Billionaire Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal influences the direction of Fox News reporting. From "Saudi prince gives Sharon 'benefit of the doubt' for peace" in Middle East Online, with thanks to Diana West:
Al-Walid also criticised US media which he described as "in general ... pro-Israel." But he also accused Arabs of not being pro-active in fighting the allegedly slanted media.He said that during last month's street protests in France, the US television network Fox -- owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in which Al-Walid himself has shares -- ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots."
"I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty," he said.
"Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."
Well, they certainly weren't civil, and the rioters were Muslims, so what the hell else are they?
The news channels are a waste. People are on the net getting their news, so this little Saudi bastard can pick up the phone all he wants and bitch to who he wants, it's becoming too late.
Islam has its ass in the air and multitudes are seeing it for what it is, no matter what Saudi Arabia's version of Father Guido Sarducci has to say about it. This guy has a real bad nervous tick.....Wonder why that is.
I also noticed that this clown likes to pat himself on the back. But, I guess when you're the middle child out of a family of 6000 inbreds, you might go all out to be the center of attention.
Wow! I stated in a previous discussion that I thought 5.46% ownership of News Corp. hardly constituted ownership of Fox News.
I guess I have to admit here and now that I was wrong on that assumption! How could my math have been so flawed? What about the other 94.54% of the shareholders? Do any of them demand the truth?
I think I'm going to go sit in the corner and suck my thumb for a while now.
Fox news is an eevil rightwing propaganda channel!
/sarc off.
Now it looks in the very real danger of becoming a "nice" apologist channel like the rest of them.
The savage Bin Talal can say what he wants, but the fact remains that the Paris riots were the work of Mohemmedans. Whom is is trying to kid. Christians, Hundus, Sikhs, Jews et al, do not shout "Allahu Akbar" ever, only Mohmmedans shout out to their pagan pre-islamic moon God Allah, when committing murder, arson, terror, beheading and so forth, just as the founder Mo did while he was alive.
Why should we believe any of what al-Walid bin Talal says? Is Murdoch on the prince's fast dial?
That is what has always concerned me about the Prince buying into Fox. My suspicions are confirmed. The MSM is bought and paid for by Muslims.
It is surreal to think of Moslem complaining about how they're covered, given that they are not only coddled by the Western media, but are openly promoted.
Oh well, the best defense is a good offense, and Moslems have been whining since they launched their murder-Ponszi-scheme standing on the burning sands of Main Street in Mecca way back before the Holy Prophet had even taken up pedophilia.
PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH PBUH PUBH
What took the Moslems so long to figure out that they could buy their own networks?
Or did they feel it unnecessar to do so in light of the total abject obsequiousness of the MSM from the outset?
"I think I'm going to go sit in the corner and suck my thumb for a while now".
Don't be too hard on yourself matey. It's all part of the process. Before we can feel like a Dhimmi, we must first feel like a dummy.
He couldn't buy NYC, so he bought FOX.
Al-Walid bin Talal needn't worry too much. Murdoch's other holdings, including a certain magazine run by figli-di-papa Bright Young Conservative Careerists, are doing just fine in diverting attention from the full menace of Islam, and the varied instruments of Jihad. Look at My Weekly Standard, with its stout support for the "moderate Muslim" (at least one of whom appears in its pages), especially the wonderful Shi'a of wonderful Iraq, and the inability of many on that magazine to grasp what is wrong with the whole Iraq tarbaby. That failure comes from an uncritical cheering of the Adminstration, and a refusal by its writers to study Islam, or to consult not the "moderates" who are occasional contributors, but the defectors from Islam.
The magazine's cheerleading for the Administration comes easily. For it too has failed to note the nature of three-vilayet Iraq, and the nature of Islam, the two things without an understanding of which any discussion of American policy in Iraq is fatally vitiated. The failure to identify the goal of the policy in Iraq properly -- i.e. as the weakening of Islam in Iraq, through internecine struggle that attracts outside forces, and leads to permanent instability and strife within the world of Islam, and instead to keep promoting this "Iraq the Model" or "Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations" notion, is not limited to My Weekly Standard alone. Only recently have there been glimmers of understanding from such columnists as Charles Krauthammer, or from many of those at National Review. Bruce Thornton, and not Victor Davis Hanson (with his rapturous claque), is the one who has Islam's number.
No, al-Walid bin Talal need not bother Murdoch about the party line of My Weekly Standard. Cheerleaders for Democracy is On the March, for democracy and good reconstruction will cure the ills of Iraq by making life better, for the problem is not Islam itself but rather "islamofascism" or "extremist" Islam -- of Islam itself, and therefore there is no reason to seek to use Iraq as a place to welcome instability and internecine Muslim warfare. My Weekly Standard editors need no intervention from on high, to keep the focus off of Islam directly, and hence to see what is wrong, naive, silly, misdirected, in the hopes and dreams for Iraq -- certainly not from the likes of al-Walid Bin Talal, with his facial tic, and his tack, and his dough.
Hugh -- you are hopelessly bitter, and bitterly hopeless.
Does anyone feel the humiliation that a feudal tyrant can make a phone call to the media of a (we assume) democratic country and ask them to cut the news to suit his taste?
DC Watson: I needed a laugh today and your remarks brought a good laugh and smile. Thanks for the humor and thanks for all of the research and writing that you do for JW. Rocky: Yes, I feel the humiliation that you do. I can't watch much TV today. I hope that someone can give an update on any comments and/or denials that come from the news section or other hosts on Fox News. Pending a serious denial, I will give up the last news station that I watch and get my news entirely from the Internet.
I thought it was the JEWS who controlled the media......
"Hugh -- you are hopelessly bitter, and bitterly hopeless."
-- a posting above
How so? Because I dare to criticize anyone at all, on any side, or supposed side, marching under any rubric or weekly standard, when I think that person is wrong? I don't see this adequately described as being "hopeless" or "bitter" or "hopelessly bitter" or "bitterly hopeless" (or any other n choose k combination that might be possible, but they're all accounted for). Blind loyalty, and obstinate stupidity, obstinate loyalty and blind stupidity (I'm getting the hang of this chass-croise myself) does offend, and does infuriate.
"Bitter"? I'm too busy, when not composing parodies and little jokes, being infuriated or disgusted, to be "bitter." "Hopeless"? If I were a "hopeless" sort I would not bother trying to bring others to their senses, and would not post at JW. I'd simply cast a cold eye on the vast varieties of idiocy, and sit like a Beckett character, merely waiting for the end. If I felt "hopeless" or "hopelessly bitter" or "bitter" or "bitterly hopeless" I simply wouldn't bother at JW, or anywhere else for that matter.
In any case, the character sketch will amuse many, and I'll be sure to pass it on -- hither and yon.
JSLA:
You're right, of course.
He is bitter, bitter, is Hugh. Bitter and hopeless. And bitter.
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, Hugh?"
"It is bitter—bitter," he answered;
"But I like it
"Because it is bitter,
"And because it is my heart."
***
Hugh Fitzgerald, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.
Hugh loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would send him dancing.
Hugh sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.
Hugh mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.
Hugh loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.
Hugh cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing:
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.
Hugh scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Hugh thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.
Hugh Fitzgerald, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Hugh coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Half-Miniver Cheevy, half-Mrs. Miniver.
Right you are, Robert.
Let me try!
Roses are red
Violets are blue
So am I
And so is Hugh
OK, I'll stop. :(
Reading Jihadwatch, Frontpagemagazine, Campus watch everyday certainly can compel one to become more hopeless, demography can make one feel hopeless, mainstream media brings feelings of hopelessness to those of us in the know, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're giving up the fight...As far as bitterness goes, I for one admit it! I am bitter & angry - we all should be
Sursum corda.
Hugh:
Habemus ad Dominum.
R
On Topic:
If the Prince is concerned about the underpriviliged, why doesn't he cough up some of his own money to take care of them, preferably in a more congenial climate such as Saudi Arabia?
Off Topic
I can't make up my mind whether the postings at this site are getting bitter and bitter or verse and verse. And I suppose I'm not helping the situation at the moment.
...and sit like a Beckett character...
There are worse things. Like sitting in the audience watching a Beckett character.
'Bitter', this side of the Atlantic, is a kind of beer. And it neither hopeless nor hopless.
Did anyone else see this banner that said "Muslim riots"?
I don't remember seeing it, and with the way we've all jumped on the mainstream media for not calling it Muslim rioting, which is what it actually is, was this banner ever really produced?
It may have been, I just never saw it, did anyone else?
Doesn't this jackass Prince just love to toot his horn? Wonder why he never boasts about his conversation 4 years ago with Rudy Giuliani after Muslims attacked the US on 9/11.
More people need to tell this Islamic tick where to piss off.
I knew FOX was a lost cause when they rewrote the scripts to "24" last season, complete with that nauseating 2-3 minute disclaimer/apology from Keifer Sutherland. I stopped watching it then, and have not returned to that network, except for the occasional episode of "Arrested Development" (When Opie feels the need to genuflect before the PC gods, I'll stop watching that, too)
What happens if, after another few hundred thousand dead on mahomet's orders, people start believing their own lying eyes and ears instead of the unctious prince's MSM? (And the clueless idiots at the New Duranty Times continue to wonder why fewer people want to buy their paper these days)
Hugh sounds like a Pre Raphaelite
A perfect gentil shining knight
He wields his sword of words everyday
Defending Infidels in every way
No greater fighter in the fray
Can't think of more to say...
William the Crusader you deserve a gold star for your witty remark.
Keep poetry coming folks - great fun.
One thing Saudis have realised - like Goebbels -
he who controls the media enjoys almost unlimited
power. Would like to know who has shares in BBC,Al Guardian and other virulently pro Muslim
propaganda rags??
Who said 5 % doesn't go a long way?
In the world of corporate finance it does. Agents of foreign powers must not be allowed to turn the networks into loudspeakers for Mohammedan propaganda.
Meanwhile, Fareed Zakaria from Newsweep concerns himself to 'torture:' "Psssst, nobody loves a torturer..." More enemy agents at work. And as a result Condi has to jet around the world to tell our 'allies' that it is not necessarily so....
How was that again, getting old and bitter, bitter and old? Guess I'm on the way too...
One wonders just how much of the West the Arab petrobillionaries actually own. One day we will wake up subdued, under the thumb of billionaires who have all the gold. Remember the maxim, "the guy with all the gold makes the rules." Jihad isn't confined just to bombs and tanks. The goals of Islam can easily be attained as Hugh said in an earlier post, when "stupidity is stronger than cupidity"; I would add that is this race, stupidity and cupidity are running neck and neck.
My interpretation of Spencer's poem "An Ode to Hugh"....
Says that Hugh, like me, yearns for a time when truth held sway, when judgement was swift and fair, when principles were clear, when values could not be overturned in the minds of people by the repetition of madmen (or the MSM).
Even the most staunch conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal today dare not speak the truth in a public forum, not if they want to keep their contacts, their jobs, and the grudging acceptance of the mob.
Our political correctness today is the bastard child of Skepticism, which can take the wind out of the sails of even the best thinkers.
I try to fight Skepticism wherever I find it, yet I still compromise when it comes to getting along with people that can affect my safety, my happiness, or my income.
Otherwise, I would "keep on drinking".
Fear not. If there's anything to the Saudi prince's story, CNN, MSNBC, and other non-friends of Fox will be on it in an orgy of journalistic schadenfreude. Not that I trust the mainstream media in general, but I figure if and where there's smoke...
Not that it doesn't bother me to find out that a Saudi royal has 5% ownership of Fox, but I'll only officially lose hope when Bill O'Reilly goes all "Larry King" on Islamofascism. ;)
Robert was quoting Crane, and then Robinson, substituting my name, but retaining all the rest. The details -- such as that pining for old romaunces when knighthood was in flower, and certainly that business of drinking -- have nothing to do with me. They are part of the originals.
Were I ever to be in a Miniver-Cheevy mood, I would not look further back than 1954, with the main treats of the week being Sid Caesar's "Show of Shows"(with Imogene Coca, Carl Reiner, Howard Morris, and later Nanette Fabray) and Alistair Cooke's "Omnibus," and foreign entanglements consisted mostly of worthy, sensible NATO, and in faraway Atgetish-Doisneauvian Paris, for seven months and seventeen days, aside from getting the French out of Indochine (to the tune of "La petite Tonkinoise"), all M. Pierre Mendes-France had to worry about was how to encourage Frenchmen to drink more milk.
I'm not a poet and don't I know it.
At this point in this thread this maybe almost OT but:
If you own 5% of a company you can get the CEO to return your phone calls. Al-Waleed recently backed the board in a dispute over compensation so maybe Murdoch "owed him" one. I doubt if this is a card he can play very often. It still sucks.
Interesting note: FOX owns Harper-Collins. Harper-Collins reportedly paid Al-Waleed $7 million to publish his vanity autobiography. They also took out full-page ads in major newspapers. My local library carries his book. They don't have "The Legacy of Jihad" or "Eurabia". (They do have all of Robert's books).
Another item I found while googling. Al-Waleed has a stake in Disney. He was able to get Eisner to intervene and change the Epcot Center Israel exhibit to not list Jerusalem as Israel's capital city.
He reportedly owns a lot of hotels. (e.g. 100% of Fairmount chain, London Four Seasons) Does anyone know if he owns a share of Marriott?
Money talks. Bullshitters like Murdoch (even when they have mula apparently) jump through hoops for the Saudis...
Alistair Cooke? He of 'Letter from America'?
He comes from Blackpool, I think, which is very near my home town of Bolton in Lancashire, and, if I'm not mistaken, his real name was Alfred. Perhaps, in a previous life, he wore clogs, put ferrets down his trousers and said 'eee by gum'. But I used to enjoy his broadcasts, not least because of that peculiar accent.
DC Watson
A whole lot of people still get their news on tv; I'd say the majority, there where access to the internet is limited to a happy few: most Eastern Europe, the Balkans, most of the ex-Soviet states, most of the thirld world countries. In rural parts tv is often the only medium.
This is a huge mass to influence and maneuver. Many of them have been voting freely only in the past 15 years. Murdoch knows what he's doing. Recently folks in an impoverished industrial town in Eastern Europe have been circulating leaflets urging neighbors to riot "like the French", burn luxury cars and mansions
and bring down the local oligarchs.
And so it goes.
..and when this joker owns 10% will his influence be doubled..and will it be redoubled when he has 20%?
D.C., I do distincly remember the "muslim riot" crawler on Fox, I don't recall noting that it changed to the less offensive Civil riot, though..
"Only one who has abandoned all concepts can possess a body of infinite extent."
-Huang Po
Funny. The young Turks who were rioting in France weren't demanding better jobs, equality or better living conditions - as immigrants they already get $1200 a month in welfare, free health and dental services, free schooling and can attend University free. They were demanding the creation of Islamic states or enclaves within France that would be under Sharia, not French law, and screaming "Allah hu akbar" as they burned cars, churches and non-Muslim businesses.
DCWatson:
In many of the countries of south-eastern Europe, a kind of Ottoman/Muslim reconquista is happening, by way of businesses, some of which have mushroomed and monopolized entire areas of the economy. The new Turks are vigorous not only in marrying locals and breeding; their money funds local politics, more often than not corrupt. They all seem to have ties to Palestinians who "studied" in communist universities while being paid informants of the secret services.
Those with an understanding of how corporate finance works, will realize that influence is not reduced to the 5% of votes or shares that Al Waleed holds directly.
He also has a huge stake in Citibank and in every other major bank in America. This is what gives Murdoch the jitters, or rather: "Makes him jump."
Al Waleed has much more leverage than that, he can influence Citibank to vote for or against certain projects, (this applies of course to Disney or the movie-industry as well) and that is
- another reason- why you don't see any decent, or Islam-critical movie coming out of Hollywood.
Al-Waleed is for the most part a self-made myth. Gerald Posner devotes a chapter to him in "Secrets of the Kingdom". He claims to have gotten rich buying and selling real estate in Riyadh at a time when the market was flat. Nobody knows were his money actually came from. He is widely assumed to be a nominee owner for various Saudi royals.
Foreign ownership
Under the BSA, a foreign person must not be in a position to exercise control of a commercial free-to-air television broadcasting licence. This means that a foreign person must not own more than 15 per cent of a commercial television broadcasting licence. Two or more foreign persons must not have company interests greater than 20 per cent in such a licence. No more than 20 per cent of directors of each commercial television licensee may be foreign persons.
The foreign ownership limit for subscription television broadcasting licences is 20 per cent individual and 35 per cent in aggregate.
There are no industry specific restrictions on foreign ownership or control of commercial radio stations. The Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines govern this issue.
Approval of foreign acquisitions of newspaper interests is the responsibility of the Treasurer under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. The foreign ownership limit for a national or metropolitan daily newspaper is 25 per cent individual and 30 per cent in aggregate.
more..
http://www.dcita.gov.au/broad/cross-media_and_foreign_ownership_reform/existing_media_ownership_restrictions
oops.. thats Australia..
radio rules..U.S.maybe same for T.V.?
Section 310 (47 U.S.C.), in relevant part, provides that:
(a) The station license required under this chapter shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof.
(b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by-
(1) any alien or the representative of any alien;
(2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government;
(3) any corporation of which any officer or director is an alien or of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country;
(4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which any officer or more than one-fourth of the directors are aliens, or of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license.
In plain language, 310(a) bars foreign governments and their representatives from holding radio licenses in their own right. Section 310(b) applies to common carrier radio, broadcast radio and aeronautical service licenses,(Note 2) barring private foreign investors and foreign corporations from holding such licenses and prohibiting aliens from sitting on the board or becoming an officer of a licensee. To guard further against foreign control of licensees, the law imposes a foreign ownership limit of 20 percent of the shares of a company holding such a license. That limit is fixed; the FCC has no discretion in its application. However, the statute permits a greater measure of foreign participation, as opposed to control, via parent or holding companies
While the applicability of the statute's direct control tests is fairly clear, the interpretation of the section 310(b)(4) public interest test is less straightforward. On its face, it would appear that greater than 25 percent indirect foreign control or ownership would be permitted, unless the Commission finds the public interest would be harmed. However, in enforcing this provision, the FCC has interpreted the provision as a bar to investment, presuming that the 25 percent holding company limit should not be waived unless the potential investor can demonstrate no harm
..if your interested,,lotta stuff here..
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%202000/essa/essafoca.html
Senator Byrd:
"The FBI has indicated to me its grave concern over foreign penetration of our telecommunications market. Foreign governments whose interests are adverse to the U.S., foreign drug cartels, international criminal syndicates, terrorist organizations, and others who would like to own, operate or penetrate our telecommunications market should be prohibited from doing so.(Note 24)
In response to such concerns, both chambers, in particular the House, would have given the President latitude to block any waiver of section 310(b) restrictions on grounds including national security and law enforcement concerns. "
Wow, talk about dhimmitude. I'm waiting for when the prince of Saudi calls up Washington and says "terror is not a part of islam, stop attacking muslims," and Washington complies. Either way, we're giving into these barbarians way too easily. When someone who isn't even an American has this sort of power, it's frightening. What right does this islamist have telling us what we can and can't say? This is insane. The muslims are coming, and too many Americans are just giving up, for those who even care. I think too many of us don't really know what's going on, due in part to the fact that most Americans and westerners don't even care. They're too content to go to their jobs, their homes, shopping and watching TV to even realize that there is a war going on, a war against and ideology that want us oppressed or dead.
In other interesting news, not exactly on topic, but something worth thinking about: a plane crashed into an apartment building in Tehran, killing all 90 something people on board, and killing 20 something people in the apartment. But that's not the interesting part. The article goes onto say, that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in Saudi Arabia. Now, what could he possibly be doing there? My guess is plotting against the US or other western nations, but that's just me.
The paper above concludes that perhaps restrictions on foreign ownership should be dropped..is The Institute for National Strategic Studies leftist? or just plain ol' bug-nuts?
also, would Bill Gates be allowed to buy 5% of a Saudi broadcast outfit,say radio, T.V.?
..where's the reciprocity?
Thanks to both Otterfisher and ovidius_naso for your very good responses. DC
I still don't know about this Muslim riots thing on Fox's ticker, so I'll gladly go with what you tell me. This Prince obviously thinks alot of himself, doesn't he?
Hugh:
You say: "Robert was quoting Crane, and then Robinson, substituting my name, but retaining all the rest. The details -- such as that pining for old romaunces when knighthood was in flower, and certainly that business of drinking -- have nothing to do with me."
Nothing to do with you?
Oh reallllllly?
Cordially
RS
If it wasn't for hockey, I wouldn't watch the television at all. Too many books to read. Just received Bostoms book in the mail today and haven't yet finished Sword of the Prophet and White Gold is next. So many books, so little time. Need to get Eurabia. I read a piece a couple of years ago by someone who predicts trends and he said there would be civil war in America's future. I guess it will be between Islam and the rest of us huh? I am a 66 year old woman who is trying to keep up with the rest of you.
Does anyone have the spine to stand up to the Saudis?
..i did not mean to imply mutual exclusivity(above) to the terms leftist and plain ol' bug-nuts..just to be clear..
But, I guess when you're the middle child out of a family of 6000 inbreds, you might go all out to be the center of attention.
Posted by: DCWatson at December 6, 2005 11:32 AM
In Catherine's absence, a gold star for you today!
RE: Only recently have there been glimmers of understanding from such columnists as Charles Krauthammer
In my hubble opinion, I feel that Krauthammer has always been a voice of reason.
Hugh, even though I am a conservative republican - a label that I take for myself as result of my affinity for limited government and religious values- your argument have completely convinced me about Iraq.
I voted for President Bush because I truly believed that we were at war after 911 and I owe a debt of gratitude to you and JW for opening my eyes to the half truth of "war on terror". I now realize that it's really a war with Islam - or rather Islam is at war with us... has been for all of it's existence and had only taken a pause in the modern era because of the West's amazing economic growth and technological advance.
I still am supportive of President Bush, but not on Iraq unless the "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" does truly de-fang the dominance of Islam, something that it is evidently not doing, I feel that we should minimize our waste of resources.
Jsla, Hopeless? I would feel hopeless in we were deceived about the nature of this struggle. The fact that we know who and what the enemy is fills me with hope.
Again, even as I restrain natural feeling of support for the notion of changing the world through Democracy, I realize that we must rethink Iraq and also the name and nature of the enemy.
It is not the individual Muslims that I fear, it's the words in their holy books and the millions that wish to act them out and the tens of millions who wish to replace our advanced culture with their primitive cult of the desert.
As to Fox, sadly, one more media outlet I do not trust.
Thank God for the JW and DW.
D.C. Watson bravo on the work you do, I enjoy it greatly, god bless to your efforts,
EL Cid Campiador
Hugh, even though I am a conservative republican - a label that I take for myself as result of my affinity for limited government and religious values- your argument have completely convinced me about Iraq.
I voted for President Bush because I truly believed that we were at war after 911 and I owe a debt of gratitude to you and JW for opening my eyes to the half truth of "war on terror". I now realize that it's really a war with Islam - or rather Islam is at war with us... has been for all of it's existence and had only taken a pause in the modern era because of the West's amazing economic growth and technological advance.
I still am supportive of President Bush, but not on Iraq unless the "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" does truly de-fang the dominance of Islam, something that it is evidently not doing, I feel that we should minimize our waste of resources.
Jsla, Hopeless? I would feel hopeless in we were deceived about the nature of this struggle. The fact that we know who and what the enemy is fills me with hope.
Again, even as I restrain natural feeling of support for the notion of changing the world through Democracy, I realize that we must rethink Iraq and also the name and nature of the enemy.
It is not the individual Muslims that I fear, it's the words in their holy books and the millions that wish to act them out and the tens of millions who wish to replace our advanced culture with their primitive cult of the desert.
As to Fox, sadly, one more media outlet I do not trust.
Thank God for the JW and DW.
D.C. Watson bravo on the work you do, I enjoy it greatly, god bless to your efforts,
EL Cid Campiador
Have you ever noticed that we're getting almost all bad news?
El Cid,
It's el Cid Campeador, not Campiador.
D.C...i said above that I recalled a "crawler" saying "Muslim Riots,,,"..I recall upon reflection that it was even more striking then that, i.e., a bold static title/center screen
with burning cars in the background..
I accept your apology and acknowledgement that I was right.
What you don't know is that as little as 2% ownership of a corporation can constitute effective control.
But take heart, this blows holes in the antisemites rant that the media is Jewish controlled.
Strange isn't it, here and on Free Republic (and according to Ann Coulter) the media has a liberal left wing bias, but wander outside of right wing blogs and the rant is that the media is Jewish controlled.
How simple the idiots are.. the media is corporate controlled, their bottom line, profitability, market share, advertising revenues and most of all their latest stock price is what is important, not ideologies.
But somehow less than sentient bozo's, effective morons, of left and right just can't understand the simplicities of capitalism and the profit motive.
rocky, sorry I missed typed - often I have little time to edit my posts, and as I grow older my typing skills are not what they use to be.
I chose El Cid as my "nom de guerre" because I still remember the stories my Spanish grandfather would tell.
El Cid was his hero, as it is mine.
El Cid Campeador-- don't ever be tempted to choose "Don Quixote" as a blogonym or postonym.* That would imply tilting at windmills here. No such tilting at here. Just the real thing.
*I don't know if these words already exist or if this may their first appearance. If the latter, will those busily filing their notes about neologisms kindly inform those expanding the O.E.D. on or off-line, that "blogonym" and "postonym" have been baptised and the not-quite-identical twins are now, after the ceremony, safely at home, sucking contentedly on their pacifiers.
I was always creeped out by Charlton Heston's stiff performance in "El Cid". Anyone else?
But continuing to fight the Muslim hoardes, even after you're dead -- now that's neat!
(I will lend credit that his performance was rigorous, and did have a certain rigor to it... Vigor no, rigor yes... Now I would like my credit back, please...)
From one of my favorite songs,
"I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire.
I’ll never forget the look on my father’s face as he gathered me up
in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement.
I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames.
And when it was all over I said to myself, “Is that all there is to a fire?
Is that all there is?”
sung:
Is that all there is,
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is"
------------------
Sometimes you just think the hell with it.