MSNBC: Honoring the 9/11 hijackers

[FlashHarry]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/958200.asp?0cv=CB20


This is too disgusting for words.

[teryang]

1. This is bs

I really find the whole article completely implausible. I suspect it is a psychological operation hoping to rekindle enthuasiasm for a failed foreign policy by making the false connections between Iraq and 911 all over again.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlashHarry]

3. Careful.

I agree that fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous, but to indict religion as a whole is wrong. In fact, it sounds rather fundamentalist to me.

[The Stranger]

17. That's funny. I've never known fundamentalism to exist

without some religion for it to prey upon.

I don't think people should be threatened for speaking critically of religion. And don't dare tell me to be "careful."

[FlashHarry]

21. I'm not threatening you.

Read my post before you accuse me of making threats.

But you are making a blanket statement that all religion is bad, which is ignorant and blinkered, in addition to being offensive to many DUers who consider themselves religious, in one way or another.

On edit: I'll tell you to be careful if I want. Whether or not you follow my advice is, of course, up to you.

Oh, and fundamentalism isn't necessarily religious. That's why there's the concept of religious fundamentalism. If they were synonymous, the concept would be redundant.

[The Stranger]

23. I read your post and the threat is there. Of what are we to be "careful."

But you are making a blanket statement that all religion is bad, which is ignorant and blinkered, in addition to being offensive to many DUers who consider themselves religious, in one way or another.

That is not my post, so perhaps you should go back and read it again. But, now that you mention it, it may very well be the case that all religion is bad. And if someone wants to make that case, then they are free to do so. If you feel threatened by someone so stating, then that is your own fucking problem. Perhaps you should also speak for yourself until you are otherwise appointed to speak "for many DUers."

The now overused response about "overgeneralization" is not only inapplicable, it may be dangerous in that it may silence critical thinking and dissent, as explained above. People are free to criticize religion just as they are free to criticize other human activities. Unfortunately, critical thinking is often a casualty to many "religious" types, in particular those who are fundamentalist.

Oh, and fundamentalism isn't necessarily religious. That's why there's the concept of religious fundamentalism. If they were synonymous, the concept would be redundant.

Fundamentalism is form of religious belief and practice. Further, what makes you think that the English language is without redundancy? (Note, the "English language" may also be considered redundant by your analysis). English is a form of language.

[FlashHarry]

24. Ha!

Let's parse this little snippet from your delightful post:

But, now that you mention it, it may very well be the case that all religion is bad. And if someone wants to make that case, then they are free to do so. If you feel threatened by someone so stating, then that is your own fucking problem. Perhaps you should also speak for yourself until you are otherwise appointed to speak "for many DUers."

Let's replace 'religion is' with 'black people are.' (e.g. But, now that you mention it, it may very well be the case that all black people are bad. And if someone wants to make that case, then they are free to do so.) Would you feel the same? Or does anti-religious rhetoric get a special dispensation in your book? Just curious.

On edit: I still don't see any threat. I referred to the original post as 'blinkered,' but I didn't threaten any one--unless you interpret the word 'careful' as a threat, to which I would reply in your own words, "If you feel threatened by someone so stating, then that is your own fucking problem."

[The Stranger]

33. At least be honest in your debate.

Replacing "religion" with "black people" is based on a blatantly false analogy, and your argument is disingenous at best. One is a group of people and the other is a human activity.

It was disingenous for you to conveniently leave this sentence out of your quotation of my post:

People are free to criticize religion just as they are free to criticize other human activities.

At least be honest in your debate.

[FlashHarry]

36. False, in your opinion.

(And in mine, too, by the way) but who's to say? If people are free to criticize religion, why aren't they free to criticize race, however misguided? It sure looks like anti-religious rhetoric does get a pass in your particular code of ethics. Now who's being disingenuous?

My problem isn't with what you said, it's with how you said it: But, now that you mention it, it may very well be the case that all religion is bad. And if someone wants to make that case, then they are free to do so. You (and the original poster) are speaking in absolutes, which is a facile, ignorant, and possibly offensive thing to do.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. Absolutes

> My problem isn't with what you said, it's with how you said it: But, now that you mention it, it may very well be the case that all religion is bad. And if someone wants to make that case, then they are free to do so. You (and the original poster) are speaking in absolutes, which is a facile, ignorant, and possibly offensive thing to do.

Speaking in absolutes? What part of "may" you don't understand?

[FlashHarry]

49. I was referring to the original post. I should have been more clear.

Yes, I do understand the qualifier may. The original post (which has since been deleted) said something like, 'until people realize that all religion is crap...'

I was also referring to the question (stated in my other post) of whether or not the poster would feel the same if the words 'religion is' were replaced with the words 'black people are.' In other words, does he or she feel bashing religion is somehow permissible when bashing a particular ethnic group would not be? I'm just trying to ascertain the ground rules.

[jiacinto]

11. Another attack on religion

I am no fan of fundamentalism, but attacking all religion is not fair or right either.

[The Stranger]

18. I think saying things like

attacking all religion is not fair or right either.

. . . could be one of the most idiotic statements I have seen posted on DU. "Attacking religion" is not fair or right? Who the fuck made you the judge of what is "fair or right"?

I am pretty fucking alarmed that some "religious" people here are trying to silence dissent and critical thinking about religion.

[Rose Siding]

30. Try some of that critical thinking on the concept of absolutes

No one is trying to silence dissent. FlashHarry's suggestion of caution was merely a reminder urging sensitivity to religious DUers.

If you aren't capable of that and Carlos finds that unfair and wrong, he gets to say so.

You even get to go on being an unenlightened boor, if you choose.

[The Stranger]

34. Nice.

I should know to take advice about sensitivity from someone who has to stoop to direct insults. (And uncreative insults at that).

[FlashHarry]

37. Who's insulting whom?

A quote from you: "If you feel threatened by someone so stating, then that is your own fucking problem. Perhaps you should also speak for yourself until you are otherwise appointed to speak "for many DUers."" Such language!

[bemildred]

39. I dunno.

Works as a psyop, sure. Always tempting to want to revisit
past "glories", although I think the 9/11 stuff is getting old.

But my first reaction when I heard of the WTC attack, aside
from that sick feeling, was to be impressed with what they had
pulled off. When hatred obscures proper respect for ones enemies,
it becomes a danger to you. This seems to be a real problem for
our current ruling elites, and is part of why we are in such
a muddle. They just cannot accept that these Islamic fellows
might be as smart as they are.

I don't find it at all implausible that the downtrodden of the
Earth would rejoice in seeing the rich and powerful take one in
the chops. It's an utterly normal human reaction, and the fact
that we find it unpalatable does not change that at all.

[Paschall]

4. Mr. Blair's really doing his part to thwart terrorism

NOT

[leQ]

5. must be slow news cycle

because this was on exhibit for one of the talkheads a month or two ago.

[FlashHarry]

6. Hmm. Maybe MSGOP got the call to gin up anti-Muslim hatred.

[treepig]

7. i wish god would get his or her act together

in the msnbc article it says god told the 9-11 hijackers to attack

later, he (or she) told mr. bush to attack the sponsors of these hijackers (afghanistan) as well as some unrelated bystanders (iraq)

why doesn't god just pick sides and be done with it?

[mikeytherat]

13. One of the best "Simpsons" ever...

was Lisa as Joan of Arc, claiming that God (as a beam of light on the witness stand) told her to lead the French to victory over the English. Groundskeeper Willy jumps up and states, "Hey, you two-timing spot of light! You told ME to lead the English to victory over the French!" "God" coughs and says, nervously, "Gee, I, uh, never really thought you two would be in the same room at the same time -- gotta run!"

Best quote from same episode: "It was the start of the Hundred-Year War or, as it was called back then, "Operation Speedy Resolution."

mikey_the_rat

[treepig]

20. like homer says

it's funny because it's true

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Thought Of The Exact Same Thing

Was going to post on this episode, then i read your's Mikey. It is appropriate to the question posited.
The Professor

[malachi]

29. god is one busy dude or dudette

Do you realize how many athletic events god has to attend every day? The amonut must be staggering. Add in the events that he has to attend involving politicians and evangelical jackasses and you can easily see how god might screw things up.

[0rganism]

46. That's why monotheism is such a pain

Sure, at first you think it simplifies matters, there's only one god to deal with, but then what if you get on His/Her bad side? It's much easier for the parishoner to have lots of different gods, to get them to intercede on one's behalf. Is Zeus gonna huck a lightning bolt up your butt? Have Hera seduce him for a few days, and kick back.

The Catholics figured this out early on, and invented saints to do the intercessionary work.

And look at how the Jews, allegedly god's "chosen people", have gotten screwed throughout the ages. Without the benefit of saints or lesser gods, you just gotta go along with the one grumpy annoying god and suffer His wrath.

A decentralized polytheism is much easier on everyone.

[DarkPhenyx]

8. Well, if it isn't BS....

...then so what? Go bomb the Mosque? Get big sticks and beat everyone attending the rally?

Yes, it is abhorant. Personally I am offended. However the things stated in the article are true and accurate. More so than our justification for invading Iraq. There are going to be a lot of people in the Arab world who are celebrating. Both openly and quietly inside. Ever since our failure in Afganistan,. and the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, there are a lot more that will be celebrating as well.

Let's be honest people. Are we really surprised? Instead of being offended by the poster and the rally be offended by the bullshit that is causing it to happen. If we don't fix that, then we are going to see more and more of these rallys. In the eyes of many in the Muslim world those 19 pricks are martyrs and heros. You can't fight a martyr.

[Cocoa]

48. I'm not surprised

we have people like this on our side, who see slaughter as a good thing, people like Tom Friedman.

[onehandle]

9. Bush should build them a monument in Crawford...

They made his Presidency. Cheney worships them as his personal saviors. Rove feels all gooshy inside when he thinks of them.

[demnan]

10. These people are f***ing crazy

Seriously, they need to have their heads examined and to be locked away from the innocent populace. Why are crazy would-be murderers allowed to run the streets?

[larryepke]

12. Because they haven't done ANYTHING illegal!

Here's a quote from the article:
"There is no evidence that Al-Muhajiroun has ever planned a terrorist attack. It is not officially labeled a terror group. Law enforcement officials worry most that its angry rhetoric incites lone wolves to violence."

That last sentence is the REAL refuse of the scoundrel. When officials can't find anything substantive with which to accuse some unpopular group, they always fall back on "incites to violence." Civil Rights marchers, SDS, hippies, feminists, gay rights activists, et al. They all get tarred with this brush.

Don't confuse protected speech with action. We need that protection, in this country and elsewhere, now more than ever!

[demnan]

15. I don't buy that for a minute

Any group that celebrates the killing of thousands of innocent human beings is dangerous. I just don't think that qualifies as free speech.

Do I think the Ku Klux Klan has a right to rally, no I don't.

This is taunting, it's not free speech.

[markses]

32. When Americans wave their flag for Iraq victory

They celebrate the killing of thousands of innocent people.

They just phrase it differently in order to avoid that implication. Sorta like what this group does, talking about generalities like "USA's comeuppance." Talk about the "removal of Saddam" and you have the same rhetorical effect - the deaths of thousands of innocent people are subordinated to a larger moral goal.

And no, that's not so-called "relativism." These are identical conceptual/rhetorical operations. They use the same tactics and forces to paper over a thousand screams and flesh and murder. So check your local flag-waving idiots, and "kick their Ass" t-shirt wearers. they are the same sort of imbeciles as these Magnificent 19 worshippers. THE SAME SORT.

[TolstoyAndy]

41. Markses sez it right

:kick:

Our leaders ain't no better than the 9-11 hijackers, and inbred sheeple all over just worship George Jr. and Uncle Dick.

Murder is murder, let's say it loud and clear.

The fundies love to accuse others of "moral relativism" without seeing that the orphans of 9-11 and little Ali (of collateral damage arms blown off fame) are both victims of religiously insane butchers.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. Why are they crazy?

And which populace, exactly, is "innocent"?

[demnan]

16. So you think all those people who died on 9/11

deserved it?

[htuttle]

19. demnan, why do you hate America?

.

[Pastiche423]

44. Do you think all of the innocent

Iraqis that have died since 3.19.03 deserved it?

[KoKo]

25. Lisa Myers Strikes Again. She must have gotten a big deposit in her

account from the Bushies for this story.........

[Onlooker]

26. Was it my message that was removed?

I won't swear to it, but I believe it was my comment that the moderator deleted. I simply pointed out that a march in support of the 9/11 hijackers was not that much different than Jerry Falwell's comment that God allowed the attack to occur because of our nation is sinful.

I did put the blame on fundamentalism, which frankly has been responsible for many of the evils in the world.

If it was my message that was deleted, I would like to pursue this because I think the moderator was truly out of line. Care to tell me how to pursue this? Also, why would the moderator delete my name as well? Is that standard practice?

[FlashHarry]

27. Not sure.

The original message said something like, 'until people realize that all religion is crap...'

I think that was the reason it was removed.

[Onlooker]

28. Actually it said "fundamentalism"

Are we not allowed to describe fundamentalism as crap, especially in the context of 9/11 and Jerry Falwell? Pleez, that's something I'd expect from FreeRepublic, not from DU.

[FlashHarry]

31. No, it said 'religion.'

That's why I posted my reply. I agree that fundamentalism is 'crap.' I would never have contradicted that. And I doubt the Mods would have deleted it if that's all it said.

On edit: Here's my original reply to the deleted thread: I agree that fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous, but to indict religion as a whole is wrong. In fact, it sounds rather fundamentalist to me.

[psychopomp]

35. This is stupid because

some of those 19 are still alive and wondering why their faces are being plastered saying that they committed this act. mea culpa! no link to the story. There was a widely publicized article about a Pakistani who saw his face in the paper and sent a letter to London or Washington to let everybody know he was okay and continuing his 9 to 5 in Pakistan.

How do we know who was on those planes, anyway?

[Athame]

40. Hijackers still alive; no evidence against them

This has been posted many times. An article in the Guardian several months ago (sorry, I cannot find the link right now) goes through all of the hijackers bios and evidence. At least seven of them are known to be alive and one died in a plane crash Sept. 11, 2000. However, the FBI has never changed their list. That's the giveaway that this current story is a psyops plant.

[robbedvoter]

38. Gods know, bushco is celebrating 9.11 non-stop

Anyone else is a criminal for doin so .

[varun]

42. this is sick

London (and France) are quickly becoming the hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists.

I hope they realize this before its too late.

[BiggJawn]

43. "...you bomb Iraq, you bomb Afghanistan..."

But yet the Sheik also said:
" Bakri told NBC the actions of the hijackers were sanctioned by God: “If God did not permit that to happen, (it) would never happen.”

So God allowed Iraq and Afghanistan to be bombed.
Guess god only "allows" what you do and the "devil" sanctions what the other guy does.

And there you have one of the main problems with Religion. Even Goebbels and Hitler understood it with their "Gott mit Uns" belt buckles....

All sick bastards.

[nolabels]

45. Another piece of propaganda, So they are going to investigate.........

This group
from link http://www.msnbc.com/news/958200.asp?0cv=CB20
(snip)
INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY
Senior U.S. officials tell NBC News the FBI is investigating the group in several U.S. cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., and Phoenix. Says one official, “Clearly, this group is a danger.”
Evan Kohlmann, who secretly monitored the group last year in London, says it espouses the same views as al Qaida. “The idea of Al-Muhajiroun is to overthrow the infidel regime by any means necessary and replace it with an Islamic one… and I stress by any means necessary,” Kohlman said.
There is no evidence that Al-Muhajiroun has ever planned a terrorist attack. It is not officially labeled a terror group. Law enforcement officials worry most that its angry rhetoric incites lone wolves to violence.
Says Bakri: “You start to bomb and kill and exploit the resources of the Muslims, you expect them to give you flower? No. ... You did bomb them, you did destroy their own homeland, you bomb Iraq, you bomb Afghanistan, you bomb Sudan — before 9/11! They said sorry, war casualties for all innocent people. So you expect them to send you ice cream and flowers? They’re going to find opportunity to retaliate back.”
(snip)

Does NBC news take their orders direct from Senior U.S. officials, or is it filtered through the corporate Headquarters?

Are they going to investigate any other groups of other religions or non-religious groups

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/mill2.htm
http://www.secession.net/