kuzadd

btw:sorry gosthacked, for butchering your moniker previously.

I don't know exactly why the few who didn't publish them, chose not to. Was it fear? I am not sure. Perhaps that is the general assumption. BUT, is it correct? Perhaps some media outlets chose not to print them as: 1- they were widely available anyway, so there was no advantage (in sales) to doing so.( In the age of the internet, if it's available in Europe, it is on line here, before a paper goes to press :time differences) 2:Perhaps the advantage from a sales point of view was to portray the media outlet, as holding itself to a higher standard, thereby taking the higher ground and being 'not offensive'. We cannot assume media outlets chose to not publish out of fear, as SALES and PROFITS are THE driving factor, not fear. I myself, think reason number one is the most viable, with reason number 2 being the advantage of doing so. But, you yourself, can take a look around this forum, at the number of articles published, and posted here, the number of posters who criticize endlessly inc, the "footbath" thread, the books published, the number of publishers, politicians , authors, etc., who are willing to criticize and overall, you will find there is NO fear of being critical of Muslims. Can one deny the increase in hate crimes? Can one deny the roundups? Can one deny the reams of critical articles? btw: I saw the cartoons myself, so clearly they were widely accessible.

That always get's me! OBL, NOT wanted for 9/11. For a lack of evidence! actually "AlQuaeda" has no links to 7/7 or the Madrid train bombings. which makes me rethink my reply to ghosthacked question? when was the last time OBL was actually linked with evidence, not rhetoric, to an act of terrorism???? Thinking? He's not wanted for 9/11! http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm 1988, August 7 1988. almost 20 yrs ago!

it's just one of many, many, many Islam critical outlets. Along with the numerous ones I already mentioned and the ones that just keep getting posted here. No one is afraid to criticize Muslims or Islam! not writers, not politicians, not websites, no one!

oh this is hilarious!!!! I mean seriously! scribbs posts articles, criticizing Islam, as PROOF that people are afraid to criticize islam everyone is afraid, but her, she is one of the" most sharp tongued critics" note again Salon published the article!!!! then the same regurgitated interview in DerSpeigel, from 2006, she is critical and DerSpeigel is STILL PUBLISHING IT! Yup, I am sure there is more scribbs!! More and more criticism, cause no one , anywhere appears to be afraid of criticizing Muslims!!! You just keep helping my arguement, that NO ONE is afraid of Muslims, by posting reams of critical arguements and people willing to be critical!! Thanks! Oh and BTW, didn't this woman discredit herself, for lying and more Discredited Somali Quits Dutch Politics http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051601872.html "Tuesday she would give up her seat and leave the country because she is being stripped of citizenship for lying on an asylum application 14 years ago." what she demonstrates is an opportunism not unheard of for a politician. She made herself, non-credible all on her own.

Jefferiah, the ENTIRE premise of this Hitchen's piece is "God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?" There is ZERO truth to that it is a faulty premise it is as simple and as obvious and as logical as that! Including this author and this article and other authors I previously listed any number of books, all critical all published. Inc: but not limited to: "Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom write entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write." Also all the websites such as Little Green Footballs, et al! There is in fact endless criticism, there is an increase in hate crimes, there are round-ups, there are attacks on Arab countries. The simple FACT is the claim is bogus, it is a faulty premise, a lie, to stir up more fear and more hatred. I won't stop you from believing it , if you so choose, but based on all information, and known facts, this suppositon is false! Therefore if you believe it , IMO, it is not a belief based on facts, but on rhetoric.

not at all, that I can recall lately, you? That last 'video release' was all old footage of OBL. "The video included clips from old speeches by Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri." As has been the story for sometime now with these video's old footage all the time

Topaz: true true also true Topaz, see, who needs a psychic?! It's interesting to note, BinLaden's voice was picked up for the last time mid-december 2001 in ToraBora, by the US via monitoring of radio transmissions. "According to the Pentagon, radio transmissions of bin Laden's voice were detected regularly until December 14, 2001" this was widely reported at that time, then the news of Binladen's death circulated, afterwards inc. an obituary.

why do you find the date of interest specifically? I am interested in your thoughts on that.

That's right Hitchen's got published, the cartoons got published, Betsy and Scriblett and other posters spout endless biases, They are NOT afraid of offending Muslims, in any way shape or form. Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom writes entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write, the entire premise is as bogus, as the rapture. Cause if they were all so afraid, NONE of that would be happening. Please I hope, you don't insist on carrying on with what has to be one of the most bogus aspersions made and obviously bogus to boot! Oh and as for Mark David Chapman http://www.tv.com/dateline-nbc/show/10461/...7&flag=1&order= "Proclaiming he had found “Jesus”, Chapman used his new found religion to justify at least some of his intent. Lennon had famously commented once that “The Beatles were more popular than Jesus”. Having been there, I can promise you this was taken way out of context in the course of an interview. People at that time were looking for reasons to reject this new kind of music and long haired Englishmen. The statement was made in the 1960’s, yet Chapman didn’t take issue with it until the 1970’s. What is obvious in retrospect is the beginning of the spiraling decline of Mark David Chapman’s sanity, disguised as a religious zealotry, which in many people today, is the same. There is no counting the number of deaths and mass murders by so-called religious, self-righteous men who are nothing more or less than insane. Also like so many others, J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher In The Rye” (the character of “Holden”) seemed to influence him even more. He also was all religiously "wacked out", a born-again CHRISTIAN, who murdered an icon. Yet, only muslim's are religious fanatics who murder people, eh? Bogus, Bogus, Bogus, Bogus!!!!! The difference is the media focus's on the religious aspect of Muslims, but, Mark David Chapmans fanatic religious beliefs fly under the radar.

and now here's scrib's, not afraid to criticize! never has been , that I have ever noticed! Excuse me, but, were the cartoons published? Yes they were, oh, that Danish paper was just shaking and quaking! "Their assaults on the freedom of speech is a form of intimidation" Is it? wow, just like ALL assaults on freedom of speech scribbs??? right scribbs? Like the person who is having freedominion looked into? That individual is 'assaulting' free speech right? Like how groups like B'nai Brith 'assault' free speech? getting websites shutdown, deciding what books, can be read by whom?? Like that children's book "Three Wishes" by Debra Ellis an award winning book, no less! http://www.mcnallyrobinson.com/product/cat...49/item/229283/ recall that? Numerous persons inc. Jewish people, who disagreed with this, came out and said, it is not the place of these groups to decide, what people can and cannot read. So many assaults on free speech, by so many! So scribbs, are all the aformentioned 'assaults' on free speech forms of intimidation? or is it just intimidation if it can be attributed/blamed on Muslims? I would hate for you to appear to be promoting a double standard ? Could you clarify?

Another observation wrt the Hitchen's opinion piece. It is entitled : God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims? who is now claiming to be an atheist? Why does he use the inclusive pro-noun, 'we' in his title? if he is doing it to include himself, he is then not an atheist, as he claims. If he is using the pronoun we , as a reference to "God-fearing people" as a group, who exactly is the 'We', he is referring to, who is the 'we' he is writing this for?? IMO, the 'we' he is writing this for, whom it will resonate with the most are the evangelical, "god-fearing" christians. The biggest irony in this article is that Christopher Hitchens the atheist, who should have no use for religion at all, writes an article to tell the "god-fearing" christian evangelicals, that they are apparently to scared to offend Muslims! Preposterous!

petition got a couple sigs longer!!!, going to make some copies, with some info, and pass it along, and will try to get through some of the stuff posted here. Thanks

Yup! look at ole' Betsy sitting here doling out the criticism, note the absence of fear. Just like Hitchens, no fear there! You two gotta stop with the appeasement!!!! rofl!!

Yet! you fail to consider the obvious. I live in a different time zone, and instead assume I am posting all night? You do realize there is more then 1 time zone in Canada, right? right? wrt: propaganda : yup it flows both ways and IMO, you are taking it all in.

.marcinmoka: Do they? Well I don't know about that? But let's say that's correct, "benefit of the doubt" type thing? Anyway, all other countries allegedly had the same "suspicions" wrt Iraq, and what happened there? NO WMD's, that what happened!

I wonder aloud why you insist on making everything with me personal? It's quite pathetic, really. Was the word "major" mine? let's click the link, and read together, if you can.? Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions WOW, it's the headline from the NEWS story!! amazing! stunning! shocking! now let's read here together. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7071300321.html Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions It's another headline used by a news outlet! shocking! stunning! Do you think either of those news outlets work for "Savak, or Ministry of Information "?? Pfft!

but then so did Iraq. anyway........ http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6778632,00.html I find this little bit interesting shades of 'yellow cake from Niger' ???????

and another suggestion sharky and anyone else who may be interested, I want to be inclusive. http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Lies-Be...s/dp/1932857060 Don't Believe It!: How Lies Become News "To maintain audiences and readership, journalists, editors and producers will choose sensational stories that "shock." Combined with time and budget constraints, journalists may unwittingly or deliberately disseminate false or misleading information to the public. It is important to "get" a story, interview a subject or nab a scoop first-the accuracy of these elements is secondary. Competition from other media outlets also means the goal of a journalist is to get the scoop first-how it makes it on the air (flawed, inaccurate, questionably obtained) is unimportant. Don't Believe It! teaches news consumers how to verify information. It shows readers how to evaluate sources, eyewitnesses and data. This is a comprehensive bible to information verification from a logical standpoint, showing how to be skeptical without being jaded, step by step, with case studies and a classification manual." EXCELLENT BOOK!!! I am in the midst of reading it now,(more then half-way through) and it really helps with discerning the bs, from the realistic. IMO, sharky , you could benefit greatly from this book and reading the previously suggested information.

I would like to make a suggestion to sharky here, read up on war time propaganda, and it's most common hallmark, demonization of the enemy. There are extensive resources available to read on this subject, then you will understand what the Hitchen's piece, was exactly. here's one to help you: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79071 Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War "Propaganda, both by governments and the private media, has evolved over the years as media has evolved. But, some say, the principle remains the same. "The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize," said James Forsher, a film historian and documentary filmmaker who has studied propaganda films, and who is an assistant professor of mass communications at California State University, Hayward. "When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it," http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5058 "“Perception management” is another term used to describe the process of transforming public opinion to conform to a premeditated political agenda. Perception management establishes underlying trends and tendencies that drive the public perception of events in the direction of war. During war, perception management manipulates public opinion to accept the horrific nature of war crimes as merely nothing more than collateral damage, friendly fire and accidental mishaps that are inevitable consequences of the fog of war." http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.demons.html "Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments." IMO, sharky, you are drinking from the fountain of propaganda, way too much, and don't even realize it, This type of tactic, demonization, was used by Hitler against, numerous persons, most notoriously the Jewish people. Had the Germans been more savy, educated and aware of the way they were being manipulated, it is entirely possible, so many people would not have been killed.

sharky: was this a story about a Muslim nutjob? NO, it was NOT, so what is your point? I know, NONE! Oh, I am completely suspicious of high levels of BS in every story, posted in this forum, and alot of them are complete BS. The problem it seems, is what passes as fact, is nothing but rhetoric, or pure nonsense. What were the Muslims at fault for in this story? Not wanting to be subjected to hate crimes and racial slurs. WOW, how godawful! How outrageous! The problem is YOU think they should be subjected to slurs, bigotry, racism, etc., that is why you are at odds with me over this subject. That is your skewed perception not mine.

Funny how you want to rant on all religions as intolerant and being exclusive, but not Islam. Please, do keep your thoughts in a row. I mean, this is you isnt it..?...."Aah religion, when, will it actually be tolerant and inclusive!" IOW, give all religions your benefit of the doubt, not just Islam. are you serious? why would you even make this statement above, based on what you quoted me saying? reread above and here and I'll bold it for you, yet, so it is absolutely clear "This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse. Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion." Now where did I leave Islam out? Suggestion: a)if you need glasses, put them on. b)if your reading skills are lacking, try reading more, to shore them up. c) stop projecting( that means, not what YOU think I said, what I actually said) absolutely incredible

So you think that Israel deliberately kills palestinian children? Are you serious? You hate Jews that much that you believe that? wow. the weak, smear.

can we rename your post, inane and pointless? I see when facts come your way, you reduce yourself to a namecaller.

Yup I said it religion , intolerant and promotes exclusivity, am I mistaken? I think not.