Practicing Religion Of Peace In Sudan
That mean and dangerous school teacher should be beheaded for daring to name a teddy bear “Mohammed.” If all the teddy bears in the world were named Mohammed, Islam would come to an end — that’s how much of a threat Ms. Gibbons is!
(Photo of Islamic protestors outside jail housing Gillian Gibbons in Khartoum)
OFF WITH HER HEAD! “Kill her, kill her!”
Still no protest from any prominent American liberal. They are too distraught that Dick Cheney’s heart problem wasn’t fatal earlier this week….
Oh… and I’m still waiting for the photos of thousands of Christian or Jewish protestors threatening to kill someone over a child’s toy….
or a cartoon…
or a movie…
or the endless other reasons that drive Rage Boy and his friends into wild frenzies of blood lust at the drop of a hat.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
53 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Perhaps the liberals are are no different from the “victim” in this sorry mess. It appears that Gibbons thinks this is some freak bolt of lightning.
I know a thousand places in the third world where a dedicated person can carry out a mission and not have to navigate radical Islam. I know that I am opening the door of being charged with blaming the victim: when your dream is to go to Sudan and you mess around with the prophet’s name, you will likely learn the meaning of the word “infidel.”
What amazes me is that no one seems to be suggesting that we sit down with the fellow with the huge knife and a few thousand of his mates and talk this thing through. After all, this is a transcendent moment for diplomacy.
Maybe they could get the Religion of Peace crowd to wear little teddy bear lapel pins.
Comment by heliotrope — December 1, 2007 @ 8:12 am - December 1, 2007
I agree with just about everything heliotrope said above, except of course for the anti-liberal, anti-diplomacy invective. Let’s just agree that this IS a horrendous situation for the teacher, shows the rabid nature of some (perhaps even many) in Islam, and is a cautionary tale for anyone seeking to do good works among hyper religious people — the latter of course reminding me of Reason #4 for invading and occupying Iraq.
Comment by KYKid — December 1, 2007 @ 8:32 am - December 1, 2007
Ah, the Beeb! Crowds of “protestors” with some calling for the death penalty. I picture an orderly lot of citizens who feel that justice was not fully served. They are to be admired for speaking their concerns.
Meanwhile, two Muslim members of Parliament are in Sudan to help get Gibbons out of there ASAP. This is “diplomacy.” The President of Sudan needs to get rid of the body pronto. He probably risks riots either way, but that doesn’t count with the diplomacy crowd. If he fails in controlling his radical masses, maybe he can get the UN to try its hand!
Move along folks, this is just a local misunderstanding. Nothing to see here.
Comment by heliotrope — December 1, 2007 @ 8:48 am - December 1, 2007
Sorry, KY, but they are not safely locked away in Sudan where you don’t have to worry about bumping into them.
I care about the Bill of Rights as much as anyone. But giving Radical Islam a pass based on the amorphous assumptions emanating from the penumbra of the “separation of church and state” non clause is insanity.
Comment by heliotrope — December 1, 2007 @ 8:52 am - December 1, 2007
If you guys want to get an appreciation of how completely absurd the religion of Islam is and how crazy it must make someone if they believe it check out these two videos that are from arab TV on the topic of science:
These videos are a guy who is discussing what is on the TV and how silly it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsKkg_rAsO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9VXyx299E
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 9:37 am - December 1, 2007
So, what are you saying helio? That we undertake multiple invasions and occupations until…?
Comment by KYKid — December 1, 2007 @ 10:01 am - December 1, 2007
I think it’s very funny that people seem to forget that most of Europe was ruled for centuries by by radical, religious zealots who controlled peoples lives, but that was called the Catholic Church. You know them; the first Christian church in the world? They used war, torture, etc. to control people for centuries. I think most people will recognize a big difference between people who have religious faith and those who use that religious faith in organized government as a weapon against others.
[GP Ed. Note - Kevin -- most of us are now living in the 21st Century ... except for apparently you and the Islamists who are both back in the 9th Century. With respect to your present fixation on moral equivalence between modern Christianity and modern Islamists, I say "MOVE ON".]
