Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine 1327

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the brainwashing-not-out-of-the-question dept.
jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine

Comments Filter:
  • "Begs the Question" (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:22PM (#14757039)
    Go look it up and learn something new.
  • Re:Slashdot? (Score:2, Informative)

    by DoraLives (622001) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:29PM (#14757098)
    Why exactly is this on Slashdot?

    Because the dumb sonofabitches think that by blowing even more smoke, they can more perfectly control the thoughts of the (obviously) completely ignorant and obedient masses, the better to further their own selfish ends.

    In so doing, they're attempting to invoke technological means to stifle free speech and control people's thoughts. Last time I checked, technology and free speech are both fairly mainstream items for Slashdot, and once I've donned my shiny new tinfoil hat, the thought control part kinda fits the bill, too.

  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:46PM (#14757220) Homepage
    No No No! The word "think" is doubleplus ungood and is not part of the Newspeak Dictionary 5th Edition. The correct statement is "All knowledge from MiniTrue is doubleplus good."
  • by JayBlalock (635935) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:48PM (#14757234)
    WHhhaaaatttt? Ok, as (I would hazard to guess) your hero would say, put the pipe down.

    Let's look at those:

    Afghanistan in the 1980s? That was THE TALIBAN! The evil theocracy that turned their nation into one of the most repressive hellholes on earth, who we had to turn around and oust just to fix our own mistake. You're counting that as helping them? Soviet Russia was a PARADISE compared to what the Taliban set up.

    And Kosovo? You know why we got into Kosovo, right? It was because of Clinton's idiotic decision to do some bombing in Iraq in the middle of Ramadan. This rather pissed the Muslims off. So to placate them, he got us into the middle of a war which has been raging for decades, and pretty much arbitrarily picked a side to call the "good guys" even though, once you study the history of it, you see that there was no such thing. And in the process, we actively bombed cities from the air and killed untold numbers of innocents. (precision bombing my ass... we hit so many schools it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate... and many believe it WAS.)

    And you cite the "defense" of Saudi Arabia? Number 1 - FROM WHO? Number 2 - the Saudis are one of the most powerful groups in the middle east, and number 3 - THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! If we wanted to overthrow a repressive regime that was keeping its people in squallor and misery, the House of Saud would be one of the best targets I can think of. Instead, since their our oil buddy-buddies, we look the other way while they bleed their population dry.

    And Kuwait? Yes, liberating Kuwait wasn't a bad thing. Except, seeing as how it's one of the more technologically advanced nations in the area, it's not part of OBL's target audience. Plus, counterbalancing that is GHWB's complete screwing over of Iraqis in the wake of that war. We WERE going to march to Baghdad during that war, and prepared huge numbers of tribal leaders and dissidents to wage civil war. Except we pulled out at the last minute, left them high and dry, and allowed Saddam to exact his revenge on them with impunity.

    Quite frankly, fact that you even cite some of those suggests you have no knowledge whatsoever of the area, or the geopolitics involved.

    Oh, but Bosnia wasn't bad, I'll give you that one.

    So, in short, if that is your idea of "help" then perhaps we'd do better to leave them alone entirely.

  • by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:49PM (#14757249)
    In 2004, the US government launched Alhurra [wikipedia.org], a 24-hour propaganda news network that was created to counter Aljazeera.

    Maybe Rumsfeld didn't get the memo, but that's not surprising considering that he doesn't even use e-mail [msn.com].
  • by Camel Pilot (78781) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:50PM (#14757255) Homepage Journal
    I would hazard a guess that you have not spent anytime on aljazeera.com.

    It is not so much what they print as what they do not. Most anything negative to arab and muslim culture is routinely ignored or under reported.

    For example, all through the cartoon protest aljazeera published scant little. They did not report ludicrious quotes from leaders like the Iranian Ayatollha who proclaimed the cartoons were a "jewish conspiracy". You did not see them mention that the most offensive cartoons were not drawn by the Danish cartoonist but were added by a Danish Imam to further inflame the faithful.

