Dangerous Dan

2/2/2006

The West Must Take a Stand

Filed under: Media,Pics,Politics,Society,World — Dangerous Dan @ 11:38 pm

There's all sorts of uproar among many Muslims about the cartoons of Mohammed that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten last September. It's supposedly against the Koran or a surah or some such to produce visual representations of the prophet. So for the paper to do was, again, supposedly a great affront and insult to Islam. In response, Muslim groups called for various sorts of retribution: apologies from the media and from governments, anti-discriminatory laws, a boycott of Danish goods, demonstrations, riots, and the ever-popular death of the infidels.

Several other European newspapers, in a show of solidarity with Jyllands-Posten and free speech, recently also published all or some of the 12 cartoons on their own pages. This has naturally been followed by an even greater outcry. So far, there have been demonstrations in the Gaza strip that closed the EU office (way to keep that funding you want, Hamas!), the editor of a French paper that published the cartoons got canned, there have been protests in Pakistan, the Turkish Prime Minister said the freedom of the press should have its limits, and a few prominent Muslim leaders residing in Europe have said, respectively, that "the war has begun," that "Friday be an international day of anger for God and his prophet" in which violence is anticipated, and that anybody to do with the cartoons should be killed.

So what's the big deal, you ask? What are these cartoons? Here are they are:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Brutal, right? You should also notice some irony. While the toon with the turban bomb has been getting most of the attention, also observe toons 8 and 11 (the chalkboard one and the one with orange falling on the guy's head). Both of those are criticizing the Danish newspaper for seeking to publish the cartoons. Then you go to toons 3 and 9 (the guy hiding his drawing and the one with Mohammed calling off his guards) and you'll see that they're a commentary on Muslims' potential reaction to the drawings, which was obviously warranted.

Thus far, no MSM outlets in America that I know of have dared publish the images or show them on TV. CNN.com's article, in fact, says that "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." The other MSM folks have said pretty much the same thing. European papers have shown up for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but not those in America. Even a newspaper in Jordan published a few of the drawings and told Muslims to chill. And as MM points out, their excuse of respect for religion seems weak when none of the MSM outlets have had hesitations about showing pictures of Kanye West dressed up as Jesus, of the virgin Mary accessorized with an elephant turd, or of the world renowned "Christ in Piss" that featured a crucifix in a jar of urine. Were people upset at those things? Sure, but nobody, not even Pat Robertson in one of his loonier moments, called for the death of those who would insult Christianity. And the protests certainly didn't stop the images from being published, nor should they have done so.

So either the MSM are afraid or this is a case of tolerance gone wild. One should wonder why, with all the things that come out of the media that could fairly be called insulting to Christianity, that Christians don't have the same reaction as the Muslim world is having over these exceedingly mundane scribblings. The answer is multipart (and this list is hardly exhaustive). First, Christianity has had a reformation, something Islam is sorely in need of having.

Second, in the West, Christianity and the government are not the same entity. Once upon a time in Europe, displaying a crucifix in urine as an objet d'art would likely earn you an appointment with flaming lumber or with an inconveniently large stone pressing down on your chest. The separation of religion from government, though, meant that the Church, no matter how put out it was by a particular act of heresy, did not itself have the power to punish; that belonged to the secular authority.

Third, and perhaps most important, in the West, we believe in certain secular values that allow for effective pluralism and debate. Among them are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Freedom from being insulted or from being miffed, however, is not among them. Thus, my right to say a religious belief is wrong or to violate a tenet I believe is false, e.g. that displaying a depiction of Mohammed is heresy, overrides somebody's perfectly non-existent "right" not to have that tenet violated. Similarly, though I think "Christ in Piss" is insulting to Christianity, the media's right to free speech overrides my non-existent “right” not to be insulted and so they can do display it. I may say that they shouldn't do so, but this is not a normative claim and it is merely another example of free speech. I certainly wouldn't threaten coercive measures to prevent it.

So this is a case of Middle-East meets West. Islamic values are again coming into conflict with Western values, something that is becoming increasingly common in Europe. The question is how will the West respond? Will it stick to its core values, or will it allow itself to be dictated to by a select group? One core value of the West is tolerance. This, however, merely means putting up with people with whom you disagree. Tolerance does not mean that I shouldn't post representations of Mohammed against Islamic strictures. Tolerance also means that the Muslims, in the West at least, should put up with people not of their faith who do not follow the strictures of their faith and so they should not advocate death for those who violate those strictures.

Two cultures enter and two may leave, but one will have to come out a little different. Either Muslims must conform to Western values of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and of tolerance, and they must give up their militancy at perceived slights, or the West must conform to the religious tenets of Islam and through self-censorship not do anything that could possibly insult Muslims.

The latter would be truly unfortunate. I have said before that nobody can ever defeat the West, the West can only defeat itself. We must remain convicted of the importance of our core values and not shy from controversy. If a subculture in the West advocates anti-Western ideals and that the West also take on those anti-Western ideals, then we must confront it. If one side must conform to the others' core values, then the subculture must conform to the West. If it's the other way around, then the West is lost.

Others blogging: Riding Sun here and here, Belmont Club, Dread Pundit Bluto, Flopping Aces, CQ, most especially RWNH which is on the page as me.

32 Comments »

  1. They shouldn’t have published pictures like that.

    In Islam we’re not even allowed to draw pictures of the Prophet peace be upon him.

    We dont draw pictures of Jesus or Moses, we respect all the prophets.

    We love our prophet peace be upon him.

    Comment by be — 2/3/2006 @ 4:50 am

  2. be, that’s fine for Muslims, but why should non-Muslims in a pluralistic society be bound by the rule not to produce representations of Mohammed?

    Comment by Dangerous Dan — 2/3/2006 @ 8:25 am

  3. pbs had a great piece on this controversy last night. i think the double standard represented by the islamic outrage over these cartoons is revealing. and while i don’t think our MSM ought to go around inflaming stories like this, i do think they should tell the truth. not showing the cartoons is inherent bias in the coverage, and i am very disappointed.

    Comment by pamela — 2/3/2006 @ 8:58 am

  4. Among them are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Freedom from being insulted or from being miffed, however, is not among them.

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself. Excellent post, Dan.

    Comment by Mike — 2/3/2006 @ 10:25 am

  5. Why Are You Getting So Fired Up?

    Trackback by connecting*the*dots — 2/4/2006 @ 2:22 am

  6. Danish cartoons raise the ire of Islamofascists

    We sure do take a lot of our freedoms for granted. In Islam, an artistic representation of the human form is forbidden. That is why you could be on the receiving end of some serious form of punishment if youÂ’re caught with a gum wrapper with a cartoon…

    Trackback by Cao's Blog — 2/4/2006 @ 8:39 am

  7. Freedom and dumber

    You might think that America, in response to Muslim protests against editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed, would take a strong stand in support of freedom of speech. But you’d be wrong.

    Trackback by Riding Sun — 2/4/2006 @ 11:19 am

  8. Drawing conclusions

    (NOTE: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers! You can download the “Buy Danish” icon as a GIF file here.)

    Last O…

    Trackback by Riding Sun — 2/4/2006 @ 11:20 am

  9. [...] You can see the cartoons here: dangerousdan.us [...]

    Pingback by Webswamp » Muhammad Cartoon Gallery — 2/4/2006 @ 7:40 pm

  10. [...] View: Dangerous Dan’s Blog. View: Seancoon.org “Why Are You Getting So Fired Up?” View: Yahoo! coverage on the issue. blasphemy, islam, prophet [...]

    Pingback by Respect! at Skoogie.be - The Weblog — 2/4/2006 @ 7:44 pm

  11. be left the exact same message on my blog and not responded to my reply:

    http://daniel360.com/archives/61#comments

    Comment by Daniel — 2/4/2006 @ 9:19 pm

  12. We’ll be Drawing Old Muhammad on the Wall

    (music: She’ll be coming ’round the mountain,
    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/mountain.htm)

    We’ll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
    We’ll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
    For even Muslims must admit it,
    You don’t need a special permit,
    To be drawing old Muhammad on the wall.

    We’ll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
    We’ll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
    With graffiti that’s persisting,
    We will show that we’re insisting,
    On our right to spray the Prophet on the wall.

    We’ll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
    We’ll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
    Now some claim that He’s angelic,
    So we’ll paint Him psychedelic,
    We sure hope He likes His pictures on the wall.

    We’ll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
    We’ll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
    The time has come to make our stand
    Or our rights they will get banned,
    And we’ll find ourselves lined up against the wall.

    (If you like this, please re-post it elsewhere on the Internet.)

