Many thanks cold fjord. I have no problem being proven wrong, provided *facts* are used to do it - but sadly Falconhell resorted to the usual "labelling" tactic instead. Reading your posts I think you and I have broad agreement on the state of the World. Thanks for the links you have posted about the Soviet period, I'll watch them with great interest.
The reason I responded was not to disagree, but to expand on cold fjord's point with the experience of Mark Steyn - who you will be entertained by as he simultaneously gives an incisive view on the Inquisatorial nature of the Human Rights "Star Chambers".
I did nothing, so thanks for the sarcasm. I merely provided links to research done by someone else (which it appears you failed to read). I would also suggest you go an look at "The Muslim Brotherhood in America" http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
by Frank Gaffney (who was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence under Reagan, and founder of the Center for Security Policy).
I also suggest you take a look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism's research about the Brotherhood penetration in the White House (which explains why the White House reacts so virulently to calls for investigation - the Obama Administration sees the MB as moderate and agrees with their aims, although the events in the Middle East have forced them to wake up to reality, instead of their deluded dreams of the MB as compatible with Western-style democracy): http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
So, you can be sarcastic if you want. You'd get further if you could refute the references I have provided - but I think you'll find the assertion I made about Huma Abedin is true. The reason she passed a background check is that they don't consider Muslim Brotherhood affiliation as a threat these days (which is insane, but that's the current Democratic party for you).
Now perhaps I'm projecting things too far, but perhaps one of the factors of Huma Abedin marrying Wiener is that he is the perfect cover. Who would suspect her of being a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate when she marries a Jew? They will quickly overlook the fact that her mother, father and brother were *very* active in the Brotherhood, and she also edited a Brotherhood associated magazine for 12 years. Perhaps if the marriage is partially for cover then she wouldn't fulfil matrimonial duties, which leads Wiener to go on his insane twitter rampage. Yes, I could well and probably am wrong about this, but you have to admit it is a possibility. Yes?
Whether Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood agent or not (although looking at the circumstantial evidence, you'll really have to have an agenda to deny it as most probably true) it is clear that she worms her way into positions of influence - first as chief aide of the incompetant Hiliary Clinton, and now urging here husband to go for control over New York. It is no crime to be ambitious, and Abedin is not alone in this. However, if you research her you will see she has been consulting to external countries while working for the State Department. Something is very, very fishy here. I don't ask you to believe me - just do a basic Google on Huma Abedin and her background.
This "unyielding government oversight into every aspect of the life" is Marxist socialism in action, is it not? The West beat the Soviets in terms of economics and geopolitics but the Marxists planted the seed of Cultural Marxism in the universities and culture. The totalitarianism we're seeing is part of the germination of those seeds. Libertarians are specifically for individual rights over the statist agenda (which makes the libertarians out of the left/right political spectrum that is pro big government).
The thoroughly entertaining Mark Steyn refers to the 'Human Rights tribunals' that have sprouted up in the West as 'Star Chambers'. He is right about this too. On the merest accusation of 'offense' being taken they'll interfere with your life and cost you several hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against. They can mete out punishments like 'never able to publish on the subject again' (censorship is 'death' for a writer) and all sorts of damage to ones professional reputation and credibility. If you don't follow the party political line you will be censored using the power of the State. Sound like a 'free speech' society to you? The Human Rights Tribunals enforcing political correctness (which has a more precise technical name, 'Cultural Marxism') just as the Star Chambers enforced religious conformity. The West is going backwards in terms of liberties.
I think the parent wasn't playing partisan politics - he was just pointing out that it has little effect on the voting public. Much to our shame. He's right, the reason these proto-Orwellian laws are getting piled on top of each other is because most people simply don't give a shit, or make the mistake of defending their tribal political position (which in a way you did, without realising it, as part of the 'everyone else is a partisan' tribe).
Um, perhaps you ought to check out a real history book some time. African slavery was run my Muslims. American businessmen were just one of the customers. Even today there is enslavement of Black animist and Christian Africans by Arab Africans in Sudan. Look on YouTube for "Simon Deng" if you want to see the personal testimony of a Sudanese man who escaped his Islamic masters. Sure, the imperialist European powers brought much bad in addition to the enormous good - but let's put the slave situation into historically accurate perspective, please. Especially since slavery still goes on today - and once the Caliphate is re-formed (by the Muslim Brotherhood, and their Salafi, Wahabbi and Al Qaeda mates) and an "Age of Jihad" is formally declared then we'll again see mass slavery again (non-Muslim women being espeicially prized as sex slave concubines with no rights). Saudi Arabia did not ban slavery until 1962 (and it still continues underground). In Britain there have been an epidemic (at least 60 gangs in recent years) of Muslim men deliberately grooming and drugging white British girls (around 12 seems to be the target age group). This article provides background about how slavery is explicitly permitted by Islam (and unlike the Abrahamic faiths) is still considered canon today. Here's an article that discusses the modern Islamic rulings that permit slavery (not just Qur'an 4:3): http://sheikyermami.com/2013/03/23/sex-slaves-are-not-forbidden-by-islam/
"Islam is the religion peace" is another doublespeak from the deluded islamophiles - yet jihad against infidels is commanded for every able bodied male if they can manage it (fortunately the West is too strong at the moment - so there is dispensation for deferring this commandment until a better opportunity).
Well, you can think about it it in realistic terms instead. Even if US adopted economy crushing policies to reduce emissions to insane levels it won't make an iota of difference compared to the 800 coal fired plants that India and China are building or planning. Furthermore, while these coal fired plants undoubtedly raise C02 levels the science of climatic feedback is so poorly understood it is not known whether those will be significant compared to the most significant 'greenhouse gas' - water vapour. In short, you'd be happy to destroy a productive economy for not real gain based on superstition peddled by alarmists. Despite what they say, the science is not settled and as time goes on it appears reality is trending towards the skeptics projections rather than the alarmists ones. You can mod me down for disagreeing with me, but you can't change the data that shows after a spike a decade ago global warming has slowed down to a negligible rate in the Northern Hemisphere and there is cooling in the Southern Hemisphere (where I live). I don't ask you to believe me, I ask you to check the data yourself before calling for deindustrialization.
... and you'd be speaking either Russian, German, Japanese at the moment. Now that America actually *is* withdrawing from the World stage you are about to find out just how much they did do for World stability. Shit is getting real. Syria is an example if the mess that is coming - and once Iran has nukes because of American inaction you'll be pissing your pants hoping the Yanks haul you out of another fine pickle. No, America is not perfect, but at least they believed ins Enlightenment values for everyone (even if the path they walked did not always lead directly to that goal). Now you'll be getting the world you want, where tinpot dictators can brutalize with utter impunity and the crushing weight of giants like China and Russia smack down small countries in far worse ways than the US did. No doubt you'll still blame the US even decades from now, just like the Cultural Marxist 'liberal' indoctrination taught you. Never let reality get in the way, Comrade.
This is how it is, Islam "claims" that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham (YHWH). However, close examination of the scriptures of Islam and the Torah&Bible show that Allah *cannot* be the same as YHWH. For example, Allah is described numerous times as the "greatest of deceivers", while the Torah describes the the God of Abraham as being unable to lie. There are numerous contradictions between Allah and YHWH according to the scriptures. So if YHWH has attributes that are opposite to that those of Allah it means that YHWH and Allah are not the same - and the claim made by Islam is false (just as the claim that Mohammed was a prophet in the Judaic are claimed but also false: the prophets in Abrahamic faiths are descendents of a particular bloodline, and can usually perform miracles - Mohammed does none of these. Mohammed also sets by personal example and teaches many things against Mosaic Law [The Ten Commandments] and the example of Jesus - in fact, you can consider Mohammed to be an 'anti-christ' since the things the hadiths say he did are completely against the example set by Judaism and Christianity [banditry, torture, burning people alive, having a breastfeeding woman pulled limb from limb, ordering assinations, marrying his son's wife, child sex with 9 year old Aisha, keeping slaves and having sex with them, deceptive treaties, worshiping the moon god of his tribe "Il illah", bowing down before the black stone of mecca, etc etc])
So, please understand what is "claimed" by Islam is not the same as what is true about Islam. If you god is the "greatest of deceivers" does that suprise you that so many are misled? The ideology called Islam is simply deceptive and evil. The more you learn about its underpinnings the worse it gets. To bad many simply accept its claims (eg. the wikipedia editors) without investigating whether the claims are true or not. With Islam so many claimed things are lies.
The Government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do with regard to soda. In theory at least, the US Government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. So either the Government must discard the Constitution and can then dictate in minute detail what you can eat, drink and think - or the Constitution holds and the Government can GTFO of your life. Only closest totalitarians want the former.
Loki, you are confusing "claims" they have the same prophets and same god as being the same as "actually" having the same message and god. I've already posted a link that thoroughly debunks the Muslims claim that they worship the God of Abraham - and this debunking is done using Muslims sources. I'll repeat it here for your convenience: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
The OIC has 57 member states from a total of around 193 total UN member states, which works out to around 30%
Let's do the math shall we? People from countries with proportional representation will understand how being the largest voting bloc can be powerful, even if not an absolute majority. Let's say that the UN General Assembly is voting on a resolution. The OIC can command 57 on any issue. That leaves 136 votes. To get a simple majority they need a total of 97 votes in favor. So that means that they have to get 40 votes (29%) out of 136 to get a simple majority. That's a pretty low bar, yeah? In any situation where the non-OIC UN is split 50-50 it means the OIC can always weigh in and tip the scales in their direction. No, the OIC does not always get its way (thank goodness), but on things they care about it does. The HRC is affected the same way by the same calculations. When people see that the HRC condemned some member state for this or that they never understand the political machinations behind it. In fact, the HRC was so discredited that the US refused to legitimize it by being a member. Only under the (pro-Islamist) Obama Administration has the US rejoined the HRC to give it some legitimacy.
I hope that little exposition clears up the maths for you. Does it make sense now? can you now see how "one country, one vote" has been used since 1975 to demonise the US and Israel (as the video I posted shows) achieve the Islamists aims? Can you see why I might like to alert Slashdotters to the issue (although clearly my bad for assuming everyone could do the simple calculations for voting).
Also, the UN makes laws, but they do not go over national laws. It's up to nation states to adopt treaties. States have sovereignty.
I think you are thinking about "non-binding resolutions". Check out "substantive resolutions" that become International Law that UN member states are supposed to uphold.
Thanks for your analysis. However, the "human rights" that Major Stephen Coughlin (Pentagon analysis whose job was to analyse these for over a decade) is talking about is the (Sharia Compliant) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is at opposition to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think you missed that distinction - which is why your analysis is all borked. When you think of "human rights" you are thinking of the UN ones, rather than the OIC's Sharia Cairo ones. That's why your analysis is a fail. Perhaps if you had managed to make it to the end of the video you might of learned more - instead of assuming you already had all the answers. Furthermore, Stephen Coughlin's method of operation is *only* to use sources that Muslims write for Muslims - as these are the only true documents. Documents written by Westerners apologising for Islam or documents written by Muslims for Western consumption are not reliable source documents. This is a lesson Coughlin learned when dealing with the Soviet Union - which he talks about in the video series. Too bad you stopped listening when the discussion contradicted your preconceptions. You would never make a good scientist or military intelligence analyst with such a poor methodology. I hope other Slashdotters watch (to the end!) and make up their own mind. But thanks for at least taking a look at the beginning.
that people are genuinely appalled at Israel's mishandling of Palestine.
Yawn. That's right, the fault always lies with Westerners and Israelis. The Palestinians could never, ever be responsible for their own mess in your own eyes. This is "soft bigotry" at its worst - and another analysis failing of yours. Quick question, in 1948 how many Arab armies attacked Israel simultaneously and what was their publicly stated goal (hint: it begins with 'g' and ends with 'enocide' - all in accordance with hadith Sahih Muslim 6985) ? Do you know any of the history at all?
Nice try aiming to distract the conversation about Israel. My claim is that the OIC not only exists but also also forms the largest single voting bloc in the UN. You have not addressed this. Probably because you can't. It is a fact. And because of this fact we have insane resolutions coming from the UN - like the anti-drone stuff being mulled (which is condemned, because it works too well at killing jihadis). Why did you not even address these points? they were the ones I was making.
So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?
False. I never said that. I said that failing to use drone attacks will result in conversion to Sharia.
Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?
Sharia is creeping in the West already as part of the 'cultural jihad'. Who is doing this? well, the UN for one, with the OIC setting the agenda in the HRC and other agencies. The Holy Land Foundation trial stated that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (who have influence in the OIC) is to sabotage the "miserable West by their own hand". And if you know what to look for they have been very successful so far. Do the research yourself and you will see. Sharia is already in the West. Instead of treating women and men equally the West now kowtows to Muslim demands for separate areas for men and women. Harvard gym excludes men at certain times so Muslim women can exercise. Newspapers now self-censor anything critical to Islam because the editors do not consider it worth their life to publish satirical cartoons. The whole of society is indoctrinated that to "cause offense" is a grave crime that should be a criminal offense - when in a multicultural society it is inevitable that some part of society will be offended by the views of some other part of society. After clear jihad attacks the President of the United States is afraid to use the words Islamic Terrorism and his government departments are *banned* from using that term and many others due to political correctness. In Britain jihadi protestors can threaten to behead westerners for telling the truth yet the police will arrest an 85 year old grandmother for cursing Islam. In at least 23 court cases in the US the Constitution has been pitted against Sharia and the Constitution has yielded thanks to activist judges. It has gotten so bad that Florida and Oklahoma had to pass the ALAC "American Laws for American Courts" bill to stamp the setting of precedents where Sharia trumped native law. Note also that the Obama Regime fought Oklahoma on this - which shows how subverted that Administration is. Sharia is already here, man. It is not total, but creeping. Slowly, slowly the world is being changed around you. You still think you have free speech? well if you are in Sweden or the US or Britain go to your town center and remonstrate against Islam. See how long it is until the police arrest you (hence unwittingly enforcing Sharia). Sharia is imposed in stages (doctrinally it is called the "Milestones " process). We've just got a little bit at the moment. Don't worry, the UN is slowly introducing more. As I attempted to explain for you (google the cases I presented, please).
How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.
I suggest you learn how the UN works. The US veto is for Security Council Resolutions. All sorts of madness passes in the General Assembly, and even more madness in the HRC (now infested by human-rights enemies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea). Sorry dude, with your statement you show you have a terrible understanding of the UN and what is going on in the world. No wonder you don't like my post, you simply have too little information to understand what I'm trying to say. If you have an open mind and follow my posts it would be my pleasure to expand your understanding of the political ideology called Islam, and how the political body called the OIC is using the UN to bypass the democratic safeguards in Free societies.
Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?
It's called "Case Law". By setting a precedent that trumps the Constitution with a Sharia-compatible ruling. This has been used by activists and the US Government for a long time, which allow
I was providing the reason *why* the UN raised this resolution. I was supporting my position with other things that the OIC has induced the UN to do. This is not a "rant". I wish the OIC and UN wasn't doing these things. They are, and it all fits with the OIC's published agenda. I hope some readers appreciate me weaving the related threads together for them. For those that don't like the facts and historical context I present then please skip my posts - but do not censor them (unless you are a hater of facts and Free Speech). Those with open minds will follow my references and decide for themselves whether my posts have factual merit or not.
The reason they are modded up is because I post citations. The citations happen to be links to statistics and facts. You may not like the statistics and facts but it turns out that the scientifically-minded Slashdotters do. I'm not sorry if statistics and facts upset your cosy (but incorrect) worldview. If you disagree with me, then all you have to do is present countering statistics and facts. I will listen, I promise. This is how the Scientific Method works.
Note, while you may consider my post to be "off topic" simply because you have different political views, my post was explaining *why* the UN raised this resolution about drones by providing background. I'm trying to fill in background for those who are interested in how multiple aspects of our modern world are related. Does this explain why the same stuff keeps coming up in my posts - because it *is* all related. The UN HRC 16/18 is related to the OIC is related to 9/11 is related to the Boston Bombing is related to Afghanistan is related to Osama is related to Syria today is related to Israel is related to the United Nations is related to the London murder of Lee Rigby is related to last week's six nights of burning Stockholm is related to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is related to Iran is related to the political goals of the far Left is related to modern history. If this bores you then please simply ignore my posts. But allow the right of me to write facts as I know them and the *even more important* right of Slashdotters to read the citations and reference I provide (and paraphrase for their convenience). Views that are unpopular (like mine) are not necessary incorrect. Please respect that - it is how science gets done.
It's also "against the rules" to deliberately target civilians - yet who takes notice?
Whenever I hear "United Nations" these days I pretty much assume it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that are driving the agenda. They have the largest (57-country) voting bloc, you see, so they can do things like:
Take control of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC): this means barbaric Sharia can kill thousands each year and degrade women and homosexuals in ways against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (refer to: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Slavery is going on *today* in Sudan. Not a peep is said. Yet, a member state is condemned by HRC Resolutions dozens of times for defending its own citizens against terror attacks involving rockets and suicide attacks.
Take control of the UN Refugee Agency: this means that countries are forced to accept waves of Muslims that do not assimilate (this has happened in my country), yet Copts and Assyrians who are under daily attack rarely if ever get refugee status these days
The HRC was able to pass a non-binding resolution (HRC 16/18) that wanted member states to make statements "offensive" to religions (where the religion decides what is "offensive" or not - truth is not protected and may be considered offensive too). This is a fundamental attack against Free Speech (which was why it was amazing that even the thoroughly incompetent Hilliary Clinton co-sponsored it, and as Secretary of State promised to prosecute/"name-and-shame" Americans practicing their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil). Even worse, the HRC 16/18 was just the "thin end of the wedge" and not it has passed an even worse successor is planned.
The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied. Don't think it can happen? it already has. The Free World must dismantle supranational law-making bodies like the UN (and the EU - go UKIP!).
This move is clearly a move by the OIC to prevent Free People from defending themselves with drones against jihadis. The drones have been *very* successful at disrupting the networks so far, which is why the OIC is practicing "lawfare" to get them taken out of the sky. Yes, the drones do occasionally kill the wives and children of jihadis in their compounds. This is bad. However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc).
Drones are good for the defense of Free Peoples against jihadis. Just not in my backyard thanks:)
Here's a little video explaining how the OIC came to grab effective control of the UN with the help of the pro-Communist "Non-Aligned Movement", Yes, anti-Semites, it is produced in Jerusalem, - it just so happens that the Israelis are acutely aware of the UN bias against them (thanks to the OIC, which is faithfully following hadith Sahih Muslim 6985). I assure you this is historically factual, so put away your bias for the four minutes it takes to understand the point I'm trying to make about the United Nations. Thank you:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
Dudes, this stuff matters much much more than the Windows vs Linux or Java vs C# or Apple vs Android wars. To quote, "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you". There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades
I see Qatar regime as progressive by local standards and generally considered their Wahabist affiliations more to appease the public than of actual conviction.
It is Qatar that are paying Hamas to continue their jihad (since many former donors now realise Hamas' genocidal ambitions, a bit late considering it is all laid out in the Hamas' Charter, but better late than never. It is Hamas that is paying for much of the supplies of the Al Nusra Front in Syria (ya know, the local Al Qaeda branch). So I think you are again romantacising Qatar, looking only at what you would like to see rather than what it does. The side effect of a pharmaceutical can be more significant than its intended effect - don't ignore the downsides of drugs nor ideologies.
I hardly consider Obama administration to have fulfilled its promises. While it failed dismally in many areas for its actions to match its rhetoric, I still consider it a minor improvement over the failings of the previous administration.
In terms of supporting liberty the previous Administration had a spotty record, but was actually miles ahead of Obama if you do the research. In terms of geopolitics the Bush Administration was miles better. Bush defeated Saddam (who would have had nuclear weapons by now, and would have killed even more of his Shia and Kurdish minorities through violence or starvation - eg the draining of the southern marshes). It was Bush who destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and allow the use of waterboarding on (only!) three individuals that led to the elimination of Osama. It was Bush who liberated both Iraq and Afghanistan - but instead of cementing a hard won piece (as was done for Germany, Japan and Korea) Obama performed insanely hasty withdrawals simply for his own political benefit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, also used the power of the US to assist Islamicist takeovers (Libya, Egypt and now Syria; Bill C's was in Kosovo). Bush supported allies, while Obama sold them out (which is why Obama has *zero* credibility anymore with its allies). The damage Obama has done to geopolitica stability will take decades to repair. So I don't agree with your statement there. The worst crime Obama committed was siding with the Iranian theocracy in the Green Revolution. The World would be a much much better place today if he had stated the US promotes liberty for everyone everywhere - but he never ever stands up for Enlightenment values in actions (he just talks, his acts are usually supporting the Islamist and international Leftist agenda).
However, the current Islamic world is in disarray. Some may have grand ambitions to make the whole world Islamic, but they are in no shape to execute such ideas.
The Islamic world is indeed rotting within. However, there is enough force of will from the OIC to be a strategic civilizational-level threat. The country that your statement misses is Turkey. Turkey is getting stronger and with Erdogan at the helm is very very dangerous. Look at how they recently banned alcohol. They are regressing - just like second-generation Muslim immigrants are often more regressive and dangerous than the original immigrants (because the later ones never realise how horrible Islam is in practice when it controls society). Also in this paragraph you talk about the crimes of the European imperialists/Christianity. We agree. However you must realise that that was then. Making "moral equivalence" between acts of the past that Europe does not intend to repeat and the acts of Islam that are being repeated daily around the globe is bad - and provides cover for Islam to continue with its same bad actions. Please don't do it.
