My Hopes for Certain Broadcasters This Thursday (September 11th)

[Avid Listener]

Seriously, is there any plausible reason to think that if ISIS were to attack American home soil they'd do so by "mingling with the Mexicans as they both illegally invade our nation" through "our porous borders" rather than using a plane like, oh, say, the September 11th terrorists did?

If one looks at this situation through the lens of expertise in radio, then the answer is "I haven't got a clue. That's not about radio."

If one has even a smattering of knowledge about military operations and/or military history, with any emphasis on asymmetric warfare, one would recognize that there are dozens and dozens of different sorts of acts of sabotage and terrorism that an enemy group could carry out on US soil. Yes, using aircraft as missiles is one possible scenario. So is using rental trucks to place IEDs in strategic locations, as Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. So is using smaller IEDs to knock down highway overpasses in multiple locations all around the country. Another scenario is using IEDs to blow up electrical power transformer facilities, or to knock down transmission line towers. Considerable havoc could be wreaked by blowing up various radio and TV transmission towers. Only people totally lacking in imagination could fail to recognize all the many, many vulnerable spots in America's infrastructure that could be damaged by a cadre of fanatics. The one thing that an army of fanatics needs to engage in such labor-intensive acts of terrorism is an army of fanatics in place to carry them out.

 

[Mario500]

I believe no person would have treated the twenty-fifth day of December like an outcast or used it as a synonym for the series of tragedies that occurred in New York, New York, Arlington, Virginia, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania on the eleventh day of September in 2001 if they had occurred on the twenty-fifth day of December of that year instead.

 

[FredLeonard]

Tragedy dates recede in memory and importance as time passes and people who were around then - and affected by them - pass on.

Pearl Harbor is fading. The great grandchildren of people who remember it now drive Japanese cars and use Japanese electronics.

Quick, on what date was the RMS Lusitania sunk? Right, you don't know. Arguably a more important event historically and one which had an even greater impact on people around the time.

 

[purpledevil]

The 100 year anniversary is next May 7th.

 

[Avid Listener]

When a war ends, and the enemy who attacked us to start the war is defeated, then it is time to move on. The enemy that attacked America in 2001 is still actively engaged in waging war against us. Therefore, September 11 will remain a day of national reflection and mourning until such time as every Islamic terrorist has either surrendered or been killed.

 

[Mario500]

^If that were the only way for some folks to "move on", then it would most likely never happen in their lifetimes.

 

[Avid Listener]

^If that were the only way for some folks to "move on", then it would most likely never happen in their lifetimes.

How about that? You are actually starting to demonstrate some inkling of understanding how normal people think. "Moving on" from remembering Pearl Harbor Day required the Greatest Generation to get old and die off. Likewise "moving on" from the sinking of the Lusitania, or the sinking of the Maine in Cuba, which started the Spanish-American War. When the generations that were alive and affected by the attack on the US on September 11, 2001 die off, the following generations won't remember as vividly. The ending of the war that those bastards started by attacking the World Trade Center will help accelerate the process. But until those ragheads are stopped, one way or another, it is in America's best interest to make a deliberate effort as a society to NOT "move on". Moving on is something you do after a tragedy is over. As long as those Satan-worshipping terrorists are beheading Americans with butcher knives, and threatening America and what few allies we have left, it behooves us as a nation to remember just what kind of creatures that human scum is that we are fighting against. The nation's public airwaves are one of the most important venues for accomplishing that goal.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Quick, on what date was the RMS Lusitania sunk? Right, you don't know. Arguably a more important event historically and one which had an even greater impact on people around the time.

Wait, more important and with a greater impact than Pearl Harbor, or 9/11? The US had much more impact on the aftermath of World War I than the war itself (and the fact there was a World War II shows it didn't have much) and the Lusitania sinking was just one step in a drumbeat of events that pushed the US into the war (the Brits eventually had to forge a telegram implicating the Germans in a plot to take back Texas for Mexico to draw the US in). It's hard to argue that the sinking of the Lusitania was more important or had more of an impact on people like Avid Listener than 9/11 (hell, the Titanic was probably more impactful); to call it more important or impactful than Pearl Harbor would be downright ridiculous.

The ending of the war that those bastards started by attacking the World Trade Center will help accelerate the process. But until those ragheads are stopped, one way or another, it is in America's best interest to make a deliberate effort as a society to NOT "move on". Moving on is something you do after a tragedy is over. As long as those Satan-worshipping terrorists are beheading Americans with butcher knives, and threatening America and what few allies we have left, it behooves us as a nation to remember just what kind of creatures that human scum is that we are fighting against. The nation's public airwaves are one of the most important venues for accomplishing that goal.

Xenophobic bullcrap like "ragheads" and "Satan-worshipping terrorists" show why some people might want to move on: they expose your thought processes as not that different than the people you speak of, as well as illustrate an unwillingness to think critically about how other people actually live and think. It's the sort of mentality that led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, not the defeat of the Nazis. I won't begrudge you your political beliefs, or even disagree with the need to go after ISIS, but people as willfully misinformed as you, so quick to revert to a simplistic "us vs. them" mentality, are what's wrong with this country today, and to voice the notion that the media has a duty to feed your hysteria is just shameful. Orwell would have loved you.

 

[Avid Listener]

Xenophobic bullcrap like "ragheads" and "Satan-worshipping terrorists" show why some people might want to move on: they expose your thought processes as not that different than the people you speak of, as well as illustrate an unwillingness to think critically about how other people actually live and think.

When a group of people chooses to wear a distinctive piece of headgear as their uniform of choice, referring to them by that uniform is simply accurate labeling. British soldiers wore red coats. Hence, they were called "Redcoats". US Army Special Forces wore green berets, hence they were called "Green Berets". Islamic terrorists wear cloth rags on their heads. You can see it in published photographs of them. So, calling them "ragheads" is no more a pejorative than calling a British soldier a "redcoat" or an American Special Forces soldier a "Green Beret". As for the fact that they worship Satan, that is a matter of deeply held religious conviction on my part. Are you such a bigot that you cannot accept my expression of deeply held religious beliefs and convictions? Are you somehow authorized to pass judgement on whether or not my personal religious beliefs are "acceptable"?

 

[FredLeonard]

C'mon. Those are deliberate slurs by outsiders. Members of Army special forces call themselves "greet berets." British troops have never called themselves "red coats."

Arab men wear a keffiyeh. It is an Arab head cover, not Muslim. It is made of cloth - not rags. "Rag" is defined by the dictionary as "worthless pieces of cloth, especially one that is torn or worn." Use of the word "rag" is a deliberate slur against Arabs (or mistakenly all Muslims).

You don't want to hear what they call you.

 

[Avid Listener]

C'mon. Those are deliberate slurs by outsiders. Members of Army special forces call themselves "greet berets." British troops have never called themselves "red coats."

Arab men wear a keffiyeh. It is an Arab head cover, not Muslim. It is made of cloth - not rags. "Rag" is defined by the dictionary as "worthless pieces of cloth, especially one that is torn or worn." Use of the word "rag" is a deliberate slur against Arabs (or mistakenly all Muslims).

You don't want to hear what they call you.

I know what the Satan-worshipping ragheads call those who aren't Satan-worshipping ragheads.

 

[FredLeonard]

Are you trying to claim that Muslims worship Satan? Sorry, they have the same god as Jews and Christians.

 

[Avid Listener]

Are you trying to claim that Muslims worship Satan? Sorry, they have the same god as Jews and Christians.

You are mistaken. Or more accurately, you have been deceived. They claim to worship the one true God, but they are wrong.

 

[JeeperOne]

Just as I suspected would happen, MSNBC aired a couple 60 minute documentaries but from what I saw otherwise, it was mostly stuff from AHC, Smithsonian, etc

Don't think CNN aired anything & I know Fox News was airing anything (They were too busy with affairs of today)

Cheers & 73

 

[dhett]

Perhaps Freddie was being a bit superlative but he is close to the truth....at least historically. Although Islam hasn't changed significantly over the past few hundred years the far right versions of Christianity have. They no longer burn witches at the stake or murder other religious sects because of differing beliefs - but they once did and not too long ago. So-called Christians participated in the wholesale slaughter of indigenous Americans (Indians). So-called Christians persecuted non-believers, Mormons and Jews. So-called Christians lynched Blacks, enslaved them and treated them as property. 100 years ago women were considered chattel property and could not vote in a so-called democratic country. And more recently a major Christian denomination has participated in a huge cover-up of sexual misdeeds by its own clergy.

Beheading and stoning are two of the most heinous acts we see in Muslim cultures but our own Christian culture is not too far removed from equally distasteful acts.

"Freddie" wasn't in the same galaxy as the truth, and based on remarks I have read from him, he doesn't care much for truth, preferring provocation instead. While I don't see such a history of incendiary remarks from you, you don't seem to be much closer to the truth, either.

Anyone can call themselves anything that they want, but it doesn't make it so. Just as one can know a tree by its fruit, one can know whether or not a person is a Christian by the fruits of the life they lead. Christianity is following the example of Christ and His teachings: 1) Love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. The slaughter of innocents and persecutions of non-believers that you cite are contradictory to the example of Christ and to His teachings; therefore, those "distasteful acts" are also contradictory to Christianity. As for slavery, it was an accepted practice worldwide at one time. We lack the moral authority to judge it by today's standards. You seem to be a bit selective in your facts, however, as you fail to mention that Christians, and especially evangelical Christians, played a significant role in the Abolitionist movement, and were instrumental in changing the mindset of both the church, and the world at large, toward slavery.

 

[FredLeonard]

That may be what Christianity is supposed to be. Islam, too, for that matter. But it's not what the history of Christianity shows.

Christianity told slaves to obey their masters. Christians sold, transported and owned slaves. Now who is being selective? Christianity or any religion is like ink blots. People see in it what they want to see and what they want to see reflects who they are, not anything about religion.

Interesting you mention "truth." Christians claim a monopoly on it and have a history of burning anybody who says different. "Truth" is I'm right and you're wrong and therefore you will go to hell. To eradicate any viewpoint different from "The Truth" clearly indicates weak belief that can not tolerate different perspective. Monotheism has killed more people than most diseases.

 

[Avid Listener]

When evaluating any religion's teachings, one must examine two things. One must examine the writings the religion holds sacred, and one must examine the actions of the adherents of the religion. For the latter, one must also take into account historical realities. For Christians, it wasn't until the 16th century that the Christian Holy Bible was readily available for Christians to actually read in their own languages. Prior to that, copies of the Holy Bible were rare, and written in Latin. Once Christians actually had copies of the Holy Bible in their own language, the actions of Christians began to conform much more closely to what was written in the Holy Bible. That was a process, not an event. But it is an historic reality.

The Koran was, and is, written in Arabic, and was, and is, mostly followed by people who spoke and understood Arabic. Therefore, the actions of Muslims over the course of the existence of Islam was much closer to what the Koran teaches.

What the Koran teaches is a doctrine of a vengeful god who punishes sinners, and calls on his followers to obey the god's laws or be put to death. The the Holy Bible teaches is that though we humans are by nature sinful, we can strive to follow God's laws. But even if we fail, God will forgive us for our sins. That is the exact opposite of Islam. Christianity is about God being forgiving, Islam is about god punishing people for violating his laws.

Regardless of what you might personally believe to be a correct understanding of what God wants of us, what I have written above is an accurate summary of the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam.

 

[FredLeonard]

When evaluating any religion's teachings, one must examine two things. One must examine the writings the religion holds sacred, and one must examine the actions of the adherents of the religion. For the latter, one must also take into account historical realities. For Christians, it wasn't until the 16th century that the Christian Holy Bible was readily available for Christians to actually read in their own languages. Prior to that, copies of the Holy Bible were rare, and written in Latin. Once Christians actually had copies of the Holy Bible in their own language, the actions of Christians began to conform much more closely to what was written in the Holy Bible. That was a process, not an event. But it is an historic reality.

The Koran was, and is, written in Arabic, and was, and is, mostly followed by people who spoke and understood Arabic. Therefore, the actions of Muslims over the course of the existence of Islam was much closer to what the Koran teaches.

What the Koran teaches is a doctrine of a vengeful god who punishes sinners, and calls on his followers to obey the god's laws or be put to death. The the Holy Bible teaches is that though we humans are by nature sinful, we can strive to follow God's laws. But even if we fail, God will forgive us for our sins. That is the exact opposite of Islam. Christianity is about God being forgiving, Islam is about god punishing people for violating his laws.

Regardless of what you might personally believe to be a correct understanding of what God wants of us, what I have written above is an accurate summary of the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam.

Prior to the 16th century - actually prior to the 20th century - almost everyone could not read at all, in their spoken language or any other. The Bible was not just available in Latin, it was also available in Greek (and the Old Testament in Hebrew). What you ignore is that the small minority of educated or literate people through the 19th century were also required to have a reading knowledge of Latin and Greek. There is a reason why Bible verses are read in Church; for much of Christianity's history most everybody needed to have things read to them.

Most Muslims are not Arabs and do not speak Arabic.

The Quran - not "Koran" - is available in English translations. Clearly, you not only don't know how to spell it, you haven't bothered to read it or learn anything about it.

It also sounds like you haven't bothered to read the Bible much either. Yahweh does a whole lot of punishing and even more threats of punishment.

 

[dhett]

That may be what Christianity is supposed to be. Islam, too, for that matter. But it's not what the history of Christianity shows.

No, that's what Christianity is. If it isn't what Christ taught, then it isn't Christianity. Period.

Christianity told slaves to obey their masters. Christians sold, transported and owned slaves. Now who is being selective? Christianity or any religion is like ink blots. People see in it what they want to see and what they want to see reflects who they are, not anything about religion.

You are the one being selective here. I did not dispute the history of Christianity and slavery as documented by landtuna. I only supplied the half of the story he left out. Slavery was a fact of life until about 200-300 years ago and was not considered immoral. Many prominent Christians in the early church were slave owners, however, they were admonished to treat their slaves kindly. The often brutal treatment of slaves in America was counter to the teachings of Christianity.

Interesting you mention "truth." Christians claim a monopoly on it and have a history of burning anybody who says different.

No Christian has ever burned anyone who disagreed with him.

"Truth" is I'm right and you're wrong and therefore you will go to hell. To eradicate any viewpoint different from "The Truth" clearly indicates weak belief that can not tolerate different perspective.

So if I say that 2+2=5, then we should all be tolerant, right? Go back to hating on the 1%.

Monotheism has killed more people than most diseases.

And Freddie pulls more phony statistics out of his butt.

 

[FredLeonard]

No, that's what Christianity is. If it isn't what Christ taught, then it isn't Christianity. Period.


You are the one being selective here. I did not dispute the history of Christianity and slavery as documented by landtuna. I only supplied the half of the story he left out. Slavery was a fact of life until about 200-300 years ago and was not considered immoral. Many prominent Christians in the early church were slave owners, however, they were admonished to treat their slaves kindly. The often brutal treatment of slaves in America was counter to the teachings of Christianity.


No Christian has ever burned anyone who disagreed with him.


So if I say that 2+2=5, then we should all be tolerant, right? Go back to hating on the 1%.


And Freddie pulls more phony statistics out of his butt.

Christianity died with Jesus (if he ever existed). "Christians" mostly follow the teachings of Saul of Tarsus.

Never burned anybody at the stake? Maybe you should read a little history. Ever head of the Inquisition? For centuries, burning at the stake was the common punishment for "heretics." Also "witches." Ever heard of the Cathars? Hussites? Even John Calvin got into it. He liked to sit and watch, and insisted on keeping flame down so victims would cook more slowly. Sometimes Christians change their mind: They burned Joan of Arc at the stake and then dug her up and made her a saint.

Then there's the Crusades. On their way to killing Muslims, the Western Christians stopped off in Constantinople to kill Eastern (Orthodox) Christians.

Slaughter of followers of native religions in South America and Africa.

You want to find some reason not to count all that and to consider all those people "not Christians." Whatever keeps you in the cult.

__________________

Being religious does NOT make you better behaved, researchers claims - but it will make you feel more guilty

* Researchers found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-claims-make-feel-guilty.html#ixzz3DfMHrSV9