Saturday, September 25, 2004

Speaking of Public Opinion and Balanced Journalism...

Al Jazeera, the most widely watched Arabic television channel, conducted a telephone poll during its top debating program, the Other Direction. In it, 93 percent of viewers said they approved of kidnapping foreigners in Iraq — even though by then, one of the two American hostages had been decapitated.

...ay-yi-yi-yi-YI. So much for being hailed as "liberators".

Laborer Mohammad Jassem, however, defended the right of Iraqis to kill and terrify Americans and those who work with them.
"Who told them to come here and sell our fortunes?" he asked. "I would not only kill an American, I would slaughter him and drink his blood. We'll never forget what the Americans have done to us. ...
"Every honorable Iraqi approves of killing Americans and beheading them. They should get out of our country."

(Wait a minute...isn't there a Judeo-Islamic prohibition against drinking blood? Somebody declare a Fatwah on that man!!!!! Tellingly, there is no such prohibition in Christianity. I guess that means that it's okay for the Religious Right to practice vampirism. They'd never fess up, though, because they could never bring themselves to admit to the public that they really suck.)

The balanced, objective media ('scuse me...hysterical laughter break...) has spoken, and it is seriously scary! And Allawi was thanking Bush for having brought peace to Iraq? Hey, kiddies, can you say, "TOESUCKER"? I knew you could.

All right, back to your regular programming.


Anonymous said...

Blog Noir:

I thought they weren't supposed to eat pork.

Anonymous said...

Relatively Exact:

To get a good idea of what their dietary restrictions are, read the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. It's pretty much the same. They can't eat animals that don't both have cloven hooves and chew the cud. In other words, pork and horsemeat are out (though sheep and goats are acceptable, and I didn't think they ruminated, but oh, well). Dogs are considered unclean no matter what, so dogmeat is right out. They also can't eat any kind of seafood that has a shell including shrimp, crab, or lobster. There is also a prohibition against consuming blood because "blood belongs to the Lord". The Muslims seem a bit stricter about this than the Jews, to the point that they carefully drain all the blood from a slaughtered animal before butchering it (what they call halal).

Anyway, drinking an American's blood would definitely be unislamic and therefore punishable by hanging in either Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Anonymous said...

How about centaur or manticore?

...or the faint possibility that the guy has lost friends and family and is blind stinking mad right now so he is venting on whoever will listen...and like the stupid American reporters they are emulating, Fox...I mean CBS...I mean Al-Jazeera...reports his comments without any context.

Vulgarius said...

Tellingly, there is no such prohibition in Christianity

Please re-read The New Testament...I'm not sure which one youhave read.

Anonymous said...

Gay people:

Does that mean we can throw out the Old Testament? Oh joy. Free at last...not to mention we no longer need to stone our children for misbehaving!

Praise Jesus!

Vulgarius said...

Hmm Not sure where its going but what the Heck! After all, I'm not apllying for the job of a Levitican priest! Or even a lowly Pastor.

I find it a fascinating question of how biblical law has evolved over the millenia. How did we get from an "Eye for an Eye" to "Forgiveness"? Or did we ever leave one for the other? Or one before the other? Good questions?

Vulgarius said...

"93 percent of viewers said they approved of kidnapping foreigners in Iraq — even though by then, one of the two American hostages had been decapitated."

I'm sure that all of that 93% are Iraqis? Most non Iraqi arabs thought that Saddam was a great guy and hero and protector of the Islamic world. Probably the same audience. There were tales of widespread depression and shock to the Arabic audiences when Saddams statue head was dragged through the streets being spanked with shoe soles and "doggie greeted" by any Iraqi who could get close enough. More dismay from these same people as a lice ridden wannabe Sal Ad Din who vowed never to be taken alive was caught hiding in a dirty hole with unclean animals and an unfired pistol. This is the same audience that was cheering and partying in the streets as America's Husbands, Wives, Children, Neighbors and Families were dying beneath the smoking wreckage of the WTC. You may be out of context to state that these people do not look at us as liberators. More to the point these are the people who hated us before 911 and will hate us long after you and I are long dead... Act or act not. What ever is stated by a network that tows the line that Saddam's (former)Army has driven the American crusaders into their graves during the thunder runs through Baghdad should be considered fit only for consumption on the official MSS website. And as he (MSS, The former Iraqi information minister) stated just after the thunder runs..."We are now very far from reality".

Anonymous said...

Gen. MacArthur:

Sigh. I remember the good old days when only the Japanese were suicide bombers. They'll be looking for revenge long after I'm dead.

ElTigris said...

Well I seem to remember that no Iraqis were involved in 9/11 bombing rather close to 80% were Saudis. They had no reason to hate us then even though we had done them no favors. They have lots of reasons to hate us now, after all we did invade their country and did a good job in trashing the place. As far as Saddam being considered a great guy - lots considered him to be an ass. He was a bully and deserved to be watched like any other dictator, but for the most part he was content to lord over what is called Iraq of yesterday. We are involved in another vietnam here. Worse yet most of the fighting is done in an urban environment as well as the convoys. American soldiers are now basically targets, because our imperious leader has no clue or care what to do next - except blow sunshine up our backsides here at home for those gullible enough to listen.

Anonymous said...

Relatively Exact:

I'm still trying to figure out why Vulgarius responded to my explanation of ISLAMIC food restrictions by suggesting that I read the New Testament, as in the CHRISTIAN New Testament, as in little or nothing whatever to do with Islam. I don't get it. It's kind of like explaining LINUX command entries and having someone respond that you should read a Mac user's manual. Nope. Total blank. Did he think I was proselytizing or something? Or is he trying to insert some of his own? Still blank. I think someone needs to go back and read my comment again.

In the article, all the comments that they actually quoted came from Iraqis, but Al-Jazeera itself is based in Qatar and has a broad viewership all over northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a misleading statistic taken out of context, but,'s not like Western news sources don't do a lot of the same kind of thing.

Vulgarius said...

Sorry if I was not clear. I think it has to do with the lag in posting. It was mearly a remark about Moody's drinking blood comment. No pro-sel-a-ty-zation was intended nor was this message officially sanctioned by any religious community.... This message brought to you by the "Its just plain groty to drink human blood commitee" and the "MEAT" lobby!

Anonymous said...

LA Times:

The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military's own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.

In a U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke of foreign insurgents "flooding" his country, and both President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, have cited these fighters as a major security problem.

(Notice that candidates Dumb and Dumber are, as always, misinformed on the important stuff)

Vulgarius said...

In another nutshell... the reply you made about the food restrictions was a cool reply. I didnt get the impression of proselytizing. Its interesting though. Since from a Christian standpoint the same food restrictions apply to Christians if they are in the company of people who felt constrained by food restrictions. I.e. I would be a very very bad boy to munch out on pork rinds at a Bar Mitzvah! Burn burn burn!

So I hope that I did not come across as proselytizing...Even though in all honesty I might be offended by many things said here. Most of you should know me well enough to know that I am a Christian and that as flawed as I may be I try not to have a thin skin, lord it over, or get in peoples faces. I do however take an obscene pleasure in shattering misconceptions and stereotypes which I feel are unjust, harmfull, obsolete or otherwise inacurate.

So I hope the time lag does not hide or misdirect the true intent of any of my replies. And thanks for bringing up the question. I would not like my friends or friends of my friends to misunderstand me.

Anonymous said...


Yeah? Well you all SUCK MEAT! I'm a Meatian, and I believe that everything everyone else says is wrong. Have you all read the Meatble lately? It clearly says "Eat the unworthy, for they are MEAT!"

MMmmmmmmMMMMM MEAT!!!!!

Oh, excuse my meat.

Vulgarius said...

Thats MMMMMM MEATY!!!! (in a low primal growl)

Anonymous said...

Old lady from Burger King:

Where's the Beef?

Cynical bystander:

It died with Reagan (who by the way contains many meat by-products).

Anonymous said...


You definitely can't beat Reagan's meat, that's for sure!

(Oops...was I supposed to put an asterisk in there somewhere?)