Yes, just like Infowars.
We agree. I think Infowars is junk and the signal-to-noise ratio is vastly lower than Breitbart/Newsmax (with the fantastic Thomas Sowell)/Frontpage. It is hard to discriminate whether Alex Jones' is simply a loon or it is a false flag disinformation programme
For International analyses, I prefer ForeignPolicy.com. Economist has great analyses on a variety of topics. Their audience is fairly critical and generally compensates any skew. Generally speaking, financial publications have very little tolerance for political noise and propaganda (it costs money to be misinformed) and focus on the numbers and the big picture. London Financial Times and Bloomberg are good in my book.
I too like the Economist. It is good, not perfect, but good. So much so that I carried a subscription for many years.
Al Jazeera are only good by the standards of the Middle East. When they report anything about the Qatari royals (with their Wahabbist leader) they are incredibly biased. The BBC are very left-biased. Their editors are so weak they are often fooled by 'stringers' without even basic fact-checks. This is no wonder given the Cultural Marxism permeating UK universities (I suggest you do your research on 'Cultural Marxism' as I suggested - the West won the political and economic war against Marxism but completely lost the cultural war [originally seeded and funded by the USSR]. This is why you *look* but you do not *see*). Here's an example describing how bad the BBC is: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
On such a sensative matter the BBC printed speculation that matched their agenda, and did not do even rudimentary fact-checking. It is a shame you are oblivious to the political narrative being put forward by the BBC.
OK. Do list some non-political original journalism and analytical work that Breitbart produces. I just went there and it was impossible to glean anything useful. The signal to noise ratio is terrible. If there are occasional jewels, I certainly am not going to waste that much time finding those. I agree that all sites have some noise, but I just don't want to spend time where the balance is not in my favor.
Just like Google, Breitbart is a news aggregator. It also highlights niche stories that the political elites and mainstream media suppress. Breitbart have highlighted the criminal actions of Obama over Benghazi, how Hiliary Clinton's State Department supplied Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda affiliates in Libya and then *lied* about the deaths of an Abassador and SEALs to cover their misdeeds. Since the CIA was against this they released the scandal about Petreus to neuter his opposition. They they knowlingly blamed it on a filmmaker who made an scripturally accurate (http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) film about the evil warlord Mohammed, and threw him in jail despite the First Amendment - where he remains a political prisoner of the Obama regime. Breiutbart also highlighted the criminal actions of Eric Holder and the numerous deaths resulting frrom the Fast n Furious scandal. They also highlight the Muslim Brotherhood operative Huma Abedine's role in the State Department as Hiliary's aide. Breitbart also continue to report the Obama Administration's *tyrannical* use of the IRS and DoJ to target any grassroots political opposition - from convservatives to Jews to internet rights activists. All illegal stuff. Even Peirs Morgan was recently forced to conceed that those struggling to retain their Second Amendment rights actually had a point - because the US Government has become increasingly tyrranical. Breitbart continue to point this out. Do your news sources do this? I guess not. You are living in the Matrix and even someone like me trying to 'lead a horse to water' cannot undo the cultural conditioning you cling to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0
So you *look* at Breitbart but do not *see* no idea at the significance of the scandals it is r
I agree with you that Breitbart is as right biased as Huffington is left. All sources have bias. The tricks is to identify which ones and look for sources with opposite bias so that the truth can be found in the middle. Why I suggested you make Breitbart part of your daily staple is because it will often report facts that are suppressed by US mainstream media (and *especially* by Huffington) and most foreign media too (Al Jazeera, BBC etc). Note, I'm not from the US either - I'm from a minority in the Pacific Rim and my background is a PhD in Astrophysics. I'm not being a 'blowhard', but just as you presented your credentials to show you are reasonable - and I accept them, so I hope you can see why I try and use the Scientific Method when I evaluate Breitbart etc. While Breitbart is definitely biased, and makes many statements I disagree with, it is generally a better source of high-level facts that most of the alternatives. Hence, my recommendation that it should be *among* your (hopefully diverse) sources of information.
rely on non-partisan, international publications that put reporters on the ground, don’t rely on celebrity opinion-makers and personality-cults for ratings, report using statistics, rather than ideologies.
I'm curious as to what this wonderful source is? Please enlighten me. if you say "Al Jazeera" then I'll die laughing.
... Islamophobia...
This word is an instant give-away that a person does not know what is going on in the World or what they are talking about. The word "Islamophobia" was invented by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference) after seeing the success of the word "homophobia". The word was invented so that Islamic supremacists and their apologists could quickly and conveniently demonize opponents before facts and true debate could emerge. Only the ignorant use or take notice of this word. Unfortunately, the ignorance about the doctrines of Islam and its political machinations is staggering, even by most Muslims. If you want to learn more about the subject I suggest you use YouTube to look for Stephen Coughlin - who was a major in the Pentagon who examined the Islamic scriptures for a decade. They started with open minds and looked for evidence that Osama bin Laden was somehow an extremist and had perverted the teachings of Islam. To their great surprise they found that Osama was more consistent with the core doctrines of Islam than most Muslims. If your news sources are not telling you this then perhaps you ought to think about how good your sources are, yes? Anyway, don't use the word "Islamophobia" - it is a political construct that makes no sense in a free society (and as a medical professional I'm sure you understand that "phobia" has a precise meaning, which 'Islamophobia' simply doesn't fit, and that using the word is nonsense).
Dude, consider that this guy has been described by Alan Dershowitz as "Off the charts smart" in comparison to his other Havard peers. Since Cruz is so smart, then how come he makes statements you find that make him sound like a "whack job"? think about it for a bit, please. It turns out that Cruz is telling the truth but the disinformation from the mainstream media is so pervasive that a normal individual like yourself is convinced that those who tell verifiable truth are insane. Rather than suck up more Cultural Marxism (look on YouTube for this term) from the mainstream media perhaps you could instead look at alternative sources like http://frontpagemag.com/ and http://www.breitbart.com/. Please read the articles there every day for a week (at first you'll think its all whacko, but after a few days you will see that they report the truth, admittedly with some right bias, but are far more truthful than the mainstream media). Then you will understand that Cruz is a truth-teller, it is just that you happen to be the Cultural Marxist "Matrix" - so can see the transparent prison walls that are caging your mind. Good luck finding the truth and dispensing with the lies that the Obama Regime and the complicit media are deceiving you with.
I doubt it. You sound like a conservative whose religious thought is in conflict with his libertarian thought. It just an association of political convenience, not philosophical parity. Don't bother with trying to reconcile them.
Don't pretend you know anything about me. Now the reason I sound like "pro-lifers" is because the Scientific Method requires me to listen to countering points of view and see if they have merit. The pro life position has some merit, as does the pro choice one. In the end I come down on the side of the mother while acknowledging that late stage abortions do murder living organisms that are completely defenseless. You probably only get your news from the (left-leaning) mainstream media, but if you ever peruse Breitbart online you will see that some of the later-term aborted babies are able to survive on their own, and must be killed by the abortion doctor otherwise they would probably live. Once you understand this it becomes clear that sanctioning abortion is in some cases sanctioning the murder of completely defenseless humans.
