A Freethinker's Paradise

The Pope and Muslims

I've heard quite a bit about Muslims being upset with the Pope over his comments on Islam recently.  Could it all be a misunderstanding?

The recent comments by the pope about Muslims stems from a lack of proper knowledge about Islam, but they 'were an unintentional', said a Muslim scholar.

Dialogue and understanding are the best ways to eliminate 'ignorance and unawareness about Islam', said the prominent Syrian scholar Dr Mohammad Al Bouti during the Dubai International Holy Quran Award (DIHQA) on Monday.

This is why (to me) I wish religions had never come around, particularly monotheistic ones.  Why?  Because I think people tend to project themselves onto the Deity in some senses, and when the Deity is disparaged, they feel like their very reason for living is being attacked, and they react accordingly.

Another reason why I don't trust 'born again' Christians

Check this out:

Linda Harvey is the Founder and President of Mission America, which focuses on homosexuality and its destructive impact on youth.  Linda told LifeSiteNews.com she is a convert to Christianity and left her former life as a ‘liberal’ during which she was even a volunteer for Planned Parenthood. This message is primarily directed to Christian familiies and youth and is given from the perspective of a believer in traditional, authentic Christian moral and spiritual principles.

Ah, to be able to make baseless assertions and assume they're true:

There’s a lot at stake. Everyday, the following scenes are being played out in the lives of ordinary American kids:

• An emotionally-vulnerable boy or girl is seduced into participating in homosexual acts by a peer or an older homosexual

• A confused young person dwells on and begins to believe privately he/she was “born” homosexual, after hearing it implied endlessly in our culture.

• An adolescent turns way from authentic Christian faith, becoming convinced the Bible’s message on homosexuality is hateful, primitive or an incorrect translation.

• A boy or girl wrongly advises a friend that it’s okay to be ‘gay’ and a Christian at the same time.

• A troubled teen believes a sex change would solve his or her problems, and begins to dress and act as the opposite sex.

• A curious, poorly supervised teen discovers, and becomes sexually aroused by, homosexual pornography on the Internet. He/she incorrectly concludes that such arousal reveals an inborn homosexual nature.

 

Oops, no data.  Therefore, I assume its bullshit.

Bill Clinton tore up Fox News

I'm actually surprised Fox News aired the interview, since Clinton absolutely destroyed Fox News 'fair and balanced' veneer.  Fox may try to spin it, but there's only so much you can do about things like that.  Watch the clip over at crooksandliars.

Hopefully Clinton stays in 'no BS' mode.

Republicans at it again

Over at DKos, there's a diary about how Colorado Republicans may be cheating.  Again. But since campaign finance laws don't mean a damn thing, they'll keep doing it.

And in other news, the FBI has to expand in order to keep up with all the corruption that's going on.  And they won't stop.  They'll Never Stop.

Someday we'll talk about Olbermann's Stand

Against BushCo, like we talk about Murrow and Mandel taking a stand against McCarthy:

And lastly tonight a Special Comment on why we are here. Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.
      And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
And all the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and — as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul — two more in the Towers.
      And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
      I belabor this to emphasize that, for me… this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
      And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft", or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
      However. Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds… none of us could have predicted… this.
      Five years later this space… is still empty.
      Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.
      Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
      Five years later this country’s wound is still open.
      Five years… later this country’s mass grave is still unmarked.
      Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.
      It is beyond shameful.
      —
      At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said "we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
      Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
      Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We can nto dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground." So we won’t.
      Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.
      Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.
      And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
      —
      And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.
      There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
      The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
      Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
      Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
      Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.
       History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
       It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
       Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
       The President — and those around him — did that.
       They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
       They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.
       The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is "lying by implication."
        The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."
        Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
        Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
        Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.
        Yet what is happening this very night?
        A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
        The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
       How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever "spin" 9/11.
       —
       Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero…
       So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
       This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney’s continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
       And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
       In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm.
       Suddenly his car — and only his car — starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man’s lights go on.
       As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced.
       An "alien" is shot — but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help.
       The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials areseen, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there’s no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it’s themselves."
       And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight.
       "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.
       "For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
       —
       When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…
       When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
       Who has left this hole in the ground?
      We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
      You have.
      May this country forgive you.
      —

Keith unleashes the fury on Bush.

ABC could be sued by Clinton Administration members and American Airlines

If ABC meant 'make shit up whenever we feel like it,' then their movie yesterday was 'really what happened.'  Bill Clinton and American Airlines liked it so much, they might just say so in court:

September 10, 2006

Dear Bob,

We are deeply disappointed that ABC and the Disney Corporation chose to air "The Path to 9/11." The final product was fraught with error and contained contrived scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions of viewers' minds a false impression of critical historical events.

While there is not enough room here to fully document the fiction in your film, attached to this letter is a detailed fact sheet listing the numerous inaccuracies in the film according to the 9/11 Commission.

Nine days ago, we wrote to you asking simply that the miniseries tell the truth, as researched extensively and definitively by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We asked that your network not present outright fiction as historical fact to the American public. In fact, we took pains to detail sequences in the movie that were plainly invented, based upon the version of the film that was shown to television critics and distributed to many conservative commentators. During our two recent conversations, you assured us that you were personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made. Publicly, ABC said that the editing process was ongoing and that it was irresponsible" to condemn the film before seeing the finished product.

Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. "The Path to 9/11" flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission's work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.

That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton

Defamation is no joke.  So ABC should be worried about this, not to mention what the shareholders will think.  American Airlines likes it too:

One scene in the show's first night featured hijacker Mohammed Atta walking up to an American Airlines counter in Boston. A warning pops up, but airline employees allow him to board anyway. Two American Airlines planes were hijacked in the 9/11 attacks, and Flight 11, with Mr. Atta aboard, crashed into the World Trade Center.

The warning depicted in the movie actually popped up when Mr. Atta went to board a plane from Maine to Boston, not in Boston, and the airline wasn't American. Pre-9/11, warnings issued were to ensure that bags of last-minute passengers traveled with them.

Roger Frizzell, American's VP of corporate communications and advertising, in an e-mail posted on liberal Web site Americablog.blogspot.com and confirmed by American as genuine, expressed astonishment at the scene.

"I think it is important for you to know that ABC had factual errors in its dramatization, and we are looking at possible legal actions as a result," Mr. Frizzell said in the e-mail. "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it was not American Airlines, nor was it even the right airport that was depicted.

"Please know this was a tragic incident in our company's history and we hope you will be

sympathetic to our employees and our airline on this day especially.

"Again, we are outraged by this situation, and we alerted ABC about its

gross error. It is very unfortunate."

In a public statement today, American was more restrained. "The Disney/ABC television program, 'The Path to 9/11,' is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001," said spokesman Tim Wagner. "A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents."

Up to now, Democrats have been the most outspoken about the program and had been trying to get changes or get the program pulled. They won some changes, but former Clinton Administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said today that the edited version was still flawed.

Mr. Berger didn't say whether he plans to take the issue to court.

The original version of the show featured a segment in which Mr. Berger is shown slamming down a phone after refusing to order the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. The phone-slamming was edited out, along with some other changes ABC made. Berger said the scene still misrepresented the facts.

"ABC had an opportunity to edit this film to eliminate scenes that were untrue and in many cases directly contradicted by the 9/11 Report. They did not do so," Berger said in a statement.

"It is an inaccurate and misleading portrayal of the Clinton Administration's commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In particular, a scene depicting a meeting involving [CIA director] George Tenet and me about a proposed operation in Afghanistan against bin Laden never occurred—nor did anything like it ever occur—as we have repeatedly told ABC."

ABC did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

If I were ABC I wouldn't comment either.  I simply wonder what ABC will say... I imagine it could be something like this:

Suck it.  We aired the show, and there really isn't anything you can do about it now.  I for one welcome our new Republican Overlords.

Ok, so they probably won't say that, but what will they say?  I wonder how silly people are going to look that touted this show as 'the truth.'  When Harvey Keitel has to hire his own factchecker, you know something is wrong.

Oops, we went to war on a lie. My bad.

I know some of you have said that Saddam/Iraq was/is the heart of terrorism against the US.  But you'd be wrong:

There‘s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq . Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush ‘s justification for going to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam‘s government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

The long-, , ), D-Mich., a member of the committee, is "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration‘s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

So what do you think of your Great (Deceptive, Incompetent) Leader now?  I imagine someone will try to say it was worth it anyway.  But you know that isn't correct.  Just admit BushCo. needs to retire.  All of them.

What is stopping a Christian from killing an Atheist/Agnostic if their leader tells them to?

I would like an answer to this question.

In my mind, there isn't much stopping it from occuring.