Taliban Offer Question-and-Answer Service Online 284
First time accepted submitter nachiketas points out this story about a new online service offered by the Taliban. "Worried about whether Islamic verses on Facebook are allowed? Or that suicide bombers kill innocent civilians? Afghanistan's Taliban have set up a new question-and-answer section on their website to address such issues. The facility on Voice of Jihad, the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — the Taliban's own name for their movement — allows readers to submit queries to spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. It is a demonstration of how far the insurgents' attitude towards technology has changed."
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to submit a ton of subversive questions to troll the Islamofascists.
But if I were to do that, I'm pretty sure that the US government's spying-on-our-own-civilians program won't notice the subversive quality of the questions, and the response would be more along the lines of "OMG this guy is talking to the terrorists!"
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
"If I submit a sincere question to you, will I find myself on no-fly lists and be investigated as a subversive by my own government?"
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Funny)
No
Re: (Score:3)
Stay thirsty, my friend.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You'll find the answer to all those questions except the last one in the old testament.
The answer to the last one is there as well.
"The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors." Deuteronomy 2:33-34
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the commandments and the other rules and regulations of the Bible (and I can only assume other scriptures as well) make a lot of sense if you consider the circumstances they were written in and they were very sensible in their time and age. Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh". It's simply easier to tell people not to eat certain foods with a religious "because God says so" if you cannot really explain it to them sensibly, lacking the scientific means to explain bacteria and parasites.
The problem is that the zealous are stuck in a system that's 2000+ years old, without acknowledging that the times change, that science and technology advanced and that certain rules that were very sensible back then simply do not apply anymore. If the Bible (Koran, whatever) was written today, it would contain no such nonsense. It would (hopefully) still contain the parts about not killing, stealing and lying. These parts are still important to make the cooperation of nonrelated human beings possible. One could argue that we wouldn't need commandments from a God for this matter and that our "morals" are "advanced" enough to understand from a logical point of view that this is a necessity. True for some. And I am fairly convinced it was already true for some back then who noticed that society will have a pretty hard time holding together when we have to assume (with good reason) that our neighbor just waits 'til we leave our home to take away our cows and sheep (or today our plasma TV and stereo) because he needs them and has none.
"Morals" are nothing but a convention dictated by society. Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family, aid them and fight the rest because they compete with you for the same resources. So, biologically, I should go over to my neighbor that I hardly speak to, bash his head in and take what was his. It's a social convention that I don't do that. And most societies these days are at least to some degree influenced by some religion, even if it is agnostic and atheist as can be, its morals are usually rooted in a religious background. Even as an atheist I cannot ignore that most of my moral values (namely don't lie, steal, kill, cooperate and the like) are very similar to those most religions teach. And I cannot say for sure that this is not influenced by the Christian society around me.
Personally, I consider it a sign of moral weakness if you need a religion to make you socially acceptable. In my eyes, an advanced human being is able to comprehend the implications of a lack of "morals" (I use the term loosely here, in the sense of "something that makes society possible where you don't have to watch your back constantly so you don't get a knife between your ribs") and that he has more to lose than to gain from a dog-eat-dog anarchy. Think of it as an applied prisoner's dilemma.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why skip them? They make sense too!
1. no god but god and all that.
Well, self serving. It's kinda a necessity to establish the justification of his rule. It also serves a very real purpose, if you could have other gods with other commandments, you might start to fight amongst each other who's right. For reference... well, look around you.
2. No images
Ok, that one was killed by the stonemasons' union, I guess. My guess is that it exists so rulers don't create an image of god that looks like them, which can also easily lead to unrest. Imagine the leader becomes unpopular (think Nero), that could lead to god becoming unpopular if they are unified.
3. not abusing god's name
Hard to do with a god that has none. But it's similar to why in many totalitarian systems making fun of the head of state is severely punishable. You cannot fear something that you mock.
4. sabbath and not working /. or chat, but really just sitting around and following a train of thought?
If you ask me, an early anti-burnout strategy. In its original form (and held high by very orthodox Jews) it means resting and doing NOTHING. Sitting around and waiting for the day to pass. I guess a lot of our burnout problem stems from lacking this, we have activities that we "must" do all week, even during our holidays we don't really rest. When was the last time you sat around and really did nothing? And I don't mean sit here and talk on
You see, I am not so sure that the "god commandments" are pointless. They have their meaning. Sure, mostly they are self serving to ensure that they stay in effect, but I wouldn't dismiss them. They were very important for their own "survival".
I admit, save for the 4th, they serve little real purpose anymore, but I can see why they had to exist.
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as it surpasses our "pack" level the society would break down, though.
I tried for the last hour to find it again, if anyone finds it please provide a link. I recently read an essay about it, where we are, essentially, pack animals who "choose" the members of their pack out of the current necessities. That translates into how you choose which friends and why today. Everyone has a "role" in a pack (or circle of friends) and if a role is not filled, we will try to find someone who fits the bill. It was
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You should also send these to your local church and synagogue.
Judaic law (Score:4, Interesting)
Christians believe first in the New Testament.
A lot of Christians also believe in the Old Testament.
the basis of our law system is ~90% Judaic law
No... The basis of U.S. law [wikipedia.org] is English common law, [wikipedia.org] which followed rulings made by the King's judges based English tradition and legal precedent. There was influence from some other legal systems, including the Roman one where Christianity was the state religion (as it was in England), but no direct link to Judaic law. Some laws developed that were heavily influenced by religious views - the death sentence for blasphemy and homosexuality being two obvious ones (see Thomas Aikenhead [wikipedia.org], John William Gott) [wikipedia.org]. Both of those were argued from Christian religious perspectives, primarily based on passages in the Bible.
Judaic law is far better than islamic law in that it's not racist
613 mitzvot: Wipe out the descendants of Amalek (every man, woman and child). [wikipedia.org] Genocide of another ethnic group is inherently racist.
There are plenty of others, for example, there are explicit passages that mandate setting a Hebrew slave free after 7 years, whilst Canaanite slaves must work forever.
And more recent racist religous law:
Say no to rabbis’ racism: [ynetnews.com] Back in 2010, some 50 of Israel’s most prominent rabbis issued a religious edict against Jews renting property to gentiles, "Leasing land to non-Jews blasphemous, anyone violating ban may be ostracized, rabbis say" Thirty-nine of those rabbis are on the government’s payroll, although their opinions vary drastically from the State of Israel’s official laws and ethos. After this incident, no rabbi was fired or brought to court for incitement.
Killing Non-Jewish Infants is Permitted: [about.com] "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directled mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers."
King's Torah splits Israel's religious and secular Jews: [bbc.co.uk] "Rabbis Dov Lior and Yacob Yousef had endorsed a highly controversial book, the King's Torah - written by two lesser-known settler rabbis. It attempts to justify killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances."
does not have slavery
It does, it is even explicitly permitted for a father to sell his pre-pubescent daughters into slavery as a "last resort" to get money. Judaism and slavery: [wikipedia.org] "Judaism's religious texts contain numerous laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves."
I of course, sadly, know the justification given in islamic text. Because he won military battles and his tactics will supposedly give his followers military domination over everyone else.
As opposed to the religious law that you apparently support, where the complete genocide of every living thing in a city is ok when "ordered by God"? Where followers are instructed to Wipe out the descendants of another tribe, To burn a city that has turned to idol worship, To destroy idols and their accessories (y
Re: (Score:3)
it's not quite as black and white as is often put.
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
This isn't black and white enough for you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it's "belittle people you don't know, whom are your enemies according to what somebody you don't know told you" day again?
If so, FUCK YOU, INFIDEL!!! :D
This is so much fun!!!1! Let's continue doing this for a few more millennia!
Little Bobby wants to know... (Score:3)
9. Have you sanitised your data inputs?'); DROP TABLE secret_terrorism_targets;--
Re: (Score:2)
1) Why are you arselifters all such surly, miserable bastards? Don't you think that a few beers and a bop might cheer y'all up a bit?
2) What's the deal with those silly hats - the ones that look like massive pies?
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
"9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"
An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.
But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.
Re: (Score:3)
"9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"
An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.
But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.
Unless, of course, it hits you in the ear.
10. Why does a vengeful, all-powerful deity need the assistance of ignorant mortals when someone, for example, burns some book?
Of Interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than some tactical intimidating-cell-operators-into-shutting-down-at-certain-times, based on the (plausible) theory that NATO was having a merry old time eavesdropping, I don't remember the Taliban being terribly anti-technology... Not particularly big enthusiasts(in public) of internet pornography or applied empiricism; but perfectly happy to use technological artifacts where available.
I do look forward to seeing what the
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, Taliban used to ban TVs on territory they controlled.
Re:Umm? (Score:4, Informative)
But is that due to speech / communication they didn't like, or because it was technology itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter?
Re: (Score:3)
It matters if your objective is to figure out why things are the way they are, in the interest of figuring out how to change those things. History is replete with cases of people trying to effect change by attacking problems from angles that represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the contributing factors involved, with accordingly hilarious or disastrous results, depending on your perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.
