Newsweek gets it wrong

[Meh_Gerbil]

Interesting find, Rando. I find it very telling that he intentionally went against his Christian beliefs in doing what he did.

What fruit does that show? Certainly not Christian fruit.

The pacifist position is hard to refute -- I'm not a pacifist and I wonder how I'd respond if put in such a situation.

[Champagne]

Mad Gerbil- I can't figure you out. Are you a Bush supporter? I know lots of them that would accuse you of providing "aid and comfort" to our enemy in the midst of a war.

Secularism as opposed to theocracy is the basis of how we run our country- ever since its inception. Yes, many of the people happened to be Christians themselves- and look, Bush is a Christian and he's in the highest office in the nation! But yet "secularists" are running our country...

And yet you'd prefer living in a country where Muslim theocrats deny you the permission to worship Christ or have freedom of religion- who would just as soon kill you as look at you.

If Newsweek is "guilty'' of inciting a riot by reporting what actually happened, then what happened to freedom of the press? Assuming it was true. If they made the story up, that's obviously a different matter. If it was true- the retraction is Political correctness at its finest- we can't speak the truth, b/c it will offend some crazies so much that they'll start rioting and killing. So what, the alternative is to suppress the truth to placate those madmen?

But terrorists and fanatics will take anything as an excuse to justify their religious hatred. Someone denigrated our holy book? Well, that certainly justifies us rioting and killing. I suppose the 9-11 terrorists were justified in crashing into the twin towers as well since us bad old American secularists can't understand what Muslim pathology is like.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Mad Gerbil- I can't figure you out. Are you a Bush supporter? I know lots of them that would accuse you of providing "aid and comfort" to our enemy in the midst of a war.

Now ya see, I'd accuse Newsweek of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. By printing this story they just validated every wild-eyed clerics claim about Western Civilization. Nothing more comforting than finding out your leaders are dead on.

Secularism as opposed to theocracy is the basis of how we run our country- ever since its inception. Yes, many of the people happened to be Christians themselves- and look, Bush is a Christian and he's in the highest office in the nation! But yet "secularists" are running our country...

I don't want a theocracy.
I don't want a Secular government that is constantly trying to root out G_d either.
There is a difference between separation of church and state and antagonism towards the church.

And yet you'd prefer living in a country where Muslim theocrats deny you the permission to worship Christ or have freedom of religion- who would just as soon kill you as look at you.

Unborn babies are safe in Muslim countries.
You see, from my perspective the USA is killing more innocent people in 1 year than Sadam killed in his entire rule.

If Newsweek is "guilty'' of inciting a riot by reporting what actually happened, then what happened to freedom of the press?

The greatest threat to the Freedom of the Press is the apparent freedom the press has of responsibility. Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand and one cannot exist without the other.

What happened to the press being responsible?
Answer that and you'll know where the freedom of the press ran off to.

But terrorists and fanatics will take anything as an excuse to justify their religious hatred. Someone denigrated our holy book?

That is true -- so why is Newsweek feeding them material again?

[Champagne]

I suppose you'd agree then that gun manufacturers should be held liable for crimes where guns were used, that tobacco companies should be liable for what diseases smokers get, and that video game distributors aid and abet crime as well. Not to mention bar owners who give drinks to some guy who's been drinking already - they should also be held responsible for the actions of the drunkard, right?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

The truth hurts sometimes. Just b/c some nutcases can't handle the truth doesn't mean we should suppress it.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I suppose you'd agree then that gun manufacturers should be held liable for crimes where guns were used, that tobacco companies should be liable for what diseases smokers get, and that video game distributors aid and abet crime as well. Not to mention bar owners who give drinks to some guy who's been drinking already - they should also be held responsible for the actions of the drunkard, right?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

The truth hurts sometimes. Just b/c some nutcases can't handle the truth doesn't mean we should suppress it.

Flushing a Koran down the toilet, while in the midst of attempting to covert a bunch of Muslims to democracy is mindnumbling stupid and can only be matched by the stupidity of reporting it.

Sure, Newsweek has the right to free speech.
Sure, the nutcases who kill over this are wrong.

Despite being correct on those two counts, 15 people died for a news factoid that nobody needed to know and cannot even be substantiated.

-------

My boss might be butt ugly.
I could tell her she is butt ugly.
I have freedom of speech.
It might even be true that she is, in fact, butt ugly.

Do I tell her that?

What do you think?

[EvoUK]

Assuming you are speaking to me, I never claimed Secularists did it -- only that they would be about the only ones astounded that such an action (or claim thereof) would touch off a firestorm.

