Slashdot Mirror

Implying that's happened before? Israel warned AGAINST the Iraq war. It was bush, NOT Israel, that cried wolf. Please stop repeating that tired old big lie first conjured up by Arafat.

Careful. You're liable to get modded down by someone.

While there's some truth to what Obama says about being having so much information that it becomes a distraction (similar comments have been made about disclosure overload: everyone writes incredibly long, boring, impossible-to-parse "terms of service", "EULA", and other bits attached to products...), the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."

Obama's political opponents flourish in certain media. So it's in his best interest (while being rather divorced from honesty and reality) for him to call them names and tar them as "unreliable." Likewise, the media sections that do love Obama - such as the alphabet-soup media - are more than happy to not cover certain stories. And this follows from all walks of life, just not Obama. For instance, let's take the Israeli/Palestinian bit.

Did you know that within a week of signing the Oslo Accords, Yassir Arafat was back on Palestinian radio, comparing the Oslo Agreement to the Truce of Medina (whereby Mohammed the "prophet" entered into a 10-year truce, then broke it two years later because he figured his army was now big enough to win), calling Oslo "the great deception"? No? Why not? Probably because the alphabet-soup media was, at the time, invested in Oslo.

Did you know that the Waqf, the Palestinian "authority" on the squatter's mosque at "Al Aqsa", have been deliberately excavating and destroying irreplaceable archaeological artifacts from beneath the site? And why not? Again, the story's been buried.

Take the recent terrorist attack at Times Square. At 5pm that day, I was listening to ABC News, when they announced the search was on for a "40 year old white male" at the urging of the Obama administration. Whoops! You can find plenty of coverage of media spokesboobs talking about how they "didn't want" it to be what it clearly is: another taliban-type attack.

Information can indeed be distraction, but just as important is realizing that bias expresses itself in many forms. You can tag certain things with certain words - I freely admit I consider the Waqf to be illegitimate, from studying the history of the squatter's mosque, but others can freely feel differently. You can write tilted stories that blatantly misuse or misrepresent statistics. You can write "statistics" that have almost no connection to reality, due to bad sampling or tilted questions, and then quote them in a seemingly "neutral" piece "covering" the survey results. Or you can just bury a story entirely. Anyone who trusts one side's media or the other, exclusively, is setting themselves up for trouble.

Exodus 34, 11-14. Leviticus 26, 7-9. Deuteronomy 2, 21-24. Deuteronomy 2, 26-25. Deuteronomy 7, 1-2. Joshua 6, 21. Joshua 10, 40-41. Most of Joshua, in fact. 1 Samuel 27, 8-9.

Hmm, seems all to be Old Testament to me.

Tell me, how many self-style Christians have you seen over the years beheading captives on TV?

You know, "striking at the neck":

8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

and

47.4: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them

So tell me, Einstein, which behavoirs do we see paraded around TODAY?

Is it the Old Testament ones you called attention to, or the KORANIC ones I've quoted above?

Got the balls to post a one-word answer to that question?

Why am I guessing the answer is a resounding chicken-shit "NO!"?

Got the guts to explain what happened to Theo Van Gogh?

Care to research the threat that Abdul Rahman lives under in Afghanistan?

Ummm, is that another chickenshit "No"?

Let's turn now to the pillars of Islam. The Sunni define five pillars of Islam: faith, prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. I notice very little in the way of genocide in there. Also, in light of any controlling authority over Islam as a whole, I would point out that interpretations of both the meaning of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam vary widely - but I will note that generally speaking most Muslims are of the opinion that anywhere a Muslim can live freely and follow his faith is part of Dar al-Islam.

Maybe so, but even if "most" Muslims agree with that characterization, there could still be literally hundreds of millions that adhere to a genocidal view of kaffirs daring to live in what was once dar al-Islam deserve to be, ummm, "wiped off the map".

Yeah, I know. It's hard to believe that's possible: someone openly stating that it's a goal to actually "wipe" an entire country, consisting of millions of people, entirely "off the map". Can you imagine how dangerous such a fundamentalist-Islamic-motivated person could be if he were to come to significant power to the point of actually being able to "wipe" an entire country "off the map"?

And considering that some polls reveal vast number of Muslims openly admit to supporting suicide attacks, I think it's safe to say that there's a good chance that a significant majority of Muslims at least tacitly support suicide attacks.

Scary, isn't it?

Lastly, once again, can you provide a citation from any vaguely organised group of Muslims who wish to reconquer Spain, please? Or would that puncture your rather one-sided view?

You didn't even bother looking for yourself, did you?

Good grief, the fact that you could be so damn ignorant about a belief that's utterly common in Islam is quite an indictment of your sheltered existence, isn't it?

Because calls for the retaking of al-Andulus have been going on for, ohhhh, about 500 years or so.

Is Al Qaeda loosely organized enough for you?

How about HAMAS?

How about all these "mainstream" Muslim clerics?

You sure seem to have an ignorant image of what goes on inside the world of Islam. Ever see

One big problem with a lot of these so-called news sites is that they imply that there is some sort of a global conspiracy on to somehow subjugate the Hindus.

You mean like the BBC (which is usually leftist pro-Islamist), and buffalo.edu, and rediff?Whose pot have you been smoking dude? I never quoted any sites with a possibility of partisanship, not without qualification. I restrict to scholarly papers and reliable articles on the subject, citing views and opinions violently censored by the lefties running India today.

Since you mention "Conspiracy Theories", did you know that it is the left wing hate rag (misidentifying itself as) the "Dalit Voice" that routinely touts anti-Semitic Conspiracy theories in India? DId you know that they equate Hindus with Jews and call both slime? Did you know that their leader, a hatemonger named VT Rajshekhar, sells copies of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (an infamous anti-Semitic conspiracy hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_ Elders_of_Zion)

Did you know that Muslim newspapers like "Slasat" and "Milligazette" routinely claim that there is a "vast global conspiracy" of Hindus and Zionist bankers to "secretly take over the world" (in the style of the infamous anti-Semitic forgery the protocols of the learned elders of Zion)? Did you know that Evangelical missionaries, inspired by the protocols, are circulating forged documents alleging that RSS is secretly controlling the government in India?

Did you know that Communists on Indian television routinely "compare" Jews to Hindus, calling both "Filthy" "Lazy" and "Greedy"? Here is an article by Professor Nathan Katz at Florida International University, Miami about it (http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm), note the paragraph:

During my last stay in India I was watching television one night. I tuned in a bit late and heard a person in a discussion program saying: 'The Jews are just like the Brahmins.' I smiled until he continued, saying that: 'The Brahmins are as bad as the Jews. They are bloodsuckers like the Jews and a blight on humanity.' Then I saw that his name was framed at the bottom of the screen and that he was one of the leaders of the Communist party. It was Marx's essay on the Jewish question that he was spouting back and applying to the Brahmins.

So Communists are the real Nazi bigots, not Hindus.

They believe that a lot of people are now part of this conspiracy.

There is no conspiracy in the sense that there is no great secrecy. The India-bashing lobbies operate quite openly. You should read reports by the (non-Hindu) American Jewish Committee (http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/11/17/pane lPromotesUnderstanding)

How about the Simon Weisenthal Center in the United States? No Hindus there either. They studied and endorsed the HAF report (reported here, a non-NRI site http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2006/07/18/was hingtondc-second-annual-report-on-hindu-human-righ ts-released)
that clearly shows that Hindus are being heavily and mercilessly persecuted. Read the full damn report here (http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/reports.ht m#hhr2005).

What "Conspiracy Theory"? There is no conspiracy. It's all being done quite openly. Numerous anti-hindu forces, the leftists, Islamists and some radical Evangelical missionaries, have come together to persecute Hindus.

