Coming To Our Shores.......NOW!

[stephanie]

YOU NEED TO WATCH THESE...

These are clips from a documentary that is being shown in Britain TODAY...RIGHT NOW....
Of course it's being denounced and protested by the Muslim Council of that Country.....And would be protested by the same if shown here....

Inside Those ‘Moderate’ Mosques
by Jay @ 8:33 pm. Filed under War On Terror, News, Video
If this is going on inside the so called ‘moderate Mosques’ in Britain, why wouldn’t it be going on in many of our own. One more reason the rules in this war need to change.



http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/01/15/inside-those-moderate-mosques/


The Irate Nation Says:
January 16th, 2007 at 1:16 am
‘Moderate’ Mosques - Yeah Right!

This is just part one of the documentary Dispatches: Undercover Mosque by UK Channel 4, exposing evidence of Islamic supremacism, and support for violence at a number of Britain’s leading mosques and Muslim institutions.

[Mr. P]

It is here now...from a poster on another site.


...Afterwards it dawned on me that I went to a Shite mosque.

Ordinarily, this wouldnt be a major thing. Im Sunni and all, but here in the States for the most part, Mosques don't identify there sect, all Muslims are welcome. I told my wife and she was a little pissed. She's a hardliner btw....

However, I kinda liked it.

So I convinced her to go this past Sunday for Eid, because I wanted to be sure, and thats when it happened: The same cleric, same dress, etc. during his Kutbah (sermon) said something along the lines that 9/11 was a government conspiracy! Shocked Shocked, I just looked dumbfounded and went slack jawed. He looked around the Mosque and saw my face and gave this erie smirk....

After services, my wifes blood was boiling, she couldnt believe what we just heard. Our old mosque's Imam would never make such heated accusations. Imams are supposed to keep personal "tinfoil" ideas to themselves, but this loosed lipped one didnt. ....

[retiredman]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

[Dilloduck]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

There is a difference between worshipping and advocating killing.

[Mr. P]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

I think it’s fair to assume all Muslims are potential enemies.

My guess is the intelligence community looks at it that way.

[retiredman]

There is a difference between worshipping and advocating killing.


no kidding?

can you answer my questions? Here...let me pose them again:

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

[retiredman]

I think it’s fair to assume all Muslims are potential enemies.

My guess is the intelligence community looks at it that way.

as fair as it is to assume that all redneck white folks from south of the mason dixon line are potential enemies.

We have freedom of religion in America. Millions of hard working, taxpaying American citizens are muslims. If they are now potential enemies....then all of us are.

[Mr. P]

as fair as it is to assume that all redneck white folks from south of the mason dixon line are potential enemies.

We have freedom of religion in America. Millions of hard working, taxpaying American citizens are muslims. If they are now potential enemies....then all of us are.

You know of an organized group of rednecks that believe if you don't eat chitlins and attend a Baptist church you must die? Your analogy is weak.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to exercise caution.

[retiredman]

You know of an organized group of rednecks that believe if you don't eat chitlins and attend a Baptist church you must die? Your analogy is weak.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to exercise caution.

then please just answer these questions:

should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?


How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?

[dirt mcgirt]

what should we do?
- The FBI should infiltrate Islamic fundie groups with undercover agents
- Examine bank accounts
- Profile
- Wiretap
- Background checks

Personally I feel that the muslim community is to blame for the negative attitudes against them. The muslim community has had poor public relations in trying to get back in the good graces of the general public since 9/11. As a whole, the muslim leaders haven't done enough to renounce the violent aspects of Islam, they don't condemn the extremists, and haven't done enough to reform Islam from within. I'm not scared around or bigoted towards muslims but I also don't shed any tears for them when they cry about their 1st and 4th Amendment rights being violated either.

[Dilloduck]

no kidding?

can you answer my questions? Here...let me pose them again:

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

As far as I am concerned anyone who advcates killing ANYONE is a criminal and not simply exercising thier right to practice thier religion.

[retiredman]

As far as I am concerned anyone who advcates killing ANYONE is a criminal and not simply exercising thier right to practice thier religion.

that is not an answer to my questions, however.

I am curious, however...do you advocate the killing of Osama bin Laden?

[retiredman]

- The FBI should infiltrate Islamic fundie groups with undercover agents
- Examine bank accounts
- Profile
- Wiretap
- Background checks

Personally I feel that the muslim community is to blame for the negative attitudes against them. The muslim community has had poor public relations in trying to get back in the good graces of the general public since 9/11. As a whole, the muslim leaders haven't done enough to renounce the violent aspects of Islam, they don't condemn the extremists, and haven't done enough to reform Islam from within. I'm not scared around or bigoted towards muslims but I also don't shed any tears for them when they cry about their 1st and 4th Amendment rights being violated either.

I agree with much of that.... certainly the use of undercover agents

[Dilloduck]

that is not an answer to my questions, however.

I am curious, however...do you advocate the killing of Osama bin Laden?

In self defense? You bet--somehow I don't see muslims wanting to kill all infidels as self defense.

[Mr. P]

then please just answer these questions:

should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?


How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?

I answered the only reasonable question you asked, the rest are ridicules.

[retiredman]

In self defense? You bet--somehow I don't see muslims wanting to kill all infidels as self defense.

is it your belief that all American muslims want to kill all infidels?

[retiredman]

I answered the only reasonable question you asked, the rest are ridicules.


what, pray tell, is ridiculous about this question?

"How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?"

[Mr. P]

what, pray tell, is ridiculous about this question?

"How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?"

My answer was in reference to post #3. More questions? More assumption? More twists?.

This question is ridiculous because discrimination, for many reasons, is part of everyday life. This is not about ‘solely on the basis of their religion’; it’s about threat to the safety of society. Regardless of what group that threat comes from. Caution and the awareness of the potential any group may have to disrupt society is prudent.

[Gunny]

what, pray tell, is ridiculous about this question?

"How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?"

When that religion preaches hatred and violence to those not of the religion, anyone embracing it is a potential enemy. And I'd rather listen to some Muslims squeal about their civil rights being violated than watch a US city go up in a mushroom cloud on the tube.

[Gaffer]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

Answer, YES. won't happen but that's how I look at it. We are at war with islam, call it what you like and not all muslims are vicious killers. But the religion, and I use the term loosely, is based on dominating every aspect of society worldwide. The majority of muslims don't seem inclined to jump in help stop the radicals. In fact they go out of their way to get special treatment and favors because they are muslim. If I were king I would have them all in detention camps, especially the new congressman.

[retiredman]

When that religion preaches hatred and violence to those not of the religion, anyone embracing it is a potential enemy. And I'd rather listen to some Muslims squeal about their civil rights being violated than watch a US city go up in a mushroom cloud on the tube.

what you know about Islam could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee. The religion of Islam does not preach hatred..... than the religion of Christianity does not advocate the murdering of doctors who perform abortions.... although some folks who profess to be Christians think otherwise. Similarly, some muslims do preach hatred....that is NOT their religion talking, but them.

[retiredman]

Answer, YES. won't happen but that's how I look at it. We are at war with islam, call it what you like and not all muslims are vicious killers. But the religion, and I use the term loosely, is based on dominating every aspect of society worldwide. The majority of muslims don't seem inclined to jump in help stop the radicals. In fact they go out of their way to get special treatment and favors because they are muslim. If I were king I would have them all in detention camps, especially the new congressman.

then you should be thrown in jail. period.

You are a wacko who would deny the blessings of citizenship to people who don't believe in your God....

that is sick... and to think that you wore the uniform. It makes me wanna puke.

[Gunny]

what you know about Islam could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee. The religion of Islam does not preach hatred..... than the religion of Christianity does not advocate the murdering of doctors who perform abortions.... although some folks who profess to be Christians think otherwise. Similarly, some muslims do preach hatred....that is NOT their religion talking, but them.

How did I KNOW you were going to immediately deflect to attacking Christianity? How many abortion clinic bombers/bombings has there been? Since you like hard numbers, here ya' go.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Those numbers don't come anywhere near the number of radical Muslims willing to murder in the name of their religion.

http://www.grecoreport.com/radical_islam_rising.htm

If you want to deny what the Koran directs Muslims to do where infidels are concerned, then I would say you know less than whatever it is you are telling me I know.

You're an apologista, simple as that. If the majority of Muslims aren't radical, I suggest they find their voice. They have done little to nothing to distance themselves from the radicals, who DO have a voice.

Which would be another difference between Muslims and Chrsitians in your dishonest comparison. Christians get in line to denounce and distance themselves from nimrods like abortion clinic bombers.

[Gunny]

then you should be thrown in jail. period.

You are a wacko who would deny the blessings of citizenship to people who don't believe in your God....

that is sick... and to think that you wore the uniform. It makes me wanna puke.

Has nothing to do with believing in "our God," and has everything to do with what their so-called prophet teaches them in regard to those who don't embrace THEIR beliefs and follow THEIR God.

[retiredman]

Has nothing to do with believing in "our God," and has everything to do with what their so-called prophet teaches them in regard to those who don't embrace THEIR beliefs and follow THEIR God.


If you wish to take verses out of the Koran and hold them out as emblematic of that faith, you need to be willing to have muslims pull stuff out of Leviticus and hold it up as emblematic of Christianity.

The overwhelming majority of muslims in this world are peaceful law abiding people and they view the dictates of the Koran as directing them on that path.

