Political Cartoons

Face of the real (conservative) Islam?

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

I'm sure if there's an Islamic Hobby Lobby, they don't cover contraception for their female employees.

From:

Yep, and if somebody doesn't like it, they will cut their heads off.

From:

the-rukh.livejournal.com

Or maybe bomb abortion clinics.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

I would hesitate to let ISIS speak for "real Islam" any more than Fred Phelps (or even the relatively moderate Jerry Falwell) spoke for "real Christianity"

From:

However, if Phelps has 20 people in his cult, ISIS has thousands of armed followers.

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

From:

Are you kidding me? 6 murders in 20 years versus 20 minutes, maybe.

From:

Oh well if we're talking about armies:

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." - President George W. Bush

And sending armies is nothing new for Christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

But wait, six murders in 20 minutes? I thought you said you were on Israel's side, not against them? Because that's about the rate Israel has been killing Palestinians, far far more than Palestinians have been killing Israelis.

From:

First of all ISIS is not army - they are bandits.
I don't know anything about the God, but the job of the president is to protect the country, in this case Islamic terrorists, called Al Qaida.
Let's be objective about history-don't pick and choose the events. In this case, the Crusades started because variety of people that were living in Middle East were enslaved by muslim tribes. The crusaders were the liberators. You can read some literature about this, I'm not a great narrator.
Yes, I support Israel in their fight for survival. If Palestinians didn't attack Israel, they all would be alive.

From:

...in this case Islamic terrorists, called Al Qaida.

Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq until after we invaded.

...the Crusades started because variety of people that were living in Middle East were enslaved by muslim tribes.

The Crusades started to cleanse the holy land of infidels. WHatever else those infidels were doing at the time is immaterial, and whether they were slavers or not, they were slaughtered.

If Palestinians didn't attack Israel, they all would be alive.

If Israel hadn't pushed Palestinians out, then pushed them out of where they'd been pushed to, then pushed again, and again, etc, then the Palestinians wouldn't have had reason to attack in the first place.

From:

Correct, but Bush had enough brains to figure out that it is not possible to fight in Afghanistan, so brought the fight into Iraq. You can argue if that was a right move or not, but don't try to disconnect Iraq war from war on terror.

The Crusades started to cleanse the holy land of infidels.
Good for them, I rather my enemy to die, then me. What the infidels were doing at the time they were slaughtered is absolutely relevant. Otherwise, you can have the same argument for WWII, allies were totally slaughtering germans, especially Japanese.

I believe your assessment about Palestinians is incorrect. Then, according to your own logic it is irrelevant. You have to be consistent.

From:

...but don't try to disconnect Iraq war from war on terror.

First, prove Iraq was any part of the pro-terror apparatus, or whatever you want to call it, before 2003.

I believe your assessment about Palestinians is incorrect.

You're saying that Palestinians would be attacking Israel if Israel had never been created by the UN in the first place?

From:

Nobody really can prove that, except CIA, KGB, MI6. I am saying that was the theory. The other part of the theory was to attract the terrorists into an area where it would be possible to fight them. Also we know the kind of things Saddam was doing to his own people, I don't doubt that we would do to anybody else give him a chance. Don't forget the WMD, that are surfacing here and there right now.

Of course, Palestinians would not be attacking Israel if Israel didn't exist, they couldn't. This one miss for you.

From:

I am saying that was the theory. The other part of the theory was to attract the terrorists into an area where it would be possible to fight them.

They are both terrible theories. For every 'terrorist' we 'drew in' we created another just by invading. For every innocent civilian we kill in trying to kill a 'terrorist', another civilian became radicalized. It's not 1:1, but do you see what I mean?

Also we know the kind of things Saddam was doing to his own people...

Yes, we did. But there are dozens of bad, bad people of that caliber in the world, hundreds more countries and conflicts we could have intervened in, but we chose Iraq for really, really, really bad stated reasons, and seemingly even worse UNstated reasons.