    Comment by Ima Blogger — 2/5/2006 @ 4:33 pm

  13. [...] As I argued in my last post, this conflict and how the West responds to it is important. It can either defend its core values of free speech and a free press and insist Muslims put up with these values or assimilate them, or the West can roll over and adopt Islamic religious edicts as binding on it through self-censorship. At least one prominent newspaper has chosen the latter course. [...]

    Pingback by Dangerous Dan » The Globe’s Brave Surrender — 2/7/2006 @ 11:54 am

  14. Nuevo Laredo Paper Attacked

    While the world is arguing about press freedom in regards to the recent cartoons of Muhammed and the violent response to the cartoons, in Mexico there is another direct threat to press freedom. The newspaper El Manana in Nueva Laredo…

    Trackback by Pete The Elder — 2/7/2006 @ 5:43 pm

  15. Dear dangerous dan,
    As a response to your question regarding why should non-muslims be bound by muslim rules, I would like to say that please try to see the issue from the perspective of “expectation of respect for one’s beliefs and way of thinking”, rather than from the perspective of “being bound to something or someone”. That is, it is all about “respecting the one that is different from you”. I also have a question for you: do you think that the Christians (and more importantly, the Vatican) would tolerate a cartoon that is published in the mid-eastern newspapers showing Holy Mary as a lady of pleasure and Pope or Jesus as a pervert? I mean, it would very hurtful to see that what you hold as a belief or what you respect for is nothing but an issue to be mocked by the others.

    Comment by benevrem — 2/8/2006 @ 3:34 pm

  16. “do you think that the Christians (and more importantly, the Vatican) would tolerate a cartoon that is published in the mid-eastern newspapers showing Holy Mary as a lady of pleasure and Pope or Jesus as a pervert? I mean, it would very hurtful to see that what you hold as a belief or what you respect for is nothing but an issue to be mocked by the others.”

    Yes they would tolerate it. They have tolerated artwork like “Piss Christ” which had a crucifix submerged in a bottle of urine and the artwork called “The Holy Virgin” by Chris Ofili that was Mary covered in elephant dung and pornographic pictures. Not to mention the play “Corpus Christi” that portrayed Jesus as a homosexual who was having sex with his disciples. The pope did not issue any Salman Rushdie style death threats in any of these cases and the only response was non-violent protest and, in some cases, stopping government funds from going to these arts. No embassies were burned down and no one was shot or or stabbed or bombed in response and none of the artist had to hide in fear of his life.

    I am a Christian and found those art works mentioned above to be offensive, but I got over it. Any adult should be able to get over an offense like that pretty quickly. If people are being offensive and trying to make you angry a good stratagy might be either to turn the other cheek or as Paul argued: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head”

    A better example in the way of cartoons might be the Jews who regularly tolerate the horrific anti-Jewish cartoons that regularly appear in state sponsored Arab newspapers along with the publication of defamatory works like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and holocost denial literature. If Muslims had complained as much about those cartoons which have been published for years I might be able to take their claims of offense more seriously. Or even if they complained about them at all, but I have yet to read any Muslim statements that protest both the anti-Jewish cartoons and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed. Hopefully there are some Muslims out there who would be willing to denounce both and only call for non-violent protest, but I have not heard of any.

    Comment by pete the elder — 2/8/2006 @ 5:55 pm

  17. Pete the elder,
    I guess it is my right to inform you about what had really happenned (I mean, the “true reactions” of the Christians) to those works of art that you’ve mentioned in your message.

    In the case of “The Holy Virgin Mary” by Chris Ofili “Dennis Heiner, a 72 year old Christian who was incensed by Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary, threw white paint across the work and proceeded to smear the paint over the canvas….This in turn prompted the museum to place it behind a protective plexiglass shield. Heiner, a retired English teacher feigned sickness to lean against a wall without attracting the suspicion of a guard then ducked behind the plexiglass took out a plastic bottle and squeezed white paint in a broad stroke across the face and body of the Madonna. He then smeared the paint over the head and bust of the painting, effectively obscuring the Virgin from view” (source: http://renewal.va.com.au/artcrime/pages/c_ofili.html).