Oh no- I had lost my faith in humanity such a long time ago that I’m not in the least bit surprised some wack job had a hissy fit when a book was thrown down the bog and decided to go out with his buddy wack jobs and kill people.

I’m am just saying that the whole concept is utterly absurd and ridiculous, and to say that these nutbars are over-reacting would be an understatement.

Just as Janet Reno was caught off guard at Waco so Newsweek was caught off guard when faced with the power of religious belief

“The power of religious belief”?! Really impressive guys, someone throws a book down the throne and you go off on a rampage.

They are too naive to be responsible for making large decisions -- they don't know how to handle people in touch with the reality of the spiritual.

Some hateful ******* goes off and kills 15 people, and you refer to them as “people in touch with the reality of the spiritual”? Yes I could see this sort of thing happening, no I do not see any reason to show them even the slightest bit of respite for actions, and no reason to excuse them in any way, shape or form. I’m not going to treat them with kiddie gloves merely because they’re fundamentalist loonies.

If it is happening (and I highly doubt it was a complete fabrication, burning a fanatics holy book to get his knickers in a twist sounds just like the sort of thing they’d do in these places- as well as making them wear ladies underwear and attaching electrodes to their genitalia), then it should be published in the news.

[EvoUK]

If Newsweek is "guilty'' of inciting a riot by reporting what actually happened, then what happened to freedom of the press? Assuming it was true. If they made the story up, that's obviously a different matter. If it was true- the retraction is Political correctness at its finest- we can't speak the truth, b/c it will offend some crazies so much that they'll start rioting and killing. So what, the alternative is to suppress the truth to placate those madmen?

Precisely.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Oh no- I had lost my faith in humanity such a long time ago that I’m not in the least bit surprised some wack job had a hissy fit when a book was thrown down the bog and decided to go out with his buddy wack jobs and kill people.

I’m am just saying that the whole concept is utterly absurd and ridiculous, and to say that these nutbars are over-reacting would be an understatement.



“The power of religious belief”?! Really impressive guys, someone throws a book down the throne and you go off on a rampage.





Some hateful ******* goes off and kills 15 people, and you refer to them as “people in touch with the reality of the spiritual”? Yes I could see this sort of thing happening, no I do not see any reason to show them even the slightest bit of respite for actions, and no reason to excuse them in any way, shape or form. I’m not going to treat them with kiddie gloves merely because they’re fundamentalist loonies.

If it is happening (and I highly doubt it was a complete fabrication, burning a fanatics holy book to get his knickers in a twist sounds just like the sort of thing they’d do in these places- as well as making them wear ladies underwear and attaching electrodes to their genitalia), then it should be published in the news.

You keep thinking I'm defending the actions of the Islamic nutcases.
I'm not.

I'm content to leave you quite out of touch.
I tried.

*sigh*

[EvoUK]

You keep thinking I'm defending the actions of the Islamic nutcases.
I'm not.

However, you are (for some obscure reason) taking the oppertunity to attack so-called "secularists", and fogging off the nutjobs actions by going on about them being in touch with the spiritual.

If there is something else to your posts, do share it.

I'm content to leave you quite out of touch.

If being in touch means saying huzzah that 15 people died, and if only they had done that in your country a few years ago, then you can stuff it.

I tried.

Miserably.

[Blemonds]

To choose the course of action calculated to minimize the loss of life... it sounds almost crazy, but you know, now that I think it over, I believe you might just be onto something there! I wonder why no one before you has ever thought of this? Brilliant! What is even more amazing, there is no chance you would have failed to avert tragedy, since you would certainly have chosen the strategy that was destined to succeed. Man, you need to write all of that down for posterity.

You want to give us any hints about what that strategy might have been?

I offered two strategies. Maybe you weren't paying attention. One thing I would never do is authorize any assault on a building which housed that many children. The risk was too great, as hindsight proves.

These tantalizing glimpses that you've given us have us screaming for more. Don't hide your light under a bushel, Kewlie - speak out and share your wisdom! We should all be discussing and studying the fine points of the Kewlie Doctrine, since it is sure to have an impact on law enforcement for decades to come.

May I assume from this diatribe that you approve of the actions taken against the Branch Davidians. I believe more than 80 men, women and children died in that fiasco. Those were people who had never been charged with any crime.

I did not know that. I'm sure history will benefit if you'd outline for us all of the failures in her early career that demonstrate her incompetence "to begin with", and how it happened that an incompetent law enforcement officer rose to the level of Attorney General.

I would say that her refusal to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver at the Ruby Ridge fiasco was unconstitutional, the deaths of 80 men women and children at Waco, Texas and the stormtrooper style assault to deport young Elian Gonzalez are evidence of her incompetence. How did it happen that she was elevated to such a lofty position? She was there to cover Bill Clinton's butt and she did her very best to cover up his failures

[ilkhani'tus]

There were allegations of child abuse and I also believe there were concerns about weapons

I don't believe I ever said that.

For once you're right. Had they done that. a whole bunch of kids would be alive today.

Once again, you're right

I see. Better to not take the chance and. Kill them before they get the chance to kill themselves.

They were allegedly molesting them. So to make sure they were never molested again, their lives were sadly put at risk. Decision makers with your decision making skills made a deadly choice which you confirm was the right one. And kids died

So then we should leave "alleged" child molestors alone with kids then? If something like that is happening, it has to be stopped. If you can find a peaceful way, great. Unfortunately, they used their kids as "human sheilds" (accurate description since I don't believe they allowed the kids to leave, did they, or did they at least let a few go)? If they gave a damn about their kids, the instant they were surrounded they should've just let them go, then the negotiations and the waiting could begin, with no such sense of emergency.

Would you rather have just stood by and let the "alleged" molestations continue, or would you rather get the kids out of there? If I remember correctly, I hope, they tried to convince them to let the kids go! They refused.

There's a difference between "having a 'right' to be there" as you said, and not being allowed to leave!

You're out to lunch. They were trying to SAVE the kids.

] Problem is, these characters had kids. Once they got real hungry, what then? Besides, weren't the authorities acting on the belief that something was about to happen anyway? Remember what happened at Jonestown. At the time, it may have seemed like a good idea.[/b]

I guess the next time someone is alleged to do something we think is illegal, we can just say "Hey, he might pull a Jim Jones, the heck with their rights

Given the new lessons learned, nope. This is a relatively new phenomenom that law enforcment has to learn to deal with.

After all, these people don't think and act like your average criminal who's concerned primarily with their own well-being, or petty revenge or what-not.

Oh well, they did the best they could with their lack of experience. Sorry kids, you're dead anyway

Uh huh. Any group you know that HAS a lot of experience handling situations like that? I don't know of any. Maybe you do.

At least they tried something to get them the hell out of there, then facing starvation.

You fully support the brutal tactics that resulted in those kids being killed. You've said it over and over

"Fully support"? More like "reluctantly support, because once the situation reached that stage, I don't know what all else could be done. Even so, I thought it was obvious that it's the fault of the religious fanatics in the compounds who used their kids as "human sheilds" that got the kids killed. Those "brutal tactics" as you refer to them, where an attempt to: RESCUE the kids! You make it sound like I didn't care if they got killed or not. You've implied that over and over!

They were allegedly molesting them. So to make sure they were never molested again, their lives were sadly put at risk. Decision makers with your decision making skills made a deadly choice which you confirm was the right one.

Uh, no...It was about the only thing that I think that they thought they could figure to do at the time that doesn't mean that if someone else came along with something that had a better chance of saving the kids lives, that I'd still say that the "brute force" option was "the right one".

Now, you're putting words in my mouth....didn't you catch the remark I made about hindsight being 20/20?

And kids died

As an interesting aside here, the same thing has been said in this thread about the WMD's which were "allegedly" in Iraq. To make sure they were never used, many lives were sadly put at risk. Decision makers with George Bush's decision making skills made a deadly choice, which most conservatives seem to confirm was the right one. And kids, and civilians, and soldiers are STILL dying.

Get a clue. I'm the one who thinks the kids deserved a better chance to survive.

Ah, and you think I wanted the kids to die? As I said before, if you think that, you're either extemely stupid or outright deluded. They went in to try to get the kids out...DUH!

You quoted me earlier when I said that if they had evidence on Koresh and taken him off the street then, that would have saved a bunch of lives? Can't you tell from there that I wanted the kids to live? And then you went an sayed that you're the one who thinks that the kids deserved a "better chance to survive"? As if I didn't??

I thought it was obvious that I did not want the kids to die, but it seems I've overestimated your reading comprehension skills.

Take your own advice. Get a sodding clue!





Now: to another poster:
After reading this:

I'm in an odd place here people.

I think the Koran is a steaming pile of poopie but I don't like the Secularist attitude towards people of faith in that the Secularist doesn't have a clue as how to handle religious people. If I had to chose between Islamic Fundamentalists and a Secularist state I think I might want the Muslims to win.

I'd lose my civil rights but at least I'd be with people who have a sense of 'holy' and 'right and wrong' even if it is misdirected. I find the utter cowardice of the Secularist to be nauseating as well.

What? That we don't kill people who don't agree with us, like religous fanatics do?

Additionally, the bills for a Secularist culture are starting to come due and I don't like what I see anymore than a Muslim would.

Go easy on me, I'm just kicking this around in my head.

Sorry, I can't. You're posting this on a bulletin board, and saying that you'd prefer Islamic rule to what we have here, with "secularists". You hate "secularists" to that extent, and call secularists "cowards" and THEN you say, "go easy on me"!

The thing about freedom of speech is that people also have to take the consequences of what they say. It seems you're not quite willing to do that. And of course, you go on....

Nothing compares to the wrong headed nonsense of a Secular state. A towel-headed AK47 toting maniac on a camel makes a great deal more sense then a Secularist. I fear the fallout of Secularism more than Islam.

I'm wondering if you're just plain deluded. If you'd rather live in a Muslim dominated society than a "secular" one, just because they know what's "holy" and so on, then, please... go!

You'd find out pretty bloody quick which you should really fear more.

If you believe that even an Islamic society with all it's abuses is better than a "secular" society like here, then you're in the deluded category.

Maybe, after you've been subjected to how they treat "infidels" over there, you'll be begging to come back, "secularism" and all.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I'm wondering if you're just plain deluded. If you'd rather live in a Muslim dominated society than a "secular" one, just because they know what's "holy" and so on, then, please. Go!

You'd find out pretty bloody quick which you should really fear more.

If you believe that even an Islamic society with all it's abuses is better than a "secular" society like here, then you're in the deluded category.

Maybe, after you've been subjected to how they treat "infidels" over there, you'll be begging to come back.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell them that a codom will protect them from sexually transmitted disease?

No.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and pretend that porno-rock, violent movies and violent video games and so forth have no effect on the human condition?

No.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em there is no G_d to fear?

No.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em abortion is a 'choice' and that a baby is a parasite?

No.

How many people die in the USA alone every year due to abortion?

About a million.

How many people die due to suicide bombers every year?

About a thousand.

That means fundamentalist secularist marshmallow-heads are easily about 1,000 times more deadly then fundamentalist Islamic towel-heads.

Secularists in the USA will kill more people this year than Islamic Extremists have killed through terror techniques in 50 years. More disease will be spread by the lies of Secularists than will be spread by the backwards middle east practice of wiping their own behinds with their left hands.

Who is backwards?
Who is destructive?
Who is really racking up the body count?

The only reason you don't see the body count is because you term an abortion as choice, irresponsible sex as 'boys being boys' and violent rock songs as 'freedom of speech'. Guess what? The Islamic Fundamentalists do the same thing -- they attribute their acts to G_d or call it a holy war while the secularist sacrifices vicitims on the alter of 'choice.'

Semantics.

[Champagne]

Mad Gerbil- it appears that you truly are mad. Given your logic, it would be better for us to be living under Hitler's regime than our own, since, Gosh, Hitler only killed 6 million Jews, and we've killed millions more via abortion!

How about this? Do fundamentalist regimes value women's rights at all? Do they allow them to vote? Are they allowed to work outside the home? can they appear in public with any man not their father or brother? Is it OK to kill her if she's in public with her cousin ( happened, they mistakenly thought she was out with a man not her relative, and apparently were justified in killing her b/c she brought shame to the family).

Is it OK to kill women who commit adultery, but conveniently, the man gets off scot free?

Is it OK to treat Jews as dogs, Christians as infidels- which means that Jews and Christians have no civil rights, no right to worship in the way they choose?

Is it ok to brainwash our children into thinking all Jews are evil, that they are heroes if they kill Jews, and that they go straight to heaven to enjoy virgins if they kill themselves and others via a suicide bombing?

Heaven help us.

[ilkhani'tus]

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell them that a codom will protect them from sexually transmitted disease?

No.

That's assuming that it's something "secularists" in general do...a lot of secularists I know say that it's better to not screw around.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and pretend that porno-rock, violent movies and violent video games and so forth have no effect on the human condition?

No.

That is, to put it delicately, debatable. Do you really think that kids after playing violent video games will just go out and shoot people? If the link was as strong as you imply, the crime rate would be unbelievable. As well, in Japan and Europe, they have that weird crap, too, and their crime rates are lower.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em there is no G_d to fear?

No.

LOL. True, though as any xian knows, they'll still go to hell for worshipping the wrong "god", but besides that, what Islamics do do, is tell their kids that their god commands that Isreal and the "Great Satan" (That's us, BTW) are their enemies (even before the original Gulf War, because of the US "support" of Isreal.

Their "god" commands them to subjugate their women (remember a few years back when several Saudi women died in a building fire because they ran out into public without their sodding veils, and the religous cops forced them back in?

Do you remember that women aren't even allowed schooling in areas controlled by Islamic fanatics?

Do you really believe that is BETTER than having no "god belief"?

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em abortion is a 'choice' and that a baby is a parasite?

No.

I've never even heard, outside of religous sources, of course, of even most, if any, "secularists" saying that the baby is a "parasite".

How many people die in the USA alone every year due to abortion?

About a million.

Just one problem...How can xians pretend to be concerned about life in the womb when they worship a god who himself in the OT ordered the killings of babies, and pregnant women? Or is that some other religon's god?

How many people die due to suicide bombers every year?

About a thousand.

That means fundamentalist secularist marshmallow-heads are easily about 1,000 times more deadly then fundamentalist Islamic towel-heads.

You're assuming that all "secularist marshmallow-heads" go for abortion.

Besides, there's two problems:
1) No one FORCES a woman to have an abortion. In contrast, the Islamics, who you seem to admire, don't exactly ask people if they can go and blow them up, or fly planes into their buildings, or if they can have Isreal's permission to "drive them into the sea", or

2) If they had their way, it WOULD be millions dead! Don't you remember the Yom-Kippur war, and some of the other wars in the ME? And how often they say "Death to America"? It's not exactly for lack of trying, or the lack of will on the Islamic part that there isn't millions dead because of them.

The only way therefore, for you to paint "secularist marshmallow-heads" to be worse than the Islamics is if you disregard several such facts.

Secularists in the USA will kill more people this year than Islamic Extremists have killed through terror techniques in 50 years. More disease will be spread by the lies of Secularists than will be spread by the backwards middle east practice of wiping their own behinds with their left hands.

See my points above.

Who is backwards?
Who is destructive?
Who is really racking up the body count?

Again, see my points above. If the Islamic got their chance, I'm sure they'd do you proud.

If you hate "secularists" so much here, why don't you get out and become another "American Taliban" like that one rich kid did?

I'm sure you'd find it more to your liking living with your spiritual kin-folk over there, or maybe Guantanamo Bay would be preferable, if your gov't ever caught you over there.

The only reason you don't see the body count is because you term an abortion as choice, irresponsible sex as 'boys being boys' and violent rock songs as 'freedom of speech'. Guess what?

Guess what? I myself am pro-life. I don't like abortion any more than you do. That's why I'm amazed that xians worship the same "god" who killed so many babies and pregnant women in the OT, and presumably, through miscarriages today.

If you're so concerned with the babies' body count like you pretend to be, then you should picket a church and demand that god stop killing people through miscarriages!

The Islamic Fundamentalists do the same thing -- they attribute their acts to G_d or call it a holy war while the secularist sacrifices vicitims on the alter of 'choice.'

Semantics.

Not quite. As I pointed out, Islamics don't go around asking people if they can blow them up. Nobody forces a woman to abort her baby. Well, except "g_d"!

[EvoUK]

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell them that a codom will protect them from sexually transmitted disease?

No.

Gee, I had always been taught that condoms lower the risks of STDs. Are you saying this is incorrect? But then sleeping around does obviously increase the risks of STDs etc. I would have assumed this was self-evident.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and pretend that porno-rock, violent movies and violent video games and so forth have no effect on the human condition?

No.

Perhaps you could show us the stats showing the correlations between video games and movies and violent crime? Everyone I know has watched/played one of the above, and none of them have raped/mugged/beaten/murdered up anyone.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em there is no G_d to fear?

No.

Show me valid evidence that your version of god exists, and I might consider taking you remotely seriously. But then, I don't see how this is a valid point from your perspective, as Muslims worship the wrong god, and are just as screwed as I am when they die according to common xian doctrine.

Do Muslims lie to their kids and tell 'em abortion is a 'choice' and that a baby is a parasite?

No.

Last time I checked it was a choice- unless you're going by some other definition of the word that I'm not aware of. I don't see women having guns put to their heads and being forced to have an abortion.

How many people die in the USA alone every year due to abortion?

About a million.

None, abortion only effects zygotes, embryos and early foetuses.

How many people die due to suicide bombers every year?

About a thousand.

Couldn't say to be honest- too many.

Who is backwards?

Extremist fundamentalists.

Who is destructive?

I think having a girly hissy fit and killing 15 people is mildly distructive, don't you?

Who is really racking up the body count?

In Iraq I'd say it's currently the US military...



Thanks for the list though, it did give me a good belly laugh