Last night Comedy Central would not let South Park say the name Mohammed or show him. If you ask me the Terrorists won. But July 2001 there was episode 504 the Super Best Friends They "showed" Mohammed!! So what do you say did the terrorist take away our free speech? I know SP is an offensive show but to me they represent free speech in America.

YouTube - South Park Mohammed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTsR820ofEQ&feature=related)

They were just scared, But yes, that means the terrorist won

When Salman Rushdie got the fatwa in 1988 for writing about Mohammed the libs all rallied in support of him. Many took the bold step of reading it publicly out loud in symbolic support.

These days you can in the name of art do the most vile things to Christian images. You can even get state funding for it. But Mohmammed depicted in any way seen unfavorable provokes a violent reaction by jihadistan.

The popular culture cowers at such a reaction and appeases . Menawhile the Pope makes a controversial quote from the past about Mohammed and is condemned even though by all appearances it is accurate.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" (Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus )

This condemnation of the Pope came even though in the next paragraph he completes the quote (the part the dinosaur media left out )

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

Comedy Central is spineless. They apparently pick low hanging fruit and cower when confronted .

Yep, I mentioned yesterday that Comedy Central caved (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/theres-bear-there-465979.html#post2324599). I guess they're not as edgy as they thought they were, the spineless twits.

Yep, I mentioned yesterday that Comedy Central caved (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/theres-bear-there-465979.html#post2324599). I guess they're not as edgy as they thought they were, the spineless twits.So what is edgy to you?

The Southpark creators issued a statement (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/south-park-creators-respond/):


In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker for calling out the network. Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ann-althouse-comedy-central-cowers-in-the-face-of-a-murder-threatwarning-against-south-park-cre/) has the ultimate commentary on the situation:


Obviously, Christians — and Sarah Palin fans, and lovers of My Mother The Car — should take heed of this incentive system our modern media is creating. Don’t want things you treasure satirized? Just issue a “prediction” and — voilà! Meanwhile, note how entirely real radical Muslim threats and violence are treated as just part of the weather — something you have to adapt to — while nonexistent Tea Party violence is an existential threat to the Republic.

But here’s a warning of my own: Those who have no backbone will do the bidding of those who do.

It's easy to be edgy when you're a stand-up comedian and you are your own business. It's different when you are under the banner of a corporation that has shareholders. However Tim & Eric are pretty out there. :) and Robot Chicken does some wild satire

How ironic that the conservative is slamming the corporation while you defend it.

How did I defend it? They make a business decision, that's all. If you don't like it unsubscribe from the channel. Adding a bleep made no difference to my life, did it to yours?

Don't let the terrorists win!

30520

Yep, really dissapointed that they bleeped out all the mohammed refferences.

Didn't this already happen with the episode that made fun of Family Guy? Mohammad in a salmon helmet.

Yes, this is the second time Comedy Central caved to the Jihadists.

They were just scared, But yes, that means the terrorist wonHello:

When, in response to 9/11, your own president attacks the Constitution taking away the freedoms he said the attackers hate us for, THAT is when the terrorists won.

Comedy Central ain't doing nothing YOU right wingers didn't do.

excon

Comedy Central ain't doing nothing YOU right wingers didn't do.

If that is so, why aren't you joining us in saying no more instead of just whining about Bush?

If that is so, why aren't you joining us in saying no more instead of just whining about Bush?

Because with Comedy central you can just change the channel or no longer carry the channel. Not so with a political party in power.

If that is so, why aren't you joining us in saying no more instead of just whining about Bush?Hello again, Steve:

So, in the last few years, you didn't hear me saying no more to torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, illegal spying, or military tribunals?? I guess not.

excon

That Lego cartoon was hilarious.
The South Park issue reminds me of the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. He was a filmmaker who allegedly defamed Islam, funny how telling the truth about radical Islam is offensive to Muslims. The West has to stop caving in to Muslims or they will think they can rule our society. Political correctness is destroying the West, look how bad England has become. Read Mark Steyn's article in this week's Maclean's.

Because with Comedy central you can just change the channel or no longer carry the channel. Not so with a political party in power.

So because Democrats are in power excon can't protest government policies? That makes a lot of sense... but totally in line with the view that dissent is good under Bush, bad under Obama.

Hello again, Steve:

So, in the last few years, you didn't hear me saying no more to torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, illegal spying, or military tribunals??? I guess not.

Sure, but what does that have to do with saying no MORE taking away our freedoms?

but totally in line with the view that dissent is good under Bush, bad under Obama.Hello again, Steve:

You have a short memory. I deplore Obama's continuation of the Bush detention policies, his illegal spying policies, his war in Afghanistan, his killing by drone, his targeting of Americans, and his weak health care law. I didn't hesitate to post about it either.

I guess you were on vacation when all that was going on.

excon

"In support of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and in opposition to religious thuggery," I give you the First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammad Day (http://reason.com/assets/mc/mmoynihan/2010_04/1271980832-drawmohammedposter.jpg.).

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mmoynihan/2010_04/1271980832-drawmohammedposter.jpg

I love it!

"In support of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and in opposition to religious thuggery," I love it!Hello Steve:

I don't love it. To ME, the ones to go after are the thugs themselves, which is a particular group in NY, rather than the religion. That's just me.

excon

Ex, as a Christian I have insults thrown in my face every day in most every way imaginable. Perhaps it's time Islam learns how to "get over it."

It is exactly the response that is needed ;simular to the author's public support by reading 'Satanic Verses' out loud , after Rushdie was threatened .

Ex, as a Christian I have insults thrown in my face every day in most every way imaginable. Perhaps it's time Islam learns how to "get over it."
How do people know that you're a christian? Do you have a tattoo on your face?

Speaking of responses to Muslim extremists, remember that Ayatollah that warned of immodest women creating earthquakes? An Indiana woman who came up with a response may have inadvertently proved him right.

Boobquake Triggers 6.5 Magnitude Quake Off Taiwan (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/04/boobquake-triggers-65-magnitude-quake.html)

I'm with JWF, we may need to study the evidence further. :D

It is exactly the response that is needed Hello again, tom:

I don't know. You have a choice of going after the actual PEOPLE who did this, or going after their RELIGION. You choose their religion. Kind of gives credence to their claim that the US is warring against Islam.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I dunno. You have a choice of going after the actual PEOPLE who did this, or going after their RELIGION. You choose their religion. Kinda gives credence to their claim that the US is warring against Islam.

excon
I'm on the fence about this one. It would be nice if muslims would come out and denounce these people but it rarely happens.

Hello NK:

One Muslim (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6430933n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel) is.

excon

Kurt Westergaard ;the author of the Danish cartoons was attacked with an ax in his home by jihadists. His employer's response ? They put him on indefinite leave for security reasons . That's showing support!

No Ex . It is a statement that the West will not be intimidated by jihadists. If a Muslim is offended by that they should react the same way Catholics and other Christians react when mocked by the popular culture.Grin and bear it. They should understand that our standing in solidarity with the writers of South Park (as much as I think they are morons) is not a reaction against Islam but against jihadistan . What will they do in response ? Issue another Fatwa ? We all already live under a number of them just for not surrendering willingly to dhimmitude.

I still don't get this baloney. South Park lambastes everyone from Jesus to the Virgin Mary, the Jews, Christianity, gays, Buddists, the Pope, Scientology, Tom Cruise, Hilary Clinton, even the Special Olympics, etc. and no one gets bent out of shape and changes any episodes. But heaven forbid that someone mentions the "M" word and all hell breaks loose and everyone goes into apology mode and cowtows to these people. Is it because they are terrorists and everyone is afraid that they'll be bombed or shot or whatever? If everyone took South Park seriously then that show would be cancelled. There are some episodes I don't particularly care for but others are a real laugh. Why must we tip toe around anything Muslim? Or are they super humans or super elites?

I believe south park had it right where they thought mohammad has some sort of 'goo' that means people can't make fun of him.

I'm on the fence about this one. It would be nice if muslims would come out and denounce these people but it rarely happens.

Denounce which people?

As a muslim,personally, I wouldn't watch something that insults Jesus or Muhammad (peace be upon them). And no I would not be apologetic for the ones who raise their voice against making fun of any of the Prophets.

I have heard that a singer was banned from performing in Sri Lanka, because one of his videos depict him in an insulting way in front of the Buddha. Do they have to apologise for it,of course not, if they find it insulting they can take an action against it.

I do not support violence,but there are different levels of disliking something as far as my beliefs go.
There is the choice of actually getting something done to stop the wrong that is being done either by protest or some other peaceful/legal mean, then there is the choice of raising our voices against it, the least is hating it within our hearts. I am one of those people that usually opts for the least, but there will always be those who are willing to raise their voices against anything that they deem to be wrong.
As long as they do not resort to violence I do not see the wrong in it.

Those who insult others will continue to do it,whether we raise our voices or not, for those who take back their insults, thank you, for whatever reason it is that you took it back, I as a muslim am thankful that there will one less to insult us.


.

Denounce which people?Hi firm,

Denounce the ones who intend to kill people for displaying an image or cartoon of a person.

NK.

Hi Nk,

The correct actions for a muslim to take in such cases is not bloodshed or destroy property and referring such matters for scholars to deal with is better than taking the law into their own hands.

Killing is not the answer or threatening to kill is not the answer.

The thing about Fatwas is that the salaf, the Sahaabah and Taabi’een (the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the best generation of muslims) used to regard it as makrooh(disliked act) to rush to issue fatwas.

And I for one as a muslim will not watch a program which insults Prophets,Messengers.
Each to their own, I believe everyone will receive their due when the time comes,whether one is a believer or not,so I leave those that throw insults to the Most Just.


.

Firm

The problem is that it is the radical jihadists that have seized the message. That is why the rest of Islam should stand in solidarity against them in unambiguous terms .

Firm

The problem is that it is the radical jihadists that have seized the message. That is why the rest of Islam should stand in solidarity against them in unambiguous terms .
I... I... agree! :eek:

I...I...agree! :eek:

See we can work together sometimes!!

2nd Casablanca quote of the day

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship

By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
'South Park" is hilarious, right? Not any more.

Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also "featured" the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.

For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone "will probably end up" like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing "Submission," a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.

There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here's Mr. Amrikee's perspective: "It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," he told Foxnews.com. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality." He's also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh's body.

According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their "outrage" merits little attention.

This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.

Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.

The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.

Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn't include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.

So how worried should the creators of "South Park" be about the "marginal figures" who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee's posting is an informal fatwa. Here's how it works:

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the "offense" may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?

The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C. curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.

Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That's a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.

One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend "South Park," producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.

Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.
In "South Park," this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.

Ms. Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is the author of "Nomad: From Islam to America—A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations," which will be published next month by Free Press.

The problem is that it is the radical jihadists that have seized the message. That is why the rest of Islam should stand in solidarity against them in unambiguous terms .Hello again, tom:

I don't agree, of course. Your expectation that Islam "should stand in solidarity", (or else) is UNREALISTIC, and indeed, CONFRONTATIONAL. I had to ask myself, what explanation would WE owe the world if, say, we invaded a Muslim country based on faulty intelligence. I wonder too, what WE should say, in SOLIDARITY, to Muslims when WE kill innocent civilians with our drone strikes.

Then I look around and see that WE don't speak in SOLIDARITY about anything. To expect that a people should DO, what we ourselves refuse to do, is INVITING trouble. In fact, IF our elected leader DID speak against those things, you'd accuse him of apologizing. Yet that's exactly what you expect from the Muslim world.

excon

Ex,
I'm quite certain that Christians stand in solidarity in denouncing the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. I see this as a similar situation.

I'm quite certain that Christians stand in solidarity in denouncing the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. I see this as a similar situation.Hello again, NK:

You make my point for me. I too, am certain. But we're only GUESSING. I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it. I see NO evidence that they feel that way. Nonetheless, to question whether Christians condemn them, because there isn't an outpouring in solidarity against it, is an unrealistic expectation.

It means NO more that Christians in SOLIDARITY, don't condemn that church, than it does when the Muslims don't, in SOLIDARITY, condemn the actions of their terrorists.

excon

So in other words, there's nothing we can do. Is that it, ex? What exactly is your answer to Islamic extremists?

But we're only GUESSING. I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it.
I'm not guessing, I've seen it: 'God Hates F*gs' Radicals Out-Protested In Coal Mine Deaths (http://digg.com/political_opinion/God_Hates_F_gs_Radicals_Out_Protested_In_Coal_Mine _Deaths)

Hello again, NK:

I don't believe that meets the "solidarity" test, tom calls for.

excon

I haven't HEARD Christians speak in SOLIDARITY against it. I see NO evidence that they feel that way.

You haven't paid attention. Phelps and co. are the scum of the earth, but they're hardly the threat that Islamic extremism is. But then it's pretty easy to take on a backward family in Kansas, it takes real guts to take on Islamic terrorism.

So in other words, there's nothing we can do. Is that it, ex? What exactly is your answer to Islamic extremists?Hello again, Steve:

There's PLENTY we can do. Putting down their religion and/or demanding that they act in a way that we, ourselves, refuse to act, AIN'T it.

excon

Here is an OP created by one of the Christians on the board NoHelp4u and similar sentiments were expressed by Steve ,NK,Elliot (ok go Jews!) ,Emland,labman,kindj,and partime . A fairly representative group of mostly Christians at AMHD . If this had been posted in Christianity board I'd bet more would join the universal condemnation of the creap Phelps .

The facts speak for themselves. You may think we don't represent a large cross section of Christians but I disagree .I see no Christian on any of the boards here defending Phelps.

Unfortunately it will most likely be overturned by appeal . Freedom of speech is a stated guarantee while freedom of privacy is what many call an "implied right."

But we can celebrate one of those rare common sense rulings while we can. Fred Phelps is an AH and deserves to lose this case .He at very least should reexamine what it means to be Christian and ask himself if his group is really acting in a Christian manner.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/yea-yea-yea-finally-147352-2.html

There's PLENTY we can do. Putting down their religion and/or demanding that they act in a way that we, ourselves, refuse to act, AIN'T it

That's a very familiar non-answer.

