Timbuktu shrine destruction 'a war crime

[wyre]

Mahad_yare And Chimera Said Ab't Some1 Over Here "Blah Blah Blah " :D

[Mario B]

There is no justification for the destruction of graves whether of saints or otherwise, if these 'militants' want to eradicate ignorance then they could do no better than build schools and educate people about their Deen. This is an intellectual issue, mindless violence and vandalism will only make matters worse.

[Maaddeey]

Elpunto, raggeedii.

 

Diinta maxay ka qabtaa?

[Mario B]

Maaddeey;847739 wrote:

Elpunto, raggeedii.

 

Diinta maxay ka qabtaa?

Maaddey, leave the dead in peace, you can teach people the in and out of tawheed without destroying graves.

[The-freeman]

Alpha Blondy;847715 wrote:

NN,

 

adiguna don't you get tired of regurgitating the same nonsense all the time sxb. you're displaying subtle hints of being a militant atheist. live and let live. don't think masqueriding between empty 'rational' words like 'reasonable' can hide your deep-seated issues and emotional instability. waar, people like you will rot in the deep dark red molten lava of hell and will be punished for your wicked sins for all of eternity lol.

 

 

Stop threatening people with imaginary things!

[NGONGE]

As foolish as Al Shabab.

[wyre]

Too Much Athiests

Or Is It All In One

[Malika]

Naxar Nugaaleed;847727 wrote:

U've reminded me of story about a story of mass murderer and shaikh where the shaikh ends up in hell for telling the murderer that salvation is not possible. From the little I know of u, I believe that should any of us be headed there, your way ahead of me in that path. It is no use for likes of you to concern yourself with militant atheist for the truth is, they don't transgress the God given rights of others but your kind not only do but have the blood of many Muslims and innocents on there hand. God does not need u or anyone to inforce his commondments, if u believe so, u have wrong ideas about god. In short, get life lol

Clap, Clap, Clap..lol, that deserved a reputation added.

[Maaddeey]

^ Subxaana Allaah!.

 

How this rant deserves any thing?.

[Maaddeey]

Mario B;847740 wrote:

Maaddey,

leave the dead in peace

, you can teach people the in and out of tawheed without destroying graves.

Sxb, su'aasha ka jawaab haddaad karto, haddii kale tororogta igala tag!.

 

Any one?.

[ElPunto]

ailamos;847668 wrote:

It is widely known that NYT is a respected news outlet and a newspaper-of-record,

what is not "widely known"

, as you claim, is that NYT sets the news agenda for the entire country. These are two completely different things.

 

Our exchange went like this:

 

ME: Is that a fact? What are you basing this on?

 

YOU: You can google new york times and setting news agenda and see what you find.

 

ME: I asked you how is it "well known" that NYT sets the news agenda in the US? Paste a link if you have to.

 

YOU: Google it if you are so curious. Just like Paris is widely known to be a prime city in fashion culture.

 

ME: Oh please, you can't make stuff up, and then when questioned about it respond with "google it" + an analogy.

 

That last statement from me came about because I failed to get you to provide proof beyond the "google it" phrase. The onus is on you to prove that the NYT sets the news agenda in the US. All you have proven is a clip of a guy that says that and it could be his opinion, soundbite. You can get hundreds of soundbites on a variety of topics but that doesn't mean they are facts. If you cannot produce reliable proof, like an article, for example, then just admit that you misspoke. Why do you insist that the NYT sets the news agenda in the US when it is clearly an unverifiable statement? It could be a piece of opinion, I'll give you that much, but it is not fact.

 

Just because it's not known to you doesn't mean it's not widely known. Additionally - saying to someone you're making this stuff up is pretty clear what the implication is. If you haven't bothered to look at it up - how could you say it's 'clearly an unverfiable statement'? This statement isn't like Paris is the capital of France or 2+2 = 4 - but it's definitely not something I pulled out of a hat.

 

 

There is another sector of the media, the elite media, sometimes called the agenda-setting media because they are the ones with the big resources, they set the framework in which everyone else operates. The New York Times and CBS, that kind of thing. Their audience is mostly privileged people. The people who read the New York Times—people who are wealthy or part of what is sometimes called the political class—they are actually involved in the political system in an ongoing fashion. They are basically managers of one sort or another. They can be political managers, business managers (like corporate executives or that sort of thing), doctoral managers (like university professors), or other journalists who are involved in organizing the way people think and look at things.

 

The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says "Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page." The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow. If you are an editor in Dayton, Ohio, you would sort of have to do that, because you don’t have much else in the way of resources.

 

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

 

 

The New York Times was included, because various researchers have found it to set the agendas of other mainstream media outlets (Lee, 2007; Reese & Danielin 1989).

 

http://lippmannwouldroll.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/democratizationforweb.pdf

 

 

Overall, then, the New York Times notably had the strongest agenda setting influence in our study.... Because the New York Times has been shown to influence other news media, the Times may have had an indirect effect on Internet users by influencing the users' local newspapers.

 

http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta847.pdf

 

 

“Agenda setting does work,” Shaw said. “Major media, like The New York Times and CBS News, set agendas as much as ever. Now major media are setting the agenda not just for the audience but for horizontal communication.”

 

Horizontal communication channels include Facebook, Twitter and radio talk shows, Shaw said.

 

“Every day I listen to Rush Limbaugh,” Shaw said. “He reads The New York Times. Limbaugh just elaborates on [the story] quite differently.”

 

Shaw is Kenan professor of journalism and mass communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 

http://www.comm.vt.edu/News/News_Artiicles/shaw_visit_2011.html

 

[ailamos]

^ That's more like it. These are acceptable verification, and thank you for taking the time to back up your statement :-D

[ElPunto]

^Do me a favour and don't rush to tell people they're lying before you are sure yourself.

[ailamos]

ElPunto;847889 wrote:

^Do me a favour and don't rush to tell people they're lying before you are sure yourself.

I only said you're making stuff up after the second time you evaded the question of producing evidence that backs up your statement. The next time, do yourself a favor and produce verification when asked to... not when you get offended for being accused of making stuff up :-)

[ElPunto]

^I'm not your lap dog producing evidence subject to your demands. It doesn't matter that I don't produce evidence now or before - you still can't say I'm making it up and thus implying I'm a liar. The only thing you can say is - I don't believe you because you haven't produced evidence. There is a big difference between the 2 stances.