Jump to content
Islamic Forum

tech diver

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tech diver

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. I would expect a reaction like that from someone with an avitar like yours. It's a good avitar if you're like, eight or nine years old. :sl:
  2. ~ Girl Stoned To Death For Converting To Islam ~

    It's not cool to kill a young girl for anything. If your 'book' tell you it's O.K., then you need to find a new 'book' . :sl:
  3. ~ Girl Stoned To Death For Converting To Islam ~

    Oh, a 'revert'. That changes everything. Then it's O.K. to kill a young girl. :sl:
  4. ~ Girl Stoned To Death For Converting To Islam ~

    People on this site are justifying the stoning of a girl. WOW !!! :sl:
  5. So what happened ? That surely isn't what happens in the M.E. now.
  6. Edited Inappropriate tech diver.
  7. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmemritv(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Transcript.asp?P1=1425"]Link[/url] 4/16/2007 Clip No. 1425 Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Sheik Naim Qassem: We Received Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out "Martyrdom" Operations and to Fire Misilles at israeli Civilians from Iran Following are excerpts from an interview with Naim Qassem, deputy secretary-general of Hizbullah, which aired on Al-Kawthar TV on April 16, 2007. Naim Qassem: As for the issue of the culture of death, the culture of martyrdom, the culture of life – with all its different names... It is no secret that the materialistic West, and the atheists in general, and all those who see that the power of Islam is on the rise, and that it is gaining influence – and especially with regard to the philosophy of martyrdom-seeking... They all take a negative position and exert pressure, in order to make the believers abandon the culture of martyrdom. What is the reason? They seek (the pleasures of) this world and compete in this world. They know that if we competed with them according to the rules of this world, they would overcome us, because they are more materialistic than us. Therefore, by materialistic criteria, they would be victorious. But if they compete with us on the issue of faith, we will overcome them, because the competitive power of faith is greater, stronger, and more influential. So they challenger us, or provoke us, by saying that we have a culture of death. They call martyrdom "death," in order to make us renounce martyrdom. If we renounce martyrdom, we will only have the strength of our weapons and our numbers, and then they will be able to overcome us. The enemies will be able to overcome us. [...] Do we really believe in a culture of death? Absolutely not. We believe in the culture of martyrdom. Martyrdom is valuable, sacred, respectable, and great, not something that can be used as an accusation. It is an honor for us to be accused of believing in the culture of martyrdom. What is martyrdom? It is death for the sake of Allah, and in defense of what is just. Can martyrdom change the fact that a person dies when his time has come? "When their time comes, they shall not remain another hour, nor go before it." We say that one way or the other, a person dies at a specific time. Brother, instead of dying – when your time is up - in your bed, die – when your time is up - on the battlefront, through martyrdom. Interviewer: It's the same moment anyway. You will live the same number of years. Naim Qassem: You benefit from this, and, at the same time, you end your life in a glorious manner, which is accepted by Allah. [...] Let's see if this culture of martyrdom is a culture of death or of life. It is, in fact, a culture of life, because whoever strives for martyrdom does so in order to improve his materialistic life, to prevent the enemies from occupying his land, and to live in pride, honor, and freedom. Therefore, he is improving his life circumstances, by preventing the enemies from accomplishing their goals. Therefore, this is the most noble culture of honorable life in this world, and of life in the world to come – in the event that his life comes to an end. [...] Hizbullah, when it comes to matters of jurisprudence pertaining to its general direction, as well as to its Jihad direction, based itself on the decisions of the Jurisprudent. It is the Jurisprudent who permits, and it is the Jurisprudent who forbids. When the resistance of Hizbullah was launched in 1982, it was based on the jurisprudent position and decision of Imam Khomeini, who deemed fighting israel to be an obligation, and therefore, we adhered to this opinion. How israel should be fought, what equipment you should prepare, when you should or shouldn't attack – there questions are guided by principles in Islamic religious law, and you can act in this direction, according to your abilities. Therefore, we covered our Jihad position with regard to fighting israel with the decision of the Jurisprudent. With regard to all the other details – whenever we need jurisprudent clarifications regarding what is permitted and what is forbidden on the Jihad front, we ask, receive general answers, and implement then. Even with regard to martyrdom operations – a person cannot kill himself unless he has jurisprudent permission. Since, as a Shura council, we have the authority to make decisions on martyrdom operations, and then there are operative channels to carry this out... Let's assume that some Lebanese citizen gets it into his head to carry out a martyrdom operation without consulting anybody - it is not certain that he is carrying out his duty according to religious law. He might be committing a sin, because despite the sanctity attributed to an act of such a high level, it requires permission, it requires operative channels, and it requires someone who can evaluate whether this is good or not, because lives are at stake. Even with regard to the firing of missiles on israeli citizens, when they were bombing citizens on our side... This was done in order to put pressure on them. Even that required general permission based on Islamic law. As for Hizbullah, it receives general permission from the Jurisprudent, and if we have questions regarding the religious law, there are channels through which we can learn what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is our obligation, and what is the extent of our freedom of choice. Well, there you go.
  8. . You are, aren't you ? Do you go to the conventions in full 'B5' garb ? :sl:
  9. You aren't one of those geeks who think 'The DaVinci Code' is real, too ? :sl:
  10. Pbs Accused Of Same Tactics As Radical Muslims

    PBS and NPR are already very anti-U.S. Show the film and let the people who paid for it decide.
  11. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcnsnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200704/CUL20070425c.html"]Link[/url] PBS Accused of Same Tactics Radical Muslims Use Against Moderates By Kevin Mooney CNSNews(contact admin if its a beneficial link) Staff Writer April 25, 2007 (CNSNews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)) - Public Broadcasting Service officials who have refused to air a documentary on moderate Muslims are using the same tools of suppression and censorship Islamists employ to stymie debate, a documentary-maker charged Tuesday. "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a 52-minute, taxpayer-funded documentary, was originally slated to be screened as part of an 11-part PBS series called "America at a Crossroads," examining post-9/11 challenges facing the nation. The series began airing for the first time last week on WETA, the Washington, D.C., PBS affiliate, but "Islam vs. Islamists" has been dropped from the lineup. Hollywood veteran Martyn Burke of ABG films co-produced the film with Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and Gaffney's CSP colleague Alex Alexiev, who specializes in Islamic extremism. The film, which cost more than $600,000 to produce, focuses on conflicts that have erupted within the Muslim community in the U.S., Canada, Denmark and France. The producers held a private screening in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, joined by three of the "anti-Islamist Muslims" featured in the film -- Danish parliamentarian Naser Khader, Islamic Forum for Democracy President M. Zuhdi Jasser, and French-Algerian journalist Mohammed Sifaoui. Also attending on behalf of the Islamic Supreme Council of America was Hedieh Miramahdi. Burke told the audience that PBS and WETA advisors and producers had objected to the participation of conservatives Gaffney and Alexiev. A "bitter fight" ensued over the content of the film, and the PBS/WETA criticisms became increasingly "hysterical," he said. "PBS is doing what the Islamists are doing," Burke charged. "They are silencing these people [Muslim moderates]." The producers said PBS replaced their film with another one, "The Muslim Americans," which Gaffney called "a triumph for the Islamists," saying it promoted a perspective in line with that of America's enemies. For his part, Alexiev claimed that the replacement film paints a "fawning portrait" of U.S. organizations with extremist ties. Alexiev also noted a conflict of interest: He said the replacement film was produced by Robert MacNeil, who also hosts the "Crossroads" series. MacNeil was therefore allowed to produce his own film and at the same time was "the key guy who decided what gets cut," he claimed. PBS spokesman Joe Deplasco told Cybercast News Service the Burke-Gaffney-Alexiev film was unfinished and could not be shown. He said he was aware of their arguments, but declined to comment on them, referring further queries on the subject to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) - a private body funded by the federal government to promote public broadcasting through PBS. CPB officials did not return calls Tuesday. Asked about "The Muslims in America," Deplasco said the decision to include it in the series was made for sound reasons. As the "Crossroads" project went forward, he said, the PBS-WETA producers felt that there "something missing" about everyday Muslim life. Consequently, they decided to use "The Muslim Americans." Deplasco said films that did not make the cut for the series may still be considered for airing later as "stand alone" pieces. But the "Islam vs. Islamists" filmmakers contend that their product is complete and in no need of further editing. "We are at the end of the road with PBS," Gaffney said. "They have rejected the film we have made; they are insisting on structural and textual changes that would essentially eviscerate the message." The next step, Gaffney explained, was to ask the CPB to relinquish distribution rights to the film so it can be viewed by the American people "in another medium." In a letter to the CPB board last March, Burke, Gaffney and Alexiev said criticism of their film was based on a serious, perhaps willful misinterpretation of its message and its method. Roger Aronoff, a media analyst with Accuracy with Media, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday that while he has not seen the film that PBS refuses to air as part of the series, his organization has had "issues with PBS over the years." The broadcaster, he said, has "a long record of airing primarily left-leaning documentaries." "The fact that they aired other documentaries as part of the 'America at a Crossroads' series that arguably represent a conservative point of view gives them some plausible deniability when they say that [neither] Gaffney's viewpoint nor his association with an advocacy group is why they shelved his film," Aronoff said. "But Gaffney's film, according to reports, represents an important point of view that needs to be heard." "It is for just these types of situations that we have long advocated that tax dollars and politically biased programming do not mix," he added. "Do we really want political appointees deciding what views deserve airing, and which do not? No. Let's let the marketplace decide." Show the flick, cowards. My money helped pay for it. Then again, you can kind of understand their reluctance. Death To PBS !!! :sl: .
  12. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetabc(contact admin if its a beneficial link).au/news/newsitems/200705/s1912815.htm"]Link[/url] Wednesday, May 2, 2007. 9:02pm (AEST) Ahmadinejad under fire for embracing his old teacher Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been accused of indecency after he publicly embraced and kissed on the hand an elderly woman who used to be his schoolteacher. At a ceremony on Tuesday ahead of Iranian teachers' day, Mr Ahmadinejad was photographed and filmed by state media stooping to kiss the woman's hand and then clasping her arms in an embrace. The ultra-conservative Hezbollah newspaper, which is not related to the group in Lebanon of the same name, criticised him on the front page. "The Muslim Iranian people have no recollection of such acts contrary to sharia law during Islamic rule [since the 1979 revolution]," it said. "This type of indecency progressively has grave consequences, like violating religious and sacred values." The elderly woman, who was not named, wore thick gloves along with a headscarf and long black coat, meaning that Mr Ahmadinejad avoided any skin contact. But his action raised eyebrows because according to sharia law, it is forbidden for a man to have any physical contact with a woman to whom he is not related. While Mr Ahmadinejad is considered an ultra-conservative in the West, this is not the first time he and his Government have been attacked by hardline elements even further along the spectrum. He courted controversy when he unsuccessfully proposed women be allowed to attend football matches, and one of his vice presidents came under huge pressure last year after allegedly watching a woman dance at a ceremony in Turkey. But other hardline publications published the images of the latest incident without further comment. "A kiss on the hand for the teacher," was the headline in the government daily Iran. Mr Ahmadinejad's action appeared to be a public gesture of humility before Iranian teachers, who have publicly protested against low salaries and accused the Government of not doing enough to improve their work conditions. Is this a funny story, or what ? Thirty lashes and impeachment for that wildman. :sl:
  13. Report: Al Qaeda In Iraq Dork Killed

  14. Report: Al Qaeda In Iraq Dork Killed

    I disagree. If an Al Qada member is killed, maimed or otherwise put 'out of action', I'm happy. But most of my jubilation is for the Iraqis' who are finally fighting back against these ... :sl:
  15. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmemritv(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Search.asp?ACT=S6&P3=3"]Link[/url] 3/22/2007 Clip No. 1436 Iranian TV Commentary: Film "Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith" Portrays American Politics Following are excerpts from an Iranian TV commentary on Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, which aired on Channel 3, Iranian TV on March 22, 2007: Voiceover: The Revenge of the Sith is, in fact, a political film about a free world facing a satanic empire. The film shows that even this evil empire was an ordinary republic in the beginning. This is why many film critics draw a parallel between the plot of The Revenge of the Sith and political events in the U.S. One of the statements cited by these critics is uttered by Anakin Skywalker when he becomes Darth Vader. He says: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." This sentence is bears a strong resemblance to the famous statement by American President George Bush, following the events of 9/11. Then, he officially declared: "In the war on terror, you are either with us or with our enemies." The use of these words in the film undoubtedly demonstrates how clever and up-to-date Lucas is. In what seems like a children's film, he predicts the dark and gloomy future of the U.S.A. Elsewhere in the film, the discussions between Lord Sith and Anakin remind the viewer of the opinions held by White House politicians. It shows that for the sake of popularity, regimes talk about the rule of the people and democracy, but, in fact, they are tyrannies and dictatorships. Elsewhere in the film, Lord Sith says to Anakin and others: "We must bring democracy to every part of the world, and we must never allow the world to turn back on democracy." In Star Wars, the characters who abandon the light side for the dark side believe that they will achieve great power and wealth this way. But in fact, they are misled by power and money. The same is true with regard to the American soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, Holy Moly !! Those Iranians really crack me up. Where were they when Gene Siskal died ? :j: :sl: :sl: