# Fox News "Terrorism expert"....



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apparently, according to a so-called "terrorism expert", Birmingham, the second biggest city in the UK is an entirely Muslim city, and is a "no go" area for non-Muslims, and Islamic Religious Police regularly beat up people in London that they consider to be inappropriately dressed. As I've never knowingly watched it, is Fox News usually as stupid as this?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/fox-news-steven-emerson-birmingham-muslims


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Some of the programming is bad.

I am not familiar with the host pictured in the article and the article does not say which show on FN the misstatement appeared.

How about the following statement from the article;



> "And, parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to religious Muslim attire."


Has that ever happened??


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Has that ever happened??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Langham said:


>


HA!!

This article is from 2011 so I suppose everything is just going swimmingly now...

LONDON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- Attacks on women in the name of family honor are increasing rapidly in Britain, police statistics show. The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization obtained information from police agencies that track "honor killings" and assaults, kidnappings and threats designed to punish or coerce women, The Guardian reported. The group said 2,823 incidents were reported by 39 police forces in 2010, and it estimates about 500 more occurred in the jurisdictions of 12 that did not have data. 
There were 12 departments that had information for both 2009 and 2010, with the total rising from 938 to 1,381 during the year. In London, reported honor crimes more than doubled from 235 in 2009 to 495 in 2010, while in the Greater Manchester district the number went from 105 to 189. 

Read more: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...rise-in-Britain/23641322895821/#ixzz3Oe1zxHBG
​


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Chouan said:


> As I've never knowingly watched it, is Fox News usually as stupid as this?


Yes, Fox News makes its fair share of mistakes. More so, than I would like, but to its credit, it did own up to this one.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/terrorism-expert-apologizes-for-totally-inaccurate-comments-on-fox/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Some of the programming is bad.
> 
> I am not familiar with the host pictured in the article and the article does not say which show on FN the misstatement appeared.
> 
> ...


Not that I'm aware of. There are certainly no Religious Police, either official or unofficial. There was a case where some Muslims in London were prosecuted for harassment, but certainly not for violence of any kind.
An American friend did tell me some time ago, whilst the world Cup was playing that there was a commentator of some kind on Fox News who'd suggested that Football was "un-American" and evidence of moral decay, and was only followed by non-English speaking immigrants, which I thought a little excessive .....


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> HA!!
> 
> This article is from 2011 so I suppose everything is just going swimmingly now...
> 
> ...


Fair point - that seems to be a serious issue within the Muslim community here, at least from what I read in the papers. It's all hidden well away from view of course, and without wishing to sound unduly patronising, it is what happens when a medieval community is struggling to come to terms with being transplanted into the modern world. Then there is the FGM issue too ....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> An American friend did tell me some time ago, whilst the world Cup was playing that there was a commentator of some kind on Fox News who'd suggested that Football was "un-American" and evidence of moral decay, and was only followed by non-English speaking immigrants, which I thought a little excessive .....


Now *THAT*'s definitive!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now *THAT*'s definitive!!


Yet it's an English game, invented by English speaking people.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> HA!!
> 
> This article is from 2011 so I suppose everything is just going swimmingly now...
> 
> ...


That's not quite the same as the suggestion that there are Religious Police beating women up for wearing inappropriate clothing on a regular basis. Listing all crimes to do with Islam and women in Britain is no evidence for that at all. Certainly none for his assertion that non-Muslim women are being beaten by the Police on that basis.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I didn't see the piece in question and it may surprise some of you to hear that I have a limited diet of Fox News.

Emerson, however is an investigative journalist who has covered and written on terrorism and security issues for almost 30 years. I'm not familiar with the piece in question but I'll venture a guess that he may have gotten his facts wrong.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I didn't see the piece in question and it may surprise some of you to hear that I have a limited diet of Fox News.
> 
> Emerson, however is an investigative journalist who has covered and written on terrorism and security issues for almost 30 years. I'm not familiar with the piece in question but I'll venture a guess that he may have gotten his facts wrong.


I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, I've never knowingly seen it, although I've heard it mentioned, and wondered if it was really as bad as this suggested.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I've previously heard of these "no go" zones in France but I didn't realize they existed in England as well.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've previously heard of these "no go" zones in France but I didn't realize they existed in England as well.


The point is that they don't. At all. Anywhere in the UK.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've previously heard of these "no go" zones in France but I didn't realize they existed in England as well.


Downtown Birmingham. As you can see, it's perfectly safe.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Is that the new Apple Store?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Yet it's an English game, invented by English speaking people.....


That affirms the "un-American"part!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Islam is messed up, its leaders and teachers have their brains firmly stuck in the Middle Ages. And people shouldn't be afraid to say that. Nor should they be called islamaphobes or racists for saying it. Nor should they accept when muslims say "Islam is a religion of peace" as it clearly isn't. The vast majority of current conflicts in Eurasia and Africa are due to Islam. World leaders and moderate Muslim communities around the world need to sort this out...NOW!!!

Obama, EU, Nato, UN the time for kid gloves and not wanting to offend your oil supplying states is well passed!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Islam is messed up, its leaders and teachers have their brains firmly stuck in the Middle Ages. And people shouldn't be afraid to say that. Nor should they be called islamaphobes or racists for saying it. Nor hsould they accept when muslims say "Islam is a religion of peace" as it clearly isn't. The vast majority of current conflicts in Eurasia and Africa are due to Islam. World leaders and moderate Muslim communities around the world need to sort this out...NOW!!!
> 
> Obama, EU, Nato, UN the time for kid gloves and not wanting to offend your oil supplying states is well passed!


Earl, 
I'll go a step further and state that the "Extremist Muslims" are in fact those that may be calling for peace and an end to conflict. No other major religion, that I'm aware of, has as a doctrine of it's faith struggle and conflict (Jihad). And spare me the nonsense about it meaning a "spiritual" struggle. Those with a moderate view seem to be those who carry out terrorist acts and seek conflict. That seems to be the moderate view and I don't see people rising in the streets against it and I don't hear Islamic clerics leading international efforts to stop it or condemn it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Which has little or nothing to do with the topic. Apart from an opportunity to express anti-Islamic sentiment, of course.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Is that the new Apple Store?


Yes. That pic was taken when the iPhone 6 had just come out. (Seriously, though, you should have seen the lines at the local Apple Store...insanity).

Fox News is often deplorable and sometimes peddles outright lies. I don't mind bias (a savvy consumer can identify it and deal with it), but Fox is known for crossing the line into fiction from time to time.

Emerson is neither stupid nor ignorant, but he is a bit of a showman and certainly an entrepreneur who's made himself a tidy sum as a professional alarmist. The professionals I know and work with don't take him seriously.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Earl,
> I'll go a step further and state that the "Extremist Muslims" are in fact those that may be calling for peace and an end to conflict. No other major religion, that I'm aware of, has as a doctrine of it's faith struggle and conflict (Jihad). And spare me the nonsense about it meaning a "spiritual" struggle. Those with a moderate view seem to be those who carry out terrorist acts and seek conflict. That seems to be the moderate view and I don't see people rising in the streets against it and I don't hear Islamic clerics leading international efforts to stop it or condemn it.


Interesting...and it is something I have also considered. i.e. that in fact the main rump of islam all over the world supports the jihadists and terrorism and the "extremists" in the eyes of Muslims are those looking for peace, those that we erroneosuly call the "moderates"


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

And now Frosty the Snowman joins Salman Rushdie and a long line of others by having a Fatwa issued against him:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> And now Frosty the Snowman joins Salman Rushdie and a long line of others by having a Fatwa issued against him:


Hey, Sheikh Munajjid, the 13th century called and it wants you to get in your time machine with your pea brain and travel home, you've been in the future for too long!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Yes. That pic was taken when the iPhone 6 had just come out. (Seriously, though, you should have seen the lines at the local Apple Store...insanity).
> 
> Fox News is often deplorable and sometimes peddles outright lies. I don't mind bias (a savvy consumer can identify it and deal with it), but Fox is known for crossing the line into fiction from time to time.
> 
> Emerson is neither stupid nor ignorant, but he is a bit of a showman and certainly an entrepreneur who's made himself a tidy sum as a professional alarmist. The professionals I know and work with don't take him seriously.


https://www.channel4.com/news/seven-other-big-errors-of-no-go-birmingham-pundit


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And now Frosty the Snowman joins Salman Rushdie and a long line of others by having a Fatwa issued against him:


Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. "It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," one wrote.

Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia's border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East.

1. He must have seen my snowman!!

2. Global Warming strikes again!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

In all fairness, however, there were some who disagreed with him. The question is how publically could they disagree and what exactly is the majority view on something like this.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Apparently, according to a so-called "terrorism expert", Birmingham, the second biggest city in the UK is an entirely Muslim city, and is a "no go" area for non-Muslims, and Islamic Religious Police regularly beat up people in London that they consider to be inappropriately dressed. As I've never knowingly watched it, is Fox News usually as stupid as this?
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/fox-news-steven-emerson-birmingham-muslims


When you understand that Fox News isn't about "news" at all - it's about categorical self-affirmation and entertainment - you'll understand that "stupid" isn't really the issue.

People mistakenly think that Fox News pushes a "conservative agenda", but that's missing the point. Fox News is a business, and its all about maximizing ad revenue; it just so happens that it focuses on a conservative market, so it needs to feed that market what it wants.

No one should ever - EVER - watch Fox (or MSNBC) with the intent of becoming informed.

DH


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> No one should ever - EVER - watch Fox (or MSNBC) with the intent of becoming informed.
> 
> DH


....unless the show is hosted by Chris Wallace or Bret Baier.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ....unless the show is hosted by Chris Wallace or Bret Baier.


And that's about the only time I really watch FNC.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. Say what you will about Fox News, but Bill O'Reilly rules! :devil:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Say what you will about Fox News, but Bill O'Reilly rules! :devil:


This bloke, featured here?






If he's not a comedian, I've rarely seen a more arrogant, deeply unpleasant, ignorant and offensive man on television. If he *is* a comedian, then he's satirising some deeply unpleasant views.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> This bloke, featured here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I agree. Russell Brand is an arrogant, know nothing dolt who should stick to playing drug addled musicians on screen vs. sharing his political views.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Yes I agree. Russell Brand is an arrogant, know nothing dolt who should stick to playing drug addled musicians on screen vs. sharing his political views.


Yes. I see your point. I find him tiresome at times as well. However, as you well know, I was referring to the unpleasant neo-fascist that he was talking about.
Can I assume that the bloke in question, this Bill O'Reilly, isn't a comedian? That his views are genuine?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yes. I see your point. I find him tiresome at times as well. However, as you well know, I was referring to the unpleasant neo-fascist that he was talking about.
> Can I assume that the bloke in question, this Bill O'Reilly, isn't a comedian? That his views are genuine?


That's indeed Bill O'Reilly and I'll leave it to you to determine if he's a fascist and just how genuine his views are.

I don't really watch his show so I'll refrain from comments. Though I'm not one to use the word fascist with the same facility as you apparently are.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That's indeed Bill O'Reilly and I'll leave it to you to determine if he's a fascist and just how genuine his views are.
> 
> I don't really watch his show so I'll refrain from comments. Though I'm not one to use the word fascist with the same facility as you apparently are.


neo-fascist


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Love Russell Brand. Can't stand Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Here's the kind of expertise that cuts through the nonsense:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-mayor-rotterdam-tells-4970496

p.s. He's a Muslim as well.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Here's the kind of expertise that cuts through the nonsense:
> 
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-mayor-rotterdam-tells-4970496
> 
> p.s. He's a Muslim as well.


Article~


> The 52-year-old former journalist, who moved to Holland when he was 15, is known for his hardened stance against immigrants who refuse to accept the country's liberal way of life.
> 
> Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch news programme Nieuwsuur (News Hour): "It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom.
> "But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven's name pack your bag and leave."


Ah, HA!!

Another neo-fascist!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> 
> Ah, HA!!
> 
> Another neo-fascist!!


It won't be long until he's labelled as such. I'm almost sure I'm late to the party on that one.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If Bill O'Reilly were occupying the White House, He would have been in Paris, joining other world leaders in their march thumbing their collective noses at those murderous jihadi extremists! :devil:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Remember, they're just extremists. 

Don't use that other word with it as we don't want to upset them. 

Wait, what am I saying! I didn't mean to say "them". Them doesn't exist, otherwise they would have a name! Wait, did I just say THEY would have a name. 

I didn't mean them or they. There is no they or them. It's no one. Oh God I'm so confused!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Lookie; extremism is extremism.

They, them, us, no matter, it's all equal and the same!!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

It's pretty challenging to find "close to primary" news which is actually presented in a readable (palatable) format.

ProPublica is excellent for investigative journalism; it's the daily stuff which is hard, because it's all ad-driven, which pushes outlets to be content farms rather than really "news" (Fox, MSNBC and others exited the news business long ago.)

I tend to like BBC, simply because it's at least not beholden to US biases (in general); the same idea applies to The Financial Times.

For awhile, I've considered financial media to be a better source for news, simply because, biases aside (WSJ, for example), reporting has to be at least somewhat accurate because the news has to be usable to guide financial decisions, and markets are pretty unbiased.

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^^^ Do you think that some foreign news outlets are, however, beholden to Anti-US bias? Just a question.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^^^ Do you think that some foreign news outlets are, however, beholden to Anti-US bias? Just a question.


That's fine; it's healthy to have assumptions challenged.

In this era of filtered content, we need to work extra-hard to escape our agnotological bubbles.

DH


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> That's fine; it's healthy to have assumptions challenged.
> 
> In this era of filtered content, we need to work extra-hard to escape our agnotological bubbles.
> 
> DH


...and when I say "we" I mean "you!!"


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and when I say "we" I mean "you!!"


No, no - I'm as subject to living in an informational world of my unintended creation as anyone.

Interestingly, this tendency toward "informational insularity" tends to affect educated and engaged folk the worst, because the formation of such "bubbles" is CAUSED by inquiry.

(I'd post some figures, but the data is downstairs, and I'm being lazy... maybe later if the discussion goes that route.)

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Anything that goes beyond who, what, when, where and how and enters into the realm of analysis and opinion will inherently be biased. 

The trick is to weigh the competing opinions and see who makes the best argument with the most evidence. There are always different ways of looking at the same issue and incident.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Anything that goes beyond who, what, when, where and how and enters into the realm of analysis and opinion will inherently be biased.


That doesn't even include the process of deciding what gets reported and what doesn't.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That doesn't even include the process of deciding what gets reported and what doesn't.


And the frequency with which it is reported.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I didn't see the piece in question and it may surprise some of you to hear that I have a limited diet of Fox News.
> 
> Emerson, however is an investigative journalist who has covered and written on terrorism and security issues for almost 30 years. I'm not familiar with the piece in question but I'll venture a guess that he may have gotten his facts wrong.


Emerson is notable for claiming that the Oklahoma City bombings had all the hallmarks of a Muslim terror attack.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Emerson is notable for claiming that the Oklahoma City bombings had all the hallmarks of a Muslim terror attack.


I don't think he was alone in that and it was probably one of the considerations being given by many, including those in government.

Given that OKC occurred about 2 years after the first WTC attack, it's not a stretch to analyze it that way. Of course he was wrong.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> If Bill O'Reilly were occupying the White House, He would have been in Paris, joining other world leaders in their march thumbing their collective noses at those murderous jihadi extremists! :devil:


Along with people like Netanyahu, who initiated the Israeli attacks on Gaza that killed how many civilians? He'd have been in good company.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

As always, and this case is no exception, Israel always gets dragged into it. 

Just a thought experiment: If Israel were to cease to exist tomorrow, who would be left to blame in the Middle East? I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Please put this in the context of relations amongst nations and Islamic internecine fighting.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Along with people like Netanyahu, who initiated the Israeli attacks on Gaza that killed how many civilians? He'd have been in good company.


Charlie Hebdo was hiding rockets in it's office and launching into Muslim neighborhoods??

I'm fascinated.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Charlie Hebdo was hiding rockets in it's office and launching into Muslim neighborhoods??
> 
> I'm fascinated.


"When you're out of ideas, blame the Jews!" - Me


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As always, and this case is no exception, Israel always gets dragged into it.
> 
> Just a thought experiment: If Israel were to cease to exist tomorrow, who would be left to blame in the Middle East? I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Please put this in the context of relations amongst nations and Islamic internecine fighting.


He was merely the leader in Paris with the most innocent blood on his hands. As far as freedom of the press is concerned, Reporters Without Borders says '*The Israeli media is able to be outspoken but media located in 'Israeli territory' must comply with prior military censorship and gag orders. Investigative reporting involving national security is not welcome.'* Others included Sameh Shoukry, Ahmet Davutoglu, Sergei Lavrov, Ramtane Lamamra, and Ali Bongo. None of whom have good records on civil rights, or press freedoms.

This also made interesting reading on "press freedom". https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-female-world-leaders-4976457 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/w...en-Photoshopped-from-Paris-rally-picture.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...er-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ He's also the only world leader present who regularly has terrorists indiscriminately lobbing rockets into his cities and who has a network of tunnels dug under his country where terrorists and come and go as they please. 

You don't like Israel. I get it. I'm not going to try to sway you on that but what in God's name does Israel have to do with what happened in Paris?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ He's also the only world leader present who regularly has terrorists indiscriminately lobbing rockets into his cities and who has a network of tunnels dug under his country where terrorists and come and go as they please.


If Israel doesn't address the issues that lead to such events they will continue. There's a saying in Education, and elsewhere I should imagine. "If you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same result". If you keep doing the same thing, only more so, you'll keep getting the same response, only more.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not going to try to sway you on that but what in God's name does Israel have to do with what happened in Paris?


Nothing, and I've not suggested that they have.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> If Israel doesn't address the issues that lead to such events they will continue. There's a saying in Education, and elsewhere I should imagine. "If you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same result". If you keep doing the same thing, only more so, you'll keep getting the same response, only more.
> 
> Nothing, and I've not suggested that they have.


So sorry. You did bring up the Israeli PM however.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> So sorry.


Not at all.



SG_67 said:


> You did bring up the Israeli PM however.


Only as an example of intransigence to compare with Bill O'Reilly. My only experience of him is, however, through the link I offered.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Anything that goes beyond who, what, when, where and how and enters into the realm of analysis and opinion will inherently be biased.
> 
> The trick is to weigh the competing opinions and see who makes the best argument with the most evidence. There are always different ways of looking at the same issue and incident.


Bias is unavoidable, and even desirable (it's interesting to read someone's take on facts.)

What IS avoidable, and what IS very bad indeed, is deliberate misinformation. Fox - and MSNBC - both actively lie to spin stories to attract clicks.

Much of this happens in the headlines, and in theory, a careful reader might pry the reality from the story itself, but there's obfuscation aplenty in the text itself. Often, its less an agenda (in fact, it's never a political agenda, it's all a matter of optimizing ad dollars) than laziness - using content farms to procure stories, printing PR releases without fact-checking, and so on.

It's pretty outrageous.

DH


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> Bias is unavoidable, and even desirable (it's interesting to read someone's take on facts.)
> 
> What IS avoidable, and what IS very bad indeed, is deliberate misinformation. Fox - and MSNBC - both actively lie to spin stories to attract clicks.
> 
> ...


Indeed. One of the things that is annoying me at the moment about the news in the UK is the media's obsession with the media. Hence the death of 10 journalists in Paris is big news, really big news. The deaths of thousands in Nigeria and the Nigerian government's lack of response to those deaths is pretty much ignored. Is it because they are brown? Or because they are Muslims?
The news media focused almost exclusively on the demonstrations following the deaths in Paris, and the funerals of the policemen and of people killed in the shop in Vincennes (in Israel, curiously. I thought that they were French rather than Israelis). However, the Muslim from Chad who saved many Jewish shoppers, at risk to his own life, has been pretty much ignored. I hesitate to suggest why his brave deed isn't worthy of notice.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> ...the Muslim from Chad who saved many Jewish shoppers, at risk to his own life, has been pretty much ignored. I hesitate to suggest why his brave deed isn't worthy of notice.


He is fearful of reprisals for saving Jews or just stepping foot in a Kosher market??

One thing appears consistent in the media internationally, they do like to cover stories about themselves.

It's like Hollywood making a movie about making a movie!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I did see the story about the Muslim who saved those people in the deli and you're correct, the slaughter by Boko Haram (sp?) certainly doesn't get the same coverage as an attack in the heart of Paris but I think, and sadly so, that we've come to expect certain acts of violence in certain parts of the world and when it occurs in our own back yard we're surprised and it's new worthy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I did see the story about the Muslim who saved those people in the deli and you're correct, the slaughter by Boko Haram (sp?) certainly doesn't get the same coverage as an attack in the heart of Paris but I think, and sadly so, that we've come to expect certain acts of violence in certain parts of the world and when it occurs in our own back yard we're surprised and it's new worthy.


Is arguing over which Islamist Terror incident is more newsworthy than the other really helping those that continually make excuses for Islamist Terror??

But the latest Pope thing just singes me.

He's gone from charming to tiresome in a flash.

...and I know of such things!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Terrorism is terrorism but in critiquing the media, it's true that some get more coverage than others. But yes, I agree, it gives people an excuse to forgive or justify terrorist acts, but I have a feeling those excuses would come from the usual suspects regardless of news coverage. It's just that it makes it so much easier. 

Yeah I have to say I'm not a fan of this pope. He's definitely a man of the left and should keep his opinions to matters of the church and stay out of politics. I'm afraid when he steps foot into the latter, he pretty much opens himself up for criticism. Papal infallibility applies to interpretation of church doctrine and scripture, not to political pronouncements.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Papal infallibilty applies to what ever the Vatican decides and can enforce at a given moment in history.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

> _ Originally Posted by *WouldaShoulda* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1646668#post1646668
> was hiding rockets in it's office and launching into Muslim neighborhoods??
> 
> I'm fascinated.
> ...


 PERF! PERF!:laughing::great::rock:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Yeah I have to say I'm not a fan of this pope. He's definitely a man of the left and should keep his opinions to matters of the church and stay out of politics. I'm afraid when he steps foot into the latter, he pretty much opens himself up for criticism. Papal infallibility applies to interpretation of church doctrine and scripture, not to political pronouncements.


You'd rather he was a man of the Conservative establishment?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You'd rather he was a man of the Conservative establishment?


I'd rather he stick to matters of an ecclesiastical nature rather than worldly and political. The same way I want my politicians sticking to secular issues and not quoting from the bible or issuing opinions because "this is what Jesus would want".


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Earl,
> I'll go a step further and state that the "Extremist Muslims" are in fact those that may be calling for peace and an end to conflict. No other major religion, that I'm aware of, has as a doctrine of it's faith struggle and conflict (Jihad). And spare me the nonsense about it meaning a "spiritual" struggle. Those with a moderate view seem to be those who carry out terrorist acts and seek conflict. That seems to be the moderate view and I don't see people rising in the streets against it and I don't hear Islamic clerics leading international efforts to stop it or condemn it.


We have a major mosque within about 8 miles of my home. The clerics there have made a number of public statements critical of Islamic extremists (as they term them) who engage in terror, abuse of women and other atrocities, with a notable recent condemnation of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. They have also reached out to Jewish and Christian clergy to encourage dialogue relative to the commonalities and differences of our different faiths.

I agree that on the global scale it's disappointing that more such Islamic clerics are not doing the same.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ That's great and I have no doubt that there are some that do. They seem to be mostly here though and we don't here clerics from major Islamic countries doing the same. 

I'm talking about clerics in the heart of the middle east where it matters. Ask those same clerics what they think the major problem in the middle east is and I'm willing to bet Israel comes up if not at the top of the list, then at least in the top three. 

Most that I've heard on TV will equivocate and won't get to the heart of the issue and speak to the absolute hostility and strife within the religion itself and it's doctrine. 

Christendom underwent a reformation and was able to survive dissent and has adapted. Something like this needs to happen within the Islamic faith.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ That's great and I have no doubt that there are some that do. They seem to be mostly here though and we don't here clerics from major Islamic countries doing the same.
> 
> I'm talking about clerics in the heart of the middle east where it matters. Ask those same clerics what they think the major problem in the middle east is and I'm willing to bet Israel comes up if not at the top of the list, then at least in the top three.
> 
> ...


Islam is the youngest of the world's Great Religions, and perhaps it's not yet old enough to undergo the kind of necessary purification by flame that Christianity and Judaism have undergone. Certainly if Christians could keep in mind that the Church-sponsored terrorism of the Inquisition continued until the 19th Century, we might gain a better sense of perspective on the horrific corruption of Islam that is taking place in this day and age. But there's no question that the current practice of Islam worldwide embodies a great deal of actual evil. It's very sad.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Islam is the youngest of the world's Great Religions, and perhaps it's not yet old enough to undergo the kind of necessary purification by flame that Christianity and Judaism have undergone. Certainly if Christians could keep in mind that the Church-sponsored terrorism of the Inquisition continued until the 19th Century, we might gain a better sense of perspective on the horrific corruption of Islam that is taking place in this day and age. But there's no question that the current practice of Islam worldwide embodies a great deal of actual evil. It's very sad.


It's been around for 1400 years!

The Mormons are less than 200 years old and I don't see them bombing theaters playing "Book of Mormon".


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> It's been around for 1400 years!
> 
> The Mormons are less than 200 years old and I don't see them bombing theaters playing "Book of Mormon".


I'm not in any way excusing Islam; more expressing hope (I suppose) that one day they'll see the error of their ways.

As for Mormons, I think Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman express quite eloquently the essential blandness of their Tribe (and I don't mean that pejoratively). I have great admiration for the forbearance and industry of LDS folks. They have pretty much all the cultural cohesion and cooperative spirit embodied by the Jews with very little of the Jews' combativeness. A Mormon, if struck, typically won't strike you back; instead he'll form some sort of cartel with his brethren and beat the pants off you in business.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Exactly! Which begs the question, what is wrong in Islam that such violence is seen as appropriate behavior?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Exactly! Which begs the question, what is wrong in Islam that such violence is seen as appropriate behavior?


What is wrong in Christianity that condoned the violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> What is wrong in Christianity that condoned the violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition?


Could we perhaps use examples from the last 200 years?

Ignoring that, the inquisition was an internecine fight within Christendom and the crusades were political in nature and far different from random violence against perceived wrongs.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ That's great and I have no doubt that there are some that do. They seem to be mostly here though and we don't here clerics from major Islamic countries doing the same.


That we don't hear it on our popular news media doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. We've already agreed that the western news media tends to report what it wants us to hear, not necessarily what is actually happening.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ... the inquisition was an internecine fight within Christendom


Jewish and Muslim citizens of Spain and Portugal in the 15th through early 19th centuries would beg to differ. And the Inquisition absolutely conducted random violence against perceived wrongs.

We Christians tend to assume a mantle of moral superiority relative to Muslims, forgetting all too easily the excesses that have been carried out by adherents of our own faith. It's as INXS advised us: beware the Devil inside. At this moment in time we see the Devil clearly in the actions of Muslims who have been seduced by the losers like Osama bin Laden who advocate violence against those who disagree with Islamic teachings. And we're right to do so, but we need to guard against the notion that we are fundamentally less sinful.

I don't disagree with anyone who decries violence by Islamists; I think it's terrible. But ultimately it won't stop because non-Muslims oppose it; it will only stop because influential leaders of Islam oppose it. I pray to God that this will come to pass. And I pray to God we Christians remember why Jesus died on the Cross; it wasn't so we could have colored eggs to look for on the lawn.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Jewish and Muslim citizens of Spain and Portugal in the 15th through early 19th centuries would beg to differ. And the Inquisition absolutely conducted random violence against perceived wrongs.
> 
> We Christians tend to assume a mantle of moral superiority relative to Muslims, forgetting all too easily the excesses that have been carried out by adherents of our own faith. It's as INXS advised us: beware the Devil inside. At this moment in time we see the Devil clearly in the actions of Muslims who have been seduced by the losers like Osama bin Laden who advocate violence against those who disagree with Islamic teachings. And we're right to do so, but we need to guard against the notion that we are fundamentally less sinful.
> 
> I don't disagree with anyone who decries violence by Islamists; I think it's terrible. But ultimately it won't stop because non-Muslims oppose it; it will only stop because influential leaders of Islam oppose it. I pray to God that this will come to pass. And I pray to God we Christians remember why Jesus died on the Cross; it wasn't so we could have colored eggs to look for on the lawn.


I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.

If memory serves, it was not Jews and Muslims who were targeted during the inquisition, but rather Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism as there was fear that they were secretly practicing and faithful to there old religion. I'm not excusing the inquisition but simply trying to be more accurate.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> If memory serves, it was not Jews and Muslims who were targeted during the inquisition, but rather Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism as there was fear that they were secretly practicing and faithful to there old religion. I'm not excusing the inquisition but simply trying to be more accurate.


Why do you suppose those Jews and Muslims converted in the first place? It was because the Inquisitors forced them to! Whether by violence, threats, or through commercial extortion and coercion, the majority of those conversions were not voluntary.

Your attempt to "be more accurate" instead to some degree excuses the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, which I can't accept. (And I don't suggest that Lutheran Protestantism or Anglicanism were any more morally pure.)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Why do you suppose those Jews and Muslims converted in the first place? It was because the Inquisitors forced them to! Whether by violence, threats, or through commercial extortion and coercion, the majority of those conversions were not voluntary.
> 
> Your attempt to "be more accurate" instead to some degree excuses the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, which I can't accept. (And I don't suggest that Lutheran Protestantism or Anglicanism were any more morally pure.)


History is not pretty nor perfect, the Church included. We are living in the present now however.

But where Christendom has matured it appears as though Islam has regressed at worst, at best been arrested in it's progression.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

But we won't solve the problem by condemning extremist Islam and by condemning the attitudes therein. We need to find out why these things happen and address the cause. Simply repeating a mantra that these people are barbaric and evil and backward etc will solve nothing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But we won't solve the problem by condemning extremist Islam and by condemning the attitudes therein. We need to find out why these things happen and address the cause. Simply repeating a mantra that these people are barbaric and evil and backward etc will solve nothing.


Except that they are barbaric, evil and backwards.

Every ethnic group, every country and every peoples everywhere have been wronged at some point in human history.

Why do these things happen? Is it because of the West? Has the West not taken in refugees, provided healthcare to millions in these countries and allowed them to come to our shores, live amongst us and practice their religion without interference. They've taken advantage of our schools and health care system. The West has been nothing but accommodating.

Why? Because these countries are for the most part ruled by despotic regimes, dictators and in some cases psychopaths (Saddam Hussein) who oppress their populations while aggrandizing themselves. Their children are fed a steady diet of anti semitism in popular media and in their schools. There is absolutely no social or economic mobility in most of these states; you're either connected and do well or you're a Hamal. Women have few if any rights and are systematically oppressed.

Let's use Pakistan and India as a case study. They were intact one country if you remember. Once independence was declared with the resultant split between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan the two have taken separate paths. One country, sharing the same ground. Look at where the two have ended up. India is a relatively stable and upwardly mobile. It still has problems but it is working to overcome them.

Pakistan is a polar opposite. It's dysfunctional, ruled pretty much by the military (and thank goodness for that) and in bed with terrorists. It's politics have been marked by dictators, assassinations, military coups and riots. They have ungovernable areas ruled by terrorists.

What's the difference? Their religion. Do you find it curious that most of the Muslim countries, at least those in the Middle East are dysfunctional? The root causes of Islamic radicalization and Islamic terrorists do not lie in the West or in Israel. They do not lie in Gtimo or Charlie Hebdo. The root causes lie within the religion and the states within which these people live.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG, if you think the world will be made a better place by repeating over and over the mantra, "Muslims are barbaric, evil and backward," you're just so very wrong.

The world has never been improved by name-calling and insults. It may make the name-caller feel better about himself, but the end product is never a better place to live.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> SG, if you think the world will be made a better place by repeating over and over the mantra, "Muslims are barbaric, evil and backward," you're just so very wrong.
> 
> The world has never been improved by name-calling and insults. It may make the name-caller feel better about himself, but the end product is never a better place to live.


A religion is as a religion does. A religion is what a religion tolerates and condones.

If not outright supporting such acts, many, too many, in the Islamic world turn a blind eye or tacitly condone the substrate of the terrorists arguments while perhaps not necessarily in agreement with their tactics.

How else is it possible for groups like this to exist?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> SG, if you think the world will be made a better place by repeating over and over the mantra, "Muslims are barbaric, evil and backward," you're just so very wrong.
> 
> The world has never been improved by name-calling and insults. It may make the name-caller feel better about himself, but the end product is never a better place to live.


The world is improved through the proclamation of the truth.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> The world is improved through the proclamation of the truth.


I agree vigorously with this. But name-calling and publishing insults doesn't qualify as proclaiming the truth.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> A religion is as a religion does. A religion is what a religion tolerates and condones.
> 
> If not outright supporting such acts, many, too many, in the Islamic world turn a blind eye or tacitly condone the substrate of the terrorists arguments while perhaps not necessarily in agreement with their tactics.
> 
> How else is it possible for groups like this to exist?


I agree with everything you say here, but it's a mistake to characterize an entire religion by the actions of its worst adherents. I would resist the characterization of Christianity as resembling the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Granted, there are far more Muslims (on a percentage basis) who accept terrorism and extremism in the name of Islam than there are Christians who behave as the Westboro crazies. And that's beyond unfortunate. But even given that truth, most Muslims are as disgusted by terrorism as are Christians. And acting as though all Muslims are guilty of acts carried out by a relative few does no one any good.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm not suggesting that all of them are guilty, merely stating that throughout the larger Muslim world, we don't see mass protests against this sort of thing, or at least the ideology that is at it's root. 

As for the Westboro Baptist Church, you're right. They're on the fringe but if you look at the larger Christian community, many disavow them publicly. Therefore they are truly fringe actors. And the worst of their sins appears to be vulgar acts at the funerals of slain GI's. They are exercising their freedom of speech and I would be just as much against acts of violence against them as I am against acts of violence against anyone for offensive speech.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I agree with everything you say here, but it's a mistake to characterize an entire religion by the actions of its worst adherents. I would resist the characterization of Christianity as resembling the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church.
> 
> Granted, there are far more Muslims (on a percentage basis) who accept terrorism and extremism in the name of Islam than there are Christians who behave as the Westboro crazies. And that's beyond unfortunate. But even given that truth, most Muslims are as disgusted by terrorism as are Christians. And acting as though all Muslims are guilty of acts carried out by a relative few does no one any good.


I for one am really sad about those hundreds of muslims killed by the Westboro faction.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I agree vigorously with this. But name-calling and publishing insults doesn't qualify as proclaiming the truth.


With any luck no one will publish anything with out your personal approval.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> With any luck no one will publish anything with out your personal approval.


Nor yours.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peace & Love


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

One man's name-calling and insults is another man's proclaiming the truth, I always say!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

__
https://flic.kr/p/7048751571


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Now how can one argue against that!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> __
> https://flic.kr/p/7048751571


Wow.... I haven't seen that in 20 some years.... Perhaps we should allow them to establish their own "state" somewhere and toss them a military budget to boot?

But where???

Utah Under Romney will obviously go to the Mormans.

Southern california has been claimed by the christian scientists?

The Greek mythologists are in the middle of trying to recaim mt. olympus. It's quite a battle however as the greeks are throwing ouzo and feta everywhere.

The southern baptists have claimed everything South of Nashville?

Texas goes to the reborns, newborns, overborns, and underborns (other than those dirty immigrant catholic mexicans that is)

The best place for israel still remains washington d.c.

Everything else is just a bunch of rocks and oïl.....:beers:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Umm.... Israel, _again_?










.
.
.
.

.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Umm.... Israel, _again_?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No my friend... 1 country (purported religion) mentioned out of 6 does not equal the one you somehow wanted to mention as being "special".... None were mentioned over the others no matter how much you wanted to mention such and make an "issue " out of it.............Alll religions and all countries (despite the claim that some deserts are religious property)... all religions deserve their "special" place.... Let us not dwell on ideology over "space", "rocks", and "half constructed buldings". Let not only the major religions control all but others have a say as well. give california to x religion, and Utah to y religion. all middle-eastern rocks should be claimed until western bombs declare them as dust...

As a Zeussist, I claim Mt. Olympus. Should any of the current owners interfer, they are obviously anti-zeussists... When I claim other areas of Greece... The idiots protesting are obviously anti-zeussists and need to be called out in front of the international community. Should the anti-zeussists claim that my mthods are against international law, I will just claim them as anti-zeussissists. How sweet is is to play the "victim"....

Reality claims that 1 of a million religions is still just 1 of a million religions....

I do hope that we can admit that no actual religion has ben actually been proclaimed as "god's chosen" by god himslef recently... (no matter which of them wish to proclaim otherwise themselves)...

Or...

Am I supposed to actually think that jews, muslims, christians, hindus, etc, have all gotten "special" messages concerning the life of everyone, everywhere? Who should I believe?

Wait. I got it... The biggest and best of them alll..... The one and only "god".....

https://imageshack.com/i/id45faWZj

Ohhh.... Alfred...After a bunch of BS, I proclaim your birthland as my own. New York shalll be now and forever be proclaimed as alfredland. May all deniers of alfred be banished to whatever hell....

Really? I have just as much "proof" as any other religion.... And everyone else should belive in my ideology of such? Please....

:confused2:

HAIL ALFRED... DEATH TO NON BELIEVERS.... NON BELIEVERS ARE OBVIOUSLY ANTI-ALFREDISISTS. ALL NON ALFREDISTS SHOULD BE TOSSED IN JAIL AS NON ALFREDISTS... Thus my "god" has spoken..... Afterall. We do proclaim to be "god's" chosen people... you do believe us right? right? right?

International crimes? not us... We only want other intertnational crimes to be investigated....We never do anything wrong... We are the Alfredists...

Help us... The Alfreds are Under attack from our Neighbors....Perhaps pulling several billion out of your own economy will help us....??? Our education sytem is better than yours. Our medical system is better than yours. Our public transport system is better than yours.... We just want freee non taxable loans. Free up to date military weapons to pass on to the chinese. New Jersey has declared us as the enemy... please help. All we need is more money and more weapons. ohhh. We also want nothing to do with responsibility...Should the majority of the world think us guilty of war crimes, plese pledge billions of your dollars to our defense...

It's only the money given through your taxpayres afteralll...

Sincerely,

The Alfredians....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Just a couple of things...

The Crusades were a war, not terrorism. 
I am not an expert on the Inquisition, but would definitely have to go with classifying that as terrorism.
We live in a vastly different time than 700 or 1000 years ago, so comparing responses, condemnations, etc. is extremely unrealistic.
People of every religion will bastardize that religion for their use.
When someone points out that Muslims are pretty much the only ones using terrorism in today's world, that is not to say that all Muslims support terrorism
As far as I am aware, no major Muslim leader (on par with the pope, or Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.) has condemned terrorism or invalidated Jihads that use it.
Terrorism can work. Research how Israel was created.
Not all wars - even when waged by people with different beliefs - are religious wars.

I am sure that I left some things out, but the absurdity of many of the points here is just stunning.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

https://api.viglink.com/api/click?f....us/v2/640x480q90/661/45faWZ.jpg" border="0">

The pipe smoking dude is a bit cooler than our god.... but heck, one can't actually imagine a god or prophet can they? I mean.....otherwise....people might not respect our own imaginations... How scary.... Can you imagine all the cash lost to other causes? If we didn't put millions into our own beliefs (such as anti-condom) there might not be an AIDS pandemic in Africa.... What god wants and alll, right? Alll Power to Alfredism.........


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

https://api.viglink.com/api/click?f....us/v2/640x480q90/661/45faWZ.jpg" border="0">

Under the state of new alfred, we proclaim fredism as the one and only law. All other religions and politcal sytems are hereby declared as invalid. Should you be a non alfredist li^ving withing alfedist territory, you are expected to folow our regualtions as of 10 years ago... Deal with it or we will exterminate your population Under the rule of "self defense".

This is our religion...YOU MUST RESPECT IT AND FUND IT or. you are obviously anti-something (alfredist)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

To return to the original question, do many Americans actually regard Fox News as a proper news programme? The only examples I've seen are clips on Youtube which, I assume, are extreme examples. However, it looks pretty poisonous and extreme to me, on my limited viewing, as well as being grotesque in its bias. Do many Americans take it seriously?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> To return to the original question, do many Americans actually regard Fox News as a proper news programme?


No.

It is a 24hr channel consisting of 2hrs of actual news a day.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> To return to the original question, do many Americans actually regard Fox News as a proper news programme? The only examples I've seen are clips on Youtube which, I assume, are extreme examples. However, it looks pretty poisonous and extreme to me, on my limited viewing, as well as being grotesque in its bias. Do many Americans take it seriously?





WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> It is a 24hr channel consisting of 2hrs of actual news a day.


There's not much in the way of news programming that really qualifies as news. I suppose when one has 24 hours of programming there's only so much actual news that can be reported.

Besides online content from the papers, I'll watch special report on Fox. I'll watch the news hour on PBS and for local news and coverage I'll watch Chicago Tonight on WBEZ.

Fox is indeed slanted but so are most of the others. Sometimes they have intelligent analysis on and at other times it's almost cartoonish.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

But do some Americans take it seriously and see it as a source of news?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> But do some Americans take it seriously and see it as a source of news?


I would hope that as with any news source, many Fox viewers will look at it as the story behind a story behind a story. There will always be those that take everything said by their prefered news source as something written in stone. So the answer to your question is...yes...but some people take BBC as being unbiased as well, right? I might take the BBC a bit more seriously but I still don't think for one moment that they have developed some type of international objectivity that everyone else has failed to obtain.

Anyone interested in the truth concerning this matter would take an hour on-line and easily discover factual numbers that right away put this guy's arguements to the trash heap...

Anyone wanting to make an arguement as to how "muslims are bad" and how "sharia law has infiltrated europe", will take it at face value and ignore all other facts that state the opposite of their point.

Did this guy help extremists cement their viewpoints? Yes.

Did anyone with reasonable logic skills believe this guy? I doubt it. And certainly not for very long.

I would also think that most people have been exposed to the fall out of such comments. Both the guy and Fox news themselves came out with retractions...

but the "true believers" will always believe something (and pass it on to the others)....."The retractions were forced"....."The numbers showing 43% christianity were made up in order to prote a liberal agenda"..."It's a liberal conspiracy", etc.etc.etc.

So yes.... This guy's speech has worked as propaganda to further sew seeds of fear (and hatred) into a certain number of the U.S. population.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I would hope that as with any news source, many Fox viewers will look at it as the story behind a story behind a story. There will always be those that take everything said by their prefered news source as something written in stone. So the answer to your question is...yes...but some people take BBC as being unbiased as well, right? I might take the BBC a bit more seriously but I still don't think for one moment that they have developed some type of international objectivity that everyone else has failed to obtain.


Indeed they do, although there are about four different levels of BBC news. However, I agree with you that the BBC hasn't achieved that kind of level of objectivity.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

justonemore said:


> I would hope that as with any news source, many Fox viewers will look at it as the story behind a story behind a story. There will always be those that take everything said by their prefered news source as something written in stone. So the answer to your question is...yes...but some people take BBC as being unbiased as well, right? I might take the BBC a bit more seriously but I still don't think for one moment that they have developed some type of international objectivity that everyone else has failed to obtain


The BBC is a bloated State Propaganda Channel.

In in its favour, there are no advert breaks which is useful for watching sport.

Against, it takes money from my pocket just for owning a TV set whether I watch its output or not.

The days when puritanical Lord Reith ensured standards were maintained and there was an objective of educating people have long since disappeared.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> The BBC is a bloated State Propaganda Channel.
> 
> In in its favour, there are no advert breaks which is useful for watching sport.
> 
> ...


I occasionally watch the BBC early morning news whilst preparing for the day.

The modern trend toward reading out (as news commentary, no less) a selection of mindless 'tweets' from the ignorant masses of the general population simply beggars belief.

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

How I long for the days of Pravda!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> How I long for the days of Pravda!


RT is a useful English language source.

Others are are not keen and there have been attempts to block it.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The flashier the graphics which precede the news become then the more trivial the content that follows.

Back in the day when you saw this ident you had a reasonable expectation that some actual reporting would commence:






Richard Baker, Robert Dougall and Kenneth Kendall gave it to you straight.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> RT is a useful English language source.
> 
> Others are are not keen and there have been attempts to block it.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage


Good Lord I was kidding!

RT is the modern day version of the Soviet era Pravda and the Guardian is not the only source that has criticized it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> The days when puritanical Lord Reith ensured standards were maintained and there was an objective of educating people have long since disappeared.


Broadcast Standards.

I remember those.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Broadcast Standards.
> 
> I remember those.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> Good Lord I was kidding!
> 
> RT is the modern day version of the Soviet era Pravda and the Guardian is not the only source that has criticized it.


Criticism by The Guardian is nothing to worry about.

It is an alternative to Anglo Saxon news sources. It would have been useful reading during The Gulf War for example.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Whacky Max Keiser on RT is also interesting watching for Finance news.

Certainly an alternative to the predictable Robert Peston et al on the Beeb.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Criticism by The Guardian is nothing to worry about.
> 
> It is an alternative to Anglo Saxon news sources. It would have been useful reading during The Gulf War for example.


If you want to balance out western and u.s. leaning publications, R.T. is a good place to go. Same with many Asian publications. If you took the middle ground between them all you might just stumble upon something closer to "the truth"...Meaning..... that it's usually a boring situation that all sides have somehow managed to exploit in order to lure advertisers . lol...

R.T. is at least closer to be honest about international situations than say ...The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, and the Chicago based Daily Herald... Alll of which pander to the local crowd versus dealing with anything overly nternational. They try but still just pretty much quote AP and Reuters (which hold obvious u.s. biases). As such, R.T. is much better that the C.T. in straight out objectivity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Imagine a local newspaper reporting on stories which pander to local concerns.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Whacky Max Keiser on RT is also interesting watching for Finance news.
> 
> Certainly an alternative to the predictable Robert Peston et al on the Beeb.


He is indeed. I love the way he uses the expression "Banksters"!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Imagine a local newspaper reporting on stories which pander to local concerns.


Imagine a paper reproting on international stories which pander to international concerns........

Any thoughts as to if is there is a Chicago news source doing so?

Oopps... I didn't think so...

But at least we can eliminate all Chicago news sources from being internationally objective....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> RT is a useful English language source.
> 
> Others are are not keen and there have been attempts to block it.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage


Press!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Imagine a paper reproting on international stories which pander to international concerns........
> 
> Any thoughts as to if is there is a Chicago news source doing so?
> 
> ...


You're daft!

This ran just today:

Press!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Article~


> An Ofcom spokesperson said: "Ofcom has strict rules to protect audiences. If broadcasters break our rules we take swift, robust action.


In the US we change the channel!!

(For now)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I must say that when I first visited the US I was surprised that there was no national newspaper, the local ones appeared to have an almost entirely local focus, with syndicated, and very limited, even national news. Television news struck me as very poor, very parochial, with "world news" appearing to be news from the rest of the US rather than from the rest of the world.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I must say that when I first visited the US I was surprised that there was no national newspaper, the local ones appeared to have an almost entirely local focus, with syndicated, and very limited, even national news. Television news struck me as very poor, very parochial, with "world news" appearing to be news from the rest of the US rather than from the rest of the world.


My good man. The rest of the world really doesn't matter now does it?

Every good citizen knows it's the US that really calls the shots!

opcorn:


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

CNN is the one I usually see - in foreign hotel rooms. Repetitive guff plus the loathsome Richard Quest.

Jim Clancy was the inoffensive tubby who read the news, but he has just been given the heave ho.

https://rt.com/usa/223895-jim-clancy-cnn-leaves/

Probably upset Blitzer.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> My good man. The rest of the world really doesn't matter now does it?
> 
> Every good citizen knows it's the US that really calls the shots!
> 
> opcorn:





SG_67 said:


> You're daft!
> 
> This ran just today:
> 
> Press!


Can you perhaps decide one way or the other versus taking pot shots in every direction?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> CNN is the one I usually see - in foreign hotel rooms. Repetitive guff plus the loathsome Richard Quest.
> 
> Jim Clancy was the inoffensive tubby who read the news, but he has just been given the heave ho.
> 
> ...


CNN isn't even "NEWS" anymore versus gossip... It now reminds me of the old cash register rags such as the National Enquirer....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Can you perhaps decide one way or the other versus taking pot shots in every direction?


Press!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Press!


I understand that you can't use much in the way of actual logic but your "Press" posts never work on any of my devices due to "security" concerns....I don't know if you're looking at infecting everyone's computers or if you're just linking to things for the fun of it, but perhaps your own words and logic can allow us to realize your viewpoint(s) a bit better comapred to risking our devices??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I understand that you can't use much in the way of actual logic but your "Press" posts never work on any of my devices due to "security" concerns....I don't know if you're looking at infecting everyone's computers or if you're just linking to things for the fun of it, but perhaps your own words and logic can allow us to realize your viewpoint(s) a bit better comapred to risking our devices??


Press!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^^^^



SG_67 said:


> Press!


Press!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pull!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Pull!!
> ]


At least that one works.... Perhaps you can give your little buddy a lesson?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> At least that one works.... Perhaps you can give your little buddy a lesson?


Press!


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

While I dont have anything important to add to the thread as started. I do want to take this opportunity to agree that while I used to go to CNN.com for a quick look at the days news events, I dont even bother anymore. I mean, I knew that it was not going to be the real deal but at least I thought I would get a quick synopsis of the days happenings in the world. No more. Our local newspapers are not much better and I find that USA today as a national publication is nice and colorful but perhaps a bit lacking. 
I recently found myself in an airport and picked up a copy of what looked to be a broad version of the Wall Street Journal with sections well outside of what I imagined was the original financial news. I was actually thinking of looking into a prescription. Your experience?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Press!


Press!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Woofa said:


> While I dont have anything important to add to the thread as started. I do want to take this opportunity to agree that while I used to go to CNN.com for a quick look at the days news events, I dont even bother anymore. I mean, I knew that it was not going to be the real deal but at least I thought I would get a quick synopsis of the days happenings in the world. No more. Our local newspapers are not much better and I find that USA today as a national publication is nice and colorful but perhaps a bit lacking.
> I recently found myself in an airport and picked up a copy of what looked to be a broad version of the Wall Street Journal with sections well outside of what I imagined was the original financial news. I was actually thinking of looking into a prescription. Your experience?


As to freebie airport newspapers I prefer the international version of The Financial Times. For an hour read through they seem to do a reasonable job of things.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Some of the bigger newspapers will have both a national and local edition. I know the NYT national edition covers more international stories but there is plenty of international news covered in the major US newspapers. 

Newspapers can only cover so much and have only so many resources. International news that is covered is typically done so with an eye toward those things in the national interest. Local elections somewhere in Thailand aren't something that weighs heavily on most of our minds.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Not that I'm aware of. There are certainly no Religious Police, either official or unofficial.


Article~


> It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the "ghairat brigade," an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.
> The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation - a mini-United Nations comprising the world's 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority - tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the "true values of Islam." During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It's made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activist
> 
> In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the , a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling "sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner." The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn't remove her face veil.
> ...


Now THAT's fascinating AND germane!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> 
> Now THAT's fascinating AND germane!!


In Britain in general, or London in particular, there are certainly no Religious Police, either official or unofficial, of the kind that this "expert" described. That Muslim organisations try to influence people internationally, as a kind of Islamic lobby, is no more unreasonable than a Christian lobby or a Jewish lobby doing so.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> That Muslim organisations try to *influence *people internationally, as a kind of Islamic lobby, is no more unreasonable than a Christian lobby or a Jewish lobby doing so.


Only this article is about Muslim organisations silencing and intimidating people internationally.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Only this article is about Muslim organisations silencing and intimidating people internationally.


So what is it's relevance to the reporting of non-existing Religious Police in London?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Only this article is about Muslim organisations silencing and intimidating people internationally.


So it's rather like this organisation? https://www.thejidf.org/ and Hasbara?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> So what is it's relevance to the reporting of non-existing Religious Police in London?


OK, from 2013. Maybe things have gotten better??

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/muslim-patrol-enforcing-sharia-e-london-article-1.1253893

A small group of Muslim extremists are patrolling the streets of East London, publicly targeting gays, drinkers and women who aren't dressed modestly, in an attempt to enforce Sharia law.

*The self-styled "Muslim Patrol" group has posted videos of at least three verbal attacks on YouTube. Out of the handful who participate in the attacks, at least five have been arrested on suspicion of harassment, according to CNN.* The group's alleged purpose is to defend Islamic morals, but numerous local and national Muslim leaders have denounced their dubious methods.

The vigilantes start their patrolling late at night and make sure that their faces don't appear on camera. The attacks were based in the Tower Hamlets area in London, some happening right outside the East London Mosque.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK, from 2013. Maybe things have gotten better??
> 
> https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/muslim-patrol-enforcing-sharia-e-london-article-1.1253893
> 
> ...


Yes, and if you read my earlier post you'll have seen that I'd already mentioned this incident, and that they were arrested and charged by the "proper" Police.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Yes, and if you read my earlier post you'll have seen that I'd already mentioned this incident, and that they were arrested and charged by the "proper" Police.


So it's agreed then.

Instead of the reporting of a non-existing Religious Police in London, we will call it the reporting of a no longer existing and unofficial Religious Police in London?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So it's agreed then.
> 
> Instead of the reporting of a non-existing Religious Police in London, we will call it the reporting of a no longer existing and unofficial Religious Police in London?


Would you refer to a very small group of fundamental Christian vigilantes briefly active in an American city as Religious Police?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Would you refer to a very small group of fundamental Christian vigilantes briefly active in an American city as Religious Police?


Are they are not tied into a movement of organized international terror and supported by foreign governments, YES!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are they are not tied into a movement of organized international terror and supported by foreign governments, YES!!


Which suggests that these people were being organised somehow internationally as part of a terrorist movement, supported by foreign governments, rather than a small group of misguided fanatics operating locally of their own volition, which is what they actually were.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Which suggests that these people were being organised somehow internationally as part of a terrorist movement, supported by foreign governments, rather than a small group of misguided fanatics operating locally of their own volition, which is what they actually were.


I'll take your word for it that they are not inspired by or connected with an international terrorist movement, supported by foreign governments, this time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'll take your word for it that they are not inspired by or connected with an international terrorist movement, supported by foreign governments, this time.


Don't take my word, read about it, the facts are there to see.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

There is a great tribe of Christians, Muslims and Jews who oppose evil doings in the name of religion. They are known as 'secular' people.... A clear division of state and church in every nation. That'd be a start...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Care to define what constitutes this 'clear division' Bjorn?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'll take your word for it that they are not inspired by or connected with an international terrorist movement, supported by foreign governments, this time.


In the same way as random acts of violence and terror carried out by citizens of Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence Are these people to be classed as Religious Police? Are these 



 ?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> There is a great tribe of Christians, Muslims and Jews who oppose evil doings in the name of religion. They are known as 'secular' people.... A clear division of state and church in every nation. That'd be a start...


That's contradictory. You can't be secular and represent your birth religion at the same time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Say what you will about Fox News, but Bill O'Reilly rules! :devil:


I just watched this. Do you really admire O'Reilly?


----------

