Osama Bin Laden is dead.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm sure all they'd have to do is publish the photo of her with Bill in their bathing suits (hypothetically, of course). Remember, as someone here pointed out long ago-the dreaded cellulite. Puts all the kibosh on the sexual suggestiveness, cause she has physical flaws. God knows her brain power doesn't matter, it's all about the cellulite. Even though that has zero effect on intelligence.

That newspaper thing is just very sad to me. At least she can't be Photoshopped out of her job, or out of her achievements. Still very sad.
 
coolian2 said:
will there be the same rush from the right to condemn this clear violation of women's rights?

i personally don't agree with the call, and the 16th century-tastic view of women it propogates, but it's pretty harmless.

retarded, but harmless.

It's a violation of copyright. If someone altered my photo without consent I'd be pissed
 
:eyebrow:

Reaching a little far there, don't you think?


Of course I am. Just like the question of "which middle eastern country do we want to shape ourselves after?"

But what do you do with such exteme ideas? I always hear about how the right wishes society was like it was back in the 50's, that part of the problem is women working and not staying home, feminism is often used as a bad word, and you even have some that go as to far to say that women shouldn't be president because the Bible says men were created first.
 
There are many people who really despise Hillary for whatever reasons who might applaud it. Also people like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who want to milk it for laughs or material-or are just relic chauvinists. I'd like to think that mainstream Republicans would have a serious problem with it.
 
They airbrushed Audrey Tomason out too, not just Hillary...

There's not really anything you can "do with" the Hasidim without infringing on personal liberties; they're like the Amish basically, anti-assimilation traditionalists who do indeed resist modernity in most ways though are harmless to others (well, unless you're paranoid and assume they mean to take over the world because Protocols of the Elders tells you so).

My family used to live in a primarily Hasidic neighborhood. Their newspapers are notorious (in the Jewish community anyhow) for these blanket policies against running photographs of women; same with any community event posters or advertisements they put up in their neighborhoods. It's not like a Christian "denomination"; each Hasidic subsect follows its own rebbe's rulings, so they don't see eye-to-eye on the minutiae of which outfits, situations etc. are "immodest" and which aren't. So for example some Hasids might think the original of that photo is fine, while others might find it indecent that married women who aren't wearing a wig or headscarf appear in it (generally, both Hasidic men and women always cover their 'real' hair in public, though the respective perceptions of why each sex should do it are clearly different, for example there's no problem running a photo of non-Jewish men without headcovering).
 
Last edited:
Sure, that's why they later formally apologized, because the White House had specifically said the photo was not to be altered.

If this Jewish blogger hadn't outed them, no one would've known. It's just a crappy little Yiddish daily(?) read in a few neighborhoods in Brooklyn by people who think the Post, the Daily News and the Times are treyf; it's not The Forward or something. Like I said, they're notorious for this kind of stuff. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
But that's sort of what I'm getting at. They only apologized because they were called on it. Apart from copyright issues, you'd think a newspaper would be interested in maintaining journalistic integrity. If they want to run the picture, put some black bars across the women at least. I just really have a problem with doctoring of photojournalist's images, whether they do it themselves (which has happened on several occasions) or someone else does it. It's far beyond harmless
 
The lack of assimilation


this is something we do really well, INDY. i'd argue that we are indeed exceptional in this area, especially compared to countries that might be economically and socially liberal, but are culturally conservative.

i'd argue, however, that wringing your hands over Sharia law creates precisely the kind of conditions over here that exist over there and thus make assimilation of different groups much more difficult than it is over here.

Muslims in America tend to be prosperous, happy citizens, they are not segregated into suburban ghettos like in Paris. the best way to radicalize American Muslims is to start treating them like terrorists.
 
Apart from copyright issues, you'd think a newspaper would be interested in maintaining journalistic integrity.
Well, I don't disagree, but having some idea of the types who publish and read "Der Zeitung," any concept of their commitment to "journalistic integrity" makes me giggle.
i'd argue, however, that wringing your hands over Sharia law creates precisely the kind of conditions over here that exist over there and thus make assimilation of different groups much more difficult than it is over here.

Muslims in America tend to be prosperous, happy citizens, they are not segregated into suburban ghettos like in Paris. the best way to radicalize American Muslims is to start treating them like terrorists.
:yes: Ghettoization is a huge part of the problem in Europe, I've certainly seen some of that firsthand and I know you have too.
 
other than AIDS in Africa, perhaps the only other area in which i liked what Bush did was his extensive efforts to make clear that Islam was not the enemy and that Muslims are not the enemy.

we need to continue this. Obama's Cairo speech was a great step forward, and is likely a part of the Arab Spring.
 
Muslims in America tend to be prosperous, happy citizens, they are not segregated into suburban ghettos like in Paris.

:hmm:

Not officially and not on a broad scale, but...

Relocating mosque forces Bedlam Theatre to move | Minnesota Public Radio News

This story didn't receive as much coverage as it should have.

This neighborhood has become known as "Little Somalia" or "Little Mogadishu." It is damn close to being a Somali ghetto. It made sense to relocate the mosque close to the large population it will serve, but kicking out a very liberal (some would say anarchist or communist) theater and bar doesn't exactly help with assimilation.
Relations are fairly good in Minneapolis, however this move helps to isolate what is already an amazingly isolated neighborhood anyway. There is one more theater and a couple nightclubs still in the neighborhood, but I know many people (mostly women) who don't like to go there because of the gangs of Somali boys who hang around on the streets with little to do.

FWIW
 
Well, I don't disagree, but having some idea of the types who publish and read "Der Zeitung," any concept of their commitment to "journalistic integrity" makes me giggle.

Hahaha, well, I can't speak to that. Even still, if their publication is a rag, it doesn't give them free reign. But ya, I think we're on the same page
 
There's actually a pretty strong case to be made that for a self-identified "newspaper" to alter photos, no matter their source, violates Jewish law (beyond the problem of violating the copyright laws of the land, which almost certainly violates Jewish law). But where "modesty" is concerned, it just would be a total waste of time engaging most Hasidim in a discussion about that.

In Israel they do this too, for example opposition leader and oftentime Cabinet member Tzipi Livni is routinely cropped or brushed out of Hasidic papers' photos (writing about her isn't a problem, likewise I guarantee you many of those airbrushing HRC out or approving of that nonetheless voted for her for Senator).
 
Last edited:
Tzipi%20Livni.jpg


comely
lead us not into lust.
jsmile-joy.gif
 
comely
lead us not into lust.
jsmile-joy.gif
If they were doing it selectively based on men's attractiveness ratings, that would be even more degrading.

Nice touch on the smilie though; its provenance is quite amusing.
 
Last edited:
Noam Chomsky: “My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death” | Open Culture

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

Took a spell but the insane Left is now speaking out.
 
Oh, Noam, not really living in reality are we? :cute: :crack:

That said, just for fun....

1993 WTC: 6 deaths
U.S.S. Cole: 17 victims
September 11th: 3,000 deaths
Bali: 202 deaths
London: 56 deaths
---------------------------------
~ 3,281 deaths


Invasion and occupation of Iraq: ~ 150,000 civilian / combatant deaths
----------------------------------
~ 150,000 civilian / combatant deaths


It's of course stupid to compare bin Laden and Bush in terms of being "evil". In terms of aggregate body count, though, things get a little blurry, don't they?

Wait, what's that, you say? Iraq wasn't about al-Qaeda at all? Oh, oh dear :(
 
There was a claimed retaliatory attack for Bin Laden's death by the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) near Peshawar today. Double suicide bombings at a paramilitary academy. More than 80 people killed and close to twice that number injured, many critically.


Guardian (UK) - Editorial, May 14
If ever an opportunity presented itself for a civilian government to claw back powers it has ceded to an army whose tentacles extend into every part of life in Pakistan, yesterday was the day. The army, and its premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), were facing an unprecedented assault on their competence after the US raid on Abbottabad. Even talk show hosts, the secular mullahs of Pakistan, turned on them. How could Osama bin Laden's presence go undetected for six years in a garrison town that is home to three regimental headquarters and a military academy? How could US helicopters grab their quarry from underneath their noses?

