January 09, 2007
Airbrushing The News, Vol. 1

Media must give voice to truly moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism and support harmonious co-existence with and within Western societies. Media also must not bury the story when Muslim immigrants here are punished for conspiring to commit terrorist acts. But despite full-length coverage today across Michigan and in Kansas City, Houston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Casper, Wyoming; and by its rival The Seattle Post-Intelligencer yesterday; the Seattle Times instead runs a dubiously truncated, three-paragraph report of the Pakistani immigrant in New York, Shahawar Matin Siraj, sentenced to 30 years for plotting to blow up the Herald Square subway station beneath Macy's in Manhattan prior to the Republican National Convention of 2004. The full AP story, picked up by ABC News among others, notes the suspect also considered detonating NYC-area bridges and killing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Fat chance on that last one, I know; Trey's security apparatus would have vaporized the assassin first via unmanned drone. But as an indicator of the hostility felt by Islamic radicals living in the U.S., such ruminations plus more substantial acts such as Siraj's scouting for NYC subway bomb locations, matter to us all.

As editors from Casper to Philadelphia - but not at the Seattle Times - clearly understood, it is not a three-paragraph, let's-try-to-hide-it kind of story. But that is precisely how The Times has handled it, not only today after a 30-year sentence; but also post-arrest in '04; and upon conviction last May. The case is more important than that. From AP, via ABC:

In a statement, police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the outcome a "milestone" in safeguarding the city. He said, "Our detectives uncovered a murderous plot in its infancy and stopped it before lives were lost."

If the U.S. prosecution of Siraj had failed, I now cannot help wondering what sort of coverage we would have seen in The Times last May. I suspect considerably more than three grafs in the national digest that the story has received from the paper at each juncture.

While it is not true of the vast majority of their co-religionists in the U.S., we must never forget there are nonetheless Muslims secreted within our cities and suburbs ready and willing to kill innocents and to wreak havoc upon our society. Whether botched or successful, each of their prosecutions deserve the fullest coverage available at every stage of the process; especially at sentencing. The conviction is more than "a victory for New York" as the New York Sun editorializes today, because we are all New Yorkers and Londoners now.

At least in the Google News/Yahoo News era, we can rest assured that if some media outlets can't see fit to cover the news properly, others likely will do better. The biased laggards have no place to hide any more.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 09, 2007 11:15 AM | Email This
Comments
1. You can also be assured that if a D was in the WH it would have been covered far more too.

The other advantage of making it big front page news is to let others know that they can be caught. But piblic safety is not the concern, pushing the SP agenda is all that counts.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 9, 2007 11:28 AM
2. surprised?

look what the Clueless Times runs as headlines: Jan 1--troop casuality count--but no good deeds by troops; days later, human interest stories about single mom families; the new art park in Seattle; more warnings not to BBQ in our diverse houses in winter.

(doorbell) "ding dong" (nobody home). even kids can play 'connect the dots'
Ostrich Principle: Hide long enough, problems go away. again, my analogy: the fart in the church. we all know of it. yet no one admits it. ignore this at your peril. this is jut not an unpleasant trend or whiff of air. this is real.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 9, 2007 11:57 AM
3. Matt, you are on to something with your report on this guy's alledged plot to kill BillG. I am willing to bet that there is a plot to kill (assassinate) as many high level executives (mostly CEOs)as possible to wreak havoc in the US economy. What do you think?

Posted by: C. Oh on January 9, 2007 01:32 PM
4. All the moderate Muslims in Seattle were going to have a parade to protest the extremist/terrorist Muslims, but...they had to call it off.
It appears that one got sick and the other didn't want to march alone.

Posted by: John425 on January 9, 2007 02:43 PM
5. Hello John425:

Where are the peace-loving conservatives who parade against the neocons who are killing innocent Muslim civilians every day, and have done so for the last three years?

Where are the peace-loving Americans who will protest against the human rights abuses committed by this administration numerous times and still continue today?

Your prejudice against the Muslims only serves to justify your violence against the Muslims. Those who claim to love peace have already murdered 150,000 civilians.

Where are the moderate conservatives? Where are the peace-loving Christians? Evidently they are not here.

So America will continue murdering civilians and violating human rights for the next two years. These evils must continue because the conservatives love killing Muslims and torturing the innocent and the guilty.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 9, 2007 05:45 PM
6. He's Baaaaaaccccccckkkkkk!!!!

Posted by: Chris on January 9, 2007 05:47 PM
7. Mr Mathews (are you the lead in the band)

You sure are a showstopper (oops i mean threadstopper)..............

Posted by: chris on January 9, 2007 07:38 PM
8. DM, stick your head back in the sand. That should make you look better to your bretheren. Peace requires security. Security requires making those who would take your peace away believe the costs will be too high. If they wish to pay the price anyway, they made that decision of their own free will. They then should offered the opportunity to pay the price. They have been given three chances to get it right and stay among us. They have given all three choices away and therefore we must believe they still want to take our peace away from us. When will all you peace-nicks get it?

Posted by: JT on January 9, 2007 07:45 PM
9. Hello Chris,

The truth is a terrible thing. All these people who speak so ominously about the Muslims while advocating warfare and violence against them cannot perceive how utterly ridiculous they look.

What is worse are those conservatives who are virtually pleading for Israel or the United States to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. What sort of irony is it that the country opposed to nuclear proliferation is threatening to use the nuclear bomb again?

We only killed 200,000 civilians in our last nuclear bombings. In the next, we likely will kill millions.

Yet we Americans boast to each other about how peaceful we are compared to those scary Muslims. This sort of boast would be humorous in its silliness except for all those hundreds of thousands of corpses which are all the civilians killed my American military action over the last several decades.

Those who love peace live peacefully.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 9, 2007 07:46 PM
10. Hello JT,

> Peace requires security.

But security does not require bigotry, prejudice, nor irrational fear directed at the millions of Muslims who are American citizens.

The Muslims that I see on a daily basis are beautiful. Have you noticed that the Muslims are beautiful?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 9, 2007 07:59 PM
11. Hello Everyone,

For those unfamiliar with the sort of things that Muslims do please watch this 48-minute video:

Taj Mahal

Pretty incredible, right? Any religion which could inspire such beauty is worthy of praise and honor.

Americans should love the Muslims. Not just here, but also over there (in Iraq, for example). Maybe we should stop killing them.

Don't you think that we should stop killing them?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 9, 2007 08:30 PM
12. Hello Everyone,

I am thumbing through 'Abdullah Yusuf Ali's "The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an" and have found the following passage which might in some sense help you understand these Muslims that you fear so needlessly:

"What is with you must vanish:
What is with Allah will endure.
And we will certainly bestow
on those who patiently persevere,
their rewards according to
the best of their actions.

"Whoever works righteousness,
man or woman, and has Faith,
verily to him will We give
a new Life, and life
that is good and pure, and We
will bestow on such their reward
according to the best
of their actions."
(Surah 16, Al Nahl, 96-97)

As a Christian I cannot help but love these people. All one billion of them, and the millions which are here in America too. All of them. They are worthy of love so I will love them.