Furthermore, consider the need for the US to import immigrants on a massive scale to keep its aging population in the life style to which they have become accustomed. It turns out that since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation now controls the UN Refugee Agency (and the HRC, and is the largest voting bloc in the General Assembly, and...) that many of the immigrants the US now gets as "refugees" are actually jihadis - meanwhile persecuted Assyrians and Copts are ignored by the UN/OIC. Now, if the US prevented abortion and instead gave money to support these native born Americans instead of using it to fund the lifestyles of the jihadis it is now importing then perhaps America would be on far less of a decline than it is now (although again, if you only listen to mainstream media you would not know any of this - and hence you will disagree).
Slashdot Mirror
Many thanks cold fjord. I have no problem being proven wrong, provided *facts* are used to do it - but sadly Falconhell resorted to the usual "labelling" tactic instead. Reading your posts I think you and I have broad agreement on the state of the World. Thanks for the links you have posted about the Soviet period, I'll watch them with great interest.
The reason I responded was not to disagree, but to expand on cold fjord's point with the experience of Mark Steyn - who you will be entertained by as he simultaneously gives an incisive view on the Inquisatorial nature of the Human Rights "Star Chambers".
I did nothing, so thanks for the sarcasm. I merely provided links to research done by someone else (which it appears you failed to read). I would also suggest you go an look at "The Muslim Brotherhood in America"
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
by Frank Gaffney (who was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence under Reagan, and founder of the Center for Security Policy).
I also suggest you take a look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism's research about the Brotherhood penetration in the White House (which explains why the White House reacts so virulently to calls for investigation - the Obama Administration sees the MB as moderate and agrees with their aims, although the events in the Middle East have forced them to wake up to reality, instead of their deluded dreams of the MB as compatible with Western-style democracy):
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
So, you can be sarcastic if you want. You'd get further if you could refute the references I have provided - but I think you'll find the assertion I made about Huma Abedin is true. The reason she passed a background check is that they don't consider Muslim Brotherhood affiliation as a threat these days (which is insane, but that's the current Democratic party for you).
"His brilliant but hot wife ..."
You do realise that Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, don't you? eg. see
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/more-secrets-from-huma-abedin/
Now perhaps I'm projecting things too far, but perhaps one of the factors of Huma Abedin marrying Wiener is that he is the perfect cover. Who would suspect her of being a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate when she marries a Jew? They will quickly overlook the fact that her mother, father and brother were *very* active in the Brotherhood, and she also edited a Brotherhood associated magazine for 12 years. Perhaps if the marriage is partially for cover then she wouldn't fulfil matrimonial duties, which leads Wiener to go on his insane twitter rampage. Yes, I could well and probably am wrong about this, but you have to admit it is a possibility. Yes?
Whether Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood agent or not (although looking at the circumstantial evidence, you'll really have to have an agenda to deny it as most probably true) it is clear that she worms her way into positions of influence - first as chief aide of the incompetant Hiliary Clinton, and now urging here husband to go for control over New York. It is no crime to be ambitious, and Abedin is not alone in this. However, if you research her you will see she has been consulting to external countries while working for the State Department. Something is very, very fishy here. I don't ask you to believe me - just do a basic Google on Huma Abedin and her background.
This "unyielding government oversight into every aspect of the life" is Marxist socialism in action, is it not? The West beat the Soviets in terms of economics and geopolitics but the Marxists planted the seed of Cultural Marxism in the universities and culture. The totalitarianism we're seeing is part of the germination of those seeds. Libertarians are specifically for individual rights over the statist agenda (which makes the libertarians out of the left/right political spectrum that is pro big government).
The thoroughly entertaining Mark Steyn refers to the 'Human Rights tribunals' that have sprouted up in the West as 'Star Chambers'. He is right about this too. On the merest accusation of 'offense' being taken they'll interfere with your life and cost you several hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against. They can mete out punishments like 'never able to publish on the subject again' (censorship is 'death' for a writer) and all sorts of damage to ones professional reputation and credibility. If you don't follow the party political line you will be censored using the power of the State. Sound like a 'free speech' society to you? The Human Rights Tribunals enforcing political correctness (which has a more precise technical name, 'Cultural Marxism') just as the Star Chambers enforced religious conformity. The West is going backwards in terms of liberties.
I think the parent wasn't playing partisan politics - he was just pointing out that it has little effect on the voting public. Much to our shame. He's right, the reason these proto-Orwellian laws are getting piled on top of each other is because most people simply don't give a shit, or make the mistake of defending their tribal political position (which in a way you did, without realising it, as part of the 'everyone else is a partisan' tribe).
Um, perhaps you ought to check out a real history book some time. African slavery was run my Muslims. American businessmen were just one of the customers. Even today there is enslavement of Black animist and Christian Africans by Arab Africans in Sudan. Look on YouTube for "Simon Deng" if you want to see the personal testimony of a Sudanese man who escaped his Islamic masters. Sure, the imperialist European powers brought much bad in addition to the enormous good - but let's put the slave situation into historically accurate perspective, please. Especially since slavery still goes on today - and once the Caliphate is re-formed (by the Muslim Brotherhood, and their Salafi, Wahabbi and Al Qaeda mates) and an "Age of Jihad" is formally declared then we'll again see mass slavery again (non-Muslim women being espeicially prized as sex slave concubines with no rights). Saudi Arabia did not ban slavery until 1962 (and it still continues underground). In Britain there have been an epidemic (at least 60 gangs in recent years) of Muslim men deliberately grooming and drugging white British girls (around 12 seems to be the target age group). This article provides background about how slavery is explicitly permitted by Islam (and unlike the Abrahamic faiths) is still considered canon today. Here's an article that discusses the modern Islamic rulings that permit slavery (not just Qur'an 4:3):
http://sheikyermami.com/2013/03/23/sex-slaves-are-not-forbidden-by-islam/
"Islam is the religion peace" is another doublespeak from the deluded islamophiles - yet jihad against infidels is commanded for every able bodied male if they can manage it (fortunately the West is too strong at the moment - so there is dispensation for deferring this commandment until a better opportunity).
Well, you can think about it it in realistic terms instead. Even if US adopted economy crushing policies to reduce emissions to insane levels it won't make an iota of difference compared to the 800 coal fired plants that India and China are building or planning. Furthermore, while these coal fired plants undoubtedly raise C02 levels the science of climatic feedback is so poorly understood it is not known whether those will be significant compared to the most significant 'greenhouse gas' - water vapour. In short, you'd be happy to destroy a productive economy for not real gain based on superstition peddled by alarmists. Despite what they say, the science is not settled and as time goes on it appears reality is trending towards the skeptics projections rather than the alarmists ones. You can mod me down for disagreeing with me, but you can't change the data that shows after a spike a decade ago global warming has slowed down to a negligible rate in the Northern Hemisphere and there is cooling in the Southern Hemisphere (where I live). I don't ask you to believe me, I ask you to check the data yourself before calling for deindustrialization.
... and you'd be speaking either Russian, German, Japanese at the moment. Now that America actually *is* withdrawing from the World stage you are about to find out just how much they did do for World stability. Shit is getting real. Syria is an example if the mess that is coming - and once Iran has nukes because of American inaction you'll be pissing your pants hoping the Yanks haul you out of another fine pickle. No, America is not perfect, but at least they believed ins Enlightenment values for everyone (even if the path they walked did not always lead directly to that goal). Now you'll be getting the world you want, where tinpot dictators can brutalize with utter impunity and the crushing weight of giants like China and Russia smack down small countries in far worse ways than the US did. No doubt you'll still blame the US even decades from now, just like the Cultural Marxist 'liberal' indoctrination taught you. Never let reality get in the way, Comrade.
This is how it is, Islam "claims" that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham (YHWH). However, close examination of the scriptures of Islam and the Torah&Bible show that Allah *cannot* be the same as YHWH. For example, Allah is described numerous times as the "greatest of deceivers", while the Torah describes the the God of Abraham as being unable to lie. There are numerous contradictions between Allah and YHWH according to the scriptures. So if YHWH has attributes that are opposite to that those of Allah it means that YHWH and Allah are not the same - and the claim made by Islam is false (just as the claim that Mohammed was a prophet in the Judaic are claimed but also false: the prophets in Abrahamic faiths are descendents of a particular bloodline, and can usually perform miracles - Mohammed does none of these. Mohammed also sets by personal example and teaches many things against Mosaic Law [The Ten Commandments] and the example of Jesus - in fact, you can consider Mohammed to be an 'anti-christ' since the things the hadiths say he did are completely against the example set by Judaism and Christianity [banditry, torture, burning people alive, having a breastfeeding woman pulled limb from limb, ordering assinations, marrying his son's wife, child sex with 9 year old Aisha, keeping slaves and having sex with them, deceptive treaties, worshiping the moon god of his tribe "Il illah", bowing down before the black stone of mecca, etc etc])
So, please understand what is "claimed" by Islam is not the same as what is true about Islam. If you god is the "greatest of deceivers" does that suprise you that so many are misled? The ideology called Islam is simply deceptive and evil. The more you learn about its underpinnings the worse it gets. To bad many simply accept its claims (eg. the wikipedia editors) without investigating whether the claims are true or not. With Islam so many claimed things are lies.
The Government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do with regard to soda. In theory at least, the US Government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. So either the Government must discard the Constitution and can then dictate in minute detail what you can eat, drink and think - or the Constitution holds and the Government can GTFO of your life. Only closest totalitarians want the former.
Loki, you are confusing "claims" they have the same prophets and same god as being the same as "actually" having the same message and god. I've already posted a link that thoroughly debunks the Muslims claim that they worship the God of Abraham - and this debunking is done using Muslims sources. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
The OIC has 57 member states from a total of around 193 total UN member states, which works out to around 30%
Let's do the math shall we? People from countries with proportional representation will understand how being the largest voting bloc can be powerful, even if not an absolute majority. Let's say that the UN General Assembly is voting on a resolution. The OIC can command 57 on any issue. That leaves 136 votes. To get a simple majority they need a total of 97 votes in favor. So that means that they have to get 40 votes (29%) out of 136 to get a simple majority. That's a pretty low bar, yeah? In any situation where the non-OIC UN is split 50-50 it means the OIC can always weigh in and tip the scales in their direction. No, the OIC does not always get its way (thank goodness), but on things they care about it does. The HRC is affected the same way by the same calculations. When people see that the HRC condemned some member state for this or that they never understand the political machinations behind it. In fact, the HRC was so discredited that the US refused to legitimize it by being a member. Only under the (pro-Islamist) Obama Administration has the US rejoined the HRC to give it some legitimacy.
I hope that little exposition clears up the maths for you. Does it make sense now? can you now see how "one country, one vote" has been used since 1975 to demonise the US and Israel (as the video I posted shows) achieve the Islamists aims? Can you see why I might like to alert Slashdotters to the issue (although clearly my bad for assuming everyone could do the simple calculations for voting).
Also, the UN makes laws, but they do not go over national laws. It's up to nation states to adopt treaties. States have sovereignty.
I think you are thinking about "non-binding resolutions". Check out "substantive resolutions" that become International Law that UN member states are supposed to uphold.
Thanks for your analysis. However, the "human rights" that Major Stephen Coughlin (Pentagon analysis whose job was to analyse these for over a decade) is talking about is the (Sharia Compliant) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is at opposition to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think you missed that distinction - which is why your analysis is all borked. When you think of "human rights" you are thinking of the UN ones, rather than the OIC's Sharia Cairo ones. That's why your analysis is a fail. Perhaps if you had managed to make it to the end of the video you might of learned more - instead of assuming you already had all the answers. Furthermore, Stephen Coughlin's method of operation is *only* to use sources that Muslims write for Muslims - as these are the only true documents. Documents written by Westerners apologising for Islam or documents written by Muslims for Western consumption are not reliable source documents. This is a lesson Coughlin learned when dealing with the Soviet Union - which he talks about in the video series. Too bad you stopped listening when the discussion contradicted your preconceptions. You would never make a good scientist or military intelligence analyst with such a poor methodology. I hope other Slashdotters watch (to the end!) and make up their own mind. But thanks for at least taking a look at the beginning.
that people are genuinely appalled at Israel's mishandling of Palestine.
Yawn. That's right, the fault always lies with Westerners and Israelis. The Palestinians could never, ever be responsible for their own mess in your own eyes. This is "soft bigotry" at its worst - and another analysis failing of yours. Quick question, in 1948 how many Arab armies attacked Israel simultaneously and what was their publicly stated goal (hint: it begins with 'g' and ends with 'enocide' - all in accordance with hadith Sahih Muslim 6985) ? Do you know any of the history at all?
Nice try aiming to distract the conversation about Israel. My claim is that the OIC not only exists but also also forms the largest single voting bloc in the UN. You have not addressed this. Probably because you can't. It is a fact. And because of this fact we have insane resolutions coming from the UN - like the anti-drone stuff being mulled (which is condemned, because it works too well at killing jihadis). Why did you not even address these points? they were the ones I was making.
So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?
False. I never said that. I said that failing to use drone attacks will result in conversion to Sharia.
Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?
Sharia is creeping in the West already as part of the 'cultural jihad'. Who is doing this? well, the UN for one, with the OIC setting the agenda in the HRC and other agencies. The Holy Land Foundation trial stated that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (who have influence in the OIC) is to sabotage the "miserable West by their own hand". And if you know what to look for they have been very successful so far. Do the research yourself and you will see. Sharia is already in the West. Instead of treating women and men equally the West now kowtows to Muslim demands for separate areas for men and women. Harvard gym excludes men at certain times so Muslim women can exercise. Newspapers now self-censor anything critical to Islam because the editors do not consider it worth their life to publish satirical cartoons. The whole of society is indoctrinated that to "cause offense" is a grave crime that should be a criminal offense - when in a multicultural society it is inevitable that some part of society will be offended by the views of some other part of society. After clear jihad attacks the President of the United States is afraid to use the words Islamic Terrorism and his government departments are *banned* from using that term and many others due to political correctness. In Britain jihadi protestors can threaten to behead westerners for telling the truth yet the police will arrest an 85 year old grandmother for cursing Islam. In at least 23 court cases in the US the Constitution has been pitted against Sharia and the Constitution has yielded thanks to activist judges. It has gotten so bad that Florida and Oklahoma had to pass the ALAC "American Laws for American Courts" bill to stamp the setting of precedents where Sharia trumped native law. Note also that the Obama Regime fought Oklahoma on this - which shows how subverted that Administration is. Sharia is already here, man. It is not total, but creeping. Slowly, slowly the world is being changed around you. You still think you have free speech? well if you are in Sweden or the US or Britain go to your town center and remonstrate against Islam. See how long it is until the police arrest you (hence unwittingly enforcing Sharia). Sharia is imposed in stages (doctrinally it is called the "Milestones " process). We've just got a little bit at the moment. Don't worry, the UN is slowly introducing more. As I attempted to explain for you (google the cases I presented, please).