About the Godhra massacre - many of the so-called leftist news sites which you claim to ha

So um from your stop the war site,(http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/about.php) just exactly what does "Justice for Palestine " look like, and what the $%@$%# does it have to do with invading Iraq for oil?
Is it anything like what Muslims around the world call for daily?

("The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'")
43. Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, pp. 2238-2239; Sahih Bukhari, vol. 3, p. 1070, no. 276, and p. 1316, no. 3398; Sahih Ibn Hibban, vol. 15, p. 217, no. 6806, and others.

If it is the the total destruction and removal of a race, and total religious and political domination by Islam through a violent and bloody war. I would say that your views don't match what you are saying, and you are supporting the most extreme and oppressive ideology that has ever crossed our planets surface.

Either you are Dhimmi, or practicing Taqiyya. http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-marcus-crook-f05.htm

Go back to that page that gives that pleaseant description of Ahmed Rami, take note how it implies that Hitler's regime was legitimate. And sweet Allah, Hiter is painted as Muslim. Why as a fellow Muslim, Hiter sure sounds like the ideal Muslim man to me... or not!

Now, go have a thorough look at that site, you'll see the Jews are the enemy and, apparently, the Holocaust never happened... there is a huge difference between Germany and France's anti-semitism/anti-Nazism laws when compared to China's censorship laws. As an analogy, think of all the laws in the U.S. granting black wo/men rights, when preceding laws did not specifically forbid such rights... that is except for the tons of Jim Crow laws. The laws bar Jim Crow laws and explicitly grant rights for those idiots it was not already clear. Thus, in modern day Germany and France there are laws against Nazism and anti-semitism to prevent its rise and to serve as a declatory statement: "That is no longer us". Of course, discrimination against blacks has not disappeared (nowhere near), and certainly anti-semitism in France and Germany has not disappeared. In both cases, the laws help the situation.

What China is doing is simple fascism. I, personally, can't eloquate the difference between "good" censorship or "bad" censorship, but I bet Google (and the average person) can easily tell them apart. Did you notice Google making a big PR statement with censorship in France and Germany? No, because Google knows, and the public knows, there is a difference with the censorship in China. The inability to find pro-Nazi stuff isn't going to hurt you much, but the inability to see entire aspects of your life from a critical angle is going to really suck... Google is stifling freedom to useful information.

How will Google solve its problem of ethics versus bucks? No idea, but for now it seems it has found a suitable compromise to itself and its shareholders. But please, for fuck's sake, lose the "Do No Evil" and the PR about how things are just dandy...

OK, I'll make one last reply. Before anyone tells me, yes, I'm feeding the trolls. Sorry!

you claim that Palestinians only want to remove Israel. if they did not, Israel would embrace them with open arms.

i show and document that the opposite is true. Israel wants to remove the Palestinians from their land and expand it's borders. it set up settlements in the W.Bank, which needed military protection, so occupation was justified. i showed you the hard numbers as proof. Israel wants no more ethnic Arabs inside it's borders, because that would mean the end of a Jewish national state.

These positions are not opposite. They are both true and therefore not contradictory. Israel wants to distance themselves (literally) from the killers of Palestine. To argue by introducing a flawed presumption is dishonest. (You did that with the "open arms" reference, too. I never said that. There's too much hatred to get over first.)

And be careful when you try to justify strapping bombs on 12 year old boys to go kill innocents...
i did not refer to any 12 year olds. that is a straw man argument.

No strawman there... You attempted to justify Palestinian violence. That is an example of Palestinian violence. True, it's not the usual flavor of Palestinian violence. Most of their bombers tend to be of legal age. But it is a legitimate incident to bring up because it is part and parcel consistent with the MO of Palestinian terror. Remove the age reference, and it's pretty much identical to hundreds of other bombings. I will give you one point. The child wasn't 12. He was 14.

You just might come out looking like an ass. Your style of argument certainly does that for you.
you calling me an ass does not make me one. again, vulgarity.

I didn't call you an ass. I suggested those that attempt to justify Palestinian violence look like asses. I also suggested that your argument makes you look like an ass. Is it mildly vulgar? Absolutely. It's still pretty tame, though. Come on, you can find something better to bitch about. (Ohhh! More vulgarity! ;) Interesting how your complaint about my mild vulgarity is positioned so prominently in your rebuttal...

it has nothing to do with their leaders. people usually choose as leaders those who they think share their beliefs and best represent them. maybe they think that because of Israel's policy they have no normal future:

Are you suggesting Palestinians vote for their leaders? Yes, technically they do, but I would suggest PNA elections aren't nearly as democratic as US or Western European democracies. Was Arafat opposed in the election? (I truly don't know.) Oh yes, Arafat... A known killer. I would also suggest that any constituency that would elect Arafat is morally bankrupt for some reason. Or perhaps the elections were kind of like the iraqis electing Saddam year after year? I do not know enough about them to suggest the PNA elections are a farce, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The PNA was the PLO, for crying out loud...

But can you really justify their actions?
but can you justify the following:

You side-stepped the question. As for the incidents you bring up, they are unfortunate, but they are all one-offs. They are not examples of standard MO's. I can find many instances of rape and murder in any town in the US, but that is not the normal experience for most US citizens. Your examples don't mean anything in the big picture (unlike my bomber reference, except, as I mentioned, the age of the bomber).

If so, you are as morally bankrupt as those that use terror for political gain. (Which is truly ironic... Are the Palestinians better off for terrorism? No, and that's my point.)

what is their alternative to terrorism?
if they give up, they

• General news
• • Drudge Report
  • Google News
  • Jerusalem Post
  • JCPA Daily Alert (a thorough digest of world terrorism-related news, with links)
• News/commentary/multimedia
• • Rush Limbaugh, includes about an hour of free audio clips, updated daily
  • Arutz Sheva (Channel Seven) news - on-demand video
  • Arutz Sheva talk shows - on-demand audio (most popular is "Mid-East at the Crossroads")
  • Foundation for the Defense of Democracy - news and views
• War for Peace
• • the brain terminal
  • the dissident frogman (required reading for the French)
• Tech
• • /.
  • MozillaZine
  • Win Informant
  • MozillaNews' Bonsai Watch (a better alternative to using Bugzilla to see the most recent checkins)
• Search
• • Google
  • Dictionary.com
  • Bible Gateway

It's time to move in before the situation gets worse. We can opt for x casualties now or possibly x^y casualties later in a nuclear war. It is not in our power to say "Yes war" or "No war." War is here. The question before us is: Will we defend ourselves or be conquered?

This is not wild propaganda. We are fighting against the Anybody But America (& allies) coalition. (Like Microsoft is opposed by the Anything But Microsoft coalition: Oracle, Netscape, Sun, IBM, AOL.) They are different, but they have a common opponent. This unites them. They do have solidarity in this respect. Muslims have declared their intent to turn Great Britain into an Islamic country. In recent days, they've declared their intent to terrorize Australia. They want to destroy America and Israel. They're not even satisfied with "moderate" Muslim countries like Indonesia. No non-Islamic/Wahabi country is safe. They're out for world domination.

The enemy's definition of peace is our destruction. Therefore, we have no choice but to make our definition of peace their destruction. To them, terrorism is worship, and jihad is the highest sanctification of life. (See the "Jihad for Kids" video I linked to in my previous post.)

Read the Daily Alert. Very informative. I signed up for the e-mail newsletter.

The commercials neglect a much better way of financing terrorists. Own a car? If you do, then you are giving more money to "terrorists and the countries that harbor them" than by smoking the occasional joint. I wonder what Ford or GM would think of that commercial?

"I helped kill a Jew! - I drove my SUV to work today and didn't carpool."