not allowed to have dolls, as these are an infringement of that ruling

---

Some fundamentalists may think like that, but it is not something which the majority of muslims, even most of the fundamentalist ones, follow.

I hope the woman manages to find a way out of this.

I hope she does get lashed and jailed, serves her right for attempting to civilise these "people". Stupid do-gooder. When are people going to learn to leave these "people" alone and let them continue their "peace-loving" ways.:furious3:

Let her ba an example for all... DO NOTHING FOR THESE MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

To be honest, I just see this as another example of the Islamic world alienating itself from every non Islamic country on the planet. It seems that we have monthly riots around the world because of an alleged insult to the "religion of peace", but nowhere in their psyche is it apparent that burning other countries flags and abusing foreign nationals freedoms is an affront to other societies.
I have no religious alliegance at all and am therefore unbiased as to "which is the religion for all", I just find it disgraceful that Shariah law finds it neccessary to threaten corporal punishment to a woman who has the nerve to allow the children in her care the opportunity to name a teddybear. Makes me wonder what would have happened if she had reported the children for wanting to name the bear Mohammed. Presumably they would have been given the lash instead of her, mind you they are under age so their mothers would probably have been stoned instead.

15 days and deportation. How boring.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa...ars/index.html

15 days in a Sudan prison isn't going to be a barrell of laughs I'll bet.

At least she's been spared having her backbone exposed to daylight.

She's looks such a nice lady as well. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

15 days and deportation. How boring.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa...ars/index.html

---

Geez, deportation from the Sudan... isn't that the equivalent of winning a lottery over there? :wink: :beam: :thumbsup:

She should have stuck with the Praise Allah Teddy Bear.

Meet Adam the Prayer Bear. This toy is owned by hundreds of Muslims up and down the country. He happens to share the name of a Prophet. If this is a crime, then there are a lot of Muslims guilty of it.

He's called a 'prayer bear' because he recites various lines when any of his limbs are pressed. As I was putting him away after taking his photo, I accidentally pressed down on one of his paws. He said "In the name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Kind". Appropriate.

what a dangerously backward nation.

Quote:

---

Let her ba an example for all... DO NOTHING FOR THESE MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

---

Let her be an example for all , this is what happens to your citizens when you try to welch on a arms deal with crazy regimes .

I've decided. I'm out on the lash this weekend. :whip: :laugh4:

there are apparently crowds of people in sudan baying for the blood of that nice lady school teacher. they should consider that there may be a price for such backwards behaviour:

In the last three years, the British Government has given £326 million in aid to war torn Sudan, with a further £114 million earmarked in the next 12 months.

ooh, could we turn of the taps?

they opted out of the commonwealth so there is no obligation on that front...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Let her be an example for all , this is what happens to your citizens when you try to welch on a arms deal with crazy regimes .

---

Woah, woah, woah. Who said anything about welching. They were negotiating... i.e. nobody has promised anything yet, as far as I understand it. Or do you think these are acceptable negotiating tactics? :dizzy2:

What's more, while I agree with you on the cynicism towards the Sudanese government initiating this out of greed, not fervor, this leads me to believe that for their population, it's very real, and they may have let a genie out of a bottle. I'm not sure I'd lay even odds on that woman getting out of the country alive at this point.

I don't mean to be insulting to our muslim friends at large, but I don't think extremist rage and fervor is something to be whipped up as a bargaining ploy. it just might get away from you... :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :hmg: :tnt: I think the right answer is to try to keep them as calm as possible. Don't encourage them by giving in to their demands, but for God's sake (or Allah's), don't get them all whipped up over a nonsense issue, just to scare your business partner.

This would have been funny if it wasn't so hiralious. What was thinking in the first place, Darwin Award if they get her.

They are going to love this artwork,

Warning: spoilered image may cause offense. Not safe for workplace viewing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.demorgen.be/static/FOTO/p...rge_115642.jpg

Made by Iranian dutchie, shows Mohammed and Ali as gays.

hehe

Interestingly, there's nothing on the Council For American-Islamic Relations website about this. Zip. There's plenty about muslims need to demand their rights, and how they're misrepresented, and how they need to force Western society to be supportive of their views, including wearing the hijab during a judo match. But not one word about this case. So the CAIR (an organization with which I freely admit I have an axe to grind) is shrieking and yelling everytime somebody says boo about muslims or Islam, but they can't take a moment to say riots demanding the death of a woman who allowed her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed might be a bit excessive?

And they say they're not just a pack of advocacy shills....

Disclaimer: No offense intended towards Muslims in general (even members of said organization), my rancor is reserved for the official stances taken by the CAIR, who claim they always lead the way in calling for tolerance and calm discourse on these matters... baloney, they're here to instill Sharia in the USA.

Why should they, Don Corleone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don C

riots demanding the death of a woman who allowed her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed

---

There've been riots? I thought I read about a heavy police presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why should they, Don Corleone?

---

They claim they stand for religious tolerance of all faiths, and peaceful resolutions to misunderstandings. Can you think of a better place for them to put their money where their mouth is? A simple statement saying this was clearly a misunderstanding from them would be all it would take to remove the word hypocrisy from my lips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

There've been riots? I thought I read about a heavy police presence.

---

Pardon me, mass protests by mobs of angry people waving weapons, calling for her to be executed by the government, or other means if necessary. I guess 'riot' might be an excessive term. What's more, according to the BBC, the police didn't reign them in until they were two blocks away from the British embassy.

I did find it interesting that 3rd party observers viewed the absence of automatic weapons by the demonstrators to be proof that the demonstration (unlike earlier ones this week) was not staged by the government.

Apparently, when they show up wielding knives, axes and bats, they're acting on their own. If they're carrying AK's, then the government gave them to them. And by extension, I guess that means the more heavily armed the mob is, the less serious a threat they actually pose. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why should they

---

How about a little consistancy. Organisations like that are only interested in the fun parts and are completily blind for the not so fun parts. So they feel wearing a tent during a judo match is a good thing, but don't want to know about women being forced to wear it. It simply doesn't exist for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

They claim they stand for religious tolerance of all faiths, and peaceful resolutions to misunderstandings. Can you think of a better place for them to put their money where their mouth is? A simple statement saying this was clearly a misunderstanding from them would be all it would take to remove the word hypocricy from my lips.

---

They have a large anti-terror section on their site, etc. I can't see why they should have to comment every little case, the big picture should be sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They have a large anti-terror section on their site, etc. I can't see why they should have to comment every little case, the big picture should be sufficient.

---

Your vehement defense of the hypocrites is duly noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They have a large anti-terror section on their site, etc. I can't see why they should have to comment every little case, the big picture should be sufficient.

---

What does terrorism has to do with it? Who is missing the big picture exactly? This is religious intollerance not terrorism, and a rather barbaric reaction to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Your vehement defense of the hypocrites is duly noted.

---

That's ok. But I still don't see why they should have to comment on every little thing. Just like I shouldn't have to condemn every time Chavez or other leftie leader screws up something, just because I'm a leftie. And just like I wouldn't force you to condemn it every time another priest gets a bit too close to kids. I know that you don't support it, so you shouldn't have to state the obvious.

BBC story

OK, Don Corleone; apparently I'm about 12 hours behind on the 24-hour news cycle. Yesterday's news had stories of heavy police presence and calm streets during and after her trial. Things have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's ok. But I still don't see why they should have to comment on every little thing. Just like I shouldn't have to condemn every time Chavez or other leftie leader screws up something, just because I'm a leftie. And just like I wouldn't force you to condemn it every time another priest gets a bit too close to kids. I know that you don't support it, so you shouldn't have to state the obvious.

---

The difference there is repeated disavowals in the past. I've seen you make public statements indicating a willingness to condemn improper acts by people whose cause you find favorable in the past. And as I've been told in private, sometimes its hard to tell which team I play for because I criticize my friends almost as much (some would say more) than my adverseries.

But these guys don't do that. The 'whole page dedicated to anti-terrorism' is mostly them patting themselves on the back, not the actual denunciations themselves. And when you read the actual fatwa, or the 'not-in-Islam's-name' petition, they're very clever with the wording: INNOCENT CIVILIANS. It's okay to blow up police, and it's okay to blow up people you think are guilty.

