Libertarian Librarian

More insanity, terrorist-hijackers-of-a-peaceful-religion style.

A suicide bomber who was blocked from driving into the U.S. Consulate slammed instead into an American diplomat's car Thursday, killing the envoy. The force of the blast on the eve of President Bush's trip to Pakistan blew the U.S. vehicle into the grounds of a hotel.

The American was identified as David Foy, 52, of Fayetteville, N.C. He was married and the father of four daughters.

The attack killed three other people, wounded 52, and shattered windows in the consulate and on all 10 floors of the Marriott Hotel. Ten cars were destroyed, and charred wreckage was flung as far as 600 feet away in one of the most heavily guarded areas of the volatile southern city.
 

If you can read Danish, these two links will be of interest to you. It appears that twelve Muslim men were looking for the daughter of one of the Danish cartoonists at the girl's school.

I am still trying to find independent confirmation in English, not being a Danish linguistic scholar.
 

Jens Rohde is the source in the above two links regarding the dozen Muslim men showing up at the school of a cartoonist's daughter. Well, Jens Rohde is deeply sorry. Apparently, those who showed up at the cartoonist's daughter's school were a group of Muslim girls from another school who wanted to confront her because of the insult to their prophet.
 

Authorities say 23-year-old Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who drove a silver Jeep Grand Cherokee into The Pit at the UNC-Chapel Hill campus around noon Friday, may have acted to avenge American treatment of Muslims.

Police intend to charge Taheri-azar, who graduated from UNC in December with a dual degree in psychology and philosophy, with nine counts of attempted murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, said Capt. George Hare of the UNC Department of Public Safety.

The FBI joined the case because Taheri-azar, a native of Iran, "allegedly made statements that he acted to avenge the American treatment of Muslims. The ongoing investigation will work to confirm this," said Special Agent Richard Kolko, an FBI spokesman in Washington.

Last month, Muslim students at UNC protested the publication in The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper of an original cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry. The recent publication of a series of cartoons of Muhammad in European newspapers sparked violent protests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

When some Joe Sixpack somewhere decides to avenge the Muslim treatment of Westerners, CAIR and the rest of Islam will understand, right?

Maybe, just to show cultural sensativity, we should find out what the punishment for an equivalent crime would be in Iran, and then carry out that punishment on poor ol' Taheri-azar. I mean, any punishment we would dish out would just cause more misunderstanding and be perceived as poor treatment by America against a Muslim. If it were the punishment that would be handed out in a Muslim country, however, it really couldn't be decried as barbaric or in any other way insensative by CAIR or the like, could it?
 

Here is another picture of some of the hijackers of Islam. You've got to love their, "Hang those who insulted the prophet," chant; it just screams peaceful religion. About 50,000 turned out to protest the cartoons (yet again) in Karachi. I know it's not all Muslims, but 50,000 in one city alone is a lot of them (I think 20,000 turned out to protest in Turkey, and who knows how many more across the region).

And why are they burning the American flag? The vast majority of our media are too wimpy to publish the cartoons. But, then again, they don't need a reason, only an excuse.
 

Related to an above comment of mine: Taheri-azar intended to kill UNC-Chapel Hill students.

A suspect who is accused of hitting students with a sport utility vehicle at the University of North Carolina made his first court appearance Monday.

Mohammad Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, smiled and waved before his hearing Monday. Taheri-azar told the courtroom that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."

As he left court, Taheri-Azar told reporters, "the truth is my lawyer." When asked if he was trying to kill people, he said yes.

Everyone might have missed this since the MSM isn't covering it on the front pages. Looks like Taheri-Azar is another hijacker of Islam.
 

Explosions have rocked the Hindu pilgrimage city of Varanasi in northern India, including an explosion in the packed Sankat Mochan temple. Who do you think is responsible?

A - Minnesota Lutherans, driven mad by a bad batch of lutefisk.
B - The Ladies' Bridge Club of East Boston.
C - Texas oil men, disgruntled with India's foray into nuclear energy.
D - Muslims who have misinterpreted the Koran and hijacked Islam.
 

Moj-- you're really have fun with this thread, aren't you? Rock on.

For the record, I'm going with B. Those bridge clubs are BRUTAL.
 

The ladies Bridge club of east Boston has been on the edge of this type of destruction ever since Johnny Damon signed with the Yankees. they must be stopped!!!!

seriously..people are sheep and if your political/religious leaders (and it doesn't have to be all of them just enough to start the ball rolling) are sending the message to the masses that violence and hate is not only OK but righteous the masses will run over that cliff-o-hate like lemmings every time. It becomes like a snowball rolling downhill and more and more people will abandon what we all believe is sane rational peaceful life for hate and violence. It is not a condition of being Muslim but of being human. Right now the conditions are ripe for the muslim masses to let their evil sides take over and it is happening all over the world. There will always be a large percentage of people who resist but they become silenced by the furry of the rest. Eventually if the Muslim leaders throughout the world do not unite and condemn these actions the rest of the world will eventually have to rise up and squish them because the snowball is rolling down that hill and getting bigger every day.
 

Yes, Nick. I'm having plenty o' fun with this thread.

I was leaning towards C, but I think that is because I was checking out Michael Moore's website the other day.

Strangely enough, it appears to be D, but they aren't sure if those responsible are anti-goverment Muslims or anti-Hindu Muslims.

And, since I have my soapbox: Can we stop calling them "Militants" already? They are terrorists. If not, then I'll get a few of my buddies from the Corps to come with me down to the local Muslim Organization Seriously Querying Ummah Entities (M.O.S.Q.U.E.) to militantly express our views.

"No, officer, we weren't terrorizing anyone. We are just militant in our views. Want a flier, or maybe just a hand apprehending Cindy down at the U.N.? I have crowd control experience from the 2/24."
 

Hamas Launches Web Site Encouraging Kids to Become ´Martyrs´

There's that moderation. This is what the Palestinian people elected. If this is what the newly elected majority of the Palestinian government wants to promote, then I weep for no Palestinian.
 

The University of Saskatchewan student newspaper, The Sheaf, had an explanation from the editors in the 23 February 2006 edition regarding their decision not to publish the Mohammed cartoons. Part of their reasoning was apparently due to a desire to show respect for Islam.

One week later, in the 02 March 2006 edition, The Sheaf published a cartoon which portrayed Jesus Christ performing oral sex on a male "capitalist pig." The uproar that has started over this has not devolved to riots or the burning of embassies so far, and The Sheaf has apologized.

A few questions immediately come to mind:

1. What caused the senior staff of The Sheaf to thoroughly consider the possible effects of the Mohammed cartoons on their readers, and the possible ramifications for the paper, prior to the print run?

2. Why did the same process not kick-in automatically when material involving another major religion was put in front of an editor?

3. What was it that made the "Capitalist Pig" cartoon newsworthy, or what was it that the cartoon attempting to satirize?

In regard to question one, it's my opinion that the "we want to show respect for Islam" reason, used by multiple media, is incomplete. I truly believe that the full reason is: "We want to show respect for Islam because we fear that, if we don't, then fanatical members of that religion will hold large protests in front of our offices during which our employees may be threatened and/or intimidated; commit acts of violence against our offices, delivery trucks, and/or employees in the field; and intimidate or commit acts of violence against merchants and businesses who carry or support our medium." I truly believe that it is because of the fear of what some Muslims may do, as opposed to any actual desire to show respect for Islam, that causes senior staff members to seriously contemplate whether or not to print or show any items which may be deemed offensive to Islam.

As for question two, I think that the mindset shifts in media staff rooms when a faith encompasses a majority of the population and has been well established in the society, and also when the followers of a faith are not usually known to be violent. "Christians? Sure, they might protest, but what else are they going to do? We have the rights of a free press and a duty to put this before the masses so that it may be judged in the court of public opinion."

Finally, I think that the answer to question three is that the cartoon was not newsworthy when it was initially published last Thursday, and that it was less of an attempt to satirize anything, but rather more of an attempt at providing something with shock-value.

The cartoon is definitely newsworthy now, however, and this story will likely catch the eye of the MSM at some point. It is already gaining steam in the blogosphere, so the MSM probably won't be able to ignore it for long.

My biggest concern is that some individual or small group will decide that this is the "final straw," and commit some act of violence in retaliation for the publication of the cartoon. Such an act would be wrong, not only legally, but also morally and strategically; and it would also allow CAIR and the like to cry, "See, they're no better."

What I am guessing that we won't see, however, is Muslims protesting en masse over the "Capitalist Pig" cartoon throughout Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, et. al. If those protests don't occur, then one truly needs to pose the question: Why are so many Muslims so irate about the depiction of a prophet in the Mohammed cartoons, but not enraged when another prophet recognized by Islam is depicted as giving head to a pig?

My answer to that question has been stated many times before: It is because they don't need a reason; they only need an excuse.
 

They killed another American civilian. Tom Fox was a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams; his body was found in Iraq on Friday morning.

You may have noticed that riots haven't broken out in the streets, or that embassies haven't been torched over this cold-blooded murder. You probably won't see that violence either because, unlike our Muslim brethren, the co-directors of CPT said in a statement that, "In response to Tom's passing, we ask that everyone set aside inclinations to vilify or demonize others, no matter what they have done."

That statement and the resulting Western response so far really goes a long way in showing the cultural differences between Islam and the West.

Unfortunately, I think that this will only be seen as weakness by our enemies, causing them to commit more atrocities. Eventually, if they continue, I believe that there will be an extremely violent backlash from the West. If that backlash occurs, I won't feel for Islam - they have it coming, in my opinion.