    As for the “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano, “The first incident occurred when 51 year old John Allen Haywood took the photograph from the wall and kicked it.…After his court appearance he is quoted as saying ‘You can go so far with taking the piss, you understand….It riles me, it really gets me very upset.’ And when asked what he would say to the artist who’s work he damaged, he eloquently replied ‘I wouldn’t like to say nothing to him. I’d just like to punch him on the nose.’…The next day however, two teenagers, aged 18 and 16, were to have considerably more success in their endevour. In an orchestrated attack it was reported one teenager acted as a decoy, kicking a print on the opposite wall which distracted the guards who rushed to subdue him while the other smashed Piss Christ about 8 times with a hammer…The exhibition was thereafter shortly closed…The closure of the exhibition effectively awarded the attackers a victory in removing the work from public view and caused much debate about censorship and freedom of expression.” (source: http://renewal.va.com.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html).

    Finally, let’s see the “very well-mannered reactions” of the Christian community in the case of the play called “Corpus Christi” by Terrence McNally. Here, please see the article by Michael Bronski (source: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/nov98bronski.htm“> that I am quoting below:
    Right Wing Nixes Gay Christ:
    When the First Amendment Fails
    By Michael Bronski
    Corpus Christi, Terrence McNally’s dramatic refiguring of the Passion with a queer Christ and a sincere message of tolerance for everyone, has opened on Broadway. While the charge of anti-Catholicism and the threat of violence still hangs over the production and the theater, the relative post-opening night calm provides time for some serious reflection on the controversy. From the beginning the entire Corpus Christi scenario seemed more like a dangerous farce than a passion play. But in its outlines it conformed to a traditional American genre of public political theater in which individual and artistic freedom is threatened, the First Amendment is evoked, and while the dark forces of repression are beaten back, they continue to lurk, omnipresent, on the horizon.

    Act One
    After the Manhattan Theater Club announced last May that Terrence McNally’s Corpus Christi would lead their fall schedule, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a national lay organization dedicated to defending “the rights of Catholics to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination,” denounced the play and the production as “offensive to Catholics and all Christians.” The Catholic League–never having read the script–screamed blasphemy in a crowded theater and it worked. The Manhattan Theater Club, after receiving anonymous threats to fire bomb the theater, kill the staff, and “exterminate Terrence McNally,” canceled the production. The lights dim as the specter of censorship and religious bigotry rises center stage.

    Oh, then there were those death threats against Martin Scorcese after the release of “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Related sources on this issue include:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9823,goldstein,8963,1.html
    http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film_fact.jsp?id=105191

    By the way, did I mention the firebombing of the Parisian theatre that Scorcese’s movie was shown in? I am quoting from Wikipedia for you to learn about it: “On October 22, 1988, a French catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. This terrorist attack injured thirteen people; four of them were severely burned.” (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Temptation_of_Christ)

    So, do I have say more for you to see that Christians (especially Catholics) are not very capable in “tolerating” issues that challenge their religious point of views. And here, considering Christians’ reactions to the works of art in the above examples, I ask you where is this very famous right to “freedom of speech” those western non-muslim people put a striking emphasis on in the issue of controversial muhammed cartoons? I mean, I really doubt western, non-muslims peoples’ understanding of the concept of “freedom of speech.

    So, I suggest you to do better investigations on such sensitive issues before simply believing in that people of your religion are capable of tolerating, while blaming muslims to be incapable of tolerating matters that attack one’s religious beliefs.

    Best wishes,

    References:
    “Art Crime – The Holy Virgin Mary”. Dec 16, 1999. Available at http://renewal.va.com.au/artcrime/pages/c_ofili.html

    “Art Crime – Piss Christ”. Oct 12, 1997. Available at http://renewal.va.com.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html

    Bronski, Michael. “Right Wing Nixes Gay Christ: When the First Amendment Fails”. Nov. 1998. Available at
    http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/nov98bronski.htm

    Goldstein, Richard. “Body and Soul”. June 1998. Available at http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9823,goldstein,8963,1.html

    “The Last Temptation Of Christ Film Fact”. Available at http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film_fact.jsp?id=105191

    “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Temptation_of_Christ

    Comment by benevrem — 2/9/2006 @ 9:04 am

  18. Benevrem, this is a pretty poor comparison. The people you mention are individuals whose behavior the vast majority of Christians and Christendom itself would and did condemn.

    Thus far, there have been massive rallies all over the world threatening violence against the West and the cartoonists, embassies have been torched, property damaged, the cartoonists have gone into hiding, prominent clerics have called for violence, and the best any moderate Muslims have offered (those who have bothered) is, “The violence is wrong, but you’ve got to understand what prompted it,” an apologetic formulation meant to excuse the behavior.

