"Asian" terrorism?

In response to some comments on this story:

Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly checking their watches.

Some comments:

What knee-jerk ignorance!

- Bernie, Canada

What a disgrace.


- Tom, London

What next? Not letting Asian people board buses or even worse segregating them just like in America until recently. We must tackle the root causes of ignorance and not judge a book by its cover. As a British Muslim I feel less and less part of Britain because of the media and government campaign that lumps the trouble makers and law abiding Muslims in one basket

- Malik, London

Yes, what knee-jerk ignorance! Any objective reader would have understood that - from the article - what worried the passengers was not just their skin color but what they thought - rightly or not - was their suspicious behavior and attire. It is knee-jerk ignorance to impute their worries to skin color alone. And extremely offensive to Koreans, Chinese, etc. to call these people "Asians" to avoid calling them Indians or Indonesians. Suddenly any "Asian" is tarred with the same brush. This is political correctness gone wild.

And I would guess that not many British Muslims have ever actually felt "a part of Britain", having wilfully segregated yourselves from Britain since you arrived. Otherwise you would be troubled by the hate speech regularly preached by some imams.

---

With MSN Spaces email straight to your blog. Upload jokes, photos and more. It's free! It's free!

Political Objectives? Tippytoeing around the truth

From the AP:

Bush didn't repeat the reference to "Islamic fascists" at the State Department today, referring instead to "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives."

To whom is Bush referring? These people want to kill innocents for religious objectives. (Oops, he can't say that out loud.)

Although ... their religion encompasses the political as well ... so perhaps he's accurate, in a roundabout way.

---

Express yourself instantly with Windows Live Messenger! Windows Live Messenger!

Foiled Plot

The AP writes:

While al-Qaida's call for global jihad clearly acted as inspiration, there has been no direct evidence that bin Laden or his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, had advance knowledge of those attacks, that they helped plan them, or that they provided financial or logistical help to those who carried them out.

Question: do we care if it's "genuine al-Qaida"? Why this obsession over confirming this? Because we can't face reality?

The reality is this: there are thousands (optimistically) of people who are trying to kill us because of their belief system, not because of an al-Qaida membership. That's all. No ties to terrorist groups are needed - just, for example, a lone gunman who has bought into a religious system. (Whether it's a distorted one or not can be debated at www.answering-islam.org.)

Second, why this tippytoeing about those religious beliefs?

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said those under arrest are mainly young, British-born men of Asian origin.

As a Chinese, I find this extremely offensive. Journalists are so afraid of offending Muslims that they are willing to cast all Asians in the role of potential terrorist. But why the kid gloves? Doesn't anyone with at least half a brain already know the religious beliefs of anyone wanting to blow up anything with innocent people inside? Do they seriously think they can prevent any sort of backlash against Muslims by describing the terrorists as British-born men of Asian origin?

---

Express yourself instantly with Windows Live Messenger! Windows Live Messenger!

The Final Solution

Sigh. Those who cannot learn the lessons of life from Ben Hur, will never learn. Hezbollah (and Islamist terrorism) is based on an idea, the idea that their actions will earn them eternal pleasures.

How do we fight an idea? "With another idea."

Solution: videotape the IDF (or someone to whom the handling of the substance suggested is not taboo) spraying Hezbollah bodies with pig fat, denying them entrance into their paradise filled with "young boys." (For some reason we keep forgetting that part of the verse. Are we just not inclusive enough?)

After the initial uproar from both the peaceful and non-peaceful Muslim (?) communities, they'll get the message.

Why the peaceful Muslims would get upset is another question altogether.

V for Vendetta: Preachy Pop Pontifications

I watched it knowing what I was getting into. Having "read" the "book", too. But I couldn't resist seeing what the Wachowski's could do with the material.

Well, it turns out, not much apart from conjuring a fantasy world. By that I mean one that has absolutely no connection with reality. Islam is repressed (instead of being the opressor, as in the real world today); gays are repressed (instead of being endlessly celebrated and deified in movies like this one); priests are pedophiles (well, OK, I'll give them that - although the book "Goodbye Good Men" suggests another aspect to this we've been ignoring); and a murderous fascist, probably "Christian" fanatic is in charge, but not quite - in the movie's most laughable moment (well, one of them), he fails to take the most obvious course to ensure that Stephen Rea's detective does not reveal his biggest secret. Instead of killing him, he ... makes him promise not to tell.

It's such puerility that pervades this pop parsing of Moore's teen-angst plot. Doubtless to some it is still "BRAVE" and "HARD-HITTING" to cast Christians in this light*, but it only reveals the shallow knowledge of history - and even of the present day - that infuses our cultures. Or perhaps the sad lack of questioning that the "Question Authority" bumper sticker types seem to exercise in fact.

Oh. They also ruin the movie by adding a sappy love angle to the story that adds nothing and gooeyizes (and confuses) everything you've seen in the last couple of hours.

Anyway, the movie conveys important, timely messages: the Church is your enemy! Islam is a totally benign religion in danger of being lost forever! Gays are brutally oppressed! And see how I made McCreedy look like Rush Limbaugh (or Frank Rich)! It's such subtlely that makes this film a deep viewing experience for those "in the know", for those who UNDERSTAND that these things might actually, like, happen.

*It's brave because ... Christians may get upset but you know they won't blow up your building? Won't saw off your head? Wow, that's really brave taking on people like that.

Why Cut and Run?

I don't know if it's been said elsewhere, but I think it's clear why so many liberals are advocating cut and run. And it's not because they think our strategy there is failing.

It's because they think it will succeed.

And what a nightmare that will be for all the naysayers who scoffed at the "cowboy" from Texas. What an embarrassment for those who consider themselves the enlightened. And what a disaster for upcoming elections.

It's repugnant, I know, to think that they may be doing this - denying freedom to the Iraqis, allowing the insurgency to flourish - for such crass and selfish reasons. But I can see no other explanation for their constant cries to cut and run. Are they really concerned about our soldiers? Well, then why advocate surrender? Why bring all their efforts, and the sacrifice of their fallen, to naught? Why save their lives and sell their honor? No, it's not for them.

Is it because it's a bad plan? Well, it's the same plan Bush offered at the beginning - just badly executed, truncated before the underlying security infrastructure is in place.

Is it for the American people? To save on the cost of war? Well, what about the cost of a few more 9/11's? Because that's what cut and run will bring.

So they intend to nip Iraqi democracy in the bud before it can succeed. At any cost. Before it can vindicate the man they hate above all others. Because it will embarrass Bush.

And no price is too great for that.

---

Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. Windows Live Mail.

People Who Thank George Bush/America (2)

From someone who really counts:

"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell"

—Iraqi Citizen, voter Betty Dawisha

For those mathematicians who are apparently still unaware of how their discipline says evolutionism is rather silly

... here is a link to some info on the Wistar Institute Symposiums:

The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. ...

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence. ...

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10¹²) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). ...

It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order not to give ammunition to the creationists. The rapid accumulation of evidence against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such proportions that most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a cardinal Darwinian doctrine; they agreed that small changes from generation to generation within a species could never accumulate to produce a new species. ...

The following year [1984], still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth."

The same year another scientist wrote this:

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.

W.R. Bird documents the great confusion reigning over almost every area of evolutionary biology in his excellent The Origin of Species Revisited. And of course creationsafaris gives a good taste of how "the dead hand of Darwin" continues to muck up real science.