The US and Iran Declare each other Terrorists

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

 

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as “terrorist organizations,” a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.

“The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror,” said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

 

The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad’s government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country’s hard line constitutional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.

The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Charged with defending the system put in place after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Guards answer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and are revered by many for their defense of the country during the 1980s war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The terrorist designation, the first such move against a foreign government entity, would cut the Revolutionary Guards off from the U.S. financial system and freeze the assets of its members or subsidiaries have in U.S. jurisdictions. It would also allow the Treasury to move against firms subject to U.S. law that do business with the Guards, which have vast business interests at home and abroad.

While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared that labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military action in Iran.

This is so silly…

And yet, no it’s not silly at all - because instead of two boys in a sand box whacking each other over the head with plastic shovels and miniature bobcats, we have two Big Boys with substantially larger and lethal toys, whacking at each other, threatening to wreck the sandbox - only their sandbox is populated by innocent people that inevitably will get squashed.

I wonder if they even thought about that?

Turkey-Iraq agree security pact - The RFL keeps silent

Turkey-Iraq agree security pact

Turkish and Iraqi interior ministers ironed out most of their differences

Iraq and Turkey have signed a security agreement aimed at curbing the activities of the Turkish Kurdish separatist group, the PKK. However, the final agreement does not include a key Turkish proposal that its troops be allowed to pursue PKK fighters over the border into Iraq.

The proposal had been strongly opposed by the Kurdish officials in Iraq. From BBC

This is horrifying news. Turkey and Iraq just signed an agreement that makes it ok for the two nations to chase Kurds to death on each other territories. Where is the Radical Far Left reaction, protests and analysis? Nowhere to be seen. The RFL have said absolutely nothing on the matter, despite the fact that the issue traditionally is right up their alley. It’s pathetic that a middle-aged, center liberal has to do their work for them, makes me feel very OLD.

Bullycide

“Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me!”

I really wish we’d stop saying the above - because it is one of the biggest lies ever told to mankind. Millions and millions of kids and young adult world-wide are bullied every day, by schoolmates, siblings, parents, teachers, team-mates, and so called friends.

As a survivor of bullying, I still suffer the consequences - social anxiety, panic attacks, night-mares, PTSD, physical pain-reactions etc. Only compassion with those who would have to clean up after my bullycide have kept me from actively killing myself as a child, a young adult and later.

How ever macabre it seems - I like the word “bullycide” - because it puts the responsibility for the deaths of many, many kids and young adults squarely where it belongs - with the bullies.

Bullying is nothing but delayed murder, regardless of whether the victim kill themselves or not.

The most horrifying thing about all of this is that as a Society, we encourage bullying, we endorse it. By teaching our kids that being the best, the smartest, the most beautiful, slimmest, strongest etc, we set them up to point at others as “second-rate” human beings, objects of ridicule, disrespect, violence and bullying or we set them up to be victims of those who consider them second-rate human beings. Either way, the responsibility is ours.

No More! - Keeping the memory of Shiri Negari alive

“Shiri Negari’s face and life is our face and life. She is our daughter, our friend, our sister. Every life in the Middle East we take is another Shiri Negari. Is her life worth wasting? Is any life worth wasting? Don’t let anyone ever try to tell me her life - any and all the lives - were worth wasting. Don’t try to tell me that lie.”[...]“Our choice. Hollow, dead excuses for wasted lives. Or the blessings of nourishing peace and life. We will not be given this choice again. Today is our last chance to make the right choice.” (My Friend Knate)

It really don’t need to be said any other way. Every life is precious - to see that and make sure that it becomes reality is our responsibility. No More!

“Does Bigotry Exist?”

My Friend Knate wrote the below:

“What about bigotry? Is bigotry all in our minds?

If symbols can’t have a collective meaning - because their meaning is consciously chosen by each individual viewer - then is bigotry only a mental aberration? Does bigotry exist only because people are “duped” into thinking we can be discriminated against?

If a person refuses to accept they can be bigoted against, does it mean then, that bigotry can never take place?

We control what we want to see and what we want to believe, some say.