Re: (Score:2)
I make no such assumption. Rather, I start from the assumption that in many scenarios, they cannot be reasoned with in any useful capacity. However, to assume that the treatment of any organization, which is necessarily comprised of individuals operating within a structure, should be completely black and white is a foolish approach. Likewise, unilateral action of any kind taken in support of or against any such organization without understanding the precise workings of the body in question is likely to be j
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
For sure. It's like reasoning with Rick Santorum. I mean, here's Foreign Policy magazine's quiz to see if you can successfully identify the difference between Rick's quotes and those of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party [foreignpolicy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people." -House, MD
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.
Your parent's comment doesn't require that property. Even if you are dealing with irrational animals, what you know about how they function will still help you solve problems exactly the same way if it were otherwise.
Making up random facts won't help your cause. Either you'd be fooling yourself to believe that some action is helping your cause, or someone else would be doing it for you. Then you'd be the one who's irrational, no?
Also, are you making the unfounded assumption that "extremists" like the Taliba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and nothing of value was lost...
Re:Umm? (Score:4, Funny)
Best story I heard about that: The Taliban drove up to this woman's house in an SUV and said, "Sister, in the times of the Prophet, they didn't have televisions."
She said to them: "In the times of the Prophet they didn't have automobiles either. Come back on a camel."
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking, but did you know that e.g. Wahhabi don't wear underpants, because "the Prophet didn't"?
Somehow it doesn't prevent them from carrying AKs and RPGs, though. Why not wage some honest-to-Allah jihad with swords and bows? The Prophet did it that way, after all, and it worked for him.
Re: (Score:2)
That was supposed to be a real story. I think I read it in the Wall Street Journal.
I can believe that Pashtun women say things like that.
Re: (Score:2)
And they didn't punish her for talking back to a man?
I have trouble believing this story...
Re: (Score:2)
She was raped and stoned to death after she said this retort, then her sons were killed and daughters taken as wives for the killers. But the joke isn't funny when that piece of realism is added on.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you been to Afghanistan?
Or do you just depend on stereotypes you get from tv, radio and newspapers?
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Funny)
hence the name - telly ban
Re: (Score:2)
True. They are Islamist, not Amish.
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering their goal is to bring us back about a thousand years, it stands to reason that they have issues with technology. From Wikipedia:
Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Their goal is far more primitive than that. Is is simply to ensure that they can continue to sexually abuse the women they call they wifes (of any age and more than one) and force them to obedient slaves.
That they be able to violently react to anyone who challenges their male rights and their ability to hide behind a religious book and claim God made them them narcissists so that is normal behaviour.
Now when it comes to laying the blame, first door to kick in and find some arses to kick would be in the
Re: (Score:2)
They banned the old soviet weather balloons as sorcery (equating weather forecasting with telling the future).
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked they were quite eager to trash them.
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Informative)
they liked airplanes
No. You're confusing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban wasn't involved in 9/11 and they even condemned the attack.
The website itself (Score:5, Informative)
Neither TFS nor TFA link to the website in question, so here's it:
http://shahamat-english.com/ [shahamat-english.com]
Unfortunately, it seems that the English version doesn't have a Q&A section, so you can't troll them unless you know Pashto. Too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Google Translate do Pashto?
Re: (Score:3)
Whats funny is that the contact for the website is a gmail address. I wonder if they opted out of googles user data retention....
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, it's a .com domain - which, as we know, is de facto fully in US jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither TFS nor TFA link to the website in question, so here's it:
http://shahamat-english.com/ [shahamat-english.com]
Unfortunately, it seems that the English version doesn't have a Q&A section, so you can't troll them unless you know Pashto. Too bad.
If you really want to ask them a question, that site lists an gmail address and a phone number...
Re:Not too difficult (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful with that. "My hovercraft is full of eels." isn't much of an exaggeration.
Why ... (Score:5, Funny)
Can we get that on Slashdot?
Not a good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?
I'm not sure that it's an encouraging sign when we are more afraid of what our government will do to us for accessing a terrorists' website than what the terrorists will.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?
I'm not sure that it's an encouraging sign when we are more afraid of what our government will do to us for accessing a terrorists' website than what the terrorists will.
Honestly, just visiting that website will not get you flagged for anything. Do they monitor that website? Possibly. But unless you actively go to other sites, such as the al Qaeda training/recruiting forums or the websites that usually get beheading/propaganda videos, you would not show up in any cross referencing the government would do. A lot of the people that go to websites such as this have no connection with the Taliban. It could be academics, reporters, the curious, or hell even a few trolls (th
Re: (Score:2)
I figure they had me tagged when I came here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's reassuring. If I visit that website, Homeland Security will merely record my name and file it away in case I visit any other suspicious websites.
Re:Not a good sign (Score:5, Interesting)
There's actually a few questions I'd like to ask them myself (won't bother, since I assume they only take questions in Farsi, or maybe Arabic as well, neither of which I speak). I can probably guess their answers, but hearing it straight from them, instead of indirectly through our own "expert analysis", would be... well, more scientific, I suppose. Direct observations are almost always more accurate and reliable than indirect observations.
First, I'd ask "if you had the ability to eliminate every 'infidel' from the planet, would you?". Second, "if the invaders were to leave, completely, on the sole condition that Afghanistan become a non-Islamic, but non anti-Islamic, state, would that be preferable to continued occupation?"
The first is sort of a "can we co-exist with these people? can they be reasonable?" If we were to leave them completely alone, would they keep to themselves, or would they remain a threat to our security? A classical Islamic state would tolerate 'infidels' even in their own country - during the Middle Ages, all you had to do was pay an extra tax, and *that* was mainly to get out of the military draft. It was illegal to *leave* the state religion (on pain of death, often), but for the most part, if you stayed quiet and obeyed the secular laws, the religious laws left you alone. However, a modern fundamentalist Islamic state probably would not be so... tolerant.
The second is a "what do they care more about: being left alone, or being fundamentalist Muslims?" Because, undoubtedly, a fundamentalist state of any religion is generally bad. Even a fundamentalist atheist state would be oppressive and essentially *wrong*. So it is in the best interests of justice, of humanity, that Afghanistan not revert to a fundamentalist Islamic state, as the Taliban desires. However, I suspect that much of their popular support comes not from people wanting to be ruled by some theocrat, but by people who want the invaders out of their homeland. I can sympathize - I want our "invaders" out of their homeland and back in ours, as well. The question is, would their leadership accept not ruling Afghanistan themselves if it meant a free Afghanistan? It's not likely, given the past decade, but it's possible. And any possibility for a peaceful but beneficial resolution to war is worth entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Farsi is French for Persian. It's the language of Iran. Arabic is the Esperanto of the Islamic world. Lots of dialects, but generally mutually intelligible all over. Start with that, and move to Pashto, and then one of the many other other languages spoken in Afghanistan. Persian would not be the language of first choice, since Iran prefers to sneak around rather than make things obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Esperanto? I think the term you where looking for is lingua franca.
Re:Not a good sign (Score:4, Informative)
Farsi is French for Persian.
No, Farsi is the Persian word for Persian. The French for Persian is apparently "persan".
Citation [wiktionary.org]
And Arabic is not the Esperanto of the Islamic world - unless Arabic is the idealistic but extremely rare constructed language intended for auxiliary use but ultimately relegated to a small hopeful minority. Arabic is more the Latin of the Islamic world - the Holy Book is written* in it, so many people know it, even in areas where nobody speaks it historically.
* Yes, I know the Bible was not originally in Latin, but the most common version, especially in the Middle Ages, was.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the official language of Afghanistan is Pashto, I doubt they'll take any questions in Farsi.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, could have sworn Farsi (aka Persian) is the main language of Afghanistan.
And Wikipedia seems to back me up: "Dari... or Farsi-ye Dari...As defined in the Constitution of Afghanistan, it is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan; the other is Pashto. Dari is the most widely spoken language in Afghanistan and the mother-tongue of approximately 50% of the population, serving as the country's lingua franca."
In any case, I don't speak it.
Re: (Score:2)
won't bother, since I assume they only take questions in Farsi, or maybe Arabic as well, neither of which I speak
I thought checking that was trivial - like, going there and having a look - and then it turns out that our news agencies are still deep within the middle ages. How can you write a whole article about a website without providing the URL ???
Fortunately, we have Google. But it appears the site is slashdotted - at least it's slow:
http://shahamat-english.com/ [shahamat-english.com]
but the site is in english, so I don't see why they wouldn't be answering questions in english.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's the polite alternative for "asshole". There are atheists who are very nice people and don't really care what other people believe or don't believe, such as Sir Terry Pratchett. Then there are the other kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not. But isn't it interesting?
Gives you that good ol' fuzzy Soviet feeling, where you feared your government more than your enemy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe YOU are more afraid of the government than of the people who convince random people blow up other random people. I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now why on Earth did you access this terrorist website?"
"For the last time, it's called trolling, you goddamn noob!"
I am not sure I would be so brave whilst sitting in my orange jumpsuit.
Might make a great Tango advert though. (tango the orangey fizzy drink not the dance).
Mod me redundant... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't miss it. Mod me curmudgeon.
Re: (Score:3)
The world is so fundamentally ridiculous, April Fools' Day has been deemed redundant and surplus to requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait....haha, you got me...fuck you!
God is great and made of marshmallows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also have a funny article on nappy wearing: (Score:2)
Dear Mullah Taliban (Score:2)
Should infidels who blaspheme believers with "April Fools" jesting be forcibly circumcised before the mujaheddin behead them in the name of Allah? -- Konfused in Kandahar
April Fools? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe no. It looks pretty ... I don't want to say "legit" but it's stupid enough to be believable.
There are lots of things I would like to ask, but I can't expect any answers I would like to hear. The fact is, they are of the mindset that the world should change for them rather than they find a way to get along with the rest of the world. That's where the conversations should probably end. But then again, the rest of the world probably thinks that about the U.S... you know, with all the copyrigh
Probably pretty tame stuff, mostly (Score:2)
I doubt it's much different from the "ask the mullah" pages on less radical Islamic sites. They're usually about some really mundane stuff, though the subjects probably seem pretty odd to non-muslims. Lots of questions about ritual ablutions (washing up) and what sorts of things make you "ritually unclean" again.
Looking at the site (Score:5, Informative)
OK, so they have a web site. [shahamat-english.com] It's hosted in Malaysia, runs Joomla content management, and uses Gmail for replies. They have Facebook and Twitter links. Their videos are on Youtube, and they have a movie site [shahamat-movie.com] to provide a front for them. The video isn't too useful without translation.
"The Afghanistan Of Islam Rejects Pollution of Western Democracy" [shahamat-english.com] is interesting reading. It's a good summary of the theocratic position, and gives some insight into why this is such a tough war to end.
gmail (Score:3)
I'm not sure they get the irony, but their contact person has a gmail.com e-mail address.
So a) anything he receives or writes probably gets copied to the NSA in realtime and b) he's supporting the US advertisement industry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?
Probably big fans. It's pretty hard to have a proper Jihad against the infidel Crusaders if they don't arrive at a battlefield within convenient commuting distance of your favorite rugged hideout and start acting unsympathetically enough that you can keep up the PR campaign.
While the supine American media in general have done a pretty good job of supporting exactly that, Fox has really gone out of their way to emphasize nationalist bellicosity with a sharp Christian edge. Far better foils then some centr
Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news (Score:4, Interesting)
I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?
Probably big fans.
Actually, they hate Fox, and are big MSNBC fans [washingtonpost.com]. The same piece in the Washington Post also said that they were bummed when Keith Olbermann was fired.
Re: (Score:2)
The al-Qaeda spinmeister didn’t like Fox News (“let her die in her anger”), but it’s hard to understand why. Surely Rupert Murdoch’s network, with its saturation coverage of the war on terror, did more to elevate bin Laden’s profile than any other news outlet.
I would concur with that analysis; Murdoch and Fox News elevated a mad dog into a war fighter.
Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that their epistemological gold standard is "I read in a book that a dude said god told him..."
oh my goodness there are christians and catholics in the taliban!?
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, did that percentage happen to surge since the 2002 midterms?
Considering the hateful garbage the GOP has rather unabashedly spewed out about them in the past ten years, it's kind of hard to be surprised...
Their respect for women is conditional (Score:3, Interesting)
A liberal woman receives full support. Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant. I don't agree with the term "slut" in any case, but here at least it was in context.
Compare to the left's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann (for the record, I like neither of them). Downright vile content is constantly spewed at their mere mention.
Re: (Score:3)
Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant.
On no occasion in her testimony did Sandra Fluke use herself as an example for why she felt insurance should cover hormone pills. The examples she did use were of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis; in none of her examples was prevention of pregnancy the purpose of the pills. Rush Limbaugh appears to have been sexually attracted to her, which is fine; what is not clear is why he needed to express his fantasies about watching her have sex to the world at large.
Read the transcript of Sa
Re: (Score:2)
Great recruitment channel. If you weren't pissed on the West, you sure are after watching it for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And here I was, thinking that this was TV's duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Allah makes them work.
Why do you think these fundamentalists have any more insight than ours?
Re: (Score:2)
Think for a moment. 72 virgins. For all eternity. That's awfully few virgins in the long run, don't you think? I mean, even if you only use one per year you won't even last a century. And then?
I don't know the details, but I guess Allah ain't much more keen on wanking than the bearded guy on his fluffy cloud.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you just get to fuck them one time you know...
The whole virgin thing probably came about because it was vastly preferable to sloppy seconds with a camel.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... what about virgin camels?
Re: (Score:3)
They also have something else in common with AskSanta.com in that there is no Allah, either.
Re: (Score:2)