French Embassies Locked Down as Charlie Hebdo Runs Mohammed Cartoons


By the way, the massive success of Intouchables proves my theory that Hollywood producers are lying when they say foreign audiences won't watch movies with black actors in leading roles.

France is bracing for a new wave of attacks on its embassies after a satirical magazine published cartoons ridiculing the founder of Islam. 

The weekly Charlie Hebdo ran the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed despite an appeal to the "spirit of responsibility" from Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who in a statement expressed support for freedom of speech "within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts." 

The magazine's offices were firebombed last November, following another issue featuring Mohammed cartoons. The French government will shut embassies and schools in 20 countries on Friday, the day of Muslim prayer. 

The new selections are not featured on the magazine's cover, and they don't sound as funny as the cover picture that sparked the 2011 attack. That one showed the prophet (PBUH) threatening "100 lashes if you're not dying of laughter." Nicholas Vinocur reports for Reuters

The drawings in satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo risked exacerbating a crisis that has seen the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies, the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan.

Riot police were deployed to protect the magazine's Paris offices after it hit the news stands with a cover showing an Orthodox Jew pushing the turbaned figure of Mohammad in a wheelchair.

On the inside pages, several caricatures of the Prophet showed him naked. One, entitled "Mohammad: a star is born", depicted a bearded figure crouching over to display his buttocks and genitals.

No violence is expected from the Orthodox Jewish community, nor for that matter from Britons angry over the publication of topless photos of Princess Kate by papers in France, Italy, Ireland and other countries. 

Since last week's anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, American embassies have been attacked all over the Islamic ummah. The U.S. State Department and much of the media have blamed this violence on public fury over the trailer for the film Innocence of Muslims (which has once again failed to crack the top 10 in U.S. box office). But in fact the deadly rocket attack on the embassy in Libya (about which the U.S. may have had ample warning) was not accompanied by a popular demonstration, while the mob attack in Egypt was apparently organized in part by the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. 

NEXT: Ninth Circuit Considers Wholesale DNA Collection

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I'm afraid that we will have to see a much more devastating attack from Islamic fundamentalists followed by a "that's it, we're leveling cities now" response from the West before this stuff ends.

    Islam needs to be defeated and modernized. You can argue whether or not that's possible (I think it is), but nothing short of complete and total humiliation of the mullahs will ever end this war.

    1. THIS. Terrorism is blowback for allowing state sponsors of anti-American terror to exist.

      1. The ticks are never satiated, it would seem.

        1. DEUS VULT!!!

          Hierosylma est nostrae!!!

          1. I have been wanting to toss a God Wills It in there for a good long time now.

            That's what I am going to start calling the warmonger libertarians: "The Deus Vult Crowd"

            1. Are you saying I'm a warmonger?

    2. You're never going to modernize these raging nutters in a million years. The only thing these guys truly understand is the "strong horse". Over there, weakness equals death, just like in the jungle.

      The best of a bunch of bad policy options was the one we had before of finding a reasonable guy and paying him to keep the animals in line himself.

      1. People thought that about Japan too. You'd be surprised what can be done if it must be done.

        But while Americans have no ethical problem breaking the spirit of a monarchial military dictatorship, breaking Islam goes against our gut instincts about respect for religion. We'll just have to recognize that respect for religious freedom means crushing all enemies of religious freedom, including aggressive religions.

    3. In Turkey this actually happened, and no slaughtering was required - well hardly any.

      What people fail to realize is that the mullahs make shitty governors. After ten years of their impoverishing economic mismanagement and their bizarre social engineering (google Ayatollah Khomeni's rules regarding eating chickens that have been sexually penetrated by humans for a laugh), the populace gets very fed up with them.

      Saudi Arabia has been on the verge of revolt for decades. Iran has been since the beginning (the huge Revolutionary Guard isn't intended to protect against external attack).

      The Islamists at this point are dependent on making the case that they are more moral rulers than the secular, venal and corrupt governments they seek to overthrow. They may stone your daughter, but they won't rob her is their argument.

      It's all bullshit, though. The mullahs are corrupt too, and very quickly get suborned. The morally correct guys tend to get pushed out of government or go to war against the immoral guys. And the populace gets increasingly fed up.

      1. That's the point, their entire culture is failing even with massive oil wealth propping up their economies, and the success of Western culture stands in such deep contrast that our very existence is an affront to their entire belief system. Until this system is shattered at the core they will continue to lash out in defiance of the reality.

        1. Lash out at whom Tman?

          A guy in Pakistan isn't going to attack infidels half a world away if there is an apostate living around the corner.

          Al Queda's official casus belli against the U.S. was that it was propping up the corrupt Saudi Monarchy. In fact Al Queda got huge financial support from a faction of the royal family that wanted to sieze power and install a new crown prince to replace one insufficiently religious in their minds.

          Setting aside the problems in Europe, for the moment, absent U.S. military and intelligence support, the huge opportunity cost in attacking targets in the west for little gain makes the case for ignoring the U.S. to attack local targets much more powerful.

          Unsurprisingly, in areas where Al Queda gains control, the locals violently rebel against them in short order because they are such assholes.

          The situation in Europe is more a product of their insane welfare state coupled with the lack of economic freedom and state indoctrination which essentially creates disaffected kids trapped on the dole with a high degree of education and way too much time on their hands. It's no accident that the 9/11 hijackers were led by a bunch of such men from Hamburg Germany. The thing is, though, that is a problem for Europeans to tackle. They'll fuck it up, of course, but again the guys living there are going to focus on their own neighborhoods than on hurting people over here.

          1. A guy in Pakistan isn't going to attack infidels half a world away if there is an apostate living around the corner.

            Depends on which Pakistani you're talking about, and based on the fact that Bin Laden was pretty much protected in Pakistan it would be inaccurate to state that Pakistani's are going to keep their rage confined within their borders. Zawahiri was there for years too.

            Al Queda's official casus belli against the U.S. was that it was propping up the corrupt Saudi Monarchy.

            Al-Qaeda is but one head of the hydra. They all may claim various reasons for their casus belli, but the over arching theme is that they believe they will one day rule the earth and everyone will have to become Islamic in order for this to happen. There is no "halfway". Until this dream is eliminated they will continue to attack the west. It's a matter of time before another attack reaches our shores.

      2. In Turkey this actually happened, and no slaughtering was required - well hardly any.

        It looks like Kemalism isn't going to last long in Turkey, which, from my perspective, is becoming more Islamist and more Pan-Turkic by the day.

        As cool as mehter music is, I, for one, was shocked when I came across videos of mehter bands marching to Ceddin Deden in Bosnia. (Of which I'm too lazy to find, so this will have to do.) If this is the zeitgeist, we're in for some troubles ahead.

    4. Islam needs to be defeated and modernized.

      The solution is actually very simple. Open all trade barriers with all these countries and sell their teenagers all the MTV, levis,and twitter they can handle.

      Mission accomplished.

    5. DEUS VULT!!!!!

    6. How about we get the fuck out of there, rely on intelligence to uncover terror plots, and investigate successful attacks? When we do this, go in and capture or if necessary, kill the perpetrators. Or is that too complex?

    7. The U.S. policy on being attacked with a WMD has always been 'a WMD is a WMD is a WMD'. The first nutjob who manages to attack us with a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon will get to experience nuclear war with a first world nation first hand.

      But hey, if Allah wills that they survive being at ground zero as their nation is burned into a sheet of glass, they'll survive, right? And if Allah is actually on the side of the U.S., then they'll die and die and die. Just like they have been dying so far in far smaller numbers.

  2. Shamelessly OT but I kjust have to post this:

    Yglesias on Twitter: The concept of "redistribution" falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership

    1. He works the hardest at being an idiot of any of the pundits. So much for the Labor Theory of Value.

      1. Oh, his labor and the fruits thereof are valuable and therefore earned. But all those other people who are as well off as he is are just bandits and thieves, who don't deserve what they have.

    2. Goodness! Next people will be arguing that gods are created by men rather than the reverse.

  3. Hey! Didja hear the one about the Jehovah's Witnesses who burned things down and killed people after someone made fun of them in a cartoon?

    1. Tito Jackson? He was just mad that he got left out of the Off the Wall sessions.

      1. Well, one, okay. But we're talking about a member of the Jackson family.

  4. Islam: The Religion of Piece.

    Insult Mohammed and you'll be taken apart, piece by piece.

    1. Much like how Graham Chapman was burned alive in his car after "Life of Brian" angered the folks in Wales.

  5. The proper response to violence is to flood all our media with images of Mohammed and ridicule. Instead we grovel and let some desert mob set our standards for us.

    We lynched the AMerican ambassador and Obama apologized to us? Yay!

    1. ^^THIS. 1,000-times this. I think ReasonTV should sponsor a competition for the best movie about Islam and Muhammad.

      1. Actually during the South Park debacle Reason deleted an entire thread because of anti-Muhammad remarks so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

        1. You mean like all of these?

        2. Oh yeah, and they had an "Everybody Draw Mohammaed Day" as well.

    2. I agree as well. All free countries should run hundreds of Mohammed cartoons an videos a day for however long it takes for them to figure out that they can't stop freedom with violence.

    3. How is such an apology not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? We are at war with Terror, after all.

  6. What's this PBUH shit? Fuck Allah and his pedo sidekick Mohammed.

    1. What's this PBUH shit?

      "Peace be upon him." The satirical version is left as an exercise to the reader.

      1. Peanut Butter Upon Him?

        1. Peanut Butter: Unpredictably Haram

        2. Penis Boing! Under Hunchback

          1. Predictably Bare Underage Harem

      2. Probably Burning Upon Hellfire

    2. "Allah" is simply the Arabic language name for the god worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Arabic-speaking Christians also use the name "Allah" when praying.

      Way to alienate those few moderate Muslims we need to cultivate, as well as Arabic speaking Christians.

      "PBUH" is traditionally written after the name of the prophet Mohammed as a sign of respect. When used here, it's derisive.

        1. And if they say Jehovah, there'll be a stoning...

        2. Thanks for that tidbit, HM; I was unaware of that. However, there doesn't appear to be much of an arabic speaking population in Malaysia; purely liturgical use doesn't count.

          I was thinking about the Christians in countries where Arabic is the predominant language - Copts in Egypt, Chaldeans in Iraq, Maronites in Lebanon, etc.

          Cultural relativism? Sure, whatev, TFTL.

  7. Connection impossible Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket

    Now I'm enraged enough to burn something down.

    1. Would that by #MySQLRage?

      1. exactly

        but I got through. Not related to fruitcakes and other mohammedanists, but after looking around Charlie Hebdo, it seems pretty good. I especially liked this:

        Les plus jeunes se souviennent peut-?tre d'un Mitterrand (Fran?ois) qui ?tait arriv? au pouvoir avec son Parti socialiste au son de ? Changer la vie ! ?. Rimbaud voulait ? changer la vie ?. Il n'avait fait que tra?ner sa carcasse de po?te maudit jusqu'en Abyssinie. Qui change de femme, de maison de boulot ou d'amant se retrouve en g?n?ral avec les m?mes probl?mes. Le l?opard meurt avec ses taches. C'?tait l'intro po?tique de cet ap?ro qui en substance signifie : ne comptez pas trop sur les hommes politiques et les socialos pour changer votre vie.

        Which I think is more or less:

        The young maybe remember a certain Mitterand who came to power with his socialist party and with his "Change Life!" Rimbaud wanted to "change life." But he only had to drag his damned poetic carcass to Abyssinia. He who changes his wife, his job or his lover usually ends up with the same old problems. The leopard dies with his spots. That's a poetic introduction to this appetizer which basically means: don't count on political men and socialists to change your life.

        (some native french speaker might cringe at my attempt)

  8. They took away my divinity! #JesusRage

    And white washed our sins! #OldTestamentProphetRage

    Stupidest fucking book I've ever read (still reading), and yes, I'm including Why Mommy Is A Democrat on that list. You would have had to have been converted at the edge of a sword or born into the creed to believe this retarded buttwipery unless your brain has completely failed you. Looking at you, Cat Stevens, Johnny Walker Lindh and Malcolm X.

