« Valley of the Propagandists: Turkey | Main | Muslims Burn European Embassies »

February 4, 2006

State Department Sides With Muslims Over Islamic Cartoons

In the most sickening exhibition of cringing submission before Islamic bullying our government has displayed since Jimmy Carter was in office, the State Department has actually sided with the maniacal barbarians who openly advocate the destruction of our civilization against Europeans who feel that maybe Middle Eastern savages shouldn't have final say over what we can publish in our newspapers.

As al Reuters approvingly notes, this despicable treachery "could help America's battered image in the Islamic world." If our image among barbarian thugs still living in the Sixth Century is more important than our self-respect and cultural self-preservation, I suppose Foggy Bottom's Kurtis Cooper was correct to snivel this:

These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims... We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.

No Kurtis, cravenly surrendering to people like this is not acceptable:






Here's an al Reuters observation that ought to send you running for the bathroom with your hand over your mouth:

The United States, which before the September 11 attacks was criticized for insensitivity to the Islamic culture, has become more attuned to Muslim sensibilities.

If you're Christian, you just have to put up with crucifixes submerged in urine and pornographic Madonnas clotted with elephant crap. But Muslims have it better. All they need to do is kill 3,000 innocent people by hijacking our planes and flying them into our buildings and they get instant respect from both our State Department and our media.

The Washington Compost, which had no problem publishing this:


to the outrage of the Joint Chiefs, was among the American media outlets that refused to show us what all the Muslim fuss is about on the grounds that the cartoons are allegedly offensive.

Here are the cartoons that Muslims think warrant a kidnapping campaign, that the State Department thinks warrant stabbing Europeans in the back right when they're starting to show some spine, and that our "elite" media is too cowardly and contemptibly politically correct to republish:













Pretty mild, huh? If you were hoping for something stronger, check out Aaron's CC.

A little context on the pictures above:

The cartoon series appearing on this page that sparked a global controversy was commissioned and published by a Danish newspaper as a deliberate challenge to Muslim insistence that their religious feelings must be given special consideration.
The drawings were commissioned by the Jyllands-Posten (Jutland's Post) to accompany an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen was unable failed to find artists willing to illustrate his children's book about Mohammed for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

Obviously if we let Muslims tell us what we can publish and what we can't, Ibrahim Hooper at the terrorist front group CAIR will be a busy man, because it will soon be necessary to clear each article with him before it sees print (kind of like what they apparently do with episodes of 24).

Civilization has been at war with Islam for about 1,500 years. The war may experience lulls, but it will not end until one side or the other has been defeated — that's Islamic dogma. Give Muslims credit for one thing — they don't beat themselves by giving ground. So we can't afford to either.

Our ancestors fought valiantly for centuries to preserve civilization from the onslaught of Islam. I hope they can't see what some of us have degenerated into.

Hat tips: Michelle Malkin, Bergbikr, Wiggins,, Far East Cynic

Posted by Van Helsing at February 4, 2006 10:17 AM


Hugh Hewitt, disappointingly, has joined the appeasement camp on this matter, describing the cartoons as "crude, sweeping anti-Muslim propaganda"...while, incredibly, whining that those complaining about State's condemnation haven't read it and don't appreciate the full, nuanced context in which the cartoons are condemned but free speech is "vigorously" defended.

Oh, sure, Hugh says, they have the right to publish their "offensive and provocative" cartoons, and should be defended against violence stemming from their having done so, BUT, they shouldn't do it because it causes unneccessary offense to the muslims among us and our muslim allies.

In other words, Hugh is arguing for exactly what the Jyllands-Posten was trying to fight against with this...the self-censorship of artists and journalists with respect to Islam: "Don't say anything that risks offending their delicate sensibilities."

His citing of Piss Christ, the elephant-dung BVM, and "Will and Grace" in this context are unmistakeable clues as to the purpose of his appeasement: he's bending over backwards to assert what he sees as consistency on the issue of "offensive art", trying to score points through a stretched moral equivalence, something he frequently criticizes others for doing. This equivalence of course ignores the significant differences between the offensive-to-Christians instances he cites and the cartoon controversy, what motivated the creation of each, and (especially important) the reaction to each by the respective offended communities.

Posted by: prince of leaves at February 4, 2006 2:57 PM

Well, the signs carried by those Muslims are worse than I thought they would be. I'd seen "Freedom go to Hell" elsewhere but that's it. Amazing these people can't be arrested for incitement to murder.

I'll tell you what, those bastards try that here and you can bet us Freepers and Protest Warriors will be out to meet them.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at February 4, 2006 10:47 PM

Well, good for you guys. (Seriously). I am glad that you all have taken a stand for freedom of speech.

I'm sorry, it's been a while since I checked in last. What was your take again on Cindy Sheehan being lead out of the capitol in handcuffs for an "offensive t-shirt?"

mojo sends

Posted by: vanmojo at February 5, 2006 1:12 PM


In the beginning there was the assumption by all that such displays as Ms. Sheehan's and Ms. young's shirts were not permitted. Then we found out there was a misinterpretation of the rules. Most people (read: grownups) then accepted that she and Ms. Young were removed wrongly and went on with their lives.

Some, like me, still felt it was a cheap shot and poor form for someone who already has saturated every medium out there with 'round the clock coverage for her views on radio, television, Internet, newspapers, city streets and parks AND just got back from hugging and fawning over a Venezuelan dictator. I felt it was in poor form for Ms. Young to wear her shirt as well.

However, we did not make demands for her apology, burn any buildings down nor did we threaten anyone's life. We merely voiced our opinion.

Now what was your point?

Posted by: Von Oyster at February 5, 2006 2:10 PM

Now what was your point?

Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page... I've read some other things in here that made me, well, let's just say skeptical of this particular community's committment to the freedoms they spend so much time going on about...

mojo sends

Posted by: vanmojo at February 5, 2006 2:14 PM

It was a shame, really. Escorting her out and arresting her gave her exactly what she wanted and what she hoped to achieve by her little publicity stunt -- more media attention and more fodder for her martyr facade, exactly what one doesn't want to give to a shameless media whore. I'm disappointed that the police fell for it, since getting arrested was no doubt what she was hoping for even more than being able to merely disrupt the SOTU itself. To a moonbat, an act of "civil disobedience" is nothing without an arrest to sanctify and seal it. It builds "cred" among the other participants in the fantasy of "revolutionary dissidence"..."Ooh, look at that, the Man must really fear her Truth!"

Personally, I wish the cops had left her alone. I'm curious as to what she would have done to "express her free speech rights" during the SOTU if she had been left unmolested. Removing her beforehand prevented her from acting out the way the cartoon protestors have, and thereby exposing her noble crusade as little more than a narcissistic tantrum. The best response would have been to allow her to interrupt the SOTU, and for Bush to simply stop, not respond to her questions or provocations, and patiently wait her out. She's no Solon, and would not be able to filibuster the SOTU for very long before she ran out of words and resorted to chanting anti-war slogans in an attempt to get others in the gallery to follow suit, and ultimately lapsed into a humiliating and uncomfortable silence -- with the attention of all the world focused on her. Indulging her in this way would have been the perfect means for exposing her as the fool and fraud she is.

Seriously, though, does someone have the free speech right to disrupt a Constitutionally-prescribed function of the government? If so, where does it end -- if Cindy's real intent was to interrupt Bush during the speech, would everyone in the gallery have had the equal right to interrupt him as well, to prattle on about this cause or that, under the claim of "free speech"?

At least all that Cindy "suffered" was being arrested -- the charge was later dropped, but it will still add to her aura of self-serving martyrdom, making it a net benefit for her. If she had dared attempt anything like wearing a "subversive T-shirt" to a speech given by her boyfriend Hugo Chavez, the inconvenience of a mistaken arrest by "Bush's Gestapo" would be the least of her worries.

Posted by: prince of leaves at February 5, 2006 2:39 PM

And before anyone deliberately misconstrues my question about free speech and disrupting the function of government as support for broad censorship using that as a pretext, note that I am asking where the boundary is that delineates free speech and effective governmental function. There are (and must be) practical limitations on the exercise of free speech...what are they or what should they be in this case?

Posted by: prince of leaves at February 5, 2006 2:53 PM

Well I got the impression that this was a black tie event from all the suits I saw. Maybe a "dress" code should be in order.
Save the clown outfits for the convenience stores.

Posted by: mike at February 5, 2006 4:40 PM

Did I scare mojo away?

Posted by: prince of leaves at February 5, 2006 6:48 PM

The cartoon war isn't a free speech issue. It's the clear choice between accepting domination by a fanatic religious sect or living as free men and women.

It's no accident this whole mess started in Denmark. The cartoons are only an excuse.

The Islamic Society of Denmark which fabricated truly offensive images of dogs humping Moslems and showed them along with the cartoons all over the Middle East did so to cow both moderate Muslims and Western governments into submission.

Validate their tactics now by any sense of respect for Islam, and they will own our future.

Posted by: Mike's America at February 6, 2006 1:06 AM


Posted by: les at February 8, 2006 7:25 PM