Comedy Central Censors South Park After Death Threats From Muslims In US

Jon Stewart, 'South Park' duo tee off on network censorship and Muslim death threats - Yahoo! News

Jon Stewart, 'South Park' duo tee off on network censorship and Muslim death threats

Jon Stewart defended his Comedy Central colleagues, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of "South Park," in a 10-minute segment on Thursday night bashing a radical Muslim group for issuing a death threat against the rude-humor duo. You can watch the segment here (warning: some PG-13 language).

"I say this to anyone who's threatening death in the name of religion or politics," Stewart concluded, standing in front of a gospel choir for the second time this week, before offering his now-trademark bleeped-out sign-off, which begins with "Go" and ends with "yourselves."

"South Park," which has satirized just about every major religious and political figure, dead or alive, can still stir up controversy after more than a decade on the air. In last week's 200th episode, the creators ? mindful of Islam's strict ban on any visual depictions of the the Prophet Muhammad ? concealed the animated Muhammad character in a bear costume or in a U-Haul truck. So viewers never actually saw Muhammad.

Even so, a group called Revolution Muslim ? based in New York City ? issued a threat on its website alongside a photograph of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by a radical Muslim.

Not surprisingly, Comedy Central got nervous. Even with the figure of Muhammad tucked behind the word "CENSORED" in a new episode on Wednesday, the network took additional measures that went beyond Stone and Parker's intentions, bleeping out the prophet's name and some other selected dialogue. Stewart called out his own employers for altering Stone and Parker's script without their consent ? and the show's creators also issued their own statement expressing dismay over the network's actions.

"In the 14 years we've been doing "South Park," we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind," the statement said. "We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps."

"In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear," they continued. "It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."

When are we going to stop bending over backwards (and forwards) in order to appease Islamic groups? I'd guess never since it all has to do with a bizarre combination of fear and slow suicide by political correctness.

Where is the outrage? Seriously? What if a Mormon or Baptist organization had intimidated Comedy Central into a broad censorship....I mean REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just so sick of this....it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and......................

I watched both episodes, and by the end of part two, I was sick to my stomach. I was ready to vomit.
Comedy Central lost all my respect. Its absurd. We are AMERICANS, we stand for freedom,but if we keep letting these Muslim terrorists bully us around and cater to their needs, we will never be able to stop them. Its Comedy Central kneeling to the feet of Muslim terrorists, and its sickening.

Someone is gonna have to call their bluff. Because if not, where does it stop? When people find out that they can use intimidation and fear to get what they want on this kind of large scale, what is gonna stop Tom Cruise or Jews from using terrorism to stop being satired?

I love South Park, and watch a lot of Comedy Central, but I wish Stone and Parker would quit, give CC the proverbial Fuck You! and do their show online.

Gotch I agree with you 110% on this, its sad that we let them intimidate us like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

what is gonna stop Tom Cruise or Jews from using terrorism to stop being satired?

---

The thing that will stop them is that they are not muslims. We've argued over this before, but Islam teaches it's followers to do this exact type of thing, those who don't (and thankfully they are in the majority) are actually resisting the teaching of the religions founder and are acting counter to the way he acted.

Islam is a major threat to the world and to the lives of every individual alive today. R13 once down-played the dangers of Islamic extremism taking a strong hold here as it has in Europe and becoming a major problem due to issues of distance and numbers.

Well that was the exact stance of the America First movement before the start of WWII. "The Nazi's were Europe's problem, not ours, we need to stay out of it" they said. WELL HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR THEM? The same as our current politically correct tip-toeing is going to work out for us.

I agree with you on the main point, that is ridiculous that we, as Americans, let a group of TERRORISTS push us around. There is no excuse for that. I do not want to say its okay for us to be attacked, because it is not, but if something was to happen, we are the only superpower left, we can take care of it.

The situation between modern Muslims and extremists is a terrible situation. You cannot blame the Muslims who refuse to participate in atrocities, it would be like blaming Christians for those who murder abortion doctors. But the problem arises because fundamental Islam is huge, there are millions of followers across the world, while the people who murder abortion doctors or whatever are very small in number.

What is your solution? Are you in favor of eradicating all Muslims? Outlawing the practice of Islam? That is the slickest of slippery slopes.

I am sure you realize that if the U.S. were to try something like that, the most likely scenario is that the Muslims who are peaceful now would join the fundamental cause, meaning more terrorists instead of less.

And I do not want to derail this thread, we both agree that something has to be done with Islamic terrorists, but how can you continue to blame the religion as a whole, when the majority of Muslims are non-violent people?

The Qu'ran should not be taken literally, just as the Old Testament is not to be followed exactly, correct?

I am curious to hear your answer, but I worry about your comparisons to the Nazi's.
What these Muslims terrorists are doing is horrible and should be stopped at all costs, but the Nazis were rulers of a country, a dictatorship who sanctioned the capturing of all those who did not fit their "superior race".. The situation is not similar whatsoever.
The Nazi's killed anywhere between ELEVEN and SEVENTEEN MILLION people, including the gypsys, gays, Poles, Soviet POWs, USSR citizens, the disabled, etc.. in a 7 year period. The biggest genocide in world history. The eradication of approx. 2 million people a year.
To compare modern Muslims terrorists to the Nazi party, at this stage, is premature.

I do not advocate the outlawing of any religion. I also do not advocate genocide based on religion. I am at a loss to some degree to say what the answer is. I think a very good first step would be if the world press/media and public in general would simply stop bowing to their crazy demands.

Also people need to realize that all religions are not the same. Many Muslims are raised with a much different set of values than Hindus or Buddhists or nearly any other religion in the world.

The God of the Old Testament is supposedly the God of the Koran. The difference is the founder and "prophet". I know we have disagreed on this issue in the past but I want you to give this serious consideration:

What if? What if there was solid historical basis to believe that Jesus had sex if a 9 year old girl? How would your current opinion of the Christian religion change? Or would it change? What if there was solid historical evidence that Jesus orchestrated the brutal torture and very painfully slow deaths of a number of people including an elderly couple? How would your current opinion of the Christian religion change? Or would it change? Would you be a bit more concerned about people who place their spiritual faith in him?

I contend that Islam is the only major religion founded by a pedophile, a murderer, or a torturer, and yes, I believe that makes a difference in those who follow his teachings. I don't see that as "narrow-minded", I see it as having some common sense.

I stand by my comparison to the National Socialists. the current situation with Islam and the sharia movement within Islam in Europe today mirrors that of the Nazi's of the 1920's very closely. Keep in mind that it took the Nazi's less than 20 years from that point to become a major threat to the entire world. All the sharia movement needs is a charismatic leader and some more bodies.....exactly the same as the National Socialist movement in the 20's.

I agree on the solution, I see it as the only logical solution. If we dont empower their demands by bowing to them, then the threat will negate. Until that time, it will only continue to get worse. All it would take is a simple show of unity from the media, instead of being too scared to actually take them on.

Many does not mean all. I understand that many Muslims are taught very strict fundamentalist Islamic views from a young age, but not all turn into terrorists. I just do not believe it is fair to generalize a whole set of people because of the actions of some. Once again, there is no solution to this. Until the world works hard on eradicating fundamentalist Islam, there is no way out. There simply is no way to deter fundamentalist Muslims without attacking the Muslim religion as a whole, and that would only lead to more fundamental Muslims.

Yes, all historical evidence points to Mohammad having relations with A'isha, his 9 year old wife. I will not try and defend that at all, I do not condone it nor do I think its acceptable, but its worth mentioning that this was not a rare occurrence back then, nor is it now. Its deplorable, but it still happens all across the world. While its not rare, it is disgusting and revolting. I am not Muslim, I do not support this. But some Muslims can accept this because it was a common practice back then and to some extent now.

Now you get into some tricky territory, because many great historical figures over the years have been brutal murderers. Harry Truman was directly responsible for over 200,000 deaths. The God of the Old Testament is one of the most violent and unforgiving figures in history, often killing people for being gay, not following him with undying devotion, etc..

But to answer your question, Yes it does concern me to an extent. That people can follow a religion with all these terrible things that have been associated with Islam scares me. But all religious fanatics scare me. Christianity has been associated with many violent incidents over the years as well, so has Judaism, etc.. ALL fanatics are bad, not just Islamic ones. Islamic fanatics are more common, I recognize that.

Muslim is the only religion founded by someone who was a polygamist and a pedophile, but it is far from the only religion founded with violence, someone with your historical knowledge knows that.

That does not mean its okay to generalize all Muslims as terrorists nor does it mean that its okay to persecute Muslims because of the actions of fanatics.
Not saying you are, but I will admit you seem awful close to saying that you believe all Muslims are violent in nature.

I still don't believe its a valid comparison between modern Islamic terrorists and the Socialist movement. Just two entirely different situations. The Socialist party was about infiltrating politics, then using the new found power to create a dictatorship which will be used to round up non-Aryans and other "undesirables".
The modern Islamic movement is terrorist-based, using random acts of violence to try and get their point across, killing anyone that is in their way. Its not as much about persecution or genocide of a particular race as it is attacking the attackers of Islam, in their eyes.

Despite claims to the contrary it's never been acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to most historical sources.

I clearly stated in an earlier post that the majority of Muslims are not a threat and pointed out that they must turn away from the literal text and the direct teaching of the founder of their religion in such cases.

All side stepping aside. Name me another founder and prophet of a major religion who was a warlord. Not the God of the Old Testament, not people carrying out atrocities in the name of Christianity 15 centuries after the death of the founder, not non-religious historical figures. Name me another founder of a major religion who was a violent warlord. That's the point, Harry Truman (although I disagree with him as an example) did not found a religion and does not have people living their lives according to his tenants.

The sharia movement in Europe is very much a political movement, it's leaders have made it perfectly clear that their goal is to some day be able to place the entire continent under sharia law. They have even publicly laid out the plan they intend to follow piece by piece and they are aware it could be a slow process. A few of the early steps have already been accomplished.

I love Jon Stewart.

This was amazing: "But I think for me the most striking thing as I ponder the difficult circumstance, our great and hilarious and intelligent and sweet comedy brethren Matt and Trey now find themselves in purely for expressing themselves is this. The threats that they received come from Revolution Muslim, a group located in New York City. Yeah.

This group, residing in the shadows, or should I say former shadows of World Trade Center are allowed to praised Osama Bin Laden, celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 and try to intimidate the creators of south park all while enjoying our lovely theater district, our many diverse restaurants including really the best Jewish delis you'll find and our new high line park. It's a park made out of an elevated train line. It's a super-thin park in the sky. Let's play frisbee. Little help.

And these numb nuts get to enjoy it all because of how much we in this country value and protect even their freedom of expression."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Despite claims to the contrary it's never been acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to most historical sources.

I clearly stated in an earlier post that the majority of Muslims are not a threat and pointed out that they must turn away from the literal text and the direct teaching of the founder of their religion in such cases.

All side stepping aside. Name me another founder and prophet of a major religion who was a warlord. Not the God of the Old Testament, not people carrying out atrocities in the name of Christianity 15 centuries after the death of the founder, not non-religious historical figures. Name me another founder of a major religion who was a violent warlord. That's the point, Harry Truman (although I disagree with him as an example) did not found a religion and does not have people living their lives according to his tenants.

The sharia movement in Europe is very much a political movement, it's leaders have made it perfectly clear that their goal is to some day be able to place the entire continent under sharia law. They have even publicly laid out the plan they intend to follow piece by piece and they are aware it could be a slow process. A few of the early steps have already been accomplished.

---

Did I say accepted? No, I said common and not unusual. I never once said it was an accepted practice, just that is was a common practice then, and it still goes on to this day.

I am curious, what are all these texts in the Qu'ran that teach violence? I thought it was generally accepted that the Qu'ran was not taken literally by the majority of the Muslim population and that the verses seemed to fit in historical context. I've read some about the passages you describe, Muslims who try and defuse the situation refer to them in historical context and metaphorically, while others see them as a call to arms and to be taken completely literally.

I am not trying to say that Mohammed was a peacful man nor am I trying to say that he was not a violent person. What I am saying is that great leaders all throughout history have committed violence acts. I am not defending Mohammed but simply pointing out that some Muslims can let it slide because many important figures have violent pasts. Abraham was gonna sacrifice his son, Paul claims he "violently persecuted" the "church of God" prior to his conversion. Violence in the ancient world was wide spread and everybody had their hands in blood. Except for Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, and Jesus Christ, both of whom were said to be completely peaceful and nonviolent people.

It still doesn't fit the mold of the Socialist movement in Germany. The Nazis goal was to gain control of the country then go after everyone that was in the perfect race. They did not use terrorism like the Muslim movement does, nor does it have a certain set of people whom they are trying to eradicate. The Muslim fanatics are out to use violence against any opponents of Islam, not a specific set of people. Osama Bin Laden sees Americans as the great evil, but not all fanatical Muslims feel the same way. The Nazis used concentration camps to achieve their genocide. The Muslim terrorists are not that organized, they use violence at any time and at any place.

The Nazis were not terrorists, but an army who had a goal of eradicating all the Jews. The Muslim terrorists are not at that stage yet. Is it possible for them to become what we know the Nazi party as? Absolutely, and its a real possibility if something isnt done to quell the rise in fundamental Islam, but at this point its premature to compare the two.

As I said earlier, the Nazis killed anywhere between 11 and 17 million people.

And I want to make it clear that I am not defending fanatical Muslims whatsoever, the exact opposite. I want to rid the world of fundamentalist Islam, but I do not want to persecute Muslims who preach nonviolence and acceptable in the process.

I don't believe you are seeing my point about Mohammed being BOTH the founder of the religion and a warlord. It is of paramount importance that he was BOTH. None of these other leaders were BOTH.

Point being that you have a man who lived by violence, who inflicted violence upon countless others who ALSO wrote a religious text and who laid down principles upon paper (or had others do so) that many millions of people live their daily lives in accordance with.

I don't think that it's a secret that my personal belief system is that of a non-conventional Christian. I believe strongly that the teachings of Jesus are the perfect road-map to attempt to live ones life by. But IF Jesus had be a pedophile, IF Jesus had been a killer, If Jesus had been a Warlord, there is no way I would be interested in trying to live my life in accordance to his teachings. In fact I would be repulsed by anything Christian, and would be concerned about anyone who would live their lives in accordance with his teachings. Starting to get the point?

Now real quickly, because you seem to be touching upon the subject again. The difference in the violence of the OT and that of the Koran (I don't like Q's) is that the violence of the OT is told by various writers in the form of a historical narrative. The violence in the Koran is the direct teaching on one man claiming to speak for God, one man who committed numerous acts of violence, one man who is not giving a historical narrative but who is laying down a series of directives to his followers.

The OT violence is sort of like a father telling his sons about the time years ago when he killed many enemies in battle. The violence in the Koran is like a father telling his sons to go kill as many of their enemies as possible. Big difference.

The sharia has pretty much the same goals as the Nazi's. Take power and impose their will, I never said there were not differences in method or desired result. Just that a reasonable comparison could be made. It can, right down to many of the same perceived enemies. Also, you can't compare the end result of the Nazi movement to the start of the sharia movement. You could only compare the beginning phases of each movement, and they are strikingly similar.

Why is the Christian God exempt, he's the founder, Jesus was the son of a war-lord...acorrdingly. Islam is no worse than Christianity, go ahead and post terrorist numbers from this month, they're modern day terrorists that happen to be muslim...Christianity showed the world was terrorism looked like long before Islam was even around, deny it all you want, but it's absolutely true. For a religion that's borrowed so much from other stories and fables, it became so violent and twisted it's unreal.


Israel just banned the iPad of all things, a small taste of how controlling, but little known that country is. But no, they and the Chrisitians are the victims. lmao.

I wont go that far, Islam has some texts in their set of holy documents that do seem to encourage Muslims to murder anyone in their way, cut the hands off the enemy, etc..

But, what is failed to mentioned is that just like in the Old Testament, many verses are open ended, meaning that put into the historical context of the time, seem right.
During the times that the Qu'ran covers, many wars were fought and many Muslims were slaughtered for being Muslims, just like any other religion, so a call to arms in 800 AD may sound violent now, but in context it is perfectly acceptable.

Not all verses are that simple, but as with any religious texts, you must look at the context of the words and the events of the times the words were written.


All religions have terrorists, crazed fundamentalists hell bent on stopping anyone in their way. Right now, its inaccurate to say that Christian fundamentalists are killing near the amount of Muslim terrorists.

I do agree that many of men have been slaughtered in the name of the Christian God, thats fact and inarguable. The first Christians did a lot of the same thing that modern Muslims are doing, if you don't convert you get killed, but that has not happened in many ages on the scale like it happened in the Middle Ages.


I am trying to save this thread, this isnt about Christian terrorists or violence in teh Qu'ran, its about Muslim terrorists intimidating American culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

I don't believe you are seeing my point about Mohammed being BOTH the founder of the religion and a warlord. It is of paramount importance that he was BOTH. None of these other leaders were BOTH.

Point being that you have a man who lived by violence, who inflicted violence upon countless others who ALSO wrote a religious text and who laid down principles upon paper (or had others do so) that many millions of people live their daily lives in accordance with.

I don't think that it's a secret that my personal belief system is that of a non-conventional Christian. I believe strongly that the teachings of Jesus are the perfect road-map to attempt to live ones life by. But IF Jesus had be a pedophile, IF Jesus had been a killer, If Jesus had been a Warlord, there is no way I would be interested in trying to live my life in accordance to his teachings. In fact I would be repulsed by anything Christian, and would be concerned about anyone who would live their lives in accordance with his teachings. Starting to get the point?

Now real quickly, because you seem to be touching upon the subject again. The difference in the violence of the OT and that of the Koran (I don't like Q's) is that the violence of the OT is told by various writers in the form of a historical narrative. The violence in the Koran is the direct teaching on one man claiming to speak for God, one man who committed numerous acts of violence, one man who is not giving a historical narrative but who is laying down a series of directives to his followers.

The OT violence is sort of like a father telling his sons about the time years ago when he killed many enemies in battle. The violence in the Koran is like a father telling his sons to go kill as many of their enemies as possible. Big difference.

The sharia has pretty much the same goals as the Nazi's. Take power and impose their will, I never said there were not differences in method or desired result. Just that a reasonable comparison could be made. It can, right down to many of the same perceived enemies. Also, you can't compare the end result of the Nazi movement to the start of the sharia movement. You could only compare the beginning phases of each movement, and they are strikingly similar.

---

You keep saying that about Mohammed, I do not doubt for one second that he was a violent man. But, when you talk about a religious leader, a God, who slaughters many millions of people sometimes without reason; one who commands their followers to do violent acts or commit terrible atrocities, there is at least one other God who shares the same vindictiveness. Violence was an integral part of the foundation of the world.

I understand that some texts in the Qu'ran sound an awful lot like a call to violence, but when put in historical context, some of them fit perfectly for the time period. Not all, some do seem like a call for Muslims to slaughter any non-believer, but wasn't that the preferred method of the time? In that age, if people did not convert, they deserved to be murdered, correct?

And you believe what you believe, how is it fair to hold everyone to the same standard? Does everyone have to share the same beliefs that you hold? That isn't fair nor does it mean someone else is wrong for choosing to believe in something different.

What about this, that violent people are violent people, and some of these fanatics might have been another kind of fanatic if they were from somewhere else? Granted, that is probably a small portion of the number of terrorists. Also, I know its a radical comparison, but I compare some of the these fundamentalists to bigots in America in the mid 20th century. When something is instilled in you from an early age, at a very high intensity level, even if its wrong, its very hard to change a person.

Fundamentalist Islam is like a cult, a terrible violent cult that incites murder.
But to paint Islam with the brush isn't fair to the Muslims who are not violent.


Heres what I am saying, in a nutshell.
For one, its not fair to blame all Muslims for what the terrorists do. Just like its not fair to blame all white people if a white person kills someone, its not fair to blame all Buddhists if one assassinates a president, etc..

If Islam taught violence and made its followers violent, wouldn't every Muslim be a terrorist? If that was the case, wouldn't a person have to be a violent fanatic to be Muslim?

That's because its not specifically Islam that causes violence. It can be a combination of fundamentalist Muslims and hatred of the West, any number of things, but its not Islam that is the enemy. Fundamentalist Muslims are the enemy, crazed fanatical terrorists.

I was saying the comparison isn't valid because its two different attack systems. Sure there are some similarities, but what I was saying that is the two approached obtaining their goal in different ways.
I agree that both have horrible intentions, and that the main goal of both is to take over the world and impose their will.

Israel banned the ipad due to what appear to be legitimate concerns about it's interfering with other wireless devices. Which might be fatal in their situation. If you really think that banning the ipad for legit reasons is worse than sanctioned regular beatings of female family members then you are an idiot.

Allah, the God of the OT and and the Jewish God are all one in the same (technically) the difference is Mo the molester.

And in a nutshell I'm saying that you are going to have a larger % of terrorists coming from an Islamic base due to the teachings of the religion and the influence of the founder. At no time have I blamed all Muslims. That is something you've mistakenly decided on your own that I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Israel banned the ipad due to what appear to be legitimate concerns about it's interfering with other wireless devices. Which might be fatal in their situation. If you really think that banning the ipad for legit reasons is worse than sanctioned regular beatings of female family members then you are an idiot.

Allah, the God of the OT and and the Jewish God are all one in the same (technically) the difference is Mo the molester.

---

Bull, it conforms to the European standards approved in Israel and uses the same wifi that other Apple computers already use in Israel...most wireless networks in Israel are private anyway, assuming by some tiny chance if the standard is different. Because the ministry said that, doesn't mean it's true. They're how many centuries behind Christianity? Subtract that number and in that time, how were females treated in Christianity?

Here is the difference. Mohammad condoned the beating of women, the rape of children, the torture of any perceived enemy. Not only is it in black and white within the pages he wrote or dictated, but he did all of these things himself.

Compare that to the teachings of Jesus and to the example that he gave us through the way he lived his life.

Any comparison between modern Muslims and 15th century (or any century) Christians cannot be made without putting it into the context of the time period. In fact the cruel and brutal actions improperly done in the name of the Christian God pale in comparison to the actions of others in that same time period. this does not excuse their actions, but it is worth noting that they weren't the only or even the worst offenders of any time period.

You want to compare the religions according to their respective ages. In fact the only real way to compare them is in relation to the world norms within the time frame they are doing whatever act they are doing.

Federal authorities in Virginia have arrested the man who allegedly wrote online posts threatening the creators of South Park after the show ran an episode that included the Prophet Muhammad. The Justice Department announced the arrest of 20-year-old Zachary Chesser Wednesday, saying authorities had stopped him at a New York airport on July 10 before he made a planned trip to Somalia to allegedly try to join an Islamic militant group.

The Justice Department said in a press release that Chesser admitted to using ?several online profiles dedicated to extremist jihad propaganda.? One of those profiles was Abu Talha al-Amrikee, the poster who threatened South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone in April after an episode that made fun of religious figures, including Muhammad, says a law-enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The posts, made on RevolutionMuslim.com, encouraged readers to ?pay Comedy Central a visit,? listed addresses of the television network?s New York offices, and said Parker and Stone ?will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.? Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by an Islamic militant in 2004 after he produced a controversial film that criticized Islam for demeaning women.

When authorities arrested Chesser at the airport, he had his infant son in tow, allegedly in an effort to stay under the radar. He was reportedly planning to travel from New York to Uganda and then to Somalia, where he would join Al-Shabab, the militant group with ties to Al Qaeda that has claimed responsibility for a pair of coordinated bombings in the Ugandan capital during the World Cup final that killed scores of people. Those bombings occurred on July 11, one day after Chesser was prevented from boarding the plane.

?This case exposes the disturbing reality that extreme radicalization can happen anywhere, including Northern Virginia,? said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride in a press release. ?This young man is accused of seeking to join Al-Shabab, a brutal terrorist organization with ties to Al Qaeda. These allegations underscore the need for continued vigilance against homegrown terror threats.?

Declassified first reported Chesser?s ties to the South Park threats in April, when New York police were stepping up security at Comedy Central?s headquarters, fearing that the online posts might incite violence. Chesser?s alleged posts also include ?an article detailing the prerequisites involved in leaving for jihad, which closely follows the steps Chesser took? before trying to join Al-Shabab and fight in Somalia, according to the Justice Department.


Feds Arrest Man Behind 'South Park' Threats - Newsweek

Why Won’t the FBI Stand Up to Islamic Extremism? - Abigail R. Esman - Pen & Sword - Forbes


Why Won’t the FBI Stand Up to Islamic Extremism?
This time, I’ve had it.

While “outrage” has been pretty much the key word this summer, my own reached its upper limits with the news that cartoonist Molly Norris had been forced into hiding by a fatwa threatening her life for an idea: to establish “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” on which the world would sketch images of the Prophet Mohammed in defiance of efforts by Muslims to censor such images, and, in some cases, to murder those who created them. Norris’s suggestion came in response to a decision by executives at Comedy Central to censor the satirical show, “South Park,” which aired an episode that joked about showing Mohammed dressed in a bear suit.

Funny, right?

Well, not to religious Muslims, who, unable to distinguish fact from fiction or truth from allegory, view parodies of their holiest figure as an assault on Islam itself. We’ve encountered that kind of ignorant hate before, of course – most famously in the case of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” created by cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for Denmark’s news daily, the Jyllands Posten. In that case, not only was Westergaard targeted for assassination, but Danish and other Scandinavian embassies across the Middle East were torched, and violent demonstrations left numerous people dead.

But Norris didn’t even draw a cartoon of the Prophet. Rather, she sketched a number of commonplace objects – -a teacup, a spool of thread, a domino – with the caption, “Will the real likeness of the prophet Mohammed please stand up?”

Funny, right?

Apparently not – at least, not to some people, whose idea of “funny” is what happens when American civilians die. (Cut to images of Palestinians and of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands dancing in the streets on 9/11.)

The Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is one Muslim unamused by Norris’s idea. Writing in the English language magazine Inspire, an online publication produced by al Qaeda, he declared: “A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful toward its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air.”

Not funny.

Apparently, the FBI doesn’t think so, either; and here is where my outrage boiled over. Cautioning Norris to take al-Awlaki’s threat seriously, they have now advised her to change her identity, move far from her home in Seattle (where she, until now, worked for the Seattle Weekly), and start over – essentially entering into a witness protection program – only without the accompanying protection.

Let me repeat: The U.S. government is suggesting that Ms. Norris change her name, strip away her past, possibly even change her appearance, because she has been targeted by Muslim extremists who are not amused by her work or her ideas. Rather than protect her, rather than defend her, rather than stand up for her Constitutional and democratic rights, declaring their intention to route al-Awlaki out and bring him (and others who are threatening her life) to justice, the American government, as it were, is itself in essence allying with him by taking away her freedom and her life .

And here’s the kicker: it’s likely not that hard to find Al-Awlaki – who has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre, the so-called “Christmas bomber,” and the attempted bombing of Times Square. Anwar Al-Awlaki, born in Las Cruces, New-Mexico, is a citizen of the United States.

And yet, unlike the British, who for years protected and defended Salman Rushdie from the edicts of Ayatollah Khomeini and others, the USA has thrown up its hands, leaving her to her own devices, the victim of the same sick Islamic ideology that permits women to be stoned to death for the crime of having loved.

And so it becomes clear: If we are not involved in a physical war against Islam, we certainly are engaged in an ideological one. And as a woman with a secular, democratic ideal runs, now, for her life, the knights in armor assigned to save her stand aside.

This is how we protect our values? This is what has become, now, of America? That even the suggestion “Draw Mohammed” can cost a woman’s life and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will do nothing? That even the voicing of a threat has America putting down its arms?

We have spent untold billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the cost of more than 5,000 US lives.

And all the Islamic militants had to do to conquer us was speak.

Such is the power of the word: and America now sits silenced, silent, dumb.