SUPPORT DENMARK!
Posted on 02/08/2006 4:37:41 AM PST by zook
Moments ago, after touting the interview all morning, CNN engaged in blatent censorship of the Danish editor whose paper first published the Muhammad cartoons.
What cowards.
That guy was ambushed. Wow!
Bump. That's incredibly weak.
CNN has submitted to their Dhimmi status.
Worse than mere cowards. They gleefully showed the prison pics that ignited the fanatics.
Protecting Saddam Hussein by hiding the acts of terror that they themselves saw so they could keep their office open in Baghdad.
CNN is vile.
Cnn has reporters all over the world I guess they figured if they show the cartoons they would put their people in harms way.But these terroists will terroize people regardless of cartoons or not. Michelle Malkin showed the cartoons on her website and on Fox yesterday.
And what would you expect from an anti-American network that supports Saddam and the terrorist.
I think onyx's comment covers here as well. They don't care about inflaming passions, as long as their butt isn't likely to be in the LOF.
If they show Abu Gharib pictures, just some US soldiers might get targeted and killed, so that's cool.
Where are the rights to know, CNN?
I noticed it last week. They blurred out the cartoons while covering the story, saying they didn't want to offend any Muslims.
CNN is such a joke.
All the high mucky-mucks and grand poobahs of the "free press" are petrified that some whacked out jihadist will show up on their doorstep.
People going on TV interviews need to hold the turban-bomb cartoon in front of their face the entire time. I wish Michelle Malkin had done that last night.
Michelle Malkin went on Hannity and Colmes with a placard of cartoons she made herself at Staples. And the producer refused to show any of them. FoxNews has been bought by the Saudis, so it should come as no surprise.
That's from China Girl, right? I used to be a huge Bowie fan, right up to "The Lodger." After that, I never heard anything I liked.
They should be call DNN from now on, for Dhimmi News Network......
Fox has showed the cartoons; Brit showed the bomb Turbin depiction, and last night Michelle's poster was shown on the show.
Ok, I know I'm going off topic, but hasn't everything Bowie's done since then been far more commercial than anything he ever did up to that time? Just a rhetorical question. I mean, around then (and my memory fails me) wasn't he also doing great stuff like "Move On," "African Night Flight," and "Boys"?
What is CNN afraid of? The BBC have shown the cartoons regularly on their news reports to demonstrate what all the fuss is about and it hasn't precipitated the end of the world yet!
What can we say? These "journalists" are so twisted in their thinking, so unprincipled at every level, so reflective of the poor educations they received.
I notice that they never publish the anti-Jewish or anti Christian cartoons that regularly appear in the Arab press. After all, I suppose if you don't express your anger in the form of violence, then you must mnot care enough for it to be news, right CNN?
Interestingly, the woman doing the interview this morning mentioned the Iranian "free speech" contest that calls for people to submit anti-Semitic cartoons. She asked the Danish editor if that was ok and if his paper would eventually publish them. He said, of course they would. (Clearly, the "newswoman" thought she was cleverly trapping the editor.)
Of course we would! Why wouldn't any sane news outlet want to document the awful biggotry of the Muslim world?
Fox News did the same thing last night. Michelle Malkin held the cartoons up, contending that people should know what all the fuss is about, but the cameran cut away and avoided showing them.
It's strange because Fox News Sunday showed one of the cartoons. I wonder if this was the decision of Hannity & Combs?
It could be that I read too much into the incident. Maybe they weren't avoiding the showing of the cartoons. But after Michelle held them up, the camera did cut away and did not return to them. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.
IMO there are two reasons why someone would refrain from showing the offending images.
1. Fear (i.e. Dhimini)
2. Respect for 'that which is sacred to others'.
For CNN it was 1. For Hannity it was probably 2.
Christians respect, or at least should, 'that which is sacred to others'.
A Christian maxim is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Liberal securalists are the real problem. They have no sense of the sacred. They worship at the alter of "I have a right to be profane, to insult, to commit any act of depravity no matter how offensive it may be to the religious. And with impunity.
CNN's lack of spine in covering this story is incredible. Thankfully Fox News is committing to actually providing all the details to their viewers on this story.
Michelle Malkin was able to hold up a posterboard of "the cartoons" last
night on Hannity and Combes (sp?).
It wasn't long enough and the camera did cut away...but I suspect that
some less-knowledgeable viewers had the light go on: "Hey, these cartoons
are NOTHING...and the Islamics are burning down embassies. They ARE
a bunch of dangerous nuts that need their phones wiretapped!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574008/posts
Although I don't have confirmation, I suspect that my local ABC affiliate
censored Jimmy Kimmel last night while he was doing a joke on "the cartoons".
(of course, it could have been a slip-up at the station...
but somehow I doubt it.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574096/posts
That's a great cartoon!
I understand Sean's (and, perhaps, your) position. But I don't see these cartoons as an undue violation of anything sacred. If millions of Christians around the world became violent totalitarians intent on imposing their religion on everyone, it would seem fair to draw a cartoon of Jesus holding a bomb. This would not be an attack on Christ, but rather upon those who would oppress and kill in his name.
I would agree if in fact most Muslims where violent totalitarians. But they're not.
Strategically we must separate and isolate the violent jihad types from the ordinary non violent Muslims. Which is the Bush administration's strategy. Insulting their prophet doesn't move us forward.
Of course, I didn't say most Muslims were that way, but that millions are.
With respect to these cartoons, their value and legitimacy is not entirely based on whether they might insult someone elses religion. There is a political factor to be considered. These cartoons make a cogent political point and are entirely non-gratuitous or vile in any way. They can easily be interpreted not as an insult to Muhammad, but to religious fanaticism. And Muslims do not hold the right to dictate how the world should interpret them.
Sure, from your perspective. One persons political point is another person's insult. To a religious Muslim it is blasphemous and a grave insult.
Just as placing a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine was to many Christians. It was called "art" and "free expression". Was the artist Serrano making a political point? Or was he deliberately trying to offend?
To the secularist free speech is sacred. To the religious, God is sacred. These two sacred icons are on a collision course. We can try to accommodate each other or there will be bloodshed.
No serious person rejected Serrano's right to do what he did. It was the indirect government funding that caused the problem. Moreover, I reject the relativistic notion you seem to be advancing. Every depiction of every religious idea is insulting to someone. But those who take offense must still be required to behave rationally.
And I'll add this--today's middle east is a cesspool of ignorance and biggotry, the likes of which we have not seen since Nazi Germany. It sort of makes me take much of their "perspective" with many grains of salt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.