    You will not find any mention of the travesty that is Sudan were torture and rape occur daily by arab islamic militia's. They ignore reporting sewerside bombings but will report in detail if an Israel soldiers roughs up a teenager. But you will find articles like "U.S. army accepts more "flawed" recruits".
  • by deep44 (891922) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @06:56PM (#14757292)
    The BBC indirectly quoted him:
    The US is losing the propaganda war against al-Qaeda and other enemies, defence chief Donald Rumsfeld has said.
    Don't blame Slashdot; instead, try using the "search" function built into your browser (or just read the whole FA).
  • by free space (13714) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:07PM (#14757369)
    Thanks for the reply,

    You're kiding right?
    No, 'twas an honest question :)

    You mean other than being beaten to death or raped for leaving the house wearing unsuitable attire?
    I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair". The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.

    And certainly beating or raping a woman is the last thing Islam would command. If a man does this to a woman, this would be a sure ticket to the worst pits of hell. Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.

    Under Saddam women could even work.
    And why is this bad? perhaps you mean "under saddam women couldn't even work"?.
    In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
  • Or Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:08PM (#14757374) Journal
    Informational Warfare has "News for Nerds" written all over it.

    Did you actually read what Rummy is proposing?

    From the end of TFA:
    Government communications planning must be "a central component of every aspect of this struggle", he added.

    "The longer it takes to put a strategic communications framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy."
    That sounds really freakin' nerdy to me.

    They're talking about creating a radio, tv and print framework in whatever country he has a problem with.

    It's relatively easy for the U.S. to blast propaganda into Cuba, since they aren't that far away, but it is a completely different story when you're trying to push information into countries like Iran or Syria.

    Think about the technical side of deploying his 'framework'. I bet that would be News for Nerds
  • by Oldsmobile (930596) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:09PM (#14757376) Journal
    This is because aljazeera.com is the website for alJazeera magazine. It is not affiliated with the Middle Eastern news network Aljazeera whose website is aljazeera.net.

    From aljazeera.com:

    "About Aljazeera.com
    Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established for more than 12 years delivering news and analysis to readers all over the world. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.

    Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV station whose website is Aljazeera.net."


    Embarrasing, I know.
  • by bartyboy (99076) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:18PM (#14757447)
    Mod parent up. The correct term to use is "raise the question".

    Read the details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [wikipedia.org]
  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:19PM (#14757459)
    I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair".
    Strange, Google doesn't show many hits for "Islamic scientist" (only 466) and most of those refer to people studying science such as optics.
    The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.
    Yes, you should read more.
    Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.
    This is another of those cases where you have not read enough.

    Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).
    And why is this bad?
    A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.
    In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
    You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.

    Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:36PM (#14757559)
    It is not as bad as it could be...

    Yet
  • by rewinn (647614) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:54PM (#14757674) Homepage

    We must replace google, yahoo, msn et cetera with a Patriot Search Engine [outer-court.com] to ensure that Government-Approved Information is delivered to your desktop!

    It can also that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!

    Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide and interested only in The Truth As Patriots Know It To Be, you will use Patriot Search [outer-court.com] today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.

  • by free space (13714) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:56PM (#14757685)
    Strange, Google doesn't show many hits for "Islamic scientist" (only 466) and most of those refer to people studying science such as optics.
    I'm not a native English speaker so pehaps I mistranlated the term.
    There are two kinds of Islamic scientists :
    * Scientists in the ways of life: Those are the standard researchers in bilogy, chemistry, physics, maths...etc
    * Scientists in the ways of religion: Those are the one's who try to answer religious questions using a rigourous logic induction/deduction system which assumes the Quran and the Words of the Prophet are axioms, and attempt to deduce all other rules from them.

    Islam encourages both ways of science and many Muslim scientists are adept at both. Unfortunately I'm only good at the first type (computer science) and thus can't always tell with 100% certainity if is an Isdlamic rule or not.

     
    The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.

    Yes, you should read more.

    What does that mean? does it say somewhere that Islam dictates said moral police?

     
    Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.

    This is another of those cases where you have not read enough.
    Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).

    I didn't understand the grandparent poster, I thought he said "Saddam did so and so in the name of Islam". In any case Islam is innocent from what has been done, regardless of the regime. No Muslim would kill/rape a woman in any situation because she wasn't well covered.
     

            In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).

    You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.

    Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.

    I know what Taliban did, but that has nothing to do with Islam. There were many crimes commited in the name of Christianity ( say) , that doesn't make Christianism or Christians bad.
  • Re:Three words: (Score:3, Informative)

    by tempestdata (457317) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @07:58PM (#14757701)
    I stand corrected.