    Unless you can find reactions to the art and the play that are on anywhere near a similar scale to the above, then you’ve done nothing. There weren’t massive rallies threatening violence and calling for the death of artists or playwright (and none of them felt the need to go into hiding), you didn’t have prominent ministers or the pope advocating violence or calling for days of anger, the New York Times or the museum weren’t torched by a mob, etc. You can’t compare the actions of Christian lone nuts with the actions of the bulk of Islam and then say you’ve made a valid comparison.

    Also keep in mind that the overwhelmingly tame reactions from Christians came as a result of representations of important Christian figures featuring urine, dung, sexual images, and a homosexual Jesus. Contrast this with the Muslim reactions to a few mundane cartoons making commentary that is justified. I can only imagine the Muslim uproar if the papers had published pictures of a Mohammed sculpture dunked in a jar of urine. Do you really think the worst that would happen, as in the Piss Christ case, is that a couple of kids would try damaging it?

    In short, your comparison doesn’t make your case, it makes Pete’s and mine.

    Thanks.

    Comment by Dangerous Dan — 2/9/2006 @ 10:05 am

  19. Dangerous dan,
    I cannot believe you support the idea that depicting a holy figure as a “terrorist” is not enough to be considered as an offense. OFFENSIVENESS IS NOT ALL ABOUT SEX AND HOMOSEXUALITY. Depicting a muslim prophet as a terrorist can also be considered as an offense.

    If Christians deserve to be respected for demanding not to see a holy figure as a whore or gay, muslims also deserve to be respected for demanding not to see their prophet as a terrorist. Don’t you think that being a terrorist is something as bad as being a whore?

    As for the violence, i don’t of course support it for any case. I mean, there is nothing that justifies the “threats and acts of violence” (whether they come from a group of christians as in Martin Scorcese’s and Terrence McNally’s cases or a group of muslims as in the current mohammad cartoon case). I felt the need to explain the details of Scorcese’s and McNally’s cases to show that Christians, too are not good at tolerating things that challenge the way they visualize/think about holy mary or jesus. The same holds for the muslims. We are not good at it, either. Because, “at its root, it is all about an attack on one’s values and beliefs”.

    Comment by benevrem — 2/9/2006 @ 12:45 pm

  20. Benevrem, the only cartoon that probably be connected with calling Mohammed a terrorist in the turban bomb one. And these aren’t commentaries on Mohammed, they’re commentaries on Islam, very pertinent ones I might add. Besides, apparently any representation of Mohammed is supposed to be offensive, so how important is the manner of depiction?

    Even if you do want to interpret them as calling Mohammed a terrorist, I don’t much care. I never said you didn’t have the right to be offended. You certainly do and I encourage your indignation. You do not, however, have the right not to be offended and so I do not have the duty not to offend you. The issue here is that in a pluralistic society, you’re going to get your feelings hurt. Lick your wounds and get on with it. What bothers me with the Muslim reaction to these cartoons is the coercive violence they’re trying to exercise and silencing dissent with threats. I will not accept that tactic. So, yes, Christians get offended by things, but they their reactions do not compare in size or scope to the reactions of the Muslims. The values and beliefs the Muslims are attacking (freedom of speech and of the press) are Western values that are essential for the operation and cohesiveness of pluralistic societies. If Muslims are going to live in the West and if those who don’t expect to be responsible members of a pluralistic global community, then they need to accept those values as well as the fact that they may occasionally dislike the consequences of doing so. Then, instead of threatening violence, they should argue with more speech.

    Given that, you are taking appropriate action by speaking your mind and debating the issue. Though we disagree, I respect you saying I’m wrong and countering speech with more speech. That’s how things are supposed to be.

    Comment by Dangerous Dan — 2/9/2006 @ 3:06 pm

  21. Simpsons, Crucifixin’s, and Danish Cartoons

    Along with the complaints about other media censorship and religious sensitivity, the makers of Will & Grace decided to get rid of a scene to air before Easter that featured Brittany Spears doing a cooking show that contained “cruifixin’s”. Lots…

    Trackback by Pete The Elder — 2/9/2006 @ 5:57 pm

  22. yeah,dan iam with u completely…iam an indian and an atheist so i know how crazy people can b bout religion.communal riots,offerings et al.dont these orthodox people understand that they r simply wastin their time being so-called religious.that goddamned time can b used for charitable works instead………………………..

