Jawa Roundup on the Religon of Peas

As I said earlier, very little time to blog today. Here's a few interesting tidbits you might find interesting.

Zarqawi beheads two Iraqis in Mosul in front of crowd. New tactic to terrorize population. Hey, it works in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this is what he meant when he claimed a few days ago that the jihadis were in total control of Mosul? Digger and Alan Brain on the case. Maybe more later.

Jakarta Post: Only 59 percent of Indonesian Muslims "disagree with the (Bali and Marriott hotel bombings)" and 16 percent "support" the killing of innocent people in the name of Islam. The survey was based on 1,200 interviews in 32 provinces with a 3 percent margin of error.

Who really killed Margaret Hassan? Mossad, CIA, anybody--but not Muslims!!

Aaron:Where are the fatwas against Muslims who fight out of uniform, contrary to the Geneva accords?
Where are the fatwas against Muslims who use schools for military headquarters?
Where are the fatwas against Muslims who use hospitals for sniper lookouts?
Where are the fatwas against Muslims who use ambulances not to carry the wounded but to shuttle weaponry?
Where are the fatwas against Muslims who use women’s burkas to smuggle weaponry?

Indeed!

Yasser Arafat, still dead meat.

About those 'freedom fighters' in Fallujah who were just like, you know, George Washington and stuff (via Bill)

Did I mention a majority of the threats I receive are from Muslims in Europe and that of those the majority are from Scandinavia? You think maybe this might help explain that (via Robert): Dr. Zahid Mukhtar, spokesperson for Islamic Council in Norway, stated that he sympathize with reason why the Dutch film director Theo van Gogh was murdered.

But perhaps the Dutch are getting fed up (via James): Opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of citizens favor a crackdown on Muslim extremists, who are estimated to number as many as 50,000 in the country. "It was a great shock. A wake-up call," said Theo Kwakman, a construction foreman restoring an ancient building along the old Warmoesstraat. "I'm afraid that there will be more Muslims here soon than Christians. "I don't worry about the atheists. They won't do anything. [Muslims] are not all bad. But ... I'm afraid someday one of the tunnels [into Amsterdam] will be blown up."

I noticed this story a few days ago, but McQ does a great job of explaining why the Germans have every right to be afraid of the growing Muslim population there. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I reported that Zarqawi's Fallujah headquarters had been found two days ago in this post and this one. What I didn't know was that there was an al Qaeda sign outside. More evidence South Park is real.

Dead Iraqi killed in Fallujah mosque interviewed by Oprah. Hillarity ensues.

Iran agrees to stop refining weapons grade nuclear material (oh, but only after they have enough of it to matter).

Posted by: Rusty at 12:34 PM

Comments

1 This is what scares me about Zarqawi. While everyone is saying that the assault on Fallujah's a success because we got the insurgents, now they have run off to another city!

What are we gonna do, go to the next city and the next, on a wild goose chase for the rest of the terrorists, and Zarqawi as well?

When do we stop?

Posted by: Laura at November 19, 2004 01:35 PM

2 Yes...

That's why the Prez correctly noted this will be LONG war back in 2001 and has stuck by that assessment.

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 01:54 PM

3 Question to Editor: How do we all know what's the real truth.The problem is that we do not have any credible witness(Unbiased truthful) to anything.All based on assumptions(That's the real horror).Are we being tricked or being forced to believe just b'cause our faith and trust in the so called "news media" is high beyond our doubts???

Just like How Laura has raised questions:
The questions should have been asked long time back. Had they had given some thoughts and planning prior to the war,would any1 would have asked any??? Yeah it's a repeated stale old question but it's just like a swing however far you push it just comes back!!!

Posted by: Roopesh at November 19, 2004 02:18 PM

4 Roopesh,

How do we know there are not 25 parallel universes where what you want to be truth is truth in 8 of them? How do we know that red shift in those universes are not blue shifts in this universe and how do we know what a black hole might "look" like if we've never really seen one, you know, because they trap light and stuff? And how do we know that all that light being sucked up isn't just Satan taking a toke, sucking everything right into hell, a.k.a Gaza. How do we know that Michael Moore is not a universe all to himself - he certainly seems to be expanding at a rapid rate, and my guess is most of his body parts are moving AWAY from each other, except for intenal organs which I'm sure are being shoved at a rapid pace towards the black hole inside him that is his heart.

I don't know what planet you're living on, but here on planet BLOG very few people have "faith and trust in the so called 'news media'". That's why we frequent and participate in the blogosphere which, in my estimation, is about as close to fulfilling the promise of Bill Numero Uno as has every been.

Lesson for Roopesh: If you ask a stoopid rhetorical question that you have either decided what the answer is or decided there is no answer expect to get a really stooooopid theoretical answer.

For me personally, the only truth I KNOW for certain is: John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 03:18 PM

5 Totally OT but somebody translated by blog into FRENCH! including the blogroll. In Paris, you'd be "Mon Animal de compagnie Jawa."

Posted by: Jane at November 19, 2004 03:56 PM

6 "I don't know what planet you're living on, but here on planet BLOG very few people have "faith and trust in the so called 'news media'"."

Funny, Arabs have the same attitude towards MSM as you. Many of them seem to think the MSM is controlled by Jews.

It's sick how ultra right-wing conservatives (including more than a few bloggers) and nationalist Arabs view the world in a similar fashion, but with wildly different vantage points. The MSM must be objective if they're ridiculed by such extreme elements!

Posted by: Venom at November 19, 2004 04:04 PM

7 Funny, Arabs have the same attitude towards MSM as you. Many of them seem to think the MSM is controlled by Jews.

That's funny. I don't remember saying Jews controlled the MSM. My attitude towards the MSM has been molded by the likes of Dan Blath.

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 04:18 PM

8 Thanks Editor for jumping in there. Is it just me, or did something irritate you just a little?

What Roopesh asks is an epistemology question. Definitely no time to answer that.

What Venom does by putting the MSM in the middle is equivocate bias to conspiritorial lunacy. Very odd indeed.

Jane, cool.

Posted by: Rusty at November 19, 2004 04:21 PM

9 Yeah, I know he was trying to be philosophical, but there is an implied rhetoric that goes along with it since he was actually trying to make an argument with said philosophy rather than attempt to actually answer it. My point of using physical science sarcastically is that when it comes down to it a lot of what is theory in science can also be considered philosophy by nature... imho.

As far as an irritation, I've been iritated for a few days, ever since the EVIL JOOOOOOS (that sarcasm is a gift especially for Venom) in the MSM have done their best to demonize a Marine who is putting his ass on the line in a foreign country so that the fight is there and not here. Yeah, that shit really irritates me.

Plus, I can't stand philosophicals. Philosophy to me is like communicating with a girl: Going in circles. I don't mind thinking about it, but actually discussing philosophy with people who think they are philosophical but are simply "undecided" is a real burden. I'm sure most of those "undecided" voters were at one point philosophy majors.

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 04:44 PM

10 "That's funny. I don't remember saying Jews controlled the MSM. My attitude towards the MSM has been molded by the likes of Dan Blath."

Indeed, that is funny. I never said that it was YOU who said the Jews controlled the MSM. I said: "Many (Arabs) of them seem to think the MSM is controlled by Jews." It was an attempt to show that completely different people on completely different sides of the global spectrum view MSM as being inherently bias, and not in their respective favors. I then posited that the MSM ought to be objective if people on opposite sides of each other are irrevocably distrustful of said MSM. As such, it would appear my attempt failed. I guess you only read what you want to read, huh?

Posted by: Venom at November 19, 2004 05:45 PM

11 Tks Jane for the time to not answer ( no question was asked though)

Lesson learnt from the editor - doesn't know where HELL is!!!( on the lighter vein )

Quote:"but here on planet BLOG very few people have "faith and trust in the so called 'news media'". but you have full faith on any media which tries to point out the negatives of the relegion of Muslim.Point to discuss

Posted by: Roopesh at November 19, 2004 06:02 PM

12 but you have full faith on any media which tries to point out the negatives of the relegion of Muslim.
What is it with people putting words in my mouth, today?

Venom:
What you said was that I have the same attitude towards the MSM as Arabs do. The attitude you said the Arabs have is that Jews control the MSM and that is why they view the MSM as inherently biased.

I don't have that attitude. I have no idea why the media is inherently biased (except that those who work in it simply hire and promote others with the same worldview and that most journalist get into the business to "change the world"). The reason I have the attitude I do towards the MSM is because they are CLEARLY biased as demonstrated by their deeds and words - not by who controls them.

For you to conclude that because people on completely opposite side of the reality-based spectrum both view the MSM as biased is proof of their objectivity is beyond laughable - in fact, it almost forces one to presume you are employed in/by the old media.

Of course, your definition of objectivity is probably different than mine. Objectivity does not mean you forfeit the reality of absolute truth and moral superiority.

No, I read what you wrote.

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 06:36 PM

13 QUOTE: I'm afraid that there will be more Muslims here soon than Christians. "I don't worry about the atheists. They won't do anything."...

Damn right Atheists won't do anything bad.

Answer to half of the world's ills... convert to Atheism today.

Posted by: Red Devil at November 19, 2004 06:59 PM

14 Btw Editor... you quote the bible yet you say you can't stand "philosophicals" (whatever they are).

Thing is. The Bible is a Philosophy and your own views are a philosophy.

Everyone is a "philosophical" (if I understand your word correctly). Even a child.

Everyone has a philosophy by which they lead their lives, whether they realise it or not.

If you were merely having a dig because someone delved further into philosophy and brought in a branch of philosophy, i.e. epistemology (i.e. the nuts and bolts of what we know and how we know it) then you are showing your ignorance.

If you profess to KNOW something as a fact of reality, surely you must ask yourself HOW you know it?

That's not being a "philosophical", that's just being a human.


Posted by: Red Devil at November 19, 2004 07:14 PM

15 That's not being a "philosophical", that's just being a human.
It's just getting to be Friday evening here and I have EPISODE VI to watch, a girlfriend itchin' to start it, and a very consistantly good Grenache/Shiraz to open, so I'm going to give the short answer, because you deserve an explanation.

1) I agree with you the basic premise of epistemology is "just being human". What I find annoying (or "have a dig" about) is a necessity to bring it into a discussion concerning the MSM and to philosophize about media sources. I've got better things to do and I hope anyone who considers themselves a philosopher does too, but I fear many don't.

2) Considering the Bible "philosophy" is your philosophy. You will not catch me considering the Bible philosophy or Christ a philosopher. In fact here is what the Bible says about philosophy: Colossians 2:8 (Paul's letter to the Colossians)
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
There is nowhere in the Gospels where you will find Christ calling himself a philosopher. On the contrary, in the verse quoted early in the thread he says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life..." That's beyond philosophy.
3) My definition of a philosophical is this:
The person whom you are having a philosophical, theoretical, theological, economical, political, etc., conversation with and predictibly says to you: "It's just not that simple." There are other synonyms for what I would consider a "philosophical".

Posted by: Editor at November 19, 2004 08:23 PM

16 Screw Allah, Osama bin Laden and Zarquawi. I wish them death by buggery by well-hung Hepatitis bearing bodybuilders.

Let them move to another city, we will kick their asses in a different venue. US 26,000, Them ZERO. Still the undefeated, undisputed heavyweight champion of freedom.

I think some genocide of these assholes is in order. I think it is only fair.

Posted by: David at November 19, 2004 10:00 PM

17 GET OFF THE RELIGLIOUS THING: There is only one truth. ISLAM SUCKS.
The others may suck a little. But Islam sucks big time.

LAURA: Yes some went to Mosul. But 1300 didn't. Also tons and tons of munitions. At Mosul we will get some more. Not as many because there aren't as many.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2004 07:02 PM

18 It's a shame that so many people don't realise the importance of this war.

It is not a war about Oil, or Human Rights.

(Well, it might be from the Politician's view... the Oil that is).

But it is striking a greater stroke into the heart of Religious zealotry.

Whilst I support President Bush, my one big misgiving about him is that he is a Christian Fanatic (whilst Zarqawi et al are Muslim Fanatics).

Sure, I would rather live in a world governed by Christians than Muslims but that isn't the point.

I would much rather be in a world Governed by Atheists.

Atheists would allow you to believe in whatever claptrap you wish to believe in but just don't make anybody else suffer because of it and don't go starting any "Crusades".

To quote Editor:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life..."

If Jesus can say it, why not me?

And never in a million years will you convince me that the preachings of the bible, the koran or any other holy book are not philosophies on life (man-made philosophies at that) and the way it should be lived.

Posted by: Red Devil at November 21, 2004 05:25 PM

19 Editor:

I know that you don't think the Jews control the MSM; I was just illustrating that no one seems to think the MSM is objective, despite how far right or left the person views from. Simply, MSM has to sit somewhere in the middle, if both sides think the it is inherently biased against what they (the people) believe in.

Besides, this whole debate assumes that any of us can rationally identify what's objective. Anything any of us don't agree with will automatically get labelled biased by someone. You think the MSM is biased because what they show doesn't conform to your value system. Maybe it conforms to someone else's and that person considers it objective. Why are they wrong and you're right?

And no, I don't work for any form of media whatsoever.

Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2004 11:57 AM

20 Red Devil, Venom,

I'd be happy to continue both these conversations over at my place, instead of taking up Rusty's comment section. Let me know if it something you would like and I'll open up a post dedicated to both your issues. Just to clarify this statement:
You think the MSM is biased because what they show doesn't conform to your value system.
That's true. Purposefully highlighting forged military documents in order to discredit the President does not conform to my values. I hope it doesn't conform to yours, either.

Posted by: Editor at November 22, 2004 12:25 PM

21 "Purposefully highlighting forged military documents in order to discredit the President does not conform to my values. I hope it doesn't conform to yours, either."

You're twisting things around a little. Had CBS KNOWN that the documents were forged, I doubt that they would have run the story at all - after all, why shoot yourself in the head when someone hands you a loaded gun? Basically, I'm pretty sure they thought they had an important story and unfortunately didn't do their due diligence on the material. I think the conclusion you're trying to draw is that they did it willfully and maliciously - something you can only speculate on, and, again, would be pretty stupid of them to try. The fact the documents were forged (as you call them) can only make one wonder where they came from. I doubt a Democrat would do that to their presidential hopeful, so that only points to one other camp. Where's your admonishing of the person who created and provided the documents, no doubt done in an effort to sway the MSM (something I'm sure you'd be against)?

"I'd be happy to continue both these conversations over at my place"

Whatever...one right-wing blog is as functional as another. Besides, these threads are for discussion.

Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2004 02:52 PM

22 Nevermind, Venom.

Red Devil, the offer is still on the table for you.

Posted by: Editor at November 22, 2004 03:15 PM

23 I choose to blog here because Rusty is more in line with my own thinking on the war.

Why would I want to help promote your blog with my arguments when you don't agree with me?

Sure, it might make you look better when your readers attack me because they think the same way as you.

My arguments stand wherever I post them.

Religion is a pile of crap.

God doesn't exist (what kind of prankster would give man five senses by which to guide him through life and then make himself undetectable by any of them?).

The difference between a religious person and an atheist is one believes God made Man, and the other believes Man made god.

This war is being fought (unfortunately) by a man who believes in one god against a bunch of guys who believe in another and it's a fight to the bitter end now.

I only hold my head in my hands because this could all be avoided if both parties could agree that, actually, neither exists.

By your promotion of the Christian faith, you are needlessly adding fuel to the situation.

Thanks for the invitation to feed myself to the lions but I'll sow my seeds on here if it's all the same.

You're perfectly welcome to come along and pick the holes in my arguments however. This is the only blog I post on.

Posted by: Red Devil at November 22, 2004 06:48 PM

24 Lets see the child murdering muslims of chechnya are considered freedom fighters wanting independence.
Then why the fuck do Muslims think that's not what the Iraqis want.
bus bombing child killing plane crashing train bombing dog fuckers..I'm sure God(Allah) wants it that way?

Posted by: the heaven at January 12, 2005 02:38 PM






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0058 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0027 seconds, 32 records returned.
Page size 29 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.