Don't forget the WMD, that are surfacing here and there right now.

No, they're not. And if weapons of mass destruction are our standard of intervention, why aren't we intervening in Iran and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea and, and, and...?

From:

Of course, that is why I said it was the theory. In real life theory is pretty far from reality. I would be a fool, or liberal, to think that I know exactly what is going on, I only have believes and guesses. One thing I know for sure is that there is an evil in the world and evil should be defeated. You probably already figured it out what I consider evils of present times.

From:

There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world. They have a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of violent people. I'm not sure what you want me to say.

From:

It isn't tiny. How the world should treat this minority of violent people? I'm saying the world should fight them, before it becomes minority. The history is full of examples when the tiny minority neglected by the world becomes powerful distractive force and the price to pay to defeat the evil become incredibly high. I don't think we need examples.
I want you to decide if you want to be just an observer, not like we can do much, still.

From:

We've been trying violence in response to violence for quite a while now. Like, all of human history. It hasn't worked all that well.

There is certainly a place for military responses. Crazy dictators gonna dictate. All the regular people had their reasons for supporting people who try to rise to power like Kim Il Sung and the Hitler and Hamas and our own Tea Party, because they felt powerless, and these people and organizations make them feel like they had agency again. But maybe we should try working on solutions to get currently-violent peoples out of their various predicaments so they don't feel the need to use violence, feel empowered to oppose violent people who try to rise to power.

Are we animals, or are we better than that?

From:

I don't appreciate you putting Tea party in this list. Everything else-I agree. Working on solution is doable until certain point, it is too late for hamas. When they knock your door with guns, no solution will help. Some of us are animals, and some-better than that. Would you agree that you can't negotiate with certain people?
I think, American society is at the breaking point in that sense, and that is what we should be working immediately, before too it's too late. Maybe, I'm being paranoid again. You tell me.

From:

Er, rereading that, I didn't intend adding the Tea Party to the list like THAT. I meant that they felt powerless, so changed tactics, and while I feel their policies cause harm, it's not violent harm.

From:

Fundamentalists can make it seem like an oxymoron.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

So can the Supreme Court ;)

From:

mckavian.livejournal.com

Fundamentalist: the unreasoning, unreasonable fear that someone, somewhere is having fun.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

If the uncovered face a female mannequin arouses sexual interest...maybe it's time to make an appointment with a therapist.

What an abysmal view of male humans. Inanimate objects will arouse our lust? What's next, Victorians claiming that the "legs" of a table will arouse men and thus we need tableclothes to cover table legs? Oh wait....that happened a couple hundred years ago.....

From:

The women must be kept under tight control;
Satan works through their charms.

Remember Adam and Eve.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

Adam and Eve.

Never Forget.
0.0.00

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

Isn't that more like "0.8.-4K"?

From:

chron-job.livejournal.com

Just re-reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, and remembered a quote...

"And indeed these men had the dangerous look that Frank associated with machismo, the look of men who oppressed their women so cruelly that naturally the women struck back where they could, terrorizing sons who then terrorized wives who terrorized sons and so on and so on, in an endless death spiral of twisted love and sex hatred."

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

Victorians claiming that the "legs" of a table will arouse men and thus we need tableclothes to cover table legs?

You made that up, right?

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

enders_shadow didn't make it up; but it's not true. It's an urban legend that's been around for a long time: The Victorians Didn’t Cover Their Table Legs (http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/07/21/the-victorians-didnt-cover-their-table-legs/).

Edited Date: 2014-07-23 09:53 am (UTC)

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

Boo! I really liked that one :P

From:

mantriddrone.livejournal.com

surprisingly they haven't banned mannequins outright.

if only they knew the sinful thoughts i get every time i pass one...

From:

They can be pretty shapely. ;)

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

Street signs do it for me. I demand street signs be covered to control my impulses!

From: