Kuwaiti: 'The terrorist Katrina' is a soldier of Allah'

I believe that the poilice showdown and gunplay shown on television was under an overpass on Hwy 99 near Elk Grove, about 10 miles south of Sacramento.

Issue. Americans are no longer led down the primrose path by the major news media organizations. Walter Kronkeit is no longer in charge of American news. There is simply too much information out there to be ignorant. Most people that I know are amazingly aware of world Islamic events and activities. Not only that, there are millions of combat veterans in the United States. As you may know, "Americans learn world geography by going to war.". I can't remember who said it, but for the "great unwashed", this is a compelling idea and largely true.

"A moderate Muslim these days is a Muslim that only wants to kill Jews". Again, I can't remember who said that, but it was a popular news guy. He lost his job over the remark. Again, his remark was remarkably close to the mark. Al Pacino was basically right when he hollered, "You (sic, many people) can't take the truth."

 

Thanks, I just posted a link to the story.

No one said we ought to be ignorant. But it's not exactly right to show babies of any religion getting shot to death on primetime television!

~AJ

 

I was responding to the tired old liberal comment about politically conservative Americans being ignorant and easily led by the media. I believe the opposite to be true.

 

Ah, I understand then - sorry!

 

This is an interesting claim. I've never heard that. Do you have a reference?

 

I find Islam to be irrational, and I won't defend it. But I think there's a pretty big difference between defending Islam and seeing all Muslims as enemies. I think that there is danger in becoming fanatically anti-Islam. As widespread as fanaticism is in the Islamic world, there are moderate elements, and we need to keep our bridges to them open and keep people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) from setting fire to them.

 

Suicide bombers seem uniquely Islamic. But religion inspires, and is used to promote, violence all over the world. Just ask residents of Northern Ireland, or that Rudolph guy who was just sentenced for bombings. Religion is a powerful tool for motivating feelings of both selflessness and righteousness, which can be made, in turn, into powerful weapons.


It's like Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer bomb. The ingredients are harmless enough by themselves, and can be very beneficial. Mix 'em the right way, though, and boom. Islam strikes me as a particularly volatile type of manure--if you'll permit me to stretch that metaphor a little to far for good taste.


(edited to add: Huh. Whaddya know. It does lead back to cow flatulence.)

 

I believe the potential Bovine Secretions OldDan was refering to was not a documentable media event, but the statement reguarding the media's self imposed censorship due to fear of losing federal funding.

 

I think we can safely conclude that non-Muslims are increasingly reacting to violent actions taken by radical Muslims throughout the world. It would also appear that public rhetoric, and more importantly, quiet animosity have increased in proportion to an almost infinite series of Muslim attacks and vocal threats against all "non-believers". Evil deeds seldom go unrewarded for very long. Therefore, I have reached the conclusion after decades of observing the madness that the "Islamic Problem" must be solved by Muslims, and very soon.

Affluent and educated Muslims can no longer continue to intellectually and physically "hide out". They can no longer afford to sit around sipping tea and quietly discussing horrific world events as if they were insulated from the ramifications of such events. If self-described "Muslim intellectuals" do not take some dramatic and overt actions to reform Islam, millions of devout followers will continue to remain ignorant and poor. Contrary to the apparent belief of many Islamic leaders, Muslims around the world will suffer more than any other cultural or religeous group as a result of this horrible world-conflict.

Non-Muslims can not peacefully effect important changes within Islam. The ball is in the court of the Muslim establishment. When will they step up and respond to this pervasive world problem? Or, will the Muslim establishment continue to deny reality.

 

Well, my comment stemmed from that documentable media event, and I am only repeating what I have heard on the matter - that the media has imposed upon itself, in at least some instances, restraint in showing such things of a grossly graphic nature. Watching people shoot babies on CNN is one such thing that the media will not do because they have self-imposed an ethical boundary for such things.

The federal government has also stepped in for at least one instance of gross media dissemination that I can think of: when the al-Qaeda videotape of the soldier getting his head sawed off was put on the internet for all to see. The FBI (?) or someone shut it down rather quickly.

~AJ

 

I can agree with this statement. The leaders of the Muslim community do indeed have a responsibility to control (not the best word for it, but an effective one) the members of their faith who are turning to extremism. I'll make it clear that I don't support bombing the hell out of them if they DON'T do this, but it is something that they will need to step up and do - clarify the thinking that peaceful Muslims codify, and denounce strongly the extremist movements - this before any true peace can occur, especially in the Middle East where, as many have pointed out, a vast majority of terror networks are and where these networks carry out plans to disrupt societies around the world.

