The Middle East Media Research Institute published a rather concerning announcement Thursday regarding the Global Islamic Media Front’s new campaign to bombard non-Islamic websites with pro-Islamic propaganda (h/t Charles at LGF, emphasis added throughout):
"What we expect from you brothers and sisters is for the [Islamist] forum to be like beehives during the raid... [whereby] one person takes part in distributing [material]... another generates links... one person writes an article... while another writes a poem... People must feel and notice that the forums have changed radically during this blessed raid..."
How pleasant. The announcement continued to quote from this GIMF directive:
"First:...Those who supervise the [Islamist] forums have a significant role in this raid. We expect from you the following: a) to post the raid's slogan on the websites, forums, and blogs, as a way of expressing support for the raid; b) to designate a special space in the forums in which material related to the raid will be posted... so [that this material] will be easily recognized [by forum participants]. We request that this space be open to everyone, with registration not required; and c) to collaborate with GIMF in matters concerning suggestions and experience..."
"Second, we expect the following from the forums' administrators: a) to take control of your forums and forbid anyone who slanders [the ISI] or [accuses it of causing] civil strife from disseminating his poison in your forums... [and] b) to prevent futile and useless discussions and responses... and to urge people to participate in the raid."
"Third, beloved [raid participants], the raid is dependent on you... The raid demands of you many things... such as expertise, especially in the following areas: seeking religious knowledge, montage, translation into any language, uploading material onto various types of websites, web design, graphic design, journal and publication design, and hacking and security. If you have expertise in any of these [fields], contact the GIMF representative on any of the forums. If, however, you do not possess this expertise... there are other matters you can [promote]: for example, posting matters related to the raid in most [jihad] forums... posting [material] in non-jihad forums, posting in non-Islamic forums such as music forums, youth forums, sports forums, and others. Anyone who undertakes to post the material must look into the [appropriate] manner of spreading [the material for each type of forum]... The way in which members of music forums address one another differs from the way members of jihad forum address one another."
Shocking stuff, wouldn’t you agree? But there was more:
You are not required to engage in blind copying and pasting here... [On the contrary,] you should select [carefully] the material... and the words... and the most important issue is to monitor forum members' reactions after you disseminate your material and to respond to them, turning for help to your comrades in the jihad forums if you find it difficult [to reply] to one of the reactions [from members of the non-Islamic forums]."
"[You should also offer] commentary to the various news agencies' websites... such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyya websites... Even if they do not publish your commentary... do not give up... Persist... in the attempt to place the name of the raid in every commentary..."
And the people on the left – with the vast majority of media at their sides – are trying to convince Americans that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
Old News, Noel
June 15, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Cool ArrowAll three Major networks are carrying this.
NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At this point Olberman throws in the 'slapstick Jihadis' angle indicating they are far from capable of so great an undertaking. Probably 15 years away from attaining the capability.
Uhh...
June 15, 2007 - 11:04 ET by SportPoliticsUhh.. Mueller's boys picked this upon their last sweep-so now it's classified government information...
What;s scary is that this is
June 15, 2007 - 10:24 ET by BeowulfWhat;s scary is that this is so much more literate and articulate than most of the lefty bloggers...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Speaking as a member of an
June 15, 2007 - 10:58 ET by sarcasmoSpeaking as a member of an information disseminating group that's constantly accused of "hacking" (because obviously people who think like me about smaller government could not be a grassroots phenomenon and just kick-ass in almost-all internet polls, right?) I'm interested in why any honest information dissemination effort would have a need for hacking and security expertise?
JMR
The answer is simple - they n
June 15, 2007 - 11:13 ET by BeowulfThe answer is simple - they need to be able to hack into sites that won't allow their propaganda, and security to keep people from responding negatively on their sites.
It's nothing but high-tech censorship. Getting out their own message while preventing any dissenting opinions or rebuttals. Pretty similar to the Goracle's Globull Alarming "concensus", or the attacks against FOX by liberal politicians (boycotting debates), the MSM (labeling FOX as a conservative water-carrier), and most recently Angie's attempted FOX ban.
The scariest thing is that it appears to work. I can't count the number of supposedly intelligent people I know who suddenly hate FOX news, yet can't produce one instance of biased reporting.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Well, for me the irony is i
June 15, 2007 - 12:29 ET by sarcasmoWell, for me the irony is in paragraph 1 right here, as our "secret" plans are also easily available. No media report of this, 0. Constant media accusations of "hacking," constant. Facts be damned.
As for an instance of blatant Fox News bias despite their being repeatedly-confronted with the facts, I give you this. And yes, I'm personally quite familiar with the incident (can't say much, don'tcha love lawyers...) and Faux News (I get to call 'em that lefty-influenced name, unless & until they make an accurate correction and quit with the bias!) had a political agenda with that deliberate distortion. In this case, the agenda of Faux News matched the big government agendas of various other media we bitch about constantly here, but it was a biased, big government agenda none the less, and this one's not a good area to try to take me on unless you're VERY familiar with the facts. Like me...And UNlike Faux News. If you're thinking about taking me on, PM me first and I can provide more context to make it fair for you, at least, if not fun...
JMR
Ban Anyone Who Slanders the I
June 15, 2007 - 10:36 ET by Dave RBan Anyone Who Slanders the Islamic State [of Iraq] From Disseminating Their Poison in the Forums
That statement alone is sure to warm the hearts of all the Islamo-fascist apologists out there, who will see this as something to be emulated rather than condemned.
Little wonder the fascist liberals in our own MSM are loathe to cover this, as they have similar sinister designs themselves.
I wonder if our friend Montana Lyons will have anything to say about this?
This is an incomplete chapter
June 15, 2007 - 10:37 ET by stratmanThis is an incomplete chapter in the developing manifesto that is Islamofascism's version of Mein Kampf. It is a roadmap to how the young "believer" can infiltrate, infest and spread the garbage of their meglomaniacal handlers. This is a another reminder to be ever vigilant to the expanding propagandistic ways of the enemy, both overt and covert.
For those that claim ideas cannot be squelched have forgotten what two atomic bombs achieved in 1945. I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons at this time. I just want to make it clear I believe/think/know that delusional thinking can be altered/extinguished with the use of verbal and non-verbal methodologies.
stratman,.....non-verbal meth
June 15, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Dave Rstratman,
.....non-verbal methodologies.
I like the sound of that, as it just kind of rolls of the ol' tongue.. :-)
These comments just lower the
June 15, 2007 - 12:11 ET by USnotU.S.These comments just lower the whole tone. You may as well be screaming "turn the deserts to glass". What meaningful things do you have to say?
I hate the idea of what they are doing too. I don't want them in my face, or in all our faces. Frankly, I'm sick of them hiding behind a stolen religion, and coming into Western countries, or hitting Western targets,
but nukes are not the answer, and that's not just me being a pacifist, ok?
I actually think verbal attack will work, but we have to come up with the right one; one that proves to them and the world, that what these terrorists are saying has nothing to do with any religion.
US, anyone who doesn't realiz
June 15, 2007 - 12:55 ET by BeowulfUS, anyone who doesn't realize by now that the Islamofacists have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Islam never will. The only thing these fanatics understand or respect is naked force. The only way, and I mean this without the least bit of rancor, the only way to stop them is to kill them. They are lying, hypocritical, idea-twisting, murdering, power-mongers. They cannot be negotiated with, They cannot be placated. For them it is all-or-nothing, and if they were to get their "all", they still would not be satisfied. They want nothing less than the total and abject conversion of the entire world to not only Islam, but their interpretation of Islam. Even among themselves, there are so many variences, that a total conversion would likely increase violence rather than the opposite.
The newest catch phrase to clearly demonstrate my point is "sectarian violence", i.e. Iraq and Gaza. Muslims killing each other over differing interpretations of Islam. The equivalent would be Baptists and Methodists murdering entire families and burning each other's churches down. The analogy is accurate as relating to Shia and Sunni.
As for nukes, I moderately agree that the big guns shouldn't be brought out first. But if, for example, Iran were to develop them, I would fully support a nuclear preemptive strike to keep them from being used against us, as anyone can reasonably infer they would eventually be used. They've all but come right out and said on numerous occasions.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
I think a better analogy woul
June 15, 2007 - 14:09 ET by KhyrisI think a better analogy would be protestants and catholics murdering families and burning churches down in Ireland....
... but the major difference here is that even then, the struggle was not over forcing the other side to convert, just that each side felt it was being over-repressed by the other. And even more importantly neither side was trying to convert the rest of the world as well.
Snotty,If Western Society con
June 15, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Dave RSnotty,
If Western Society continues on its current path of appeasement no-matter-what, I can easily envision such drastic measures being ultimately necessary, if our civilization is, in fact, going to survive.
The whole world remained in a state of denial throughout the 1920's and '30s, until the only option left was total war. Had they moved sooner, the Western powers would have saved many, many millions of innocent lives. Funny, for a society that considers itself "enlightened" it is, in reality, damned ignorant.
As for verbal attacks, not once in the 1400 year bloody history of Islamic barbarism has a "verbal" attack ever succeeded in disuading them from anything. The only things the Islamic horde respect and understand are brute force and the demonstrable willingness to employ it. All we are doing is demonstrating weakness and indecision, something the Islamic barbarians are expert at exploiting.
To date, the only power remaining on earth that has the power to put an end to this BS once-and-for all has been fighting this war with both hands tied behing its back. If we had a true leader in the WH, this thing could be over in a matter of days, if not hours. Possibly millions of lives would ultimately be saved. Yet, due to the spinelessness of Western Civilation, we are going to screw around and wait until the use of WMD's will be our only recourse.
Translation
June 15, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Cool Arrowyou're right Strat. The translation into English is the same.
Mein Kamph = My Struggle
Jihad = My Struggle
Of Course!
June 15, 2007 - 10:46 ET by aaronarnwineI knew there was an explanation for Huffington Post and Bill Maher.
This explains it!
Why haven't we killed them yet?
June 15, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Six String SpiffReligion of PEACE Eh Georgie poo?!!?!
Why haven't these virmin been wiped from the face of the planet yet? Israel, get with the program. religion of Peace....
sick of it all
When was the last time a Musl
June 15, 2007 - 11:37 ET by CapitalismRulesWhen was the last time a Muslim Army actually defeated a non-Muslim Army? I'm talking actual military engagement here. Not internet postings, not terrorist activity, not slicing heads off on video, not propaganda, I mean, when was the last time these folks won a real, actual military battle? History buffs- help me out here.
The Moors
June 15, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Cool ArrowIn 711 AD, the Moors invaded Spain, I think.
Predated the Christian Crusades by about 400 years.
Sorry, the card says the &q
June 15, 2007 - 11:50 ET by balboaSorry, the card says the "Moops."
Check with the judges, boa
June 15, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Cool ArrowMoors, Moops what's the diff?
Moops is funnier, though
HAHAHAHA! You killed the bu
June 15, 2007 - 13:28 ET by doubledown552HAHAHAHA! You killed the bubble-boy!!!
Morals....? Who needs those?
I would say that was probably
June 15, 2007 - 11:46 ET by BeowulfI would say that was probably around 1187, when Saladin retook Jerusalem from the Crusaders. I guess one could say they reached apogee and have been bottoming out ever since...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
First Crusade in 1095
June 15, 2007 - 11:49 ET by Cool ArrowSort of shoots down the notion that the West started the bad blood between Islam and Europe.
A better question is What technological advance has Islam's god ever given them?
The American Left?
June 15, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Airforce_5_OThe American Left?
ROFLMAO AirForce
June 15, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Cool ArrowI thought I had the whole blog stumped and here you come in with logic.
I've got one
June 15, 2007 - 12:00 ET by LionKingWaterless urinal
Me too, Lion King
June 15, 2007 - 12:03 ET by Cool ArrowBig shade tree in the back yard.
What technological advances h
June 15, 2007 - 12:14 ET by USnotU.S.What technological advances have anyones' gods ever given anyone?
I'm anti Islamist too. Just wondering what you mean.
I get it U Snot U.S.
June 15, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Cool ArrowSame bloodline, different outlook on the meaning of life.
Compare the technological advances of the descendents of Isaac with the descendents of Ishmael.
Both claim a strong belief in their God. Different result.
I'm aetheist. You're not actu
June 15, 2007 - 12:38 ET by USnotU.S.I'm aetheist. You're not actually pushing this idea as real, are you? Christian churches have done their best to hold back technology over the years, and have also mainly been in the wealthier parts of the world.
How regressive is the Creationist movement for example?
Sure am, Snot
June 15, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Cool ArrowBreaking away from the repressive Catholic Church brought a lot of great thinkers out of their caves. Meanwhile, Islam managed to keep their followers uneducated.
You're actually saying Christianity is (not has been) more repressive than Islam? That human beings who tell their children they can accomplish great things are no more successful as a society than those who tell their children all the world's wealth is already spoken for and you better go out and kill for it?
Sorry these concepts are foreign to you.
I said "regressive"
June 15, 2007 - 13:07 ET by USnotU.S.I said "regressive".
As for the wealth being all used up, I know nothing of this side of Islam, so be gentle. I'm new here.
I do know a lot though, about the scary, popular rise of old christian ideas, and how 'science isn't necessary because god is the answer'.
That's pretty regressive.
OK, regressive
June 15, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Cool ArrowI can ask the same question about Darwinism. What technological advances have sprung forth from the science of Darwinism? (note: Horse breeding far predates Darwinism)
Not to turn this into a theological discourse, but I don't see anything in nature that is in conflict with what I believe spiritually.
Riled,I can show you a pletho
June 15, 2007 - 13:32 ET by LeonRiled,
I can show you a plethora of articles answering your absurd question but you have to be able to access JSTOR.
Can you do so?
Guess not Leon
June 15, 2007 - 13:37 ET by Cool ArrowNever heard of it. Perhaps in layman's terms you could explain a couple of the tech advances derived directly from Charles Darwin's work.
Before I waste my time with t
June 15, 2007 - 13:41 ET by LeonBefore I waste my time with this, I just need to confirm one thing.
Are you actually being serious or you just pulling my leg? I don't detect any sarcasm, but it could just be going over my head.
If you are genuinely asking this question, please let me know, and I'll give you an answer.
Trust me, Leon
June 15, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not that evolved.
Just one will do.
Riled,I believe there are (at
June 15, 2007 - 14:10 ET by LeonRiled,
I believe there are (at least) three approaches to (and ways to characterize) science:
1) Scientific knowlege can lead to the production of useful technologies (ie. the construction of the space shuttle)
2) Some of the technologies we have created can also be used to probe nature (ie. PET imaging can tell us about the chemistry of the body)
3) Lastly, scientific theories can be employed to guide the use of existing or novel technologies for the achievement of desired outcomes (ie. the development of "optimal" crops to be sold in grocery stores).
One is probably correct in assuming that religion has not led to any significant technological advances (at least those that are of use to society as a whole). On the other hand, it is also difficult to conceive of ways in which evolutionary theory might similarly fit into category one. Nonetheless, an acceptance and employment of evolutionary theory does lead to the benefit of humanity in certain ways, and I believe that it fits nicely into category three. In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population f rom generation to generation. Consider my crop example. In evolutionary terms, scientist-farmers intervene to create a bottle-neck effects -- keeping individuals with good crop traits (optimal size, pest resistant, etc.) and eschewing individuals with poor traits. It is this faith in evolution and its assistance to technology that puts food on the tables of Americans every day. Those who attempt to downplay the implications of evolution for technology are unwitting participants in the process they criticize.
Think about it Leon
June 15, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Cool ArrowDid I really need to include crops when I said horsebreeding predates Darwin?
Darwin may have stated the term "Survival of the fittest" but mankind was fighting according to the same premise long before it was stated.
Riled, Now I see that you rea
June 15, 2007 - 14:23 ET by LeonRiled,
Now I see that you really were just playing a joke on me and trying to waste my time. Thanks.
Just because something occurred before Darwin doesn't mean that evolutionary ideas are not applicable before he was alive.
Where was I playing a joke?
June 15, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Cool ArrowI didn't ask if Darwin's theories proved nature.
I was altogether up front in asking about technology.
I told you the concepts of breeding already existed. Darwin did not discover the concept of 'breeding stock'
Riled,You're missing the poin
June 15, 2007 - 14:28 ET by LeonRiled,
You're missing the point.
it's not about religion vs. evolution, it's religion vs. science. Evolution is one subset of science. Physics, chemistry, and common sense have led to thousands of technological breakthroughs...evolution isn't supposed to lead to technology!
it's an explanation of a continuously changing gene pool
Thank you
June 15, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Cool ArrowBut you just answered my question.
Leon, you argue from a conflation of ideas, rather shallow.
June 15, 2007 - 14:49 ET by acaiguanaLeon, you argue from a conflation of ideas, rather shallow.
I've been reading your stuff.
The Left wants to paint any Christian with the brush of ignorance of scientific method and the benefits of science.
Science in it purest form is the pursuit of knowledge of the physical universe.
Religion in its purest form is the pursuit of knowledge of the spirit.
If one buys into the character of the 'Mad' scientist, then one can find fault with any science, hence neo-Luddites.
If one buys into the character of the Southern rabid Preacher who spouts fire and brimstone, then one can ridicule Christianity; hence the pointing of fingers over 'Evolution' versus 'Science'.
Now, for one, I am familiar with Darwin's theory of Evolution as it has been refined (Darwin was challenged scientifically over the years and there were flaws). But because I believe in Science as a tool to gain knowledge does not necessarily mean that if I am a Christian (and I am not) I automatically reject Evolution.
There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world. Are you implying that all of them are 'Jesus Camp' apostles? If so, this analogy is more than flawed, it is a foil you are using to whip up emotional responses to what should be a reasoned discussion.
I will assert that there are real nut cases within every Religion. Even the Religion of Global Warming or the Religion of Buddhism or the Religion of Islam.
I will also assert that if one culls the nuts out of the major Religions of the world and derives the percentage thereto; what one would have left is Islam with a lot of nuts. What that means is if you level the playing field by removing the greatest number of nuts from all the major religions, stopping at the percentage highest among those which are not Islamic; there are a whole lot more nuts in Islam.
What does this mean? This means that all the Liberal Left arguments against Christianity (the only valid Religion it seems to be OK to ridicule today) are basically BS.
And all of your arguments today fall into that category.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The arguments here are intere
June 15, 2007 - 17:18 ET by stratmanThe arguments here are interesting and "spirited", pun intended.
Yet no "winner" can be declared as both sides rely on "faith" in proving their views. Yes, science requires reproducible and measurable results. And science is an ever-changing body of physical facts and theories, while religion is more evolved (pun intended and relates to the fact that religion's practices and principles are mature, having withstood hundreds of years) than it is evolving.
That faith is a basic tenant of religion is unquestionable. That faith as it applies to science is difficult for some to acknowledge. There are sub-atomic particles we can not see directly but are measured indirectly. There is a desire for a unifying definition of the physical workings of the universe, which continues to elude the human mind. And there is the mind blowing concepts of an infinite universe and the creation of said universe from nothingness or from something that was proscribed by nothingness. How insignificant one is in the face of the infinite and nothingness - and I'm not talking from a religious point of view.
Yes, one can say that science cannot yet resolve these issues until more powerful technologies exist. I still doubt we will figure out how the universe was created or from what it came from, or how big is infinite or what surrounds the infinite. These questions are dealt with via "faith", and I'm not talking Christian, Judaic, Muslim or any other divinity-based world religions. I'm talking the religion of science and the assumption of certain theories on faith until otherwise proven or replaced by further faith-based theories.
I've never seen an electron or a muon but I've seen evidence of their existence reflected in experimental results. The same can be said of God - everything in the universe is a reflection of God though maybe not a piece of God.
Without taking one side or the other for this argument, why does one side have to be the "right" side? Why can't both share in being a part of the whole picture? Absolutism about one's position creates potential for intolerance and missappropriation of each side's values. Fanaticism and extreme behaviours are only a couple of rationalizations away.
To further illuminate this position, some quotes by Albert Einstein from http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm:
1) Count Kessler once said to him, "Professor! I hear that you are deeply religious." Calmly and with great dignity, Einstein replied, "Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."
2) Einstein held that the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lay in "the concept of a personal God" for that was to think of God in an anthropomorphic way, and to project into him figurative images and human psychological notions of personality, which give rise, he held, to religious practices of worship and notions of providence shaped in accordance with human selfish desires. That did not mean that Einstein thought of God merely in some impersonal way, for, as we have noted, he thought of relation to God in a sublime superpersonal way which he confessed he was unable to grasp or express and before which he stood in unbounded awe and wonder.
3) "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
4) "And God said, Let there by light: and there was light." God is himself eternal uncreated Light, but he created the universe in such a way that it is governed by created light. We cannot see light, but see only what is lit up by light.
StratmanWithout taking one si
June 15, 2007 - 17:53 ET byStratman
Without taking one side or the other for this argument, why does one side have to be the "right" side? Why can't both share in being a part of the whole picture? Absolutism about one's position creates potential for intolerance and missappropriation of each side's values. Fanaticism and extreme behaviours are only a couple of rationalizations away
When you assert this do you think your viewpoint is correct (absolute)?
Also, why would you think the universe is infinite? The latest in science, big bang cosmology, shows a bounded, limited universe. There is also much in the philosophical discipline which argues strongly against any actual infinities
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
When you assert this do you t
June 15, 2007 - 18:58 ET by stratmanWhen you assert this do you think your viewpoint is correct (absolute)?
Good point and precisely why I did not say either religion or science is the correct view in my postulate. My post was more in the fashion of John Lennon's song "Imagine" - what if both religion and science were complimentary rather than exclusionary parts of the same whole?
I will say that Einstein quote #4 really strikes a chord with me.
Also, why would you think the universe is infinite? The latest in science, big bang cosmology, shows a bounded, limited universe. There is also much in the philosophical discipline which argues strongly against any actual infinities.
Another excellent point and precisely why I did not use Newtonian Laws as an example of current science fact. The point I was trying to make was that there are concepts such as infinity and nothingness that my puny human mind has a lot of difficulty wrapping around. In concert with your example, what is beyond the finite universe? And where did the Big Bang come from? Absolutely mind blowing to me. For Einstein, that was (part of) God.
My post was more in the fa
June 15, 2007 - 19:11 ET byMy post was more in the fashion of John Lennon's song "Imagine" - what if both religion and science were complimentary rather than exclusionary parts of the same whole?
John was hardly a great thinker or even a follower of his own thought. (How many of his 100s of millions did he share?) I am fully convinced that the same God who inspired the writing of Scripture also created the universe. He does not contradict himself thus if there is a contradiction between faith and science then our understanding of one or the other is incorrect.
As to your second part i believe Einstien said "The more i study science, the more i believe in God"
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Leon, what do you mean by evo
June 15, 2007 - 17:40 ET byLeon,
what do you mean by evolution? It's really about evolution vs science!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Paperless toilet paper (left
June 15, 2007 - 12:57 ET by BeowulfPaperless toilet paper (left hand)?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beowulf
June 15, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Cool ArrowDoesn't pass the smell test.
Modern mathematics. There's
June 15, 2007 - 14:12 ET by KhyrisModern mathematics. There's a reason why we call our own number system "arabic"
Khyris, Modern Mathmatics???
June 15, 2007 - 17:56 ET by Cool ArrowAre you serious Khyris?
Are you saying the arabic number system was developed after 600 AD when Islam was founded?
Wow, I guess I'm off by a couple of thousand years. But such anachronisms are by no means rare when Liberals make a case.
In elden times letters were u
June 15, 2007 - 18:08 ET byIn elden times letters were used for the numbers, I'm pretty sure math (example: Pythagoris ) was around long before the modern appearance of the numeric system.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Here's an interesting read. A
June 15, 2007 - 21:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberHere's an interesting read. According to Wiki, the Arabic system came from India. I also checked out zero, and the Mayans used zeros, and Ptolemy was influenced by the Babylonians. Very interesting.
