American Trash bashes Malaysia

[empress_julz]

This is how trashy American news can get.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/162357.shtml

"The Left Coast Report questions how in the world a government with leaders that propose stoning female adulterers to death or chopping off body parts as punishment for crimes is able to determine when something is "morally bad.""

I emailed every single moron on the mailing list, which would consist of all the editors, journalists, and that lousy excuse of a human, Bill O'Reilly.

People, show your solidarity and dissent. Go to the webpage, and email them. Tell them they're full of crap, and when you do that, do it tastefully and with proper, not Malaysian jargon English.

When I run a website it's going to be based on America being full of smelly cows. HAHAHAHHAHA......

Red Necks.

///Ej

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I would like to highlight a particular article that was written and published by your website that I came across merely by chance. It was located on this particular page, the title of the article being "No No Minogue".

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/162357.shtml

"The Left Coast Report questions how in the world a government with leaders that propose stoning female adulterers to death or chopping off body parts as punishment for crimes is able to determine when something is "morally bad." "

I would like to know where about you heard of such a ridiculous thing. The Malaysian government is a federal institution that caters for a variety of races. We are one of the most multi-cultural societies on the planet that house not only Malays (being the majority Muslims) but Indians, Chinese, Sikhs, Eurasians, Europeans and even American migrants. There is no Islamic laws in place with the exception of the Syariah laws on succession and marriage. Malaysians are tolerant of one another, do not have a problem with sexuality or homosexuality, drink like lords as and when they please, and their women don the sexiest outfits money can buy without any qualms and fears.

There is not a single law in place or that has been proposed that suggests any of the above mentioned.

I hope you are able to quote the next time you publish something scandalous, accurately, which leader suggested such, and what the exact laws are.

I suggest you check your facts before shooting your font off. It is no wonder you are not at the prime or even come remotely close to such greats as the BBC or even dwindling CNN where news and coverage are concerned. Your readership base must surely consist of poorly read individuals who give no priority to the accuracy of statements and facts.

And if you do have the exact quote by the exact leader as to what is purported in your article, I hope you do email me the relevant facts as I will construe your silence as acceptance to the lies you tell the world.

Such irresponsible reporting - you let both your countrymen and the world down. Shame on you for preying on other people to earn a few more hits and get a few more cheap bucks from advertising revenue.

Yours Truly,
Miss Ju Lee
A Proud Malaysian
Milan, Italy

[jeffooi]

American trash.
American bash.

Liberation by humiliation:
US forces made Iraqis walk naked in Baghdad park



Raw justice. April 25, 2003: Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published photos of US soldiers forcing Iraqi men to walk naked through a park in Baghdad under "armed escort".

On their chests were written "Ali Baba - Haram" in Arabic, meaning "Ali Baba - Thief". (picture left)

The Dagbladet story quotes a US military officer as saying that this treatment is an effective method of deterring thieves from entering the park and is a method which will be used again.

Regime of tyranny. This is something for advocates of Bush's invasion of Iraq to chew on. You have thought the US has a benign regime in the Whitehouse.

Bush should get Rumsfeld and Powell to go over Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention again. It clearly states that,

"Protected persons are entitled in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manner and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity".

Amnesty International has condemned the action of the US Forces. Details are in the press release dated April 25.

More info: Amnesty International's report: Iraq: Responsibilities of the occupying powers and Iraq Crisis page.

Take a look at the screenshot of Dagbladet front page, April 25. Click here to view the webpage.

Thanks Francis Foo of Melbourne for the pointer.


I blogged it here.

[empress_julz]

i am not a muslim. i consider myself a moderate. but my patience with america has run absolutely thin. i can only imagine what fellow muslims and hardliners think of their rubbish.

i hope they get out and stay out of everyone's way! they should go home and sort out their mess with their corruption, illiteracy rate (For one, teach the president to Read and Write his own speeches) and crime.

running around naked to a muslim is a very different thing from say a european or an american. muslims attach certain values to covering up, and i respect that.

now with that munitions blast in baghdad that killed 12, 3 of them babies.

i'm sure anti american sentiment has built up to the maximum.

and that idiot rumsfeld says that "US Forces will STay in Iraq As Long As It Takes to install A STable Government". and according to him the "Iraqis can Choose Their Own Government", and in another conflicting statement, "The Americans Don't Want An Iranian Style Government".

What, does he think people can't understand english?

unlike most of america, other people *listen*.

///Ej

[jeffooi]

My point is this:

Bush regime must realise that 95% of Iraqis are Shias, whose religion is Islam. Exposure of one's anatomy in public is haram as it is required upon each Muslim to cover their aurat.

Bush must respect that, in Islam, there are nine parts of a male's body which are aurat compulsory to be covered:

1. The penis


2. Both testicles


3. Posterior


4. The right hip


5. The left hip


6. The right thigh (upto and including the knee)


7. The left thigh (upto and including the knee)


8. From below the naval upto the male organ and upto both sides of the body inclusive.


9. The area between the testicles upto the posterior is a single aurat.

US forces, who have been thoroughly briefed on Muslim sensitivies before the invasion, have chosen to blatantly humiliate the conquered.

They have no respect for the vanquished.

[empress_julz]

KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional leaders have called for The Economist to be banned following its disparaging remarks on the development of Malaysia and the progress made under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad in its April 5 edition.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, also Umno supreme council member, said foreign magazines that published articles condemning Malaysia should not be sold in the country.

“When they start writing political things like this, including belittling our country and discrediting our leaders – they must be having their own agenda,” he said after opening the Kepong Umno division meeting yesterday.

The Economist had published an article titled “The Changing of the Guard – A Survey of Malaysia” which contained strong attacks against Dr Mahathir's leadership.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story...con&sec=nation

My personal opinion....

You can't keep sanctioning people just because they say something you disagree with. Keeping people in the dark does nothing but increase one's ignorance and adds fuel to the fire.

Say we do ban The Economist. The next issue will surely be on how authoritarian Malaysian press is - say one thing against the government and get banned. Hence it can also be inferred that our local press are under a tight lid. If that kind of article was published, it would not be too wrong now, would it?

The best way to deal with this is to respect their criticisms and negative opinions, and move on in life without griping too much.

Malaysia has a lot to show - the last thing we need is to pressure others' into submission. If our achievements are great, what's the need to ban publications? Surely people who read those things know they are untrue, and The Economist and other publications will lose credibility for their lack of research.

We need to learn to accept bickering with a pinch of salt. If one goes to London and picks up a few publications, you'll read more stories belittling and criticising Tony Blair and his government. But I've never heard of him or any MP or the commons ever call for the banning of any pubication as such.

This is because when you're mature, you take things with a pinch of salt. You respect ppls right to say what they want, even if they're critical and rude.

///Ej

[Voter]

I thought someone was so pro US when the war was in progress, coming out with US-like postings such as "US never targetted the civilians...US is not after Iraqi's oil...US wants to liberate Iraq" etc etc.

And now?

[empress_julz]

quote me exactly on that one voter.

voter you bright spark, if you actually bothered to read my comments you will realise that not only am i not pro-us, i am not pro-france or pro-germany or pro-un or pro-anybody. all have a stake in iraq for the oil, most will have you believe that they're all for human rights. i know more than anything that all that human rights talk is bullcrap for economics.

when did i ever say that the US is not after the oil? DuH they are after the oil, it's obvious.

and about the targetting, yes, i said that the US did not target civillians. it's not like they go shooting down mothers, fathers, children. those ppl are caught in the line of fire. but when you want to use words like "target" they have a specific meaning.

i merely put both sides of the story up - that all in politics have hidden agendas.

until then, enjoy your read and stop holding people hostage for their opinions - even if they may have been pro-us, which i am not, what's wrong? there's no need to use someone's views to hit them on the head in future.

///Ej