What is the difference??

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

99% of the protestors in NY were NOT calling for violence. They ALL got blamed here.

Al Sharpton attended a riot where they chanted 'What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want that? Now.' He said nothing to discourage that. He has a long history of inciting violence with his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech means you can disagree or offend people. Liberals offend Christians all the time.

It's different when you support violence, particularly murder, of people. And once Sharpton heard the rioters calling for murder, he kept up the rhetoric.

The cartoonists did not encourage anyone to murder Muslims or anyone else. Muslims never come forth and discuss things. They just kill.

So Sharpton's constant, repeated condemnation of violence is in your mind proof that he advocates violence?

lol, you are pathetic, you poor creature.

 

[Vigilante]

The CHIEF ENABLER of all things related to Islamic Terrorism...

Should the future belong to those who slander Christianity?

I don't care as I'm agnostic, and I would wager that most Christians don't care what you say. Can you name me a couple of Christians that KILLED because of a Cartoon that berated Jesus?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you forgotten that you people attacked the administration for saying that Benghazi was a reaction to the anti-Muslim movie,

instead of calling it terrorism?

I don't know if the fucking retard in the White House has equivocated on this, but the terrorist attack in France is just that, a terrorist attack.

 

[Uncensored2008]

These victims were alive then.

They aren't now though, are they? Allahu Akbar...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, I don't remember Christians shooting anyone at Stux Gallery in New York over this,,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Vigilante]

Cartoonist, around the world, are answering back!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you forgotten that you people attacked the administration for saying that Benghazi was a reaction to the anti-Muslim movie,

instead of calling it terrorism?

I don't know if the fucking retard in the White House has equivocated on this, but the terrorist attack in France is just that, a terrorist attack.

Oh so the reaction to an offensive publication is in fact a terrorist attack.

Therefore, when the administration first said that the Benghazi attack was in reaction to the film,

they were NOT trying to deny it was a terrorist attack, they were in fact, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT,

identifying it as a terrorist attack.

The question then is, why did idiots like you make fools of yourselves trying to deny what you yourself believed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh so the reaction to an offensive publication is in fact a terrorist attack.

Therefore, when the administration first said that the Benghazi attack was in reaction to the film,

they were NOT trying to deny it was a terrorist attack, they were in fact, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT,

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. That the attackers share a common enemy as you, does no alter reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh so the reaction to an offensive publication is in fact a terrorist attack.

Therefore, when the administration first said that the Benghazi attack was in reaction to the film,

they were NOT trying to deny it was a terrorist attack, they were in fact, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT,

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. That the attackers share a common enemy as you, does no alter reality.

So the attacks related to the film were terrorist attacks. Why did you claim they weren't?

 

[g5000]

What is the difference??

So where was the same concern by the USA MSM recognizing the offensive nature of these photos?

When the MSM was publishing the Abu Ghraib photos, were they doing so because they had malice toward Muslims?

Nope.

When the cartoonists published a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, were they doing so because they had malice toward Muslims?

Yep.

So there's the difference. Glad to help!

 

[g5000]

When a Muslim saw the Abu Ghraib photos, who do you think they were mad at; the media or the perpetrators of those crimes?

When they saw the cartoons, who were they mad at?

Get it now, healthmyths?

 

[R.D.]

lol, this wasn't terrorism, it was people angry at a cartoon.

Idiot

 

[Antares]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Fuck Islam, it's nothing more than a third rate third world religion.

 

[Antares]

lol, this wasn't terrorism, it was people angry at a cartoon.

It was terrorism you stupid fuck.

 

[Antares]

When a Muslim saw the Abu Ghraib photos, who do you think they were mad at; the media or the perpetrators of those crimes?

When they saw the cartoons, who were they mad at?

Get it now, healthmyths?

Moron, people don't get to kill people over a cartoon