Comment by Kevin — December 1, 2007 @ 10:12 am - December 1, 2007
Theres plenty of blame to go around for not speaking up to idiotic despots in Sudan. And not just because of this outrage. Because of Darfur too.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 10:31 am - December 1, 2007
What’s funny Kevin is that you think you made a point.
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 10:31 am - December 1, 2007
Yeah, it’s so terrible when people try to bring religious principles to government. I mean, atheist communists and socialists only killed, what, 200 million people in the twentieth century? 300 million? Something like that.
Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 10:39 am - December 1, 2007
Aw geez, I just read Kevin’s idiotic comment about Bin Laden and Chavez in the previous column. I have to ask again, HCABSFS.
(I trust you can figure that out).
Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 10:45 am - December 1, 2007
#10:
For starters, Hitler was no atheist and others like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. in effect set themselves up as deities. The pernicious problem with religions and personality cults is that there is almost always “the other” or non-believer. It is extremely difficult for the devout to maintain a benign attitude toward those who don’t believe. Unfortunately, that’s often exploited by the religious leaders for their own purposes.
Of course, we’re all atheists to some degree, even you – I just take it one God further.
Comment by Ian S — December 1, 2007 @ 10:58 am - December 1, 2007
I think we should condemn Islamic radicals in the Sudan who advocate jailing those that disagree with them as well as Christian radicals (such as Anglican Bishop Akinola of Nigeria and his American apologists) who advocate the same type of abuse against those they disagree with when they call the shots.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am - December 1, 2007
Wow, even when atheists butcher hundreds of millions of people in the name of politics and collectivism … it’s still religion’s fault.
That’s we call him Wonder Woman.
Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 11:03 am - December 1, 2007
Ian,
Interesting and well reasoned post. I would have added the word some before religions though.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 11:17 am - December 1, 2007
If I understand Kevin’s rant, er, screed.
We should just let the warm and fuzzy followers of Mohamed (propeller beanine upon him) slaughter a few thousand until they come out of their angry adolesence?
Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2007 @ 11:22 am - December 1, 2007
Also, wasn’t it the American liberal-left that stood by and cheered while Stalin, and Mao slaughtered millions? And shrugged indifferently when Pol Pot slaughtered millions?
Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 11:33 am - December 1, 2007
Thank goodness Mrs. Gibbons didn’t ask her class to name a piggy bank….
//Fatwa issued on Vera in 5…4…3…2…
Comment by Vera Charles — December 1, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - December 1, 2007
Vera: In the name of the moon god, most angry:
سؤال:
شخص يعاني من حالة نفسية صعبة، قام بالدعاء ليتخلص من القلق والضغط النفسي ، هل يجوز له أن يطلب مساعدة طبيب نفسي مسلم ؟ إذا كان يجوز فهل يجب التأكد من أن عقيدة الطبيب سليمة ؟ وهل يجوز أخذ دواء مهدئ للأعصاب ؟.
الجواب:
الحمد لله
Inshallah!
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - December 1, 2007
KY (#2) — of course you reject the liberal collaboration in the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. Thanks for reinforcing one of my core points.
Comment by GayPatriot — December 1, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - December 1, 2007
Paging the Enola Gay. We need to go back to solving these problems the old fashioned way.
Comment by Brian P — December 1, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - December 1, 2007
In the old days, if the English teacher were harmed, the Sudanese ambassador would have been defenestrated from the Imperial Foreign Office. **sigh** Nowadays, he’ll just get a book-deal and a new Vauxhall saloon.
More and more it seems that political correctness is a suicide-cult. Too-much of the Christianist “…offering the other cheek” to the pagen primitives-of-the-mind bent on nihilism…not Enlightment…and seeking death-cult paradises of blood. Cultures and societies grown and evolve. When one goes dangerously-retrograde perhaps it should be rooted-out and mercilessly expunged as-if a gangrenous extremity that threatens the survival of the body.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 1, 2007 @ 6:15 pm - December 1, 2007
Glad to see the owners of this site are adhering to their rules as they continue to allow their supporters to engage in name-calling against those who don’t agree with their views. keep up the good work guys!