    1. At least in the West, converting to Islam is a way for stupid people to give the finger to mainstream society.

      1. There are much more effective and productive ways to do that. Like selling weed to sixth graders.

      2. My ex-wife's Obgyn in Cleveland tried to convert us to Islam - politely. It was kind of cute. I still have the book he pressed upon me (though I never cracked it open - any religion that forces me to pray separately from my spouse is a non-starter).

        1. It is basically a really dumbed down version of Christianity and Judaism. If you are too confused by the mystical and mysterious nature of the Trinity and you are too stupid to understand the legal nature of the Torah, you can become a Muslim and avoid all of those hard questions and nuance.

          1. The other way to look at it is that it's Monophysitism repackaged in a post-Byzantine context.

            The orthodox Trinity is ultimately moronic, and is largely the result of post-hoc attempts to rationalize all the New Testament players with a monotheistic scorecard. The Monophysites were actually the least-worst Christians around in logic terms, and it's just an accident of political history that they lost out in theological terms to their competitors. They had the better argument, but the Council of Chalcedon's guys had more swords.

            1. The orthodox Trinity is ultimately moronic

              Only if you don't understand it. It is the only way to explain how God comes to earth in anything but his most awesome form.

              The way to look at it is think about when you imagine yourself as someone or something else. Say you day dream about being the center fielder for the Yankees or on a more serious note imagine what it must be like to be a friend who is dying of cancer. That is what God is doing with Jesus. He is experiencing what it is to be a person. Only he is God. So since he is existence, when he does that, it actually happens.

              What is the relationship between you and the person you imagine yourself to be? A good example of this concept is in All the King's Men. There is this great passage where Robert Penn Warren talks about the different "yous" in the world. The you that is driving to a family get together. The you that is at the get together. The you that went to high school. They you that will some day die and so forth. Warren concludes that maybe some day all of the different "yous" could get together and have nice picnic.

              That is the trinity. How is it that there can be all of these different manifestations of the same thing.

              You don't have to believe it. But it is not moronic. And it is more in tune with reality than the monphysites.

              1. Just because there's a large body of literature discussing unicorns doesn't mean they exist.

              2. Actually, saying that Jesus was God's role playing game character is even more heretical than what the Monophysites said.

                The orthodox position on the Trinity is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously the same but completely distinct. How this logical impossibility could be is not explained but written off as a Mystery. That means that statements like "only if you don't understand it" are non sequiturs. Since it's a Mystery, it can't be understood.

                1. The orthodox position on the Trinity is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously the same but completely distinct. How this logical impossibility could be is not explained but written off as a Mystery.

                  It is not a logical impossibility. Not if you consider the nature of God being existence. You only think it is a logical impossibility because like most atheists you can only conceive of God being an old man in the sky.

                  I have a news flash for you. I don't believe in that God either.

              3. Here's what the Council of Chalcedon said about Jesus:

                We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

                It's gobbledeegook right up there with the worst nonsense produced by New Age guys.

                1. A real life conversation I had with my wife:

                  ME: More traditional Christians don't believe Mormons are Christian because they don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

                  HER: Holy Trinity?

                  ME: Yeah, where God is simultaneously three people but he's also one essential being.

                  HER: How does that work?

                  ME: Fuck if I know. That's why they call it a Mystery - which is essentially Catholic for "fuck if I know"

                2. It is not gobbledeegook at all. You just keep thinking of God as being just another being or the old man in the sky.

                  God couldn't experience what it is to be a man and still be God. That is why the monphysites are so wrong. If God just wanted to come down and not be also a man, he wouldn't have bothered and just sent a prophet like he did in the Old Testament. No, the point is that God had to experience what it is to be a man. You can't do that if you are still God. For us that seems impossible. But that is because we are finite beings and not God. God can become two things at once and because he is existence itself manifest himself in ways we cannot.

                  Who says the creator of the universe has to live by our pathetic little understanding of the world? Do atoms and quantum particles exist by our little rules of ordinary experience and logic? No. Why should God.

                  Again, it only doesn't make sense because you have a very simplistic view of God as being some kind of big brother in the sky.

          2. "It is basically a really dumbed down version of Christianity and Judaism. If you are too confused by the mystical and mysterious nature of the Trinity and you are too stupid to understand the legal nature of the Torah, you can become a Muslim and avoid all of those hard questions and nuance."

            Ironic, coming from the guy who can't seem to comprehend that a libertarian attacking and not voting for Romney does not mean that libertarian is endorsing or voting for Obama. And that concept is a lot simpler to comprehend than abstract religious concepts written thousands of years ago.

            1. The best sign that someone got the short end of an argument on a thread is when they can't let it go and bring it up on completely unrelated threads.

              I am sorry Shika is a liberal and wrote a stupid post Propietists. What do you want me to do about it?

              1. No, I don't run away from arguments when like you and Tony do when we prove that you are relying on distortions, fallacies and wild speculation to misconstrue what we believe. I'll be glad for you to join me again on the other thread, anytime you want.

                You never answer any arguments without demonstrating your lack of comprehension about political nuance or basic libertarian concepts, and here you go laughing at religious idiots for their lack of comprehension of Biblical nuances?

                1. Throwing invective doesn't help. And clearly I made a few effective points or you wouldn't be so angry about it.

                  I understand the arguments just fine. I just don't agree with them. Stop assuming bad faith on everyone who doesn't sing from the Reason hymnal.

                  1. Like what?
                    Like your argument that Gary Johnson and Paul Ryan are basically equivalent on Medicare, when Johnson wants to roll back Medicare Part D, unlike Paul Ryan, who voted for it?

                    Like your argument that media criticism and political losses made Republican really learn their lessons from the Iraq war, yet Republicans were still tripping over themselves at the debates to prove their superior bellicosity against Syria, Iran, even China?

                    Like your argument that Obama's stupid drone strikes in Libya and Yemen are just the same as full scale wars that politicians like McCain and Romney are advocating for?

                    Or the argument that any Reason criticism that doesn't equally attack Obama and Johnson every time it attacks Romney means Reason writers are all in the tank for Obama?

                    Man, those arguments are so true they sting.

                    1. Like your argument that Gary Johnson and Paul Ryan are basically equivalent on Medicare,

                      That is not the argument. The argument is that they both want to save medicare. And therefore when Reason calls Ryan and the GOP "the party of medicare" they ought to be calling Johnson the same thing. I never said the Ryan's plan was better or the same. I just say that it is similar in that they both plan to save medicare for the future.

                      Since you clearly are either too stupid or too dishonest to understand or read what I am saying, I see no further reason to discuss this with you.

                      Be honest enough to know what my arguments actually are or shut the fuck up.

                      As for the rest of your post, it is just the same sort of distortion and straw man of what I am actually saying.

                    2. You never answered ANY of my clarifications on any of these points, so I have to assume they are what you believe, since you made such statements and ran away when I called you out on them.

                      You spent quite a long time calling Reason hypocrites for not criticizing Johnson equally to Ryan. Ryan deserves his label for his Part D vote and both Romney and Ryan want to restore unfunded spending allocated to Obamacare back to Medicare. So they expanded it before and want to expand it again, but Reason are hypocrites for not lambasting Johnson for cutting Medicare?

                    3. In case you need a reminder about just how big of a liar you are, these are all quotes from you:

                      "They spent weeks killing Ryan for being the candidate of medicare while never mentioning that Johnson is just as much one as Ryan."

                      "if the GOP is now the party of medicare because of the Ryan plan, so is the Libertarian party because of the Johnson plan."

                      "Johnson doesn't do jack about medicare other than throw it to the states. He knows as well as anyone else you can't cut off current recipients."

                  2. And by the way, I don't sing from the Reason hymnal. I argue that libertarians need not inherently be capitalists, that the corporate entity and bankruptcy should be abolished and I advocate for a progressive single tax on land rents with a citizen's rebate to pay for the basic functions of government and replace the welfare state.

                    I just get sick of you and others who can do nothing but spout fallacies and disingenuity.

          3. If you are too confused by the mystical and mysterious nature of the can become a Muslim and avoid all of those hard questions and nuance.

            Or you can become a Mormon.

            Randian| 9.19.12 @ 2:12PM |#

            ME: More traditional Christians don't believe Mormons are Christian because they don't believe in the Holy Trinity

            Actually, Mormons do believe in the Trinity, it's just that they see it as comprising three separate gods with different jobs.

            What they reject is the mystical three-in-one Trinity thus, as John says "avoid[ing] all of those hard questions and nuance".

    2. One of my best friends in high school was a Sunni Muslim who tried to convert me. His argument rested on finding mistakes in Christianity, since we all know that Christianity and Islam are the only available options. Ironically, he deconverted from Islam before I deconverted from Christianity.

    3. And the Bible isn't much better in terms of coherence or usefulness, so basically you're engaging in Team Mohammed vs Team Jesus boosterism. Go, you.

      1. It's all Team Be Ruled, innit?

      2. Nail. On. Head. T.

      3. With the exception that only one of those teams condemns you to death for quitting.

  9. Question:

    What would be the problems with a Constitutional amendment requiring any President who commits US forces to war to cede civil authority and personally lead troops in combat?

    1. Man, I sure hate it for that rifle team, because I sure as hell hope nobody would trust Obama with a unit larger than that.

    2. Fun fact: George Washington was the first and last President to actually act as Commander-in-Chief by leading forces into battle during the Whiskey Rebellion.

    3. Have "we" ever come closer than former
      U.S. Vice President John Breckenridge leading a division as a general in the
      CSA forces?

      1. PT 109 ring a bell?

        1. Teddy Roosevelt?

      2. I'm not talking about having had military experience; I mean that the President would be required to cede civil authority to the Vice President and go put on fatigues and fight, subsequent to the decision to go to war.

        1. I mean all these politicians yammer on about "service" and "sacrifice" but they're talking about service they provided years before when some other asshole sent folks to die for his pet cause. That they were lucky enough to either not fight or make it through the fighting should not give them a pass to send someone else off to fight.

        2. I think that's a bad idea. I see what you're trying to do by putting presidents personally at-risk for the wars they start, but it would cause more problems than it would solve. Also, just envision some of our recent VP's as acting presidents.

          1. I'd like to see what problems it would cause specifically. I don't buy that it would be worse than what we have just yet.

          2. Lack of military training, for one. Actual professional officers deferring to politicians at a more granular level than they do now. Putting CiC at risk of death (which I know is a feature for you) or capture (bug for everyone, I hope).

        3. You're talking about something similar to what Roman consuls did in times of war. I'm not sure that could be accomplished here, even with a Constitutional amendment, unless Congress had the means to enforce the cession of civilian authority without bloodshed. Sulla and Marius pretty much began the downfall of that system when they realized that they could buy the loyalty of the troops; in a similar vein, it would be like Mittens paying for an entire military operation out his own pocket. Sounds great at first, until you realize that the troops would put their loyalty to their commander above that of the country and the Constitution itself.

      3. None of those gentlemen were field commanders during their tenure in office as Prez/VP. Kennedy and T. Roosevelt were sailor and soldier before assuming office; Breckenridge was a CSA general after his term as VP of the USA (would have been awkward otherwise, lol).

  10. Really does't look much like Mohammed. I guess it's true: Frogs can't draw.


    Slate shows making fun of some religions, as in those who don't blow shit up, is just peachy.

    1. The Creationists dispute that they are offering a religious argument, so you can make fun of them all you want and by their own statement you're not mocking anyone's religious beliefs.

      1. yeah whatever. If creationists started rioting and blowing shit up, Slate wouldn't be making fun of them.

      2. Somehow, the bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars by Christian extremists are conveniently forgotten.

        1. Because it was pretty much one guy in the late '90s?

          I am just as down on all faiths as the next Heathen Resonista, but you're grossly equivocating in both permeation and magnitude of the threats.

        2. Abortion clinics I know about, but gay bars? Where?

        3. Tonio,

          There are gay bars in every city in America. Give me a fucking break.

        4. How often has this happened?

          Virtually no church leader advocates this or even run a country the size of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

          Get your head out of your twat please. Travelling abroad more may help with this problem.

  12. Frankly, Charlie Hebdo is just tired of being called Surrender Monkeys.

    1. Surrender jackasses is not an improvement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.