Can't you love them, too? Is this such a difficult task that conservatives find it impossible to accomplish?

I pity those Christians who fail to love their neighbor because their neighbor is a Muslim. There are a billion Muslims on this Earth and each and every one of them are our neighbors. Love them. If you love God, love them all.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 9, 2007 09:01 PM
13. DM: are you really that stupid? Or just being disingenuous? The Muslims who built the Taj Mahal are not the ones we are targeting. We are trying to kill the Muslims who, in the name of their religion, are sawing the heads off of their victims, mutilating and burning innocent civilians, hiding behind women and children rather than face open battle, planting car bombs to kill children, terrorizing their neighbors, and failing to condemn such actions in their co-religionists. If you cannot tell the difference, then you truly are a dunderhead.

Posted by: TH on January 9, 2007 09:02 PM
14. DM

Do you run a cult? Did you change your name from Jim Jones to Dave Mathews????

Posted by: chris on January 9, 2007 09:09 PM
15. DM - So, you pride yourself in religious bigotry and blissful ignorance. You sound like a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda. Where were you on 9/11/01 ?

Posted by: KS on January 9, 2007 09:49 PM
16. #13

DM's ritalin and prozac just kicked in.

Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2007 10:45 PM
17. Hello TH,

> We are trying to kill the Muslims who, in the name of their religion, are sawing the heads off of their victims, mutilating and burning innocent civilians, hiding behind women and children rather than face open battle, planting car bombs to kill children, terrorizing their neighbors, and failing to condemn such actions in their co-religionists.

Do you understand the irony in the above statement? Trying to solve the problem of violence by committing acts of violence is absurd.

Don't you know that you are killing innocent Muslim civilians by America's aggressive military actions?

Nor is it evident that you people draw any sort of distinction between violent and innocent Muslims. As the blog post says: "While it is not true of the vast majority of their co-religionists in the U.S., we must never forget there are nonetheless Muslims secreted within our cities and suburbs ready and willing to kill innocents and to wreak havoc upon our society."

This is just the sort of thing which might lead Americans to fear all Muslims. And, yes, there are plenty of conservatives who stereotype all Muslims. Conservatives are known to spread prejudice, bigotry and irrational fear of Muslims.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 05:00 AM
18. Mathews--entitled to your opinion. when you move to Saudi Arabia or Yemen, I will embrace your love for all. go there. come back. let us know how you fared. simple test, Mr Kumbaya.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 05:57 AM
19. Hello Jimmie,

I don't have to go to Saudi Arabia or Yemen. I live in an area which is well populated with Muslims who are American citizens and peaceful. I have never had any reason to fear a Muslim. Lots of Muslims are beautiful, and Muslim children are cute.

But there is plenty of violence in America. Americans are a violent people. Many Americans own guns because they are afraid of Americans.

Did you know that the United States has three million of its own citizens in prison? Maybe that reveals something about the violent character of American society.

Have you watched American movies and television? An act of violence must occur continuously on television 24/7. If you scan through the channels (I have something like 200 channels on my cable) you cannot help but see violence portrayed at least a dozen times on various channels. Maybe this does reveal something about the violent character of Americans.

And no one should forget that America does spend $500 billion a year on its military and that America has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons and that America is currently engaged in an aggressive war which is murduring plenty of Iraqi civilians every day. Doesn't this reveal something about the violent character of Americans?

Americs also invented the nuclear bomb and dropped it on two cities filled with thousands of civilians including numerous women & children. This is not the sort of act that I would associate with a peace-loving peaceful national character.

America is not a peaceful country. America's peacefulness is merely a self-serving national myth. America is a violent nation which contains its own violence by the extraordinary efforts of the police and FBI. Even so, thousands of Americans are murdered every year by Americans. So much for the idea that "We are more peaceful than They."

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 06:19 AM
20. Mr. Mathews

You need to move, you are gonna go nuts if you live in this "america" much longer.

Posted by: Chris on January 10, 2007 06:54 AM
21. DM - DO you really, and I meanreally think we are in Iraq to kill Muslims? I'm really serious! If so, you must think the US military are the most incompetent, bumbling fools ever. If their goal is to kill Muslim and they only managed to kill (your number) 150,000 in three plus years that is really a pathetic count.

Especially as the vast majority of these deaths were not by Americans, but rather the peace-loving Muslims.

It is embarassing that anyone could say (as I doubt you could seriously think it) that we are there to kill Muslims when we have helped them try and stave off the Muslim murderers and give the Iraqi people, including women, the right to self-determination demonstrated by giving them the vote. More Iraqis (percentage) voted than in US elections, and they were under threat of death for doing so. Thanks to the US and our brave milatary this was possible.

People need to stop focusing on the inevitable mistakes that are made in a war and concentrate on the goal.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 07:06 AM
22. If I could spell it would help... military

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 07:14 AM
23. Interesting comments. Where are the moderate Muslims?

lgf (little green footballs) had a spoof on Ellison and his use of Jefferson's Quran during his swearing in ceremony. Apparently, Jefferson was fed up with the Mongrel Horde and their killing of thousands of Americans at the Rock of Gilbraltar in the late 1700s. He later went after the Horde. The Mongrels used the same Quran and 'kill all non-believers' rhetoric the terrorists are using today as justification for beheadings, etc..

Apparently, the word on the street is that Ellison was the butt of the joke, rather than the other way around as he boycotted the bible.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 07:17 AM
24. RE: David Mathews reply #5. NeoCons killing 150,000 civilians? Who? What? When? & Where? If you mean Iraq- we learned the lessons of Viet Nam...a 12 year old boy with an AK-47 can kill you just as dead as a 30 year old guerilla can. Civilian "militias" aren't civilian. We also don't make it policy to target civilians. The "Religion of Peace" however, daily targets Israeli school children and yesterday in Iran- they want to execute a teenage girl because she defended herself against 3 rapists. So much for Shari'a law. It is an abomination of all things legal and democratic! Remember the joy that Palestinians showed when they heard about 9/11? Remember the beheadings of innocent journalists in Pakistan and elsewhere? Grow up and learn how to Google and you'll soon see video clips from Islamic TV sites that glorify the murders of unarmed Westerners. If I were an American Jew here in Seattle, I'd arm myself against those "cute" Muslims.

Posted by: John425 on January 10, 2007 08:27 AM
25. Dave Matthews is using logical fallacies to press his position and while many of us sense these fallacies, he isn't rightly being called on them in all cases (though in some he has). His claim that we are killing 150,000 (the unsubstantiated number being touted, but used for the sake of argument here) innocent Iraqis is false on two counts as has been articulated. A) They are not all innocent as many are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict in Iraq, and B) we are not doing the killing in many of the cases. He tries to address the second issue by inferring that these 150,000 deaths are a clear result of our "war" on Muslims in Iraq. The fallacy here is the failure to put the issue in context. There are several alternatives here that need to be considered before determining if 150000 deaths are a "result" of our occupation of Iraq. There are three basic scenarios to consider: A) Saddam had stayed in power, B) the situation we have now, C) We pull out and let the Iraqi's sort it all out. There might be more scenarios to consider, but these are the three left to us by Dave Matthews' arguments.

So, while it is true that 150,000 have died, and that no neo-con in America celebrates these deaths unless they were of specifically involved terrorists, what would the death toll of innocents be in Scenario A) or C)?

I challenge Mr. Matthews to coherently explain how any option he has favored would result in FEWER deaths of innocent people. He can only articulate his hatred of anything American and any action American does that results in death even if that action prevents more death.

The passivist claim that all death is unacceptable is naïve and can be easily dismantled. As long as anyone is willing to use murder to achieve their ends, there must be those willing to use the ultimate force to put an end to the person willing to commit murder. If there were an alternative, it would be in wide use today. But in Dave Matthews' frame of reverence, no one is guilty of murder except the USA, all others are simply responding in self-defense. Another fallacy implied in his diatribes.

Posted by: Eyago on January 10, 2007 09:37 AM
26. Dave Mathews @5,

How many neocons have shot up Jewish Centers in Seattle? How many Neocons have flown planes filled with passengers into buildings? How many neocons have sliced off people's heads?

Posted by: pbj on January 10, 2007 09:42 AM
27. Dave Matthew @10,

"The Muslims that I see on a daily basis are beautiful. Have you noticed that the Muslims are beautiful?"


Like this muslim?:

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/850017/WAKC112_a.jpg

It is clear you yourself are Muslim. That is why you are on here try to defend the indefensible. If you don't like it here, go back to the Middle East!

Posted by: pbj on January 10, 2007 09:47 AM
28. mathews 19--impressive stats & facts; but sadly off topic.

this is not an America-bashfest as you would love to promulgate. it's about our national survival & defense--especially connecting the dots/patterns/profiles and being vigilant as to whom is the real and PROVEN risk.

try your nationalistic self hate in those countries that are a threat to us. your ctiticisms would land you in jail or worse. dont you think your freedoms & rights to spew anti-nationalism or self loathing/guilt would be lost if the nation is lost?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 10:26 AM
29. Okay kids, enough silliness. I'm a Muslim. I'm alos an American, blond haired and blue-eyed. I became Muslim after 9/11; when that happened I was sitting in a squad bay in Camp Lejeune glued to a TV set getting my gear prepped for our return match. I'm just as ready now to go to war as I was then (and I now live in the UAE, my second muslim country).

In short? Muslims are just as evil as christians, no less and no more so. If you take umbrage with this, read your history books. What we are fighting now is not a religion but a mindset. Figure that most Muslims (70% or so) are not Arab. Figure that most Muslims that give us problems are Arabs. Osama didn't give one whit about the us until we "encroached" on his holy "Saudi Arabia" (you know, the same one his group has planned to attack on numerous occasions).

Basically, David might be a crazy shill, but to come against him with the same mindset is equally as shrill. Religion does not make a man. That's what parents are for.

Posted by: Aaron on January 10, 2007 12:17 PM
30. thanks 29--while im sure you believe your content, my 1st reaction was like that of our WA elections. the old trust-o-meter wasnt exactly pegged in the red. but--free country--youre entitled, as they say.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 12:38 PM
31. RE: Aaron # 29- You note that "Religion does not make a man- That's what parents are for."
Is that the same religion that promotes parents to kill their daughters for "dishonor"? Is that the same religion that forces women to be third class citizens in their own country. I say "third-class" because they treat animals with more respect. Is that the same religion that kills homosexuals? Is that the same religion that allows parents to marry off their female children to old men? Is that the same religion that allows enslaving 3-4 wives per "man" Is that the same religion in which the man (Muhammad) who brought it into this world openly and plainly was a pedophile?

You also say: Muslims are just as evil as Christians"... funny- I don't see Christian Terrorist Brigades running around with black ski masks and AK-47s. At least not in Seattle.

Posted by: John425 on January 10, 2007 12:50 PM
32. John425 - I imagine Aaron is talking about the comparison on a much larger scale, like what was done to locals in South America when Christians arrived, and in the past 30 years there was the IRA going around in ski masks blowing things/people up. Both of these cases were in the name of the religion, though not representative.

But Aaron, even though Arabs are a minority of Muslims, the Muslim visual response around the world was the same - rejoicing in the streets after 9/11 and other attacks. Also, the extra vigilance requested by security personnel is for young Arab men, not Muslims.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 01:22 PM
33. Hello Right Said Fred,

> DM - DO you really, and I meanreally think we are in Iraq to kill Muslims? I'm really serious! If so, you must think the US military are the most incompetent, bumbling fools ever. If their goal is to kill Muslim and they only managed to kill (your number) 150,000 in three plus years that is really a pathetic count.

I did say that the American military is killing Muslims in Iraq. No one here disputes that the American military kills Muslim civilians in Iraq. The only dispute regards the number of civilians killed -- a number which ranges between 48,000 - 650,000 but is certainly above Osama's 3,000 civilians killed.

I did not say that the American military was committing genocide in Iraq. When you note that 150,000 is a pathetic number of dead what you are revealing is that you really would like to commit genocide against the Muslims.

Several posters here have already announced their eagerness to commit genocide against the Muslims. On another thread there was a conservative who loudly proclaimed his support for Israel dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. I have heard other conservatives advocate America dropping nuclear bombs on Iran.

So there are certain genocidal tendencies present among America's neocons and conservatives. The theory that Americans are more peaceful than the terrorists is only a myth. America is the world's #1 terrorist as it attained that status by vaporizing the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now please do tell me: Are you opposed to America killing 150,000 Muslim civilians?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:31 PM
34. Hello Swatter,

> Apparently, Jefferson was fed up with the Mongrel Horde and their killing of thousands of Americans at the Rock of Gilbraltar in the late 1700s. He later went after the Horde. The Mongrels used the same Quran and 'kill all non-believers' rhetoric the terrorists are using today as justification for beheadings, etc..

This is about the most ignorant statement of prejudice that I have yet heard on this discussion board. Don't you know that long before America attacked the pirates this nation engaged in a war against the British?

Don't you know that America has killed a great deal more Germans and Italians and Japanese than it has ever killed of the Muslims?

Don't you know that America has killed more Cubans and filiponos than Muslims?

America has a long history of killing civilians. America has killed civilians by the millions.

And America has enough nuclear weapons to kill 100 million civilians in an instant. The United States of America is one bloody violent country.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:36 PM
35. Hello John425,

> RE: David Mathews reply #5. NeoCons killing 150,000 civilians? Who? What? When? & Where? If you mean Iraq- we learned the lessons of Viet Nam...a 12 year old boy with an AK-47 can kill you just as dead as a 30 year old guerilla can. Civilian "militias" aren't civilian. We also don't make it policy to target civilians. The "Religion of Peace" however, daily targets Israeli school children and yesterday in Iran- they want to execute a teenage girl because she defended herself against 3 rapists. So much for Shari'a law. It is an abomination of all things legal and democratic! Remember the joy that Palestinians showed when they heard about 9/11? Remember the beheadings of innocent journalists in Pakistan and elsewhere? Grow up and learn how to Google and you'll soon see video clips from Islamic TV sites that glorify the murders of unarmed Westerners. If I were an American Jew here in Seattle, I'd arm myself against those "cute" Muslims.

America's neocons are a bloody, violent militaristic group who have killed Muslim civilians by the 100,000. You mention all of these acts of Muslim violence but none match is sheer horror the American firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, nor the American use of napalm and carpet bombing on Vietnam, nor the American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Tokyo.

The Muslims are saints compared to these despicable acts of violence committed by the American military against the civilians of enemy nations.

And there is also the matter of the Civil War. Don't you remember how Americans killed Americans during the Civil War? 600,000 Americans died in that war and that occurred a time when America's population was very small compared to today. Americans can and do commit acts of violence.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:41 PM
36. Hello Eyago,

> I challenge Mr. Matthews to coherently explain how any option he has favored would result in FEWER deaths of innocent people. He can only articulate his hatred of anything American and any action American does that results in death even if that action prevents more death.

The only option which would not have resulted in 150,000 Iraqi civilians dying is: the United States of America should not have invaded Iraq.

Aggressive wars have a tendency to kill massive numbers of civilians. The Korean War and the Vietnam war both resulted in more than 1,000,000 dead civilians each. If the Iraq war continues for another ten years undoubtedly more than one million Iraqi civilians will die. If the Iraq war spreads to become a regional war there is a distinct possibility that between five and ten million Muslim civilians will die.

Don't you see that President George W. Bush is responsibility for all of these dead civilians? George W. Bush's hands are at least a thousand times bloodier than Osama Bin Laden's.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:48 PM
37. Hello pbj,

> How many neocons have shot up Jewish Centers in Seattle? How many Neocons have flown planes filled with passengers into buildings? How many neocons have sliced off people's heads?

The neocons haven't done these things, they have done something far worse. They have sent B-52 and B-2 bombers to destroy an entire country's infrastructure and left the citizens of that country to suffer anarchy, chaos and death on a truly horrific scale.

The neocons are more evil than Osama Bin Laden. Their aggression and incompetence have resulted in over 150,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Osama's evil act was confined to a single day of violence, the neocon's violence is poised to last forever.

There is no telling what the final death toll of the neocons but I am going to guess that altogether the neocons will bear responsibility for over one million dead civilians.

How many civilians have to die before conservatives realize that they have killed too many?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:53 PM
38. Hello pbj,

>It is clear you yourself are Muslim.

I am a Christian and have always been a Christian. Are you a Christian?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 01:56 PM
39. Hello Aaron,

If you are a Muslim, you aren't much of a Muslim. The Muslims that I see on a daily basis are Muslim from birth.

When you say something like this:

> What we are fighting now is not a religion but a mindset. Figure that most Muslims (70% or so) are not Arab. Figure that most Muslims that give us problems are Arabs. Osama didn't give one whit about the us until we "encroached" on his holy "Saudi Arabia" (you know, the same one his group has planned to attack on numerous occasions).

All I can say is: You are ignorant about a great many things.

Now please do tell me about your faith, Aaron. Would you kindly quote the Qur'an to me? I just want some demonstration that you know something -- anything -- about Islam.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 02:00 PM
40. Hello John425,

>Is that the same religion that promotes parents to kill their daughters for "dishonor"? Is that the same religion that forces women to be third class citizens in their own country. I say "third-class" because they treat animals with more respect. Is that the same religion that kills homosexuals? Is that the same religion that allows parents to marry off their female children to old men? Is that the same religion that allows enslaving 3-4 wives per "man" Is that the same religion in which the man (Muhammad) who brought it into this world openly and plainly was a pedophile?

John, it is abundantly obvious that you are most sincerely ignorant about the history of Christianity, Judaism and the Bible. The Bible is filled with both violence and sexuality and also homosexuality.

Don't you know that king David had a homosexual relationship with king Saul's son, Jonathan? Don't you remember that king Solomon had hundreds of wives and concumbines? Don't you know that Lot conceived children with his own daughters? Are you aware that God explicitly commanded the Israelis to commit acts of genocide in the Old Testament? The Old Testament also has an explicit command which allows parents to kill their own children, too.

And what of Christianity? History's greatest act of genocide was committed by the Christians in the New World. The Christians raped, murdered, enslaved, and pillaged all of the civilizations of the New World. These civilizations were nearly exterminated -- more than 90% of the native populations were killed by the Christians?

And what of the United States of America? America is the modern world's #1 terrorist. It attained that status by nuclear bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No other nation has committed such an atrocities either before or since. America also possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and the world knows that America will use these weapons should the "need" arise.

You also say: Muslims are just as evil as Christians"... funny- I don't see Christian Terrorist Brigades running around with black ski masks and AK-47s. At least not in Seattle.

What about all those Christians who owned slaves and killed them like animals when they sought to gain their own freedom? What about those Christians who go to church every Sunday but work during the week designing weapons for mass killing (both conventional and WMDs)?

You people appear devoutly ignorant about the violence of your own religion, nation and civilization. Western civilization is by far the most violent and genocidal civilization which humankind has ever invented. The wars of the 20th century (the European wars -- World Wars I and II) killed over 100,000,000 people.

So don't be silly and imagine that the Muslims are somehow more violent than the Americans. They are not, they never have been, and they never will be.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 02:15 PM
41. I guess you didn't go over to little green footballs and check my sources. The time was 1786 when Jefferson and his people acted.

Joke is on Ellison.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 02:26 PM
42. Dave Matthews,

You failed to address how many Iraqi civilians were dying due to Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq. Simply stating that it would have been the better option is not sufficient. You need to detail, clearly what was occuring under Hussein verses now. You also have to give credit where credit is due in terms of who is dying and by what cause. Currenly Iraqi civilians are dying by the direct action taken by foreign invaders who do not wear uniforms, hide behind civilians and target civilians. You can say that they never would have come except for the US invasion, but then many of them would be using their talents and bodies to blow up someone else in some other location. Iraq just became the magnet for them. Lest you forget, one of the key leaders of the foreign invaders was already IN Iraq before the US entered.

Until you are able to clearly and accurately assign culpability in any conflict to all parties involved you lack any credibility. So far, everything you have stated implies that the US and by extension western civilization is wholy and completely responsible for all evil in this world. What you fail to understand is that in all HUMAN history, the dominant culture has always been responsible for perpetuating the most evil, but that does not exlude the minority cultures from being just as bloodthirsty, they are just not as efficient at it. But under the context of what could be done verses what is being done in today's world the US is rather constrained by historical standards.

Posted by: Eyago on January 10, 2007 03:29 PM
43. Hello Swatter,

> I guess you didn't go over to little green footballs and check my sources. The time was 1786 when Jefferson and his people acted.

You are speaking in a silly, uninformed manner. There is no connection between your bigotry against Islam and Jefferson's military action against the pirates.

Do you know what Thomas Jefferson did to the Bible?

"What is the Jefferson Bible? In 1820, just six years before his death, Thomas Jefferson set about editing the New Testament, physically removing with scissors all verses that pertained to miracles, resurrection, and anything supernatural, and pasting the rest together. What he was left with was, he believed, a purely moral document."
Jefferson's Bible

Do you know what Thomas Jefferson said about Christianity?

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
Jefferson Comments on Christianity

Thomas Jefferson didn't think much of Christianity and he did not view the Bible as an inspired book.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 03:49 PM
44. "bigotry against Islam"?

The whole point of the article and discussion was, "why don't moderates speak out against the radicals". If they don't speak out, what do you think I should think?

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 03:54 PM
45. Hello Eyago,

> You failed to address how many Iraqi civilians were dying due to Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.

Please, Eyago, are you being silly or are have you failed to pay attention to the news for the last three decades? When Saddam Hussein was killing Iraqis and Iranians he was an ally of the United States of America. Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand during this time period. If you are unfamiliar with the history you can learn a little:

The Donald and The Dictator

America was not especially offended by Saddam killing Iraqis or anyone else for decades. Saddam's fatal sin was his conquest of Kuwait and threat to America's supply of oil.

America loves the Muslim's oil but could care less about dead Muslims. The bloody hypocrisy of this country is truly astonishing.

The West has behaved as a colonial power and meddled in Middle Eastern politics for a century for one and only one reason: Oil.

Those 150,000 Iraqis are dead for the sake of oil and for no other cause. All that talk of Freedom & Democracy was just a lie used by President Bush to aggressively attack a resource-rich militarily-weak Muslim country.

All those Muslims were murdered for the sake of the American consumer. How much does gasoline cost in your neighborhood? Thank the dead Iraqis for the oil.

The Iraqis will never get freedom & democracy but they certainly will surrender their oil to America and Western corporations. Aren't you proud to be an American?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 03:58 PM
46. Hello Swatter,

> The whole point of the article and discussion was, "why don't moderates speak out against the radicals". If they don't speak out, what do you think I should think?

I could care less what an ignorant, uninformed, conservative bigot things about anything. I doubt that the moderate Muslims are obligated to anything whatsoever to satisfy your expectations.

The moderate Muslims have every reason to distrust the neocon bigots who are murdering Muslims by the 100,000 in the Middle East. These Muslims have every reason to oppose the neocons and even the American government.

Muslims are not obligated to behave in a patriotic manner on behalf of a Superpower which murders Muslims. If I were a Muslim, I would be thoroughly disgusted by George W. Bush and the neocon neonazis who have killed so many people needlessly on behalf of oil.

But the Muslims cannot speak out against American military action because their civil rights were compromised by this President a long time ago. A politically active Muslim opponent of American militarism could easily disappear from America and find himself/herself sequestered in some foreign country without the right to a trial or any sort of protection from torture.

Moderate Muslims who are wise will not say or do anything to gain the attention of the United States government. The Muslims are in desperate need of protection from this government and the conservative bigots who are threatening them implicitly and explicitly.

The neocons are a greater threat to American freedom than the terrorists. The neocons have also killed more Americans than the terrorists, too. But conservatives keep on blindly following their leader to the bitter end.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 04:07 PM
47. "The neocons have also killed more Americans than the terrorists, too" per Mathews.

"Dammit, i'm going to drive this canoe over Niagra falls!"

"Why? to prove a point--I'm right in my mission!" "Forget about all my other passengers gripping the gunwhales!"

End result--no canoe. Falls still there. Passengers (& innocent) gone. Point well proven. Thanks, liberals.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 04:38 PM
48. Hello Jimmie,

Yes, the neocons have killed more Americans than the terrorists. The Iraq war has already resulted in more dead Americans than 9/11.

Who ever thought on 9/11 that those 3,000 dead Americans would lead to 3,000 more dead Americans in Iraq?

If America spends enough time in Iraq it is altogether possible that 3,000 more Americans will die in Iraq.

History took a tragic turn on 9/11. America's militarists took exploited the victims in order to engage in aggressive, resource-motivated warfare. Now the neocons have exceeded the death-toll of evil Osama.

Too bad for the soldiers. They are following their orders and committing a great crime against Iraq. President George W. Bush has committed a crime much more terrible than 9/11 in Iraq, and it is a crime which apparently will never end.

George W. Bush is more terrible than Osama Bin Laden. He has killed a lot more people.

Conservatives will wake up to the reality of this truth eventually. In Iraq the President has created a wound which will never heal. Future generations of Americans will suffer tremendously because of the backdraft created by the President's bonfire over the world's oil reserves.

But there is no need to worry about the future when so much suffering is occurring today. Iraqis are dying by the dozens every day. Conservatives allegedly want to give these people freedom & democracy but they don't care if they live. What sort of sick person gives another person freedom and death?

Dead people cannot enjoy freedom nor can they participate in a democracy. Our gift to the Iraqis is utterly and absolutely worthless. They all would be better off without our help.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 04:57 PM
49. David,

You are now changing your argument instead of answering the question posed. Instead, you make it very plain what my second point is. Your view is that the only evil in the world is perpetuated by the USA and by extension the west.

What is also evident is that you don't give a hoot about the Iraqi people. You one and only mission is to foster sedition within the USA. It would not matter if Saddam had killed 20 million and only one Irqi civilian was killed in our invasion of Iraq. The point would be one dead Iraqi civilian, USA is EVIL!

So, you care about the fight of world resources. When you have certifed to everyone that you use no petroleum products, no products produced by petroleum, no products delivered through the consumption of petroleum, etc. In fact, you can certify that nothing you say, do, use eat or otherwise, contributes to the use of petroleum you are a hypocrit. The standard of living you enjoy is driven not by Neo-cons but by the use of every living person in the western world, you included. When you can say that you personally are ending your need for oil, then maybe you can preach about the war for the earth's resources.

However, you can't because you are using a computer. The issue in the middle east in not about oil in the way you mean it, but it is a factor, and a stable middle east benefits the whole world in myriad ways. I can tell you, though, that if we dumped our dependency on foreign oil tomorrow, I would have no sorrow. However, you would be livid becuase it would deprive you of one more non-sequiter for your tirade against the US.

Posted by: Eyago on January 10, 2007 05:35 PM
50. Hello Eyago,

> Your view is that the only evil in the world is perpetuated by the USA and by extension the west.

Here you are seriously mistaken. I blame America for the evils which it commits, not every evil in the world. I blame Western civilization for the crimes which it committed, not every crime which humankind has ever committed.

> It would not matter if Saddam had killed 20 million and only one Irqi civilian was killed in our invasion of Iraq. The point would be one dead Iraqi civilian, USA is EVIL!

Killing one Iraqi civilian is a crime. Of course, killing one Iraqi civilian is crime! If you killed one of your neighbors isn't that a crime?

If the US Military flew jets and helicopters over your neighborhood dropping bombs and in the process killed felons but also a lot of civilians wouldn't you oppose their action? If the military was targetting a mass murderer and dropped a bomb on your own house wouldn't that cause you to oppose the military's action?

Americans would never stand for the US Military doing in America what it does every day in Iraq. If this sort of behavior is unacceptable in America why is it acceptable in Iraq?

> So, you care about the fight of world resources. When you have certifed to everyone that you use no petroleum products, no products produced by petroleum, no products delivered through the consumption of petroleum, etc. In fact, you can certify that nothing you say, do, use eat or otherwise, contributes to the use of petroleum you are a hypocrit. The standard of living you enjoy is driven not by Neo-cons but by the use of every living person in the western world, you included. When you can say that you personally are ending your need for oil, then maybe you can preach about the war for the earth's resources.

The President said, "America is addicted to oil". As you should know, addicts are a danger to both their friends and their enemies. America's oil addiction is real and increasing daily. Neither conservatives nor liberals are willing to do anything about it because such a change would involve a major sacrifice in America's standard of living and lifestyle.

The American Way of Life is non-negotiable. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, their manner of life and even their lives are negotiable. Americans are killing Iraqis for their oil and that is a crime. It is not the only crime that the American government and American corporations commit on behalf of the American Way of Life. If you ever examined what our corporations do overseas you will discover that there is an evil side to the American empire which is concealed here in America but displayed abundantly nearly everywhere else in the world.

America can and will give up its oil addiction. The loss of the oil drug will have devastating consequences to the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. It might also serve to collapse the United States of America. We are living in a dying nation.

>However, you can't because you are using a computer. The issue in the middle east in not about oil in the way you mean it, but it is a factor, and a stable middle east benefits the whole world in myriad ways. I can tell you, though, that if we dumped our dependency on foreign oil tomorrow, I would have no sorrow. However, you would be livid becuase it would deprive you of one more non-sequiter for your tirade against the US.

Addicts cannot voluntary break their addiction. But America's addiction to oil will be broken. There is every reason to believe the American Empire is crumbling away under our feet and that the United States of America will collapse live the Soviet Union collapsed.

The war in Iraq is about saving America's empire and preserving (temporarily) the American Way of Life. This is the reason why the Iraqis are dying. The Iraq war has nothing whatosever to do with freedom & democracy for the Iraqi people.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 10, 2007 07:36 PM
51. David,

There is every reason to believe the American Empire is crumbling away under our feet and that the United States of America will collapse live the Soviet Union collapsed.

So what I gather from your last post is that
1) We are evil
2) You are here to tell us our faults
3) We can't stop our faults
4) we are doomed

So, what exactly is your point?

For a declared Christian, you miss a fundamental point behind the Sacrifice of Christ. Man is a fallen creature and cannot save himself which required Jesus to to come down and make the sacrifice for us. All mankind in history as well as today commit evil. What's your point?

Basically your last post has virtually invalidated the need for you to have said all that you have said in the last week or so. Why are you bothering with all this hate-filled venom toward our country? Is there some revelation that you wish to make about the fact that all groups of people struggle to have their idology or way of life be predominant? Is Radical Islam any better than the America you so revile?

But, there is a difference between America and the radical islamists. We don't plan on killing, subjugating and converting all their peoples like they hope to do to us. We are much more content to let them have their faith and way of life provided it does not include the goal of killing our people. Most of the people in Iraq are happy to choose thier own leaders, and we are mostly content for them to do so. It would be in our best interest to promote a government predisposed to like us, and it would be foolish for ANY government to do otherwise. One cannot say the same for the other side which want to kill and enslave. We don't want to kill Iraqis, nor enslave them. The extent in which we go to insure our strength and position in the world is debatable, but the fundamental difference exists and you are unable to acknowledge that.

Unlike your suppostion, I have never had any illusions about our purposes for going into Iraq, it was never to impose a democracy upon them, nor can you find it in any of the rhetoric leading up to the war in the first place. Installing a democratic repalcement for the dictator we deposed was and is still the best end-game plan for the aftermath, but it was not the justification so there is no need to keep bringing up that irrelevant strawman. We considered Saddam a threat, we neutralized that threat and now we deal with the aftermath. It is as simple as that. The fact that Iraq produced oil and was a key country in an oil-rich region affectted HOW we appraoched the threat, but it was not the basis for the war. Our oil supplies were more stable under Saddam than we probably expected them to be after the war. We probably knew it would be more risky to oil stability to invade Iraq than not, so I reject the "blood for oil" diatribe.

Now, if you were a true believer in making the world a better place, and all those who thought like got together and stopped TALKING a good game and actually put your money where your mouths are you could actually have an impact on the many things. But, you won't because you want exaclty what those bad ole businesses you hate make, and you are too in love with your American way of life to acutally give it up to make the world better for everyone else.

So I still challenge you to tell me how YOU personally will make a sacrifice to improve the world before I will take much credit in your beliefs about the evils of a country and system that you cannot bring yourself to divorce.

Posted by: Eyago on January 10, 2007 09:36 PM
52. Hello Eyago,

> Why are you bothering with all this hate-filled venom toward our country? Is there some revelation that you wish to make about the fact that all groups of people struggle to have their idology or way of life be predominant? Is Radical Islam any better than the America you so revile?

A better question: Is America better than radical Islam? We've killed plenty of people are are poised to kill more.

> But, there is a difference between America and the radical islamists. We don't plan on killing, subjugating and converting all their peoples like they hope to do to us.

Here you are expressing a myth of your own bigotry. During the entire period of the Cold War the Muslims were never a menacing enemy to the West. In many cases, the Muslims and the radical Muslims were our allies. Evil Osama was once an ally and CIA asset in the Soviet Afghanistan war. Saddam was an ally and an asset while he was killing Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.

> We don't want to kill Iraqis, nor enslave them.

A government which allegedly doesn't want to kill Iraqis has killed over 150,000 of them. I'd hate to see the death toll if America actually did want to kill Iraqis.

> We considered Saddam a threat, we neutralized that threat and now we deal with the aftermath.

Saddam was represented as a threat by the lies and propaganda of George W. Bush and his administration. Saddam was never a threat. George W. Bush has killed all these people and our soldiers for nothing.

> The fact that Iraq produced oil and was a key country in an oil-rich region affectted HOW we appraoched the threat, but it was not the basis for the war. Our oil supplies were more stable under Saddam than we probably expected them to be after the war. We probably knew it would be more risky to oil stability to invade Iraq than not, so I reject the "blood for oil" diatribe.

You do not seize an oil-rich country in order to buy the oil. You seize it in order to gain control over the resource and to dominate & threaten the other oil-rich countries in the region.

> So I still challenge you to tell me how YOU personally will make a sacrifice to improve the world before I will take much credit in your beliefs about the evils of a country and system that you cannot bring yourself to divorce.

How could I possibly make any such claims, and how could you possibly verify them?


Posted by: David Mathews on January 11, 2007 04:37 AM
53. Mathews--my point again--

if you & other lefties hate it here so much, why not move? vote with your feet in place of whining and hating everything about the USA? money where mouth is?

N. Korea, China, Ethiopia or Cuba may suit your tastes. They have squeaky-clean histories, human rights and past/present regimes. Madonna moved. Truth is, USA is the best game around. How about Mexico City? Venezuela?

or is it just a distaste for the right & its values? then how about Europe? Enlightened enough? Like that allegedly fake indian-professor Ward Churchill, you have a lot of bile to spew, yet stay comfortably here & enjoy the rights and benefits many have died for to give you. Try your messages in another country like Pakistan.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 11, 2007 06:09 AM
54. Despite the slander and other BS spouted off by the troll, there has been a good discussion by others responding to the troll. Good job by all in exposing the supposed thinker as a radical whack job.

When he couldn't answer the simple question of why aren't the supposed moderate Muslims extolling the "peace" aspects of the religion and instead calling me a bigot, he defined himself.

Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2007 07:22 AM
55. David,

You still fail to answer a single question to suggest you any sort of grasp on the true nature of things. You accuse me of looking through my bigoted eyes when your bigotry is blaring through every post. You can only answer each question with a repeat of the same talking points time and time again.

I asked if Radical Islam is better than America because I know your own answer to your own question. You failed to grasp the point because you are stuck on one note like an old LP skipping on a scratch. You can only condemn the US and that shouts your ideological bias. You have never condemned the acts of brutality committed by non-westerners. It makes all your arguments about righteousness irrelevant.

No I am not expressing the “myth of my own bigotry” when I discussed the difference between America and radical Islam, and it is sad how you are unable to see the irony in your own statement. Radical Islam has killed more in Africa with fewer resources than we have than all have died in Iraq despite all our killing capacity. If radical Islamists had our power you would see devastation in a way you could never fathom. The results of their barbarism is evident in the limited scope they are able to exercise it, but you are too blinded by your own mythology to put it in perspective. You also continue to fail to place the blame where it belongs in the death of 150,000 Iraqi civilians. Without radical Islamists, that number would be degrees lower and virtually non-existent. Your blindness to your mythology prevents you from seeing that.

I'd hate to see the death toll if America actually did want to kill Iraqis. Yes, you actually would, and if you really understood that, you would stop this false pretense of indignation over the Iraqi people for whom you have zero interest other than as a foil for your blind ideology. More hypocrisy to discredit any argument you might make.

Saddam was represented as a threat by the lies and propaganda of George W. Bush and his administration. Saddam was never a threat. George W. Bush has killed all these people and our soldiers for nothing.
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan. “There you go again.” It is amazing how incapable you are of assimilating data outside of the laser thin, narrow-minded scope though which you view this issue. In 1998 Clinton said Saddam must go. Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller all said Saddam was a major threat to the US. Nearly every Democrat in Washington save Dennis Kucinich SAID publicly effect that Saddam was a bomb waiting to go off. Governments around the world thought he was a danger. If George Bush masterminded that level of deception, he would be truly one of the greatest leaders on the history of mankind. But instead, I think the reality is that you are one of the most ideologically blinded people in the history on mankind.
You do not seize an oil-rich country in order to buy the oil. You seize it in order to gain control over the resource and to dominate & threaten the other oil-rich countries in the region.
So, then you can prove clearly that we are NOT buying Iraqi oil? Can you show me how we have secured all the oil in the region? You so emphatically believe that this was all about oil that you don’t care to look at facts and reality. You start with a false assumption and construct your theories and beliefs to fit the conclusion you have already drawn. There is no truth in you, only zealous and rabid anti-Americanism.
How could I possibly make any such claims, and how could you possibly verify them?
How could you possibly make any such claims since you do not actually believe in what you preach because you are unwilling to back them up with action. If oil is the cause of our ills, go oil free. The very fact that you make that attempt will get all the newspapers in the nation fawning over your quixotic attempts to save the planet. But you can’t and you won’t and I have nothing but contempt for your hypocrisy and everything that goes with it.
You see, all of your liberal friends talk a good game but like I said, if they all walked the talk it would be amazing the reduction in oil consumption that would occur in this country. And just so you know, I actually believe in reducing oil dependency that when I had a job not in my home, I took the bus to and from work and our family owned only one car despite a household income in the 6 figures. You see, I believe in personal responsibility for the world, and I consciously act upon my beliefs without having to blame everyone else for the problem unlike Al Gore who decries global warming while flying around the world in a private jet.

Posted by: Eyago on January 11, 2007 09:28 AM
56. David,

You still fail to answer a single question to suggest you any sort of grasp on the true nature of things. You accuse me of looking through my bigoted eyes when your bigotry is blaring through every post. You can only answer each question with a repeat of the same talking points time and time again.

I asked if Radical Islam is better than America because I know your own answer to your own question. You failed to grasp the point because you are stuck on one note like an old LP skipping on a scratch. You can only condemn the US and that shouts your ideological bias. You have never condemned the acts of brutality committed by non-westerners. It makes all your arguments about righteousness irrelevant.

No I am not expressing the “myth of my own bigotry” when I discussed the difference between America and radical Islam, and it is sad how you are unable to see the irony in your own statement. Radical Islam has killed more in Africa with fewer resources than we have than all have died in Iraq despite all our killing capacity. If radical Islamists had our power you would see devastation in a way you could never fathom. The results of their barbarism is evident in the limited scope they are able to exercise it, but you are too blinded by your own mythology to put it in perspective. You also continue to fail to place the blame where it belongs in the death of 150,000 Iraqi civilians. Without radical Islamists, that number would be degrees lower and virtually non-existent. Your blindness to your mythology prevents you from seeing that.

I'd hate to see the death toll if America actually did want to kill Iraqis. Yes, you actually would, and if you really understood that, you would stop this false pretense of indignation over the Iraqi people for whom you have zero interest other than as a foil for your blind ideology. More hypocrisy to discredit any argument you might make.

Saddam was represented as a threat by the lies and propaganda of George W. Bush and his administration. Saddam was never a threat. George W. Bush has killed all these people and our soldiers for nothing.
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan. “There you go again.” It is amazing how incapable you are of assimilating data outside of the laser thin, narrow-minded scope though which you view this issue. In 1998 Clinton said Saddam must go. Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller all said Saddam was a major threat to the US. Nearly every Democrat in Washington save Dennis Kucinich SAID publicly effect that Saddam was a bomb waiting to go off. Governments around the world thought he was a danger. If George Bush masterminded that level of deception, he would be truly one of the greatest leaders on the history of mankind. But instead, I think the reality is that you are one of the most ideologically blinded people in the history on mankind.
You do not seize an oil-rich country in order to buy the oil. You seize it in order to gain control over the resource and to dominate & threaten the other oil-rich countries in the region.
So, then you can prove clearly that we are NOT buying Iraqi oil? Can you show me how we have secured all the oil in the region? You so emphatically believe that this was all about oil that you don’t care to look at facts and reality. You start with a false assumption and construct your theories and beliefs to fit the conclusion you have already drawn. There is no truth in you, only zealous and rabid anti-Americanism.
How could I possibly make any such claims, and how could you possibly verify them?
How could you possibly make any such claims since you do not actually believe in what you preach because you are unwilling to back them up with action. If oil is the cause of our ills, go oil free. The very fact that you make that attempt will get all the newspapers in the nation fawning over your quixotic attempts to save the planet. But you can’t and you won’t and I have nothing but contempt for your hypocrisy and everything that goes with it.
You see, all of your liberal friends talk a good game but like I said, if they all walked the talk it would be amazing the reduction in oil consumption that would occur in this country. And just so you know, I actually believe in reducing oil dependency that when I had a job not in my home, I took the bus to and from work and our family owned only one car despite a household income in the 6 figures. You see, I believe in personal responsibility for the world, and I consciously act upon my beliefs without having to blame everyone else for the problem unlike Al Gore who decries global warming while flying around the world in a private jet.

Posted by: Eyago on January 11, 2007 09:33 AM
57. RE: Mathews # 40. Funny how you ignore Muhammad's pedophilia by citing the Old Testament. Please consider that almost a thousand years passed between Lot, Solomon and Muhammad. The non-Muslim world became somewhat more civilized in that interval and that dirty old man, Muhammad, was still merrily advocating sex with 9 year olds.
You refer to the American slave owners. Nota Bene- that was decided by a civil war about 150 years ago. Arab Muslims still actively trade in slaves in the sub-Sahara (need I mention Darfur?) and Muslim men still take 3-4 women as wives (aka chattel).
You also refer to the West and the New World- again- that was several hundred years ago yet you ignore the atrocities that continue today under Muslim rule. Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq. Sunni vs Shia- car-bombing children, mass murders and beheadings in the 21st Century- some "Religion of Peace". Whether you are Wahabbi (sp) Sunni, plain old Sunni or Shia- your branch is engaged in Muslim-to-Muslim violence unparalled in contemporary Western society. This accounts for many of the 150,000 fatalities that you WISH you could attribute to America.

Atomic bombs and Hiroshima? It was called WWII and as a nation fighting totalitarianism on two fronts, it was safer than a land invasion of Japan. While the A-bomb was gruesome- it saved millions of American lives while also avoiding the total destruction of Japan that hand-to-hand fighting would have brought.

Will you admit to the fact that Muhammad enjoyed having pedophile sex with the 9 year old child Ayesha? So much so that he married her at around age 6? Senstitive New Age man that he was- he waited until she was nine before he raped her.

The Koran is a twisted mess of half-truths, lies and baloney. Muhammad cribbed the "good parts" from the Bible.

Posted by: John425 on January 11, 2007 10:43 AM
58. David,

To say you love and believe all Muslims are "beautiful" and wonderful people, then you are just as ignorant as those who would distrust and hate them all. You call yourself a Christian, but you do not love and prefer your own as the Bible commands. You call yourself an American, but you can spew nothing about it that you love, admire or respect. If you were a Christian, you would certainly find some middle ground. Read the following and you will see that we certainly do have to do something about terrorism and those who entertain terrorists. Believe me, you will be one of the first to lose your head if they come to our soil, because you would be seen as a weak man. On that point (your being a weak man), I would have to agree with them. 'Nuf said'

Testimony of J. T. Caruso, Acting Assistant Director, CounterTerrorism Division, FBI
Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate
December 18, 2001
"Al-Qaeda International"
At heart, al Qaeda is a highly decentralized international organization. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, al Qaeda is a "conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries, including Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Burma, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Bosnia as well as the West Bank [and China]." Other countries where al Qaeda is known to have covert operational cells include Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, the United States, Britain, France and Canada.

It might be easier to list countries where al Qaeda is known not to be operating. For instance, um... Well, the Principality of Sealand is probably a safe bet. And possibly the Vatican.

According to Jane's, al Qaeda is informally allied with at least 24 other terrorist groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiah, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hesb' I Islami and the Islamic Group.

AL-QAEDA TIES TO OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

Although Al-Qaeda functions independently of other terrorist organizations, it also functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including: the Al-Jihad, the Al-Gamma Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group - led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and later by Ahmed Refai Taha, a/k/a "Abu Yasser al Masri,"), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, the Kashmiri region of India, and the Chechen region of Russia. Al-Qaeda also maintained cells and personnel in a number of countries to facilitate its activities, including in Kenya, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. By banding together, Al-Qaeda proposed to work together against the perceived common enemies in the West - particularly the United States which Al-Qaeda regards as an "infidel" state which provides essential support for other "infidel" governments. Al-Qaeda responded to the presence of United States armed forces in the Gulf and the arrest, conviction and imprisonment in the United States of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda by issuing fatwahs indicating that attacks against U.S. interests, domestic and foreign, civilian and military, were both proper and necessary. Those fatwahs resulted in attacks against U.S. nationals in locations around the world including Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, and now in the United States. Since 1993, thousands of people have died in those attacks.

THE FATWAH'S OF AL-QAEDA

The Fatwah Against American Troops in Somalia

At various times from about 1992 until about 1993, Usama Bin Laden, working together with members of the fatwah committee of Al-Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of Al-Qaeda which directed that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked. Indeed, Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the deaths of 18 U.S. servicemen killed in "Operation Restore Hope" in Somalia in 1994.
February, 1998 Fatwah

On February 22, 1998, Bin Laden issued a fatwah stating that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans. This fatwah read, in part, that "in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwah to all Muslims: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, including civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." This fatwah appears to have provided the religious justification for, and marked the start of logistical planning for, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin and one of his top lieutenants and leader of the Al-Jihad organization in Egypt, Ayman Al Zawahiri, endorsed a fatwah under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwah, published in the publication Al-Quds al-Arabi on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world where they can be found. In or about April 1998, one of the defendants in the East Africa trial, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, discussed the fatwahs issued by Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda against America with another defendant, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil. This discussion took place in Kenya.


Posted by: Leslie16035 on January 11, 2007 07:51 PM
59. in this matter, like all others & local ones, most elected officials (esp. the opposition) are banking on the public's short memory & need to run their daily lives. throw in a bit of voter academic laziness & historical ignorance & there you have it.

they know most people are apathetic or just too busy (to want to) follow political actions, whether ridiculuous or sane. too bad. you get what you vote for. what yo dont know CAN hurt too.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 12, 2007 05:57 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?