The facts speak for themselves. You may think we don't represent a large cross section of Christians but I disagree .I see no Christian on any of the boards here defending Phelps.Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry. You guys bring up lots of data, which I don't dispute, but nothing that indicates Christians are speaking IN SOLIDARITY.

Maybe I misunderstand the word "solidarity". But, I don't think so.

excon

There will never be solidarity between real Christians and the cult Phelps represents . Just like there is no solidarity between mainstream Muslims and the jihadists ( I believe) . I think that is the position Firm would take ;but I'd like to see more . There is no Christian leader except the cultists like Phelps who advance the position he takes . If I take time I'll find church leaders who are out front in their condemnation of him. I'd love to see the Muslim clerics who are condemning the death threats to the South Park authors. The birds are chirping .

Hello again, tom:

I agree. This post ^^ is much less demanding and more Christianlike.

You may think I'm splitting hairs. In fact, I'm the first to use the expression, "it's a distinction WITHOUT a difference". However, THIS post above, tom, is distinct from your other one, and it makes a BIG difference.

excon

That was a great discussion... if I was counting debating points at the Oxford Union

Southern Baptists have been speaking out against Westboro for years, as in here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=1000), here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=15606), here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=21487), here (http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=26780) and here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=32763). That's from 1999 to last week if you're counting.

That was a great discussion ...if I was counting debating points at the Oxford UnionHello again, tom:

Well, you're still free to make this a Christian vs Muslim war, if you wish. Certainly, the other side already thinks it is - and maybe in your own mind, you do too.

excon

You are the master of making generalities yourself that paint a broad brush on "righty's " that may apply to some but are clearly an exageration when applied to all. The you shoot down the generality that you have painted on us . It is brilliant strawman techique that forces us to waste time disputing that the generality applies to us.

But that's OK...

The latest example is the above posting that implies I'm trying to make this a Christian vs Muslim war . It is of course bunk.

Comedy Central, fresh off caving to the Jihadis, is developing an animated series on Jesus Christ (http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/comedy-central-developing-jesus-christ-cartoon-series.html) titled "JC."


As part of the network's upfront presentation to advertisers (full slate here), the network is set to announce "JC," a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City.

In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city.

"In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable," said Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman.

When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said its too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters.

"We don't even know what the show is yet," he said.

Like all Comedy Central executives, Alterman declined to address the recent controversy over "South Park," where the network aired a heavily redacted episode after the show's creators were threatened by an extremist Islamic Web site.

If nothing else Comedy Central has become useful for illustrative purposes. The folks there are only cowards when it comes to Muslim extremists, so there must be something about Jihadis in particular that makes them more dangerous than that Christian threat so prominent during the Bush theocracy years.

so there must be something about Jihadis in particular that makes them more dangerous than that Christian threat so prominent during the Bush theocracy years.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you noticed, but jihadists KILL you if they don't like what you say. Christians, on the other hand, will only kill you if you're an abortion provider. It's easy to cast aspersions from the comfort of your couch, on the Comedy Central team, who LIVE in NY, and who can be FOLLOWED home.

excon

Christians, on the other hand, will only kill you if you're an abortion provider.

I thought you didn't believe Christians and Muslims do things in solidarity ?

I dunno if you noticed, but jihadists KILL you if they don't like what you say. Christians, on the other hand, will only kill you if you're an abortion provider. It's easy to cast aspersions from the comfort of your couch, on the Comedy Central team, who LIVE in NY, and who can be FOLLOWED home.

Ex, you're profiling Muslims now?

ex, you're profiling Muslims now?Hello again, Steve:

I haven't a clue what you're referring to. Not sharing the same definition of profiling, makes it even harder.

Let me be clear. These people, who are REAL people, were just threatened by some people who we KNOW carry out their threats. It's NOT like a jihad video where they blast EVERYBODY. NOOO, these are very particular people, who live in NY, and have families.

It scared 'em. I guess you think it shouldn't have. YOU think they should act cavalierly, make jokes and carry on as usual. And in the process, make their employees even more of a target than they already are. I don't know why you'd want them to do that. YOU wouldn't do that if your family were threatened.

Oh, I just got the connection you were making above. You think because I suggested that jihadists want to kill you, means that I'm profiling them. Here's the answer. YOU'RE RIGHT. I profiled them because of their BEHAVIOR - not their religion. You DO believe, that killing in the name of jihad IS behavior, don't you? That would be opposed to profiling them because they're Muslim...

It's a simple concept. I don't know WHY you guys can't get it.

excon

We actually got the concept down long ago. It's always been about connecting behavioral tendencies, so at least we're both profiling for the same reason now. I can't help it though, that terrorist behavior exists almost exclusively among Muslims.

As for Comedy Central, what do you call someone who only pick fights that carry no risk?