How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.
I suggest you learn how the UN works. The US veto is for Security Council Resolutions. All sorts of madness passes in the General Assembly, and even more madness in the HRC (now infested by human-rights enemies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea). Sorry dude, with your statement you show you have a terrible understanding of the UN and what is going on in the world. No wonder you don't like my post, you simply have too little information to understand what I'm trying to say. If you have an open mind and follow my posts it would be my pleasure to expand your understanding of the political ideology called Islam, and how the political body called the OIC is using the UN to bypass the democratic safeguards in Free societies.
Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?
It's called "Case Law". By setting a precedent that trumps the Constitution with a Sharia-compatible ruling. This has been used by activists and the US Government for a long time, which allow
I was providing the reason *why* the UN raised this resolution. I was supporting my position with other things that the OIC has induced the UN to do. This is not a "rant". I wish the OIC and UN wasn't doing these things. They are, and it all fits with the OIC's published agenda. I hope some readers appreciate me weaving the related threads together for them. For those that don't like the facts and historical context I present then please skip my posts - but do not censor them (unless you are a hater of facts and Free Speech). Those with open minds will follow my references and decide for themselves whether my posts have factual merit or not.
The reason they are modded up is because I post citations. The citations happen to be links to statistics and facts. You may not like the statistics and facts but it turns out that the scientifically-minded Slashdotters do. I'm not sorry if statistics and facts upset your cosy (but incorrect) worldview. If you disagree with me, then all you have to do is present countering statistics and facts. I will listen, I promise. This is how the Scientific Method works.
Note, while you may consider my post to be "off topic" simply because you have different political views, my post was explaining *why* the UN raised this resolution about drones by providing background. I'm trying to fill in background for those who are interested in how multiple aspects of our modern world are related. Does this explain why the same stuff keeps coming up in my posts - because it *is* all related. The UN HRC 16/18 is related to the OIC is related to 9/11 is related to the Boston Bombing is related to Afghanistan is related to Osama is related to Syria today is related to Israel is related to the United Nations is related to the London murder of Lee Rigby is related to last week's six nights of burning Stockholm is related to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is related to Iran is related to the political goals of the far Left is related to modern history. If this bores you then please simply ignore my posts. But allow the right of me to write facts as I know them and the *even more important* right of Slashdotters to read the citations and reference I provide (and paraphrase for their convenience). Views that are unpopular (like mine) are not necessary incorrect. Please respect that - it is how science gets done.
It's also "against the rules" to deliberately target civilians - yet who takes notice?
Whenever I hear "United Nations" these days I pretty much assume it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that are driving the agenda. They have the largest (57-country) voting bloc, you see, so they can do things like:
The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied. Don't think it can happen? it already has. The Free World must dismantle supranational law-making bodies like the UN (and the EU - go UKIP!).
This move is clearly a move by the OIC to prevent Free People from defending themselves with drones against jihadis. The drones have been *very* successful at disrupting the networks so far, which is why the OIC is practicing "lawfare" to get them taken out of the sky. Yes, the drones do occasionally kill the wives and children of jihadis in their compounds. This is bad. However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc).
Drones are good for the defense of Free Peoples against jihadis. Just not in my backyard thanks :)
Here's a little video explaining how the OIC came to grab effective control of the UN with the help of the pro-Communist "Non-Aligned Movement", Yes, anti-Semites, it is produced in Jerusalem, - it just so happens that the Israelis are acutely aware of the UN bias against them (thanks to the OIC, which is faithfully following hadith Sahih Muslim 6985). I assure you this is historically factual, so put away your bias for the four minutes it takes to understand the point I'm trying to make about the United Nations. Thank you :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
Dudes, this stuff matters much much more than the Windows vs Linux or Java vs C# or Apple vs Android wars. To quote, "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you". There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades
I see Qatar regime as progressive by local standards and generally considered their Wahabist affiliations more to appease the public than of actual conviction.
It is Qatar that are paying Hamas to continue their jihad (since many former donors now realise Hamas' genocidal ambitions, a bit late considering it is all laid out in the Hamas' Charter, but better late than never. It is Hamas that is paying for much of the supplies of the Al Nusra Front in Syria (ya know, the local Al Qaeda branch). So I think you are again romantacising Qatar, looking only at what you would like to see rather than what it does. The side effect of a pharmaceutical can be more significant than its intended effect - don't ignore the downsides of drugs nor ideologies.
I hardly consider Obama administration to have fulfilled its promises. While it failed dismally in many areas for its actions to match its rhetoric, I still consider it a minor improvement over the failings of the previous administration.
In terms of supporting liberty the previous Administration had a spotty record, but was actually miles ahead of Obama if you do the research. In terms of geopolitics the Bush Administration was miles better. Bush defeated Saddam (who would have had nuclear weapons by now, and would have killed even more of his Shia and Kurdish minorities through violence or starvation - eg the draining of the southern marshes). It was Bush who destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and allow the use of waterboarding on (only!) three individuals that led to the elimination of Osama. It was Bush who liberated both Iraq and Afghanistan - but instead of cementing a hard won piece (as was done for Germany, Japan and Korea) Obama performed insanely hasty withdrawals simply for his own political benefit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, also used the power of the US to assist Islamicist takeovers (Libya, Egypt and now Syria; Bill C's was in Kosovo). Bush supported allies, while Obama sold them out (which is why Obama has *zero* credibility anymore with its allies). The damage Obama has done to geopolitica stability will take decades to repair. So I don't agree with your statement there. The worst crime Obama committed was siding with the Iranian theocracy in the Green Revolution. The World would be a much much better place today if he had stated the US promotes liberty for everyone everywhere - but he never ever stands up for Enlightenment values in actions (he just talks, his acts are usually supporting the Islamist and international Leftist agenda).
However, the current Islamic world is in disarray. Some may have grand ambitions to make the whole world Islamic, but they are in no shape to execute such ideas.
The Islamic world is indeed rotting within. However, there is enough force of will from the OIC to be a strategic civilizational-level threat. The country that your statement misses is Turkey. Turkey is getting stronger and with Erdogan at the helm is very very dangerous. Look at how they recently banned alcohol. They are regressing - just like second-generation Muslim immigrants are often more regressive and dangerous than the original immigrants (because the later ones never realise how horrible Islam is in practice when it controls society). Also in this paragraph you talk about the crimes of the European imperialists/Christianity. We agree. However you must realise that that was then. Making "moral equivalence" between acts of the past that Europe does not intend to repeat and the acts of Islam that are being repeated daily around the globe is bad - and provides cover for Islam to continue with its same bad actions. Please don't do it.
Yes, just like Infowars.
We agree. I think Infowars is junk and the signal-to-noise ratio is vastly lower than Breitbart/Newsmax (with the fantastic Thomas Sowell)/Frontpage. It is hard to discriminate whether Alex Jones' is simply a loon or it is a false flag disinformation programme
For International analyses, I prefer ForeignPolicy.com. Economist has great analyses on a variety of topics. Their audience is fairly critical and generally compensates any skew. Generally speaking, financial publications have very little tolerance for political noise and propaganda (it costs money to be misinformed) and focus on the numbers and the big picture. London Financial Times and Bloomberg are good in my book.
I too like the Economist. It is good, not perfect, but good. So much so that I carried a subscription for many years.
Al Jazeera are only good by the standards of the Middle East. When they report anything about the Qatari royals (with their Wahabbist leader) they are incredibly biased. The BBC are very left-biased. Their editors are so weak they are often fooled by 'stringers' without even basic fact-checks. This is no wonder given the Cultural Marxism permeating UK universities (I suggest you do your research on 'Cultural Marxism' as I suggested - the West won the political and economic war against Marxism but completely lost the cultural war [originally seeded and funded by the USSR]. This is why you *look* but you do not *see*). Here's an example describing how bad the BBC is: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
On such a sensative matter the BBC printed speculation that matched their agenda, and did not do even rudimentary fact-checking. It is a shame you are oblivious to the political narrative being put forward by the BBC.
OK. Do list some non-political original journalism and analytical work that Breitbart produces. I just went there and it was impossible to glean anything useful. The signal to noise ratio is terrible. If there are occasional jewels, I certainly am not going to waste that much time finding those. I agree that all sites have some noise, but I just don't want to spend time where the balance is not in my favor.
Just like Google, Breitbart is a news aggregator. It also highlights niche stories that the political elites and mainstream media suppress. Breitbart have highlighted the criminal actions of Obama over Benghazi, how Hiliary Clinton's State Department supplied Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda affiliates in Libya and then *lied* about the deaths of an Abassador and SEALs to cover their misdeeds. Since the CIA was against this they released the scandal about Petreus to neuter his opposition. They they knowlingly blamed it on a filmmaker who made an scripturally accurate (http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) film about the evil warlord Mohammed, and threw him in jail despite the First Amendment - where he remains a political prisoner of the Obama regime. Breiutbart also highlighted the criminal actions of Eric Holder and the numerous deaths resulting frrom the Fast n Furious scandal. They also highlight the Muslim Brotherhood operative Huma Abedine's role in the State Department as Hiliary's aide. Breitbart also continue to report the Obama Administration's *tyrannical* use of the IRS and DoJ to target any grassroots political opposition - from convservatives to Jews to internet rights activists. All illegal stuff. Even Peirs Morgan was recently forced to conceed that those struggling to retain their Second Amendment rights actually had a point - because the US Government has become increasingly tyrranical. Breitbart continue to point this out. Do your news sources do this? I guess not. You are living in the Matrix and even someone like me trying to 'lead a horse to water' cannot undo the cultural conditioning you cling to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0
So you *look* at Breitbart but do not *see* no idea at the significance of the scandals it is r
I agree with you that Breitbart is as right biased as Huffington is left. All sources have bias. The tricks is to identify which ones and look for sources with opposite bias so that the truth can be found in the middle. Why I suggested you make Breitbart part of your daily staple is because it will often report facts that are suppressed by US mainstream media (and *especially* by Huffington) and most foreign media too (Al Jazeera, BBC etc). Note, I'm not from the US either - I'm from a minority in the Pacific Rim and my background is a PhD in Astrophysics. I'm not being a 'blowhard', but just as you presented your credentials to show you are reasonable - and I accept them, so I hope you can see why I try and use the Scientific Method when I evaluate Breitbart etc. While Breitbart is definitely biased, and makes many statements I disagree with, it is generally a better source of high-level facts that most of the alternatives. Hence, my recommendation that it should be *among* your (hopefully diverse) sources of information.
rely on non-partisan, international publications that put reporters on the ground, don’t rely on celebrity opinion-makers and personality-cults for ratings, report using statistics, rather than ideologies.
I'm curious as to what this wonderful source is? Please enlighten me. if you say "Al Jazeera" then I'll die laughing.
... Islamophobia ...
This word is an instant give-away that a person does not know what is going on in the World or what they are talking about. The word "Islamophobia" was invented by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference) after seeing the success of the word "homophobia". The word was invented so that Islamic supremacists and their apologists could quickly and conveniently demonize opponents before facts and true debate could emerge. Only the ignorant use or take notice of this word. Unfortunately, the ignorance about the doctrines of Islam and its political machinations is staggering, even by most Muslims. If you want to learn more about the subject I suggest you use YouTube to look for Stephen Coughlin - who was a major in the Pentagon who examined the Islamic scriptures for a decade. They started with open minds and looked for evidence that Osama bin Laden was somehow an extremist and had perverted the teachings of Islam. To their great surprise they found that Osama was more consistent with the core doctrines of Islam than most Muslims. If your news sources are not telling you this then perhaps you ought to think about how good your sources are, yes? Anyway, don't use the word "Islamophobia" - it is a political construct that makes no sense in a free society (and as a medical professional I'm sure you understand that "phobia" has a precise meaning, which 'Islamophobia' simply doesn't fit, and that using the word is nonsense).
Dude, consider that this guy has been described by Alan Dershowitz as "Off the charts smart" in comparison to his other Havard peers. Since Cruz is so smart, then how come he makes statements you find that make him sound like a "whack job"? think about it for a bit, please. It turns out that Cruz is telling the truth but the disinformation from the mainstream media is so pervasive that a normal individual like yourself is convinced that those who tell verifiable truth are insane. Rather than suck up more Cultural Marxism (look on YouTube for this term) from the mainstream media perhaps you could instead look at alternative sources like http://frontpagemag.com/ and http://www.breitbart.com/. Please read the articles there every day for a week (at first you'll think its all whacko, but after a few days you will see that they report the truth, admittedly with some right bias, but are far more truthful than the mainstream media). Then you will understand that Cruz is a truth-teller, it is just that you happen to be the Cultural Marxist "Matrix" - so can see the transparent prison walls that are caging your mind. Good luck finding the truth and dispensing with the lies that the Obama Regime and the complicit media are deceiving you with.
I doubt it. You sound like a conservative whose religious thought is in conflict with his libertarian thought. It just an association of political convenience, not philosophical parity. Don't bother with trying to reconcile them.
Don't pretend you know anything about me. Now the reason I sound like "pro-lifers" is because the Scientific Method requires me to listen to countering points of view and see if they have merit. The pro life position has some merit, as does the pro choice one. In the end I come down on the side of the mother while acknowledging that late stage abortions do murder living organisms that are completely defenseless. You probably only get your news from the (left-leaning) mainstream media, but if you ever peruse Breitbart online you will see that some of the later-term aborted babies are able to survive on their own, and must be killed by the abortion doctor otherwise they would probably live. Once you understand this it becomes clear that sanctioning abortion is in some cases sanctioning the murder of completely defenseless humans.
Furthermore, consider the need for the US to import immigrants on a massive scale to keep its aging population in the life style to which they have become accustomed. It turns out that since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation now controls the UN Refugee Agency (and the HRC, and is the largest voting bloc in the General Assembly, and ...) that many of the immigrants the US now gets as "refugees" are actually jihadis - meanwhile persecuted Assyrians and Copts are ignored by the UN/OIC. Now, if the US prevented abortion and instead gave money to support these native born Americans instead of using it to fund the lifestyles of the jihadis it is now importing then perhaps America would be on far less of a decline than it is now (although again, if you only listen to mainstream media you would not know any of this - and hence you will disagree).