    Comment by cepheus — 2/10/2006 @ 3:23 am

  23. Cepheus, you’ve apparently misinterpreted me. I am a actually a Christian and would happily contend that religion, Christianity especially, has done far more good than bad and would also argue that atheism, on a large scale, is destructive.

    Comment by Dangerous Dan — 2/11/2006 @ 2:23 pm

  24. Late to the party, I know. But I had to chime in.

    Was I the only Christian who didn’t care about the Jesus in Urine, Mary in dung, or gay Jesus? Because I didn’t. I still don’t. I am not the least bit offended. Probably because I have better things to do than get bothered by something that has no effect on me. I am more offended by Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. An outsider attacking Christianity doesn’t bother me. So what? Jesus said it would happen, so dust off your shoes and get over it.

    ‘Turn the other cheek’ has to do with ignoring insults. I think Jesus knew that if you ignore something that is TRYING to get a rise out of you, no one will notice and it will die a quiet death. Getting huffy and offended only makes the offender a martyr, you an idiot, and the offensive thing into a national story.

    Ignore it and it does go away. Make a case of it, and EVERYONE wants to see it. (Just look at what happened to 2 Live Crew)

    Comment by Burton — 2/15/2006 @ 5:34 pm

  25. i can’t believe someone would Get so upset over a Cartoon.
    Being Morman South park aired an ENTIRE episode against our
    religion, i actually laughed at it and found it funny, us mormons
    didn’t rally, Threaten Matt stone/Trey parker, or even as much as
    write a letter. If it bothered us we turned the Channel.

    If the news paper offended you why are you reading Danish news papers?

    Ban the Paper, burn the paper… Killing people, harming people, and
    intolerance to foreigners is ignorance and fear. we should live in a
    world of love and tolerance. Not fear and hypocrasy.

    -Brine

    Comment by Brine — 2/21/2006 @ 7:04 pm

  26. Cartoon

    The Muhammad cartoons are in the news again. This time two different organizations have caved to pressure from extremist Muslim groups not show them. The first is NYU which forbid a student group from showing them. Right wing reason writes:…

    Trackback by Pete The Elder — 3/31/2006 @ 7:51 am

  27. [...] Dangerous Dan The West Must Take a Stand Posted by root 1 hour 38 minutes ago (http://dangerousdan.us) Comment by dangerous dan 2 3 2006 8 25 am the parisian saint michel movie theater to protest against the film projection powered by wordpress Discuss  |  Bury |  News | Dangerous Dan The West Must Take a Stand [...]

    Pingback by Dangerous Dan The West Must Take a Stand | Wood TV Stand — 5/31/2009 @ 5:12 pm

  28. ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????

    Comment by islam — 11/24/2009 @ 3:43 pm

  29. No God but Allah, O champions of Islam .. ???? my heart Oh Messenger of God.,. We will not be foolish words, we are proud of our religion, folk

    Comment by islam — 11/24/2009 @ 3:46 pm

  30. [...] Klein’s Quips Peenie Wallie Limburg Letter Scipio the Metalcon JamulBlog Bear to the Right Dangerous Dan WunderKraut.com Posse Incitatus Harleys, Cars, Girls, & Guitars Left wing = Hate Holstein [...]

    Pingback by Michelle Malkin » Mohammed cartoon reprint: Show your solidarity — 9/5/2011 @ 3:10 am

  31. It’s vital that you take notice, though, so that you can don’t choose a
    specific thing they already own or one which doesn’t fit the theme
    of the collection. Shopping wise – Most US and International
    brands can be found in India now. Forgotten which is to
    the majority of modern stationary users, however, not it seemed to the hundred or so personalities from world wide, who had evidently chosen to
    represent themselves or their business with something somewhat special.

    Comment by the simpsons fansite — 4/13/2014 @ 12:02 pm

  32. As such, it shouldn’t be too difficult to spend some time constructing a database
    of tables along the lines of what is suggested at where they’ve got provided a sample database spec for usage in a college accommodation reservation application.
    Instant availability is what exactly is triggering ebook
    piracy too. The free Lyrics Search app is available
    at the Android Market.

    Comment by sureboy.net — 4/16/2014 @ 4:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress