Radical Muslim threatens SOUTH PARK creators with death!...

By Joshua Rhett Miller

A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week. RevolutionMuslim.com posted a warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park," which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit.

A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park," which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."

Al Amrikee said the website is considering a protest against the "disgusting" show, which also depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an episode on July 4, 2001.

"This is not a small thing," he said. "We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."

The posting on RevolutionMuslim.com also includes audio of a sermon by Anwar al-Awlaki -- a radical U.S.-born preacher now believed to be hiding in Yemen -- who discusses assassinating individuals who defame the Prophet Muhammad. It also included a link to a 2009 story in the Huffington Post that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado.

A Comedy Central spokesman told FoxNews.com that the network has no comment on the posting.

I wonder how clouddipshit, who never stops making excuses for Muslime terrorism, is going to explain away this one? :)

"Not Sure" wrote in message news:[email]...

These Muslims are just like fucking tea-baggers. Muslims never condemn terrorist Muslims and therefore every Muslim is a terrorist. Just like how tea-baggers never condemn terrorist tea-baggers. I guess that gives me the right to call EVERY tea-bagger a terrorist!

In article , "Arizona Bushwhacker" wrote:

Which Tea Party person is a terrorist again?

"Thanatos" wrote in message news:[email]...

The original ones from Boston.

In article , "Obveeus" wrote:

Vandalism is now terrorism?

Wow.

[email] wrote:

Not if it's performed by a leftist (or anarchist).

"Ubiquitous" wrote in message news:[email]...

Destructive acts designed to bring down a government only count as 'terrorism' if people die?

How do you two explain the words 'environmental terrorist' or 'eco-terrorist'?

In article , "Obveeus" wrote:

Where exactly did I say that?

"Thanatos" wrote in message news:[email]...

You claimed above that the Boston Tea Party was an act of vandalism, not terrorism. Since the desired effect was to scare/intimidate the legitimate government and to local merchants, how was it not an act of 'terrorism'?

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:48:29 -0400, "Obveeus" wrote:

Terrorism is meant to terrorize the population not the government. As I said in another post, if those involved had been cutting off heads of the British seamen on the merchant ships, then you'd have a comparison.

So, you have to cut off their heads rather than burn down their businesses in order for it to be terrorism? You seem to be under the impression that *all* people living in the Americas wanted freedom from English rule. That wasn't the case at all and the people that did want freedom most definitely committed many terrorist acts against those that continued to support the legitimate government. Threatening the destruction of any business entity that continued to support the government IS terrorizing the populous.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:32:13 -0400, "Obveeus" wrote:

 I thnk you're really stretching trying t omake a comparison.   Bombing and
killing citizens is terrorizing the populous.   Okalahoma city qualifies.
Driving Combines and tractors to close down the Capitol of Washington DC
like farmers once did is more akin to the Boston tea party.  Not everyone
supported them and they certainly hurt businesses at the time.  It still
wasn't terrorisim

How is it not an act of 'terrorism' to burn down the businesses and homes of people that support the legitimate government of the land in an effort to keep them from continuing that support?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:44:47 -0400, "Obveeus" wrote:

That's not what they did at the Boston tea party.  They threw tea in to the
ocean to protest taxation without representation.  If the original colonists
had been granted representation we might still be part of the British
Empire.   That's why I would equate what they did more to those farmers
shutting down transportation in and around DC to protest government
policies.   That hardly terrorized civilians.   Unless city-dwellers are
terrorized by heavy farm machinery.  :)

I understand your point though. Scholars have argued it. I'm sure you can find cites that support what you believe just as I can. A lot depends on how you define terrorism.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/boston-tea-party4.htm Was the BTP eco-terrorism? Some contemporary commentators have equated the Boston Tea Party with eco-terrorism, while others refute the idea. The term eco-terrorism is defined differently at times, but in our How Eco-terrorism Works article, we used the FBI definition of eco-terrorism as "the use of violence against victims or property by an environmentally-oriented group for environmentally-political reasons." By that standard, the BTP was likely not an act of eco-terrorism, and it certainly wasn't in the environment's best interests.

In article , "Obveeus" wrote:

Yes.

You claimed above that I asserted that an act isn't terrorism if no one dies. I challenged you to point out where exactly I said that.

While I can understand you wanting to dodge that question, I'm going to insist that you answer it before we move on to your new question.

In fact, I challenge him to point out where you said anything consequential. As usual.

...and still wrong.

I didn't claim that you asserted it, I asked a question in an effort to try and discern what your reasoning was. Since you know what a question mark means and since you just used this exact same argument in another thread (where you were the one that just asked the question), it seems a bit idiotic for you to take the opposite side of the discussion in this thread.

Wave your hands around like an idiot if you want, but the other thread reveals very clearly that you understand the difference between asking a question and making a claim. As such, you know what question is on the table and your refusal to answer it can only be taken as your owning up to not having thought through your claim that the Boston Tea Party was only an act of vandalism, not terrorism.

In article , "Obveeus" wrote:

Yes, my mistake. Poor word choice. You strongly implied it.

In article , "Obveeus" wrote:

No, that's exactly what it was.

Okay, the answer to your question is "no, destructive acts designed to bring down a government do not only count as terrorism if people die" and I never implied such, so I have no idea why you'd ask that question in response to what I said.

Clear it up for you?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The original Tea Party guys proved that.

If you want to trash religions; trash Catholics or Evangelicals. It's safer.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:26:46 -0400, Thanatos wrote:

Terrorism is designed to strike terror among the populace. The Boston Tea Party was designed to send a message to the government, not the people being ruled. Maybe if they'd been cutting off heads of British seamen and throwing those in the ocean instead of tea, there would be some comparison.

In article , EGK wrote:

Exactly.

It's not terrorism if your side wins.

Brandon

[email] wrote:

Ad hominem noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

On Apr 21, 3:21 pm, "Arizona Bushwhacker" wrote:

Well, they *are* terrorists, just like the Muslims only not Muslim.

Muslims who actively support Muslim terrorists ARE terrorists. Muslims who sit by and don't say anything, are no better than terrorists. Muslims who condemn terrorist Muslims can be counted on one hand.

[email] wrote:

TROLL-O-METER

           5*    6*   *7
      4*                  *8
   3*                        *9
  2*                          *10
 1*              |             *stuporous
 0*             -*-            *catatonic
  *              |\            *comatose
   *               \          *clinical death
    *               \        *biological death
      *             _\/    *demonic apparition
          *     *     *damned for all eternity

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:21:16 -0700, "Arizona Bushwhacker" wrote:

You have the right to call anyone anything you want just as we have the right to completely ignore your stupid ass or call you anything we want. Like calling you an undereducated welfare leeching drug dealing child molesting animal fucking thieving piece of shit. Just as there is nothing preventing you from talking your vitriolic dogshit, in the same regard there is nothing preventing the rest of us from doing the same. That freedom thing just doesn't seem to work out the way you think it should does it. Now run along back to fucking your dead mother.

You mean they are fed up with their government spending their country into oblivion and micro-managing every aspect of their lives?

This is still America, you have the right to say any idiotic thing that you want to.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Not Sure wrote:

"Muslime"? Is that like a French spelling?

Trye note to spelle, Note Suree.

[email] wrote:

Spelling "flame" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Spelling "flame" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:53:57 -0500, [email] (Ubiquitous) wrote:

    . . .

Argument?