Comment by Kevin — December 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - December 1, 2007
You think this is the problem of today? Europe is in much more trouble than we are. And it wasn’t Christianity that got them there. What got Europe where it is today is the same path we’re following.
And that is
Deconstructiokn
a total loss of the capacity to make judgements
Muticulturalism
Lack of education in history
Moral relativism
Lack of rational thought
The Western Mind is such a weak feeble thing.
I’ve debated the terror war with Leftists a lot over the years… the one thing I noticed is that they insist in making sure that no matter how crimes of Islam are brought up that they bring up even more crimes that the West have done.
in other words, they are completely prepared to ignore all transgressions of Islam but yet also ensure that the West is made to be seen not only just as bad as islam but even worse.
In a way that’s turning the other cheek. This refusal to make judgements and say yes we are better than them has weakened our society.
And the Muslims know this and they are confident that they already control Eurepe.. all that is needed iwth time.
I dont think they are so concerned about trying to rule us.. i thikn their WMD aspirations is wht they have mind for North America.
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 6:50 pm - December 1, 2007
poor cry baby.. go spread your shit somewhere else.
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 6:51 pm - December 1, 2007
This makes me sick
http://dianawest.net/post/index/74/Dhimmitude-Alert-Annapolis
Dhimmitude Alert: Annapolis
November 30, 2007, 12:44 pm
Posted by admin in General
Rating: 0/5 Votes : 0
The always strategically illuminating Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post reveals the extent to which our President acquiesced to and sanctioned brutish Islamic supremacism at the Annapolis Conference.
She writes:
This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.
Of course, this was not “Arab soil,” this was Annapolis, home to our fabled Naval Academy. What the Leader of the Free World agreed to do on American soil was to legitimate and enforce the crudest form of dhimmitude–forcing Jews, as non-Muslims, to submit to an Islamic code of required submission.
No word on which door the Americans used.
Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - December 1, 2007
Of course not! We need only demonstrate that we are as determined to stop them as they are determined to destroy our civilization. Since they are short on discussing their issues, we must meet them at their nests and give them a stronger dose of what they deal out.
UBL is begging the “allies” to get out of Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Iraq is feeling puny. Qadaffy decided to cool his Algerian jets. Mubarak has his dictatorial thumb on the Egyptian Brotherhood. Tunisia is staying out of radical Islam. Morocco is doing a better than decent job as well.
We don’t need to do much more than sticking by the new Iraq and keeping the pressure on the surrounding cowboys. But the Murtha, Pelosi, Reid form of undermining America is the best boost Radical Islam could get.
Liberals just don’t understand that a true belief system also requires heavy lifting.
And just what is the liberal plan?
Comment by heliotrope — December 1, 2007 @ 8:40 pm - December 1, 2007
If y’all are going to attack Christianity, please get it right.
#7 The Catholic Church is not the first Christian Church and it didn’t rule Europe for centuries. Kings who were Catholic to some degree did.
#22 Not judging and turning the other cheek are a bit different than that in most Christina theologies. Neither Roman nor the othe Sees had any problem with war for defense. Even offensive war. The Christian Eastern Roman Empire held these savages off until the 1400s.
Comment by A different Kevin — December 2, 2007 @ 1:23 am - December 2, 2007
#20, hard to distinguish whatever you might intend as “core points” from mere web rage.
