NBC whitewashes Shafia honor killing: no mention of Islam in story of girls killed because they "betrayed Islam"

Well, at least the leftist dhimmis stooges that tune into their security blankets.

"patriarchal society"

Tsk, tsk, tsk.... the mother of those girls was also responsible for their murders, many muslim women also engage in "honor" killings. it's not a man's thing, it's a muslim thing. Another free pass for Islam.

For every caveman there's a cavewoman.

I know, I know, I know.

They - the MSM - won't associate the terms honor killing and muslim and islam.

But no one is fooling anyone. Certainly we in the anti-jihad movement know the time of day. What's encouraging, at least to me, is that more and more Westerners are putting the muslim puzzle pieces together on their own. Despite the best efforts of the MSM and leftists generally.

More and more are seeing that islam and its abhorrent practitioners, i.e., muslims. and their lying ways are the problem.

The information dike's broken. islam has no where to go but down.

"But NBC defended “Today Show” host Katie Couric for her questions in an an Oct. 12, 1998, interview with the then-governor of Wyoming, where the attack took place.

Couric asked the governor whether “conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere” by suggesting homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.

“That prompts people to say,” Couric added in her question, “‘If I meet someone who is homosexual, I’m going to take action and try to convince them or try to harm them.’”

Shepard was a 21-year-old homosexual student at the University of Wyoming, whose burned and battered body was found in the snow outside Laramie in October 1998.

NBC News Executive Producer for Broadcast Standards David McCormick defended Couric in a reply to Focus on the Family on Wednesday.... "

Story:
http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/27977/

These PC media morons wouldn't see the "elephant in the room" if it sat down on thier faces! The tragedy is that these useful idiots are spreading disinformation about a violent and supremacist political system, Islam, to a bored and naive populace who would roll over and go back to sleep or watch the next episode of "American Idol". What is to be done with the willfully ignorant with the the spread of world jihad??

Don't worry. Cover-up as they will the truth gets out. They had to say his name. Fortunately Islam is stupid and most males are called Mohammad...

"Foul deeds will rise though all the earth o'erhelm them, to men's eyes" Shakespeare. "Hamlet".

Deo gratias.

Besides genuine ignorance, no doubt cowardice and greed played a role in NBC's decision. Makes one sick.

Hi gerard,
OT
On another thread, you asked me,

How is God the "Supreme Being" if He is neither omnipotent nor ominscient? And how does human free-will prove that God cannot be ominscient/omnipotent?

God could be perfect and supreme in relatedness to creatures, without being coercive.

And consider for a moment what divine omniscience, if it existed, would mean for human free will.

It would mean that God knows the outcome of all your decision-processes in advance. If God knows everything, then he would know in advance everything you are going to decide to do, before you "decide." But that would mean that your decision processes are really a sham, because it had all been decided in advance. I don't think decision processes are a sham. I think when you make decisions, sometimes you are really making decisions. Therefore I don't think the outcome of those decision processes is decided in advance or known in advance, even by God. Therefore God, though superlative in relationship and in other ways, is not omniscient, and human beings do have some real freedom.

So that's a partial answer.

"There was nothing surprising in NBC's coverage of the Shafia murders at all. It was just another example of how the mainstream media routinely whitewashes Islamic violence, and essentially lies to the public about the nature, extent and magnitude of that violence." -- Robert

And on the Michael Cohen thread, where Robert was interviewed on his show, Robert pointed out the double standard within the mainstream media and newspapers with regards to muslims and say Christians; and stated, for instance, that if Christians routinely committed honor killings like muslims do, then the media would be ALL over stories like this one, and it would be frontpage news as well, and they would be right in doing that. Why do they continue to minimize these evil honor killings as if giving muslims a pass? Robert was being kind by calling this a double standard.

Your example has a critical flaw. You say you might have "known" what NBC would decide. But you don't notice that your "knowing" would be only an educated guess, perhaps a very assured guess based on high probabilities. But we were talking not about educated guesses and probabilities. We were talking about divine omniscience, and knowing with absolute certainty. That is something entirely different.

If the outcome of decision-processes were always known by God in advance with absolute certainty, then those decision processes would be determined in advance more precisely than the workings of the most reliable machine. That is not freedom.

Whatever God is -- perhaps supreme love and relatedness -- God is not omniscience or omnipotence -- unless one doesn't mean those terms literally, but only by awed comparison to humans, in relation to whom God's knowledge and power are no doubt infinitely greater. But strictly speaking, God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, not unless one thinks Allah is God. Allah is indeed The Great Despot, who knows all in advance and controls every movement of every finger and the exact trajectory of every mote of dust.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one for now. We can both afford to be humble in our little opinions on God, no doubt...

"The person watching from a distance does not know anything"

God knows everything. But if you read my other posts you will see that I was not attempting to eplain everything about God's knowledge of our future, but just to point out that knowledge and freedom are not in opposition.

My apologies to all if my posts here are OT.
It is of relevance though in the context of Islamic theology which ignores reason and allows for such moral absurdities as "Honor killings" while christian theology has always acknowledged the use of reason as well as revelation.

gerard,

If some things are beyond Reason, how can one make statements about those things? Yet you do make such statements. That seems to me a contradiction. You say, for example, that God is omniscient. But if you are going to point to something allegedly beyond your reason, it seems to me you must be silent about that something, not make statements about it, such as, "God is omniscient." How do you claim to know, or use reason, about those things which you say are beyond reason?

Since, by your own admission, you can't makes such statements on the basis of reason, you can only do so, I think, on the basis of authority -- the authority of someone else's alleged revelation. I suppose you are expressing a version of a traditional view that originated in the medieval period -- the view that there are two sources of knowledge -- natural reason, and revelation. And they do not contradict each other, but some things we can only know through revelation (the Bible).

Personally, I don't agree with that view, and don't believe it's adequate to Christianity or the Bible. I don't believe the divine Jesus intended people to be subservient in that way to a book (even the Bible), or that he thought reason had to give way sometimes before some authority's interpretation of a revelation. Vital reason, the Logos, behind which is perhaps the living Christ, was meant to be a source of knowledge above any tradition, even above the Bible. (Insofar as "revelation" means something one has directly experienced for oneself, however, that is not beneath the Logos/vital reason, but one with it.)

I don't think that anything is in principle entirely beyond reason -- though I don't think the world is absolutely rational and determinate either. If the world were without any real ambiguities and were absolutely logical and determinate it would be dead, would it not? I see it as constantly coming newly into being, as alive, and as often imbued with paradox and the overlapping play of opposites into each other.

Reality is not just logical clarity but also is sometimes ambiguity. Every phenomenon contains both poles -- clarity and ambiguity -- though one pole or another may predominate almost entirely depending on what phenomenon one is observing and when. Logic tends to deny or underrate the existence of ambiguities. What I mean by "vital reason" is something that recognizes the polar relation between ambiguity and clarity, a polarity peculiar to process, transformation, metamorphosis, and life. Vital reason, or Logos, reasons without denying that living polarity of overlapping opposites. The Logos is not just light, but it became life, as well. The Logos thus seems to be inclusive of logic, but larger.

"If some things are beyond Reason, how can one make statements about those things? "
You can't. But God can.
I can argue (reason) that God exists. But God has revealed some things eg that He is a Trinity. This is beyond my comprehension but not against it.
Thus eg. the christian God is Love.
You could reason 3 things are necessary for love; 1 The lover. 2 the loved 3 the loving.
Another eg 1 the giver 2 the receiver 3 the gift.
In any case love does not exist in abstract. For a situation of love there must be community. Persons.
So in fact I can make some sense of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Again it's worth noting that the Islamic god is insular.
and is there much love in Islam?

"If the world were without any real ambiguities and were absolutely logical and determinate it would be dead, would it not?"
I accept that the world is myterious to me. But put a piece of a machine back in the wrong place and see if it works...

gerard,
You are a good sport.

You said, "Can you explain to me how God created the Universe from nothing?"

First, all creation, insofar as it really is creation, is in a sense creation out of nothing. If something is really and truly new, it is without precedent, and in that sense comes from nothing that preceded it.

So all true creativity is rather difficult -- but certainly not impossible -- for reason to understand. Is creativity entirely beyond reason? Not at all. The only sense in which creativity is beyond reason is the sense in which the sheer existence of reality is beyond reason. Why is there something rather than nothing.

It's trut there can be no "explanation" for Being itself, because the mystery of Being is not something hidden behind Being; the mystery is precisely that sometimes everything becomes in a way visible. Then you have the direct experience of the sacred. In those situations there is, in one sense, nothing to explain, because all has become presence, all has become in some sense or degree manifest. The ultimate cause is then not entirely at a remove, but becomes visible, supporting itself, causing itself. When one sees into that, one to some extent sees right to the bottom of existence, behind which there is nothing. One sees God. And there is no "explanation" for God as experienced, precisely because in God all is visible and in no need of explanation.

But I say that not on the basis of some external authority, but on the basis of my own experience. I make a rational statement on the basis of experience. I don't deny rationality on the basis of some external authority or use external authority as a substitute for my own rationality, which is what you seem to be doing sometimes.

Now you'll get the last word, as I must go out.

"You, like the Muslims, claim to speak in God's name"
No, I'm just speaking in my own name.
Yes, I believe that God exists and that He reveals Himself to us.
No, I'm not a Jihadist just because the Bible hasn't told me to be one.
"You evidently think that..."
"You think you know,..."
"an authority where questioning is no longer required..."
Blimey mate, I'm off for a laager before you chop me bloody 'ead off!

From Robert's description, what likely happened is that Shannon Urtnowski hadn't gotten the memo yet ("Memorandum from Brian Williams to NBC staff: Never invite Robert Spencer to anything affiliated with NBC programming -- and P.S. please don't put powdered creamer in my morning lattes, thanks -- B.W.") at the time she was setting up the arrangement; then at some point someone higher up in the food chain saw the paper trail and immediately nixed it.

"What should I tell Mr. Spencer?" Ms. Urtnowski then asked her superior. "Just tell him we found someone else closer to the Chicago studio."

Traeh and Gerard, I'm curious about what kind of theological reading you guys do. I'd be glad to chat with you about books at Uncle Cephas.

But on to Robert's posting:

Robert, the MSM is going to discredit itself with too many more incidents like the one you describe. Alternative media (such as this blog), is going to get the truth out about Islam and its blessing of behaviors which Christians would regard as sinful.

I comfort myself with the knowledge that I grew up during the liberal media monopoly and was exposed to Messrs. Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Rather, et al every day, yet I am a Conservative. Before the advent of Fox News, there was no alternative to the liberal media except a few newspapers. Between the propaganda taught in public schools and the fabrications, obfuscations, and politically correct prose used by today's corrupt, biased journalists, I wonder if toay's youth stand a chance of learning the truth about anything. They are bombarded from kindergarten through college with Marxist agitprop, moral relativism, cultural Marxism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and anti-Americanism. Seventeen years or more of leftist brainwashing is probably irreversible.

However, despite their relentless efforts to cover for muslim savages and islam, the media cannot hide the obvious from the unwashed masses. I believe that the media, or certain segments of the media, are not only advocates for the democrat party and the current administration, but follow guidelines set forth by the white house on what 'news' to report and how to report it. The current administration refuses to acknowledge the islamic connection to terrorism and terrorists; likewise the media. Many newsworthy stories are not reported because they are indictments of islam; there is an obvious collusion to hide the truth about islam from the public. Unless they stop reporting domestic violence in households headed by muhammads, most people can figure out dead females at muhammad's house are honor killings and he's a muslim. When they put two and two together, they should feel nothing but contempt for the idiots who brought them the compromised 'news'. Disgusting!

Mohammedan morality -- Shocking acts of violence.
Media morallity -- Lying about Mohammedans' openly declared motives for shocking acts of violence.

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” Orwell