See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Political correctness gone wild | Infidels Are Cool
2. Right Wing Rebel

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm, uhangtight said:

   therein lies the problem, for economic protection we will become the dhimmis. for the political correctness of not offending the greatest of offenders we will bow before the masters of terror.

2. #2
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, oregonelam said:

   Well, I have trouble saying it myself, especially after a couple of bourbons.

3. #3
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, gregorystephens said:

   If you can’t even name your enemy, how can you defeat it?

4. #4
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm, JHSII said:

   Yes, we must not offend the people who want to kill us…

   /sarc off

5. #5
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm, right_on said:

   You can’t say “Islamist” in Dallas/Fort Worth.

   Hey, that’s fine with me…let’s call them what they are…jihadist thugs!!! Or perhaps “Religious zealots with a terroristic theology?”

6. #6
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

   I’m surprised they were allowed to keep the image!

7. #7
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm, graysonret said:

   Yeah…I could just imagine WW2 and a billboard, “How we should understand the superior Aryan race of the good people in the peace loving nation of Germany.”

8. #8
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm, Barry F. said:

   If you can’t even name your enemy, how can you defeat it?

   Correct!

9. #9
   On January 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, madchef said:

   Heck, why don’t they replace the headscarf wearing terrorist with a smiley face while their at it! And the other side of the billboard probably says welcome to the U.S.A. Open Borders Capital of the World.

10. #10
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm, hatelibs said:

    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:
    I’m surprised they were allowed to keep the image!

    I thought the same thing. Now on this subject, have any of the Democraps even been asked about dealing with these savages who want to kill us? I won’t watch their debates but I’ve heard nothing about their “plans”. Or are they being allowed to bypass the issue totally by the media so they can concentrate on their other promises of free everything at the expense of the rich. Ahhh, that must be it.

11. #11
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, Barry F. said:

    “My boss wouldn’t go along with this type of advertising since we have an international clientele — some of whom might be on the other side.”

    Well, I guess, if there is an upside, it is that the sales manager let us know where this company operating in America stands and to whom their allegiances go. *blech*

12. #12
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    At least the terrorist on the billboard stll at least reminds me of an jihadist. Surprised he wasn’t changed to look more like Dick Cheney.

    After all, ALL the moonbats believe he is more dangerous than any jihadist.

13. #13
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm, Barry F. said:

    Or are they being allowed to bypass the issue totally by the media…

    They have pretty much gotten a pass on it, from the debates I could stomach to watch.

    Remember, they have only appeared on MSM-type outlets for their debates. They don’t tend to get hardball questions, unless you count the talking snowmen.

14. #14
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm, katieanne said:

    some of whom might be on the other side.”

    So now some people worry about the feelings of our enemies? Gee, I wonder if these same people even want our side to win. And for this to happen in Texas. Berekeley I could believe, but Texas?

15. #15
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    Dallas has a large Islamic community.
    Gee ya think?

16. #16
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm, hatelibs said:

    Barry F:

    I hear you. Eventually they will have to face the issue. Obama wants to smile at everybody and they will leave us alone and Hitlary will cry if anybody crosses her because the Clintonistas don’t have the same operatives in foreign countries.

    The Republican candidate will have a great opportunity to score as long as he doesn’t overdue the fear angle. Just lay out the barbaric record watch them squirm trying to be anti-war and still be tough. Actually I would give anything to have Newt face to face with either of those idiots and watch him carve them up.

17. #17
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm, see-dubya said:

    #6–I’m surprised they were allowed to keep the image!

    They weren’t. Look on the left side of the original and you’ll see the Statue of Liberty in a Burqa. That didn’t make it onto the billboard.

    Well, at least we can still say “terrorism”. Over in the UK they’re now calling it “anti-Islamic activities“.

18. #18
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    “My boss wouldn’t go along with this type of advertising since we have an international clientele — some of whom might be on the other side.”

    Just when I thought things could not get more stoooopid, I find out I am wrong - yet again.

19. #19
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm, cpodug said:

    Come on, soap - you know that people are’t so dumb that they can’t act a little dumber!

20. #20
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, cpodug said:

    aren’t - read ‘em and weep:roll:

21. #21
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm, cpodug said:

    Gotta be Friday

22. #22
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm, gandolphxx said:

    BlameAmericaLast said:
    I’m surprised they were allowed to keep the image!

    I am also surpised - I would have swapped it out for a 80 year old granny, white of course, from Montana.

23. #23
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Not all Muslims are terrorists….but….you know the refrain

    

24. #24
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, Barry F. said:

    Not all Muslims are terrorists….but….you know the refrain

    Ahhh. But, what about all terrorists.

25. #25
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, DougT said:

    If they weren’t allowed to say “al-Qaeda” that would be far more upsetting. Striking the word Islamist makes sense here.

    What about the removal of the shrouded Statue of Liberty? Was that image considered offensive, too?

26. #26
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm, Barry F. said:

    I am also surpised - I would have swapped it out for a 80 year old granny, white of course, from Montana.

    You’re probably right, gandolph. Why should they break with the standard M.O. *sigh*

27. #27
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, Boomer said:

    I’m sure the ACLU is already planning their 1st Amendment lawsuit to defend our freedom of speech in 3, 2, 1………Hello? Is anybody there?

28. #28
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    I would like to know what the “Texan of the Year” thinks!

    Texan?

    Oh, Texan?

29. #29
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm, Barry F. said:

    If they weren’t allowed to say “al-Qaeda” that would be far more upsetting. Striking the word Islamist makes sense here.

    There are more terrorist organizations than just Al Qaeda. And, Al Qaeda is directly linked to what religion?

    So, it makes no sense to me. But, apparently it makes cents to the billboard company. They have their priorities. Obviously, the safety of innocent Americans is not at the top of their list. Jerks.

    By the way, does anyone know which company that would be? We may need to be contacting “the boss” there.

30. #30
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm, bit_boy said:

    Clear Channel: we reserve the right to reject any copy that would be offensive to a local community (jihad watch)

    My first thought was don’t blame Dallas the same thing would happen in Seattle or Cleveland and so many good Texans live in Dallas. And given the above quote we should be astounded by Clear Channel and not Dallas (home of The Texan of the Year). Clear Channel is no longer the messenger but now the message, the jihadist platform in America.

31. #31
    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm, DougT said:

    No one is denying the fact that there are more terror organizations out there.

    Of course, not all terrorist organizations are associated with Islam, but I didn’t think that needed to be said.

32. #32
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm, blues said:

    Some of his clients might be on the other side.What side is this dipstick on?What was the purpose of the symposium,to expose all those Christian Terrorists?Is this a$$wipe Rosey’s brother or something?If he objected to the text,why didn’t he change the graphic,too.This clown’s not just a dhimmi,he’s a flipping idiot dhimmi.

33. #33
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm, LarryD said:

    Now on this subject, have any of the Democraps even been asked about dealing with these savages who want to kill us? I won’t watch their debates but I’ve heard nothing about their “plans”.

    Check Blindsided by Nation Security over at Captain’s Quarters.

    According to Edsall, the Democrats have high confidence in succeeding on economics in this cycle. They expect the economy to worsen in 2008 and make it easier for them to sell higher taxes and more entitlements to nervous voters. They wonder whether the Republicans will somehow sandbag the election by talking about national security and terrorism instead, a battle for which Democrats are apparently unprepared.

    Let’s pause a moment and let this sink into the consciousness. More than six years after 9/11, the Democrats still have no comprehensive national security or counterterrorism plan. They feel that such a discussion will “blindside” them — a term from football meaning an attack from an unseen direction — despite the issues being consistently rated as primary among voters for years. They have no preparation for this discussion, and apparently consider it some kind of dirty trick, if you read more of Edsall’s essay.

34. #34
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm, mlnicosia said:

    Is there a campaign to deluge the web site, email, phone, owners home mailbox of this billboard company?

    Count me in!

35. #35
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm, ajmontana said:

    Not all Muslims are terrorists? maybe not, but you dont hear a lot about them denouncing activities of the one’s who are.

36. #36
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm, Larraby said:

    When Muslim fanatics invaded the school in southern Russia a few years ago and tied up hundreds of kids and put bombs around them, the New York Times refused to use the words “Muslim”, “Islamic” and “terrorists”. I wrote to the NY Times and asked the reporter who covered the story why he avoided those words. Incredibly, an editor answered by telling me that the incident had nothing to do with “Muslims” and it was not done in the name of Islam and to mention that the “militants” were Muslims would only prejudice readers. He thought there was no more need to mention that the people who did it were Muslims than to mention that the man who shot President Reagan in 1981 was a Christian. He said further that to use the word “terrorist” would mean that the NY Times was accepting the “Bush doctrine”. And the rest of the MSM just follows the NY Times like birds on a wire. One flies off and then the rest of them do.

37. #37
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm, fred5676 said:

    On January 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, DougT said:
    …
    What about the removal of the shrouded Statue of Liberty? Was that image considered offensive, too?

    You mean this image??

    Very scary trailer - even more so with this news from Dallas.

38. #38
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm, Chief RZ said:

    How about just saying Muslim or Muslim terrorist.
    Fascist? Communist? “Those who flew airplanes into the WTC on 9/11/01″ Similar to the artist formerly known as prince!!

39. #39
    On January 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    The sales manager of a Dallas-area billboard company explained: “My boss wouldn’t go along with this type of advertising since we have an international clientele — some of whom might be on the other side.”

    So Islamic Terrorists advertise with them?

40. #40
    On January 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, MrVIBEMAN said:

    Why wouldn’t they? The Islamic Terrorists have ALOT of money to throw around. We’ve been buying oil from them for well over 50 years. I mean, they built an indoor mountain ski slope with real snow, in a building in the middle of the desert for God’s Sake!
    See it here:
    http://www.skidubai.com/

    They’re also currently building the Tallest building in the world (In Dubai).
    See it here:
    http://www.burjdubai.com/

    With money like that, you don’t think they’re spreading the greenbacks around for sympathy support here? I’ll bet you couldn’t find a single politician today (including the Republican candidates and ESPECIALLY the Democrat candidates) that don’t have some Islamic tainted money in their pockets.

    I don’t care if it’s Dubai, Iran, or U.A.E., all their economies are based on the same thing.

    O.
    I.
    L.

41. #41
    On January 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, trinitytim said:

    This is beyond crazy.

    Clear Channel should change their name to Foggy Bottom.

    The only moderate muslim is an ex-muslim. I believe and I will continue to say it every chance I get. The first billboard was the correct one, IMHO

42. #42
    On January 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm, texasdee said:

    Wonder what Mike Gallagher will have to say about this on his show Monday morning? He is one of the speakers and lives in North Texas. I think a can of black spray paint would fix this right up.

43. #43
    On January 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, roadrage said:

    That’s alright. I’ll just continue to call them filthy animals.

44. #44
    On January 18th, 2008 at 5:17 pm, Mookie said:

    A Republican Muslim With Eyes On Washington

45. #45
    On January 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pm, rugger said:

    some of our clients might be on the other side??? The other side? Are you kidding me?

    Sorry but some of the people giving us money may have killed thousands of your countrymen on 9/11, and plotting future attacks, but hey they are giving us money so we cant offend them.

46. #46
    On January 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm, twoninerkilo said:

    Call them what they are, Murdering, Crazed, Sons-a-B!*ches. Problem solved

47. #47
    On January 18th, 2008 at 6:28 pm, gollumclone said:

    We only rile up Muslims and make them hate us with our imperialistic, war-mongering ways. The real terrorists are we’uns. At least that’s what the moron.org and paultards claim. Repent you sinners and choose the only man who can save America as your leader. Join the Brownshirt cult because you know in your heart that the neocons, Joos, blacks and gays are the cause of all the world’s ills. Sieg heil!

    But seriously, the paulist anarchists are insane. They are spewing all kinds of antisemitism on the news stock board at yahoo for example.

48. #48
    On January 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Uhhhh, Mr. Billboard guy, if some of your clients are on the other side & you haven’t talked to the FBI about it, you just might just have a small legal issue here…

49. #49
    On January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm, Blind_Mule said:

    Imagine an American billboard company in 1942 toning down an anti-Nazi billboard because, well, some of their clients are Nazis!

    This pretty much sum’s it up.

50. #50
    On January 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm, beenthere said:

    It’s unfortunate but the WWII analogy is not selling. Most people who understand anything of WWII (not that high a percentage of the population actually) do not see any similarity between the vast movement of armies and the huge number of people killed (average of 500K to 1 million/month) that took place at that time and today.

    Yes. our fellow citizens will be aware at some point. Given the implacable nature of our enemies, the day is coming, we can be sure, when nuclear weapons are flying about all over the planet and there are casualties in the millions, tens of millions, perhaps ultimately hundreds of millions. Given that scenario, no doubt public awareness of the dangers then will increase. But until then, the present emerging global conflict needs to be explained differently: “It’s just like Global Warming, only it’s real.”

51. #51
    On January 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm, Dandapani said:

    The moderate Muslim are just as concerned with the Islamofacists as we are. They don’t speak up because they KNOW what will happen to them.

52. #52
    On January 18th, 2008 at 10:02 pm, Dimsdale said:

    Not all Muslims are terrorists? maybe not, but you don’t hear a lot about them denouncing activities of the one’s who are.

    Which makes them tacit accomplices, and therefore, almost as guilty.

53. #53
    On January 19th, 2008 at 1:12 am, garyt said:

    I was wondering where these so called moderate muslims lived? I never hear of any speak of the muslim crimes. I think they are right when they say the moderate ones are the dead ones.

54. #54
    On January 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm, shooter said:

    Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc Company Profile
    200 E Basse Rd, San Antonio, TX 78209-8328, Phone: (210) 822-2828

    SIC:Outdoor Advertising Services

    Line of Business:Outdoor Advertising Displays
    (from Jihad Watch comment)