Can we eliminate bigotry (and racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc) just by refusing to “buy into” the concepts?

Or does bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia and other hates exist outside our personal perception? Is hate real? Is bigotry real, and harmful, no matter what we think? Who is in control? Our own minds, deciding we’ve been discriminated against or not? Or uncontrollable outside people, who force their bigotry upon us?

Does bigotry only exist because we “accept” it exists? Or does bigotry exist, regardless of what we think?” (From this Discussion)

My initial response:

“Can we really separate the thought from the act? Is it possible to harbor a bigot mind-set and not be a bigot? I don’t think so. I think reducing bigotry to a mind-set is just another convenient way of avoiding responsibility. It’s like the reasoning some Xians employ around GLBT people - “love the sinner and hate the sin”. It is extremely difficult to prove a mind-set - to do that one need acts to go by. I also think that we have establish that acts are not just what one does with his or her hands, but also what one speaks.

It is true that there is no such thing as “thought-crime” (except in the world of George Orwell), but it takes a lot of self-discipline to not let thought turn into words or actions - and I dare say that very few bigots have that self-discipline.”

Someone added to the discussion:

“…what I have also noticed is that often times the way the word it is used and thrown around (misused) takes away from true forms of bigotry, I’ve had that word used against me for my stance against affirmative action in modern times, or because I believe in strong secured boarders, my spiritual beliefs…”

It is true that the words “bigot” and “bigotry”can be and are used as some sort of “I am shutting you up, because I can’t deal with what you are saying and that frustrates me…” it’s like the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument - on the other hand, how probable is it that we see the depth of our own flawed reasoning? Especially when it comes to religious beliefs or our patriotism? (Yes, I am bigoted against Xianism, I think it’s by definition bigoted, and quite honestly I have found nothing in it’s teachings that will dissuade me of that opinion.)

The thing with bigotry, is that we all have it, we all express it, and to claim we don’t is just a trip up the River of Denial.

big·ot
noun

1. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
2. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

big·ot·ry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

On the other hand a dictionary definition like the one above indicates that there has to be a strong feeling behind a negative opinion for it to be bigotry. We rarely display or hold such strong feelings, so not all negative opinions about something are bigotry. I think we would have to add another element to a negative thought-pattern for something to be bigotry - irrationality. That takes us into the realm of -phobic. Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Judeophobic, Liberalphobic, Repubiphobic, Yeah, yeah, I created those two last ones, but I know places and people that are just that.

My point with bringing in the -phobic is that it puts what we some times label as bigotry into perspective. It gives us reason to question whether what we accuse others of is truly bigotry, but hopefully it also tells us that a lot of what we see in ourselves and in others is indeed bigotry.

“Are Swastikas Offensive?”

“There is a subtle difference between the Ancient, non-offensive Swastika:

and the distorted version the Nazis used:

If you look at old photos from the WWII you will notice that the Nazi Swastika is ALWAYS “at an angle” - this is the offensive use of the Swastika.

I think it’s important to know this difference and to be aware that it is only this swastika, and derivations of it in later times, that signify what Nazism stood for.

As always it is a matter of education and information.”

“It doesn’t matter at this point …what the swastika originally stood for … the common perception of the symbol today overrides any history prior to the Nazis.

I’m a firm believer that, in most cases, people are offended by things because they choose so be. But when there are so many who are to strongly offended, then yes, it earns the label of “offensive.” -”

“The line between where and when the swastika becomes obviously offensive does cross somewhere, even though I don’t think the line is so easily drawn. I think we have to go with the best we have: widespread agreement of its offensiveness, across many contemporary peoples and cultures.”

“I’m thinking, just because the Nazis distorted the original meaning of the swastika, doesn’t mean we have to.”

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”

Five different people, five slightly different opinions.

The general consensus in that discussion was that, YES, the Nazi version of the Swastika is offensive to a majority of people.

A minority in that discussion wanted to have his definition of it as “non-offensive” elevated to general consensus presumably in the name of Free Speech. Because he doesn’t find it offensive, it is not offensive. Pretty weird coming from someone who purports to defend freedom of speech - trying to impose a dictatorship on the rest of us.

Is it offensive? Is it a violation of free speech to expect people not to use it in public?

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”
“Well, [...] - the Nazi Swastika carries meaning - connotations - for a majority of people born between 1933 and 1980 (I am going by when the youngest person I last spoke to about this, who could actually give a time line of the Third Reich, was born). That meaning is negative. In its “simplicity” it spells out genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism, all things bad. That is what people “see” when they see a Nazi Swastika. They see the meaning, and they are offended - by the meaning it carries. The symbol carries that meaning and by removing the symbol, the meaning is removed.

To many of us, the meaning of the Nazi Swastika is a pure physical feeling of up-chucking, fear, anger - the knowledge that someone in that area is prepared to kill us. If it doesn’t have that meaning for you - good for you, but to claim that it doesn’t signal those things, and therefore is not deeply offensive, is just simple lack of imagination, compassion and a down right denial of historical facts, as well as denial of the impact that symbol had on people’s lives and still have.”

At least he is offended by the meaning of the symbol, even if he doesn’t get the connection between the symbol and the meaning of it.

There are some things society as a general entity find so abhorrent that it will legislate against them, simply because the mere existence of those things is an affront to human society. Promoting genocide is one of those things, racism is another.

In a modern society symbols that carry the meaning “genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism” is automatically considered an affront to society, because those symbols cannot be used in any other or meaningful way, they cannot signal anything else.

Of course people have the right to hold views that coincide with the meanings of those symbols, and to speak their opinions - but to expect that they can do so unopposed by either society or the general majority seems a bit naive, or even claim that when they are opposed, they are being silenced is just so much horse manure.

Massacre at Sabra-Shatila - 25th Anniversary

“The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre; Arabic: مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا) was carried out in September 1982 by a Lebanese Forces militia group against Palestinian refugee camps.

In an area under Israeli army control, Christian militiamen were permitted to enter two undefended Palestinian refugee camps leading to a massacre of hundreds to thousands of civilians (see below). Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Minister at the time and major protagonist of the invasion, was held responsible and forced to resign. The Lebanese Forces group stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who later became a long-serving Lebanese Member of Parliament and, in the 1990s, a cabinet minister. The number of victims of the massacre varies according to source: the lowest confirmed estimate is 700; the highest is placed at 3,500.”

700-3500 dead as a result of one man’s murder, and all in a couple of days. No-one is disputing this, what happened at a Sabra and Shatila should not have happened. Period. Permission to enter the camps should never have been given by those in control of the area, the IDF and Israeli Defense Minster Ariel Sharon.

We should not remember what happened by displaying pictures of dead, mutilated bodies, claiming untruths about what happened or embellishing what happened. Renaming their killers or renaming the reason they died doesn’t show respect for those who died. Nor does using their deaths as propaganda tools. The people who died in Sabra and Shatila were worth more than to be used as dead meat to fuel a campaign of hatred in a conflict they really didn’t have anything to do with.

If the deaths of 700-3500 (PLO illegal combatants not counted) are to have any meaning at all, we need to give them back their dignity, by restoring the truth about what happened and bring those directly and indirectly responsible to justice.

For the Better of Man Kind…

“The ethnic cleansing that the Nazis did, to purify the race, to better man kind, wasn’t what the Nazis were doing.

They were killing people to gain power and control people.”

BC, get real - the only reason the Nazis killed the Jews, the homosexuals, the mentally ill and handicapped, the physically disabled, political dissidents etc were so they could have a Pure German Volk - and Lebensraum for that Volk.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

“The art of leadership… consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.”

“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.” From Adolf Hitler Quote

“[The Jews'] ultimate goal is the denaturalization, the promiscuous bastardization of other peoples, the lowering of the racial level of the highest peoples as well as the domination of his racial mishmash through the extirpation of the folkish intelligentsia and its replacement by the members of his own people,” (Adolf Hitler in “Mein Kampf 1 Volume - quote taken from Teacher’s Guide“)

“On the contrary, the German people were of the highest racial purity and those destined to be the master race according to Hitler. To maintain that purity, it was necessary to avoid intermarriage with subhuman races such as Jews and Slavs.”(From Teachers Guide to Adolf Hitler)

To claim that Hitler and the Nazis did what they did for power and control is down right ridiculous - and it is a falsification of the facts of Antisemitism in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. As well as offensive.
S(o)B

Sorry…

I find it interesting that people/bots who chose to spam blogs and websites invariably start their spam posts with “Sorry :-(…”.

