PDA

View Full Version : Is Al Jazeeraa anti USA?



metalman
10-28-07, 10:10 AM
This poll relates to this poll: What's so funny about Bill O'Reilly and FoxNews? (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2298)

Rajiv
10-28-07, 11:31 AM
For middle easterm coverage, Al Jazeera is probably one of the most reliable news sources.

On other parts of the world, it relies on the APs of the world. Of course, there are productions like Max Keiser's -- that I find very useful and full of value.

Post 2001, because of its on the spot coverage of the war, and hence a true portrayal of the horrific nature of war, Al Jazeera was negatively portrayed and harrassed by the US administration. This campaign by the US administration has been full of untrue innuendo -- including issues regarding beheading videos -- so I would say that al jazeera has been subjected to a libelous campaign by Americans - and Metalman, you are a victim of that campaign.

Contemptuous
10-28-07, 03:43 PM
Rajiv -

Metalman acknowledged he had distinguished between the two websites, and indicated he objected because the association had some implied quite murky underpinnings - he was probably casting a wary eye at the populist "street", as I also pointed out. This is what is meant by having one's views "co-opted" by a host with a larger agenda than your own.

This consideration is impossible to miss when entering into press partnerships with a premier Gulf States news source read by the man on the street just as much as it's read by any wonkish and politically moderate technocrat.

Even the smallest scrap of damning evidence on the US is seized on ravenously by some of the manipulators of populist opinion there. If you see populist opinion mongers as being rife in the US, why on earth would you choose to disbelieve they are not rife in the middle east?

The primary discussion on iTulip and by Max Keiser is the rot and demise of the US. That is a thoroughly valid, even critical topic. But this topic is like irresistible honey to large groups in the middle east with agendas radical enough to leave you shocked and bewildered were you to become co-opted by them.

Do you honestly think this topic is not ripe to be enthusiastically appropriated to gain a much needed legitimacy by populist groupings with agendas going a good deal further than your own? To my mind believing this cannot be so in today's middle east would be wilfully naive.

Respectfully ...


P.S. I cannot vote in the above because I agree Al Jazeera.net is a credible news source, but I think that poses the wrong question. I've tried to point out what the glaringly obvious other question is. A highly polarized local environment where such devastating critiques of the US as iTulip and Max are capable of - will be sure to carry into a whole series of unintended local political agendas which co-opt the message. What it risks getting co-opted by is potentially quite unpleasant to a secular liberal, or it certainly should be. In Max's case, part of his critique is probably subtly co-opted already, but he chooses to overlook that, referring to Saudi Arabia simplistically as a homogeneous "ally" while actually it's a very highly stratified readership indeed. The part of that readership which he does not mention holds views that would give you some grey hair quite quickly.

EJ
10-28-07, 06:15 PM
Rajiv -

Metalman acknowledged he had distinguished between the two websites, and indicated he objected because the association had some implied quite murky underpinnings - he was probably casting a wary eye at the populist "street", as I also pointed out. This is what is meant by having one's views "co-opted" by a host with a larger agenda than your own.

This consideration is impossible to miss when entering into press partnerships with a premier Gulf States news source read by the man on the street just as much as it's read by any wonkish and politically moderate technocrat.

Even the smallest scrap of damning evidence on the US is seized on ravenously by some of the manipulators of populist opinion there. If you see populist opinion mongers as being rife in the US, why on earth would you choose to disbelieve they are not rife in the middle east?

The primary discussion on iTulip and by Max Keiser is the rot and demise of the US. That is a thoroughly valid, even critical topic. But this topic is like irresistible honey to large groups in the middle east with agendas radical enough to leave you shocked and bewildered were you to become co-opted by them.

Do you honestly think this topic is not ripe to be enthusiastically appropriated to gain a much needed legitimacy by populist groupings with agendas going a good deal further than your own? To my mind believing this cannot be so in today's middle east would be wilfully naive.

Respectfully ...


P.S. I cannot vote in the above because I agree Al Jazeera.net is a credible news source, but I think that poses the wrong question. I've tried to point out what the glaringly obvious other question is. A highly polarized local environment where such devastating critiques of the US as iTulip and Max are capable of - will be sure to carry into a whole series of unintended local political agendas which co-opt the message. What it risks getting co-opted by is potentially quite unpleasant to a secular liberal, or it certainly should be. In Max's case, part of his critique is probably subtly co-opted already, but he chooses to overlook that, referring to Saudi Arabia simplistically as a homogeneous "ally" while actually it's a very highly stratified readership indeed. The part of that readership which he does not mention holds views that would give you some grey hair quite quickly.

This is a very thoughtful reply that reminds me to say how fortunate I feel every day to have such smart, insightful, and wise members among our community here.

iTulip is only now, after nearly ten years, starting to show results from fighting on a single front, although success is still not assured. We're the Red Sox. We h ave three good games behind us but there are still plenty of chances to lose if we get distracted.

While the characterization of Al Jazeeraa as anti-American is certainly unfair, and Al Jazeeraa is at least as credible as FOX News and likely more so, opening up a new front to convince readers of this fact risks losing on both fronts.

We wish Max well in his effort.

Contemptuous
10-28-07, 09:30 PM
I extend my full respects to Rajiv, who's posts demonstrate he is a man of rare intelligence and decency. I hope our disagreement on this point does not stand in the way of his accepting my full respects.

Rajiv
10-28-07, 10:15 PM
Lukester,

Thank you for the kind words.

It has been my experience that 99% of the people the world over, do not buy into the hateful diatribes. It is only that 1% who do. Most people can make out falsehoods when they are told one. However, these 99% can and do become a part of a lynch mob

-- and I am afraid that we became one (a lynch mob) after 9/11/01. I do not know who was behind the 9/11 attacks -- but I do not buy into the official story - there are too many holes in it. And if as I believe that the official story is a lie -- either by omission or by commision - then we may be hanging innocents in our desire for revenge.

Contemptuous
10-28-07, 11:36 PM
Rajiv -

It's maybe just my credulous view of the world, but I believe that 98% of conspiracy theories are bunk. The great majority of the time it's the quite obvious clues which lead to the real story.

On the subject of 9/11 we should note that curiously, the overwhelming majority of the participants were Saudis, yet that nation is our 'ally', yet you are not alone in believing that we must be projecting 'irrational fears' in that direction which are merely phantoms of our own unresolved domestic issues. There are psychoanalytic terms used here which may be inappropriate as the topic has more to do with planned terrorism on an industrial scale than any spontaneous American neurosis which appeared without cause.

If the agents of 09/11 are imagined to be domestic rather than foreign, conspiracy buffs must then believe that American fears circulating today about "foreign terrorists"are merely neuroses, and are standard symptoms of the spontaneous and willing slide of these people into a new form of fascist society. If we provisionally suppose there really was no foreign instigator of 09/11, we can be percieved to be merely 'projecting' irrational fears onto the world because we cannot face our "internal conflicts", or something to that effect. Seems a bit of a complicated theory ...

That's as may be.

But please note these mitigating facts - the Madrassas schools from whom the reputed suiciders of 09/11 gained their fire and brimstone are quite real, from Morocco to Indonesia, and are springing up to replace modern education wherever people can be persuaded that a Madrassa will give their children a better start in life than might a traditional secular school.

The theocratic bilge taught in the Madrassas is quite real - yet those in the West who are inspired by an idealistic notion that a greater exercise of "human understanding" will cut through the medieval obscurantism taught by these Madrassas, and thereby achieve healing between all nations, will receive a bad shock when their illusions are stripped from them further down the road. The people to whom you might address these fine sentiments regarding better mutual understanding, and a yearning for peace, are not receptive to this kind of subtlety.

Later, when we are possibly finally bankrupted by the ongoing clashes with the products of these Madrassas schools, who are cranking out theocratically intoxicated bigots at a rate sufficient to overwhelm all hopes for secular government in the old world's middle east, people like me will be posing this question to you, asking you what precisely else you might have anticipated would happen, had you exercised a little more cynicism (realism). But by then we will be old men, and the debate will be stale and academic, and devoid of future hopes for our personal lives.

In the meantime, the rest of us, the non-idealists and the agnostics and the civic minded atheists, will experience the meagre results of any experimental policy of appeasement rather than confrontation, engaged by secular nations, as they seek to at least slow down the encroachment of the Madrassas students being churned out throughout the region who are working industriously for the arrival of their textbook theocratic "nation of God".

After Bush's now discredited hodge podge of meddling to halt the influences which the Madrassas set in motion, we'll seek peace through appeasement, by earnestly employing "better understanding between cultures", while those who tried to educate us to their "vision" of a more Godly 21st century by blowing up everything within reach will simply interpret any hesitancy from the secular world as weakness. While self-doubting and progressively enfeebled Western societies retreat in a series of conciliatory gestures, those who hunger for a new theocracy will only read this as an encouragement to advance. This will be the next chapter after the current bumbling administration, and it will be even worse.

The outliers of this brave new world will be the students being churned out by these Madrassas.

The vision you follow, which views the reactions to 9/11 as a search for scapegoats, seems to discard the clues littered around 09/11 without much scrutiny. Unless one willfully declines to see it, the clues seem to lead straight to the Saudi popular "street" we have been discussing today, which led straight to the radical Madrassas schools churning out "students" with little more education than a patchy rote-memorized preparation in theology.

I may misunderstand the conspiracy theorists, but aren't they suggesting that the origins of 09/11 in the Middle East are simply false leads? Their implication seems to be instead that the events of 09/11 were a domestically instigated conspiracy, presumably ginned up as a (rather noisy) way to instigate fascism over here, and all carried out by unscrupulous people acting right within our western society. This is an idea that has made quite a few rounds.

I think this "American neurosis" thesis, where we are supposedly lashing out at the world while the true cause of 09/11 was supposedly auto-inflicted via a stealthy domestic American coup, must call all of it's believers with a siren song, because it certainly seems very popular. But in the end the reality will probably let you conspiracy theorists down badly. What you surmise to be irrational American fear, or some kind of witch hunt looking for a phantom foreign agent after 09/11, seems more likely instead to have been an rather blunt American recognition that the event was carried out by Madrassas educated theological "students" seeking to prove some absurd fealty to their cruelly reinterpreted faith.

If the above causes are the real ones, the American desire to deliver a clear message to the hosts of these Madrassas schools and to their pupils, to "explain" to them in similar demonstrative language that "proselytizing with mass demolition and murder" won't be taken lying down, should be regarded at least superficially as a rational response. If someone kills your father you presumably do not sit on your hands. Of course the regional political calculus behind the American reply was clumsy to the point of disastrous. But still, if this analysis were closer to the truth of the matter, America looking abroad for the instigators of 09/11 would have little or nothing to do with the "delusions of a lynch mob". I must disagree with your cursory analysis.

Basil
02-16-08, 12:43 AM
I am new to Itulip and this is my first post. I did not expect it to be on this topic. But I would imagine that I am the only member of Itulip who has actually spent time in Madrasas. I have traveled throughout the Middle East and seen Madrasas in Morocco, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iran (though they are not called Madrasas in Iran) and have compared the curricula of several. I have also studied classical Islamic texts with people trained in Madrasas.

Speaking of Madrasas in a general fashion simply demonstrates that someone does not know what a Madrasa is. Madrasas exist from Pakistan to Morocco and beyond. The word simply means place of study. Some are institutes of higher learning with leading international scholars in their respective fields of study. Others are ideological training camps. Others are simply places to go to learn how to read the Quran and little more. In other words the word is used to describe everything from grade school to graduate school. If one wishes to speak effectively about institutes of learning in the Islamic world, one must distinguish what type of Madrasa and in what country if one wishes to say anything meaningful.

I do not wish to go on, but would just say that almost everything you read about the Middle East and the greater Islamic world in the MSM is even less informed than what you read about the current economic situation. If you would not base your investment practices upon what you read in the MSM then how could you derive your understanding of things Islamic.

This is not to say that there are not some major problems in the Islamic World, but if one wishes to understand them they must be properly contextualized and analyzed.

Basil

DemonD
02-16-08, 12:48 AM
I do not wish to go on, but would just say that almost everything you read about the Middle East and the greater Islamic world in the MSM is even less informed than what you read about the current economic situation. If you would not base your investment practices upon what you read in the MSM then how could you derive your understanding of things Islamic.

This is not to say that there are not some major problems in the Islamic World, but if one wishes to understand them they must be properly contextualized and analyzed.

Spot on. I think this is where certain blogs help, and definitely people like yourself can impart your personal knowledge to help educate those of us who never have seen these things and likely never will. I look forward to reading more of your insights, hopefully you'll contribute a lot to itulip. :)

Tulpen
02-16-08, 12:52 AM
...large groups in the middle east with agendas radical enough to leave you shocked and bewildered were you to become co-opted by them.

Not much worse, I venture, than America's Middle East foreign policy and in particular its relentless, one sided and blind support for Israel.

lb
02-18-08, 10:17 AM
It depends on the affiliate.

In the past I spent a lot of time on memri.org, in some countries the anti America, Jew, and Israel bias is huge. In other countries it's nonexistent or extremely downplayed.

Starving Steve
02-23-08, 08:55 PM
I voted: yes, Al Jazeera is anti-US and anti-Isreal. Its news is biased against the West which means that Al Jazeera is pro-fundamentalist and anti-liberty.

I read Al Jazeera from time-to-time, never-the-less, because I try to gather all views on issues, regardless of whether I agree with those view-points, or not.

I am strongly pro-Isreal, pro- US, pro- Europe, pro- Canada, pro- Mexico, and pro- China. (Those are my prejudices.)

My heros: the new pro-Western and pro-Isreal President of France. (What a breath of fresh air for France and Europe! ) Also, President Ju Jin Tao in China is another hero of mine. And both Hillary and Obama are a breath of fresh air for the politics in the U.S.

Rajiv
02-23-08, 10:35 PM
are you referring to aljazeera.com or al jazeera.net or aljazeera.info?

Starving Steve
02-24-08, 01:45 PM
I am referring to Al Jezeera which I read on the Internet here. I take it to be a newspaper or else a TV network, much as FOX is. But whatever it is, it has a blog, or a page here, on the Internet which you can read daily. I take part in their polls and make comments there, on the odd time when I visit their website.

Another website which I visit is www.debka.com (http://www.debka.com) which has an extreme and uncompromising pro-Isreal and pro-settler and pro-fundamentalist (Orthodox) Jewish viewpoint. Zionist might be the best label for the rather militant and nationalistic points-of-view expressed at this website.

Debka and Al Jezeera might be viewed as mirror images of one another, much like negative and positive numbers are mirror images of each other in mathematics.

Rajiv
02-24-08, 02:57 PM
AlJazeera.com is not the same as aljazeera.net is not the same as aljazeera.info -- which are you referrring to? You didn't answer my question.

Starving Steve
02-24-08, 04:37 PM
AlJazeera.com is not the same as aljazeera.net is not the same as aljazeera.info -- which are you referrring to? You didn't answer my question.

Trying my best to answer your question, I think that AlJazeera.com is the site that I have visited in the past.

First, I can not read Arabic, and when I visited aljazeera.net, the language was in Arabic. Second, when I tried to visit aljazeera.info, my computer could not find its server. Twice I tried, and twice my computer could not access a server. But when I visited www.aljazeera.com (http://www.aljazeera.com), the language was in English. Also, the messages were rather anti-Western and anti-Isreal and anti-liberty--- just like I remembered from prior visits. The mood was hostile, downright confrontational, arrogant. ( Apparently, nothing has changed.)

Also, there was a poll question at AlJazeera.com--- which is always fun wherever on the Internet poll questions are posted. ( I remember their poll questions from prior visits to AlJazeera.com. ) Their poll question was rather meaningless to me but perhaps meaningful to them, something like:

"Do you expect a war between Isreal and Hesbollah in the next few weeks?"

A better question would have been: "Is the tension in the Middle East between Hesbollah and Isreal over the past few weeks subsiding, or is it increasing?

Or another question: "Do you see peace possible between Hesbollah and Isreal? If not, why not?" And then some answers could have been given for the visitors to the website to click, whether the answers were in agreement with AlJazeera viewpoints or not. This is how we in the West would conduct a poll..... So the visitor might be able to click an answer like: "The Iranians don't want peace between Isreal and the Palestinians, and the Iranian govn't is using Hesbollah to cause trouble with Isreal." Or, the visitor might be able to choose another answer reflecting a different viewpoint like, "Isreal doesn't want a peace in the Middle East, so peace is impossible." Whatever, THE VISITOR WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMMUNICATE THEIR OWN VIEWS, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF ALJAZEERA OR THE NATIONS FUNDING ALJAZEERA.

Anyway, I remember the narrow poll questions offered from time-to-time at AlJazeera. Nothing has changed. ( Click one meaningless answer or another. )

I do remember the flames. I love those flames: the flames of Al Jazeera. What a cool logo!

My guess is that I visited www.aljazeera.com (http://www.aljazeera.com). :)

Rajiv
02-24-08, 05:04 PM
Aljazeera.com is a virulant website based out of the UK and should not be confused with aljazeera.net - which is the TV station based in Doha, Qatar.

See Al Jazeera English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English)


Al Jazeera English is a 24-hour English-language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) news (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News) and current affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_affairs_%28news_format%29) TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV) channel headquartered in Doha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha), Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar). It is the sister channel of Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera).

The station broadcasts news features and analysis, documentaries, live debates, current affairs, business, and sports. The station claims to be the first global high-definition television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television) network.

Al Jazeera English is the world’s first English-language news channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_channel) headquartered in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East). The channel aims to provide both a regional voice and a global perspective to a potential world audience of over one billion English speakers, but without an Anglo-American worldview. Instead of being run under central command, news management rotates around broadcasting centres in Doha, Kuala Lumpur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur), London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) and Washington, DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_DC), "following the sun."
The Al Jazeera Code of Ethics (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4B3ABFB8-9082-4B05-B399-7BF68D4A39D6.htm)


Code of Ethics

Being a globally oriented media service, Al Jazeera has adopted the following code of ethics in pursuance of the vision and mission it has set for itself:

1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.

2. Endeavour to get to the truth and declare it in our dispatches, programmes and news bulletins unequivocally in a manner which leaves no doubt about its validity and accuracy.

3. Treat our audiences with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture while giving full consideration to the feelings of victims of crime, war, persecution and disaster, their relatives and our viewers, and to individual privacy and public decorum.

4. Welcome fair and honest media competition without allowing it to affect adversely our standards of performance so that getting a "scoop" will not become an end in itself.

5. Present diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality.

6. Recognise diversity in human societies with all their races, cultures and beliefs and their values and intrinsic individualities in order to present unbiased and faithful reflection of them.

7. Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur.

8. Observe transparency in dealing with news and news sources while adhering to internationally established practices concerning the rights of these sources.

9. Distinguish between news material, opinion and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and propaganda.

10. Stand by colleagues in the profession and offer them support when required, particularly in light of the acts of aggression and harassment to which journalists are subjected at times. Cooperate with Arab and international journalistic unions and associations to defend freedom of the press.

metalman
02-24-08, 09:54 PM
Aljazeera.com is a virulant website based out of the UK and should not be confused with aljazeera.net - which is the TV station based in Doha, Qatar.

See Al Jazeera English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English)

The Al Jazeera Code of Ethics (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4B3ABFB8-9082-4B05-B399-7BF68D4A39D6.htm)

does fox news have one of these? i didn't think so.

anyway, last i checked we were not fighting arabs but radical religious nuts. i want al jazeera on my tv now.

Starving Steve
02-26-08, 11:12 PM
does fox news have one of these? i didn't think so.

anyway, last i checked we were not fighting arabs but radical religious nuts. i want al jazeera on my tv now.

Just for the record here, I consider myself a zionist, i.e, one who is in favour of the Jewish people having a homeland. That homeland is Isreal.

My view is that zionists should also be willing to compromise with the Palestinians.

Perhaps in a compromise, the sovereignty of Jeruselem as the capital of Isreal could be shared. In other words, the sovereignty could be co-incident or overlapping--- much as the soverignty of the Temple Mount (aka, The Dome of the Rock) is shared now between Isreal and Palestine.

Where there is a will for peace, there is a way to peace. I am sure a way to peace will be found someday.

But the extremists on both sides of this dispute--- those who think they speak for God or Allah---must be controlled, even jailed.

Jim Nickerson
02-26-08, 11:29 PM
Just for the record here, I consider myself a zionist, i.e, one who is in favour of the Jewish people having a homeland. That homeland is Isreal.

My view is that zionists should also be willing to compromise with the Palestinians.

Perhaps in a compromise, the sovereignty of Jeruselem as the capital of Isreal could be shared. In other words, the sovereignty could be co-incident or overlapping--- much as the soverignty of the Temple Mount (aka, The Dome of the Rock) is shared now between Isreal and Palestine.

Where there is a will for peace, there is a way to peace. I am sure a way to peace will be found someday.

But the extremists on both sides of this dispute--- those who think they speak for God or Allah---must be controlled, even jailed.

Someday may be many thousands of years away, as the record so far going back several thousands of years demonstrates there is no room for co-existence of the various gods. There will always be those whose extreme ignorance or extreme fear of death and the unknown will make them extreme in how they see and practice religion.

I figure if there is ever to be peace between all inhabitants of the earth, it will come after the disappearance of all religions, so how likely is that any time soon--certainly not during the term of the next US president, or the next, or the next....ad infinitum.

metalman
02-27-08, 11:29 AM
Someday may be many thousands of years away, as the record so far going back several thousands of years demonstrates there is no room for co-existence of the various gods. There will always be those whose extreme ignorance or extreme fear of death and the unknown will make them extreme in how they see and practice religion.

I figure if there is ever to be peace between all inhabitants of the earth, it will come after the disappearance of all religions, so how likely is that any time soon--certainly not during the term of the next US president, or the next, or the next....ad infinitum.

there was study on religion in the usa that was covered by a lot of papers yesterday. what you are describing is happening in the usa. more and more folks say they have not religious affiliation. that's true in the most peaceful nations in europe... evidence to support your idea.

Contemptuous
02-27-08, 10:10 PM
Metalman -

I think actually it's the other way around. Europeans are far more secular than Americans. It's the Americans that have a very high percentage of people who still actively practice some form of faith. The Europeans are 'older' society and tend consequently to be more sceptical and secular.

My own impression rather is that it's the stereotype of the American as 'bible thumping' which persists in the EU! Conversely, coming from Europe back to the States you can really notice the difference.

Take any suburban neighborhood in the US and if you live in a house there, you are likely to have one or two families right next door who either go to service, or are at least fairly active in their religious faith. I had such neighbors right across the street (on two sides) here in San Diego, and I think they looked at my comings and goings on holidays like Easter and imagined I must be "utterly godless"! As for me, well, I was feeling a little 'boxed in'. :D

An average European would feel like he'd stepped onto Mars in that kind of environment. The churches in Europe are seeing dwindling congregations and even in areas where people are much more observant, they are a lot more muted about it than Americans, who often wear their hearts on their sleeves on the religion thingy compared to people in the EU. At least that's my impression.

Got to disagree with you on this Metalguy. But I really appreciate the "motorcycle" you picked out for me, with the trycicle wheels and the baby fins and pink frou-frou trimmings? That's just my style.

metalman
02-27-08, 10:22 PM
Metalman -

I think actually it's the other way around. Europeans are far more secular than Americans. It's the Americans that have a very high percentage of people who still actively practice some form of faith. The Europeans are 'older' society and tend consequently to be more sceptical and secular.

My own impression rather is that it's the stereotype of the American as 'bible thumping' which persists in the EU! Conversely, coming from Europe back to the States you can really notice the difference.

Take any suburban neighborhood in the US and if you live in a house there, you are likely to have one or two families right next door who either go to service, or are at least fairly active in their religious faith. I had such neighbors right across the street (on two sides) here in San Diego, and I think they looked at my comings and goings on holidays like Easter and imagined I must be "utterly godless"! As for me, well, I was feeling a little 'boxed in'. :D

An average European would feel like he'd stepped onto Mars in that kind of environment. The churches in Europe are seeing dwindling congregations and even in areas where people are much more observant, they are a lot more muted about it than Americans, who often wear their hearts on their sleeves on the religion thingy compared to people in the EU. At least that's my impression.

Got to disagree with you on this Metalguy. But I really appreciate the "motorcycle" you picked out for me, with the trycicle wheels and the baby fins and pink frou-frou trimmings? That's just my style.

you missed my point. the euros are secular because they go to school where they get an education. in the usa you can graduate college without knowing fuckall about world history or even 16th century science. you know, this idea of "belief without evidence." americans believe in magic. how else can you convince millions to take on all this debt and assume everything will be ok?

Contemptuous
02-27-08, 10:40 PM
Ya. We don't 'do evolution' at many American high-schools any more. This is the most degraded aspect of this country - as it points to our future.

We figured out how to get astronauts to the moon, but forty years later this now-addle-brained nation teaches creationism in it's high schools. If there is one thing in this country that inspires my active loathing it's shoving creationism into the heads of ninth graders in America. I think if I saw a bigoted high school teacher engaging in this kind of obscurantism while claiming to have 'teaching credentials' I'd be tempted to give them a punch in the kisser.

metalman
02-27-08, 11:00 PM
Ya. We don't 'do evolution' at many American high-schools any more. This is the most degraded aspect of this country - as it points to our future.

We figured out how to get astronauts to the moon, but forty years later this now-addle-brained nation teaches creationism in it's high schools. If there is one thing in this country that inspires my active loathing it's shoving creationism into the heads of ninth graders in America. I think if I saw a bigoted high school teacher engaging in this kind of obscurantism while claiming to have 'teaching credentials' I'd be tempted to give them a punch in the kisser.

if i found a teacher trying out creationism on my kids i'd drag him onto the street and beat him to death with a rock. that's how they did it in the days when creationist ideas were current. good enough for them, good enough for him.

seriously, i'd bomb that area of that country all the way back to the stone age... versus partially... where it's at.

seriously, no, i'd try to reason with them, i would... then i'd stone and bomb them.

aw, fuck it. i'd lock them in a room and make them watch daytime tv until what's left of their brains drip out of their skulls.

Contemptuous
02-27-08, 11:06 PM
<< If i found a teacher trying out creationism on my kids i'd drag him onto the street and beat him to death with a rock. that's how they did it in the days when creationist ideas were current. good enough for them, good enough for him. >>

Metalguy, you are priceless. What would iTulip be without Metalman's Finishing School and Academy for Good Drawing Room Manners ?

How to 're-educate a creationist'. Drag the hapless CREATIONIST out to nearest open air sidewalk, grab a handy cobblestone, and pound repeatedly upon the subject's cranium until the subject exclaims 'I'M CONVINCED! CREATIONISM IS BUNK!". If you don't hear them utter anything, just keep pounding. LOL !!! :D

Jim Nickerson
02-27-08, 11:49 PM
if i found a teacher trying out creationism on my kids i'd drag him onto the street and beat him to death with a rock. that's how they did it in the days when creationist ideas were current. good enough for them, good enough for him.

seriously, i'd bomb that area of that country all the way back to the stone age... versus partially... where it's at.

seriously, no, i'd try to reason with them, i would... then i'd stone and bomb them.

aw, fuck it. i'd lock them in a room and make them watch daytime tv until what's left of their brains drip out of their skulls.

Stay out of Kansas, I believe it is.

metalman
02-28-08, 12:49 AM
Stay out of Kansas, I believe it is.

how can i resist kansas?

Jim Nickerson
02-28-08, 01:09 AM
how can i resist kansas?

I had the opportunity to travel through western Kansas 4-5 years ago while trailering, and it was during the wheat harvest season when all one could see were "amber waves of grain," which I had never fully comprehended until we drove through the state. Given the school board there now, I surely would hate to be growing up there (though I wouldn't realize what shit I was in) or wed to living there if I had kids.

It was truly beautiful.

Starving Steve
02-28-08, 02:50 PM
Someday may be many thousands of years away, as the record so far going back several thousands of years demonstrates there is no room for co-existence of the various gods. There will always be those whose extreme ignorance or extreme fear of death and the unknown will make them extreme in how they see and practice religion.

I figure if there is ever to be peace between all inhabitants of the earth, it will come after the disappearance of all religions, so how likely is that any time soon--certainly not during the term of the next US president, or the next, or the next....ad infinitum.

Religion, especially monotheistic religion, has been the downfall of mankind. But we are stuck with religion on Earth, so we will all have to learn to live with each other --- regardless of our religions.

And I am just as upset as you are about the insertion of creation NON-SCIENCE into the K-12 public school curriculum in the United States. Again, one can thank the religious-right in the Bush Administration for this sad state of affairs in the biology curriculum.

Somehow, the so-called liberals in the U.S. forgot to speak-up about a lot of things in the hidden agenda of the Bush Administration: i.e, unilateral diplomacy (aka, cowboy diplomacy by the U.S.), supplyside economics, the easy-money and pro-inflation Bush appointees to the Federal Reserve Board, education policy and the No Child Left Behind Act, English-only school policies and their bigotry, the insertion of creationism in the school curriculum, top-down control of the public schools from Washington, the outrageous nationalism taught to children through the public school curriculum, the do-nothing ( or cowboy capitalism ) heathcare policy, the Christian-right appointees to the Supreme Court, the abuse of civil liberties in the Patriot Act, free trade ( or the lack of free trade for workers and immigrants), the do-nothing ( more of the same windmills and Hummers ) energy policy by the Bush Administration, the military spending policies of the Bush Administration, etc.

With these issues, why have the Democrats been so silent for all of these years?

Liberals need to speak-out now, not just in Kansas against creationism alone, but everywhere in the U.S, and everywhere against all of these outrageous policies of the Bush Administration.

Jim Nickerson
02-28-08, 03:06 PM
Religion, especially monotheistic religion, has been the downfall of mankind. But we are stuck with religion on Earth, so we will all have to learn to live with each other --- regardless of our religions.

And I am just as upset as you are about the insertion of creation NON-SCIENCE into the K-12 public school curriculum in the United States. Again, one can thank the religious-right in the Bush Administration for this sad state of affairs in the biology curriculum.

Somehow, the so-called liberals in the U.S. forgot to speak-up about a lot of things in the hidden agenda of the Bush Administration: i.e, unilateral diplomacy (aka, cowboy diplomacy by the U.S.), supplyside economics, the easy-money and pro-inflation Bush appointees to the Federal Reserve Board, education policy and the No Child Left Behind Act, English-only school policies and their bigotry, the insertion of creationism in the school curriculum, top-down control of the public schools from Washington, the outrageous nationalism taught to children through the public school curriculum, the do-nothing ( or cowboy capitalism ) heathcare policy, the Christian-right appointees to the Supreme Court, the abuse of civil liberties in the Patriot Act, free trade ( or the lack of free trade for workers and immigrants), the do-nothing ( more of the same windmills and Hummers ) energy policy by the Bush Administration, the military spending policies of the Bush Administration, etc.

With these issues, why have the Democrats been so silent for all of these years?

Liberals need to speak-out now, not just in Kansas against creationism alone, but everywhere in the U.S, and everywhere against all of these outrageous policies of the Bush Administration.

The system is broken, and we are broke.

Finster
03-21-08, 12:43 PM
Every news organization has its biases - rooted in the culture in which it operates - and no one should even expect or assume that they are ever getting "just the facts" without color. Every news organization also gets its financial support from somewhere, whether its a state, corporate sponsors, owners, or whatever. Some make a point of distinguishing between fact and opinion, but if anything, that just amplifies the potential to mislead.

Even when "nothing but the facts" are reported, there was still the invisible, a priori question of which facts to report. And how to report them. Just a couple hypothetical examples to illustrate:

The XYZ Nightly News anchor appears on your TV screen and in gravely intones, "Congress once again has failed to pass legislation guaranteeing free day care for every child in America." Possibly with background images of waifish, neglected-looking children eating peanut butter sandwiches while mother is out on the job. Anything in here false or non-factual? No. They could literally report every day that "Congress once again has failed to pass legislation guaranteeing free day care for every child in America." and it would be objectively, factually true. Is there an implicit agenda? We report, you decide.

Jesse Jackson gives a speech at a dinner in Tuscon, which serves as a source of quotes for all the major network news shows, including the morning info-tainment hour. Alan Keyes speaks at a conference in Cinncinnati, and nobody knows about it except the conferees. And no one wonders why one person speaks and it's news and another one does and it's not.

Your favorite soap opera is interrupted with one of those ubiquitous newsy tidbit "news breaks" to let you know that the latest ACME news poll reveals that after the previous evening's Republican presidential debate involving 10 candidates, 23% of college-educated women between the ages of 45-49 in Toledo and Phoenix who are former high school basketball team members and of Race X and who were polled during the third week of January, 34% prefer McCain, 32% prefer Guiliani, and 13% prefer Romney. And then that of this group, 41% thought that Guiliani had the best chance of prevailing over Hillary, and that 43% thought that McCain had the best chance of prevailing over Obama. Never mind that there were 7 active candidates on the Democratic slate. Fifteen minutes later after you've changed channels and forgotten all about it, another "news break" reminds you that X% of a different group of voters think McCain will be best for national security, Y% thought Clinton would be best on the economy, blah blah blah ... pounding the same three or four names into your head yet again. Just the facts, right?

DemonD
03-28-08, 06:44 AM
i wonder if al jazeera will play the movie put out by that dutch politician guy.

Contemptuous
03-29-08, 10:03 PM
Fat chance. Notwithstanding their high journalistic standards, they don't do a whole lot of self-criticism. That's left for us to do in the West.

metalman
03-30-08, 01:30 AM
Fat chance. Notwithstanding their high journalistic standards, they don't do a whole lot of self-criticism. That's left for us to do in the West.

what if they way to air self-criticism but their audience can't take it?

Rajiv
03-30-08, 08:07 PM
I don't see TV media in the US do much in the way of self criticism e.g. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC --- show me any degree of self criticism there.

Finster
03-31-08, 05:22 PM
I don't see TV media in the US do much in the way of self criticism e.g. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC --- show me any degree of self criticism there.

All you need do is pay attention. The US media are self-absorbed to the point of narcissism. Examples abound. On the Sunday morning news shows, you will often hear discussions devoted solely to how the media are handling this or that issue. There are even entire series dedicated to media analysis. Here's just one: http://www.gwu.edu/~kalb/.

Not that they ever actually address their real shortcomings...

Rajiv
03-31-08, 10:41 PM
You will notice that the Kalb report dosen't make it on to any of the TV media mentioned in my post --

From your Link


The Kalb Report airs on New England Cable News and is distributed to public television stations nationwide by Oklahoma Educational Television Authority and American Public Television.

I was not by any stretch of imagination trying to imply that the US is bereft of self-criticism -- only that TV news channels which provide a similar kind of service to the US viewers as Al Jazeera does to the Middle East, do not engage in much self criticism

Contemptuous
04-01-08, 02:13 AM
Speaking of self-criticism, here in the (now seriously retrograde) USA, critiqueing our own glorious culture is apparently alive and well. Here is one of my favorite posts of all time on this website. iTulip's most "delicate" commentator weighs in ... :D :D :D

[ Warning: don't try this at home - if you live in the M.E. This kind of agnosticism would cost you your head faster than you could say "hey get off my back Dude", let alone "Jack Robinson". ]



if i found a teacher trying out creationism on my kids i'd drag him onto the street and beat him to death with a rock. that's how they did it in the days when creationist ideas were current. good enough for them, good enough for him.

seriously, i'd bomb that area of that country all the way back to the stone age... versus partially... where it's at.

seriously, no, i'd try to reason with them, i would... then i'd stone and bomb them.

aw, fuck it. i'd lock them in a room and make them watch daytime tv until what's left of their brains drip out of their skulls.

Raz
01-09-09, 01:50 AM
I am an Orthodox Christian. The Church was born into the Roman world, a pagan society in which charity was as rare as gold. While I would never support forcing Creationism into any school's curriculum, I do have some real problems with the theory of evolution. I am also politically Conservative (NOT Neoconservative, but the real thing; we haven't had one as President since Eisenhower, although Ron Paul tried to get the message out!).

Is it acceptable for me to continue to post on this website? Do I face the possibility that Metalman or Lukester or some of the other enlightened souls here will find my house in Mississippi and stone me to death for disagreeing with them? Or perhaps they will ask Jeff to help them obtain a nuke and simply turn the Magnolia State to glass?:eek:

BrianL
01-09-09, 02:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Theory

I'm fine with people being anti-evolution, but please don't attack it based on the use of the word theory. This isn't productive to your arguement.

Public schools should teach what is scientifically relevant to our world. Evolution can be observed (and is critical) in many fields ranging from agroculture to medical to ecology. Failing to expose students to this would reduce their potential to compete in the global market in these areas.

If people don't want their children exposed to evolution, they can send their children to private schools or teach them at home; there are plenty of options.

Basil
01-09-09, 01:41 PM
I don't see TV media in the US do much in the way of self criticism e.g. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC --- show me any degree of self criticism there.

Does anybody on this thread know Arabic well enough to be able to provide an effective evaluation of al-Jazeera? I see most of the criticism of al-Jazeera as a response to the shock that the West has experienced when a completely alternative news organization becomes an international force. Al-Jazeera was one of the first to break the western media hegemony and that has raised on outcry.

I do know Arabic and have often found it rather entertaining to switch back and forth between al-Jazeera, CNN International, FOX and al-Arabiyyah, etc. I have not done a scientific statistical analysis, but I would say that al-Jazeera is less addicted to its own biases than fox, but a bit more so than the BBC. Contrary to popular opinion in the West, al-Jazeera has a very wide range of perspectives, from Yusuf Qaradawi and Ramadan Buti, the leading Sunni Muslim scholar in Syria, to Hasan Hanafi, a very liberal Egyptian scholar. The overall perspective is heavily influenced by the more mild form of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is actually far more secular than most realize. Some programs do, however, offer a very perspective. I have even seen very pro-Israeili zionists interviewed on al-Jazeera defending the Israeli position vis-a-vis palestine. Yes the interviews did get contentious, but nothing nearly as obnoxious as Oreilly.

karim0028
02-26-09, 07:13 PM
Does anybody on this thread know Arabic well enough to be able to provide an effective evaluation of al-Jazeera? I see most of the criticism of al-Jazeera as a response to the shock that the West has experienced when a completely alternative news organization becomes an international force. Al-Jazeera was one of the first to break the western media hegemony and that has raised on outcry.

I do know Arabic and have often found it rather entertaining to switch back and forth between al-Jazeera, CNN International, FOX and al-Arabiyyah, etc. I have not done a scientific statistical analysis, but I would say that al-Jazeera is less addicted to its own biases than fox, but a bit more so than the BBC. Contrary to popular opinion in the West, al-Jazeera has a very wide range of perspectives, from Yusuf Qaradawi and Ramadan Buti, the leading Sunni Muslim scholar in Syria, to Hasan Hanafi, a very liberal Egyptian scholar. The overall perspective is heavily influenced by the more mild form of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is actually far more secular than most realize. Some programs do, however, offer a very perspective. I have even seen very pro-Israeili zionists interviewed on al-Jazeera defending the Israeli position vis-a-vis palestine. Yes the interviews did get contentious, but nothing nearly as obnoxious as Oreilly.


I was born and raised in the states (Midwest), lived in saudi, parents are from Egyptian origins. Speak Arabic fluently....

For my information i find that i go to multiple sources.... For Middle East material (especially ME, as it is the most divisive on each side and you could practically split the news coverage with a knife) i read Aljazeera and watch it on satellite. I also attempt to take the opposing view and read Haaretz, BBC, etc.... Honestly, both news sources put our US sources to shame....

Whenever i travel to Egypt (BTW, dont trust egyptian media as far as i can throw them) i find that a 5 year old kid in Egypt knows more about whats going on in the world than some of my colleagues at work.... This is not an exaggeration or a joke... Dead serious.. Middle school kids over there could give a college kid here a run for their money.... I think this is owed to news sources like Aljazeera.

Aljazeera seems to bring the reality of the news vs the bullshit that passes for news here in the states. I really respect them and their coverage. Every piece i have seen them do has been well documented and with sources as well as opposing views. But, to be fair as well, i find more criticism of Israel in the Haaretz than i do on CNN or any other major news source... While CNN or Fox are waxing poetic about Israel i find the Haaretz actually using challenging arguments and providing some real coverage as well.... Absolutely amazes me that while a couple hundred folks are dying a day in Iraq or Afghanistan (many innocents) FOX or CNN will show you nothing but US tanks and soldiers shaking hands with little kids.... The ultimate propaganda machine if ive ever seen one...

Bottom line i watch CNN for entertainment with my morning coffee; BBC for slightly more entertaining but somewhat more serious news, read iTulip for economic news, Aljazeera and alot of times Haaretz (i like to analyze my news sources especially for ME stuff) for ME news, and couldn't even tell you what channel FOX is on....

Contemptuous
02-27-09, 02:25 PM
Here's an early hominid yearning to be rehabilitated to the family of mankind. :rolleyes:

1143

billstew
03-15-09, 02:34 AM
Is Al Jazeeraa anti USA?

It is a matter of 2 different AJC networks: Arabic vs English

AJE: English Net
AJ: Arabic Net
AJC: Corporate Entity

Even though NYC and LAX would have to be totally obliterated for AJE to be available in the US -- AJE is far too American Imperialist for my taste. It has yet to equal the morally ambiguous so called moral high ground of BBC World...

AJ itself is more reasonably placed as far as being pro-US or pro-Israel -- it offsets (and must offset)


VOA Arabic
VOA Persian
BBC Arabic
BBC Persian

but must also offset


DW Arabic
France 24 Arabic

ThePythonicCow
03-15-09, 04:11 AM
I figure if there is ever to be peace between all inhabitants of the earth, it will come after the disappearance of all religionsI would suggest that while what you say is logically true, the cause and affect it suggests is not.

My impression of the human species is that both war and religion are essential aspects of the cultures formed by large groupings of humans. Those who envision humans existing in large number without war, or without religion, either one, are engaging in some sort of unrealistic fantasy.

We are a flawed species.