More political correctness for muslims - SICK OF IT

rhodescholar

Gold Member
May 31, 2009
5,380
974
245
Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
WE are all aware of what is going on RE: the Ft. Hood story, with the idiots in government trying to impress upon everyone through their corporate-owned media "not to think badly about our muslim fellow citizens" but there is another, almost as insidious story about the PC machine to protect muslims' sensitivities.

This has to do with the upcoming film 2012, where Roland Emmerich and his writers opted not to "destroy" mecca in the film:

Director of '2012' Destroys Rome, Spares Mecca -- Politics Daily

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/movies/08gray.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=movies

"He razed Rio de Janeiro; Rome; California; Washington, D.C.; Tibet; Las Vegas; Yellowstone National Park; and more but decided against destroying Islamic symbols. “My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’ "

So when it comes to the Far left in hollywood picking and choosing when freedom of speech and thought is important - and which of their far left constituencies to protect - of course they choose the muslim one.

This is just getting fucking ridiculous already. First the cartoons, now this? When will this sickness end?
 
I bet if you move to israel you'll find exactly the kind of anti-muslim hatred that you seem to crave.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
“My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’ "
That hardly sounds like PC or protecting Islam :lol:

Uhhh, that's the point Charlie, he did NOT include the destruction of muslim sites - the way christian and jewish ones were depicted in the film - because he had to be POLITICALLY CORRECT.
 
“My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’ "
That hardly sounds like PC or protecting Islam :lol:

Uhhh, that's the point Charlie, he did NOT include the destruction of muslim sites - the way christian and jewish ones were depicted in the film - because he had to be POLITICALLY CORRECT.

Um. That's not being 'politically correct'. You need a new dictionary.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
[Um. That's not being 'politically correct'. You need a new dictionary.

Ummmm....yes it is, sweetie:

politically correct - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

"Main Entry: politically correct
Function: adjective
Date: 1936
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
— political correctness noun"

-------------------------------

Looks like that's what the guy was doing - avoiding an action that "could offend political sensibilities."

But if you're a liberal, I can see why you'd prefer not to get into a discussion where facts are involved.
 
“My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’ "
That hardly sounds like PC or protecting Islam :lol:

Uhhh, that's the point Charlie, he did NOT include the destruction of muslim sites - the way christian and jewish ones were depicted in the film - because he had to be POLITICALLY CORRECT.

and, LORD KNOWS, you love nothing better than video depicting the destruction of a muslim holy site!

:cuckoo:


Like I said, Killer. Move to israel and you'll get to rub elbows with lots of muslim hating fanatics.
 
Are people really upset that an as yet unreleased fictional film isn't using special effects and destroying a city in a fictional future because some other group may get upset at the fictional film using special effects to destroy a specific city in a fictional future?


Really? Is this all you guys have to worry about? Get a life man.
 
Fatality,
Plenty of nutcases on both sides of this particular religious fence ( Christianity, Islam). I do tire of the nutcases, though it is job security ;(
 

Forum List

Back
Top