Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Traditional 2-D Animated Feature: MUHAMMAD, THE LAST PROPHET!!!

Hey folks, Harry here with news of a fascinating U.S. Animated Feature film project which, given the current political climate in the United States, probably isn't going to face many open minds. MUHAMMAD, THE LAST PROPHET - a 2D animated feature film about the foundation and origin of Islam. Unfortunately, given a good deal of jingoistic posing... Well, I fear a good many that should see a film that simply tells the story of Muhammad won't be even considered. What's sad about this, is one would see that the story, the lessons... well they're not the lessons of the Taliban or Al Qaeda fundamentalists. Learning what the peaceful Muslims of the world believe is a gateway to finding an understanding between peoples, rather than demonizing and degrading them. Now hopefully this has higher production values and a better screenplay than SWAN PRINCESS and THE KING AND I. I'd like for this to be a very good film. To read more on this intriguing project, Click Here Hate speech below will result in bannings! Be a thoughtful person. Please.

Muhammad (pbuh) the Last Prophet has been in production for two years and includes more than 196,000 drawings. It was created as a traditional two-dimensional film, but the computer has played a huge role in its creation. Each “cell” is computer painted and fantastic computer effects can be found throughout the production.

All the designing for the film took place at RichCrest Animation in Burbank, California. Under the watchful eye and careful hand of the film’s executive producer, a devout Muslim, characters and backgrounds were created to bring ancient Mecca and its people to life. The designers are all top professionals in their particular discipline as well as accomplished fine artists in their own right. After extensive study they went to work. The result is stunning.

Bringing the vivid characters of Islam’s history to life required an exhaustive search among professional theatre, television, and film actors. Once they were selected, director Richard Rich took them through a series of recording sessions, making sure that each performance was distinct and precise. Early on in the casting it became clear that the voice of Abu Talib would be crucial. Though not an adherent to Islam, Abu Talib was a loving uncle to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). His was the responsibility to support his nephew but also to lead, placate, and sometimes stand up to his peers of Quarysh. The voice needed strength, majesty, but also kindness and a gentle quality. It was found in Eli Allem, a veteran actor of stage and screen. With each recording session it became clear that Eli was creating a unique and powerful performance. Finally, his job was done. On the day after his final recording session, he passed away.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 11, 2002, 5:31 a.m. CST

    that pbuh thing

    by crankylizard

    It's a short way of saying "peace be upon him." It's a Muslim tradition (I guess that's a fair term) used when speaking of Muhammad. That's why it's on the poster and used with his name in every mention in the article. In case anyone was wondering.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 5:38 a.m. CST

    I really want to see this.

    by thx777b

    I was born a orthodox chirtian but later on age i grew up to be more un-relegious and open minded. I really want to see this animated feature. It looks interesting. I hope we get a trailer soon. If this is anywhere near PRINCE OF EGYPT, the other big-buget animated feature, we are in for a treat. Sp Harry if you hear naything newer about a trailer or something post it mna. thx777b Andrew Kirk(Kyriacou)

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 5:42 a.m. CST

    <--muslim/animator speaks

    by Ali786

    Well maybe its fate that I'm one of the first to reply to this considering that I'm both a muslim and a (future) digital animator. I'd be lying if I didn't think it was a bad idea, atleast to begin with. From my point of view, I'd seen alot of interpretations of other religious figures, some done well and some done simply to make an impact upon another's beliefs. For example, ever since Jesus was 'brought out of the shadows' and given a face, people have become affected; whether for the good or for the bad, because of this humanisation. I've always thought it a bad idea to do this, simply because any film/animation or visual representation of religious figures and events will always be an interpretation, but one that will influence global perception more greatly than simply hearing or imagining such things. The story of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been told before, in film form; the one I remember best with Anthony Quinn -where whenever the Prophet (pbuh) was 'shown' it was always from the audience's point of view (the camera representing the Prophet p.b.u.h). As far as I know, this animation feature will not be showing the Prophet (pbuh); and I think its best this way. To do so would only upset alot of people (due to our feelings relating to idolising and attempting to portray what we believe in), and would not be helping the current climate. -- However, we all remember the Prince of Egypt, so I'm still worried.Val Kilmer as Moses. I mean what were they thinking?

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 5:44 a.m. CST

    by joeypogi

    IMHO, I think we should all watch this film. The more we understand our Moslem Brothers, the more we will be able to get along. I want to read the Koran, if I could just find a copy.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Won't be seeing this one

    by AchilleJones

    I really wish I could say that I'm "enlightened" enough to go see this film. But I'm not. Maybe a few years down the line. The wounds are just too deep to have healed this soon. Obviously, it was intended to be a great film that dispel many of the misconceptions about Islam and Muhammad. But religion is an abstraction and as such is a matter of interpretation. Hence, a madman's opinion is just as valid as that of an egalitarian. As long as humanity continues to abandon reason for sanctimonious flights of fancy, our fate will remain in jeopardy. Maybe someone should make an animated adaption of Bryan Magee's History of Western Philosophy instead.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Good God! My God too...

    by Donkeybells

    Sorry to offend you guy who said, "The wounds are just too deep," but there is nothing wrong with Islam, just donkey-fucking extremists who warp what is otherwise (from what I've encountered) just as logical a religion as any other. I'm a Catholic and just as I cringe everytime a piece of shit, inevitably white trash guy bombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christ I want to wretch. I'm sure that is the same feeling the hundreds of millions of normal Islamics felt after September 11, 2001. ( I don't go for 911, its like a marketing scam, too much like ID4) Anyway, and feel free to make fun, I have had an active interest in Islam after watching OZ on HBO for years and seeing the usual peacefulness and introspection of that religion. So, do whatever, but I will rent it on video, no need to spend eight bucks after all, but as far as September 11th goes, one has nothing to do with the other. Sure, the Sept. 11th terroists were affiliated with Islam, they were also affiliated with Afghanistan and who knows how many other dirtbag nations. Religion is religion, I want to kill slutty terrorists more than the next guy but I realize you can't criminalize hundreds of millions of people because a few kicked us in the shin. That being said, I guarentee the movie will suck because they likely aimed this flick at kids or teens and neither will find the film acceptable in the crappy way it was probably catered to kids. I would be all for seeing a regular flick on the history of their prophet however.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 6:47 a.m. CST

    I Saw The Movie.

    by kiko (The Real)

    I'm Egyptian Muslim & live in EGYPT. I saw The movie & its story is so simple. It describes briefly the origen of islam & how it's a religon of peace & mercy , NOT WAR as many many many people think nowadays. I don't know y people think that what the Qaeda do is what Islam say. IT'S TOTALY WRONG. there r many bad guys in the world with diffrent nationalities & religons. It's not the fault of Muslims thatthe Qaeda r muslims. i mean there r many terrorists with many nationalities & religons so y u say muslims r terrorists. u took an example of A MINORITY who belongs to slam & understand it wrong and treated and accussed all Muslims of being terrorists and islam is a religon of terrorism which totaly & completly WRONG. the film is not bad i liked it but i was expecting more.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 7:07 a.m. CST