    Having said that, I still maintain that in the vast majority of the cases poverty is indeed the trigger. There are exceptions where fanaticism trumps wealth.
  • by Viceice (462967) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @08:33PM (#14757920)
    As a person coming from a country struggling to control Muslim fundamentalists, you're spot on.
  • Here's an idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by deanj (519759) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @08:43PM (#14757968)
    How about actually reporting ALL the news that's going on there.

    Not just the bad things.

    The American people have such a screwed up idea of what that whole country is like... You'd think that ever square inch of that place was ready to explode, rather than what's happening in a relatively small area where Saddam loyalists and jihadists (who came over the border) are right now.
  • by tjic (530860) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @08:58PM (#14758038) Homepage
    The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
    The poster is confused about what begs the question [wikipedia.org] means. In truth, it is "the term for a type of fallacy...in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises." Thus, the news article SUGGESTS the question "how much more can they possibly do"? For a good example of BEGGING the question, see the original poster's totally biased description of the situation, which allows for only one view on the subject, admits of no disagreement, andt then asks a purely rhetorical "how much more can they possibly do?". Bah. If you're going to do a Usenet-style driveby, at least don't commit logical fallacies and semantic fallacies in the same post.
  • by damiam (409504) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @09:14PM (#14758153)
    Such niggardly use of language should be stopped.

    I do not think that word [m-w.com] means what you think it means.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2006 @09:27PM (#14758215)
    DISCLAIMER: I'm a student in study of religion. You are wrong.
     
    The dhimmi status has, by some, been extended to basically include all theists. However, the dhimmi status is subjective, based on fatwas (which often contradict each other), and any Muslim is free to accept or not accept a fatwa regardless of which Imam or Ayatollah made it. So some Muslims accept pretty much any religion/worldview, while some Shia Muslims think all Sunni Muslims should die, and vice versa.
     
    So what does this really mean? At the moment, Islam kills about 1% of the number of victims of starvation, or 4% of the number of AIDS deaths.* (9/11 was an exception - only approximately nine times the number of WTC victims starved on the same day.) Not fun, but it is not like the full billion of Muslims alive are up in arms. Most just ignore the order to kill infidels much in the same way as most christians ignore the rule that slave trade is okay.
     
    What does this tell us? What religions say and what religious people do is a very, very big difference. Look at Russian Orthodoxy, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Martinism - they are as different from each other as practical religions can possibly be, and they all swear by the same book. Islam is just as diverse! The radicals just get all the press. Get this in perspective: worldwide, roughly 200,000 people have protested the Muhammad caricatures - that makes less than 0.02% of Muslims. Roughly 30 people have died in the protests. Over this couple of weeks, more people have probably been hit by lightning. Islamic radicalism is an absolute non-event put under a huge magnifying lens because Bush keeps throwing hundreds of billions of $ at it.
     
    * Per day, 27,000 people die from starvation, 7000 from AIDS (Source: WHO). 300 (direct) victims of Islam is my own estimate, and the majority should be from suicides and botched abortions, not war.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @09:38PM (#14758275) Homepage Journal
    Or could it be that nerds have actually learned to care about politics, even though you haven't? If the political stories weren't news to nerds, they wouldn't generate pageviews. And any look thru the extremely high numbers of posts in response shows that the people discussing the stories are nerds.
  • by jxs2151 (554138) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @09:42PM (#14758291) Homepage
    If you care to read a really good paper on the reasons why groups like Slashdot readers turn out like they do check this out:

    The Law of Group Polarization

    CASS R. SUNSTEIN

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =199668 [ssrn.com]

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday February 19, 2006 @09:45PM (#14758301) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot rarely covers "technical articles". It covers lots of technical issues, but rarely links to an actual scientific paper or engineering report. Rumsfeld's policy statement talks about communications technology, a huge new expenditure on American communications technology. That's news for nerds. Even if Rumsfeld's words could have come out of a Gestapo officer's mouth. Or maybe especially if so.
  • Re:Three words: (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2006 @10:02PM (#14758372)
    Here's the problem with the Koran, vs. the Bible.

    In the bible, you can always find an opposing quotation, and therefore, it's a book that spurs discussion and investigation into faith.

    In the Koran, the more relaxed and peaceful parts are in the beginning, as Mohammad (pbuh) continued on, he began his wars against Jews and Christians and Polytheists, and the surahs became more and more violent and uncompromising.

    Islamic scholars have ruled for some time, that the later surahs abrogate the earlier ones... so when a fundamentalist wants you to agree with him, he'll quote something like:

    The Cow

          1. [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

    and;

    The Pilgrimage

          1. [22.17] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associate (others with Allah)-- surely Allah will decide between them on the day of resurrection; surely Allah is a witness over all thing

    But then conversely, when they want to tell other Muslims how evil and bad the west is, they will justify their murderous rampages thusly:

    Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

            Narrated 'Ikrima:

            Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:

            Narrated 'Ali:

            Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

    Now, with all this in mind, remember that the Koran (The recitations) are supposed to be the unbroken word of God. Interestingly, a German archaeologist found some old versions of the Koran in a Mosque:

    http://www.geocities.com/islampencereleri3/queryin g_the_koran.htm [geocities.com]
    http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.htm l [derafsh-kaviyani.com]

    Finally, what I'd like to add is that we need to find more guys like this, who are willing to challenge the "fanatical victim" and actually teach them the reality of a more moderate Islam:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p01s04-wome.htm [csmonitor.com]

    Where are the Muslims who will stand up, and LOUDLY protest the hatred and violence amongst those claiming to represent them? Either they are complicit by failing to act - out of either intent, or fear - or they MUST stand up for humanity's sake, and for their own.

    If nobody stands up to fanaticism, we will all end up living in an Islamo-fascist state, where religious/thought police monitor our lives.

  • by Arker (91948) on Monday February 20, 2006 @12:03AM (#14758845) Homepage
    Not only are you completely off-base on the Dhimmi issue, the fact is that muslims already have nukes. Ever heard of Pakistan? The Indian and Pakistani nukes are doing a wonderful job of deterrence, and are probably the only thing that's kept those two countries from all out war on many occasions.
  • by stor (146442) on Monday February 20, 2006 @01:35AM (#14759210)
    You ought to watch "OutFoxed" sometime dude.

    http://www.outfoxed.org/ [outfoxed.org]

    Cheers
    Stor
  • by 0x0000 (140863) <{moc.xehorez} {ta} {xehorez}> on Monday February 20, 2006 @03:31AM (#14759603) Homepage

    mostly what he expressed is opinion.. you may very well disagree.. but that certainly doens't make him a moron

    You're making assumptions. It's not whether or not anyone dis/agrees that makes him a moron, it's the opinion(s) he posted.

    Specificly, disagreeing with a moronic opinion is not mutually exclusive with the holder or purveyor of the opinion being a moron - a moron is a moron, independant of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the moronic opinions expressed by said moron.

    let's see how many pro-bush comments are modded up vs how many anti-bush comments are modded up.

    Why would anyone in their right mind mod up a pro-Bush comment?

    You are creating a completely spurious and hypothetical argument, here. Those that support the Regime are mostly too stoopid to figure out how to post - and those that have the requisite chimpanzee skills [bushorchimp.com] to work a keyboard are incapable of composing a coherent message of support.

    Furthermore, any message of support for Dubya would de facto have to include a lot of lies (i.e. BULLSHIT), and since that's one thing that does function pretty well around here is the bullshit detectors, well, you're just shit outta luck, buddro.

    Let me also point out to you that, in supporting the dumbasses in the Whitehouse, you are not "resisting the group-think", you're just demonstrating that you are of below-average intelligence.

    good lord did he rape your mother or something?

    Well, the perp is a Republican, so it was probably not the mother. Probably more like the little brother. It was Clinton liked the femmes, remember? That seemed to piss you guys off, for some reason...

    calm down.

    Hey, you're the one whose panting and sweating, whining and begging that the rest of us please quit talking about your little bitch Dubya and his bitch dom Cheney. Calm down yerself.

    look i understand the typical ./er doesn't like bush

    Do you really? I don't think you do, or you would understand that it's not about "like", it's about things like Patriotism and the Constitution. It's about America before it was taken over by a Fascist Regime. "Like" doesn't figure into it. It's about the Constutution [cornell.edu], the Rule of Law [wikipedia.org], Freedom [eff.org], Democracy [google.com], and (of course) Economics [brillig.com]. And no, no one expects you to understand any of that, it's obvious to all that you're ... politically challenged, shall we say.

    One day we'll have to sit down and talk about that "typical ./er" remark, too - I hear a lot from the fanatics on your team about "typical slashdotters" - they've never managed to demonstrate the alleged phenomenon to my satistfaction, note - but you're the first I've noticed raving about dot-slashers...

    but would you all please stop talking like this?

    Like what? Like Americans? Like people who care? Like people who know wtf they're talking about? Why? Do those things bother you so much? No wonder you support a regime that promises you it will make everything the same - make it all go away ...

    Of couse, it may be that you're confusing /. with the voices in your head - if so, I can tell you in good confidence that you need to drink heavily. And take more drugs. It really does help.

    or atleast stop acting like this is unique.

    Actually, if you go back and check, you'll find that it is

  • by Ender_Wiggin (180793) on Monday February 20, 2006 @04:38AM (#14759791)
    Deafening Silence? What non-International news channel do you watch?

    Aside from every major Islamic organization condemning terrorism and violence, what more do you want? Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said [uga.edu], "Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs" but I guess he wasn't deemed newsworthy. Sheikh Qaradawi, a popular TV preacher, has always been against Al-Qaeda and even said it was legitimate for Muslims to join the US in attacking the Taliban.

    If you search online, you'll find photos of Muslims in anti-terror rallies. Here's two Palestinian women at a 9/11 memorial [colgate.edu], and another of some of the Palestinian students [colgate.edu] who all observed 5 minutes of silence to remember 9/11 victims. Bangladesh anti-terrorism rally and sympathy for 9/11 victims [colgate.edu]. Palestinians held a rally against suicide bombing, but I can't find coverage in english press.

    What about the mass demonstrations in Indonesia against terrorism? Heck, they had a rally calling for the execution of the Bali bombers. Indonesian Muslims were so outraged at the terrorists that they tried to storm the prison [msn.com] to lynch the terrorists.

    Go and visit any local mosque, and they will tell you how much they are opposed to terrorism of all forms. Heck, the mosque by my house keeps sending me emails condemning the latest violence, when I know it's obvious. Still, I can understand how jittery everyone is, since a few mosques have been burned down over the last few years, and someone smashed our window.

  • Re:Three words: (Score:3, Informative)

    by tempestdata (457317) on Monday February 20, 2006 @04:54AM (#14759798)
    Thanks. I appreciate your support. :)

    Actually, I was surprised by the sheer interest so many people showed in this thread.

    To answer your question.. Those 'high ranking people' are not representative of the entire Islamic community. Soon after the prophets death the Islamic world split into factions. Eventually there major dynasties were established. The Ummayids, the Abbasids and the Fatimids. Each of them claimed to be the caliph (or pope - leader) of the muslim world. Each had his set of followers. Unfortunately, all 3 dynasties eventually disappeared, the last of the Caliphs was killed when Kublai Khan's brother defeated him and invaded baghdad.

    Today Islam has no pope. No leader. There are lots of little factions and sects.. each claiming that their leader is the true leader. No matter who speaks on behalf of the muslims on TV.. he cannot speak for everyone. For each high ranking moderate you point to, someone could point out a 'fire brand cleric' who is also a leader of another sect. Perhaps one person could have represented the huge chunk of the muslim population, similar to the catholic pope... but no single person in Islam has that much of a following.

    I think that pretty much answers your question. :)
  • by sosume (680416) on Monday February 20, 2006 @08:14AM (#14760406) Journal

    If you want to get down to it, Israel is at the foundation a bunch of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation European squatters occupying land belonging to others. That and a recent enormous infusion of Africans to boost the population.


    According to my history teacher, jews have been living in that land since at least 1000 bc until the muslims declared them unislamic and kicked them out. The land that they occupied early the previous century was afaik bought and paid for; the rest wass assigned by the UN. If muslim countries do not agree they are free to leave the UN.

    As to wiping them off the map. Maybe that's a good idea at this point. They've made their bed since 1947 and now complain about having to sleep in it. If the US stopped pumping public and private funding into that territory, they'd have to change their tune quickly and arrive at a peacable solution instead of constantly provocing violence.

    While we're wiping nations off the earth, let's wipe the following nations off the map as well:
    Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the UAE. Especially the last one. How would you feel about that?

    And while on the subject of "constantly provoking violence" hmmmm did you see the video of the israeli kids beheading a muslim? burning the muslim flag? calling out for global warfare against non-israeli's? burn embassies? dress their kids up with explosives? glorify the ak-47? could go on and on.

    Now there's no reason why all those people can't live in peace and work towards eachother's benefit, but in order to do that the, state sanctioned racism, apartheid, genocide and terrorism on Israel's side and the racism and terrorism on the other side have to stop.

    hmmm why do you think israel is an apartheid state. afaik there is even a jihadist in the knesset. israel makes it hard for non-citizens though. what a load of crap in one sentence without proof to support it.

    damn, you must either be very ignorant or trying to obscure the stuation in favor of the jihadists.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20, 2006 @08:37AM (#14760491)
    Well you have either put your bracketed comment in the wrong place or you are suggesting Hitler was an atheist. Because the guy sounded a bit Christian to me.

    "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Adolf Hitler

    "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler

    "I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence." - Adolf Hitler

    "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." - Adolf Hitler

    "The judgment whether a people is virtuous or not virtuous can hardly be passed by a human being. That should be left to God." - Adolf Hitler
  • by typical (886006) on Monday February 20, 2006 @09:07AM (#14760620) Journal
    Voice of America [wikipedia.org] was established in 1942, and, as far as I know, has operated since then. It's not like their webpages go down half the time.

    Of course, it may be not be obvious that it's a government mouthpiece; like the Department of War effectively becoming the Department of Defense after World War II, the United States Information Agency (the US propaganda division) was renamed to the Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 1999.
  • by dbrutus (71639) on Monday February 20, 2006 @10:14AM (#14760985) Homepage
    The US did not create Al Queda. Afghanistan was invaded and as usual, there was a resistence. The Carter administration wanted to feed the resistence enough to bleeed the Soviets dry but not win. Reagan upped the support so they would actually win. There were elements from all over the muslim world in that resistance and I'm proud that my tax dollars went to fund a liberation movement like that.

    Some of the people who later went on to form Al Queda did take part in that movement to free Afghanistan but it would be more accurate to blame the US for the Soviet Gulag because we sent aid to the USSR in WW II than accuse the US of creating Al Queda.

    That being said, there's plenty of documentary evidence of a differential between what is preached in western tongues and what is preached in arabic. Unlike the Protocols (a czarist secret police forgery), you can buy transcripts and tapes of these things directly from the muslim groups. The nature of these sorts of accusations is generally not "those muslims secretly plot" but that "Sheikh X, that the Bush administration claims is moderate, sayd XYZ in arabic in a speech in Cairo". In other words, if you have the linguistic skills, you can double check the claims and be famous for exposing lies if these claims were indeed false.

  • by hesiod (111176) on Monday February 20, 2006 @11:33AM (#14761518)
    > The commandments, on the other hand, are immutable, they were given to Moses as tablets which were written by God.

    The only problem with that is how many different versions there are [positiveatheism.org].
  • by dbrutus (71639) on Monday February 20, 2006 @11:55AM (#14761710) Homepage
    The justification for Israel is that England was in charge and they decided to draw the lines that way. The jewish zionists convinced England to do it with a number of lines of argument including that they had a multi-thousand year attachment to the place but the reason the lines were drawn as they were in 1947 was strictly colonial whim. Israel's 1948 and subsequent borders were established conventionally, by force of arms and treaty brokered territory concessions.

    The millenia of occupation and connection is a very nice national myth but it wasn't the reason the lines were drawn that way. Jewish majority neighborhoods got included in Israel. The rest was supposed to be arab Palestine. Then there was a war...
  • by micilin (725159) on Monday February 20, 2006 @02:00PM (#14762621)
    You think its indisputable? Fair enough. I think it's arguable that the united States has the 22nd most free and open media community (circus) in the world. Here's a link to a journalist's association that have an interest in these matters:

    http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 [rsf.org]
  • Re:Three words: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Valdrax (32670) on Monday February 20, 2006 @04:51PM (#14763532)
    Israel has its own religious fanatics. [bbc.co.uk] The settlers in the West Bank (and formerly in Gaza) are religious fanatics bent on the creation of Greater Israel. [palestineremembered.com] Fortunately, the government of Israel is being far less indulgent to the settlers than they have in the past.

    For the most part, there are no independent Israeli mass murders because their overwhelmingly powerful army does most of the killing. Their army kills and maims civilians near militant leaders by bombing apartment blocks [haaretzdaily.com] and shooting missiles at cars on busy streets. [bbc.co.uk] The hatred is not one-way, though the despair and desperation that originates in collective punishment [guardian.co.uk] and leads people to conclude that blowing themselves up to take others with them is a good idea is truly uniquely Palestinian.

    I'm not very fond of either side in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the 3:1 Palestinians:Israelis body count ratio and the overwhelming difference in force strength really does leave Israel looking like the bully in the relationship.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...