WTF?!!?!! Is THIS how low CNN has fallen? Is this really how far they've allowed themselves to become the left's answer to Fox Noise, that they now literally do not know whether a group telling the SP's creators that they "might end up dead" while showing pictures of Theo Van Gogh's corpse, is freedom of speech or if it "goes to far"????!! Uh yeah, last time I checked CNN, veiled DEATH THREATS do not fall within the realm of freedom of speech. But I guess since the group making the threats belongs to an ostensibly beleaguered minority in the US, we shouldn't make too much of a fuss and just look the other way on this one, right?
Since the guy interviewed last year mentioned an obligation to terrorize and make fearful, I hope "Federal officials" will look more carefully at this incident. The issue is, I think, to determine just when speech becomes an actual threat of violence -- which should be illegal. I think, also, that the full context needs to be considered in making the determination: this would include the guy's previous statements (including those about 9/11). I suppose there are (or should be) objective legal tests that must be applied although I don't know what they are.
I have no doubt this guy has an FBI file. I just hope he doesn't go do something stupid like actually cross the line. What will happen if he feels that his scare tactics don't make us afraid? Will he cross the line to fulfill his bullshit commandment from his bullshit god?
Let's test that. He needs to know that he does not make us afraid so that we'll obey the laws of his bullshit religion. It's not going to happen.
I wonder what are the actions Mr. "commanded to terrorise" thinks will achieve his goal of 'making them afraid'. Surely, promising the unbelievers torture in the hell they don't believe exists or believe his own beliefs will get HIM there will do, wouldn't it?
And what if it would not? What then, when he fails to do as commanded and faces his own hell because of that? I wonder how the promise of heaven to those who kill unbelievers fits into this construct...
He says they are to "Terroize the disbelievers" but not through violence, just to make them fearful of raping, killing or taking resources. How do they supposed we are to be fearful if they don't attack someone? Or if they don't threaten someone with an attack of some kind?
Fortunately, they aren't very good at being scary.
Ye. and the other thing everyone keeps missing is that THEY ALREADY DID show muhammed (oh snap muslims i used a lowercase 'm') and nothing happened.
Don't these threates of violence seem juvenile to everyone else? when I child starts hitting a parent to get what he wants to parents give in? fuck no they slap that bitch and put him in line.
WTF?!!?!! Is THIS how low CNN has fallen? Is this really how far they've allowed themselves to become the left's answer to Fox Noise, that they now literally do not know whether a group telling the SP's creators that they "might end up dead" while showing pictures of Theo Van Gogh's corpse, is freedom of speech or if it "goes to far"????!! Uh yeah, last time I checked CNN, veiled DEATH THREATS do not fall within the realm of freedom of speech. But I guess since the group making the threats belongs to an ostensibly beleaguered minority in the US, we shouldn't make too much of a fuss and just look the other way on this one, right?
ReplyDeleteSince the guy interviewed last year mentioned an obligation to terrorize and make fearful, I hope "Federal officials" will look more carefully at this incident. The issue is, I think, to determine just when speech becomes an actual threat of violence -- which should be illegal. I think, also, that the full context needs to be considered in making the determination: this would include the guy's previous statements (including those about 9/11). I suppose there are (or should be) objective legal tests that must be applied although I don't know what they are.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt this guy has an FBI file. I just hope he doesn't go do something stupid like actually cross the line. What will happen if he feels that his scare tactics don't make us afraid? Will he cross the line to fulfill his bullshit commandment from his bullshit god?
ReplyDeleteLet's test that. He needs to know that he does not make us afraid so that we'll obey the laws of his bullshit religion. It's not going to happen.
Why is someone like that still in the US? Man, get that piece of scum out of there!
ReplyDeleteDid any other channel cover that? Let's see what Trey and Matt's reaction .
ReplyDeleteThey didn't show Mohammad tonight. Thoroughly disappointed. :(
ReplyDeleteah Og you asshole it isn't on here yet. I was really hoping they would. Damn.
ReplyDeletethey even censored his/her/its name!
ReplyDeleteI wonder what are the actions Mr. "commanded to terrorise" thinks will achieve his goal of 'making them afraid'.
ReplyDeleteSurely, promising the unbelievers torture in the hell they don't believe exists or believe his own beliefs will get HIM there will do, wouldn't it?
And what if it would not? What then, when he fails to do as commanded and faces his own hell because of that?
I wonder how the promise of heaven to those who kill unbelievers fits into this construct...
He says they are to "Terroize the disbelievers" but not through violence, just to make them fearful of raping, killing or taking resources. How do they supposed we are to be fearful if they don't attack someone? Or if they don't threaten someone with an attack of some kind?
ReplyDeleteFortunately, they aren't very good at being scary.
Ye. and the other thing everyone keeps missing is that THEY ALREADY DID show muhammed (oh snap muslims i used a lowercase 'm') and nothing happened.
ReplyDeleteDon't these threates of violence seem juvenile to everyone else? when I child starts hitting a parent to get what he wants to parents give in? fuck no they slap that bitch and put him in line.