#27 – Helio, if you were really wanting to “demonstrate that we are as determined to stop them as they are determined to destroy our civilization”, wouldn’t pursuit and capture of bin Laden have been the logical next step after driving the Taliban from power? Instead, we appear to have adopted a strategy of coexistence with him, letting him and his central command continue to operate and inspire terrorists all over the world while we serve his purposes well in diverting off to battle Islamic terrorism by invading (and apparently permanently occupying) a SECULAR Arab state. As to your question about “the liberal plan”, I think you mean the “Democratic plan”, so I’ll probably be serving up some red meat this morning by confessing that I think the immediate Democratic plan may be as cynical (but probably as politically smart) as can be: playing budget games with Bush to give him only just enough that they can say they are striving to end the war, but still providing funds to allow the occupation to continue much as it is for the next 11 months (with the two parties arguing over progress in security, governing, and as of this morning, Iraq’s wholesale dive into corruption). Roughly 65% of the country despises the war and firmly places responsibility for it on Bush and the Republicans (and rightly so, huh?), and the Dems want to take advantage of that. As to what they will do upon re-taking the WH, I suspect (and I think this will apply regardless of whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or Edwards being the nominee) is that they will first move us away from the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric that does nothing but feed the bloodthirsty there and here, then deal with Bush’s Iraq error(s) by partitioning Iraq into 3 states and using limited military and diplomatic presence and money to keep the 3 apart (and to keep Kurdistan and Turkey apart), all while drawing down the troop presence, and then beef up the US presence in Afghanistan and possibly (though I’m both doubtful and wary of this) – possibly increasing our effort to eliminate bin Laden, maybe through nothing more than the flies-and-honey approach (though as we both know, the equation will be rearranged if there’s another attack, in which case it’s probably bombs over NW Pakistan). But, assuming status quo, I would expect that the new Democratic President will also try to diminish the influence of Islamic terrorists over parts of the population of several Mideast and other states by essentially continuing what Clinton (and eventually Bush) before him/her did – apply a strategy of international cooperation and law enforcement to identify and imprison terrorist operatives along with outreach to Islamic communities in Western countries as well as to Islamic states – including allowing, as Bush has, the continued dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the region. The neo-con fantasy of peace through democracy will probably have to wait a hundred years. Hell, if it’s not democracy time in Russia (and it’s clearly not anymore), then how can we expect rabid religious states to adopt this blessed system? As I said, I’m probably only serving up red meat for breakfast here, but this also happens to be my genuine take on where we are and where we’ll be going under the new Democratic Administration. So, fire away.
Comment by KYKid — December 2, 2007 @ 8:09 am - December 2, 2007
hehe.. ky is going to snap his finger and split Iraq into 3 different States.. whether the Iraqis like it or not.
and notice how much his thinking is influenced by US politics.. poll numbers. branding the war “Bush’s war” (probably the most shortsighted part of his post).. presidential elections…
in other words.. he doesn’t look at the situation for what it is and how our enemies would react to our decisions..
nope.. just about he and nancy pelosi can continue to screw with our military and screw with our status in the world.
Comment by Vince P — December 2, 2007 @ 8:23 am - December 2, 2007
#29 KY,
Getting UBL would be great. Getting Zawahiri would be even better. Of course, we have to invade Pakistan to do it and it would be deadly to the max for our troops and the resultant fighting in the Pashtun and Wiziristan regions would put us fighting a mountain type of war that defeated Hitler in Yugoslavia and Russia in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, Radical Islam hardly depends on UBL, Zawahiri or any other individual. It is a collective of nut cake imams who are stoked by Wahhabism or who got the full hate education in the Madrasses of Pakistan or who just naturally hate the “infidel.”
UBL had nothing to do with the Sudan teddy bear event. Nor the Bali bombings. Nor the continuing slaughter on the southern border of Thailand.
What is the Democrat plan. Radical Islam will inherit the real world if they win. You already reject Woodrow Wilson (make the world safe for democracy) and FDR and Truman. Is your model Jimmy Carter who let this radical Islam genie out of the box? Bill Clinton who played legal games as a form of modern isolationism. All the Democrat candidates are running against Bush and refusing to define the way to come out ahead in this war on terrorism. In 2004, Patriot John Kerry said he would reveal his plan after he was elected. Is that the game? Say nothing you will have to defend?
Forget the polls. This is not reality TV where the theme wears out and we try something different.
Thanks for your response, but what do you envision that will confront this enemy and make your country a safer and freer place? I don’t like the TSA and snooping in people’s business and being suspicious of a whole religion. What is the liberal way out of this morass?
Comment by heliotrope — December 2, 2007 @ 10:02 am - December 2, 2007
Heh. Well, Vince, the Iraqi people do not want their country split up any more than the American people want the same folks who run the DMV, the IRS and the Post Office to be in charge of their health care. But Democrat politicians are people who say, “Shut up, we know what’s best for you,” and Democrat voters are people who say, “Freedom is too hard, we want the Government to make our decisions for us.”
Let the Iraqi people find their own solution. Meanwhile, we’ll help them protect themselves from the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, and Palestinians. In the long run, it is in our best interest that we create stable, friendly governments in the Middle East. Even if that involves very hard work and even if AstroGlide Kid would rather we surrender the whole thing to Iran and the Taliban, or impose some Imperial style arbitrary demarcation of territory.
Hey, come to think of it, wasn’t the British carving up the Middle East into arbitrary countries part of the original problem? I guess that proves the old saying about those who are ignorant of history.
Comment by V the K — December 2, 2007 @ 10:16 am - December 2, 2007
Oh, OK, so now we’re worried about self-determination for Iraqis? Weren’t so worried UP UNTIL NOW, were we? Do you two (Vince and VtheK) not even re-read your stuff ONCE before posting it? Left a hole the size of a Mack truck there. Bring on the serious fire, please. That lightweight stuff will get boring fast.
Comment by KYKid — December 2, 2007 @ 10:58 am - December 2, 2007
Um, Astroglide, self-determination for the Iraqis was the plan from the beginning.
Comment by V the K — December 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am - December 2, 2007
Ah more of your inane analysis. So after reading what I wrote about your post , instead of defending yourself.. you’re going to come up with some nonsense statement like that?
Comment by Vince P — December 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am - December 2, 2007
KYKid, as much as it would have been nice that bin Laden would have been killed, I honestly don’t think it makes a bit of difference. He would have had to be killed by 1989 to make a difference, maybe, in the fight against terrorism. Al Qaeda is no longer one organization and is now about 15 or 20 successor organizations that are following bin Laden’s and his mentor’s (forgot his name, but bin Laden most likely had him killed in 1989) philosophy.
Comment by Pat — December 2, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - December 2, 2007
Pat: great point.
Also, AQ stems from the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood…
It’s the MB we should actually be fighting because imho the MB is even more dangerous than AQ.
The MB is very shrewd and it knows that it has as much of a chance to suceed via non-violent Jihad as it has via violent Jihad.
It could be argued that AQ made a big mistake attacking us when they did because the inflitration of the West isn’t deep enough yet for non-violent Jihad to work.
AQ’s decision does show the intelectual robustness and variance that the Jihadi ideology can generate… so even if Bin Ladin was killed in the 70s… i think eventualy a Bin Ladin would have come along and went along the same path….
This is the nature of Islam.
Comment by Vince P — December 2, 2007 @ 2:45 pm - December 2, 2007
How secular can you be when your country’s flag reads Allahu Akbar and use the people’s money to build mosques?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 2, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - December 2, 2007
And then the funny part….KY screams that Bush was wrong for not focusing all of the US’s resources on “getting bin Laden”, but then states that the next “Democrat president” will do the following:
possibly increasing our effort to eliminate bin Laden, maybe through nothing more than the flies-and-honey approach
“Possibly”?
In other words, THEY wouldn’t even prioritize “getting bin Laden”.
That comment really shows you the degree of contempt the Democrat Party has for voters. They honestly believe that they can bash Bush as incompetent for doing something, but then do the same thing themselves and claim it’s a brilliant plan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2007 @ 6:22 pm - December 2, 2007
This book is going to destroy the myth that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism:
http://www.bothinonetrench.com/index2.html
Both In One Trench:
Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents
About
In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Subsequently, the U.S. government collected millions of the Iraqi regimes documents and media items.
These Arabic documents have been translated and for the first time reveal the secret support Saddam provided to Islamic terrorism.
Revealed
Transcripts from meetings in Baghdad showed the Taliban asked for help and Saddam’s regime agreed to assist them even as the Taliban provided safe haven and support to Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda while it plotted the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
These documents reveal that the Saddam regime had a long history of cooperation with Islamic terrorists and was a legitimate target in the Global War on Terror.
