US Broadcasting Terrorist Messages
Great. Just great. So good to see such a focus on competence.
Brilliant idea to give management of the Arabic-language media over to some guys who don't speak Arabic. I'm sure they were sitting in their offices beaming happily at the nicely-produced program, just as proud as could be.
Oh, good, it's not their policy -- it's just something they do. We feel so much better.
I wonder why they didn't have anybody who spoke Arabic?
Al Hurra television, the U.S. government's $63 million-a-year effort at public diplomacy broadcasting in the Middle East, is run by executives and officials who cannot speak Arabic, according to a senior official who oversees the program.
That might explain why critics say the service has recently been caught broadcasting terrorist messages, including an hour-long tirade on the importance of anti-Jewish violence, among other questionable pieces.
Facing tough questions before a congressional panel last week, Broadcasting Board of Governors member Joaquin Blaya admitted none of the senior news managers at the network spoke Arabic when the terrorist messages made it onto the air courtesy of U.S. taxpayer funds. Nor did Blaya himself or any of the other officials at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the network.
"How does it happen that the terrorists take over?" asked Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, D-N.Y., at a hearing last Wednesday of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee he chairs. "Is there no adult supervision?" U.S. Government Gave Airtime to Terrorists, Official Admits
Brilliant idea to give management of the Arabic-language media over to some guys who don't speak Arabic. I'm sure they were sitting in their offices beaming happily at the nicely-produced program, just as proud as could be.
It has never been al Hurra's policy to "provide an open, live microphone to terrorists," Blaya assured lawmakers. "It should not have happened."
Oh, good, it's not their policy -- it's just something they do. We feel so much better.
I wonder why they didn't have anybody who spoke Arabic?
posted by JimK at 5:39 PM
35 Comments:
Agreed, a royal screw up.
I also wonder why the public schools sytems hire sex panels to advise kids to have sex and do drugs (presented to freshman through seniors in Boulder CO).
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55800
http://2005.khow.com/pages/shows-caplis_silverman.html?feed=119776&article=2139028
You must be so relieved MCPS got rid of its contract that allowed the Rockville Crisis Pregnancy Center to expose our students to each others germs with the unsanitary gum game.
Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
"You must be so relieved MCPS got rid of its contract that allowed the Rockville Crisis Pregnancy Center to expose our students to each others germs with the unsanitary gum game."
I guess I'm in the minority but I thought the RCP came up with a pretty clever way to demonstrate the dangers of exchanging bodily fluids.
Anybody hear of any problems developing in the decade they ran this program in public schools? I heard teen pregancy rates dropped.
Anonymous said "I guess I'm in the minority but I thought the RCP came up with a pretty clever way to demonstrate the dangers of exchanging bodily fluids.".
Anonymous, if you and they truly believe its dangerous to exchange bodly fluids then its absolutely idiotic of you to support an exercise that does just that.
More "ignore-ance."
You ignored this question, Randi:
"Anybody hear of any problems developing in the decade they ran this program in public schools?"
Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package Tuesday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.
The longer the neocon blunder in Iraq continues to cause more loss of US and Iraqi lives, the more US citizens disapprove of the US presence in Iraq.
And now like Nixon before him, Bush has authorized covert action to destabilize a neighboring government namely Iran.
"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike [against Iran]," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
"I guess I'm in the minority but I thought the RCP came up with a pretty clever way to demonstrate the dangers of exchanging bodily fluids.
Anybody hear of any problems developing in the decade they ran this program in public schools? I heard teen pregancy rates dropped."
There are some interesting studies indicating that exchanging spit reduces the rate of teen pregnancy. They get so grossed out with one another they don't have sex. We should demand that students share gum before school dances, proms, GSA meetings, etc.
rrjr
Anonymous asked "Anybody hear of any problems developing in the decade they ran this program in public schools? I heard teen pregancy rates dropped."
Anonymous, I never ventured an opinion one way or the other over whether or not that was a bad idea - I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of people like you condemning the exchanging of bodily fluids and yet supporting this disgusting exercise. I will however point out that just because I haven't personally heard of any problems doesn't mean there weren't any - I live a long way from there so the odds that I would hear about such problems are slim indeed.
"I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of people like you condemning the exchanging of bodily fluids and yet supporting this disgusting exercise."
I don't remember condemning the exchanging of bodily fluids. I do think semen swaps should be limited to spouses.
I guess to maintain your integrity, then, you feel that sharing gum is the equivalent of sexual activity? I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
I agree with you wholeheartedly anonymous. WWJD? He would share gum, I know. Isn't there a passage in Ecclesiastes about that?
Anonymous said "I don't remember condemning the exchanging of bodily fluids.".
Right here, where you said "I guess I'm in the minority but I thought the RCP came up with a pretty clever way to demonstrate the dangers of exchanging bodily fluids."
Anonymous asked "I guess to maintain your integrity, then, you feel that sharing gum is the equivalent of sexual activity?".
In that both activities can transmit disease, yes definitely. They may not transmit the same diseases in all instances, but certainly they transmit disease.
Andrea- not anon
Let's not change the subject here. The continued lack of intelligence in this administration. The war on terror- and we are sponsoring it. Gee, I am so glad that the US sponsored a talk on the importance of violence against the Jews- maybe I can get my office to do a grant to support it. I am sure if this administration did it- I will understand why it is in my best interest for my government to pay for speeches about why people should hurt me. Just one more in the long line of continued errors in the War FOR terrorism.
OK, so anon is a supporter of marriage for same-sex couples. I wondered how long it would be before he came clean.
I do think semen swaps should be limited to spouses.
This would mean, of course, spouses who both have semen to swap, and of course who are monandrous; without the need to use condoms.
"OK, so anon is a supporter of marriage for same-sex couples. I wondered how long it would be before he came clean.
I do think semen swaps should be limited to spouses."
By definition, spouses can't be of the same gender.
"By definition, spouses can't be of the same gender."
Semen shouldn't be wasted. Remember the sin of Onan!
Anonymous said "By definition, spouses can't be of the same gender.".
Wrong. Depends on where you live. In Canada, Masachusetts, Spain, South Africa, etc. spouses by definition can be of the same gender.
This is why you now need a passport to enter the U.S. from Canada.
They're craaazy up har!
Andrea- not anon
Gee, Onan's sin was not marrying his brother's wife- not the act of just spilling semen. Does this have something to do with not understanding arabic?
He was supposed to marry his brother's wife. The problem was he refused to have kids with her.
And yet in another part of the bible it says a brother-in-law must not marry his brother's widow - typical of the contradictions found there which demonstate indisputably that the bible is not inerrant.
Let's see the reference.
Why don't you look it up for us Anon since you are the buybull expert. And while you're at it, tell us who killed Onan's brother.
I must not be much of an expert since I don't know what Randi is talking about. Maybe he can share his expertise with us.
Anonymous, I'm a she, not a he.
"And yet in another part of the bible it says a brother-in-law must not marry his brother's widow"
By your silence, Randi, I take it that you're confessing that you made this up.
Well it figures that your type would "take" silence as something other than silence.
Your leader finds "covert code talk" between the lines of the curriculum, you think that "social conditioning" changes the odors a person emits as well as his/her finger length, and you imagine there's a media campaign to deify Al Gore because of a single magazine cover. It all fits right in with your beliefs in ancient myths and invisible magical beings.
"By your silence, Randi, I take it that you're confessing that you made this up."
This is an example of the stereotyped, belligerent, non-responsive post that leads me to think that Anonymous is a parody of right-wing bloggers, and is really engaging here just to get responses from people.
cf. Sisyphus at www.blogs4brownback.wordpress.com
"This is an example of the stereotyped, belligerent, non-responsive post that leads me to think that Anonymous is a parody of right-wing bloggers, and is really engaging here just to get responses from people."
Why do you say that, Robert? Randi made a statement attacking the Bible and I simply asked him to tell me what part of the Bible he was referring to.
He answered a similar request on another thread so I assume he can't do it here. Maybe saying he made it up was too strong. More likely, he heard some other anti-Christian speaker say this and repeated it and is now frantically trying to find this non-existent passage.
Anonymous, if you want my cooperation then stop insulting me.
"Anonymous, if you want my cooperation then stop insulting me."
I could care less about your cooperation. Providing the verse proving you knew what you were talking about early would prove your point not mine.
Of course, you can't do that because the verse doesn't exist.
It most certainly does exist, you want a reference to it then apologize for your beligerence.
Yeah, right.
andrea- not anon
You know you anons don't call it attacking the bible when you say that certain laws such as not eating shellfish or certain kinds of meat no longer apply. Then you say Jesus said it was no longer necessary. However, when someone not of your ilk says something is changed- because you can't find it- that is attacking. I personally don't care if you eat three meals a day at Red Lobster and snack on egg mcmuffins-I don't care if you marry your deceased brother's wife either- but your lack of scholarship and general lack of knowledge doesn't mean words and meaning don't exist. I know what Randy is referring to -if you are so into the Bible, you should be able to find it. Of course, it requires some interpretation- perhaps if you can only read the red words in the Bible it will be a problem.
Andrea
Post a Comment
<< Home