    TO DonkeyBells

    by AchilleJones

    NO offense taken. In fact, the points you raised in your post only substantiate my own. Don't misunderstand. I'm not a fan of any religion. I have no church, synagogue, mosque or ashram I go to. If I have to advocate anything, it would be reason -- the empirico-deductive method! You have a right to your interests as I do mine. Oh and Bryan Magee wrote The Story of Philosophy. The History of Western Philosophy was written by Betrand Russel.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 7:08 a.m. CST


    by pravda

    Sounds quite interesting. Would definitely go see it if I can catch it anywhere around here, either on festivals or DIVX.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 8:05 a.m. CST

    It sucks that Harry actually had to say "no hate postings"

    by Terry_1978

    You'd think AICN would be the last place you'd hear shit like that(the yaboo internet boards are number one with a bullet). Like everyone else on here said, the entire Muslim world is not representative of what a few extremists have done. Not every black person is a "hate whitey" type and not every white person is a "KKK white power" type. Every single group has at least one person in them that goes too far(us fanboys should know that better than anybody). It's obvious there are gonna be a lot of people that would dismiss this if it came out here in the states, but as the old adage goes, people fear what they don't understand...and that doesn't just go for us here in the U.S. The ones that attacked us feared us in the exact same way.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:33 a.m. CST

    A thought

    by Schnorbitz

    Will Mohammed have a stuntman, like Jesus has? (see Passion story below)

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Trailer for this film...

    by abdulawwal

    The trailer for this movie can be found at: and it must be kept in mind that the likeness of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions and family are not shown. This movie must be watched by all who want to understand Islam correctly or have a distorted view about it. Also recommended is a movie called 'The Message' (1976) starring Anthony Quinn, which is a film and not animation.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 10:34 a.m. CST

    The Message

    by NeVerMind

    Hope that it compares to 'The Message' - the 1976 epic directed by Moustapha Akkad and starring Anthony Quinn. That along with Lion of the Desert (1980) made by the same team are the only two major films ever made regarding the Islamic religion. Also the former features the best ever soundtrack composed by Maurice Jarre (with the exception of Lawrence of Arabia). Both are hard to find but must-sees! And suspiciously have never been shown on television (at least British television that is).

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The Messenger

    by m2298

    When THE MESSENGER (titled MOHAMMED MESSENGER OF GOD) was released in the US in 1977, extremists thought that the Mohammed would be depicted. They seized four buidings in Wahington DC, took hostages and gave up after a two day standoff in which one person died (see

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 10:44 a.m. CST

    The Messenger

    by m2298

    When THE MESSENGER (titled MOHAMMED MESSENGER OF GOD) was released in the US in 1977, extremists thought that the Mohammed would be depicted. They seized four buidings in Wahington DC, took hostages and gave up after a two day standoff in which one person died (see

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 3:58 p.m. CST

    the first thing that came to mind

    by JackLint

    The first thing I thought of when seeing the headline was "They won't like this one bit" The guy who mentioned the Message is right on. It is like major blasphemy to depict Muhammad pbuh in any form, Islam is strictly against any form of idolitry - which I suppose is the reason. And I'm not sure the fact that its a cartoon will make it better or worse.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Ironically, this movie may offend Muslims as much as anyone else

    by the G-man

    As Salman Rushdie found out the hard way, all it takes is one powerful cleric to decide an interpretation of Mohammed is not "reverent" enough and it's deemed "blasphemous."

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 8:34 p.m. CST

    From a(nother) Muslim P.O.V.

    by Harami

    I am a Muslim (living in Pakistan) who is not sure if this is such a good idea. I agree with the poster who said that some things should remain imagined so everyone retains their own perception of it. For an analogy a lot of people think that there is no way that the film of Star Wars Episode 3(or any of the prequels) could top what they have imagined in their heads so maybe it should just be left that way. Not to mention of course that this is all real and pure. Think of how fanatical Star Wars fans are and then tell us that Muslims are fanatical(and I am a fan of both Star Wars and Islam). If George Lucas gets one detail wrong people start wishing he was dead in a gruesome way(I've read some creative ways on this talkback board myself) so you can obviously imagine how something which means a million times more to a billion or so more people bothers them. However I also think that the best way to explain to Non Muslims (especially Americans) who are misinformed about Islam is through a film. Anyway this letter was just meant to provoke thought not start a fight so I hope noone takes it the wrong way.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 8:47 p.m. CST

    this just looks crappy

    by citizenteasley

    OK, this is not a hate post guys but man, I just watched that trailer and boy whatta stinker. That animation is really shoddy looking and the trailer was just really bad put together. If you're trying to market a touchy subject you have got to do a better job than this. Later yall, snootch to the nootch!

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:12 p.m. CST


    by TomVee

    The poster alone looks terrible, like one of those video box covers for some cartoon that the distributor picked up for a song (anyone seen the repulsive-looking "MAGICAL MEMORIES" series that just popped up on DVD?) This would have to have the quality of PRINCE OF EGYPT for anyone in this country to want to see it. I doubt that it will. And speaking of which, you may have noticed there is a new video release in stores as of last week, a sequel to that horrible Fundamentalist-made, end-of-the-world film that employed some has-been Hollywood actors. Looks like Kirk Cameron on the cover of the sequel.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:46 p.m. CST

    What do u expect?

    by abdulawwal

    In response to the guy who is complaining about the artwork...OK...I agree. The poster, trailer and artwork look pretty cheap. Definitely not Disney or Pixar standard. But then how many movies, made in association with Muslims, have you seen? The distorted image of Islam is created by the media. Do you think they will give a chance for the truth to be represented? for a correct view...

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Master Moron, you are wrong...

    by Alex Rogan

    According to Mormons, every president of the church, including the current one, is also a prophet. They won't get mad about a movie like this either, not their style.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 9:59 p.m. CST

    So, do they..

    by SvenOleThorson

    ...kill lots of Jews and Infidels in the movie, because that seems pretty mainstream for Muslims? Do they show Muhammad hitching up with the little girl? Do they show how he honors treaties like the ten year treaty he made with the people of Mecca that he broke in two years because his fanatical forces were stronger? I guess it will show the Mad prophet as peaceful and gentle and all that Jihad stuff is just an exaggeration.

  • Nov. 11, 2002, 10:12 p.m. CST


    by Alex Rogan

    There are several aspects of his life that will really have to be whitewashed if they want this to be a family movie, and if they do that then the movie becomes nothing more than propaganda. I'm not talking about hateful rumours, but about historical facts of his life so don't try and use that statement as an excuse to delete this. If the intent is to make non-Muslims more open to the religion, I think it will backfire since the existance of the movie will open the door to airing the critics side of the story. Right now any critisizm of Islam is strictly censored off the media (and I guess this board too)

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 12:04 a.m. CST

    well I'm curious

    by coop

    It'll be like cliff notes on Islam. I (like most non muslims) don't know squat about the religion so I will hopefully learn something. The down side is, they will probably get alot wrong, (like all the other religious movies) and we will have an incorrect view of the religion. Of course as another talkbacker said, there will be hell to pay for whatever they do get wrong. You think the Catholics get pissy about religious movies, just wait.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 3:10 a.m. CST

    I'll definitley see this!

    by TedSallis

    After all folks, their almost 3 fifths the worlds population. Better get well aquainted.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Master Moron, I'm Jewish and don't appreciate that!

    by TedSallis


  • Nov. 12, 2002, 7:52 a.m. CST

    HATE speech?

    by wrabbit

    Give me a fucking break. One of the great things about this place was that you could pretty much sound off about what you wanted to. I thought Harry was all for freedom of speech (which, unless there's been some major changes in the last 24 hours, so-called hate speech is still a part of that). It's funny that you only feel you have to mention that for an Islamic movie. Why weren't you mentioning it when you were playing with Jesus' name only a few articles earlier? Wait, that wasn't hate speech? You're a hypocrite, Harry. Either tell everyone not to say anything offensive about anything, or let everyone say ANYTHING they want. You can't have it both ways without being hypocritical.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 9:32 a.m. CST


    by Mothball

    If u had any knowledge of Islam you'd know that when they entered Makkah not one drop of blood was spilled. The treaty that was done was known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. Do u even know how and when that treaty was done? You also obviously don't know that it was actually the Non-Muslims of Makkah that broke the treaty first? You should know at least something before you start to spread your idiotic comments on an international message board. It's ignorant people like you who cause the friction that there is today between the Muslims and the Non-Muslims. Here is a link if anyone's interested As for the Prophet's (PBUH) marriage to Aisha then here are some links for anyone with same question. I advise people who have questions about Islam to go on the web and find out for themselves. Here is a good site for anybody with questions about Islam.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Lion of the Desert big time...

    by Abyss available on DVD from Anchor Bay. Braveheart owes it big timem so check it out. Akkad was a talented filmmaker before he became obsessed with churning out the Michael Myers sequels.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Interesting life, but Crappy movie

    by XanthicSun

    I'm a Christian who lives in Egypt who is doing his graduate studies in Islam. Basically, the film has already been released in the Middle East. The animation quality is high but it inevitably sucks for the same reason that the Mission did. They can't show Muhammad or even any of his closest compagnions. How can you tell a story when the most important characters are never shown? It would be like Oceans Eleven with the Eleven....this is exactly what this film is. This is basically a Muslim production so it is an utter whitewash in terms of the more controversial aspects of Muhammad life--like the consummation of is marriage of his favorite wife when she was only 9 years old, his murderous actions towards the Jews and oppossition in Medina, etc. Muhammad is an interesting figure, and an amazing man for his time and place---however, I just wouldn't agree with anyone [i.e., Muslims] that would say that he is the greatest man ever or worthy of imitation. Seriously, just compare Jesus with Muhammad--what sane person could favor the prince of jihad over the prince of peace? [btw, jihad is war in all the earliest sources ...jihad as spiritual struggle is only a later invention by marginal sufis.] I make no pretensions. Christianity has its ugly history too. Christians have to fess up and renounce their past. But when we remember the past of prophets, people always whitewash the history. Prince of Egypt is a good example [banned here in Egypt because it showed Jews building the monuments]. Moses ordered just as many atrocities as Muhammad, but nobody complains about that whitewash. Nobody says that Judaism is an inherently violent religion despite the brutal occupation of Palestine and the violence and genocide endorsed by God in the Hebrew Bible. Political correctness=hypocrisy. But this about a film.Let the film be a celebration of Muhammad's life.... too bad it is handicapped by the silly hang ups of Muslims worrying about the Prophet and his closest companions being made into cartoons.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 11:22 a.m. CST

    In Islam it's forbidden to show pictures of the Prophet....

    by numberface

    I wonder how they're going to tackle that obstacle in this film? In The Messenger with Anthony Quinn, they used POV to represent Muhammed (pbom). The result was a lot of scenes of people looking into the camera with wonderment. Frankly it didn't work too well. How do you make a film about someone that you can't show? If they do show the Prophet in this film, it will cause a huge outcry from the Islamic community. As for those who are against this film because of September 11th; people should learn to separate the work of madmen who commit acts of horror in the name of religion from the religion itself. Think of all the terrible things that have been done in the name of Jesus. (Like Max Von Sydow said in Hannah and Her Sisters "If Jesus came back and saw all the things being done in His name, He wouldn't be able to stop throwing up.") Terrorists are not true muslims. Anyone who understands that religion will tell you the same thing. Osama and his ilk do not represent the true face of Islam. Remember, there are a lot of stupid, evil people in this world. They are the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. Anyhow, I'm interested in seeing how they deal with not being able to actually show Muhammed (pbum) in this film.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Point Proven...

    by abdulawwal

    As everyone can see from the above postings, there is a lot of ignorance regarding the Islamic faith. I didn't mention once in my postings abdout 'Jew Killings', 'Jihad' or 'Jewish Controlled Media'. Yet when a film about Islam is realeased, these are the first words to come out! Not by me, a Muslim, but from people who just don't know Islam. So, as I mentioned earlier about the distorted view of Islam, my point has been proven by previous postings! I recommend also as mentioned by Mothball.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 2:27 p.m. CST

    on Mormons...

    by empyreal0

    Actually, they call Hinkley (current church President) the Prophet, so it is the official position of the church that prophets still exist in the modern day. Living in Mesa, Arizona, with a Mormon community second in size only to that of Salt Lake City, I look forward with perverse amusement as to what they will have to say about the title of this one. Ah, the protest lines. THIS movie's gonna cause a fuss, which, while somewhat amusing, is a real shame. Who knows, maybe all the fuss will drive people to go see it? I think I'll attend simply to make a political statement. Down with hate.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Equating Qaeda with Islam is like considering the KKK to be repr

    by empyreal0

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 2:41 p.m. CST



    Great Googlie-Mooglie, Harry! PLEASE tell us that this is all just some tacky practice for an April Fool's joke you're pulling on us here! An animated feature based on one of history's greatest pedophiles since Calligula? Whollyweird really IS running of ideas! Right now in the US (and with VERY good reason), the Koran is as popular as MEIN KAMPF (2nd second most popular book read in the Middle East, right after the Koran. Isn't that a ka-winky-dink?). Let's face it folks. Muhammad was the L.Ron Hubbard of his day, and in every country that has gone Islamic, Democracy is deader than the all-beef patty in a Krusty Burger. I'd like to ask just how many times we see people getting ruthlessly MURDERED by Islamists before we stop for a moment and go " you think the Koran is making them do that?". If you want proof of how much Islam is a terror-cult, just take a look at the number of Arab states that are going to join us in invading Iraq (a very short list, I can assure you). I'm no goosestepping skinhead, but how much BS do we have to take as the American population before we start to realise that there are some seriously deranged mutherfuckaz out there who want us dead, and these guys & gals have a certain thing in common. Getting back to MEIN KAMPF, should we now be expecting the same studio to be making a feature based on Adolph's origins as well? Might as well.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 2:46 p.m. CST

    And on the subject of Islam.......


    .......if it's supposed to be such an "enlightened" religion, try taking a copy of "The Lord of The Rings" into Saudi Arabia and let me know how far you get. Not "hate speech". Just a fact.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Polar opposites from a tainted perception

    by Bregalad_

    Thank you XanthicSun for such a well-said, well-reasoned post. That's the intelligent man's way of dealing with religion and political reality. But on the other hand, ShimadaKambei -- what a sad case. You're just in love with your own noise. All your histrionics and obvious blind hatred of Muslims would be slightly amusing if it wasn't the all-too-prevalent "dumbass American" p.o.v. that has clouded all normal discussion of these issues. *SIGH* --------------------------- On a side note, I wonder if Mr. Rich will finally make a decent animated feature. "Trumpet of the Swan" and "King and I" were just unwatchable and this trailer doesn't look much better.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 5:28 p.m. CST


    by WeedyMcSmokey

    Shimada - I used to think that you were a very supportive conservative. Nothing terribly wrong with that, I disagree with you on lots of things, but you didn't strike me as being a bigot. I was wrong - you are a hateful person and the ease to which you choose to paint broad strokes across hastely constructed generalities speaks to a diseased mind. The Islamic world doesn't operate under one mind, and one cannot assume them all to be alike, much the same way one cannot assume all Americans, Christians, Nazis etc. to be all the same. This is grammar school thinking - very basic. If you choose to never treat people as individuals, but as a collection then you will find yourself without trust, or growth. Hopefully, you and those like you who would desire the death of an ethinic group, or irradication of a different people will be left behind. The guy who posted above me makes a similar mistake as does Tiki head (or something like that) - people, if you are not Muslim, I don't see how you can pretend to understand them and their religion better than they do. Its absurd, and as for Islam having a bad track record in human rights, I don't doubt it. In fact, that would put them on equal ground with all other major religions, and the latest scourge to the 21st century -nationalism - which appears to be the force behind the hatred of Islam from Americans. It is truly sad to think that there are Americans out there who are so misinformed and rage-stricken that they believe all Muslims are out to kill them. Even Bush has said this is not the case.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Response to ZombieHunter...

    by abdulawwal

    I disagree that MORE people paint a 'prettier picture of Islam' than taint it. Any person with their eyes open can see that attacks on Islam and Muslims are so blatant and twisted. And you can see what type of person they are coming from when you see postings on this chat board! Not all Muslims are perfect and follow the correct teachings of Islam, in the same way as u don't expect people of other faiths to be perfect. U get Muslim murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters...and they are bad Muslims, but that is NOT Islam. Are all Americans as dim as Bush Jr? It is wrong to condemn a whole population because of a minority. I urge again, read the true teachings of Islam and not 'Al-Qaeda's Handbook of Dealing with Non-Muslims'!!! Contact me if u want info...

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 7 p.m. CST

    What if tmquinn is God?

    by chickenmonkey

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 8:42 p.m. CST

    If Jesus and Muhammad where locked into the Thunderdome, which o

    by McCormic

    . . .

  • . . .

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 8:49 p.m. CST

    . . .

    by McCormic

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 9:12 p.m. CST

    LOTR to Saudi Arabia

    by Djinn_1

    Didn't have a problem. Customs Guy took the book out. Looked at it and put it back, and on I went. Of course, I was way more concerned about the 30 DVDs I had.<G> But, I had no problems.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Get your stats straight

    by TheFalconer

    33% of the world's population follows Christianity and 20% follows Islam ( Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world ( And don't make the fatal mistake of judging an entire religion by certain subsections of its followers. If you want to form your opinions, at least form informed ones based on open-minded inquiry and research that goes deeper than your local news.

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Fer cryin' out loud, Weedy

    by Destroya

    Let me try the same spin on you. I used to think you were one of the more level-headed AICN posters, but now I see your just a big-hearted, empty-headed Islam apologist. Quick, answer this, Weedy: which Islamic nation has a Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and freedom of the media and guaranteed right to life, liberty, and property? When you can come up with one, then you can get all sanctimonious about how we should be all worshipful toward the "religion of peace".

  • Nov. 12, 2002, 11:07 p.m. CST

    And one last thing

    by Destroya

    That "nationalism is the greatest scourge of the 21st century" line was a real howler. Go to Saudi Arabia and stand in a public square with a sign reading "Muhammed was a false prophet and child rapist". If you survive to return to evil western society, then we would be happy to hear your stories of the scourge of nationalism.

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 4:11 a.m. CST

    religious animated films

    by CuervoJones

    are so boring, just remember that Dreamworks Moses film .

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 6:08 a.m. CST

    Islam makes me PUKE!


    Yeesh again! Muhammed (piss be all over him) was a failed businessman who cooked up a religion and scored it bigtime off of the ignorant suckers (like I said before, he was the L. Ron Hubbard of his time). And his evil lives on to this day, as one poor woman in Nigeria is soon to find out. How about that arrogant old geezer in Bali, when asked what he had to say to the relatives of those killed in that blast, answers "convert to islam as soon as possible", and then went on to rant about how such places would be banned when his ilk took over? If that massive insult alone doesn't make you want to go out turn Mecca into a gigantic radioactive glass bowl, then you have no pulse. All I need to know about Islam's plans for the world I saw on September 11th, boys and girls. To continue thinking that it's a peaceful religion is just letting your guard down (and we all know how Muhammed (piss be all over him) treats those who let their guard down, haven't we?

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 8:25 a.m. CST


    by Mothball

    OK, i don't like wasting my time arguing with people like you because it's usually a waste of time. You're never going to accept what i'm going to say anyway. But when you start to spread false things about a religion, any religion, then somebody has to rectify you otherwise people will just get a wrong impression of that religion. It's obvious you haven't done any research and probably think you don't need to when you're talking about Muslims. You probably think they're all violent savages with nothing but killing on their mind. I'm just going to correct you and leave it at that. I AGAIN urge people to go on the net and look for themselves. I recommended that so called "highly whitewashed" site because i myself found it to be quite reliable. Your ignorance and your lack of knowledge, unfortunately, is the only thing that shines through when i read your, and other people's postings on topics they have no knowledge on. You probably don't know this but Islam is based on 2 things. The Quran and the actions and sayings of the prophet which is known as Hadith. bases ALL their answers on these two things. Anybody who went on the site would know. You might think that the site is whitewashed because all the people who are answering questions are Muslims and therefore might be biased. Again, you'll see if it is the truth or not on whether or not they relate to the quran and the attributes of the Prophet(PBUH). Also, if you look at the Christian faith, you'll see that the scholars of CHRISTIANITY are CHRISTIANS and the scholars of JUDAISM are JEWS. Likewise, the scholars of Islam will be Muslims! You say "Mohammad tried to over throw Mecca over and over again until he was chased into the mountains where he ran and hid". Here you're getting confused with 2 totally different and seperate incidents. First of all you say that the Prophet(PBUH) tried to overthrow Mecca. When? He never once went to overthrow Mecca. And if anyone's going to try and refute that then just make sure you KNOW what your writing so that i don't have to waste my time writing another post because somebody's made a stupid mistake because of his ignorance and lack of knowledge in this field. The wars that he had with the non muslims were all started by them themselves(AGAIN do some research before you come and start knocking me). The first battle was known as the battle of badr which was just after the prophet had left Makkah and come to Madinah. if u wanna know more about that War then here are some links The next war that they had was known as the Battle of Uhud. Here is a link for that Another war was the War of the Trench which was called so because they dug a trench all around Madinah so they could keep the enemy outside of the city. here is a link if anyone's interested And when you say "until he was chased into the mountains where he ran and hid" you're getting that confused with the time when he left Makkah for Madinah after years of persecution on him and the other Muslims. When they found out he had left they decided to go after him and kill him and that was when he hid in a cave NOT a mountain with his companion. if u wanna know about this event in more detail here is a link Now what are you talking about when you say "Mohammad tried to over throw Mecca over and over again"? You then go on to say "When he tried again, he had a plan of populating the city with as many of his converts as possible". You also say that it was a gun boat diplomacy. Here you just totally lost me. If you're referring to the treaty they signed then look at the previous post and the link in there and you'll realise in what situation the treaty was signed and the fact that it WASN'T a gun boat diplomacy whatever that's supposed to be. You then go on to talk about how "they had no right to

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Mothball's a drone for Muhammed (piss be all over him)


    You wanna know something, Mothball? You remind me of that scene from "MARS ATTACKS", with the Martians incinerating humans left and right, and one Martian hold the translator device that kept repeating "Don't run! We are your friends!". That's what comes to mind when I hear you blather on about what a sweet guy Muhammed (piss be all over him) is. Well, maybe on THE BIZARRO WORLD he might be, but the Muhammed (piss be all over him) here on Earth was in reality a power-mad, child-molesting, doublecrossing, murderous old bastard. There are just way too many examples of Islam being just one big murder cult, and anything that says otherwise is just Islamist propaganda designed to sucker Islam's intended victims into keeping their guard down until it's too late. Well Mothball, we're not gonna fall for it. We've seen what sort of brainpoison Islam does to people, and we know that this toxin is still being pumped into young minds in the schools in Pakistan to prepare new walking weapons for decades to come. Don't bore me with any mindless stats about there being 1 billion muslims in the world, because all that means to me is that we may need to use more than just a couple of nukes to get the job done ("radiation therapy" does wonders in treating cases of global assholism, you know). FUCK Islam and double-fuck that diseased old despot Muhammed (piss be all over him)!

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 6:28 p.m. CST

    See, because Jesus is really going to be kicking the living shit

    by McCormic

    . . . two man enter, one man leaves. . . TWO MAN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES. . . TWO MAN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES! . . .

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Or rather. . .

    by McCormic

    See, because Jesus is really going to be kicking the living shit out of the "The Amazing M" as he's going to be calling himself, and then just when he should be going in for the kill he's gunna start showboating for the crowd. You know, running around right up aganst the wall, holding his fingers in the air and shouting "WHO'S YOUR MESSIAH BABY! WHO'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH!" And while J Dog's doin that, Muhammad's gunna start getting up off the rock that he was getting his head aganst, and people are going to start shouting "Jesus! No! Behind you!" But he's just barely gunna turn around in time to see it, and then BAM!! Deus ex deus. . .

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Or rather. . .

    by McCormic

    See, because Jesus is really going to be kicking the living shit out of the "The Amazing M" as he's going to be calling himself, and then just when he should be going in for the kill he's gunna start showboating for the crowd. You know, running around right up aganst the wall, holding his fingers in the air and shouting "WHO'S YOUR MESSIAH BABY! WHO'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH!" And while J Dog's doin that, Muhammad's gunna start getting up off the rock that he was getting his head beat aganst, and people are going to start shouting "Jesus! No! Behind you!" But he's just barely gunna turn around in time to see it, and then BAM!! Deus ex deus. . .

  • Nov. 13, 2002, 10:45 p.m. CST

    This is real life, not D&D.

    by McCormic

    There is no such thing as an evil religion. Only evil people. People like you ZombieHunter.

  • Nov. 14, 2002, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Did you guys know that Harry is actually a Muslim terrorist...

    by Spam Gamgee

    And he's also Osama Bin Laden's sex slave. He was originally recruited as one of the terrorists who had to hijack those planes of 9/11. But when they found out that Harry was too fat to get into an airplane, they got someone else. But they promised him that he would be activally involved into their next act of terror. This site is actually a front for his real work. You see whenever he goes to a film festival or a filmset to so-called write a story about it, it's really to execute their next act of terror. Pretty smart, huh.

  • Nov. 14, 2002, 5:50 p.m. CST

    And oh yeah...

    by Spam Gamgee

    All Muslims are a bunch of fucking terrorists. They should nuke every Muslim country back to the Stone Age. Oh wait, they're still living in the Stone Age with their prehistoric laws. Will somebody please remind those people that we're living in the 21th century. Fuck them and their fucking religion. You know waht, why don't we just ban every existing religion on this planet. They're the cause of almost every war or conflict in our history. Goodbye and fuck you!

  • Nov. 14, 2002, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Wipe the rabid foam from your mouth for a second.

    by McCormic

  • Nov. 15, 2002, 3:43 a.m. CST

    to Zombiehunter

    by Shahid

    Instead of hunting zombies, perhaps you can start to hunt down your own ignorance and learn from the authentic historical perspective something which you obviously have no clue about... Let us examine your post: >>

  • Nov. 15, 2002, 3:51 a.m. CST

    The Real Terrorists

    by Shahid

    <b> The Real Terrorists:</b> <p> <p> <i>A site that can no longer be ignored...

  • Nov. 15, 2002, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Zombi Head = Dead Bain

    by Shahid

    You really make many laughable errors :^) Your ignorance knows NO bounds... ONE: Islam has been under threat since its revelation and the foreign threat came from rulers who saw Islam as a threat to their way of life and thus proceeded with armies to defeat Islam. The Persians, the Romans and the great nations of that time were defeated because of this very reason. TWO: Had they accepted the treaties which alloed Muslims safe passage to preach in exchange for their their independence and faith, they would have been safe and there would have been no need for wars. >> The sacking and plundering of the south of Europe is historical fact. Spain was at its greatest spendour when the Muslims conquered it. Even today, Granada and Cordoba are admired as the cradle of Western Europes civilisation. Get your facts right ans go to basics and read before you make a nigger fool of yourself than you already are. THREE: You seem not to talk about the terrorist Crusades which were initiated by Europe! You do not mentioned the slaughter of million Muslim civilians at the hands of the invading cavalry, where blood ran knee high. It took Salahuddin Ayoobi to kick your stinking arse back to Europe :^) The rest of your post in not even worth commenting on because it is full of the usual rubbish, palave and gross example of ignorance and incompetence of your behalf. FINALLY: Go and learn, understand and heed before you decide to come back for more lessons of factual history and authentic info. which you deliberately try to hide/ignore/distort.

  • Nov. 15, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST

    "Hate speech below will result in bannings! Be a thoughtful pers

    by Spam Gamgee

    The thing to do: post your hate speech a couple of days after the story was put online. After a couple of days Harry will not read the Talkback anymore looking for hate speech. He has moved on to the next story. That is the moment to post your hate speech and you will not even get banned for it. Of course, there is a good chance your fellow Talkbackers will be furious, especially if they are Muslim. They will tell you that you are an ignorant idiot and they will probably call you names. Just shrug it off like you never read it. Is the fact, that some people you have never met and who probably live in another country think that you are ignorant idiot, going to bother you. It should not. Just say "Whatever" and continue posting. BTW, my previous posts were just posted to see if Harry would actually ban me. I mean, I said that all Muslims are terrorists, which of course is not true. I was generalizing and stereotyping. That previous posts are complete bullshit. And Harry is not keeping his word. Told you I would get away with it. Hell, I even said in another Talkback that Harry is a pederast and that he watches kiddie porn all day. If that is not an insult, I do not what is. But I guess he has been insulted so many times, he has lost track of it. He probably does not care anymore and laughs at all these morons saying insulting things to him.

  • Nov. 15, 2002, 6:27 p.m. CST


    by Shahid

    We know that your incompetence to read and learn needs a lot of work in order to rid yourself of the self-inflicted ignorance and the hate and envy which you harbour, but the facts cannot be altered by you no matter how hard you wish they would. Being blind to the facts does not mean they do not exist and thus we do not expect you to visit some of th best and most authentic websites which I am about to give you through pity because this is what your are pitiful in your lack of sense, logic, ideological and historical accuracy: ... WE DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO STOMACH THE REALITY NOR BE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO COUNTER FACTS WITH FACTS. Good day and all the basic in your search for the truth :^)

  • Nov. 16, 2002, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Attn. Shithea.....I mean, Shahid


    Oh, render unto me a freaking break, jackoff! Let's take some of your BULLSHIT and pack a stick of dynamite up it's ass, shall we? ****"Conquering lands was a necessity first and foremost because of the threat the Muslim world was under from the foreign powers at the time, who tried very hard to stop the impact Islam was having."**** Do I actually even HAVE to say how asinine that sounds? Gee, do you think the "foreign powers" KNEW that Islam was a murdererous cult that had to be stopped before it spreads across the globe like a locust swarm and enslaves everyone in it's unholy path? Gee, thanks for confirming "the foreign powers" worst suspicions, pal. ****"And a great example we have in the US, which not only monopolises upon the wealth of the poor nations, it also strives in its hegemony ambitions to be the sole political and military force in the world, to implemet a New World Order (a dictatorship never seen before)." I'm no fan of Dubya, but even I would prefer to see him running the world than some diseased child-molesting old fart with a scraggly-ass beard and the B.O. that could deflesh a camel at 30 yards. ***"Not at all, in fact wherever the Muslims conquered, there emerged great civilisations and learning. "*** So tell me then why Sado Arabia (that's not a typo) has to have mutawwa squads running around making sure no one drinks/looks at girls/watches movies/laughs/smiles/thinks a thought without the word "Allah" in it? Yikes! Freedom is Sado Arabia is as rare as a roll of Charmin (and just how can ANYONE call themselves "enlightened" when they don't even use toilet paper???). ****"Muslim Spain gave Europe the renaissance and learning whilst Europe at that time was steeped it its own dark ages."**** Well, then please tell me why the ONLY flags on the moon are AMERICAN ones, while YOU guys are throwing a fucking fit if some girl's ankle can be seen beneath some circus tent you force her to wear? Yeah, there was ONE Sado Arabian prince that ABUSED his powers to get a ride on the shuttle (MADE IN AMERICA, pal! Don't forget that!). I wonder how he did his prayers towards Mecca while the craft was in orbit (25,000+ MPH, one revolution every 90 minutes approx.). Bet THAT was one hard task to stay :locked on" target towards Mecca. LOL! ****"Was it not Europe and America that capitalised on the use of slaves, was it not THEY who herded the slaves onto boats to bring them to work on their plantations!?"**** Oh boy, here they go again. Did they also teach you in terrorist school that the US *ABOLISHED* slavery after the Civil War? Slavery wasn't abolished in most parts of the Middle East until the 1920's, and that's ONLY because the British empire (which still had muscle in that region) forced them to. Some muslim nations still practice slavery to this very day. Let's see the tally so far. You guys have NO moon rocks, AND you still have slavery. Still want to claim that Muslims are better? ****"And by the way, if any of you has the guts, why don

  • Nov. 16, 2002, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Your words are your evendence.

    by McCormic

  • Nov. 16, 2002, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Your words call for blood. There is no other meaning there. Yo

    by McCormic

    You remind me of a Crusader. Or bin Laden. . . One of the two.

  • Nov. 17, 2002, 8:15 p.m. CST

    I just calls 'um as I see's 'um.

    by McCormic

    Please don't tell me to keep my mouth shut. I have not told you to shut yours. Quite the contrary. It is not hate speach to point out that someone has blood on their breath. As a fellow athist you should understand and aprecate my point. There are no evil religons. Just evil people. You make that choice.

  • Nov. 17, 2002, 8:33 p.m. CST

    As far as the news goes. . .

    by McCormic

    . . . much of what the US does on the world stage that casts the US in a bad light is not reported by our glorius free press. I suppect it is much the same in Canada. You have to read the Australian and Brittish free press to get the whole story. The fact is, America has been engaged in a campain of destruction aganst the Arab people for years, including sactions which keep inocent people from having medicine, bombing campains that did not end with the gulf war and have massive civilian casualtys, and desicration of holy sites with things like military bases. We'd call that an invasion. And that's just what the Arab people call it. Where killing hundreds of their civilans every single day. More innocents died in our bombing campain aganst Afganistan then did in the 9/11 attacts, and for what? To reinstall the Northern Aliance, a militant resheam who's infighting acrost the streets of Afganistan forced the need for the Talaban in the first place. Oil has gotten us so deeply involved in the region that were willing to trade powerful weapons with dictators who use them aganst civilans every single day. The world blames us for this, considers us greedy, short sided, and they are right! We are! We haven't for a moment considered the ramifications of our actions in the regin. Bin Laden is a ramification. Is he evil? Hell yes. Anyone who thinks its ok to kill civilians is. But here's the trip. He's just repaying blood for blood. Is it right? Hell no. But can we proclam ourselves rightous in this situation? Not even for half a moment. We've dug ourselves a hole. And we're looking to bury ourselvs in it.

