So by what moral authority do the Brits permit the publication of Mohammad cartoons that many find to "incite racial hatred"? Sure, *I* don't think those cartoons "incite hatred." But should I be the judge of such things? Nadir thinks they *do* incite hatred. Am I a better judge of such matters than Nadir?
These kooky, retarded Muslims are exposing kookiness and retardation within the supposedly (and self-proclaimed) "free" west. I am much more bothered by the free speach bans and public demands by westernern alleged democrats than by the kooky muslims who have never claimed to be free, or even to want freedom. The retarded muslims have a very logical point to make of the democracies that make *some* speach illegal: why not other speach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Oh, yeah: what about US rightists who want to ban citizens from burning their own US flags in public? The more I think about this, the more I am reserving all of my anger for anti-freedom laws and social behavior in the US and the rest of the west. What is the difference between US rightists wanting the state to imprison me for burning my own flag, and muslims wanting to imprison or kill cartoonists who depict mohammad? I say: NOT ONE DAMN THING.
I hope to butt-fucking christ that some American fanatical muslims will respond to this controversy by purchasing and burning US flags. This will bring into the open american retards, who absolutely desearve to be "offended." I will go a step further: burning US flags is the *first* thing that opponents of the muslim tyrants must do.
This from Nadir's hero: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky
Amen, Chomsky
I wonder what Chomsky would say about Nadir's call for papers to not blaspheme mohammad.
Post a Comment