Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 August
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
My Links
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Watts Up With That?
Internet Haganah
Jihad Watch
Ponder the Maunder
The Dissident Frogman
Barking-Moonbat EWS
Just Barking Mad!
The Malaria Clock
Project Valour-IT
Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...
10 Myths of Islam
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Bridges TV: Islamic Supremacism on US Television |
| 10.22.06 (1:23 pm) [edit] |
|
While the Washington Post sanctions the propaganda of radical Islamists, our friends the Saudis are continuing their infiltration of American society, openly telling anyone who cares to listen that their goal is domination of the US, via the Islamic television channel Bridges TV: An Islamic TV Channel Expands Its US Audience.
What is the “unique perspective” that Bridges TV hopes will “improve the image of Muslims in the US?”
UPDATE at 10/22/06 10:14:54 am: And note: this anti-Jewish, anti-American Islamic supremacist propaganda channel enthusiastically endorses the Democratic Party.
Via: LGF |
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (1:21 pm)
I'm a'gin' it - though not against their right to say they'd like it. Kind of like I'm agin' us forcing our way of life in their part of the world, but would be all for them choosing it for themselves if they so deisire. In fact, I'll bet I'd react to them occupying our land by force to bring their brands of religion and lifestyle choices here as much as they're against us occupying their land by force to bring our brands of religions and lifestyle choices to them.
I love the counter on the left side of your page about the deadly terror attacks perpetrated since 9-11. You'd almost think you war supporters might get a clue that the number is a lot higher than it ought to be, or, for that matter WOULD be, if we weren't acting as such a great recruiting tool for them. I don't understand how selectively logical you folks manage to be. It's lke you're perfectly capable of adding two and two, but if there a two more that you don't like, you keep settling for four- all proud with your chest puffed out pointing to your "correct" answer, taking bow's. Meanwhile, anyone saying, "yeah, you can add two and two... great! But THAT'S not the problem presented!" is seen as a spoil-sport.
Oy.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (3:03 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
*Sigh* I know I'll regret coming out to stomp on the moral/intellectual/logical flaming bags of shit you've left on my virtual doorstep, but...
There is some merit to the argument that it doesn’t take much to inspire the holy warriors of Islam to suicide bombings and other acts of violence in the name of Jihad. The very fact that many of these misguided Muslims can be manipulated into leaving a country such as Syria, where the dictator has willfully slaughtered tens of thousands of suspected Islamic fundamentalists to retain power over the years, only to travel to Iraq and engage in the slaughter of innocent Muslims (most of whom haven’t completed the Hajj) is pretty good evidence of just how vulnerable Islamic radicals are to the misinformation tactics of secular puppet masters.
Still, al-Qaeda had no problem attracting thousands to its training camps well before America started fighting back in the war on terror, and it is a fact that these sociopaths have to live somewhere. If no country feels that it can safely harbor terrorists without facing severe consequences, then their numbers will naturally shrink.
Since America made terrorism a national defense issue, rather than a legal matter, and began building allies in the battle, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq have been overthrown and replaced by democracies. The world is no longer threatened by Saddam Hussein, or forced into guessing games regarding his WMD programs. Syria has been pressured into ending a very brutal occupation of Lebanon, and elections have been held there, as well as in Egypt. Libya has given up its WMD program and surrendered its stockpiles. Islamic terrorists are under pressure across the globe now from Pakistan to the Philippines.
There is no perfect solution to terrorism, but the passive approach taken in the 1990’s obviously has far harsher consequences for citizens in the West. Our policy of non-confrontation and appeasement was rewarded with successively bolder attacks against military, diplomatic, and civilian targets, culminating in the loss of over 3,000 innocents on 9/11.
For 1400 years, Islamic terrorists have always found reasons for hating and killing unsubmissive infidels, in keeping with the teachings of their religion. No amount of appeasement will ever change this.
As to the tired "occupation" meme:
According to this myth, the insurgents are so repulsed by the presence of foreign troops in their country that they are forced by conscience to take up arms and kill fellow Iraqis by the hundreds each month. If the Americans were gone, then the “insurgency” would evaporate and these Iraqis would respect their democratically elected government.
In the first place, these would have to be extremely dimwitted insurgents, since their own murderous rampage is the sole reason that American troops remain. The democratic Iraqi government is clearly working toward self-sufficiency, but its efforts are being undermined exclusively by the terrorists, hence the need for external support. Clearly, there are ulterior motives involved that are not as palatable to Western tastes.
The impartial observer will also note that the “insurgency” is conspicuously and curiously limited to 20% of the country (the so-called “Sunni Triangle”) even though all of Iraq is technically under “occupation.” Why isn’t the resistance spread evenly – if it is truly an Iraqi insurgency, and not merely a Sunni ploy to regain hegemony under the guise of freedom (or the banner of Jihad)?
In fact, virtually all of the suicide bombers (who cause the most damage) are not Iraqis at all, but instead come from places like Saudi Arabia, where the lives of Iraqis are not highly valued.
I will continue below...
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (3:11 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
Although anti-war and anti-American propagandists search desperately for appealing terminology that will legitimize the violence, the fact remains that the vast majority of Iraqis have chosen to live peaceably under their own chosen democratic government.
Now a bit of pre-emption:
Democrats have certainly tried their best to capitalize on the natural ambivalence that often accompanies modern wars waged by Western powers, realizing that they benefit from their own efforts to make Iraq unpopular. Comparing American soldiers to Nazis and wildly extrapolating every misstep of the war from Abu Ghraib to a “mishandling” of the Qur’an has had a demoralizing effect both on those fighting in uniform and the resolve of the American public. Iraqis are now suffering in ways the Afghans are not; despite the common presence of foreign troops.
The potential political reward from a successful insurgency has seduced some Democrats into disingenuously assisting the enemy. Ted Kennedy, for example, virtually fed the radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, talking points about Vietnam in the spring of 2004, even as the religious leader was engaged in a murderous uprising that left hundreds dead.
In fact, the shadow strategy is to frame the war using terms (such as "quagmire") that are often used retrospectively to describe Vietnam, where America faced an enemy that wanted to subjugate and kill the locals and their immediate neighbors, rather than wage global Jihad against infidels. *The practice of meticulously keeping a running tally of American dead, in fact, was unheard of until Vietnam activists realized midway through the conflict that such a ploy could weaken public support for foreign sacrifice.* Sound familiar?
Vietnam was a loser for a divided America, and if Democrats can successfully associate the two conflicts in the nation’s consciousness, then Iraq will be a loser as well – both for us, the Iraqis, and the hopes of pro-reform advocates in the Middle East.
So, on the surface this would appear to be a winning issue for Democrats. But wait… The party rejected anti-war candidates in 2004 for a full ticket that voted in favor of the war. In all likelihood, the 2008 Democratic nominee for President will also be someone who supported the war and refuses to articulate an “exit strategy.” Even prominent party leaders such as Harry Reid have scoffed at the notion of “timetables” for removing troops – rightly explaining that it would merely encourage the enemy.
The problem for Democrats is that their murky opposition to the war is fueled only by the success of terrorists, usually in the form of barbaric and cowardly attacks. Retreat in the face of terrorism may have short-term electoral benefits, but it will merely strengthen the general impression that Democrats are soft on terror, and this will not be good for the party in the long run… nor for the rest of the world.
Your move.
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (3:16 pm)
you mistake me for a pacifist perhaps? I'm not one. I'm for thoughtful and measured response and for doing as little to provoke an enemy as humanly possible... this strategy is called... um, sanity.
About the most crazy way to approach a pit of excited and angry vipers is to jump around in it. In fact, if you want to eliminate them, the smartest thing to do is to let them relax and go after them one at a time in a fashion that doesn't rile up the others.
I've just read what you've written above three times... and what it doesn't address is the problem AS it exists today, but thanks for the simplistic history lesson. I wouldn't have known they've been at each other for centuries had you not told me.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (3:18 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
One more note on the left's constant screed of "The Iraq war is a disaster!":
The terror attacks in Iraq provide an excuse for political opportunists to label the country a “disaster.” This, in turn, inspires more violence and works against the resolve of those fighting the terrorists.
Apart from the terror, Iraq is a stable country where educational and economic opportunity is now afforded to the 80% of the population that was denied basic rights under the dictatorship. Schools are open; electricity and clean water are reaching new areas; and the torture chambers and rape rooms have been closed. Oil is flowing, and the revenue is not being skimmed away from the people via corrupt practices as it was under Saddam. A free and open democracy now exists at the heart of the Arab world, which means long-term regional stability as surrounding countries are pressured into democratic and human rights reform.
Iraqis have been given an enormous opportunity to benefit from the overthrow of tyranny, and American blood has been shed to make it so. The only thing that will squander the opportunity and make the sacrifice in vain is if the terrorists win.
Criminals and Fedayeen have been killing about 500 Iraqis a month over the last year – mainly police and other security forces. Each high-profile attack invites sanctimonious hand wringing from opportunists, who are assisted by the media’s natural inclination toward bad news. When attention is isolated on acts of violence, their significance becomes exaggerated and context is lost.
But let’s put the numbers in perspective…
Eighteen times as many Americans die from alcohol-related incidents. In fact, the death rate from terror in Iraq is about eight times lower than the number of Americans dying from tobacco-related causes, even taking the population disparity into account. This is also true for obesity-related mortality, which is poised to overtake smoking as the top cause of preventable death.
The residents of fourteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces enjoy a much lower crime rate than nearly any American city, and the other four provinces average fewer murders per capita than New York City’s worst year under David Dinkins.
Though the number of Iraqis dying from terror attacks is both tragic and preventable, it is almost incomparable to the number of those killed under Saddam. The people in the West who use the attacks for their own propaganda purposes (in exactly the way that the terrorists intend) are playing directly into the hands of those whose intention is to turn Iraq - and the Middle East - into a genuine disaster that will have enormous consequences for the rest of us.
