Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
gsw Wrote: Sep 23, 2012 11:40 PM
So far the film has been called reprehensible, stupid, idiotic, shamfull, offensive, and about a dozen more derogatory adjectives even though few if any one has seen it. The question is why is it so described.? Sec of State Clinton said it was reprehensible - I wasn't even aware she was an expert on Islam. The film may in fact be accurate and truthful, We cow at the fear of Islamic anger when we know that Islam as practiced in the middle east is the most repressive, most backward, most hateful and dangerous religion and the greatest threat to ever face civilized humanity.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
"No One Murdered Because Of This Image."
That was a recent headline from The Onion, the often hilarious parody newspaper.
The image in question is really not appropriate to describe with any specificity in a family newspaper. It's quite simply disgusting. And, suffice it to say, it leaves nothing to the imagination.
Four of "the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity," according to The Onion, and yet "no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday."
"Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu,...
Free Speech Isn't the Problem