[photopress:global_warming_consensus_air_quotes.jpg,full,pp_image] So much for the … ehm … “consensus”
Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, links to the just-screened Channel Nine Sunday show titled Questioning Science – with narration and interviews by Adam Shand – which challenges the pseudo-scientific content and cult-like character of Global Warming alarmists.
As well as giving Green Believers like Flim-Flam Flannery ample opportunity to expose their hostility to proper scientific debate, this is a beautifully produced and entertaining episode.
From the Sunday site …
there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming.
Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.
Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based.
Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.
They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science.
I also recommend browsing through some of the astute and often hilarious commenters on Andrew Bolt’s blog.
[photopress:michael_yon_iraq.jpg,full,pp_image] Click here to watch Michael Yon report on progress
in Iraq and how Al Qaeda is getting hammered into the dirt.
Although I completely disagree with his conclusion, Michael Yon has written a beautiful and powerfully reasoned argument against the use of torture.
Disagreements aside, what is most striking and worth reading about this article, however, is not its flawed call for the banning of all forms of “torture”. It’s the presentation of what Michael Yon most elegantly refers to as “the strategic advantage of our values“.
A couple of excerpts …
… once we defeated the Axis, we helped rebuild their countries.
Our Greatest Generation acted with honor and great wisdom. It was the right thing to do, but also the strategically intelligent thing to do. Now Germany and Japan are stable, prosperous democracies and close allies.
When this war is over in Iraq, we do not want a generation of Iraqis thinking that all we did was invade their country and torture and kill people.
We want them to know that, despite whatever mistakes we made, we have no ill-feelings toward Iraqis.
…We want the Iraqis to know that Americans are warriors, but not barbarians. They already know that our young folks will fight like wolverines.The Iraqi insurgents learned that lesson the hard way. American soldiers and Marines have died fighting, with great honor, to bring the region a step forward. By contrast, al Qaeda has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, and committed atrocities that have turned the people against them.
Al Qaeda and other terrorists fight without honor. And simply put, that’s why we’re winning in Iraq.
We recaptured the most important strategic territory in guerrilla war – the moral high ground, while never laying down our sword.
The New York Times reports on an Israeli military exercise conducted in the first week of June, involving over 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, and covering a distance of more than 900 miles – able therefore to hit Iran.
An unnamed Pentagon official explained the exercise was intended …
… to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said.
“It’s a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran,” Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm, told The Christian Science Monitor on Friday, June 20.
“If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region.”
Analysts believe that Tehran would use its rocket capabilities to strike US forces in the Gulf region.
… Analysts believe that Iran’s response to a US or Israeli military strike could be unpredictable.
It “could be” …. “unpredictable”? Doesn’t that also mean it “could be” …”predictable”? Or does this mean that these “analysts” are unable to “analyse” the situation? Or are they saying it’s somehow un-analyseable?
It “could be” …. “unpredictable” … Yeah, I must remember to use that phrase some day.
“One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably moreunpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat,” said Ranstorp.
Maybe we should also stop hunting downAl Qaeda in that case?
He said Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by “plausible deniability” and have had global reach.
“I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences.”
What about the consequences of allowing Iran to keep on its current quite “predictable” course? Analyse that.
Speaking ofIslamOnline.net, I see that thesitenow brings up an error page where before it had some interesting notes under the heading: “Apostasy: Definition & Ruling” which statedthat apostates (those who leave Islam) should be murdered.
Here is the text from that now missing page:
A questioner asks …
If a Muslim leaves Islam, what do Muslims call him? And what is the Islamic prescribed sentence for the one who leaves Islam. Please send me as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.Dear questioner! Thank you very much for this question that reflects deep insight and true search for knowledge. May Allah grant you success in this life and the Hereafter.
It goes without saying that, leaving Islam is the ugliest and the worst form of disbelief (kufr) in Almighty Allah. It is technically called ridda (apostasy from Islam), and someone who leaves Islam is called a murtadd (apostate).
The Qur’an makes it clear that the one who leaves Islam, hinders people from the path of Allah and then dies as such will be a loser on the Day of Judgment. His eternal abode will be Hell, where he/she will suffer severe torture and endless chastisement. Allah will not forgive him/her, nor will any of his/her good deeds be accepted from him/her. Allah Almighty says: (Lo! Those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and then die disbelievers, Allah surely will not pardon them.) (Muhammad 47: 34)
Also, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said:
“The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.”
The prescribed punishment for a murtadd:
If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished.
In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
However, don’t worry because here’s the “Religion of Peace” bit …
No one besides the caliph or his representative may kill the apostate. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
[ ... and so on ... ]
i.e. The killer of the apostate is not treated as a regular murderer. He is not subject to capital punishment or life imprisonment- not even by the caliph or his representative.
And his crime when killing the apostate is not that he killed a man, but that he was “arrogating the caliph’s prerogative” to kill the apostate.