Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on September 11, 2006, 10:08:54 AM
-
For those of you still interested in what the Muslim reaction was to 9/11, Memri has put together a 43 minute video documentary narrated by Ron Silver and PDF entitled "The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11 5 years later"
Here is the link to the PDF (http://www.memrifilms.org/files/9-11-FULL.pdf)
Here is the link to the video (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233961&ak=null)
If you have difficulty opening up the video, go to windows media player. click on FILE, OPEN URL, then Paste the following in: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233961&ak=null
and click OK
I've found that works when just clicking doesn't.
- SEAGOON
-
thanks for the link sir .. watching it now .. was this on television? it should be
-
I watched just over half of it. I imagine the rest is more of the same. It's no surprise that many middle easterners believe 9/11 was a US/Zionist conspiracy when many Europeans and even Americans believe it also. People believe what they want and it's sad what so many want to believe.
-
Thanks Seagoon
-
I watched about 30 minutes of this. Simply rediculous imo. How many times on tape has bin-Laden admitted to planning the 9-11 operation?
-
Hi Eagler,
Originally posted by Eagler
thanks for the link sir .. watching it now .. was this on television? it should be
No, it definitely would not fit into the image that our media is trying to project of the middle east, and would interfere with peddling the "we (and the Israelis) are the problem" answer especially when you have state run TV stations in the Middle East running "9/11 retrospectives" saying things like:
"There are many events like these in American History. It has been proven that the Japanese Military attack on Pearl Harbor and on the American warships was planned in advance and implemented with the authorization, support, and encouragement of US President Roosevelt. They needed a pretext such as this to enter World War 2, and in order to effect public opinion so it would give its consent to enter the war. The exact same thing happened on 9/11."
When someone hates you enough to actually believe garbage like the above, rather than obvious truth that Al-Qaeda planned and executed the 9/11 surprise attacks and Yamamoto planned the Pearl Harbor surprise attack which was exectured by the IJN, you have people who are not going to be "reasoned with."
My favorite though was that the attacks were planned by the US as an excuse to carry out a directive from the World Council of Churches (and incredibly liberal organization, which is on record as against the War in Iraq and the "war on terror" generally) to Christianize the Middle East and wipe out Islam. Apparently we are doing a terrible job of implementing that "secret directive" to date.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Elfie,
Originally posted by Elfie
I watched about 30 minutes of this. Simply rediculous imo. How many times on tape has bin-Laden admitted to planning the 9-11 operation?
Simply ridiculous maybe, but an incredibly prevalent view in the Middle East. They do have a couple of excellent interviews at the end in which Professors in Muslim countries openly complain about the pushing of these conspiracy theories in Universities and by governments.
What's interesting is the simultaneous juxtaposition of "This was all just a Mossad and/or CIA operation" with "We love Martyrdom operations" in other words. We refuse to believe that Al Qaeda did it, but we are very happy and proud and happy that it happened, but unhappy that it created the "pretext" for the invasion of Muslim lands. America, all wrong, all the time.
- SEAGOON
-
I won't watch it and I am fresh out of rats a**es to care what any Muslim thinks of 9/11. Piss on em, they aren't worth the effort. "Their silent majority" tells me ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
-
I watched the whole thing. Very little of it surprised me.
-
I see Seagoon is behaving like a true christian.
People who make statements like that generally have no real idea what it means to be a Christian.
As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with Seagoon's post. He isn't being hateful, just posted a link to a video/pdf that shows what some folks think of 9-11. The people in that video are no more rediculous than some of the posters on this bbs that believe 9-11 was a conspiracy. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
Since this is the 5th anniversary of that fateful and awful day, I think it was appropriate for him to show us what some others think about it.
-
The readiness of people to believe that a former colonel in the IDF, who for 5 years ran the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, is presenting them with an accurate view of Arab opinion is amazing.
I'm sure anyone posting links to propaganda pieces from Al Jazeerah or the Electronic Intifada would be quickly condemned, and the articles ignored.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It's clear that YOU have an agenda. You offer an opposing opinion but no proof, only a personal attack, and a cut and paste.
At least Seagoon has the cajonies to post under his regular BBS name, and even goes so far as to sign his REAL name in his signature. More than can be said for you. A LOT more.
And you have yet to offer any real evidence that any of the translations are not true and correct translations. You only offer an article written by someone who does not like the organization.
Spot on imo.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The readiness of people to believe that a former colonel in the IDF, who for 5 years ran the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, is presenting them with an accurate view of Arab opinion is amazing.
I'm sure anyone posting links to propaganda pieces from Al Jazeerah or the Electronic Intifada would be quickly condemned, and the articles ignored.