Broader Context
The story revealed in these pages shows that the United States was correct in accessing that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of his support to terrorism. The United States was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power and stay to fight al Qaeda in Iraq.
“Ray Robison…has a greater claim to authority than most” – The UK Guardian
Comment by Vince P — December 2, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - December 2, 2007
[Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by KYKid — December 2, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - December 2, 2007
Wow.. this is a powerful video about the plight of women in Islam and a warning to America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ
How can the Leftists turn a blind eye to this
Comment by Vince P — December 2, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - December 2, 2007
Easy. There’s no money or gain of absolute power in actually caring about people.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 2, 2007 @ 11:20 pm - December 2, 2007
They’re nuts. Perhaps if the people of the Sudan cared more about making a dollar, rather than who insulted who 2000 years ago, they would have a pot to piss in.
Of course, the catch 22 of the situation is that they need material possessions first before they can care about them. For poverty and despair have always been the victims the parasite of radicalism feeds from.
Comment by Chase — December 2, 2007 @ 11:30 pm - December 2, 2007
Re Ed Note in #41…trying to understand your terms of conduct and it’s difficult to see any violation in….
Original #41: “I appreciate some of the responses to the comments in my #29 above, especially Pat’s in #36, though I disagree that Bush’s abandoning of his “bin Laden: dead or alive” approach did not make a difference. Vince in #30 had an interesting rebuttal in trying to claim that the Iraq folly is not Bush’s fault – sounds a lot like Rove the other day in his claim that the Dems “rushed Bush to war”, which is generating guffaws and profound disbelief the world over this weekend. Helio’s response in #31 contains a lot I agree with (giving the govt. too much unchecked power in domestic affairs and “being suspicious of a whole religion”), but I think we disagree that starting a needless, costly, bloody war of choice and life-long occupation of a country not associated with terrorism was the right strategy to fight terrorism. And Helio asks what the liberal approach would be. I refer you back to what I wrote about what I think will be the strategy of the new Democratic President – that’s what I hope the strategy will be.”
Comment by KYKid — December 3, 2007 @ 6:49 am - December 3, 2007
I call bullshit again. I have gotten tons of email and read tons of blogs and postings from liberals about this story.
Remember that the Sudan is the same country that refuses to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Stop lying about the left. There’s plenty of real stuff to criticize the left for. Your claim is false.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 3, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - December 3, 2007
Forward me some of the email: vincep1974@comcast.net
Why resort to being disingeniune?
I look forward to being corrected
Comment by Vince P — December 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - December 3, 2007
Uh oh. They freed the teacher. Discussion here, and strong feelings, all now moot.
Comment by KYKid — December 3, 2007 @ 2:53 pm - December 3, 2007
My point was that Sudan isn’t exactly a place where human rights mean anything. Yes, it would have been horrible had this teacher been punished for a non-crime of naming a stuffed animal the name that probably half the boys in the class have. But she’ not going to be punished and this is over. Meanwhile 11 year old girls are being raped and murdered in a genocide in the same country and the western media is already bored with the story. Where is the outrage over that?
Comment by Houndentenor — December 4, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - December 4, 2007
25: Hmmmm….yet another comment that doesn’t adhere to the “rules” of this blog, but yet again, the owners allow it to remain. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Comment by Kevin — December 4, 2007 @ 9:50 pm - December 4, 2007
Actually, Kevin, the fact that you can comment here at all, given your past history of insulting and telling lies about other people, is proof that GayPatriot and GayPatriotWest are far better and more tolerant people than you are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2007 @ 3:01 am - December 5, 2007
Kevin: if you dont like my comment you can kiss my hairy italian ass
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 3:59 am - December 5, 2007
For starters, I orginally read the story at huffingtonpost.com. Is that liberal enough for you? It was also discussed on bravuravox (where the moderator is always on the lookout for human rights stories especially women being abused in the third world. (Warning: you have to register to read it and it’s mostly about opera singing.) I know I read it other places. Perhaps someone should teach you to use google or is google to left-wing for you?
Comment by Houndentenor — December 5, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - December 5, 2007