Thanks RogerSupreme Court,
June 15, 2007 - 21:07 ET byThanks Roger
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Capital, I dont think a musli
June 15, 2007 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeCapital, I dont think a muslim army has had a millitary victory sense the 1100's, or the 9th or 10th century. But that was back when the winner was the one to field the largest number of soldiers. I think the last victory they had was in Constantinople. And thats been awhile back, and only after the Roman Empire was severly weakened. There timing has bee waaaaay off sense then.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
General Charles Gordon and the Mandi.
June 15, 2007 - 11:58 ET by acaiguanaGeneral Charles Gordon and the Mandi.
"On the 24th (1884) Wilson started with two of the steamers for Khartum, but on arriving there on the 28th he found that the place had been captured by the rebels and Gordon killed two days before."
The story of Gordon is much more interesting than the link shows. The 'rebels' were muslim fundamentalists warring against the British (and anyone else in their way) to impose Shia law on Africa.
However, the Mandi (sometimes referred to as the Mahdii) was the personification of Imadinnerjacket, currently President of Iran.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Well, Gallipoli in WW I (1915
June 15, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, Gallipoli in WW I (1915?) was a Turk victory, but the Ottoman Emipre was on the losing end of the War, with chunks of their land taken away and new countries like Syria and Lebanon (and Palestine?) were created, and a bunch of other countries took their little chunks of land from the Empire, like Italy, Greece, and Armenia, if I recall correctly.
We have discussed great battles on other threads in the past, and some of us feel that the Battle of Vienna in 1683 was THE turning point in stopping Islam from spreading into Europe. That could be the date you're looking for?
Well, regardless of the actua
June 15, 2007 - 12:02 ET by CapitalismRulesWell, regardless of the actual battle and date, I think the point has been made. I was thinking along your lines in WWI as well, but in any event, the bigger question I had in mind was- Um, why do these people think that are such hot stuff? Becuase of CNN? Because of MSNBC?
Because they hate
June 15, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Cool ArrowAnd because some people refuse to join the 21st century and have been taught the reason they are poor is because the US owns all the wealth in the world. And no more wealth is being created.
This is exactly the point. On
June 15, 2007 - 13:22 ET by BeowulfThis is exactly the point. One of the rallying calls of the so-called "fundamentalists" is Crusader. They are calling the US troops Crusaders! This shows where their mind-set is.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Good question. Could it be th
June 15, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberGood question. Could it be the indoctrination from birth that anything non-Mooslim is beneath them, is subhuman?
I think the zeal, the blind, almost psychotic nature of these folks is scary. I chuckle when I hear Leftards commenting on how Christians are just as psycho. I think you'd have to look for someone like the self-flaggelating Albino from "DaVinci Code" to find that level of nuttiness. We're talking maybe hundreds of nutty Xtians across the world, versus the millions of throat-cutters we're dealing with in the ME.
Exactly Rog, when Rosie says
June 15, 2007 - 12:22 ET by CapitalismRulesExactly Rog, when Rosie says things like "Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radial Islam," I think, let's see, a Muslim would break into my house kill me, rape my pregnant wife before slowly torturing her to death, ripping the baby from her womb, chopping off her head and burning all of our bodies, and urinate on the ashes just for being American- this is just as dangerous as me going to church on Sunday?????
Well, according to one of our
June 15, 2007 - 13:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, according to one of our more lefttarded NBers, it happened in some movie called "Jesus Camp".
Roger,Here is a direct quote
June 15, 2007 - 13:18 ET by LeonRoger,
Here is a direct quote from the director of the camp from the movie:
"It's no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have... excuse me, but we have the truth! "
So, looks like you spoke too soon about my D game.
Nope. My first statement stil
June 15, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Roger the ShrubberNope. My first statement still seems to be accurate.
Quoting the director of this "documentary" does nothing to show that militant Islam and the slanted view "Jesus Camp" portays are even in the same chapter, let alone the same page. It only shows that the one director (which of the two chicks said that, anyway?) if not both, have serious problem with everything to the right of Socialism.
The fact that you even prop this movie up as some sort of indictment on Christianity only proves that you are a typical Liberal: you stand on your head and tell the world it is upside-down.
Your grade remains a "D". I'll even use a red pen to be more un-PC.
Roger,It's not the director o
June 15, 2007 - 13:38 ET by LeonRoger,
It's not the director of the movie...it was the director of the Jesus Camp, Becky Fisher, and this quote was part of her explanation as to why her camp was so important.
Nice try though. It was a pleasure to watch you waste your time on a post based on a false assumption. Beautiful.
I didn't use this movie to prop up anything. I used the mission statement of the founder/director of the Jesus Camp.
Got it?
* I shall await your snarky retort/apology with bated breath
So Leon, what did you find wr
June 15, 2007 - 13:46 ET by vrwc13So Leon, what did you find wrong about what the director said? Are you trying to read into it that Christian youth are going to put on suicide bomb-belts? Get a clue, the director is talking about the intensity of Christian youth going out in a "Christian" way with the Gospel Truth...something you do not appear to have a clue about.
VRWC,You're just being purpos
June 15, 2007 - 13:54 ET by LeonVRWC,
You're just being purposefully disingenuous.
I'll refer you specifically to this line, note the word 'radically'
"I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine "
She said what she meant to say. Furthermore, later in the movie she describes the children that attend the camp as being in training to be soldiers in the Army of God. The children are encouraged to make war in order to take physically take back land in the middle east.
Leon, you have had way to muc
June 15, 2007 - 14:00 ET by vrwc13Leon, you have had way to much Coo-Aid today. "Radically laying down their lives for the Gospel" is following Jesus' example of dying for the cause...not by suicide or even fighting. Its sharing your faith in sometimes some of the most dangerous places (i.e. the Middle East where you can be legally executed for it). You are so far off base on this one you are not even on the same ball field.
BTW; you are so out of touch with Christianity you do not even know what is meant by "the Army of God". The "Army" trains with Bible tracts, memory verses, knowing how to "defend" the faith by knowing it well...not with guns, knives, and bombs unlike the training of grade school kids in Gaza.
Get a clue...following in the footsteps of your leader below? -
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
VRW,Have you seen the movie?
June 15, 2007 - 14:03 ET by LeonVRW,
Have you seen the movie? Did you see the part where she talks about training these kids to be Christian soldiers to fight to get back land in the Middle East?
If you haven't seen the movie, then why are you even responding to my posts.
This woman is a nut. If I was you, I wouldnt' want to be associated with her at all.
Leon, I misread your post abo
June 15, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberLeon, I misread your post about the director, and I apologize for that. She is clearly a nutjob.
That being said, I have to take issue that you are using this as some sort of tool to defend the nutjobs in the Middle East whose sole purpose is to convert us or kill us. You make no sense. I do not need to see "Jesus Camp" to know there are Christian nutjobs (which I thought I clearly pointed out earlier), not all of them on the Right (ie: the God hates Fags crowd). Their numbers are such a small fraction of what we (we meaning the non-Mooslim people of the world) are up against.
It is becoming clear that the time is drawing close to where people must pick a side. Many of us did it after 9/11. You obviously are still living in the 1990's.
Roger,Thanks for the apology.
June 15, 2007 - 14:19 ET by LeonRoger,
Thanks for the apology.
In no way am I excusing the behavior of Islamic Extremists.
My only point is that I fear all extremists and I think it's dangerous to overlook the extremists in our own back yard. People tend to think extremism is exclusive to Islam. This is false.
I bring it up b/c Christians need to police their own instead of allowing this type of extremism to expand and ferment.
Furthermore, I don't think the number of Chirstian extremists are as small of a fraction as you think. That's another claim that is dangerous.
It is a very small protion,
June 15, 2007 - 14:21 ET by florida_chadIt is a very small protion, otherwise the MSM would be on it like white on rice.
How do we know? I've never
June 15, 2007 - 14:25 ET by LeonHow do we know? I've never seen any sort of evidence documenting the true numbers.
Ted Haggard appears in the movie multiple times. How many people go to his mega church?
If only a small percentage of them buy into this crusade mentality, that's still a pretty big number.
Now take into account all of the mega churches and you're getting into scary number territory.
If you haven't seen any evide
June 15, 2007 - 14:30 ET by florida_chadIf you haven't seen any evidence documenting the numbers, how do you know its a scary number?? You are letting your imagination get