I dont believe that this shows an *accurate view of Arab opinion*. I do believe it shows the opinions of *some Arabs/Muslims*. If these types of statements keep being made in the Arab/Muslim world, then naturally more will start to believe them.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The readiness of people to believe that a former colonel in the IDF, who for 5 years ran the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, is presenting them with an accurate view of Arab opinion is amazing.
I'm sure anyone posting links to propaganda pieces from Al Jazeerah or the Electronic Intifada would be quickly condemned, and the articles ignored.
Are the translations accurate? Are the people shown in the clips identified correctly? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then what they are showing you is factual, and is nothing more than a presentation of some of what is being broadcast or published in the middle east media.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with Seagoon's post. He isn't being hateful, just posted a link to a video
sorry i disagree here, what he is doing is really propaganda,
with his post he says every arab & iranian is thinking what he linked in his post.
This is so wrong, because i knew a few Iranians who work close with us
and they disagree completely with what he posted posted. They have
a family & children like we have and they main wish is peace.
This thread is just spreading more & more blind hate & war.
And before some MP edit my post like the last time and call it personal attack,
this is the last time i read some of his propaganda BS, he is on
the Ignore from 11.9.06
R
Gh0stFT
-
what he is doing is really propaganda,
with his post he says every arab & iranian is thinking what he linked in his post.
For those of you still interested in what the Muslim reaction was to 9/11, Memri has put together a 43 minute video documentary narrated by Ron Silver and PDF entitled "The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11 5 years later"
No where in that does Seagoon say *all Muslims* or *every Muslim and Iranian*. Neither was the title of the video/pdf his.
Some of you act like Christians aren't allowed to have and express their own views on world events/opinions......just because they are Christians. As a Christian, I do post according to my beliefs and Faith in God. I absolutely expect Seagoon, as a Christian pastor, to do the same.
I expect no less of you as well. You should post according to your own personal beliefs, anything else would be hypocritical would it not?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry i disagree here, what he is doing is really propaganda,
with his post he says every arab & iranian is thinking what he linked in his post.
This is so wrong, because i knew a few Iranians who work close with us
and they disagree completely with what he posted posted. They have
a family & children like we have and they main wish is peace.
This thread is just spreading more & more blind hate & war.
And before some MP edit my post like the last time and call it personal attack,
this is the last time i read some of his propaganda BS, he is on
the Ignore from 11.9.06
R
Gh0stFT
He did not say EVERY Arab, Muslim, or Iranian thinks that. He did say it is a prevalent attiude in the Middle East. You did manage to put those words in his mouth though.
As to your Iranian co-workers, they are not in Iran, or the Middle East, are they? Or did you move there and not tell us? There's no doubt that plenty of Muslims, Arabs, and Iranians do not believe what was shown in that vidoe. However, your position that those who do not believe that way are even close to a majority is VERY hard to support. Just because the Iranians YOU know, who are evidently (correct me if I'm wrong and you are somewhere in the Middle East) not in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East, do not support or embrace what you viewed in that video, does not mean that a large portion of the population of the Middle East, be they Arab, Muslim, or Iranian, DO believe it.
You do realize that what was shown in that video was broadcast on STATE SPONSORED TELEVISION? Meaning that not only do those people shown believe that, but some of them are government officials, and they are on a medium owned and operated by those governments preaching that hate and those lies. And don't try to pass it off on freedom of speech, those governments aren't exactly known for embracing the First Amendment or freedom of speech.
-
9-11-01 kinda graphic (http://www.williamthrash.com/911.htm)
-
And you have yet to offer any real evidence that any of the translations are not true and correct translations.
It's not so much the accuracy of the translations, as the context and importance placed on them.
Imagine someone arguing a case that America was full of right wing nuts embarked on a crusade to destroy Islam and bring about the second coming of Christ. Think you could argue that case by collecting the work of right wing radio talkshow hosts, "religious leaders" like Pat Robertson, letters sent to newspapers, publications released by milita groups? Of course. You could back it up by indictments of America by left wing university profs, excerpts from the msm etc.
You could of course argue the opposite case just by choosing different US sources.
The problem with Memri is that they select their sources to argue their agenda, and readers in the west have little idea of how much weight should be attached to them.
For example, saying a newspaper published an article, and giving its title, tells the reader very little about how important that newspaper is. If the NYT published an article, it deserves to have some weight attached to it, if the Montana Militia Monthly published an article, it can be safely dismissed as the work of nutters, of which every country has its fair share.