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (3:31 pm)
I always love it when it's the fault of people who see what we're is the wrong response for the failures of the policies. Too funny. And sad. As though if everyone would just be FOR it, everything would be hunky-dory. Come on.
As to your numbers, remember that when there's a murder near your house. Hell, lots of people die every day in completely unrelated incidents all over your city, therefore you should let the murderer off, huh? Talk about trying to make an apple an orange. How you can be as bright as you are and think the way you do floors me.
Just ask yourself this, all the other rhetoric aside: Would you stand still if we were occupied for ANY reason? What if the occupiers used the same sort of reasoning you've presented here? Would that make it okay with you?
The facts are that seven out of ten Iraquis want us the fuck out. Those are the governments own figures according to the NIE report generated in APRIL. Shouldn't that be enough? Ohhh! I forget. We know best.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (5:21 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
I'll try this again. An argument is constructed thusly:
Premise -
Supporting argument
Supporting argument
etc.
NOT
Ad Hominem
Spleen
Straw Man
Ad Hominem
Sputter
Sarcasm
See? Now I have to go change my shoes and shower...
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (5:22 pm)
Reply to: thoolou
Man, this comment editor blows goats.
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (5:58 pm)
Reply to:
Look... I don't have time to argue when you start with a flawed premise and extrapolate from there. Not one thing I've said was sarcastic, and not one thing was (I've noticed how much you love the term, by the way) "ad hominem, " though since you use it so often, you might want to check the definition and the spelling.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (7:00 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
"Look... I don't have time to argue when you start with a flawed premise and extrapolate from there."
By all means, please enlighten me as to which premise you refer, and how it is flawed.
"Not one thing I've said was sarcastic..."
"You'd almost think you war supporters might get a clue..."
"I don't understand how selectively logical you folks manage to be. It's lke you're perfectly capable of adding two and two, but if there a two more that you don't like, you keep settling for four- all proud with your chest puffed out pointing to your "correct" answer, taking bow's. Meanwhile, anyone saying, "yeah, you can add two and two... great! But THAT'S not the problem presented!" is seen as a spoil-sport."
Wow. Sarcasm, hasty generalization, AND another personal attack.
For your edification:
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
I use this term a lot with you, because it seems to be the first thing to which you resort when challenged (as do all liberals) [Hasty generalization].
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
THIS is exactly why I don't bother to reply to a lot of the comments made on my blog. A reasoned discussion is welcome, but that is not what most of you want. You read the subject of the post, then launch into a tirade about how I'm an unenlightend boob, and everything I say is completely wrong. I decline to debate with you because I know exactly what you will say, having been an elitist, liberal, useful idiot myself for a number of years. Hopefully, I have grown out of it.
Finally, I issue a challange to you personally, Surrogate. Please expound on this mythical "thoolou land" to which you so frequently refer. Please, DO tell me exactly what I think and believe, as you seem to have all the true answers.
BTW, "bow's" implies possession. If you're going to play spelling police...
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 10.22.06 (8:33 pm)
Your premise is: "We're doing what must be done." It's flawed. It's wrong. It's false and it's getting too many people killed, and the wrong people at that. I have not attacked you. I have attacked your thinking as evidenced by what you've written, hence the attack is not personal. Now, if you feel attacked, perhaps it's because you use arguments like comparing the deaths of Iraqis to the deaths of people in the U.S. who smoke, and I see it as spurious, and the sort of thing that makes reasonable discussion impossible and pointless. On the other hand, I'd hate for people to stumble across your blog and think that everyone agrees with the way you present things - hence my comments. I know I'll never change your mind about anything. You seem ("seem" -if I'm wrong fill me in) to assume that liberals are the reason for the ills of our society and post only things that, when presented as you "seem" to like to present them, cast aspersions on every motive they could possibly have. When we, for instance think that wiretapping ought be done according to the law of our land by making use of the courts, at least AFTER the fact, you'll claim that we don't either care about terrorism, or worse, support terrorists - utter bullshit, and you know it, but it advances your "side's" agenda so you step right up to the podium and spew what feels like filth to me. Now if that's a personal attack? I'm sorry, I'm responding to things you've SAID and or posted, and specifically.
How do I reasonably argue with someone who knowingly justifies bending the truth so very often? You tell me. You stop with the bullshit and I'll never say anything that stings.
I come at things this way: My country is a sovereign nation. Other peoples' countries deserve the same designation. We ONLY have a right to attack a country when that country has attacked us. If a "non-country" attacks us, we have a responsibility to go after those people SPECIFICALLY. And guess what? If and when we do? -the whole rest of the free world will not only thank us, but will also get on board in a big way - the way they wanted to right after 9-11. We're only fooling ourselves right now - or some of us.
Our forefathers are twisting in their graves.
posted by: Lindy (reply)
post date: 10.23.06 (9:37 am)
Reply to: surrogate
Psst, Surr.. it's all regurgitated history degenerating to semantics around here.. but I like that you still try. :)
