| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Let's review the statement made by Al Qaeda deputy leader Aymen al-Zawahiri today.
He threatened to kill more people in England and the U.S. I think he's feeling the heat. He's seen that France has expelled radical imams, and that Spain has banned the burqa. I think he's scared that worldwide opinion has taken a turn that will make things more dangerous and difficult for Al Qaeda, and he's trying to intimidate people to reverse this change in public opinion.
Let's look at what else this villain had to say:
Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing...
Al Qaeda is klling people, but al-Zawahiri would really appreciate it if rather than blaming Al Qaeda, we blamed Blair. Not only that, al-Zawahiri hopes that Blair wil go on 'bringing destruction to central London.'
"Our message is clear: You will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers," al-Zawahiri said.
He says we have to stop "stealing" their oil before Al Qaeda will stop killing civilians. In our view, we are actually paying for their oil. I guarantee that oil prices worldwide would be a lot lower if this were not the case. So he's saying we have to stop buying oil before Al Qaeda will stop attacking. Even OPEC doesn't want us to stop buying oil from Arab nations. This makes it evident that Al Qaeda's official statement is that even if we withdrew troops from Iraq, Al Qaeda would still continue attacking.
#1
#2My post debunks al-Zawahiri's statement. This is precisely the opposite of promoting the terrorists or assisting them in disseminating their propaganda.
Would you support, as I did yesterday, "A call for the press, on its own initiative, to stop promoting terrorists"?
#3Tom, that's not even logical.
There is a big difference between knowingly giving air time to a terrorist and quoting him or her (or their movement, for that matter) for the purposes of demonstrating the dangers of their position. By your argument, we should ban historians from quoting Hitler because to do so promotes Nazi ideology.
Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar
#4My post debunks al-Zawahiri’s statement.
It does? Sure, the oil is being bought, not stolen. Do you think you've debunked any other aspect of his statement?
Would you support, as I did yesterday, “A call for the press, on its own initiative, to stop promoting terrorists”?
I don't buy your premise that the press is promoting terrorists "all the time," so most likely not.
#5By your argument, we should ban historians from quoting Hitler because to do so promotes Nazi ideology.
That's not my argument. That's Vik's argument... or it would be if his argument were logically consistent.
#6Tom:
I don't read in Vik's post what you claim is there. I see his main point as being that the MSM convieniently omits facts which it finds unpleasant and, as such, serve as propagandists rather than reporters when it comes to terrorists.
For instance, nowhere in the interview or in subsequent articles is it mentioned that: 1) Chechneya is overwhelming Muslim, with a sizable minority being of the Wahhabi school (putting them in the company of bin Laden and others); 2) many Chechen "seperatists" (a favorite "non-judgemental" term the MSM uses in place of "terrorists") view themselves as mujhadi, or holy warriors of jihad. Their "separatist" movement is, in fact, a thinly disguised attempt to rid their "breakaway republic" (another MSM euphemism) of the Russian infidels and establish a hard-line Islamic republic. As the Russians clearly recognize, the Chechen conflict is yet another front on the growing conflict between Islam and the West. ABC, by granting a voice to the man who masterminded Beslan without delving into the background and essence of the conflict which he perpetuates, has done nothing but grant an undeserved soapbox to another enemy of the West. I applaud Putin's action...his vision in regards to this conflict is much clearer than the relativists who control our media.
Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar
#7Vik:
I think he's feeling the heat. He's seen that France has expelled radical imams, and that Spain has banned the burqa.
Yes, but he also knows that Spain tucked its tail between its legs after the Madrid bombings, and that the Frogs are not known for their backbone in the face of threats (WWII, Viet Nam, Algeria, etc.)
I would like to think you're right in regards to his "feeling the heat," but I fear you are overly optomistic on this one.
#8Tom:
That’s not my argument. That’s Vik’s argument… or it would be if his argument were logically consistent.
Can provide an argument that backs up that statement?
#9One last $0.02 worth from me on all of this.
There are two great examples of the difference between reporting and providing free propaganda currently online from the BBC, an entity which is taking heat from its viewers for doing exactly what ABC has been justly kicked out of Russia for doing.
On its Newswatch website for Aug. 3, there is an attempt to defend the BBC's policy of granting airtime to extremists. Basically, the essence of their self-defense seems to be, "We think they should be heard, and that's that." Although they claim that through their interviews they are "challenging" the extremist views, a viewing of such segments usually shows that the challenges are about as strong as those that challenge Jessica Simpson about whether or no she should get her hair cut. Needless to say, the average British subject is not fooled by such obfuscations, and are increasingly vocal about what they rightly see as a liberal MSM attempt to undermine the war on terror and to soften Western perceptions of Islam and jihad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4742600/4742625.stm
The second article shows that the British media are learning all too well from the MSM in the United States. It reports on angry reactions from the British public to a BBC "Special Report" on terrorism in which a studio audience served as a "town hall" from which reactions and concerns were elicited. Unfortunately, the BBC chose to stack the audience with an unrepresentative amount of Muslims---3 to 4 times the percentage of Muslims in the British population. This, of course, served to skew the reactions in a predictable fashion, underlining again the MSM's dedication to softening/obscuring the perception of Islam and its intrinsically harsh elements. Again, however, "John Bull" is too wise to fall for this, and the BBC is facing criticism. All of this makes me wonder whether Dan Rather has moved to the U.K. to continue his career...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4730000/newsid_4735500/4735515.stm
Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar
#10Great comments, TL. I've just quoted this in a new post.
#11Can provide an argument that backs up that statement?
I think I already have. You accused ABC of "helping to propagandize terrorism" by broadcasting an interview with a terrorist.
You claimed that your own dissemination of a terrorist's statement does not constitute "helping to propagandize terrorism" because you were "debunking" his statement. But when I asked which part you think you debunked, you ignored the question.
#12Tom: That’s not my argument. That’s Vik’s argument… or it would be if his argument were logically consistent.
Vik: Can provide an argument that backs up that statement?
Tom: I think I already have. You accused ABC of “helping to propagandize terrorism” by broadcasting an interview with a terrorist.
You claimed that your own dissemination of a terrorist’s statement does not constitute “helping to propagandize terrorism” because you were “debunking” his statement. But when I asked which part you think you debunked, you ignored the question.
That is not an argument that I was logically inconsistent.
Your own comment admitted that I had debunked part of al-Zawahiri's statement.
#13You're not disputing that your "debunking" was nothing more than quibbling over a single word ("stealing") in al-Zawahiri's statement.
Would you stop accusing networks of "helping to propagandize terrorism" if their interviews with terrorists were accompanied by a similar fact-checking service?
If so, I retract the accusation that your argument is logically inconsistent.
#14al-Zawahiri said, as have others, that it was due to Blair's actions in Iraq that Al Qaeda bombed London. I debunked that by pointing out al-Zawahiri's own statement, that as long as the West continued to buy OPEC oil, Al Qaeda would continue to attack.
Where is the logical inconsistency?
#15al-Zawahiri said, as have others, that it was due to Blair’s actions in Iraq that Al Qaeda bombed London.
Where did he say this? It wasn't in this statement. "Blair has brought to you destruction in central London" does not necessarily mean "Blair's actions in Iraq..."
Where is the logical inconsistency?
The logical inconsistency is claiming that it's propagandizing terrorism when ABC gives a forum to a terrorist but not when you do the same.
#16Where did he say this? It wasn’t in this statement. “Blair has brought to you destruction in central London” does not necessarily mean “Blair’s actions in Iraq...”
Refer to the article linked in the post:
"As to the nations of the crusader alliance, we have offered you a truce if you leave the land of Islam."
As I noted, we could "leave the land of Islam" and they'd still attack us as long as we were buying OPEC oil.
The logical inconsistency is claiming that it’s propagandizing terrorism when ABC gives a forum to a terrorist but not when you do the same.
You have not yet responded to previous answers to this, here and here, other than by your question which has been answered in this comment.
Just yesterday you accused ABC of "helping to propagandize terrorism" by broadcasting an interview with a terrorist.
And now here you are quoting a terrorist on your website.
Does this mean that you are helping to propagandize terrorism?