  • Nov. 19, 2002, 3:24 p.m. CST

    La-di-di, la-di-do. . . I fight your rage and you contiously hav

    by McCormic

    Lets say I have a relgion call the Kill Everyone relgion. I belive that everyone needs to kill everyone. Right, now I am evil, yes. And everyone who has chosen to belive that they should kill everyone is evil. But all it takes is one person to do the whole presto chango death card in the tarot deck and say that what that really means is that I have to change everyone around me. Relgions are constantly doing this, and you know why? Because all a relgion is, is something someone belives in their head. If they think that they want to kill people, that's because they want to kill people, not because of the religon. (By the by, Satanists don't worship Satan as he's protrayed in the bible. They belive that the real reason Satan was kicked out of heaven was because he took issue with the idea that all people should be God's servants and belived that they should be alowed more free will. They actually see Satan as the purist expreshion of idealistic good. Strage in my mind.) Saddam is trading oil on the black market. Everyone knows that. He is a fucking ass whole peice of shit. No one is denighing that. But here's the thing. He's a dictator. He dose not speak for his people (as eveadenced by 100% election results in a contry that has an opposistion party) The analagy I like to bring up goes like this: We keep trying to hit a Perent, Saddam (rightly or wrongly is another question intirely). He keeps putting his baby, his people, up in frount of his face to take the blow. He does this every single time we hit him, yet we keep on saying "Oh! Sadam! Your so abusive to this child!" yet where the ones hitting it. Sadam is a mad man. That is undingable. But a forgen polocy that LITERALLY causes thousands of PEOPLE, people who have no say in their governing, to die daily is not a just forgen polcy. Add in completly unjustifed bombing campains, and our voilations of the Geniva conventions during the Gulf War, and you tell me where'd you'd stand if you were an Iraqi. Iraq dosn't have a free press. This further compounds anti-american centament. No one is denighing that. But you don't need to look far to see the inequitys in US reporting. Example: Reasontly the US news reported that the Cheaf Weapons Inspector in Iraq said that this time around he needed his inspectors to stay "whiter then white" when it came to being corupted by outside agendas. The NBC Nightly News would have us belive that what he was refuring to was Iraq attempts to infultrate the group, but that's not so. The BBC ran the intire speach, not just the 3 word sound bite. He was talking about US and British agents actually posing as weapons inspecters and attempting to breach area's where they should not have gone. . . exactly why Saddam said he kicked them out. We are better then Al-Jezera. . . But not by much. At least an illushion of imparshality is created here. Ok. WTC/Afganistan. I was speaking of competely avodable civilian caualties, due to unnessary bombing. During our bombing campain on Tora Bora, the News conveantly forgets to mention that we whiped two whole viliages (again, full of people who hold no say in their governing) off the face of the map. I can give you plenty of other examples. The point is, we didn't respect civilian lives while we where fighting. We used increably powerful bombs aganst increably weak foes, and killed thousands of innocent people. Our tatics were quite litterally unjust. Ok. The idea that people lived better under the Northern Aliance then they did under the Talaban is not suported even in our western press. Its true that they came into power by fighing off the Comunist invaders. (One of the Rambo movies is based around this.) Its what they did while in power that was the problem. They where a War Lord reshiem and each individual War Lord was fighting for power aganst each other through the streets, every single day. They didn't care about their people. All they cared about was power. Much of why Afaganstan is bombed to the ground is due to the Northern Aliance. When the Talaban came in they where welcomed by the people as a stableizing force. They forced the Northern Aliace. . . to the well North (the wheren't called the northern aliace before this). Shortly there after, however, the Talaban would prove itself to be a repessive and horrable reshiem. However, at least they where a stablizing force. You wouldn't get shot as you walked down the street to go to market. (You'd get shot if you didn't wear a Burka, but at least that was something you could control) Now that the Northern Aliance is back and has the watchful eye of the UN stairing down its neck, incidence of war lord violence have been few, but still they do happen. And mean while, the Northern Aliance holds the same exact milatant fundmentalist form of Islam that the Talaban did. The situation for the Afgan people has improved. . . but only somewhat. I've done all my resurch. It dosn't seem like you've done yours. I have not defended the actions of bin Laden, or Hussan, or al Assad. I have attacted the actions of Clinton and of Bush, because I have a say in my government, and belive many of those actions to be unjust. If I had my wish I'd see all of these men out of power. If you would open your eyes, you would see exactly who is giving those self apointed Kings not only their money, but their weapons. Its the US. We are funding these reshiems. Reshems that give their people no say. That vishiously muder their people, using the weapons we give them. You don't exactly understand our place in this picture. You want the western world to be wholely good and we are not. I know there is no such thing as evil, but it makes tings so much easyer when talking to people to just use that word. I don't have to get into long conversations involving the word "exisental" and all. By the by, why is your arguing stile so abusive?

  • Nov. 19, 2002, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Oh, and the Iraqi oposistion party dosn't suport the US.

    by McCormic

    Which is why we wont fund them. If they were placed in power, they have vowed to have nothing more to do with the US, because of the shitty way we've treated the people of the country thoughout the years. That means, no Iraqi oil, and in Washington, that's not a solution.

  • Nov. 19, 2002, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Can't let this go, can I?

    by McCormic

    I wonder why. Anyway, all of my facts are completly verafiable. I have never once relied on abstraction. You can verfie them if you wish. It dosn't take very long to get completly informed on this issue.

  • Nov. 20, 2002, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Just testing my new password

    by Stallion_Cornell

  • Nov. 20, 2002, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Ok, this has gotten so long that I'm giving you an itomized resp

    by McCormic

    There will be three asterixs placed between your comments and mine *** How can people be evil, but not a religion? If evil people made a religion, it would just have to be good??? Comment: Still waiting on an answer on that one.. *** I already gave you an answer on that one. A religion is incapable of being good or evil, because all it is is an idea in the head of a person. The person might be good or evil, but that's for the person to deside. *** in the meantime, there is no such thing as the iraq opposition party. You obviously don

  • Nov. 22, 2002, 6:37 p.m. CST

    I think I'm going to have to let this be my last post on this.

    by McCormic

    I mean, its kind of an intersting side step to declare the Universitys website, which gives plenty of proof, including links to the UN report I was talking about, and links to a UNICEF report that coraberate as well. These reports are not based on anything but impashal obsurvers on the ground in Iraq. Don't belive me? Read the breafing. It has everything there, including the extraplation of infant mortality rates that leads to the causalty count, and all the proff you need to see that the number was found impashally of the Iraqi government. I can find no talk on it that denighes the existance of a genosidal desaster in Iraq. Only wording that would point to what can only be estimations of casualty rates due the fact that a hard number isn't possable in this situation. Instead we find quotes from Unicef such as "...if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998." Their findings are far from inconclusive as you have tryed to protray them. The university site is far from old. What you where seeing there was the fact that the opening page of the site is old. At you can find updates from this month including all the links to offical sorces you could ask for. What this says to me is that you did not even bother to read into the site past the first page. By presenting you with this watershed of information I was attempting to give you all the proof you ever might need, including competely verified documents. That you chose not to read them shows that you are not willing to argue. Only fillibuster and insult. Now, as for my views on the western press, prehaps I should give you the intire artical I found relating to wepons inspectors. (A bit of an admishion on my part, I thought that I had found these words on the website, instead it was on the website of the media watch dog group Fairness and Acuracy In Reporting (FAIR). In my haste, I thought that the site, which is linked to was part of However, I'm going to give it to you anyway, because every fact in here is completely verifable, and I think it proves my point about our slightly better then Al-Jezer press then any memory of British radio and American TV.) The site is to be found at, and is as follows: FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001 ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation September 24, 2002 Nothing makes a newspaper prouder than a juicy foreign-policy scoop. Except, it seems, when the scoop ends up raising awkward questions about a U.S. administration's drive for war. Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99). Each of the three news stories ran on the papers' front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, "spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials" (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; "Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces," USA Today reported (3/3/99). But now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the center of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably queasy about recalling UNSCOM's past spying. The spy scandal badly damaged the credibility of the inspections process, especially after reports that data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets in the December 1998 bombing of Iraq: "National security insiders, blessed with their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced themselves that bombing Saddam Hussein's internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi leader around the bend," wrote Washington Post analyst William Arkin (1/17/99). Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein's regime. The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times' Barbara Crossette in an August 3 story, was replaced "after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it." She gave no hint that Saddam's "accusation" was reported as fact by her Times colleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier. "As recently as Sunday, Iraqi officials called the inspectors spies and accused them of deliberately prolonging their work," the Washington Post's Baghdad correspondent wrote recently in a story casting doubt on the Iraqi regime's intentions of cooperating (9/8/02). Readers would have no way of knowing that the Post's Barton Gellman exhaustively detailed the facts of the spying in a series of 1999 articles. "Iraq accused some of the inspectors of being spies, because they remained on their host countries' payrolls while reviewing Iraq's weapons," the Boston Globe's Elizabeth Neuffer wrote recently, in an oddly garbled rendition of the charges (9/14/02). She could have boasted that her paper's own Colum Lynch (now with the Washington Post) was widely credited with first breaking the story of UNSCOM's spying in a January 6, 1999 front-page expose. But she chose not to. It's hard to avoid the impression that certain media outlets would rather that UNSCOM's covert espionage had never been exposed in the first place. The day after Barton Gellman of the Washington Post first reported the spying charges, in a story sourced to Kofi Annan's office, his own paper ran a thundering editorial denouncing Annan's "gutless ploy" ("Back-Stabbing at the U.N.," 1/7/99) and instructing the U.N. leader that instead of providing the information to a Washington Post reporter, he and his aides should have "raised their concerns in private." END QUOTE. So, you see, what was once fact becomes alagation. I think that proves my point better then what I can rember about whiter then white, and so help me, you cannot denign the facts presented. It is corpret money, and copret power that corupts the western media, and while the New York times has the best investigative reporting in the world (why they are worth reading, though, with a grain of salt) but not even they are ammune. This is why I, generally, trust PBS. (Frountline and Now are PBS programs) Public Broudcasting is mostly public supported. No copreate money means no corperet corruption. This leads us nicely into the Frontline epsiode I saw exploring the roots of terroisum. The full transcript can be veiwed at The person I was talking about was Nabeel Mussawi, Leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who is presented as being "a leader of the Irqi opposition trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein" and "deeply critical of American policy in the region." Your website conferms that the Iraqi National Congress is more or less the unbrella group for all the seperate movements, which is why he was presnted this way, and why I presnted my facts to you in that way. Unfortunatly, for me, and I will come out and admit this, I thought he had said that he wanted nothing to do with us, when all he was doing was being highly critical of our policys. I think I must have been reading into his tone. That aside, I incurage you to read the transcript. Its a stellar program, which will go far in explaining the problem to you. So I think that any resonable person can see that everything I've broght up in this conversation is either based on something I've heard, seen, or read, and yet you've contued to call me a lier, rediculusly, ignorning reams and reams of raw bueatful data in the process simply because it dosn't agree with your narrow point of view. This is sad to me. I had hoped that we could have a civil argument based on fact, at some point. But you don't seem to be interested in fact, else you would have read from my completely imparshal site. It makes me sad actually. I cannot inform someone who choses to remain ignorat. I think I am indeed wasteing everyone's time. Espechally my own. Read the site or not, I no longer care.

  • Nov. 22, 2002, 6:38 p.m. CST


    by McCormic

    The posts are out of order, my final post in this argument is at the top of the pile.

  • Nov. 22, 2002, 6:40 p.m. CST


    by McCormic

    Ok, that should get your attention. My post is at the top.

  • Nov. 23, 2002, 8:17 p.m. CST


    by McCormic

    You are wrong about the sactions. They are what is called "unilateral" meaning one country is inposing them. The US.

  • Nov. 23, 2002, 8:25 p.m. CST

    But at least you generally held your insults in check for once.

    by McCormic

    Again I can't let go. Yes, its an activist website. Your not going to find any websites with that much information on them that are not activist. But the reason I gave it to you was because it is a completly dispashionate activist website that lets the facts do the talking for it and then backs up all those facts with the actuall reports. As for the Iraqi National Congress I can only point to the wording of the documentary I read. As for the Kurds doing with less. . . I'm not inteirely certan they are. But your right, I don't know everything here. But what is quite aparent is that there is a tragity going on, and that it is our fault. There is no question of that amoung experts, even amoung US experts. We are not whiter then white. We cause these problems by funding these reshemes. And that really is the end of the story. Read the (completely unbiased, completely verifiable) info I presented you with.

  • Nov. 23, 2002, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Oh! You ment the FAIR website!

    by McCormic

    As far as that goes, I gave it too you because 1. It gives the verifable date of every paper it mentions, 2. It shows exactly how the wording gets changed to misleed the public. How exaustivly resurched fact is a few years down the road, presented as a mad tirant's baseless acusation. I think your begining to see this for yourself now. You can't trust alot of what your handed from our news.