Tuesday, November 17, 2015


Here's some more comments by creators about the jihad in Paris. We'll start first with those who, though leftist they may be, say something decent:

Okay, that's respectable enough. But, if they still hold fast to ultra-leftist standings on Islam and immigration, then these can't be taken at face value.

Now, for some of the usual disappointments. For example, if we determine a writer's persona by what he retweets, then here's a screenshot to check:
Busiek retweeted some of the most laughable apologia possible, which comes unglued when the birdbrain who wrote that junk blames right-wingers for everything. And Busiek then proceeds to make everything worse when he says:

Sarcasm or not, I am not amused by his petty swipes at Trump, no matter how weak I already find some of Trump's approach as it is. More hugely disappointing efforts to divert attention from pressing issues and worry about accepting in "refugees" whom I doubt they'd ever let into their own houses despite their stances.

He should take a good look at himself, because he later retweeted some more apologia for Islam, like this same nonsense Busiek did about IS wanting to create "Islamophobia". And again, without ever bothering to acknowledge the exact verses inside the Koran.

Unfortunately, Diggle's also retweeted apologia like this junk and this too:
I sure don't take this Diggle's statements at face value. What we really need is a story about infiltrators who intend evil and how to defeat them.

The best way to be smarter is to research the Koran/Hadith. Then he'll realize what Islamic State is motivated by. Otherwise, Marz's statement becomes meaningless.

I wonder if that's what Conway thinks of any French politician/citizen now opposed to letting in the invaders?

So he's using the UK Guardian as a channel for his ultra-leftist belief that ISIS is not exploiting the refugee crisis in Europe for their venomous goals? What a disgrace. Somebody else said:

And that, alas, is just the problem with the otherwise pathetic, potentially overrated Gaiman.

I get the feeling Seeley's drawing a moral equivalence between ALL religions, and won't make distinctions between good and bad. It brings to mind this report on how leftists blame all religion, and cannot tell the difference between one ideology or another. That's not the way to solve anything.

Here's also one more by a freelance editor named Will Dennis:

So he too thinks there's no difference between good and bad religions? I'm afraid that's pretty sloppy too.

No comments: