Comments on: And now for some good news: repealing sharia rape law in Pakistan

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:00:33 +0000

Tequila, you need help, and I don’t think it should come from, Neo. You’ve had problems before. Namely that “memory” problem where you didn’t remember that you posted 28 in a row comments under one post.

You have a habit of lying, making things up, and then backtracking when you are found out.

So there’s two possibilities. Either you weren’t really banned and just put a post up that said you were, and then attempt to claim that it wasn’t you. Or you were really banned and Neo edited your post, and now you forgot about the fact.

By: tequilamockingbird

tequilamockingbird — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:10:41 +0000

Actually, tequila, you were banned. And still are.
tequilamockingbird | 11.16.06 – 11:24 am | #

Huh? A message purportedly signed by me that I didn’t send? Who’s impersonating me?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:55:06 +0000

The reason why truth is the best propaganda is because the more lies and distortions you introduce into your message, Tatter, the more you have to cover things up. This tends to affect your other operations, namely aid and military operations. The more conflict between your message and what you are doing, the more friction there is. And in war, you don’t want a lot of friction.

Also if you tell lies, then it isn’t backed by reality, and if it isn’t backed by reality, you tend to have to suppress the real information from getting to the people. This produces a sort of looping totalitarian system. Anyone that believes the truth is not the best propaganda, will eventually get into that loop one way or another.

Propaganda is there to convince. Which do you find more convincing. America dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan as a way to convince you that America is dead serious about you surrendering. Or, do you find more convincing when Jihadists talk about how they are fighting for their very existence against the Jewish throat slashers that collect the blood of Christian boys for their rituals as the jihadists cut off Nick Berg’s head?

Reality has a say in propaganda. Not much, true, but this is the 21st century after all. There is no way you can separate your message from your actions, not with the internet and videos. Because it is too easy to see what someone HAS done, as opposed to what he has said. That means your message MUST be consistent with your actions. Otherwise, well, it gets harder and harder to convince people to be on your side.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:08:25 +0000

“Propagandists can tell the truth too, you know. In fact, the truth is often the most effective propaganda, if it happens to be on your side.”

Agreed to an extent – I’d say though that truth in itself doesn’t constitute the most ‘effective’ propaganda – after all it has political motive and it usually involves conflict of some sort.

Proganda with a a fair degree of truth coupled with an appropriate amount of contextual spin, and emphasis on one particular area at the exlusion of others, is probably the most effect form ….

By: Sergey

Sergey — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:02:22 +0000

Sam, Bible actually do not contain any particular norm of law. In biblical times they were a part of oral tradition rather than of scriptures themselves, and later, when this tradition was written, it was included in Talmud. And if you seek real codification of Hebrew law, see Halaha, or Shulkhan Arukh, comprised by Maimonides – this was done in 12 century and is as close Hebrew counterpart of Sharia as it can be. You’ll be surprised, though, how enlightened it really is. But Maimonides really was one of the most enlightened men of his time, an expert in Aristotelian tradition.

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:43:03 +0000

Propagandists can tell the truth too, you know. In fact, the truth is often the most effective propaganda, if it happens to be on your side.

By: Synova

Synova — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:53:22 +0000

Though certainly, as imperfect as it still is, Afghanistan is *vastly* improved.

Admitting that would be politically distasteful.

By: Synova

Synova — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:51:51 +0000

Feminists did, in fact, used to stick up for women in other countries. Prior to 9-11 and our subsequent invasion of that country the plight of women suffering under Taliban rule was a *liberal feminist* cause. Women and girls in that country were prohibited from education and employment and actually going *anywhere* without a male family member. The men had to work so that meant that many women never left their small apartments. House arrest in the most literal sense, a required cell encompasing their world.

Maybe not so bad for women lucky enough to live in family compounds with multiple buildings and a variety of people and things to do, but the law was the same for those living in tiny high rise apartments, from which some women threw themselves to their deaths.

So what happened?

Why are there no calls to *do* anything about it anymore?

War happened and politics happened and people, feminists, were forced to chose and chose to throw their sisters under the train in order to oppose cultural imperialism and other henious sins.

By: justaguy

justaguy — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:08:08 +0000

Sally is still the apprentice Coultergeist I see. *Snigger*.

By: Sally

Sally — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 06:20:28 +0000

That’s not hatred for one’s country – if a country’s only real draw is it’s half-arsed group of nitwit power mad braintwats – then it has to be one lame arsed country, so to speak.

You know, you have to say this for our lefty Anonymous — he does represent the present day left at its most intellectual. So to speak.