Quick dog, thank you for putting up this comment. I think it is helpful to understanding the whole picture here.

~AJ

 

Everytime I see a Mulsim cleric state islam is a "religion of peace", I can't help but feel he has his hand behind his back with his fingers crossed. He may say it, but actions speak louder than words.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT quick dog...

Mulsims better start dealing with these terrorists that are clearly within their own community first. They need to clean their house and get rid of this cancer. If not, this cancer has and will spread further. Now it has reached "our house". We (I mean myself) do not have patience to wait and listen to "finger-crossed lip service" as nothing gets done.

So they better fix it within their community first or we will fix it for them. Then you will really have a 21st Century Crusade of biblical magnitude. If they want it, I will give it but let's see how the mulsim population treats their cancer first.

I know, I know,,,don't hold your breath!

 

Well, although quick dog's comment was more, shall we say, reserved and composed, you are also right, except that I don't think you will ever see a "21st Century Crusade of biblical magnitude." It would never be allowed, either by our government, world governements, or by public support. You also won't see people nuking Muslim communities, for the same reasons. You might personally support it, but in the world of "playing politics" with everyone and everything, no institution is going to ever condone it.

All we will see if Muslim leaders do not "step up" is prolonged conflict to completely eradicate terrorist cells specifically, and not non-terrorist Muslims. Many more Americans and potentially other peoples around the world will be killed in such a prolonged conflict, and little progress will be made over the years.

~AJ

 

So it sounds to me that you are referring to a potential loss of viewership and advertiser funding rather than federal funding. Am I correct? Because I'm unaware of much federal funding, apart from that which goes to public broadcasting or which supports equal-time campaign ads.

Or perhaps you are referring to FCC fines for violations of broadcast regulations, which would be another matter.

 

Still holding my breath...

 

I'm not completely certain of HOW they lose money, it could certainly be from a combination of viewership and advertising and federal funding. All I know for certain is that 1) they do lose money, and 2) at least in my district, my representative has specifically advocated such measures that would cut or reduce federal funding to our news channels if something like that were to happen here.

Certainly, also, I may be thinking of the FCC fines for broadcast violations.

Unfortunately, I am not a scholar of FCC regulations or federal appropriations; in this matter I have only been reporting what I have heard on the matter.

~AJ

 

Don't explode....

 

Having been in contact with the FCC and here is what I have found:

1) They assure me that they or anyone else in the Federal Government "gives" any of the broadcast networks funds, for any purpose. Not now. Not ever!
They do go on to say that money sometimes changes hands between these two parties because of "fines imposed"
2) They have a "indecency law" which prevents such actions as was viewed at the super bowl with Ms Jackson's costume failure. There for some time must be had between the actual happening and the picture going out over the airways. This the networks have put into place themselves, to keep from having to pay the FCC a fairly hefty "fine" for airing such events.
3) A lot of this "time lag" is used on news stories" shown between the hrs of 7 A.M. and 10 A.M. to prevent children from viewing what we adults find to pass our time doing. Again this was done by the networks and not the FCC. Same reason to keep from paying fines.
4) The ACLU is now going to court with what is called a injunction to prevent this from being carried out. They are using the 1st amendment as the basis to yell "censorship". Their case looks like a winner this time.

I will include the text they refered me to and you can read the entire 28 pages and not find any thing about shooting babies or any thing else that has be alleged here in this thread. Have fun.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:.../fcc01090.pdf Fcc indecency regulations&hl=en

 

I could have told you that... they get no gov'nant monies. And the fines they impose - well, yeah, that happens. The indecency laws are just one area... there are also EEO regulations, and compliance for tower specs - retransmission - bandwidth - tons of compliance issues.
In fact, most stations, due to the little miss jackson issue bringing the project to a front, have implimented a 5 second delay system so if anyone drops an F bomb at a live shot, the director has five seconds to blleeeep it. But this system came at the expense of your local network affiliates, in most cases.
I haven't heard anything about the ALCU issues, but most station affiliates are doing this voluntarily, because these fines tend to be a little more than a 'shame on you'.

 

Well, the oposite is no more true than the statement itself.

Anyone is subject to being easily led, if they do not look for the facts behind the issued statements and so forth... no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall.