PDA

View Full Version : Palestinian Music Video Broadcast: Death-Cult Encouragement


MMMMMM
08-13-2003, 05:27 PM
Well nickyg finally agreed with me on something: that al-Qaeda are nutcases in the grip of a death-cult. What may not be so obvious is that many Palestinians are too. While the Palestinians do have have grievances and sufferings to deal with, it is also true that there is a widespread organized death-cult mechanism at work in their society, actively teaching and proselytizing the deluded view that suicide bombers will ascend to a Paradise of 72 Virgins. Believe it or not this is very mainstream stuff for the Palestinians.

(excerpt)"In the week leading up to today's suicide bombings in Israel, Palestinian Authority television began rebroadcasting a music video glorifying martyrdom."...

..."The music video broadcast in the past week depicts "martyrs" joining beautiful maidens in heaven. Marcus notes it previously had been aired hundreds of times in the past three years before returning to PA television.

The Palestinian Authority, through its schools and media, teaches that "martyrs," who include suicide terrorists, will be rewarded with "72 dark-eyed virgins," or "maidens of paradise."

The television clip begins with scenes depicting a romance cut short when soldiers shoot the woman in the back. She immediately goes to heaven where she joyously joins other young women dressed in identical white gowns.

The "maidens" are dancing in water, a depiction of the afterlife in Islamic tradition. Later, the man visits the woman's grave, and the soldiers shoot him in the back as well. At the moment he falls to the ground, he immediately rises to heaven and joins the maidens.

Religious leaders have taught on PA television that when the martyr meets his maker, all his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood. He is exempted from the “torments of the grave," or judgment, then comes into paradise where he marries 72 dark-eyed virgins." (end excerpt)

full article and links to actual broadcast:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34049

Cyrus
08-16-2003, 01:00 PM
Quoting WorldNetDaily again, M?

When will you ever learn?

(Yes, the suicide bombers' brains are given quite a work-out! Yes, they are criminals. No, this isn't meant to condone in any way their actions. Yes, your credibility sufers when you use WorldNetDaily as a source. No, not even if their figures are accurate should you quote them. Yes, you should look elsewhere for sources.)

MMMMMM
08-16-2003, 01:12 PM
I'll use ANY source if I think it has accurate and important information.

My understanding is that we are here primarily to discuss ideas and facts, not messengers (unless of course the messenger is the actual topic of discussion).

Why should source bother you so much anyway? I don't have
too much of a problem sifting facts from opinions (although it can be quite irritating if a lot of opinion is mixed in). I'm sure you are quite capable too of culling the wheat from the chaff when reading.

Now if you could show me where WND is regularly reporting
falsehoods (as was the New York Times), I'd say you have a point. But at this point I am forming the view that WND information is actually more reliable than New York Times information.

Cyrus
08-17-2003, 07:00 AM
"I'll use ANY source if I think it has accurate and important information."

Well, this is exactly why you should be suspicious of sources that have gigantic chips on their shoulders. Such as WND.

"My understanding is that we are here primarily to discuss ideas and facts, not messengers."

I must refer you to McLuhan's adage.

"I'm sure you are quite capable too of culling the wheat from the chaff when reading."

A particular piece of data is usually available on the web from many sources. It is easier ro have a good discussion about Israel if I quote a Holocaust figure from a Jewish website rather than a neo-Nazi website, even if the two sites offer the same figures. (And if the only website that offers a figure is a neo-Nazi website, one should be extra suspicious.)

I routinely (but carefully) link to websites with "chips on the shoulder" too, eg Left Business Observer (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html) . But I'm extra careful about some figure that only they have available! That is usually a supermarket tabloid specialty.

"WorldNetDaily information is actually more reliable than New York Times information."

I will let that one stand unanswered and in all its glory.

MMMMMM
08-17-2003, 10:04 AM
Cyrus: " 'WorldNetDaily information is actually more reliable than New York Times information.'

I will let that one stand unanswered and in all its glory."

Well if you're going to quote me at least do it accurately please, like this: "But at this point I am forming the view that WND information is actually more reliable than New York Times information."

Also I don't think it would be too farfetched to surmise that the NYT has a chip on their shoulder as well.

Also, I think it is wrong to subtly suggest that WND is as biased as a neo-Nazi publication would be.

Cyrus
08-17-2003, 10:57 AM
"If you're going to quote me at least do it accurately."

The part I left out changes absolutely nothing. I was and am being as accurate as possible with my quotes. While also being reasonably economical.

"I think it is wrong to subtly suggest that WND is as biased as a neo-Nazi publication would be."

I didn't suggest anything, "subtly" or not. I merely offered a blatant example, and Nazis/Jews is as blatant as it gets. Pick your own example to illustrate my point, which is, lest you forgot, that using neutral or 'hostile' sources to support your views is better for your views and better for the discussion. (Democrats/Republicans; Brits/Irish; Turks/Kurds; Bush/Gore; anything you consider not to be offensive to dear ol' WorldNetDaily.)