[Mr. P]

You wouldn't be Muslim by chance, manfrommaine?

[Gaffer]

then you should be thrown in jail. period.

You are a wacko who would deny the blessings of citizenship to people who don't believe in your God....

that is sick... and to think that you wore the uniform. It makes me wanna puke.

You asked for an answer to your question. I gave you mine. I said what I would do if I were king. But I'm not king. Just posting my opinion which is my right as you love to spout about. I didn't say I was denying citizenship. Just setting up camps. I would also ban all muslims from entering the country. I would seal the borders with "armed" troops. So you can be thankful that Bush is in office and not me.

You make assumptions about me. I have no god. I'm athiest.

You on the other hand are a dhimmi. Islam is not a religion of peace its a theocracy out to take over the world either through subversion or outright assault. The only law recognized in islam is the koran. All other laws do not apply. Other religions are not allowed to exist. It's obvious you know nothing about real islam so don't try to set yourself up as some kind of authority.

Islam is a jim jones cult on a grand scale.

I don't even want to hear that silly, christians are just as bad shit. One man attacking an abortion clinic is not a terrorist movement. Individual attacks over the past four years and numerous muslim individuals and groups being arrested for plots is a movement. And there are lots of them out there.

[darin]

For those who watch Sci-Fi....Stargate SG1...

Muslims = Ori.

[retiredman]

You wouldn't be Muslim by chance, manfrommaine?

as a matter of fact, I am not. But I have lived among them and found them to be a very peaceful caring lot.

[darin]

as a matter of fact, I am not. But I have lived among them and found them to be a very peaceful caring lot.

I've had very close relations with 'muslims' as well; those who were 'muslim' like John Kerry is 'catholic' ARE very nice, warm, giving people.

[retiredman]

You asked for an answer to your question. I gave you mine. I said what I would do if I were king. But I'm not king. Just posting my opinion which is my right as you love to spout about. I didn't say I was denying citizenship. Just setting up camps. I would also ban all muslims from entering the country. I would seal the borders with "armed" troops. So you can be thankful that Bush is in office and not me.

You make assumptions about me. I have no god. I'm athiest.

You on the other hand are a dhimmi. Islam is not a religion of peace its a theocracy out to take over the world either through subversion or outright assault. The only law recognized in islam is the koran. All other laws do not apply. Other religions are not allowed to exist. It's obvious you know nothing about real islam so don't try to set yourself up as some kind of authority.

Islam is a jim jones cult on a grand scale.

I don't even want to hear that silly, christians are just as bad shit. One man attacking an abortion clinic is not a terrorist movement. Individual attacks over the past four years and numerous muslim individuals and groups being arrested for plots is a movement. And there are lots of them out there.

I make no assumptions about you.... if you had the power, you would flush the constitution of the united states down the toilet and incarcerate citizens without due process.... and you claim to have served in the military and sworn to UPHOLD the constitution? YOu are a disgrace. period.

[Dilloduck]

is it your belief that all American muslims want to kill all infidels?

Nope--but the ones who do should be jailed.

[Gunny]

If you wish to take verses out of the Koran and hold them out as emblematic of that faith, you need to be willing to have muslims pull stuff out of Leviticus and hold it up as emblematic of Christianity.

What you perceive wrong or right about Christianity has no bearing on what you perceive is wrong or right about Islam.

The overwhelming majority of muslims in this world are peaceful law abiding people and they view the dictates of the Koran as directing them on that path.

Perhaps. So what then would you attribute this overwhelming majority's silence and inaction to in regard to their radical counterparts?

[Gaffer]

I make no assumptions about you.... if you had the power, you would flush the constitution of the united states down the toilet and incarcerate citizens without due process.... and you claim to have served in the military and sworn to UPHOLD the constitution? YOu are a disgrace. period.

Does this mean your not thankful I'm not in charge?

[retiredman]

Perhaps. So what then would you attribute this overwhelming majority's silence and inaction to in regard to their radical counterparts?


I would suggest that just because the American media does not cover the negative reactions to islamic extremism in OUR press does not mean that there is not significant levels of negative opinions in the arab and muslim world.

[retiredman]

Does this mean your not thankful I'm not in charge?


It means that,for sure...but it also means precisely what it says....you claim to be patriot and a veteran but you would trample the constitution given the chance.... that is disgraceful. You are an example of all that is wrong with America.

[stephanie]

Other's can keep their head in the sand all they want...

I for one will keep on my toes, and keep my eyes wide open..

[Gunny]

I would suggest that just because the American media does not cover the negative reactions to islamic extremism in OUR press does not mean that there is not significant levels of negative opinions in the arab and muslim world.

Nor does it mean there is. Muslims for the most part have remained silent because they know the radicals will murder them if they say a word.

Then there is the obvious that as long as the radicals are murdering non-Muslims, it really isn't as important to them as it would be if they were murdeing Muslims.

The fact is, they aren't policing their own, and as long as they pursue that course, they are going to be viewed as complicit.

[Gaffer]

It means that,for sure...but it also means precisely what it says....you claim to be patriot and a veteran but you would trample the constitution given the chance.... that is disgraceful. You are an example of all that is wrong with America.

Yep me and FDR. A couple of disgraceful Americans.

[TheSage]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?


Ok, manfrommaine, honeymoon's over.

Our more (ays)s regarding "religious tolerance" developed in a time when it was catholics, protestants etc,both all peaceful in the modern age. This doesn't mean we must extend this tolerance to hateful, violent theocratic ideologies just because they call it a religion. Yes. We should round them up and deport them.

[retiredman]

"what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?"

Ok, manfrommaine, honeymoon's over.

Our more (ays)s regarding "religious tolerance" developed in a time when it was catholics, protestants etc,both all peaceful in the modern age. This doesn't mean we must extend this tolerance to hateful, violent theocratic ideologies just because they call it a religion. Yes. We should round them up and deport them.

You are suggesting that we round up all muslims - even those who are native born Americans - and deport them somewhere? And this is because you think that Islam is a violent ideology that calls itself a religion? Have I got that right?

[retiredman]

Nor does it mean there is. Muslims for the most part have remained silent because they know the radicals will murder them if they say a word.

Then there is the obvious that as long as the radicals are murdering non-Muslims, it really isn't as important to them as it would be if they were murdeing Muslims.

The fact is, they aren't policing their own, and as long as they pursue that course, they are going to be viewed as complicit.

So because American mainstream media has not covered the negative reactions to terrorism on the part of middle eastern muslims, you are content with believing that such outrage does not exist and act accordingly?

Why am I not surprised? YOu would round up all muslims and incarcerate them for no other reason than their religion..... you REALLY creep me out.... it blows my mind that someone who claims to be a patriot and a veteran could have such a callous disregard and blatant disrespect for the constitution.

[avatar4321]

no kidding?

can you answer my questions? Here...let me pose them again:

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

What should we do? Missionary work. Convert them to Christianity and we dont have to worry about them.

[avatar4321]

that is not an answer to my questions, however.

I am curious, however...do you advocate the killing of Osama bin Laden?

Yes, but not as a tenet of religion. as a matter of security and justice

[avatar4321]

If you wish to take verses out of the Koran and hold them out as emblematic of that faith, you need to be willing to have muslims pull stuff out of Leviticus and hold it up as emblematic of Christianity.

The overwhelming majority of muslims in this world are peaceful law abiding people and they view the dictates of the Koran as directing them on that path.

If he is taking verses from the Quran out of context, it's only because the terrorists trying to kill us did so first.

[avatar4321]

I make no assumptions about you.... if you had the power, you would flush the constitution of the united states down the toilet and incarcerate citizens without due process.... and you claim to have served in the military and sworn to UPHOLD the constitution? YOu are a disgrace. period.

The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

[manu1959]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

good questions.....what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are not our enemies? should not be rounding up any muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put no one in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

[Grumplestillskin]

I think Dirt and Gunny's points are on the money. The average Muslim needs to speak up, but they'll probably be open to retaliation from radical elements. Too bad. Stand up for what you believe in, and if you are a god-fearing person, then death is just a release to a better place. Time to step up to the plate non-violent Muslims...

[Nate]

I have lived among them

Sure you did, and let me guess - all of your friends are Muslim, right?

:rolleyes:

[retiredman]

Sure you did, and let me guess - all of your friends are Muslim, right?

:rolleyes:


if you want to call me a liar, feel free, asshole.... I lived in Beirut Lebanon for a year in 1981-82. I have a lot of friends who are lebanese muslims who I maintain contact with.... I also have a lot of Israeli friends as well. What IS your point other than an obvious desire to showcase your lack of class?

[avatar4321]

I think Dirt and Gunny's points are on the money. The average Muslim needs to speak up, but they'll probably be open to retaliation from radical elements. Too bad. Stand up for what you believe in, and if you are a god-fearing person, then death is just a release to a better place. Time to step up to the plate non-violent Muslims...

I was listening to the news last night and moderate Muslims are having a conference in Florida soon to address some of these. The leaders are getting tons of death threats though.

[Gunny]

So because American mainstream media has not covered the negative reactions to terrorism on the part of middle eastern muslims, you are content with believing that such outrage does not exist and act accordingly?

I am content that in fact, the outrage, if it exists, is very rarely covered in Middle Eastern media. The reporters and or media outlets and the people who express the outrage would be murdered. I know and they know it. You obviously choose to not know it.

Why am I not surprised? YOu would round up all muslims and incarcerate them for no other reason than their religion..... you REALLY creep me out.... it blows my mind that someone who claims to be a patriot and a veteran could have such a callous disregard and blatant disrespect for the constitution.

Really. Why are you inventing shit and putting the words in my mouth? I don't believe I have ever stated any such thing.

I don't claim to be anything, and I have every respect for the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that a threat to our existence should be ignored in favor of dishonest literalist misinterpretation.

I support and defend the Constitution of the United States. You try to turn it into a suicide pact, refusing to identify the enemies of the ideals the Constitution embodies while trying to hide behind them.

By your deliberate misinterpretation, we can't even have any enemies because we aren't allowed to identify them for who and what they are until after somebody gets murdered. Then, you'll call it individual actions; which, is the direct opposite stance you take when it comes to torture, painting "the military" with that broad brush.

Not what ANYONE would expect from a supposed 25-year vet.

[Gaffer]

I guess manfrom gets confused over which of us he is trying to insult.

I am trashing the constitution by saying I would inter all the muslims. But a democratic president did just that during world war 2. 99% of who were loyal Americans.

There is nothing in the constitution that says a particular group that posses a threat to the country can't be interned at least until it is determined they are not a threat.

[retiredman]

I am not so partisan that I cannot see that FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans was not a terrible miscarriage of justice. Congress agreed. In 1988 they passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Popularly known as the Japanese American Redress Bill, this act acknowledged that "a grave injustice was done" and mandated Congress to pay each victim of internment $20,000 in reparations. The reparations were sent with a signed apology from the President of the United States on behalf of the American people.

and now you wanna make that same mistake all over again? That is profoundly moronic. period.

The constitution most certainly does prohibit incarceration of American citizens without due process, regardless of the color of their skin or the nature of their deity.

[Gunny]

I am not so partisan that I cannot see that FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans was not a terrible miscarriage of justice. Congress agreed. In 1988 they passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Popularly known as the Japanese American Redress Bill, this act acknowledged that "a grave injustice was done" and mandated Congress to pay each victim of internment $20,000 in reparations. The reparations were sent with a signed apology from the President of the United States on behalf of the American people.

and now you wanna make that same mistake all over again? That is profoundly moronic. period.

The constitution most certainly does prohibit incarceration of American citizens without due process, regardless of the color of their skin or the nature of their deity.

No matter what kind of explosive is in their vest.;)

[Nate]

if you want to call me a liar, feel free, asshole.... I lived in Beirut Lebanon for a year in 1981-82.

And you're also a millionaire who only dates super models, right?



I have a lot of friends who are lebanese muslims

I don't doubt it. As I said before, I'll bet all your friends are Lebanese Muslims :rolleyes:


I also have a lot of Israeli friends as well.

That's about as relevent to what we're discussing as my dog crapping on the front lawn this morning.


What IS your point other than an obvious desire to showcase your lack of class?

That I don't like you.

[retiredman]

Nate:

here's the deal. I am a retired career naval officer, and back in 1981, I got assigned to the United States Military Observation Group Palestine...which is the American contingent of the United Nations Truce Superivision Organization headquartered in Jerusalem with observer groups in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. I was in that assignment for two years during which time I worked in southern Lebanon (living in northern Israel in a town called Nahariya) for half the time and working (and living) in Beirut at the UN/PLO Liaison Office there for the other half.

If you have any questions about my service, perhaps you could check with my dear friend General George Casey who flew over to the middle east on the same plane with me and who climbed the the great pyramid with me...I am certain he would vouch for my service there.

There were some good looking women both in Israel and in Lebanon, but no supermodels that I was ever lucky enough to meet.

My finances are my own business but while I am not a millionaire today, when my 94 year old father passes on, which will most likely happen sometime in the next few months, I will be ten times over.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[Nate]

Good read. Quality fiction is rare these days.

[retiredman]

ask George if you don't believe me...

but please know that if you believe me or not is of absolutely no consequence to me whatever. I kinda wish this board had an ignore function cuz you'd be the first irrelevant little twit I'd make disappear.

[retiredman]

by the way...Captain Casey took the avatar photo

[Nate]

Oh cool, do you chat with him on AIM?

[retiredman]

Oh cool, do you chat with him on AIM?


no..but we do exchange annual christmas letters where we keep each other up to date on stuff.

[Nate]

... And post comments on eachother's MySpace :laugh:

[Gaffer]

well General Casey needs to get on here and do some posting. I'm sure he could clear up a lot questions. Although in most cases he would probably have to say "No Comment".

[retiredman]

well General Casey needs to get on here and do some posting. I'm sure he could clear up a lot questions. Although in most cases he would probably have to say "No Comment".

that's cuz he's still on active duty. I, too kept MY piehole shut about things the administration did that I disagreed with until I retired. I am sure that George will find his voice once he gets his grey ID card

[Dilloduck]

that's cuz he's still on active duty. I, too kept MY piehole shut about things the administration did that I disagreed with until I retired. I am sure that George will find his voice once he gets his grey ID card

How did things go with Clinton as your CIC ?

[Gaffer]

that's cuz he's still on active duty. I, too kept MY piehole shut about things the administration did that I disagreed with until I retired. I am sure that George will find his voice once he gets his grey ID card

Is he a liberal like you?

[Gunny]

that's cuz he's still on active duty. I, too kept MY piehole shut about things the administration did that I disagreed with until I retired. I am sure that George will find his voice once he gets his grey ID card

Retired ID cards are blue now, not gray.

[Grumplestillskin]

How did things go with Clinton as your CIC ?

From the outside looking in? A lot better than Dubya...:D

[Dilloduck]

From the outside looking in? A lot better than Dubya...:D

Did your organ grinder let you loose again? I was trying to ask someone who would know.

[Grumplestillskin]

Still looking at messageboards to ask all your worldly questions. How quaint....

[Roomy]

no..but we do exchange annual christmas letters where we keep each other up to date on stuff.

I believe you are suffering from Stockholme syndrome, either that or you are a potential recruit.You should read back through your posts here and you may find you have come across as a traitor to the cause.

[retiredman]

How did things go with Clinton as your CIC ?

My professional life was absolutely unaffected by Clinton in the white house.

[retiredman]

I believe you are suffering from Stockholme syndrome, either that or you are a potential recruit.You should read back through your posts here and you may find you have come across as a traitor to the cause.


and your opinion is worth a little bit less to me than a bucket of warm spit

[Dilloduck]

My professional life was absolutely unaffected by Clinton in the white house.

How did you feel about how his foreign policy viv a vis terrorism ?

[retiredman]

How did you feel about how his foreign policy viv a vis terrorism ?

remember that is was pre 9/11.

It is hard to look back, isn't it, and remember how we looked at the issue of islamic extremism back then?

And remember that I retired shortly after he took office....

but as a civilian, I thought he took a much more aggressive line against Islamic extremist terrorists than even- say - Reagan who was willing to deal with them as in Iran-contra. I thought his missile strike into Afghanistan was a bold move even though the republicans were shocked and outraged by it.

The only problem I ever had with Clinton was how he screwed up his legacy by not being able to keep his dick in his pants

[Roomy]

and your opinion is worth a little bit less to me than a bucket of warm spit

That is because you look at the world through the eyes of Islam instead of the west.

[retiredman]

That is because you look at the world through the eyes of Islam instead of the west.

I look at the world through my eyes...eyes of a patriotic American who has some insight into the middle east that morons like you are lacking. I know that understanding one's enemy is critical to victory.... I know that you have ZERO understanding of our enemy and are, therefore, a liability in the fight against Islamic extremism. I suggest you get out of the way for the good of everyone.

[Roomy]

I look at the world through my eyes...eyes of a patriotic American who has some insight into the middle east that morons like you are lacking. I know that understanding one's enemy is critical to victory.... I know that you have ZERO understanding of our enemy and are, therefore, a liability in the fight against Islamic extremism. I suggest you get out of the way for the good of everyone.


So 'you' say, I say you are a liar a coward and a traitor to 'your' country.

Your knowledge of 'our' enemy smacks more of empathy to me, manfrommaine or should I call you by your Islamic name?

[retiredman]

So 'you' say, I say you are a liar a coward and a traitor to 'your' country.

Your knowledge of 'our' enemy smacks more of empathy to me, manfrommaine or should I call you by your Islamic name?

I really could care less what you call me..... much like I could care less what a garden worm calls me.... call me whatever the fuck you'd like. your opinions are without merit.

I bet you wouldn't say those tough words if you couldn't hide behind the anonymity of cyberspace... so, give me your worst, and realize it only brings a smile and a moment of pathos.... nothing more.

[Roomy]

I really could care less what you call me..... much like I could care less what a garden worm calls me.... call me whatever the fuck you'd like. your opinions are without merit.

I bet you wouldn't say those tough words if you couldn't hide behind the anonymity of cyberspace... so, give me your worst, and realize it only brings a smile and a moment of pathos.... nothing more.


In person I wouldn't waste words when a quick smack would no doubt suffice you cowardy collaborator.Did you know that Patty Hearst joined her kidnappers to rob banks and such?Now that you do, how does it make you feel to know you are part of a select group of brainwashed treacherous morons?
Why would terrorists need to infiltrate our society when there are morons like you doing the job for them?You are filling me with disgust, the only consolation being, you are not typical of Americans or we really would be in deep shit.

