Uh yeah, this is pretty bad either way, but you know that dude wasn't just yodeling because he was in a good mood.
It doesn't matter why he was yodeling. There is no crime in yodeling.I look at it two ways.1.) As far as the judges ruling is concerned, because there is no way the judge could actually determine intent of the alleged yodeler, only one group of people are allowed to "yodel" and that's muslims. All others are mocking Islam. Nevermind that they are in Austria which is situated in the Alps. Isn't that where yodeling was born? Riiicolaaaaa!2.) If some headbanger was playing Angel of Death from slayer next to a christian neighbor, the only fine he might receive is a noise violation. the idea that he was mocking christians would never enter the argument.This is yet another disgusting example of people bending over backwards for the religion of intolerance. It's like that stupid Swedish PM or President or whatever the fuck they have. The fact that he asked for tolerance after the latest bombing sickens me. Who is he speaking too? Clearly it was talking to the bomber or would be bombers. He was basically saying, "Please, muslims, show tolerance and don't bombs us. We are on our hands and knees begging you to spare us." When he should have said, "we are intolerant to the intolerant and we are going to kick anyones ass who decides to bomb us. Believe it!!!"
Um, I get it. I wasn't defending the ruling, I was merely pointing out that there was some slant to the article.In fact, I couldn't make a definitive conclusion based on the very lightly detailed article provided at all. And if you don't believe that this publication has it's own agenda, you are kidding yourself.
whatever, muslim lover.
Post a Comment