The very fact that they post their spam is a negation of the apology they offer.

What possesses someone to think that if they apologize in advance their action is somehow OK?

I have never understood the idea of apologizing prior to committing an offense - it smacks of insincerity if it’s real human, and bad programming if it’s a bot - or perhaps it’s the other way around?

Being Jewish is Separatist and Discriminatory…

“By calling it a Jewish State, whatever that is meant to mean, it appears to be separatist, to be discriminatory.”

All Nations are Ethno-centrists in terms of being focused on a common identity. Sweden is a Swedish nation, Denmark is a Danish nation, the US is an American nation, why should Israel, which was created to be a Jewish Homeland, be any different? It’s not like people of other identities are not welcome or do not have any legal rights. All nations have problems with attitudes towards foreigners and immigrants - it’s called racism - and Israel, as a Jewish nation has that problem just as every other nation. Every other nation in the world, at least if it’s somewhat democratic has difficulties with supremacist groups, why should Israel, as a Jewish State be any different.

Finland have Swedish Finns and Finnish Finns, it also have two very different languages - just like Israel has Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis and two different languages - it really is that simple. Yes, Israel wants to remain Jewish, because that is majority identity in Israel - Sweden wants to remain Swedish - if the Poles or Assyrians, or for that matter the Finns (which are the largest immigrant group in Sweden) came and demanded that Sweden stop being distinctly Swedish, that in fact Sweden should cease to exist - because it’s Swedish - and 8 million Swedes should suddenly over night become Finns, because the two groups share a common land mass, and once upon a time Sweden occupied Finland, then you’d have Sweden and the Swedes up in arms about it, demanding that Sweden remain Swedish, and most likely the Finns living in Sweden would be deported to Finland.

Now, by claiming that the problem with Israel is that its majority identity is Jewish and that it wants to remain Jewish, you are actually making being Jewish something BAD, which, like it or not, smacks of antisemitism.

Instead of attacking Israel for being Jewish, it would be more fruitful to attack those policies within Israel that makes being something other than Jewish less than being Jewish.

Also, funny isn’t it - my Blog wasn’t about Israel being Jewish or about the relations to the Palestinians, but about Neonazi/White supremacist Groups within Israel, and the rather complacent attitude taken by the Israeli Government on the matter. My Blog is about the fact that Jews are being attacked for being Jews inside Israel.

Fat and Ugly if you dislike Beauty Pageants…

A friend of mine got into a scrap when he defended a friend who dislikes Beauty Pageants for children and teens. His friend was called “Fat and Ugly” when she expressed her dislike of beauty pageants for children and teens, calling for some sense and sensibility in regards to what is expected of those kids.

Had I been there I would have been in a scrap too.

Claiming that someone, who actually sees beauty pageants for what they are - extremely superficial, degrading to women and generally very influential in how we raise our girls and young women to view themselves, is fat and ugly, is not only abusive and unfair, it is an attitude that serves only one purpose: Cementing the current gender roles in which women are held in mental and physical servitude not so much to men as to a social and political system that thrives on superficiality and inauthenticity.

My wife wrote an excellent blog on this matter in which she declares that she wont shave her body hair, because it only caters to a pedophiliac attitude in society towards women. I wrote a Blog entry about a judge who claimed that a 10 year-old victim of rape was “dressed provocatively” that has some very revealing pictures.

Trashing a woman for attempting to step out of the mold, fight the mold and actively contribute to a change in how people and society view women is misogynist to say the least, and is very telling in terms of revealing the priorities of the trashers.

“Beauty is a whole of things, not just a beautiful face or a beautiful body. It also needs to have a beautiful soul and mind.”

Well said, Kelly! And thank you D for stepping up and defending her!

Here are some images of a Wonderful Woman, who also happens to be “larger than average” Camryn Manheim:

Reform Judaism has a point, Nu?

 

 

“MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz-Yahad) is adamantly opposed to changing the law. “Israel’s door must be much broader, not closer to halakhic definitions,” he said yesterday. “There is no reason that the children and grandchildren, and even great grandchildren [of Jews], cannot immigrate, and recently we have had cases of great grandchildren who want to come.”
Opposition to amending the Law of Return also came from the other side of the political spectrum. “If we do not let grandchildren immigrate, it will hurt thousands of people who grew up in Jewish families, with a clear connection to Judaism, and who suffered from anti-Semitism,” said MK Zeev Elkin (Kadima). He believes that changes to the Jewish Agency’s immigration encouragement policies would be sufficient to keep out “undesirable” immigrants- non-Jews and those with a minimal attachment to Judaism. Elkin, a former consultant to the head of the Jewish Agency, says the organization focuses its immigration efforts on remote areas of the former Soviet Union, where the population is poorer. It is more difficult to persuade Jews in the larger cities, where economic conditions are better, to come to Israel, he noted.”

Halacha accepts anyone as Jewish if they have a Jewish mother or have converted to Judaism in accordance with Orthodox Tradition. Law of Return accepts anyone with a Jewish Ancestor… Hitler did as much for the Jews too - and see it put us in a pickle a second time.

 

Reform Judaism accepts anyone as Jewish if they have one Jewish parent AND has been raised Jewish, with a clear connection to Judaism - now if Halacha and the Law of Return has some sense they would pick up the logic of Reform Judaism on this and implement it ASAP.

“This isn’t enough; we have to finish you off.”

Police in Israel have uncovered a neo-Nazi ring which was responsible for vandalising synagogues and carrying out attacks on Jews and foreign workers in Israel, a court was told [on September 9].

It appears that the number of Russian Jews who will emigrate to Germany this year will be larger than the number who come to Israel; the law under which Jews from the former Soviet Union can immigrate to Germany is close to the restricted definition of “Jewish under Jewish law.” The Israeli Law of Return, however, is in fact based on the Nuremberg Laws, in which the Germans expanded the definition of who is Jewish in accordance with their own needs.

In November, 2002, an immigrant social worker was called urgently to a school in Kiryat Menachem in Jerusalem to help children and families who were hurt in a terror attack on a bus in the neighborhood. Distressed and anxious, she made her way to the neighborhood by bus. Before she got off the bus, one of the passengers, a Russian-speaking woman, said: “This isn’t enough; we have to finish you off.”

 

Recently, skinheads have been seen in Hatzor and Kiryat Shmona. In Russian bookstores in Israel, books that promote Holocaust-denial are sold openly (which is against the law), as are cassettes of neo-Nazi songs like “The Nazis are Coming.”

I thought I had seen and read everything. Am I shocked? Yes. And. No. After all Anti-Semitism has always been staple attitude in Russia, so if you don’t really identify with being Jewish, because basically, your parents are half-ass Jews brought to Israel under the Law of Return - which will take anyone with at least one Yid in the family, then is it any surprise that you bring along a culture of hatred for the Jews - after all your are not Jewish, right?

 

“There is a metaphysical dimension in the Law of Return that comes in to compensate for every drop of Jewish blood for which the Nazis wanted to slaughter the Jewish people,”says writer and essayist Maya Kaganskaya, who has also made a study of fascism in Russia. “Metaphysically, I also agree with it. But in the real sense, the Jewish people is in danger because of it. There is a problem here that is difficult to solve. It’s easy to deal with the neo-Nazi movement - they should simply be thrown out of here. I am familiar with this phenomenon from Russia, where it’s fairly popular. Nazis and Hitler become surrounded by a halo of romanticism in the struggle against the new world. But the real problem is the Law of Return. A Jewish state according to Jewish religious law and a state built on the Law of Return as it stands both lead to the end of the state. It is necessary to bring together intellectuals, demographers and legal experts who will reexamine to what extent and according to what test it is possible to accept immigrants here.”

Yup, revoke their citizenship, deport them back to Russia, and make some real changes to the legislation. It is ironic that Gentile Converts to Judaism, who most often have a true love for the Jewish People and the True Land of Israel, are often forced to jump through insane hoops to get a certified Aliyah Card and be eligible for immigration under the Law of Return, but those little scumbags can slide in, uncircumcised, uneducated and illiterate simply because they have a drop of Jewish blood in their veins. Sorry, but that’s sick.

 

“For about three years now, the Information Center for Victims of Anti-Semitism in Israel has been active. Its members track manifestations of anti-Semitism in this country through “open” sources, such as the press, and individual complaints that are made to them. The center is headed by Zalman Gilichinsky, 39, a painter by profession, a newly observant Jew who immigrated to Israel from Kishinev.

Over time he has accumulated hundreds of incidents that elsewhere in the world would be defined as “manifestations of anti-Semitism,” but in Israel, the political system and the law-enforcement authorities relate to them with studied indifference. The range of incidents is wide: non-Jewish immigrants calling Jewish immigrants Zhid, an elderly Jewish immigrant woman in Jerusalem being beaten by a non-Jewish caregiver who calls her “Zhidovka,” comments like “Hitler didn’t finish the job,” swastika graffiti found all the time in predominantly Russian-speaking neighborhoods, vandalism in synagogues and cemeteries.”

The Secular Zionist Idea has clearly gone Absolutely Stark Raving Mad!

Fundamantalist Islamic Hypocrisy

Western media outlets are fearful of provoking extremist Islamic retaliation, thus they have largely avoided printing the Mohammed cartoons, though it must be remembered that the over-reaction is the problem, not the provocation. These cartoons are not racist - they satirise the Islamic religion and its prophet, not Muslim people.

Religious fundamentalism has been a cause of prejudice and violence for centuries. The violent reactions to these cartoons say more about extremist intolerance than about blasphemy - protesters in London held placards reading “EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM”. It is the protesters who are the problem here, and the media should not give in to such intimidation.

You know, I am a religious man, and I don’t get the problem with religious satire. I never have. First of all there will always be people who for one reason or other find it amusing to mock religion and religious figures. No big deal. Would I find similar cartoons of Moses or Avraham offensive? No I wouldn’t.

The reactions around the world to the images above, among fundamentalist Islamists, are not only rather “over the top” they are only confirming peoples worst prejudices about Islam and Muslims as aggressive, intolerant, and quite imperialistic (as in “wanting to take over the world”).

They are also quite hypocritical, as the same fundamentalist Islamists have no qualms about publishing their own versions of mocking and satirizing images aimed at Jews, Israel, The US, Europe, the UK etc…

It’s a clear case of not being able to take what they dish out.

Further, demanding censorship (or else…) in democratic states like Denmark, Sweden and the UK, is nothing less than an attempt to control those states from the out-side through blatant blackmail.

You simply cannot demand that sovereign states cater to your religious sensitivities, especially not if you at the same time ignore the sensitivities of others.

It would have been a whole other matter if those images had been depicting Muslims or Arabs in a general manner - just as it is with Anti-Semitic images in the Arab World, which portray Jews in the same manner as in the Third Reich, but those images are of the Prophet Mohammad, and last time I looked the Prophet Mohammad was not the entire Muslim or Arab World population.

The hypocrisy of the Radical Far Left

From an earlier post:

They [the radical left] like to make comparisons to South Africa and the Apartheid Regime. I was part of the movement against Apartheid - and let me tell you, not once did I hear anyone call for the obliteration of the white population of South Africa or a call to eradicate South Africa as a State - not once. But I do hear those cries from the Radical Far Left in regards to Jews and Israel.

I have some additional thoughts here.

Just as I did not “hear anyone call for the obliteration of the white population of South Africa or a call to eradicate South Africa as a State - not once…,” nor did I hear anyone suggest that South Africa be usurped by Namibia or Zimbabwe, or that the white population be deported out of Africa all together.

They claim it’s the same, but they are not willing to suggest the same solution. That’s the hypocrisy of the Radical Left on the issue of Israel.