SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neeka who wrote (534)9/6/2006 1:24:29 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20106
 
Journalists Change Story, Attempt Comeback

powerlineblog.com

The story of the alleged Israeli missile or rocket attack on two Red Cross ambulances was one of Hezbollah's decisive propaganda victories in the recent conflict in Lebanon. It was reported, world-wide, that the Israelis had attacked two Red Cross ambulances that were transporting wounded Lebanese; that rockets or missiles penetrated the roofs of both ambulances; that there were explosions and fires; and that a number of people were injured, including one man whose leg was amputated by a rocket or missile. Many details of the story, however, were reported inconsistently in various news accounts, and when photos and video footage of the ambulances were scrutinized, the story appeared to fall apart. Zombie performed the fullest analysis, which showed, among other things, that the ambulance that had been alleged, in hundreds of news stories, to have suffered a direct missile hit on the center of the red cross on its roof had in fact sustained no such thing.

Some journalists are now trying to rehabilitate the ambulance attack story. Blog of the Week Riehl World View, which has been one of the leaders on this story from the beginning, has updated coverage and links. The Age, an Australian newspaper, sent reporter Sarah Smiles to Beirut, where she looked at two ambulances and reported that one of them has a "huge hole through the back," and claims that the story has been verified, even though earlier reports said that both ambulances were shot through the roof. In effect, she says that virtually all attention has been focused on the "wrong" ambulance, which she implicitly admits did not sustain a missile strike in the middle of its red cross after all.

Dan Riehl thinks this account, along with video and still footage, may support the media's "missile attack" claims, at least in part:

Images of both ambulances do exist and I've edited a section of video, playing it back below at half speed to show the two ambulances together. In all honesty, I had set out to debunk claims by The Age that the photos we've been looking at were the wrong ones; however, careful analysis appears to depict what looks like a hit from something on a second ambulance and the location of it does line up with other basic elements of the story.
This new evidence suggests the strike in question very well may have been against the second ambulance. I've used a red arrow in a still frame image form the video to show what looks like the signs of such a strike.

Well, maybe. I can't see what Riehl is talking about in the video; here it is, maybe others can make it out:

I also can't make anything out of the still that Riehl posted. Nor can I figure out why, if the second ambulance showed clear evidence of a missile strike through the rear, the many photos I've seen of the ambulances don't show it. It's possible, of course, that such a picture exists and I just haven't seen it. But it seems odd that the story in The Age, which relies entirely on Smiles's description of the hole she saw, doesn't include a photograph, at least in the online edition. (In this context, Smiles's description of the photos and videos analyzed by Zombie as "evidence," with scare quotes, is hilarious.) And to the extent that I've been able to make out the poor-quality photos and video showing the interiors of both ambulances, I've seen nothing corresponding to the damage that would be caused by a missile strike. If it was the second vehicle that actually showed missile damage, then why was Hezbollah propaganda focuses so heavily on the first one (number 782) with the apparently bogus hole in the roof?

Others have followed this story more closely than we have, and there may be photographic or video evidence somewhere that would show persuasively that an Israeli missile or rocket really did hit a Red Cross ambulance in Lebanon. (That would still leave open, of course, the question whether such a strike was intentional. The original evidence of intent was the now-debunked claim that the missile went right through the middle of the cross on ambulance number 782, as though it had been aimed there.) At this point, though, the story seems to be to be far from rehabilitated.

UPDATE: Tim Blair has more, including the photo that accompanied the story in the Age, which I'm taking the liberty of lifting. Click to enlarge:

So there is a big hole in the roof of the second ambulance. As Tim notes, it looks really, really old. It should be obvious, in any event, that a hole in the roof is not, in itself, proof that it was caused by an Israeli missile strike. ("If you don't believe it, there's the bed!") So several obvious questions present themselves:

1) If that hole was made by an incoming missile, there should be a similar hole in the floorboard or elsewhere in the ambulance where the missile exited. Is there?

2) If the missile didn't exit the ambulance, then presumably it exploded inside. Does the inside of the ambulance exhibit the sort of total devastation and destruction one would expect from an exploding missile, with, among other things, pieces of the exploded missile everywhere?

3) If the missile neither exited the ambulance nor exploded inside it, then presumably it is still lying on the floor of the ambulance. Is there an unexploded missile inside the ambulance?

Somehow, I have a feeling that the answer to all three questions is No. It is, frankly, ridiculous that observers around the world should be left to speculate as to whether the physical evidence of the ambulances supports Hezbollah's claim that both were hit by Israeli missiles or rockets, when a competent examination would quickly resolve the issue.



To: Neeka who wrote (534)9/6/2006 1:26:50 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Respond to of 20106
 
AFP Channels CAIR

Today's most ludicrous news story comes from Agence France-Presse: an article titled "US Muslims plagued by discrimination after 9/11 attacks."

The AFP piece alleges that:

Discrimination and harassment by law enforcement have come to plague American Muslims in the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11.
There have been suspicious looks, slurs, physical attacks, extra screening at airports and arrests on groundless charges.

And it seems to be getting worse.

AFP relies on exactly two sources for this indictment: Dawud Walid of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group whose links to terrorist organizations we have repeatedly noted, and Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America. AFP retails CAIR's notoriously unreliable statistics as fact:

CAIR has seen a steady increase in the number of complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment over the past five years. In 2004, complaints rose 49 percent to 1,522, of which 141 were reports of actual and potentially violent hate crimes.
It appears that those numbers will continue to rise in 2005 and 2006, Walid said.

Let's take those numbers at face value. There are roughly 5 million Muslims in the United States. Do the math: if there were 141 "reports of actual and potentially violent" hate crimes, that would be one for every 35,461 Muslims. A remarkably good record, I'd say.

AFP doesn't just retail CAIR statistics, of course. It also tries to pin the blame on President Bush:

But more disturbing ... are the actions of the Bush administration and law enforcement.
"I see that the United States is slipping into being a police state, at least to us Muslims," [Al-Qazwini] said as he recounts incident after incident that have affected the members Dearborn's large Muslim and Arab communities.

Wow! What are those "actions of the Bush administration" that are leading us into a police state? AFP cites exactly one:

After having shown some restraint in his rhetoric after 19 Muslim men affiliated with Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush has of late been using far more inflammatory language such as 'Islamofacists,' Walid said.
"When the religious and political leaders use polarizing language these are the unfortunate side effects. It stretches from the likes of (Christian Coalition leader) Pat Robinson all the way up to President Bush."

Yup, that's it. After years of praising the "religion of peace," President Bush recently referred to the terrorists--not ordinary Muslims--as Islamic fascists. When AFP's spokesman says that "these are the unfortunate side effects," it is unclear what he is talking about, since the most recent statistics cited in the article date from 2004 and AFP mentions no incident that took place after Bush first referred to "fascists" on August 10.

What is the best example of Muslims being "plagued by discrimination" that AFP and its sources can come up with? The only one clearly identified in the article is the case of Osama Abulhassan and Ali Houssaiky:

Osama Abulhassan, 20, registered one after he spent a week in jail on terrorism charges last month. He was arrested for buying pre-paid cell phones in a small town in the midwestern state of Ohio with his friend Ali Houssaiky.
Left unmentioned by AFP is that Abulhassan and Houssaiky bought "hundreds of cell phones that could have been used to detonate bombs on airplanes". Abulhassan and Houssaiky explained that they were just going into the cell phone distribution business. Charges against the two were eventually dropped, but it was hardly unreasonable to be suspicious of their activities. It's easy to see why AFP found Abulhassan sympathetic, though. He shares their position of neutrality as between the United states and his namesake Osama bin Laden:

"He's fighting for a cause like the United States is," Abulhassan said of Bin Laden. "But he's killing innocent people, and that makes him appear to be a bad guy."
While AFP singles out the Bush administration for blame, it is also careful to indict the American people generally for their purported mistreatment of Muslims:

A recent Gallup poll showed that 39 percent of Americans admit to being prejudiced against Muslims and that nearly a quarter say they would not want a Muslim for a neighbor.
AFP doesn't actually quote the Gallup poll's question. What Gallup asked was:

If you honestly assessed yourself, would you say that you have at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims, or not?
Despite this coaxing, 39% answered "Yes," while 59% said "No."

Putting aside the question of how many Americans have "at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims," and the further question of whether that "feeling of prejudice" is unreasonable in view of the number of terrorist attacks that have been carried out or plotted by Muslims in recent years, there is a pretty good source of information on the extent to which Americans act on such "feelings": the Justice Department's statistics on hate crimes, which are maintained by the FBI pursuant to statutory mandate.

The hate crimes tabulated by the FBI do not precisely overlap with the "harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment" purportedly tabulated by CAIR, but they do include "simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property," as well as more serious crimes like murder and rape. The results of the FBI's statistic-gathering for 2004 are striking:

Victims of religious intolerance made up 16.7 percent of the victims of incidents involving a single bias. Of those, 67.8 percent were victims of anti-Jewish bias, and 12.7 percent were targets of anti-Islamic bias.
It would be interesting to know how many of the 67.8 percent of religion-based hate crimes that targeted Jews were committed by Muslims. The FBI report doesn't tell us that; do you suppose AFP is interested in investigating?

powerlineblog.com



To: Neeka who wrote (534)9/6/2006 5:12:17 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Respond to of 20106
 
It is Islam, Dummy.
AMIL IMANI

kashmirherald.com

The terror and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical Islam, neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam, period. Get it? And the perpetrators are not fringe elements confined to brainwashed Saudis, loony Taliban, or a know nothing Pakistanis who have hijacked Islam and are now in the business of mass murder. The latest project of the practitioners of the “religion of peace” aimed to blowing planeloads of innocent civilians to smithereens in midair over the Atlantic -- ought to finally drive the point home: it is Islam, dummy. Get it?
How could people calling themselves sincere God-fearing religionists bring themselves to even think of acts of such barbarity, yet plan them methodically and cold-bloodedly proceed to execute them?

The answer is Islam. The life manual of Islam, the Quran, is a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behaving. This stone-age document is optimally suited for people of stunted development. People who prefer to follow than to think for themselves, to hate than to love, and to seek death rather than to celebrate life.

Sadly, Muslims themselves are the ones who are most victimized by Islam. They have inherited this viral psychological disease of hate and violence; they live by it, and transmit it to their children as well as to receptive others.

A puzzle to non-Muslims: why any intelligent and reasonably sane person would live his life by the dogma of Islam? It is particularly disconcerting when this Muslim lives in a secular non-Islamic society. The befuddlement becomes mind-boggling when seemingly educated women in free societies voluntarily submit to the yoke of Islamic misogyny.

There are a number of possible explanations to the enigma of believing in Islam and even propagating it with zeal and violence. Some possible explanations are treated here.

For one, Islam is stamped on the impressionable mind of the child from birth. The parents and immediate members of the family are the ones who make the very first impressions on the tabula rasa of the young mind. These early impressions are the grid-work for further formation of the person’s mind and belief system. It is by far easier, as life goes on, to incorporate “items” that readily fit into the grid-work, than to modify it or dismantle it altogether and begin anew. It is in recognition of the importance of early training and education that people such as Saint Augustine and Freud considered the first few years of life as critical for molding the person. “Teaching the very young is like itching in the stone,” says an Eastern proverb.

Another reason is the herd mentality—stay with the group, be one of them, and don't strike out on your own. This strong disposition to belong is reinforced by privileges that the group bestows; social pressure, as well as the fear of castigation by the wielders of power. There is security and power in numbers—in any numbers.

Islam is also appealing for giving purpose and order to the person’s life—both the life on earth as well as an immortal life after death. Islam is omnipresent and omniscient father figure who draws the boundaries, points out the path, dictates the terms, holds the carrots and the sticks. It absolves the person, for most parts, from the often demanding tasks of dealing with difficult questions and choosing what to do with oneself—a highly attractive trade off for many. Accept Islam as your guide, follow its path and you will never have to suffer the agony of not knowing and having to make decisions by yourself; you will be guided along the path of eternal happiness and salvation. Just follow the unerring guide given to mankind by the seal of the prophet, Muhammad.

An elaborate package of mostly illogical and bizarre prescriptions and proscriptions comes with the Islamic offer, covering every imaginable aspect of life. In the matter of being a good Muslim, nothing is left to chance that one needs to figure out for himself. “I think, therefore I am” said Rene Descartes in substantiating his claim to being a conscious being. “I don't think, I faith; therefore I am an automaton,” says the Muslim in absolving himself of the need for independent thinking.

Even the minutest detail of the Muslim’s life is rigidly structured. He is to perform the obligatory prayer, for instance, five times a day at the exact appointed times. He must drop everything and go through the prescribed gesticulation and recitation of the verses while facing Mecca. Before saying his prayer, however, he must perform ablution. The Ablution, using water, must be carried out in a precise manner and sequence. In the absence of water, the faithful can substitute soil for water and go through the practice of “purifying” himself by running soil over his hands, arms, face and feet. After completion of ablution, as prescribed, he may proceed to say his prayer unless he commits flatulence. In that case, he must re-perform the ablution all over again.

Being a good Muslim, particularly a good male Muslim, is indeed a full time job. Male Muslims are obligated to go for Hajj—women don't have to do so. Islam is a man’s religion, through and through. Women are to please men erotically, to attend to them like chattel, and birth them boys. Going on Hajj and accumulating merit points for admission to Allah’s paradise is reserved for men. Women may also go to Hajj, if they are lucky enough to afford the journey or allowed by their owners, men, to do so. For women, there are no promises that by going on Hajj and paying tribute to the house of Allah they endear themselves to him. “Women are calamities, but no home should be without one,” is an old Islamic characterization of women. Hence, a woman is a necessity and not much more.

In short, Islam treats its believers as children irrespective of age. An extensive cadre of mullahs and imams, who themselves are thoroughly indoctrinated, minister to the children. These professional leeches—the mullahs and imams—systematically program the mind of their charges through liberal use of fear, threats of hell, and occasional promises of eternal life of bliss in Allah’s paradise if they be obedient good children.

A Muslim is born Muslim, yet he acts as if he independently and through his own labor has discovered the great find; he clings to it as his cherished security blanket; and, would part with his life, rather than giving it up. It is, therefore, understandable what a recent poll has found. Fully 81% of British Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and British second. The 81% know full well that there is absolutely no chance of being harassed, much less persecuted, in Britain for professing their highest loyalty to Islam. So, they come out and admit it. The other 19% are even more Muslim. They are practicing what the Quran teaches—dissimulation. Muslims are taught to lie. They lie when they have to and they lie when they don't have to, just to stay in practice.

The bottom-line is that the non-Islamic world has a huge problem on its hands—the ever-encroaching Islam. For as long as there are mosques, madrasehs, and Islamic centers; as long as a vast cadres of well-paid, highly indoctrinated and strategically placed mullahs and imams; and, as long as there are people who prefer to be treated as children, Islam will flourish anywhere and will pose an existential threat to unbelievers. All the excuses, grievances and reasons given for savagery of the jihadists and Islamofascists are side issues. It is Islam, dummy. It is Islam itself. Get it?