With the holy time of Ramadan here, Islamic terrorists use this time to terrorize and kill. And "moderates" just want to impose their view of Sharia on whole populaces... You would think during this holy month, peace would prosper... http://news.yahoo.com/bombs-kill-11-wound-38-town-near-baghdad-172718877.html http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2012/07/21/muslims-begin-ramadan-fast-bombs-hit-thai-south http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...ts-liberalism-pluralism-are-enemies-of-islam/ We need less Islamist beacons of light, not more.
More stupidity! Why should one Muslim tell another Muslim how to practice Religion? http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/22/227787.html
Freedom of speech? Not in Pakistan. a whole village turned to rioting over a rumor... http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\07\19\story_19-7-2012_pg13_5
Whatever happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the USA. It was the USA that took upon itself full responsibility for everything that happens in Iraq, just as the US blamed everything that happened in Iraq on Saddam Hussein. The US bombed Iraq for 20 years, starved them, destroyed their money, most, if not all civilian infrastructure, destroyed all security for iraqis, assisted terrorists to run around the country planting bombs and doing assassinations. 2 US coalition terrorists caught shooting people and planting bombs in crowded areas in Iraq. When these 2 killers were arrested by Iraqis, the US coalition attacked the Iraqi Police to rescue the terrorists.
http://www.vsubhash.com/article.asp?id=107&info=How_To_Spy_On_Foreign_Governments There are others. Me surprised GodTom not hear of this event. Grape vine in Homs, Syria
It's interesting that you left out the most news worthy story Syria where your US government are heavily involved with their Qatari and Saudi allies this Ramadhan funding the Islamic Wahabi jihadists who are slitting the throats of the people including Christians but as typical US hypocrites of course those terrorists are your OWN terrorists so there fore are not called terrorists! but rebels!
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?...kind-of-terror&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69 The right kind of terrorists
When 'Terrorists' Become 'Freedom Fighters' One of our messageboard visitors posted an extract from a New York Times article on the apparently increasingly effective use of improvised explosive devices by the Syrian ‘insurgency’: ‘Joseph Holliday, a former American Army intelligence officer who is now an analyst covering Syria for the Institute of the Study of War, in Washington, said the changes were not in the rate of attacks, but in a rapidly evolving prowess . . . ‘ . . . The exact means by which anti-Assad fighters have improved their manufacture and use of bombs, and who trained them, is not clear. ‘Mr. Holliday said the capability "comes in part from the expertise of Syrian insurgents who learned bomb-making while fighting U.S. troops in eastern Iraq"'. The poster, Peter, then made the point that: ‘while they were “fighting U.S. troops in eastern Iraq”, we were told in no uncertain terms that they were evil, terrorist bad guys. Islamo-fascist, Al Qaeda linked, Saddam sympathisers who had to be mercilessly slaughtered.’ Now apparently similar forces in Syria using similar tactics to attack an ‘enemy regime’ are cast as ‘rebels’ or 'freedom fighters' helping to foment a ‘revolution’ as part of the latest stage of the ‘Arab Spring’....
Propaganda Rule Number One It should hardly need to be emphasised that criticising Western state and corporate propaganda about events in Syria should in no way be interpreted as support for Assad. To suggest this, as a few critics have done, is cynical, ignorant and deceitful. Over the years, we have been accused of being pro-Milosevic, pro-Saddam, pro-Gaddafi, pro-Iran, pro-Assad, and even pro-North Korea, when what we have done is expose Western media bias against these official enemies of the West. As a matter of simple common sense it should be obvious that highlighting systemic bias in the corporate media is important, regardless of ones moral evaluation of the targets of that bias. Glenn Greenwald sums up what matters here: Im certainly not calling into question the heinous violence and oppression of the Syrian regime (though I think Western Manichean reporting on the nature of the fighting and the identity of the rebels has been typically and substantially oversimplified). The point here is that we pretend Terrorism has some sort of objective meaning and that it is the personification of pure evil which all decent people (and Good Western nations) by definition categorically despise, when neither of those claims is remotely true. Noam Chomsky often cites a definition of terrorism from a US army manual as: the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. By this definition, the major source of international terrorism is the West, notably the United States with the UK an ever-reliable accomplice. The point is that Western mainstream media outlets report from a propaganda viewpoint that accords with Western state ideology. Violence perpetrated by enemy actors is terrorism; what we or our allies do is counterterrorism or peace-keeping. This is arguably the first rule of propaganda. But the question we keep asking is: Why are we the good guys? Despite its publicly-funded obligation to be fair and impartial, BBC News is forever trapped in this ideological mire. Consider the BBC article asking the loaded question, Is it time to intervene in Syria?, and answered by five leading analysts. The very question presupposes some kind of ordained right by Nato and its allies to intervene. None of the five leading analysts, all linked to Western governments or their major institutions, even question the premise of the question. And in any case who should intervene? According to the BBC, its that amorphous entity known as the international community which, as Chomsky points out, is a technical term referring to Washington and whoever happens to agree with it. (Hopes and Prospects, London, 2010, pp. 196-197). That this international community has shocked and awed its way around the Middle East and beyond - obliterating lives, nations infrastructures, hopes and dreams - is the kind of rational analysis so often deemed irrelevant by BBC News and the rest of the mainstream media.