[retiredman]

In person I wouldn't waste words when a quick smack would no doubt suffice you cowardy collaborator.Did you know that Patty Hearst joined her kidnappers to rob banks and such?Now that you do, how does it make you feel to know you are part of a select group of brainwashed treacherous morons?
Why would terrorists need to infiltrate our society when there are morons like you doing the job for them?You are filling me with disgust, the only consolation being, you are not typical of Americans or we really would be in deep shit.

OK...fine... now leave me alone.

[Roomy]

OK...fine... now leave me alone.


I will, now that you agree with me.

[Gunny]

My professional life was absolutely unaffected by Clinton in the white house.

Nice dodge. Were you even still in the service when Clinton was President?

[Gunny]

remember that is was pre 9/11.

It is hard to look back, isn't it, and remember how we looked at the issue of islamic extremism back then?

And remember that I retired shortly after he took office....

but as a civilian, I thought he took a much more aggressive line against Islamic extremist terrorists than even- say - Reagan who was willing to deal with them as in Iran-contra. I thought his missile strike into Afghanistan was a bold move even though the republicans were shocked and outraged by it.

The only problem I ever had with Clinton was how he screwed up his legacy by not being able to keep his dick in his pants

You may have changed your mind if you had been on one of the carriers looking at the inoperable planes that had been robbed of parts to others aloft because there was no money for spare parts.

[retiredman]

Nice dodge. Were you even still in the service when Clinton was President?

for about eight months. I retired in September of '93.

[retiredman]

You may have changed your mind if you had been on one of the carriers looking at the inoperable planes that had been robbed of parts to others aloft because there was no money for spare parts.


perhaps. I can remember being pretty ticked at Nixon for gutting the Navy OPTAR budget and I can remember being really ticked at Bush I for much the same reason... although the most angry I ever got at a president was at Jimmy Carter for not bombing Tehran into the stone age when they committed an act of war against us by attacking our embassy and taking hostages

[Roomy]

perhaps. I can remember being pretty ticked at Nixon for gutting the Navy OPTAR budget and I can remember being really ticked at Bush I for much the same reason... although the most angry I ever got at a president was at Jimmy Carter for not bombing Tehran into the stone age when they committed an act of war against us by attacking our embassy and taking hostages

So what changed your mind about killing muslims?

[retiredman]

So what changed your mind about killing muslims?

I can see the difference between American citizens who are muslims and who are viewed as criminals merely because of their faith, and foreigners who commit acts of war against America.

Morons like you who now believe that the only good raghead is a dead raghead are nothing more than a modern updated version of the racists who believed that the only good nigger is a dead nigger half a century ago.

[OCA]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

Why not? FDR did it, worked for him.

[OCA]

then please just answer these questions:

should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?


How do you "exercise caution" when discriminating against your own citizens and considering certain groups of them to be "potential enemies" solely on the basis of their religion? What civil rights do you flush down the toilet in the exercise of that caution?

Here is the problem: there are probably many moderate and maybe even liberal Muslims but, and this is a big but, the radicals are their voice, for some reason the aforementioned mods and libs dare not speak out against them and in most cases end up falling in lockstep with the radicals such as the case with the election of Hamas in Palestine, until Muslims themselves purge theirselves of the radical scum in their midst they should ALL be looked at with a wary eye.

[retiredman]

Here is the problem: there are probably many moderate and maybe even liberal Muslims but, and this is a big but, the radicals are their voice, for some reason the aforementioned mods and libs dare not speak out against them and in most cases end up falling in lockstep with the radicals such as the case with the election of Hamas in Palestine, until Muslims themselves purge theirselves of the radical scum in their midst they should ALL be looked at with a wary eye.

talking about Hamas and Palestine in this discussion about American muslims is meaningless and clouds the issue.

[OCA]

talking about Hamas and Palestine in this discussion about American muslims is meaningless and clouds the issue.

Not when the money trail leads from here to there.

[jillian]

Not when the money trail leads from here to there.

Actually, I'm gonna jump in on that one. The answer is yes... and no. The Palestinians and Hamas had nothing to do with 9/11, only with anti-Israel terrorism. Now, that doesn't mean that I think they should be any less squashed and that I think the money should be cut off any less readily. But it isn't the same issue as Al Queda and direct threats on the U.S. The issues have to be separated in order to engage in meaningful and intelligent policy.

[OCA]

Actually, I'm gonna jump in on that one. The answer is yes... and no. The Palestinians and Hamas had nothing to do with 9/11, only with anti-Israel terrorism. Now, that doesn't mean that I think they should be any less squashed and that I think the money should be cut off any less readily. But it isn't the same issue as Al Queda and direct threats on the U.S. The issues have to be separated in order to engage in meaningful and intelligent policy.

No, this where you guys don't or just plain refuse to get it. Its one big intertwined rats nest with all these guys, the lib media wants you to believe otherwise but it don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out......that is unless you seriously believe that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. etc. have never had contacts or conducted business with one another.

Basically when you get to the bottom goal of all these organizations they are all one and the same.....a Muslim sphere of influence over most of the world...a sphere of influence void of infidels.

[Mr. P]

A radical Muslim is a radical Muslim regardless of the tag..

[jillian]

No, this where you guys don't or just plain refuse to get it. Its one big intertwined rats nest with all these guys, the lib media wants you to believe otherwise but it don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out......that is unless you seriously believe that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. etc. have never had contacts or conducted business with one another.

Basically when you get to the bottom goal of all these organizations they are all one and the same.....a Muslim sphere of influence over most of the world...a sphere of influence void of infidels.

No. This is where you guys lack subtlety and go after with a nuke what you should be going after with a carving knife. Have you any proof of Al Queda and Hamas doing business? Or are you just surmising?

I've always felt that our guys should have been trained by the Mossad in how to deal with terrorists.

No... Hamas is not the same as Al Queda. Its focus is not on fundamentalism, it's on destruction of Israel. Near as I can tell, there's no global objective.

[OCA]

No. This is where you guys lack subtlety and go after with a nuke what you should be going after with a carving knife. Have you any proof of Al Queda and Hamas doing business? Or are you just surmising?

I've always felt that our guys should have been trained by the Mossad in how to deal with terrorists.

No... Hamas is not the same as Al Queda. Its focus is not on fundamentalism, it's on destruction of Israel. Near as I can tell, there's no global objective.

You simply can't be that naive.

Not naive. You disagree with me, prove they have objectives outside of Israel. There is a difference between pan-Arabism, which goes back to Nassar and globalism, which is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[Grumplestillskin]

AQ isn't even a real organisation. It is an ideal. It's a mish mash of fundies trying to impose their ideology in the ME. There is no evidence they are intent on taking over the world. In fact, OBL himself has said all they want in the West out of the ME, which won't happen while we rely on them for oil. The Western media call AQ a cohesive group in order to give a Western meaning. We like things to be nice and neat and put in little boxes. The fundies rely on that to help their cause. That is why terrorism will never be defeated. You can defeat an army, not an idea. All you can do with terrorism is try and limit its damage/influence.

[Gunny]

No. This is where you guys lack subtlety and go after with a nuke what you should be going after with a carving knife. Have you any proof of Al Queda and Hamas doing business? Or are you just surmising?

I've always felt that our guys should have been trained by the Mossad in how to deal with terrorists.

No... Hamas is not the same as Al Queda. Its focus is not on fundamentalism, it's on destruction of Israel. Near as I can tell, there's no global objective.

Here's the deal ....

Global domination is the goal of Islam as a whole. Now that isn't saying using violence to achieve that goal is the MO of Islam as a whole. But that ideal is fundamental to the religion.

You state that the goals of Hamas, Hezbollah and AQ are different. I disagree. All are motivated by the basic premise that no one but Arabs can live or basically step foot on Arab land. Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel, while AQ's primary target is the US. Hamas is made up of indiginous Arabs claiming to be Palestinians. Hezbollah is funded and more than likely armed primarily by Iran, a Shia sect. AQ is funded by Wahabbi radicals.

The cause is the same for them, just as the presence of the US and Israel is the same. They just have two different fronts to their war.

[retiredman]

amateurs on here routinely get the entire cast of characters jumbled to varying degrees. I have no desire to do a detailed historical sketch on each member, but suffice it to say that there are several groups of antagonists.... sunnis hate shiites.... arabs hate persians... wahabbists hate baathists and secular pan-arabists, and they all, for the most part, hate Israel. Besides their varying layers of antagonism, they also have an equally complex set of goals and objectives. Hamas does not share a vision with Al Qaeda.... arab nationalism has little in common with the regional vision of wahabbism other than their fervent desire to see Jews out of the Holy Lands.

It is also a clear mistake to think that America is the ultimate target for Al Qaeda and other groups who espouse radically extreme wahabbism or Qtubism. We are an object of the wrath, to be sure...but our involvement is only seen as a means to an end...which is the uprising of muslims throughout the MIDDLE EAST (not the entire world) to cast out the secular corrupt nationalist political entities and form a regional caliphate that closely resembles in geography the boundaries of Islam at its greatest reach and zenith of influence. No one in any radical islamic group envisions an Islamis America.... we are out of the picture in the long run...we were only attacked for the dual purpose of (1)paying us back for supporting Israel and the corrupt Saudi royals and defiling the Muslim Holy lands with infidel troops in the First Gulf War. and (2) raising the anger at all things western and christian and secular in the people in the Islamic "street". By not understanding the players and by not understanding which ones are our real enemies and which ones just don't like us very much, we put ourselves in greater peril. To assume that the vast majority of muslims, here and abroad, hate America and are actively seeking our destruction will dilute our defenses.