And as Fragony says, that all relates to terrorism. In this thread, we're talking about religious tolerance/intolerance. The CAIR claims to be an organization dedicated to furthering religious tolerance. They had the time to make a big stink about a misinterpreted comment by Romney (for the record, he never said he wouldn't have a muslim on his cabinet). They have time to post threads demanding the rights of Islamic girls to compete in Judo wearing a hibab. But this story, which is in the headlines of every major media outlet in the world right now, this they can't be expected to have an opinion on?

I think by not saying anything, they've said everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But this story, which is in the headlines of every major media outlet in the world right now

---

Huh, here it was only a small paragraph in the "things happening around the globe"-section of the paper...

If it's a big thing in the US, it would be wise of them to comment it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Huh, here it was only a small paragraph in the "things happening around the globe"-section of the paper...

If it's a big thing in the US, it would be wise of them to comment it.

---

It's a front page headline on the CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, and other news websites. If it's not getting play in Norway, I suppose I see the root of our disagreement, but trust me, everyone over here has heard about this, regardless of where you get your news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's a front page headline on the CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, and other news websites. If it's not getting play in Norway, I suppose I see the root of our disagreement, but trust me, everyone over here has heard about this, regardless of where you get your news.

---

We're currently flogging the filthy capitalists here now, no time to worry about flogging elsewhere, I suppose...

I see. Going to whip somebody for naming a Teddy Bear Karl Marx, are you? :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's a front page headline on the CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, and other news websites. If it's not getting play in Norway, I suppose I see the root of our disagreement, but trust me, everyone over here has heard about this, regardless of where you get your news.

---

European 'quality' newspapers are rather selective, just like that organisation you just mentioned I guess. Need the internet for the news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I see. Going to whip somebody for naming a Teddy Bear Karl Marx, are you? :whip:

---

Surely you can agree that there is no other worthy punishment for such a crime? :furious3:

@Fragony: Not even the neo-nazi's have picked this one up...

that blows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Fragony: Not even the neo-nazi's have picked this one up...

---

Neo-nazi's and islamic fundi's share a hobby, no surprise there. Nazi's and islamists have always been close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Neo-nazi's and islamic fundi's share a hobby, no surprise there. Nazi's and islamists have always been close.

---

So that's why their site is full of anti-islamic stuff?

EDIT: And they're friends with parties like Vlaams Belang and BNP; now slap me silly if I'm wrong, but I always thought they were rather anti-muslim...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Neo-nazi's and islamic fundi's share a hobby, no surprise there. Nazi's and islamists have always been close.

---

Yet one more example of Judaism bringing folks together ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So that's why their site is full of anti-islamic stuff?

---

They don't like eachother but they hate the jews a little bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They don't like eachother but they hate the jews a little bit more.

---

From what I've read from them, they believe that the jews are paying and controlling the islamists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

From what I've read from them, they believe that the jews are paying and controlling the islamists...

---

They think the jews are promoting multiculture because jews fare better in a multicultural society. Poor jews, the most overrated people ever.

They are pretty overrated. I remember reading a review in gamespot and they got 10 stars? 10 Stars? each of the Zelda games only got 9 max and Zelda's were never part of an international Zionist conspiracy. i think it has something to do with the fact that they own Hollywood.

The Jews own Hollywood? Dude, that is so 20th century. These days it's all about the Scientologists and the gays. Next thing you know I'll hear you complaining about how Herbert Hoover is a bad president. Get with the times, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They have a large anti-terror section on their site, etc. I can't see why they should have to comment every little case, the big picture should be sufficient.

---

Hey Horetore, just out of curiousity, do you think if Norway ever became majority Muslim, would they be tolerant of your beliefs and political affiliations? Just curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Hey Horetore, just out of curiousity, do you think if Norway ever became majority Muslim, would they be tolerant of your beliefs and political affiliations? Just curious...

---

Why shouldn't they? Most of them are lefties like me anyway.