AP: Syrian protestors set fire to Norwegian embassy in Damascus

Sky News ^ | 4 February, 2006 | Sky News

[Eurotwit]

Just breaking on Sky.

Norwegian TV is about to break their regular programming to follow events.

[ohioWfan]

Not to worry Bush is on the side of the fanatic Muslims

Note...........THIS is the statement you voiced agreement with.

"Bush is on the side of the fanatic Muslims."

No rational person believes that.

It seems that you are now backtracking to just saying that Bush is against the cartoons.

HUGE difference. You ready to admit that the hyperbole was wrong?

Accuracy and truth are important elements in rational dialogue, dagnabbit. That's all I'm asking of you. Can you stick to the facts, or do you depend on histrionics to maintain your anti-Bush stance?

[ohioWfan]

Try comprehending my entire post, if your able.

I comprehended it quite well, thank you.

btw, it's 'you're' not 'your.' But I comprehended what you meant in spite of your mistake.

[dagnabbit]

It seems that you are now backtracking to just saying that Bush is against the cartoons.

Does this nonsense work for you? Ever? Anywhere?
Because I'm not sure all this strawman kicking is persuading many here.

The Bush State Dept came out squarely against the cartoons Friday morning, muddied that opposition a bit later in the day, yet repeated their label of the cartoon's publication as "unacceptable".

That puts them on the wrong side of this issue, ie not on the side of the Danes - something for which they have been correctly called to task for on this thread and elsewhere.

BTW: On the trite correction of posters' spelling errors - Meow! Best save that sort of thing for those FR politician-worship threads/sewing circles you frequent.

[ohioWfan]

Meow?? LoL! You're one of the finest purveyors of catty comments of anyone I've encountered on FR. I merely corrected the boy's spelling. Your claws have been out the entire time we've been talking, dagnabbit. You're not only an emotional wreck, but you're a first class hypocrite as well. Such is the life of an 'i'm more conservative than you are' freeper I suppose.... always either emoting and hyperbolizing or accusing others of your own faults.

So......back to the subject at hand...... I take it you're not man enough to admit you were wrong, and I take it that you cannot (i.e. are not able to) provide me with a link for the complete statement.

So, I presume you are basing your criticism on the AP article that you linked, and not the more accurate Washington Times article.

Such is also the life of an 'i'm more conservative than you' freeper. Always siding with the left as long as it's critical of the President. Always believing the MSM and not the truth.

Nice finding these things out about you, dagnabbit. Thanks for the education. Next time, I'll stick with people who care about the facts, thanks.

G'bye.....

[KJC1]

What OhioWfan (and I and others) have pointed out is that the State Dept statement said CLEARLY that freedom of the press is important. They also did say that the cartoons were offensive. How that is "siding" with the terrorists is beyond any rational thought.

In fact, dagnabbit, you seem extremely short-sighted. You seem to want President Bush to come out swinging saying the cartoons are great and Mohammed sucks. Imagine what that would do in terms of our situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how that would affect the WOT and the security of our troops. Anyone who thinks a ham-handed yet satisfying response like that would help anything needs to get a grip.

Some have maintained a position, fighting against the actual text of the statements, and instead of just saying, "Hey, I misundertood" like MANY FReepers have done, because they have integrity and were truly mistaken, dagnabbit seems hellbent on grasping at straws to give the illusion he is correct. Very strange.

[ohioWfan]

In fact, dagnabbit, you seem extremely short-sighted. You seem to want President Bush to come out swinging saying the cartoons are great and Mohammed sucks. Imagine what that would do in terms of our situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how that would affect the WOT and the security of our troops. Anyone who thinks a ham-handed yet satisfying response like that would help anything needs to get a grip.

Thanks, KJC.....this is right on the money, and is what I'm talking about when I refer to emotions over rational thought.

And I agree. Such reactions on a conservative forum are always puzzling. Fortunately people who behave like dagnabbit wants the President to behave never successfully get into any office where their emotional, ill-considered reaction could put us all in even greater danger.

[matt1234]

Why the outrage NOW when the pics were first published in Sep05?

A caller (Iranian) to the Michael Savage show on 03Feb06 said that the President of Iran had persuaded Al Jazeera to run stories about the cartoons recently. All dictators know the value of propoganda.

[matt1234]

tomjohn77 posted: Have you notice how furious and angry people are at the Muslims. For instant last night when I was out with my friends after a round of texas hold em, that I won by the way, girls outside the bar was shouting fucking Muslims. I am going draw mohammed etc. I did not believe my eyes. There were many muslim guys standing meters away. You know that something is up when girls get worked up like that.

tomjohn77, are you serious? Where do you live? Do you have the phone numbers of these women because I'd like to date one of them?

[Flux Capacitor]

----And not even decent enough to ping me that you were lying about me.----

I'm sorry the truth hurts, ma'am, but I don't play by the Official FR Sewing Club Rules. :)

-Dan

[ohioWfan]

There was no truth in what you said, and I can prove it by what I've said on this thread.

Stop lying about me, Flux. It's unmanly.

[ohioWfan]

btw, the only 'rules' I expect you to engage in are the rules of honesty, decency and integrity.

I don't expect to deal with sissies who call women names behind their backs and then accuse them of 'sewing club rules.'

C'mon. Be a man, Flux. Find some courage somewhere inside that macho facade of yours, and have an honest debate in the realm of ideas with me.

Because if you can't deal with things head on, it's YOU who belong in the old woman's knitting guild, because you don't have what it takes to debate with someone who is your intellectual superior....

Now if you don't mind........I'm getting back to watching the Super Bowl with my husband. I like real men.

[Flux Capacitor]

Yep, she was compelled to respond to that one TWICE! I love hitting the nerves of people who don't want to take what they dish out.

I always treat ladies with the respect they deserve. And as you've demonstrated so many times along with your cadre of clucking cheerleader hens, ma'am, you may be a woman, but you're no lady.

And I'm sorry, I meant "sewing CIRCLE". :)

-Dan

[JABBERBONK]

Guess you did'nt see the remarks by the spokesman for the Dept. of State......it was against the publication of the cartoons. Thus the thrust of my original post...lol

[NZerFromHK]

This reminds me of the Chinese Communist "Red Guards" storming the British Embassy in Peking in 1967 during the Leftist Riot in Hong Kong. Or, the 1979 Islamic Iran's storming of the US Embassy in Tehran.

[joseph20]

I wonder why they fail to defend the embassy. They should have gone out there with rifles and shot down anyone that looked like a threat.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! Still can't discuss issues, eh, Danny?

I guess you think posting that cute little graphic covers up your lack of intellect.

btw, I'd rather be a 'clucking cheerleader' than a girly man who's afraid of them. :)

Next time you come, why don't you bring your brain, and we'll have a discussion. As of now, there's no evidence that you have one.

Bye.

[M. Espinola]

Assad, there is no place to hide!

[ohioWfan]

Ah, yes..........but those remarks, as far as I've seen are only a partial quote, which leads to a misleading conclusion.

TRUST me, I'm not defending the State Department. It's filled with leftist lifers.

But I'm interested in factual accuracy, and what you said (the whole thing) was inaccurate.

I guess the entire truth doesn't matter to you? Fragments of data is enough to make you draw conclusions? Is that right?

[ohioWfan]

A couple of questions for you, JABBERBONK......

If those cartoons were mocking Jesus Christ, would you support their publication? (I'm speaking as a born again Christian here, so don't get me wrong and think I mean it's a direct parallel).

Do you think it is acceptable to mock someone's religion in a public cartoon? Or this...........did you support the mocking of our wounded troops in the WaPo last week?

Do you think that those who said that it isn't good to mock the faith of others, or the values of others, are supporting rioting and violence against them?

Or is it possible to come out against the cartoon and NOT be supporting the other side?

(These are serious questions, so I'd appreciate a serious response).

[JABBERBONK]

Christ is mock all the time in cartoons like South park. If someone mocks our troops I have pity but no problem with him doing so. When a State Dept official denounces the publication of these Muhammed cartoons, I have a serious problem with his stance on the Issue. Since President Bush has continually kow towed to the so called moderate Muslims, and continues his diatribe of a "Religion of peace", when the most superficial reading of the Koran makes clear Islam is anything but Peaceful, I can only conclude that Bush is afraid of insulting the Imams, instead of being concerned about the attack upon freedom by Islam.