Hours before the army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, was due to answer questions like these in a closed session of parliament, the Taliban put down a third amendment for debate: How is it the military failed to protect its own recruits, 66 of whom were among over 80 who died in two suicide bombings in Charsadda, north of Peshawar?

Asserting the primacy of civilian control over a failing military is, however, the last thing on the mind of President Asif Zardari. If his period of office has taught us anything, it is that there is a world of difference between strengthening the democratic project and strengthening a civilian government's hand, as [a columnist for the Karachi paper Dawn] has observed. If the summit of the government's ambition is to see out a full term, then a chastened army becomes the ideal partner. One pretends to govern while the other pretends to protect. But nor is that an answer either.

Being the chief of Pakistan's army is a balancing act. He heads an empire that has simultaneously threatened to let the Chinese inspect the rotor parts of the stealth helicopter that crashed into Bin Laden's compound, and given the CIA access to Bin Laden's widows. Bigger trade-offs are in the works. Gen Kayani will continue to resist US pressure to go after three groups that the ISI still consider long-term assets–-Mullah Omar, the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba. To go after them would be to provoke civil war, the ISI pleads. But the price of pleading impotence may also be high: allowing back all those CIA agents who have just been forced to leave the country, and with them more US operations on sovereign soil.

The bottom line is that Islamabad will not change its strategic posture. The irony of the US relationship with Pakistan is that it may not have to, if the military path currently being pursued in Afghanistan fails to blunt the Taliban's offensive. Two armies, one American the other Pakistani, both performing dysfunctionally in this part of the world, need each other.
 
Rosie O'Donnell Osama Bin Laden | Bin Laden Deserved A Trial | Mediaite

Rosie O’Donnell is making some waves suggesting America may have become the type of “monsters” we loathe with our targeted killing of Osama bin Laden. Uncomfortable with the wild celebrations last week of “drunken fraternity boys” celebrating Bin Laden’s death in New York and Washington, Rosie also reveals that she expects America to be an example for how we want other countries to act and was disappointed we were not the leader of morality and fairness here.

Rosie explains:

“You can also be upset about the fact that he didn’t have due process, that he didn’t get tried, that he wasn’t you know brought to The Hague for war-crime tribunal. . . . Many, many people, including now on the Twitter feed say, ‘Well, Rosie, it was illegal for them to fly planes into the Twin Towers.’ I’m fully aware of that. Because other people are capable of criminal acts on our soil doesn’t equate to ‘therefore, we are allowed to do criminal acts on their soil.’”

Never one to shy away from her opinion, Rosie wonders, “you don’t want to become what you loathe, wasn’t the whole point of this is that we are not monsters?”

:rolleyes: I just find this argument regarding Osama rather silly.


And this one too.

I guess as a "liberal" I'm supposed to know who this guy is and worship everything he says? I've heared of him, but that's about the extent of it.

Sorrby but I don't feel any burden to defend the kooks on my side of the fence.
 
apparently, they found lots of porn, a pot garden, and heaps of Coca-Cola.

religious fanatics are all the same, aren't they.
 
So I'm glad Obama did this to squash alot of the conspiracy claims:

-Obama was secretly sympathetic to Muslims cos he is a closet Muslim himself blah.
-Al Queada really doesn't exist, and if so they did, they are only being used to as a group to be blamed 9 11 on blah.

I also am mixed about the photos being released.

People like Sean Hannity jumping around like a 9 yr old demanding that the photos be release irritate me. There could be soldiers that are living moment by moment as hostages and that could trigger an insane captor to kill them.

On the other hand a stock photo with the body cleaned up but dead would have sufficed.

I do think Obama is milking this which is shabby and sad-but I will give him a pass on it.

And Osama having porn doesn't surprise me but only adds to the character that he is, makes sense-he wasn't a godly person.

<>
 
Back
Top Bottom