kimmy

You and your little buddy have been making a big deal about the fact that OBL is not on the FBI "Most Wanted" list for 9/11. Must bean something, right? Maybe the FBI is sending their own little "Truthout!" via the Most Wanted List? Maybe they're rebels? Whistleblowers? A little research (very little research, in fact) uncovers the fact that the FBI "Most Wanted" list only if they have been charged by a prosecutor or indicted by a Grand Jury. 9/11 is not mentioned in charges against OBL on the Most Wanted list because he has never been formally charged with 9/11. "oooh, ooh," I hear you say. "Surely it must mean something that no prosecutor or grand jury has charged or indicted OBL." Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they don't have enough evidence that that he was personally involved, or maybe they're saving it for when he's actually apprehended, or maybe there are specific reasons that he has not been charged. Does it matter? Only kooks dispute that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, and OBL is (was?) the founder, leader, and figurehead of Al Qaeda. Nor was the invasion of Afghanistan specifically to apprehend OBL. It was undertaken to attack Al Qaeda. The "Most wanted list" is for fugitives. Since KSM has been imprisoned in "Gitmo" for four years, I don't think he qualifies. Correct. BSD? uh... Bovine Spongiform Diencephalitis? -k

You were the one who brought it up. I find that most "truthies" go about repeating the same claims over and over without actually researching them or sometimes even understanding them. It seems to me that going about repeating dubious claims made by shoddy sources is a poor way to prove what a "free thinker" one is. Red herring. I can tell by your grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Al Jazeera certainly seemed to believe it was credible. Did you read your own article? The 2001 tape, despite what Bush says, doesn't actually contain an admission of al Qaeda involvement. He claims having prior knowledge of 9/11, and says that "we asked them to go to America." He doesn't say who "we" were, and he doesn't say that "they" were asked to go to America for any purpose at all. By contrast, the 2004 tape talks in specifics. So, sorry, you have not spotted a "gotcha". There's no contradiction. Bush's critics have pointed out that he has been a dream come true for Bin Laden and his followers. He's hardened much of the Muslim world against America. Many people recognize how useful Bush has been for OBL's cause. Seems natural that OBL would want such a useful tool to win reelection. -k

Edmonton City Hall's pool is, actually, designed for wading. Chlorinated water, handy steps providing access from all the way around, and so-on. The public is welcome to wade there. What I'm trying to work out, here, is what specifically the objection is. I was particularly interested in the claim someone made earlier that providing a facility for a religious activity to occur turns the washroom into a "port-a-mosque" (was that the term that was used?) Suppose that instead of "Muslim foot-baths", the University provided "public-use ground-level water receptacles of no particular religious affiliation." Muslims could wash their feet, other people could wade or play beach volleyball, homeless deadbeats could take baths, dogs could drink, and so-on. Would that be acceptable? If not, why not? -k

Certain types of people like to talk about the "fake Osama!" video. They like to "prove" that it's fake by posting the same collection of screen-captures that they say show it is obviously not the same guy. "A fat black guy," as one buffoon described it before his death in a tragic collision with the Ban Van. However, anybody with an IQ over about, probably 60 or so, who looks at their collection of "photographic proof" of the "fake Bin Laden" in the tape, will notice that these screen-captures are of amazingly low quality. They are low-quality Jpeg screen-captures of a low-quality Youtube video which was badly vidcapped from a low-quality VCR recording. Higher-quality video captures of the video are available; I found them myself on a "Truthie" website where the author combs through the video frame-by-frame looking for inconsistencies. When compared to these better-quality video captures, two things immediately become obvious about the ones Truthies prefer to talk about: -edges have been blurred, either on purpose or through incompetence. -contrast level has been changed, either on purpose or through incompetence. Highlights have been made more visible; dark colors have become darker. The higher-quality video captures make it clear that the low-quality video captures the Truthies like to show have been simply put, altered. Whether they've been altered intentionally for dishonest purposes, or whether they've been altered through sheer incompetence, the one simple unavoidable conclusion is that they've been altered. Not real. Fake. You can't use fake evidence to prove *anything*. Now, one can certainly still doubt whether the video is authentic... but the "fat black guy" stuff is just an utter lie. And, while the Truthies love to talk about the 2001 Osama video, they seem to seldom mention the 2004 Osama video. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video ...the one that was authenticated and broadcast by Al Jazeera, not US networks. -k