Indeed, you could find a whole host of sources in the US to back up the claim 9/11 was the work of the CIA, but that doesn't make them true, or an accurate portrayal of American opinion.
Are the translations accurate? Are the people shown in the clips identified correctly? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then what they are showing you is factual, and is nothing more than a presentation of some of what is being broadcast or published in the middle east media.
I've no idea if the people are identified correctly.
What Seagoon said was "what the Muslim reaction was to 9/11,"
Not what some Muslim's reaction was, but what the Muslim reaction was, and the difference between those two is how Memri operates. It present's some views, and invites you to assume they represent mainstream views.
-
The problem with Memri is that they select their sources to argue their agenda, and readers in the west have little idea of how much weight should be attached to them.
That's nothing new, ALL media outlets do the same thing. It's up to us to use a little common sense when viewing the news.
Big difference between your example of the US media and this video, the US gov't doesnt own/operate the media unlike many other countries around the world including the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It's not so much the accuracy of the translations, as the context and importance placed on them.
Imagine someone arguing a case that America was full of right wing nuts embarked on a crusade to destroy Islam and bring about the second coming of Christ. Think you could argue that case by collecting the work of right wing radio talkshow hosts, "religious leaders" like Pat Robertson, letters sent to newspapers, publications released by milita groups? Of course. You could back it up by indictments of America by left wing university profs, excerpts from the msm etc.
You could of course argue the opposite case just by choosing different US sources.
The problem with Memri is that they select their sources to argue their agenda, and readers in the west have little idea of how much weight should be attached to them.
For example, saying a newspaper published an article, and giving its title, tells the reader very little about how important that newspaper is. If the NYT published an article, it deserves to have some weight attached to it, if the Montana Militia Monthly published an article, it can be safely dismissed as the work of nutters, of which every country has its fair share.
Indeed, you could find a whole host of sources in the US to back up the claim 9/11 was the work of the CIA, but that doesn't make them true, or an accurate portrayal of American opinion.
I've no idea if the people are identified correctly.
What Seagoon said was "what the Muslim reaction was to 9/11,"
Not what some Muslim's reaction was, but what the Muslim reaction was, and the difference between those two is how Memri operates. It present's some views, and invites you to assume they represent mainstream views.
You very conveniently ignore that what you saw in those video clips came from television networks owned and controlled by the GOVERNMENTS of Middle Eastern nations. You weren't seeing the Middle Eastern equivalent of "FSTV" or any of the other fringe channels found on satellite or cable TV, you were watching official government television. So yes, what you saw is a direct reflection of the governments controlling those broadcasts, and no, it is not comparable to fringe broadcasts by any "rightwing" or "leftwing" "nutters" as you call them.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The readiness of people to believe that a former colonel in the IDF, who for 5 years ran the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, is presenting them with an accurate view of Arab opinion is amazing.
I'm sure anyone posting links to propaganda pieces from Al Jazeerah or the Electronic Intifada would be quickly condemned, and the articles ignored.
Propaganda? All I saw was a whole bunch of Muslims claiming that the US or Israel planned and executed the 9/11 attack. It's propaganda alright but not the sort I think you mean.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You do realize that what was shown in that video was broadcast on STATE SPONSORED TELEVISION? Meaning that not only do those people shown believe that, but some of them are government officials, and they are on a medium owned and operated by those governments preaching that hate and those lies.
thats the problem, its theyr gouverment who sell this lies,
the "normal people" who work daily and just to try to feed thery famaliy,
and even like Mc Donalds (like i do ;) imagine ignore this people
and give them a bloody nose.
-
thats the problem, its theyr gouverment who sell this lies,
Every time they sell those lies, a few more people believe.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry i disagree here, what he is doing is really propaganda,
with his post he says every arab & iranian is thinking what he linked in his post.
This is so wrong, because i knew a few Iranians who work close with us
and they disagree completely with what he posted posted. They have
a family & children like we have and they main wish is peace.
This thread is just spreading more & more blind hate & war.
And before some MP edit my post like the last time and call it personal attack,
this is the last time i read some of his propaganda BS, he is on
the Ignore from 11.9.06
R
Gh0stFT
Gh0stFT,
I think we all know here that the entire Muslim world does not want to declare war on the entire western population. But just the same it is the Zealots that are throwing gas on the fire. The uninformed and the the less educated are buying what they are selling. It is the "Cult of Philosophy". We are Infidels unworthy of the grace of God. Conform or die. I seem to recall a popular leader in Europe spreading the same garbage. If one does not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
-
Hi Nashwan,
Originally posted by Nashwan
The readiness of people to believe that a former colonel in the IDF, who for 5 years ran the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, is presenting them with an accurate view of Arab opinion is amazing.
I'm sure anyone posting links to propaganda pieces from Al Jazeerah or the Electronic Intifada would be quickly condemned, and the articles ignored.
Nashwan, I see, so the Memri pieces are yet more Mossad/CIA disinformation designed to spur an attack on Islam? Not too different an opinion from that expressed by the people on the video clips, eh?
I assume you realize that most Muslim nations only have between 1 and 4 state-run broadcast channels, and therefore the impact of what is broadcast on those channels to the umma is tremendous because there isn't exactly a wealth of alternative programming available, especially for the poor. Many of the clips in question where taken from the larger talk shows on the main channels, and from discussions I've had with people actually living in Iran, for instance, "this was just a Zionist conspiracy" really is what is being broadcast.
Look, I fully realize that I'm rather like Churchill in the 1930s, in being a lonely voice in the wilderness saying "these Nazis and this chap Hitler really are terribly dangerous and bent on world conquest," while the intelligentsia dismiss the threat and claim that the Germans are being demonized and misunderstood by "warmongers" like Churchill.
But please do me the favor of not saying this is "propaganda" on my part. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose personally by taking an unpopular stand and saying "its the ideology that's the problem." I don't go about claiming that all non-Christian religions are bent on violent world conquest, in fact I would catagorically deny that any other religion apart from Islam has the same kind of designs and orientation. Also, while I think Islam is a dangerous lie, I do not hate Muslims, or wish them harm. My goal in vocally opposing Islam is mostly that our children and grandchildren might not have to choose someday between conversion, dhimmitude, or death. I have little hope that Europe will escape becoming part of the Dar-el-Islam - especially given that Europeans have no counter-ideology save nihilism and materialism, little or no will to resist, and aren't even replacing themselves in terms of population growth, but I still have hope for the USA provided they don't delude themselves regarding the threat or tear themselves to shreds first through political infighting.
In any event, while I am willing to live under Muslim domination and realize that someday I might have to, I have no illusions that it will be easy, that I will be more free to preach the gospel than fellow pastors do in the majority of Muslim nations where, for instance, non-Muslim religious assemblies, building new churches, or converting from Islam are illegal, or that my family will have an easier life as evangelicals.
- SEAGOON
-
Look, I fully realize that I'm rather like Churchill in the 1930s, in being a lonely voice in the wilderness
Seagoon, you arent alone my friend. :)
I fully realize the implications of these types of broadcasts in the middle east. Each time another one of these people gets on the air spewing this rediculous garbage, a few more people will believe it. What makes these types of broadcasts rediculous is the fact that bin-Laden himself has admitted repeatedly as being the mastermind behind the attacks.
-
I agree with seagoons view entirely on this one. And you know how anti-christian I can be.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
My goal in vocally opposing Islam is mostly that our children and grandchildren might not have to choose someday between conversion, dhimmitude, or death.
- SEAGOON
Don't worry Sea; we haven't even begun to play Cowboys and Muslims yet. ;)
-
Heck, a healthy % of those in Western Europe believe the same
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Heck, a healthy % of those in Western Europe believe the same
Sources? What is a 'healthy %'? How high is this number?
Look, my American friends. I am just a wee bit tired of this tirade that Europe is anti-American. There are anti-Americans here; there are a good deal that think the Iraqi war was a huge mistake. There are anti-Americans in the US and there are lots of Americans who think the Iraqi war as a big mistake.
When you say "Europe", you include all the nations in Europe. Take Denmark - sent an AWACS unit to the US following 9/11. Went into - and still is in - Afghanistan. We're taking casualties there.
Went into - and are still in - Iraq. We're taking casualties there too.
I got friends who're either in those two nations or have done a couple of tours there. At least ave the common decency not to spit at their sacrifices, in direct aid of the US, by painting with the large brush of the "Europe" ignorant statement.
We've been involved from the start and we're still there, despite growing misgivings about Mr. Bush and his abilities as a leader. We've stood our ground so how about giving us some credit for that?
-
Well, the problem is that the only OUTSPOKEN element of Europe seems to be 100% critical of the U.S. Evidently we don't get to see what you do. Maybe it is not unlike the coverage of Iraq, which is obviously biased towards the bad news from there, with little good news getting out. The same may be true of Europe. It might be true that Europe is more supportive of the U.S. than we are seeing. Perhaps those who are supportive that you speak of should be more outspoken, and not allow their voices and opinions to be overshadowed by the others.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Heck, a healthy % of those in Western Europe believe the same
:D
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Sources? What is a 'healthy %'? How high is this number?
Look, my American friends. I am just a wee bit tired of this tirade that Europe is anti-American. There are anti-Americans here; there are a good deal that think the Iraqi war was a huge mistake. There are anti-Americans in the US and there are lots of Americans who think the Iraqi war as a big mistake.
When you say "Europe", you include all the nations in Europe. Take Denmark - sent an AWACS unit to the US following 9/11. Went into - and still is in - Afghanistan. We're taking casualties there.
Went into - and are still in - Iraq. We're taking casualties there too.
I got friends who're either in those two nations or have done a couple of tours there. At least ave the common decency not to spit at their sacrifices, in direct aid of the US, by painting with the large brush of the "Europe" ignorant statement.
We've been involved from the start and we're still there, despite growing misgivings about Mr. Bush and his abilities as a leader. We've stood our ground so how about giving us some credit for that?
NOP also found a tendency for British Muslims to believe some, well, strange things. 45% thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the USA and Israel. 36% thought that Princess Diana was murdered to stop her marrying a Muslim. More seriously, only 29% thought that the holocaust occured, 2% denied it happened entirely, 17% think it was exaggerated (which is the stance proposed by most of today’s holocaust deniers), 24% said they had “no opinion” and 23% didn’t know what the holocaust was. Again though, putting this in context, non-Muslims think odd things too - an ICM poll in 2004 found 14% of people in the UK thought that the scale of the holocaust had been exaggerated, 27% of the general public told NOP in 2003 that Princess Diana had been murdered (a poll commissioned, unsurprisingly, for the Sunday Express). I can’t find a British poll on whether 9/11 was a US conspriracy, but I have little doubt that a substantial minority would say it was. Yes, a minority of Muslims believe bizarre things, but then a minority of non-Muslims do too!
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291
A 2003 poll for the German newspaper Die Zeit found that 19 per cent of those surveyed believed the American government might have ‘commissioned’ the 9/11 attacks, rising to a third among those aged under 30. A recent article in The Times (London) – which argued that ‘you don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to see that the official account published by the 9/11 Commission is full of gaps’ – rehearsed a list of fishy things about 9/11: ‘the absence of Mayday distress signals, the failure to find the black-box flight recorders for the WTC aircraft, the apparent disappearance of the wreckage, the failure to carry out a full engineering investigation into why the towers collapsed so fast, and the failure to scramble military aircraft to intercept the hijacked aircraft.’
Books including Thierry Meyssan’s The Horrifying Fraud and Mathias Brockers’ Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories and the Secrets of 9/11 have become worldwide bestsellers
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1604/
7/7 bombings 'justified' say a quarter of British Muslims
ALMOST a quarter of British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings can be justified because of the Government's support for the war on terror, according to an opinion poll.
And nearly half of those polled, or 45 per cent, believe the 9/11 attacks on New York were a conspiracy between the United States and Israel. The survey, for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary to be screened tonight, found Muslims under 24 were twice as likely to justify the 7/7 attacks as those aged over 45. It found 24 per cent either agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified, although 48 per cent said they "strongly disagreed".
A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.
The survey also reveals concerns among Muslims about Britain's moral standards, with 40 per cent saying it is a country of bad moral behaviour.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1145782006
August 30, 2004
An Astounding Poll Regarding 9/11 9/11, "War On Terror"
A poll conducted last week in New York produced some startling findings.
Question: "Some have argued that some leaders in the US government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" [My emphasis]
Half (49.3%) of NYC residents, and 41% of NY residents state-wide, said they agreed.
The poll, commissioned by 911truth.org, broke down the state-wide numbers by age, race, gender, political party, etc.:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/08/an_astounding_p_1.htm
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
For those of you still interested in what the Muslim reaction was to 9/11, Memri has put together a 43 minute video documentary narrated by Ron Silver and PDF entitled "The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11 5 years later"
Why the confusion between muslim and arabs ?
Not all muslim are arabs.
Not all arabs are muslim.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why the confusion between muslim and arabs ?
Not all muslim are arabs.
Not all arabs are muslim.
Probably because most Americans know bloody little about arabs OR muslims? They are all strange brown people who are worth maybe 1/10th of an American, judging by the actions of our military.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why the confusion between muslim and arabs ?
Not all muslim are arabs.
Not all arabs are muslim.
I think all the people in the video with their *conspiracy theories* are either Arab or Iranian. I dont recall anyone else from the 30 minutes that I watched. Could be someone other than an Iranian or Arab in the final 13 minutes. I kinda doubt it though based on what I saw in the first 30 minutes.
-
i apreciate the post seagoon. i also totally agree with you.
Its to late in the evening (12:45am) to really wade into the current argument. however tomarrow morning is a new day! :t
-
Hi Straffo,
Originally posted by straffo
Why the confusion between muslim and arabs ?
Not all muslim are arabs.
Not all arabs are muslim.
Sigh.
Quite right, and during WW2 not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were German, it was wrong for the Allies to go around generalizing and creating a bogeyman of an ideology. We should have followed current practice back then, declared a limited "war on the military" and strictly avoided demonizing an entire nation or National Socialism itself. War on fascism indeed. After all, the Fascists in Spain never attacked us. You can't declare war on an ideology after all, even if that ideology has been aggressively waging war against every other ideology for oh, say 13 centuries.
And we should all wait with baited breath for the flood of Middle Eastern documentaries and talk shows expressing strong condemnation of the Jihadis and admitting that the attacks were entirely planned and carried out by Muslim terrorists and had no credible Israeli/American conspiracy element. And then we can also expect Sharia laws to be eliminated, and Britney Spears to do a concert in Riyadh. Meanwhile while we wait, lets conclude that we are the problem, withdraw entirely from the middle-east and dismantle our admittedly half-baked war on terror thing and trust that they will suddenly be overwhelmed with compassion because we've shown our tender and vulnerable side and call it quits on the whole Jihad, Shahid, and Caliphate thing. It's because we haven't loved them enough or sent enough money their way, probably. I understand that was the problem with the Vikings as well, not enough love and tenderness that and bad potty training experiences.
Anyway, here's the ethnic religious breakdown of the main countries whose media is surveyed in the Memri documentary, it was obviously wrong of me to even superficially Connect Arab and Iranian media with Muslims, after all somewhere in one of those stations a Hindu might have been operating a boom, or a Christian might have been sweeping up the trash.
Saudi Arabia - Arab: 100% Muslim
Egypt - Egyptian/Arab: 90% Muslim
Syria - Arab: 90% Muslim
UAE - Arab: 96% Muslim
Iran - Persian: 98% Muslim
Qatar - Arab: 95% Muslim
Turkey - Turkic: 99.8% Muslim
Bahrain - Arab: 81% Muslim
Straffo, if you do happen to spot any non-Muslims being interviewed in any of the actual clips, please feel free to go ahead and point them out.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
Hitler had the second biggest industrial base and the best trained and equipped land and air forces in the world in 1938, whereas the jihadis are reduced to assymetrical warfare precisely because they are so weak. Could you include that piece of perspective next time you compare yourself to Churchill?
Simple question for you whilst we're at it. Do you believe in a people's right of self-determination? Yes or no will do.
-
Seagoon will have his own answer but I'd like to give you mine. When a people's "self-determination" means forcibly converting me to Islam resorting even to terrorism to accomplish that goal then not only would I deny them this right but even the right to breathe.
Do you think Germany, Japan, and a few others had the right to "self-determination" in the 1930's and 1940's even though it meant denying others the same?
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon,
Hitler had the second biggest industrial base and the best trained and equipped land and air forces in the world in 1938, whereas the jihadis are reduced to assymetrical warfare precisely because they are so weak. Could you include that piece of perspective next time you compare yourself to Churchill?
Simple question for you whilst we're at it. Do you believe in a people's right of self-determination? Yes or no will do.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon,
Hitler had the second biggest industrial base and the best trained and equipped land and air forces in the world in 1938, whereas the jihadis are reduced to assymetrical warfare precisely because they are so weak. Could you include that piece of perspective next time you compare yourself to Churchill?
Simple question for you whilst we're at it. Do you believe in a people's right of self-determination? Yes or no will do.
Ah yes, the classic "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument. More moral equivalence crap. Freedom fighters will attack the military and govenrment complex that opresses them. Terrorists will slaughter innocents at every opportunity.
Simple question. Do you understand that the "caliphate" and "sharia law" allow for no "self determination", and do you understand that the Islamic Fascist terrorists intend to establish BOTH, worldwide?
-
sooo.... when the iraqi's were allowed to vote... how many didn't, even tho it was not just inconvienient but... dangerous?
People do indeed have the right to self determination... people have inalienable rights that no man can take from them.
It matters not if a man gets into power or how he got there, he has no right to take away others human rights.
Self determination is not the ability to take away some other persons human rights at the point of a gun.
It is also fair to say that allmost all arabs/arab countries are muslims.
lazs
-
Nice straw man you've got there Virgil. :)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Nice straw man you've got there Virgil. :)
Nice dodge you have. That thing got a Hemi?:rolleyes:
-
momus.. where is the straw man.. the man is very much fanatical flesh and blood... the nutjobs vigl points out exist. they are completely against any self determination based on fantatical religious belief. They murder their own people if their own people stray one iota from the path that their fanatic leaders say is the only way.
They are anti self determination at it's most heinous.
-
You've got two of them now? Sweet!
-
Nice to see the veil come off Seagoon.
:lol
-
Momus,
As you put it, "Yes or No will do."
Yes, people have a God given right to a certain measure of self-determination. However no one has a God given right to do that which is evil, and that includes determining to elect or put in place totalitarian tyrants and ideologies who have indicated their desire to violently suppress or eliminate every other ideology. Therefore, given the contents of Mein Kampf, the moment the German people elected Herr Hitler, the allied powers should have said "enough" and reoccupied Germany.
In the same way, given the content of the Charter of Hamas (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm) , the moment the Palestinians elected them, they too should have been reoccupied and corrected.
The difference of course is that it was possible to eliminate the ideology that spurred the election of Hitler in Germany, whereas we do not seem to be able to do that kind of critical thinking any more, thus all our actions fail from a basic category error.
Anyway Momus, what does it matter? If you're right, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and peace and happiness will break out.
If I'm right, and I hope I'm not, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and the Jihad will continue, and Europe will eventually become a part of the Dar-El-Islam.
Ultimately, my confidence is not in princes and my hope is not in politics. I am a pilgrim passing through this world of ours heading for the heavenly country. The funny thing is, I expect persecution and oppression, and while not happy about it, am prepared to live under it and even to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself. I sense however that many Europeans and Americans won't be. "How could this happen?" will be their lament many years hence.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
If you're right, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and peace and happiness will break out
I was with you until this part. 'Tis a shame you feel the need to misrepresent my position. I think you well know that I've never advocated appeasement, but merely a smarter way of looking dealing with the problem.
I'll get to the point anyway. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're generally supportive of the conduct of the "war on terror"? Now assuming for a moment that the neocon rhetoric is genuine and the aim really is to democratise the middle-east, what do you think will be the consequences if broadly islamist governments come to power in the vein of the pro-Iran shia executive currently to be found in Iraq?
How do you reconcile your antipathy to Islam (I hope I'm not overstating this!) with the fact that Islamic governments will be a likely result of the exercise?
Not a trick question; just trying to understand.
-
Hello Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're generally supportive of the conduct of the "war on terror"? Now assuming for a moment that the neocon rhetoric is genuine and the aim really is to democratise the middle-east, what do you think will be the consequences if broadly islamist governments come to power in the vein of the pro-Iran shia executive currently to be found in Iraq?
No, I'm not supportive of the current response to the Islamic Jihad. The attempt to define and fight this as "a war on terror" makes as much sense as attempting to fight a "war on military aviators" after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I can't tell you the sorrow I feel on Sundays when we pray over young men who are leaving our congregation and their families to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are forcing them to fight and win under the same kind of impossible ROEs that we forced young men to fight the Vietnam war under.
For instance, we send them into Afghanistan to engage in a deadly game of cat and mouse in the mountains. Under the current rules they may only engage armed combatants in Afghanistan. In other words, we are going to try to kill these bad guys one by one, after they cross the border and only when they are engaged in an active operations (they now know to cache their weapons when not actually fighting). Meanwhile, we know they are being trained and equipped in camps and Madrassas in Pakistan, but we do nothing to close down the centers of "new Jihadi supply" - it's like the American pilots who flew over ships unloading missile after missile in Haiphong harbor in order to strike ONLY the SAM sites were those missiles were active and operating. It's stupid and gets people killed with very little to show for it.
I am no neo-con btw. If I'm anything politically, I'm very much a paleo-con. I believe it is harmful and counter-productive to erect new pro-Jihad governments and that it is impossible to establish democracies while leaving an ideology that will not tolerate them essentially intact. The least we should be doing, if we can't change the ideology, is insist that consistently Muslim Imams be replaced with Liberal ones, they at least might drive Islamic orthodoxy into the ground and empty the mosques as effectively as liberal Christian ministers have eviscerated orthodoxy and emptied the churches.
-
Final thought though Momus,
The obvious question is "why if I think the Administration is making a hash of the war don't I support their opponents?" Well, because I happen to believe that the situation is analogous to being the relative of a patient with a deadly disease and only having two doctors in town to call on.
One doctor thinks the disease is very serious and even potentially deadly, but only believes in prescribing drugs to treat the symptoms as they occur.
The other doctor doubts whether there is really any disease at all, he blames the other doctor for alarming the patient and worrying his family. He cannot offer me any other remedy apart from "fire the other doctor and I'm sure your relative will improve."
I happen to believe that my relative has a real and potentially deadly disease so I'm forced to choose the first doctor as better than nothing and hope that he will at least stop the worst symptoms.
Send me a "Doctor Churchill" who knows the disease is real and deadly and wants to cure the disease itself and not just play with the symptoms, and I'll hire him. But until that time...
-
momus... speaking for myself.... democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.
Without a strong bill of rights, democracy can be as evil as any other political system.
I am not a fan of urestricted democracy.
I am a huge fan of democracy with a strong constitution that includes an even stronger bill of rights.
No political system should exist that does not include a list of rights that can not be violated.
a good example of a lousy bill on a "right" is englands bill on the right to keep and bear arms.... a worthless right with no guarentees and... the results speak for themselves.... many have had their rights trampled on by "democracy".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nashwan, I see, so the Memri pieces are yet more Mossad/CIA disinformation designed to spur an attack on Islam? Not too different an opinion from that expressed by the people on the video clips, eh?
Nashwan's view has some friends in high places:
"They are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud," said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterintelligence's unit. "They simply don't present the whole picture."
"They were fund-raising together in D.C. to create this institute," said Mr. Cannistraro, the former CIA official. "They asked me to come on board but I refused because I saw this was capped by Israeli intelligence" — referring to Mr. Carmon and his spear-heading of the project —"and because it was too political."
Forward 7th Dec 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20011207221620/http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.12.07/news7.html)
William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, says of MEMRI:
"This service does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."
Guardian September 28, 2005 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1580217,00.html)
-
I think this backs up Seagoons original link.
Just because you dont like the source, or the sources owners doesnt necessarily mean what they say isnt true.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm
Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation.
Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks.
-
Seagoon,
I take it that all muslims are evil (that's counting about the fifth of the world population... no hard numbers, just from the top of my head)... and they are all there to 'get us'. ok, fine.
Since you don't seem happy with the way things are going... what do you propose? What is your (final- snicker) solution?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
9-11-01 kinda graphic (http://www.williamthrash.com/911.htm)
Whats your point?
-
Hello Saw,
Originally posted by Saintaw
Seagoon,
I take it that all muslims are evil (that's counting about the fifth of the world population... no hard numbers, just from the top of my head)... and they are all there to 'get us'. ok, fine.
Since you don't seem happy with the way things are going... what do you propose? What is your (final- snicker) solution?
A friend of mine jokingly suggested that we bomb the 10/40 window with X-boxes, Pot, and Pornography until they are as inudated with slackers as we are, and thus paralyze the Jihad. But all kidding aside.
To tell the truth, I'm glad that I'm not a civil magistrate, because I can't think of much that would be feasible given the current state of the world. Most of the solutions would require both a long term alliance with like-minded countries, and the willingness to continue to fight for an objective until that objective is achieved regardless of how long it takes, and in a Western world that wants televised victories in 2 weeks and which isn't sure whether it prefers Hezbollah and Hamas to Israel and America, I'm not either of those goals are possible.
But I think a few common sense changes in our approach are necessary at the very least. See if you think the following are unreasonable.
1) Stop misdefining the problem as "terrorism" - no one dies for terrorism, terrorism is a means, not a movement or an end. We cannot defeat terrorism any more than we can defeat "bombs."
If we are unwilling to examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shahidis and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.
2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.
3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).
4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.
5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.
Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that we have to play by to Islam. It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected.
-
Good morning,
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Saw,
A friend of mine jokingly suggested that we bomb the 10/40 window with X-boxes, Pot, and Pornography until they are as inudated with slackers as we are, and thus paralyze the Jihad. But all kidding aside.
I like that idea as well :)
If we are unwilling to examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shahidis and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.
It's going to be hard to differentiate(?) those from the common folks. there's no particular ID card if you sign up for that sort of thing i guess.
2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.
Agreed, but this you can only do on territories you control.
3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).
Agreed
4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.
Agreed, especialy(?) thinking about Turkey entering the EU here...
5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.
This is how we deal with all minorities, not that I like it... but it's the way it is in the western world. (I see a lot on these boards crying about that 'affirmative action' too, if you catch my drift)
Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that we have to play by to Islam. It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected.
The above still deals with the people in western countries mostly. A large majority of 'agressive' muslims are in Africa / Asia.
I'm kinda dissapointed you didn't propose anything that included mass extermination openly though ;)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Good morning,
I'm kinda dissapointed you didn't propose anything that included mass extermination openly though ;)
well, if he want, I will...