« On Western Cartoonish Reactions | Main | Muhammad Cartoon Express Link #4 »

February 8, 2006

New York Time Publishes Image Of Virgin Mary In Elephant Dung Instead Of Muhammad Cartoons

Topics: Dhimmitude

The New York Times, steeped in liberal bias, Islamo-apologentsia, and dhimmitude, writes about the Danish cartoon controversy, blames the newspaper that published the image instead of the Muslims for their violent reactions, and includes a photograph of the Virgin Mary depected in elephant dung, with no concern for offending Christians all over the world, but refuses to publish any of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

In other words, for the NYT - this image that offends Christians (that they dug out from 7 years ago) is okay:

But this one that is month's old and that offends Muslims, isn't:

So the NYT will run a 7 year old picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung that offends Christians in a "New York minute," but they refuse to run a current cartoon that could offend their Muslim readers. Go figure!

It's amazing that people actually pay to read a newspaper so blinded by their own agenda and the fear of offending Muslim readers but having no problem with offending Christian readers.

Fortunately, along comes Alan Dershowitz at just the right time to nail the actions of the NYT and others for what they are doing - "they're now giving in to terrorism by not publishing these cartoons--not because they're offensive, they publish plenty of offensive cartoons, but because they are frightened and because they lack the courage to confront this kind of terrorist threat."

[Responding to a question about his reaction to the Danish embassy torchings:]

It's great hypocrisy on the part of those doing the burning, because these are some of the same people who read voraciously much worse cartoons directed at Christians and Jews and Americans and Israel. Deeply, deeply, offensive anti-Christian and anti-Semitic cartoons are a staple out of Gaza every week, and suddenly, when Mohammed is offended, they're prepared to burn down embassies and create this kind of havoc. It is extraordinary hypocrisy.

[On the American media's unwillingness to show the cartoons:]

...You can't have a story about a cartoon without seeing the cartoon. In fact, when you see the cartoons published by the Danish newspapers, they are mild in comparison with what's published every day in Islamic fundamentalists newspapers and in Syrian newspapers, in Egyptian newspapers, in Saudi Arabian newspapers. So you have to see the cartoon to get a sense of how outrageous these attacks on the Danish embassy [are] and the hypocrisy across the Middle East is.

[In response to a question seeking an explanation for the US media's decision not to publish the cartoons:]

...I was informed yesterday that Time magazine was seriously considering publishing the cartoons. That would take an act of courage.

CNN has shown no courage. It claims it won't publish the cartoons because they're offensive. But they have published previous cartoons that are offensive. The fact is, they're frightened. The fact is, that this kind of religious and intellectual terrorism is working. It is persuading journalists who would otherwise cover this story with the cartoons to back away--not on ideological reasons or not for reasons of protecting or preserving integrity or anything of that kind, but out of physical and economic fear. This is economic, physical terrorism directed at journalists and it is working. They have succeeded in the United States. They have failed in parts of Europe, but they have succeeded in the United States.

...When the burning down of embassies and the fear of fatwas and physical and economic retaliation are what determines the policy, it means that the terrorists have won. And the United States and other European countries have a policy: Never give in to terrorism. Well, they're now giving in to terrorism by not publishing these cartoons--not because they're offensive, they publish plenty of offensive cartoons, but because they are frightened and because they lack the courage to confront this kind of terrorist threat.

Posted by Richard at February 8, 2006 11:18 AM

Articles Related to Dhimmitude:

• Who is 'G' - al Qaeda's Man in London? - Apr 26, 2008
• 'Extreme Dhimmitude' - Defined - Apr 02, 2008
• Network Solutions Refuses To Host 'Fitna' But Finds No Problem In Hosting A Multitude Of Radical Islamic Websites Associated With Terrorist Groups - Mar 25, 2008
• Network Solutions Bows Down To Islamists - Refuses To Host 'Fitna' - Mar 24, 2008
• Dutch Establishment Threatens to Prosecute Wilders and Claim Damages Over Film Critical Of Islam - Mar 13, 2008
• No Terrorist Here - Just Move Along .... - Mar 10, 2008
• Minnesota Taxpayers Paying For Madrassa - Mar 09, 2008
• On Western Government's Partitioning the World for Islam - Mar 07, 2008
• Islamist 'Mole' Continues To Be Allowed To Be Well Placed In Pentagon - Feb 02, 2008
• UN: 'Don't Criticize Islam' - Jan 03, 2008