Just a hypothetical... Suppose there's a pool, or water-feature, or fountain-type thing on campus. It's out of the way. It's not out in the middle of the Quad or anything, it's in a quiet location near the administration building. A group of Muslim students find the fountain to be a handy place to wash their feet before prayer. A group of non-Muslim students find the fountain to be an enjoyable place to wade, or dip their feet after a long day on their feet. Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the non-Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong that the non-Muslim students aren't? There is a big pool in front of Edmonton's city hall that's immensely popular for wading during the summer. Should that practice be stopped? Has City Hall been Islamified? Should waders be required to sign an affidavit promising that they are not wading for any religious purpose before being allowed into the water? -k

If I don't buy sweatshop crap from Wal-Mart, Chinese families will starve? Screw that. It's not Kimmy's job to look after Chinese workers. Maybe they should complain to their government if there aren't enough jobs. Maybe they should go back to planting rice or whatever they did before these 5 cent per hour jobs became available. Or maybe they should have a revolution. The sooner the better, frankly. I sometimes shop at Wal-Mart, but I studiously avoid buying any of Wal-Mart's crappy house-brands. Real brands only, and even then, I do my best to avoid anything made in China. The poisoned cat food was the last straw for me. I'm through with those stupid idiots. I don't see how or why North American business should be expected to be cost-competitive with Chinese companies who are apparently able to use slave labour and whose chief expense in safety or quality control or environmental emissions appears to be bribing government officials. They'll have to execute a hell of a lot more corrupt inspectors before I have any trust in their shoddy goods. -k

I recall reading that scripts of "Little Mosque On The Prairie" were vetted through Muslim advisors to identify anything that might cause controversy. It sounds as though even the CBC and LMOTP's Muslim writer/creator were afraid of offending Muslims. -k

I always feel like a Futurenaut when I visit MLW. -k

If I was a non-Muslim student at that university, my only complaint would be the amount of money being spent on this. $25000? That seems like an awful lot of money. My extensive research indicates that a portable mini-mosque could be installed for a thrifty price of $59.99. -k

Essentially, yes. I'm vehemently opposed to the intrusion of any religion upon our law. I'm bigtime in favor of the commandments against murder and theft, obviously. But somebody who wants the law to reflect the commandments about, say, idols, other gods, or not working on Saturdays will just have to get lost. That's not happening here. Not while I'm in charge. That's cute. You think you know me. You don't. You obviously haven't very many threads here if you think I'm forgiving of any religious douchebaggery, regardless of what faith is behind it. Ask Sharkman or Betsy how tolerant I am when Christians try to throw their weight around. Just last week Sharkman was crying in another thread about how mean I am to Christians and wondering why I'm not as harsh on Muslims. If Muslims think I hate Muslims, and Christians think I hate Christians, I guess that just means I'm consistent. I can't recall any discussions here about Jews or Buddhists or Hindus getting all inyerface. There was one a couple of years ago about a Jew who sued an airport to make them take down their Christmas display, I guess. I already cited the Muslims who tried to silence our free press with a lawsuit regarding the publication of the Mohammed cartoons. What do you have to say about that? You're right about that much. I don't disagree with this either. I've personally had far more experiences with Christians informing me of the error of my ways than I've ever had from Muslims. And I don't stand for that either. This thread was about Muslims, though. I used to work in an office of about 20 where half of the employees were Muslims. I didn't hate them at all. Nobody made a fuss about their religious views. It was just fine. It was exactly how I feel religion should work in Canada: a personal, private matter. If everybody in Canada handled their religious differences as neatly as our office, things would be most harmonious. -k

When evaluating a comment like this, I consider the source. In this case, I'm not too worried. I never claimed anyone was. I was presenting hypothetical ideas to GC1765 on how I might follow up his suggestion to "adapt to their culture". I never claimed that they didn't have the right to advocate for Sharia courts. I simply believe that people who want Sharia courts should either accept the rule of Canadian law, or go live in some other country where Sharia law is in force. In any case, what I was responding to was this: I have proven that this is not a "straw man", that it does exist, and have shown you that some Canadian Muslims were indeed asking for Sharia Law. So why don't you acknowledge your mistake and thank me for providing you some much-needed information? I know who they are. Do you? Are you aware that Dr. Elmasry was one of the Advocates for Sharia in Canada? Are you aware that Dr Elmasry once said every Israeli over age 18 is a legitimate military target, since Israel has compulsory military service? Is the CIC the sort of fuzzy-wuzzy mainstream Muslim voice that you want Canadians to listen to? I don't care for religious tribunals of any faith. However, I suppose I might be slightly more biased against Muslim tribunals, since Christian and Jewish tribunals at least treat women like human beings. I already mentioned the example of the Muslim group trying to intimidate our free press by a lawsuit. if the judge wasn't in town, I'd tell you exactly how I feel about this. When news of the riots first broke, we heard people like you tripping all over each other to blame it all on terrible racist white people, without hearing anything about what led to the confrontation. Then what? What did we hear from you "blame whitey" types once the background of the riots came out? Nothing. -k

What in the bloody hell is this? A thread about predictions from a guy who gets telepathic information from UFOs? A bunch of articles from 2001 and 2002 about rumours that OBL may have been alive, or dead, at various times? Do you people have a point? Were you hitting the bottle when you posted this stuff? Have you suffered a blow to the head recently? -k

If you're asking how the footbath issue infringes on anyone's rights, then my view is that it does not. If you haven't been following the thread, GC and I have been having a discussion in which GC asks "what do you mean when you say you want immigrants to adapt to our culture?" and my reply, in essence, is that I want them to recognize that their right to practice their religion and culture does not infringe on the rights of others. I cited some examples (and none of them relating to footbaths, falafel, pyjamas, shawarma, headscarves, or similar kitsch.) I cited the lawsuit filed by Muslims against the Western Standard for reprinting the infamous "Mohammed cartoons." While phrased in the language of lawyers (seeking compensation for emotional stress, and so on) it was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate the press. It was an attempt to impose their religious views (thou shalt not speak ill of the prophet, PBUH) at the expense of Canadian values (free press and the freedom of expression.) I also mentioned the incident that sparked the Cronulla beach riots in Australia (Muslim thugs chasing westerners off the beach so that Muslim women could bathe unsullied by the gaze of infidels) as being in the same vein-- knuckleheads unable to reconcile their religious beliefs or cultural views with the rights of the public at large. I also mentioned in passing things like Muslims who target western women for sexual violence because they're viewed as whores. (we've had a few threads on this board, one regarding a rape-gang in Australia, and at least a couple regarding information originating from Sweden.) Or one could mention the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland. Although it should be obvious, I will post the usual disclaimers: I do not attribute these views or behaviors to most Muslims in Canada. -k

I am not demanding assimilation. I could not care less if some guy wants to wear his pyjamas in public, wash his feet and pray on a rug facing east 5 times a day, watch soccer for entertainment, or any other odd and foreign behavior, so long as they don't impact upon me. What I do care about, a lot, is if someone tries to use his "freedom of religion" to justify limiting what I can read in a newspaper, or write, or post on a billboard, or buy at a store. I want people to accept that in *this country*, their right to their religious beliefs and cultural practices does not override or infringe upon other peoples' freedoms. I wish I could, but I honestly can't without understanding what people expect from immigrants other than speaking an official language and obeying the law. I would like an explanation for the following quote: Surely you meant something when you wrote this. I would like you to tell us what. I am most insistent upon this. I don't see why explaining this is contingent upon your understanding of other peoples' concept of adaptation; to me it appears that all that is required is your own concept of adapting. Surely you must have had your own concept of what "adapting" might mean when you suggested doing so. I mean, I'm actually kind of interested in giving this a try. Help me out. Is a bag-shaped dress adequate, or should I buy a head scarf too? A veil? Should I install a footbath in my apartment in case I have guests who are also adapting to Muslim culture? Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. -k

How short is your memory? None of this rings a bell? http://muslim-canada.org/DARLQADAform2andhalf.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/3599264.stm http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html If that's all you have to contribute, perhaps you should go read a book. -k

...and yet you don't see these as examples of how some have failed to "adapt to our culture"? How so? I said everyone should obey the law. And so they should. But most lawbreaking is not a result of religious or cultural beliefs. -Lobbying for Sharia courts is not illegal. -Travelling to foreign lands is not illegal, and what you do there is not governed by Canadian law as far as I know (although I believe "tourist pedophiles" can now be prosecuted when they return to Canada.) -Filing lawsuits is not illegal. Lots of frivolous lawsuits are filed, but most are motivated by greed, not the intention of silencing legitimate free speech. Your insistence on excluding things that are illegal is also puzzling, as all of the things I have cited are rooted in in an unwillingness or inability to adapt. Chasing non-Muslims off the beach so that Muslim women can swim without "infidels" seeing them? Refusal to reconcile the rights of others with their religious or cultural beliefs. Threats or violence against people who express views they don't agree with? Refusal to reconcile the rights of others with their religious or cultural beliefs. Sexual violence towards women who don't conform to Muslim dress codes? Refusal to reconcile the rights of others with their cultural or religious beliefs. This is not just random lawbreaking, this is lawbreaking rooted in some people's unwillingness or inability to reconcile their religious or cultural beliefs with the values of the societies they have moved to. Still waiting to hear an example that does not involve breaking the law... edit: they don't even have to be real examples, hypotheticals would work too. You have your examples. Now elaborate on your suggestion that Canadians ought to adapt to Muslim culture, or withdraw it and concede that it was poorly thought out. -k

Sure, as soon as you can give me some examples of the type of adapting other cultures should do (aside from following the law and speaking one official language - something that I have said many times). I have wondered for quite some time what people meant when they said that other cultures should "adapt" (I even considered starting a thread on it), so I'd like to open this question up to anyone who thinks they have an answer. -learn an official language. -respect and obey Canadian law. -abandon efforts to have Sharia granted legal standing in Canada -accept that Canadians have the right to free expression. -don't travel to foreign lands to fight in religious crusades. (-...and don't fight alongside terrorists either.) (-...or fight against governments that Canada has no quarrel with.) I could make mention of stuff that's happened in other western democracies, like Muslims in Australia chasing others off of public beaches so that Muslim women could bath without being "defiled" by the gaze of "infidels". Or Muslims in European countries who have taken legal action to have centuries-old statues of boars and owls taken down, because apparently pork and owls are "offensive". Or incidents where Muslim men have interpreted western womens' lack of concealment as an invitation to sexual violence. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. This is not simply a failure to "obey the law". It is a failure of some to recognize that their right to their faith and their culture does not trump the rights of others. Now it is your turn. Explain what ways you feel that Kimmy should "adapt" to their culture. -k

Systematic violence against Christians by Muslims in many areas of Africa and Asia is one of the most appalling yet least talked about trends going on in the world right now. I can only assume the reason for the silence on this issue is that it's mostly occurring in second-rate little countries that are apparently beneath our notice. -k

I agree with you...however, I'm sure those cultures feel the same way about our culture as we do about theirs. I'm sure they do. But why should I give a crap? The question you asked is: ...and my answer is that any "adaptation" which restricts my personal choices is completely unacceptable to me. It is irrelevant to me if some guy needs to wash his feet 5 times a day while he's at work or school. That's not "me adapting to their culture". That's me not giving a crap what a guy does with his own time. Propose some ways in which I would "adapt to their culture" which would not result in a restriction of my personal choices. Let's hear some examples of the kind of "adapting" that you think is reasonable. -k

A terrific essay! Why do people worry about offending Muslims but don't seem to worry about offending Christians or Jews? Mr Hitchens hits the nail on the head here. I am reminded of the scene in Star Wars, when R2D2 is beating Chewbacca at chess, much to Chewbacca's displeasure. Han Solo suggests that R2 should let Chewbacca win or he might get angry. C3P0 asks why they should worry about making the Wookie angry, when nobody worries about making droids angry. "Droids don't rip your arms out when they lose," Han observes. C3P0 immediately recognizes the peril and urges R2D2 to pursue a new policy of Wookie appeasement. (C3P0 likely sat down at his computer later on and posted a message-board thread called "A primer on Wookie 'Anger'.") And when "moderate" Muslims point out that their less-moderate brethren might get angry in response to some policy or position, these "moderate" Muslims are likewise employing the threat of violence. Really no different from a mob "protection" scam where a mob representative reminds shop-keepers that "sometimes accidents happen" to people who don't cooperate. -k

I suspect I probably have. You're not accusing me of sympathizing with those who wish to derail discussions about militant Islam, are you? Because that would be hilariously mistaken. I have as long and consistent a track record of being grossed out by Islam as anybody here. That I'm not enamoured of Christian hardliners either is, as far as I'm concerned, a mark of the consistency of my views. Anyway, if I recall, you are indeed one of those who bristles when someone tries to sidetrack discussions about Muslim extremists with some anecdote about a Christian abortion-clinic sniper or so-on. So your effort to bring suicide bombers into this thread is ...ironic, to say the least. Yes, that was me. You have a good memory. But no, I don't hold Christians in low regard. I have high regard for most of them, as most Christians in this country are indeed capable of functioning in our modern and diverse society and have no difficulty coexisting happily alongside those who don't share their views. (I will also point out that most Muslims I have known likewise had no difficulty at all in coexisting with people of other beliefs.) Yeah, whatever. This thread isn't about how quaint it is that some people believe they're literally eating their savior. This thread is about a group that apparently believes they have a religious duty to press for a confrontation with Iran because it's foretold in Revelations. And it's apparently a group that has highly-placed friends in American politics. To me that strikes me as being of interest to the general public. -k

Why should they adapt to your culture, why shouldn't you adapt to theirs? Because this sort of attitude starts us down a slippery slope towards Kimmy having to be covered neck to ankle to go out in public. -k

Yes, yes. I think we're all aware of Muslim nutjobs. However, apparently not everybody was aware of this bughouse loco element among Christians. Which is what we're having this nice thread to look into. It always grates on my nerves when one of the usual suspects interrupts a thread about Muslim extremism with some completely unrelated example of a Christian kook. I now find it equally grating to see someone attempting to derail a thread about Christian extremists with some completely unrelated chatter about Muslim kooks. -k

Pat Tillman was a football player, and a good one. He had already established himself as an NFL starter before his decision to leave football. He was also a literate and well-read and excelled academically as well as at football. After the events of Septemer 11, 2001, he declined a contract offer that would have paid him more money than most people see in a lifetime, so that he could join the United States Army. The first point that must be clarified is that he joined the army because he wanted to go to *Afghanistan*. Not Iraq. His decision to join the armed forces was *not* because he supported the invasion of Iraq. He joined the army a full year before the invasion of Iraq. *However* the notion that he was murdered to silence his views about the invasion of Iraq is also doubtful. As a soldier serving in a combat unit on the other side of the world, he did not have any platform from which to make such views public, if he even had them. Army officials lied about the events surrounding Tillman's death for the simplest reason: protecting their own asses. -k

My first exposure to the concept of "the rapture" was from a Daily Show segment which lampooned a company selling Rapture Insurance. The highlight of the piece came when Samantha Bee was "raptured" right out of the Daily Show lunch-room. The video Kuzadd linked to contains numerous conversations with people who fall firmly into the latter category. What's not clear is whether the group's leadership is of like view... if they are they won't admit it, at any rate. It gives one pause, though... when members of the group are convinced that an apocalyptic confrontation with Iran is the even that triggers the Second Coming, isn't it fair to ask whether the leadership's enthusiastic support for a unilateral strike against Iran is motivated by their interest in Israel's well being or by their belief that they can kickstart the Second Coming? What I found a little unsettling was to see prominent political figures like Joseph Liebermann and Tom DeLay hanging out with these folks. My hope is that if the decision is made to strike against Iran, it will be a decision based on solid intelligence and certain knowledge that doing so is the last means of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not an effort to hasten the Second Coming. -k