For example: we were attacked on 9/11 by a group of wahabbists from Saudi Arabia.... and I completely applauded our action in attempting to uproot them and destroy them in Afghanistan which was, after all, their base. Following that ineffective effort with a full scale attack on a secular baathist regime in Iraq was inexplicable without the deceptions of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections which did not exist.

Saddam was, in fact, a total asshole, but the world is full of assholes running countries (some may say that our own country might very well be on that list, but I digress) We need to keep our eye on our enemies...and THEY are NOT and were NOT Iraqi baathists...
and they most certainly are not American muslims...

If we really want to convince arabs and muslims to stop killing us, we must figure out a more effective strategy than killing muslims indiscriminantly unless we are prepared to kill them ALL.

[Gunny]

amateurs on here routinely get the entire cast of characters jumbled to varying degrees. I have no desire to do a detailed historical sketch on each member, but suffice it to say that there are several groups of antagonists.... sunnis hate shiites.... arabs hate persians... wahabbists hate baathists and secular pan-arabists, and they all, for the most part, hate Israel. Besides their varying layers of antagonism, they also have an equally complex set of goals and objectives. Hamas does not share a vision with Al Qaeda.... arab nationalism has little in common with the regional vision of wahabbism other than their fervent desire to see Jews out of the Holy Lands.

It is also a clear mistake to think that America is the ultimate target for Al Qaeda and other groups who espouse radically extreme wahabbism or Qtubism. We are an object of the wrath, to be sure...but our involvement is only seen as a means to an end...which is the uprising of muslims throughout the MIDDLE EAST (not the entire world) to cast out the secular corrupt nationalist political entities and form a regional caliphate that closely resembles in geography the boundaries of Islam at its greatest reach and zenith of influence. No one in any radical islamic group envisions an Islamis America.... we are out of the picture in the long run...we were only attacked for the dual purpose of (1)paying us back for supporting Israel and the corrupt Saudi royals and defiling the Muslim Holy lands with infidel troops in the First Gulf War. and (2) raising the anger at all things western and christian and secular in the people in the Islamic "street". By not understanding the players and by not understanding which ones are our real enemies and which ones just don't like us very much, we put ourselves in greater peril. To assume that the vast majority of muslims, here and abroad, hate America and are actively seeking our destruction will dilute our defenses.

For example: we were attacked on 9/11 by a group of wahabbists from Saudi Arabia.... and I completely applauded our action in attempting to uproot them and destroy them in Afghanistan which was, after all, their base. Following that ineffective effort with a full scale attack on a secular baathist regime in Iraq was inexplicable without the deceptions of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections which did not exist.

Saddam was, in fact, a total asshole, but the world is full of assholes running countries (some may say that our own country might very well be on that list, but I digress) We need to keep our eye on our enemies...and THEY are NOT and were NOT Iraqi baathists...
and they most certainly are not American muslims...

If we really want to convince arabs and muslims to stop killing us, we must figure out a more effective strategy than killing muslims indiscriminantly unless we are prepared to kill them ALL.

The fact that the different sects hate each other is irrelevant where we are concerned because they ALL hate us more than they hate each other. IF you take the US and Israel out of the picture, only THEN will they go back to killing each other.

[retiredman]

whatever you say professor.

you clearly are a freakin' expert on the subject.... that and defense spending are obviously your areas of expertise

[Gunny]

whatever you say professor.

you clearly are a freakin' expert on the subject.... that and defense spending are obviously your areas of expertise

Not being impressed by you and your elitist attitude does not correlate to my claiming to be anything. The only condesending remarks I have seen where the topic of Islam is concerned come from you, toward anyone whose opinion differs from yours.

Your anti-US military/US, Muslim apologista agenda is pretty-damned clear to everyone, no matter how much smarter than the rest of us you think you are.

[OCA]

amateurs on here routinely get the entire cast of characters jumbled to varying degrees. I have no desire to do a detailed historical sketch on each member, but suffice it to say that there are several groups of antagonists.... sunnis hate shiites.... arabs hate persians... wahabbists hate baathists and secular pan-arabists, and they all, for the most part, hate Israel. Besides their varying layers of antagonism, they also have an equally complex set of goals and objectives. Hamas does not share a vision with Al Qaeda.... arab nationalism has little in common with the regional vision of wahabbism other than their fervent desire to see Jews out of the Holy Lands.

It is also a clear mistake to think that America is the ultimate target for Al Qaeda and other groups who espouse radically extreme wahabbism or Qtubism. We are an object of the wrath, to be sure...but our involvement is only seen as a means to an end...which is the uprising of muslims throughout the MIDDLE EAST (not the entire world) to cast out the secular corrupt nationalist political entities and form a regional caliphate that closely resembles in geography the boundaries of Islam at its greatest reach and zenith of influence. No one in any radical islamic group envisions an Islamis America.... we are out of the picture in the long run...we were only attacked for the dual purpose of (1)paying us back for supporting Israel and the corrupt Saudi royals and defiling the Muslim Holy lands with infidel troops in the First Gulf War. and (2) raising the anger at all things western and christian and secular in the people in the Islamic "street". By not understanding the players and by not understanding which ones are our real enemies and which ones just don't like us very much, we put ourselves in greater peril. To assume that the vast majority of muslims, here and abroad, hate America and are actively seeking our destruction will dilute our defenses.

For example: we were attacked on 9/11 by a group of wahabbists from Saudi Arabia.... and I completely applauded our action in attempting to uproot them and destroy them in Afghanistan which was, after all, their base. Following that ineffective effort with a full scale attack on a secular baathist regime in Iraq was inexplicable without the deceptions of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections which did not exist.

Saddam was, in fact, a total asshole, but the world is full of assholes running countries (some may say that our own country might very well be on that list, but I digress) We need to keep our eye on our enemies...and THEY are NOT and were NOT Iraqi baathists...
and they most certainly are not American muslims...

If we really want to convince arabs and muslims to stop killing us, we must figure out a more effective strategy than killing muslims indiscriminantly unless we are prepared to kill them ALL.


Watch out when you throw the word amateur around...as if you are the end all to be all.

Anyway a well worded essay even though its premise is fundamentally wrong. You realize that Islam at its height stretched to Spain and was making inroads northward into Europe before it panned out, right? Well these same groups want that territory back along with some new territory.

Anyway the media has trained you well, there is a very good piece on National Review's website that details the intricate weavings between all the major players on the Islamic side including connections between the Baathists and Al Qaeda and Baathists and Hamas, but since its National Review, a conservative magazine, I suppose you would dismiss the article as an opinion piece and non-factual since you've bought into the lies from the media and top Dems about no WMD and no Al Qaeda connections to Iraq.

Should I attempt to find it or is it a waste?

[Gaffer]

maine you left out the tribal conflicts and the ali babas in iraq. Yep there are a lot of factors involved. But you seem to think its purely a mideast thing and it exstends a lot further than that. Everywhere you get a large muslim population you start to have problems with murders, riots, assasinations. The muslim population does not assimilate, they keep themselves seperate. You see that in europe now. There are upraisings in Thailand and the philipines. Clerics in almost all western countries are consistantly calling for jihad in the mosques. This is a much larger picture than you are willing to paint. Even china has had to deal with muslim terrorist, though it doesn't get much reporting. The middle east is just a central focal point.

[retiredman]

Watch out when you throw the word amateur around...as if you are the end all to be all.

Anyway a well worded essay even though its premise is fundamentally wrong. You realize that Islam at its height stretched to Spain and was making inroads northward into Europe before it panned out, right? Well these same groups want that territory back along with some new territory.

the media and top Dems aboAnyway the media has trained you well, there is a very good piece on National Review's website that details the intricate weavings between all the major players on the Islamic side including connections between the Baathists and Al Qaeda and Baathists and Hamas, but since its National Review, a conservative magazine, I suppose you would dismiss the article as an opinion piece and non-factual since you've bought into the lies from ut no WMD and no Al Qaeda connections to Iraq.

Should I attempt to find it or is it a waste?

I am fully aware that the goals of wahabbism include the geography that controlled by Islam in its flower.

If you wish to post an opinion piece from NR, feel free...if you wish to post a piece of objective journalism from NR, feel equally free.

Here is what I KNOW: Wahabbism seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate that runs from the mediterranean to the indian ocean.... it wants to obliviate every secular non-Islamic political subdivision in that stretch of geography. That was the overarching goal of Al Qaeda. That was not a secret kept from Saddam. He knew full well that the strategic goal of Al Qaeda included the dissolution of his nation state. Knowing that, please tell me why Saddam would provide aid comfort or WMD's - if he had them, which he didn't - to an organization whose primary mission in life was the elimination of his empire.

[Roomy]

I can see the difference between American citizens who are muslims and who are viewed as criminals merely because of their faith, and foreigners who commit acts of war against America.

Morons like you who now believe that the only good raghead is a dead raghead are nothing more than a modern updated version of the racists who believed that the only good nigger is a dead nigger half a century ago.

You must agree that the only way to significantly reduce muslim terrorist attacks on Western soil is to deport them all and stop any more entering the west?As a moron, I even realise that this is virtually impossible to enforce but it is still the second most effective option, the most effective being kill all muslims, I won't endorse or condone either option but they are the only options that could work.

How dare you use the 'N' word and accuse anyone of racism without a fucking clue as to who they are.You Sir are a fucking waste of breath, how do you survive on a daily basis without anyone kicking the shit out of you, oh. I know, you fucking hide.The US Navy is so much better off without you, that is if you were ever in the Navy, you make so many generalisations and sweeping assumptions I wouldn't put blatant lies beyond you.Infact you are a liar.:wink2:

[avatar4321]

You must agree that the only way to significantly reduce muslim terrorist attacks on Western soil is to deport them all and stop any more entering the west?As a moron, I even realise that this is virtually impossible to enforce but it is still the second most effective option, the most effective being kill all muslims, I won't endorse or condone either option but they are the only options that could work.

How dare you use the 'N' word and accuse anyone of racism without a fucking clue as to who they are.You Sir are a fucking waste of breath, how do you survive on a daily basis without anyone kicking the shit out of you, oh. I know, you fucking hide.The US Navy is so much better off without you, that is if you were ever in the Navy, you make so many generalisations and sweeping assumptions I wouldn't put blatant lies beyond you.Infact you are a liar.:wink2:

Wow, even roomy is busting on MFM, don't see that everyday.

I happen to agree with everything you say here. However, I do want to add, that there is a huge difference between the old racist saying and the current saying. 50 years ago, African Americans werent trying to oppress and murder us. And I may not be the brightest light in the room, but I can certainly see the difference between racism for no reason, and racism as a result of a certain ethnicity trying to exterminate you. Granted, I don't subscribe to either, but I can see one as alot more tolerable and understandable than the other.

[avatar4321]

I am fully aware that the goals of wahabbism include the geography that controlled by Islam in its flower.

If you wish to post an opinion piece from NR, feel free...if you wish to post a piece of objective journalism from NR, feel equally free.

Here is what I KNOW: Wahabbism seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate that runs from the mediterranean to the indian ocean.... it wants to obliviate every secular non-Islamic political subdivision in that stretch of geography. That was the overarching goal of Al Qaeda. That was not a secret kept from Saddam. He knew full well that the strategic goal of Al Qaeda included the dissolution of his nation state. Knowing that, please tell me why Saddam would provide aid comfort or WMD's - if he had them, which he didn't - to an organization whose primary mission in life was the elimination of his empire.

Do you honestly think they would settle for a Caliphate that runs from the mediterranean to the indian ocean? I dont. They want the entire world, not that small piece of it.

Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not only that but Saddam saw himself as a devout Muslim and probably didnt think Al Qaeda could succeed in his life, or figured he would have even more power afterwards. If you hadnt noticed the reason he was so eager to attack his neighbors was because he had the same goal, with him in charge.

Do you really doubt that if Saddam had succeeded at uniting the Sunni muslim world behind him against the west that he wouldnt have proclaimed himself a Caliph?

If you think that it would have been difficult for Saddam to see how he could get more power by working with the terrorists, then you have your head in the sand.

Regardless, the 911 report detailed Saddams connections to Al Qaeda among other terrorists groups. It doesn't matter why they worked together, the evidence shows that they did.

[retiredman]

Let me address your points in order:

(1)"Do you honestly think they would settle for a Caliphate that runs from the mediterranean to the indian ocean? I dont. They want the entire world, not that small piece of it."

(2)"Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not only that but Saddam saw himself as a devout Muslim and probably didnt think Al Qaeda could succeed in his life, or figured he would have even more power afterwards. If you hadnt noticed the reason he was so eager to attack his neighbors was because he had the same goal, with him in charge."

(3)"Do you really doubt that if Saddam had succeeded at uniting the Sunni muslim world behind him against the west that he wouldnt have proclaimed himself a Caliph?"

(4)"If you think that it would have been difficult for Saddam to see how he could get more power by working with the terrorists, then you have your head in the sand."

(5)"Regardless, the 911 report detailed Saddams connections to Al Qaeda among other terrorists groups. It doesn't matter why they worked together, the evidence shows that they did."



1. Yes. I honestly think that. I have read the writings of several of the key philosophers and proponents of extreme wahabbism, qutbism, and salafism.....such as al Banna and Sayed Qutb... and I think that their goal is the unification and purification of the Islamic world. They could have cared less about places outside of that where infidels live as long as those places did not interfere with the establishment of that caliphate.

2. I HAVE heard of that aphorism, but it doesn't work when the enemy of my enemy is also MY enemy. The goals of extreme wahabbism as held by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the precuser of Al Qaeda, are to do away with secular governments - with particular enmity towards baathists. Saddam would have absolutely no reason to trust or to help an organization whose primary strategic goal was his own demise, just because that organization shared his dislike of the United States.

3. I disagree that Saddam was ever attempting to unify the sunni muslim world. Nasser had that goal once, but not Saddam. That is plain fiction.

4. Saddam did work with terrorists - palestinian arab nationalists who sought to overthrow the state of Israel, and Iranian nationalists who sought to overthrow the theocratic persian government of Iran. He did NOT work with wahabbists bent on his own destruction.

5.The evidence shows that they MET - big deal. The US and USSR met all the time during the cold war..that didn't mean we were sharing information on weapons systems. There is no evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda COOPERATED or that Saddam AIDED them in any way. As I said above, it would have been suicidal for him to do so.

[retiredman]

You must agree that the only way to significantly reduce muslim terrorist attacks on Western soil is to deport them all and stop any more entering the west?As a moron, I even realise that this is virtually impossible to enforce but it is still the second most effective option, the most effective being kill all muslims, I won't endorse or condone either option but they are the only options that could work.

How dare you use the 'N' word and accuse anyone of racism without a fucking clue as to who they are.You Sir are a fucking waste of breath, how do you survive on a daily basis without anyone kicking the shit out of you, oh. I know, you fucking hide.The US Navy is so much better off without you, that is if you were ever in the Navy, you make so many generalisations and sweeping assumptions I wouldn't put blatant lies beyond you.Infact you are a liar.:wink2:

How can we "deport" someone like Congressman Keith Ellison, for example, who was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan and converted to Islam later in life? He is a native born American. Are you really suggesting that the freedom of religion that America country was founded on should be used to exclude muslims? A slippery slope, that..... what's next? Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Catholics? Atheists? people of color? people that don't agree with the majority viewpoint on whatever is the hot topic du jour?

I used the N word for dramatic effect - it obviously worked. To suggest that we ought to toss out all muslims regardless of their loyalties is a disgusting racist suggestion borne of fear and ignorance and is no different than holding that same belief about any non-caucasian race.

[retiredman]

Wow, even roomy is busting on MFM, don't see that everyday.

I happen to agree with everything you say here. However, I do want to add, that there is a huge difference between the old racist saying and the current saying. 50 years ago, African Americans werent trying to oppress and murder us. And I may not be the brightest light in the room, but I can certainly see the difference between racism for no reason, and racism as a result of a certain ethnicity trying to exterminate you. Granted, I don't subscribe to either, but I can see one as alot more tolerable and understandable than the other.

so you are saying that Congressman Keith Ellison seeks to exterminate you?

and you find that reasonable? tolerable? understandable?

really.

[Roomy]

How can we "deport" someone like Congressman Keith Ellison, for example, who was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan and converted to Islam later in life? He is a native born American. Are you really suggesting that the freedom of religion that America country was founded on should be used to exclude muslims? A slippery slope, that..... what's next? Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Catholics? Atheists? people of color? people that don't agree with the majority viewpoint on whatever is the hot topic du jour?

I used the N word for dramatic effect - it obviously worked. To suggest that we ought to toss out all muslims regardless of their loyalties is a disgusting racist suggestion borne of fear and ignorance and is no different than holding that same belief about any non-caucasian race.


My suggestions to either deport and disallow further entry by muslims or exterminate all muslims are the only real ways to stop muslim terrorism in the west.I don't necessarily advocate their implimentation as they are neither practical or enforcible (yet).Many more years of war and terror may bring these terrible scenarios into effect though.I think the ball is firmly in their court.They should keep their own house in order or suffer the dire consequences, because there will come a time when we in the west say "we have had enough of this shit, nuke the bastards".

Make them all swear an oath of allegiance to start with, if they break it deport them and their families.

[retiredman]

My suggestions to either deport and disallow further entry by muslims or exterminate all muslims are the only real ways to stop muslim terrorism in the west.I don't necessarily advocate their implimentation as they are neither practical or enforcible (yet).Many more years of war and terror may bring these terrible scenarios into effect though.I think the ball is firmly in their court.They should keep their own house in order or suffer the dire consequences, because there will come a time when we in the west say "we have had enough of this shit, nuke the bastards".

Make them all swear an oath of allegiance to start with, if they break it deport them and their families.

again, I ask....is this your suggestion for native born American muslims?

and as I think someone told me, you are from Great Britain and not the United States so your suggestions for draconian measures such as this are, I assume, confined to your own country and you are not, I would hope trying to tell Americans how to run OUR country.

[Gunny]

You must agree that the only way to significantly reduce muslim terrorist attacks on Western soil is to deport them all and stop any more entering the west?As a moron, I even realise that this is virtually impossible to enforce but it is still the second most effective option, the most effective being kill all muslims, I won't endorse or condone either option but they are the only options that could work.

How dare you use the 'N' word and accuse anyone of racism without a fucking clue as to who they are.You Sir are a fucking waste of breath, how do you survive on a daily basis without anyone kicking the shit out of you, oh. I know, you fucking hide.The US Navy is so much better off without you, that is if you were ever in the Navy, you make so many generalisations and sweeping assumptions I wouldn't put blatant lies beyond you.Infact you are a liar.:wink2:

Damn, too bad I can't rep you again.

[Gunny]

again, I ask....is this your suggestion for native born American muslims?

and as I think someone told me, you are from Great Britain and not the United States so your suggestions for draconian measures such as this are, I assume, confined to your own country and you are not, I would hope trying to tell Americans how to run OUR country.

The problem of Islamofascism is the problem of Western society as a whole, not the US's alone.

And you aren't paying attention. He stated deportation of all Muslims is an action that would work. It would. He also stated he does not advocate such measures.

Once again, you are ignoring the written word in favor of drawing your own conclusions because you are incapable of comprehending that not all solutions are politically correct.

[Roomy]

again, I ask....is this your suggestion for native born American muslims?

and as I think someone told me, you are from Great Britain and not the United States so your suggestions for draconian measures such as this are, I assume, confined to your own country and you are not, I would hope trying to tell Americans how to run OUR country.


Home grown muslim terrorism is a fact, we in Britain know all about it.

[retiredman]

I am paying attention.... my question goes to the philosophical underpinnings of the idea, not merely it's practicality. The thrust of this thread has been that we should deport the muslims or put muslims in internment camps or prevent any more muslims from ever immigrating into this country - and that that somehow would make us safer.... and I only ask, are you all really saying that, if it WERE possible, that those measures would be ones that you endorse? And if deportation, for example, is something you endorse, where would you deport those muslims that are from long lines of native born americans... like Keith Ellison, for example? And if it is muslims this week, why not jews next week, or buddhists.... or liberals...right? Does that really sound like America to you?

[retiredman]

Home grown muslim terrorism is a fact, we in Britain know all about it.


I guess that means it sucks to be you.

[Roomy]

I guess that means it sucks to be you.


I have a good life, safe in the knowledge that braver men than you are acting as a buffer until such times.

[Gunny]

I am paying attention.... my question goes to the philosophical underpinnings of the idea, not merely it's practicality. The thrust of this thread has been that we should deport the muslims or put muslims in internment camps or prevent any more muslims from ever immigrating into this country - and that that somehow would make us safer.... and I only ask, are you all really saying that, if it WERE possible, that those measures would be ones that you endorse? And if deportation, for example, is something you endorse, where would you deport those muslims that are from long lines of native born americans... like Keith Ellison, for example? And if it is muslims this week, why not jews next week, or buddhists.... or liberals...right? Does that really sound like America to you?

Well, now that you've loaded the question ......

I would endorse deporting all known Muslims affiliated in any way with any radical Islamic group. I'm fully-aware there are plenty of peaceul Muslims who just go about their business, and as long as that is what they do, I have no problem with them.

But we have radical Muslims here, and quasi-madrassas producing more, and hiding behind the Constitution to do so because of people like you who need to see dead bodies and/or destroyed property before you are willing to do anything about them.

I also have no problem with watching ALL Muslims, just to see what they're up to. If they aren't up to anything, then they have nothing to fear, and just watching is not violating anyone's Rights.

I bet you don't have a problem at all with the gov't watching white supremicist organizations. Why? Because some have proven to be a threat. Sounds reasonable to me.

[retiredman]

Well, now that you've loaded the question ......

I would endorse deporting all known Muslims affiliated in any way with any radical Islamic group. I'm fully-aware there are plenty of peaceul Muslims who just go about their business, and as long as that is what they do, I have no problem with them.

But we have radical Muslims here, and quasi-madrassas producing more, and hiding behind the Constitution to do so because of people like you who need to see dead bodies and/or destroyed property before you are willing to do anything about them.

I also have no problem with watching ALL Muslims, just to see what they're up to. If they aren't up to anything, then they have nothing to fear, and just watching is not violating anyone's Rights.

I bet you don't have a problem at all with the gov't watching white supremicist organizations. Why? Because some have proven to be a threat. Sounds reasonable to me.

So you are advocating putting all American citizens who are muslims under government surveillance?

For you to suggest a similarity between a religion and white supremacist organizations is telling....

[retiredman]

I have a good life, safe in the knowledge that braver men than you are acting as a buffer until such times.

since you know nothing of my bravery or lack thereof, perhaps you should just say YOUNGER men.

[Gunny]

So you are advocating putting all American citizens who are muslims under government surveillance?

For you to suggest a similarity between a religion and white supremacist organizations is telling....

I am suggesting a similarity between groups that as individual groups, display habits and traits homongenous to the individual group. The origin of those habits/traits is irrelevant.

That you defend one group's rights and the other's is telling.

[retiredman]

I am suggesting a similarity between groups that as individual groups, display habits and traits homongenous to the individual group.


wow.

is it just me, or is that one of the most nonsensical sentences ever written?

Gunny.... don't tell me, have you ever been a George W. Bush speechwriter?

[Gunny]

wow.

is it just me, or is that one of the most nonsensical sentences ever written?

Gunny.... don't tell me, have you ever been a George W. Bush speechwriter?

Obviously if that is beyond your comprehension level, you aren't anywhere near as smart as you think you are.

The fact that you have resorted to personal attack rather than refuting the point is as telling as your willingness to champion the rights of one group but not the other.

But then, you'd have to comprehend the point being made, wouldn't you?

[retiredman]

no...Gunny...really. The sentence doesn't make any sense. Now perhaps what you thought you wanted to say made sense...in fact, I would have no problem imagining that it did.... but what you wanted to say - if it did,in fact, make sense - is not what you said. The sentence is unintelligible babble as written. I would love to understand your point..but that sentence stopped me cold.

[Gunny]

no...Gunny...really. The sentence doesn't make any sense. Now perhaps what you thought you wanted to say made sense...in fact, I would have no problem imagining that it did.... but what you wanted to say - if it did,in fact, make sense - is not what you said. The sentence is unintelligible babble as written. I would love to understand your point..but that sentence stopped me cold.

Whatever. Let me get out the big fat crayons here ......

Muslim extremists exhibit certain behaviors that pose a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society.

Extremist white supremacists exhibit certain behaviors that a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society.

The fact that one is based on an extreme religious viewpoint and one is based on an extreme racial viewpoint is irrelevant.

That both pose a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society IS relevant.

[retiredman]

Whatever. Let me get out the big fat crayons here ......

Muslim extremists exhibit certain behaviors that pose a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society.

Extremist white supremacists exhibit certain behaviors that a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society.

The fact that one is based on an extreme religious viewpoint and one is based on an extreme racial viewpoint is irrelevant.

That both pose a threat to the harmony and physical security of our society IS relevant.

Interesting.... here you talk about muslim extremists...but before, this is what was said by you:

"I also have no problem with watching ALL Muslims, just to see what they're up to. If they aren't up to anything, then they have nothing to fear, and just watching is not violating anyone's Rights.

I bet you don't have a problem at all with the gov't watching white supremicist organizations. Why? Because some have proven to be a threat. Sounds reasonable to me."

and I replied:

"So you are advocating putting all American citizens who are muslims under government surveillance?

For you to suggest a similarity between a religion and white supremacist organizations is telling....

It was at that point that you inadvertently devolved into babble.

So which is it....do we put ALL muslims under surveillance or just the wacky ones?

[retiredman]

you see...I don't have any problem in putting muslim extremist organizations under surveillance...

but I DO have HUGE problem with the mindset that seems to prevail in our country and on this thread that ALL muslims represent some elevated potential danger to America just because of their religion.

[Gunny]

Interesting.... here you talk about muslim extremists...but before, this is what was said by you:

"I also have no problem with watching ALL Muslims, just to see what they're up to. If they aren't up to anything, then they have nothing to fear, and just watching is not violating anyone's Rights.

I bet you don't have a problem at all with the gov't watching white supremicist organizations. Why? Because some have proven to be a threat. Sounds reasonable to me."

and I replied:

"So you are advocating putting all American citizens who are muslims under government surveillance?

For you to suggest a similarity between a religion and white supremacist organizations is telling....

It was at that point that you inadvertently devolved into babble.

So which is it....do we put ALL muslims under surveillance or just the wacky ones?

I didn't devolve into babble. If you're done defelcting, my point is this ...

we watch ALL white supremacists. That's how we know which ones are threats and which ones are not.

I have no problem with watching ALL Muslims to determine which ones are threats and which ones are not.

The ones that don't need watching get crossed off the list, and we narrow our surveillance down to those that DO need watching.

[Gunny]

you see...I don't have any problem in putting muslim extremist organizations under surveillance...

but I DO have HUGE problem with the mindset that seems to prevail in our country and on this thread that ALL muslims represent some elevated potential danger to America just because of their religion.

I have not said ALL Muslims represent some elevated potential danger to America just because of their religion.

I said Islam is a religion of hate. If taken literally, it cannot be construed as anything else, and it is those Muslims that take it literally that are the extremists.

I also said we should watch ALL Muslims within the parameters stated in my previous post. If I was a Muslim, I would welcome being eliminated from the potential threat list.

[jillian]

I didn't devolve into babble. If you're done defelcting, my point is this ...

we watch ALL white supremacists. That's how we know which ones are threats and which ones are not.

I have no problem with watching ALL Muslims to determine which ones are threats and which ones are not.

The ones that don't need watching get crossed off the list, and we narrow our surveillance down to those that DO need watching.

Larger population of muslims than of white supremacists, no? The logistics would be kind of difficult. Also, the difference between white supremacists and the average *muslim on the street* is that white supremacists have already declared themselves anathema to everything we stand for. That's not true of muslims who aren't fundie loonies.

That said, I have no problem with serveilling the radical mosques for a start or using some racial profiling so we can focus our resources appropriately.

[retiredman]

I didn't devolve into babble. If you're done defelcting, my point is this ...

we watch ALL white supremacists. That's how we know which ones are threats and which ones are not.

I have no problem with watching ALL Muslims to determine which ones are threats and which ones are not.

The ones that don't need watching get crossed off the list, and we narrow our surveillance down to those that DO need watching.

But see the difference? With the white supremacists...you start by only watching the white supremacists.....

with the muslim extremists, you watch all the muslims. Now if you wanted to do it in a way that wasn't bigoted, you would start by watching all the whites...and then when you determined that individuals were not dangerous white supremacists, you'd cross them off the list.

Presuming that all MUSLIMS need to PROVE their patriotism...PROVE that they are not involved in extremist activities in order to get "crossed off the list" and then, finally, get the surveillance tail to stop watching their every move is blatant racist discrimination.

[retiredman]

and...


I didn't devolve into babble.

ummmm yes you did.

"I am suggesting a similarity between groups that as individual groups, display habits and traits homongenous to the individual group."

that's babble.

[Gunny]

But see the difference? With the white supremacists...you start by only watching the white supremacists.....

with the muslim extremists, you watch all the muslims. Now if you wanted to do it in a way that wasn't bigoted, you would start by watching all the whites...and then when you determined that individuals were not dangerous white supremacists, you'd cross them off the list.

Presuming that all MUSLIMS need to PROVE their patriotism...PROVE that they are not involved in extremist activities in order to get "crossed off the list" and then, finally, get the surveillance tail to stop watching their every move is blatant racist discrimination.

How can you separate racists and religion in one post trying to insult me, and now call religious discrimination "blatant racist discrimination?" Make up your mind. There is nothing racist about it; especially, in this country when you have Muslims of all ethnicities.

They don't have to prove anything. I'm quite sure the government already knows who is and is not a threat/radical.

[Gunny]

and...



ummmm yes you did.

"I am suggesting a similarity between groups that as individual groups, display habits and traits homongenous to the individual group."

that's babble.

Whatever. You're going ooff on one of your little tangents again.

[retiredman]

How can you separate racists and religion in one post trying to insult me, and now call religious discrimination "blatant racist discrimination?" Make up your mind. There is nothing racist about it; especially, in this country when you have Muslims of all ethnicities.

They don't have to prove anything. I'm quite sure the government already knows who is and is not a threat/radical.

you were the one who advocated putting white supremacists under surveillance and ALL muslims under surveillance and somehow can't see the distinction. Admittedly, it is bigoted without being strictly racist per se, but discriminatory and unAmerican? certainly.

Putting ALL muslims under surveillance until they can get crossed off the list.... stunning.

[OCA]

you were the one who advocated putting white supremacists under surveillance and ALL muslims under surveillance and somehow can't see the distinction. Admittedly, it is bigoted without being strictly racist per se, but discriminatory and unAmerican? certainly.

Putting ALL muslims under surveillance until they can get crossed off the list.... stunning.

Maine your a Demo, i've asked this question before.....one of your Demo icons, FDR, locked up Japs and surveiled ALL citizens of German ancestry during WWII, what is the difference between that and Bush surveiling Muslims?

[retiredman]

Maine your a Demo, i've asked this question before.....one of your Demo icons, FDR, locked up Japs and surveiled ALL citizens of German ancestry during WWII, what is the difference between that and Bush surveiling Muslims?

Yeah... and because I belong to a political party, I abdicate all personal responsibilty for developing my own sense of ethics. [/sarcasm off]

I was not alive when FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps. Had I been, I would have been aghast at such an illegal and bigoted action and I would have spoken out forcefully against it. And, by the way...my maternal grandparents were both of German ancestry and my grandfather worked as a bomb builder at the U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal throughout the war and was NEVER surveilled by anyone...so your use of the word "ALL" above is just a wee tad over the freakin' top.

And if you cannot see that placing ALL American muslims under surveillance is equally asinine and over the freakin' top, then you really have no right questioning ME about my views about Democratic icons when you will so willingly throw our constitution under the bus because the moronic chimp who leads YOUR party wants to do it.

[Roomy]

But see the difference? With the white supremacists...you start by only watching the white supremacists.....

with the muslim extremists, you watch all the muslims. Now if you wanted to do it in a way that wasn't bigoted, you would start by watching all the whites...and then when you determined that individuals were not dangerous white supremacists, you'd cross them off the list.

Presuming that all MUSLIMS need to PROVE their patriotism...PROVE that they are not involved in extremist activities in order to get "crossed off the list" and then, finally, get the surveillance tail to stop watching their every move is blatant racist discrimination.

How on earth do you think intel works?We here in Britain and no doubt you in America have stopped several attacks which began as covert surveillance of muslims.I have to wonder at you comprehension skills at times given that you want us to believe you are a retired naval commander, were you forcibely retired or what?

[retiredman]

How on earth do you think intel works?We here in Britain and no doubt you in America have stopped several attacks which began as covert surveillance of muslims.I have to wonder at you comprehension skills at times given that you want us to believe you are a retired naval commander, were you forcibely retired or what?

It doesn't begin as covert surveillance of ALL muslims. THat is what is being advocated here..... I am objecting to that broad brush approach which, as I said, is not very far removed from "the only good raghead is a dead raghead"....

Put ALL muslims in internment camps...deport ALL muslims... watch ALL muslims

Are you really that obtuse that you cannot see that distinction or are you just acting that way to provoke a spirited exchange?

[Roomy]

It doesn't begin as covert surveillance of ALL muslims. THat is what is being advocated here..... I am objecting to that broad brush approach which, as I said, is not very far removed from "the only good raghead is a dead raghead"....

Put ALL muslims in internment camps...deport ALL muslims... watch ALL muslims

Are you really that obtuse that you cannot see that distinction or are you just acting that way to provoke a spirited exchange?

I have said before on numerous occasions that the advocation of my suggestions is extreme to say the least but I use it as an answer to help stop muslim terrorist attacks in the west.You only serve to remind me of the obstacles in the way of such a suggestion, don't blow a fuse, we both know it aint ever going to happen, yet.:beer:

The surveillance was of muslims who had no previous convictions for terrorism, if we monitored them all we would catch a whole lot more of the murderous cowardly bastards, surely you agree, leaving your civil rights to one side for a moment?

[retiredman]

and if everyone in America wore a tracking ankle bracelet, we could really reduce crime...and if we sterilized women who had low IQ's, we could get smarter next generations...and if we forced every driver of every car to prove their were sober, we'd have less accidents.... and on and on....

if we leave our civil liberties behind for the sake of some sense of safety, Ben Franklin told us, long ago, that we really deserve neither.

An America that distrusted entire swaths of citizens based upon their religion and that put them under surveillance or incarcerated them en masse is no country I care to live in... and if it came to it, I would join a movement to fight to keep it from becoming so.

[OCA]

Yeah... and because I belong to a political party, I abdicate all personal responsibilty for developing my own sense of ethics. [/sarcasm off]

I was not alive when FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps. Had I been, I would have been aghast at such an illegal and bigoted action and I would have spoken out forcefully against it. And, by the way...my maternal grandparents were both of German ancestry and my grandfather worked as a bomb builder at the U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal throughout the war and was NEVER surveilled by anyone...so your use of the word "ALL" above is just a wee tad over the freakin' top.

And if you cannot see that placing ALL American muslims under surveillance is equally asinine and over the freakin' top, then you really have no right questioning ME about my views about Democratic icons when you will so willingly throw our constitution under the bus because the moronic chimp who leads YOUR party wants to do it.

Chimp........ok at least we know about your mental state now. That will be taken into account when assessing all further posts of yours.

[Mr. P]

This thread was wrap at post #18. IMO.

[Gunny]

It doesn't begin as covert surveillance of ALL muslims. THat is what is being advocated here..... I am objecting to that broad brush approach which, as I said, is not very far removed from "the only good raghead is a dead raghead"....

Put ALL muslims in internment camps...deport ALL muslims... watch ALL muslims

Are you really that obtuse that you cannot see that distinction or are you just acting that way to provoke a spirited exchange?

Bullshit. But suppose you enlighten we mere mortals .... how is it you propose to identify radical Muslims without looking at them all? Wait until the radicals blow something up and exclaim, "A-HA!"?

Get real.

[OCA]

Bullshit. But suppose you enlighten we mere mortals .... how is it you propose to identify radical Muslims without looking at them all? Wait until the radicals blow something up and exclaim, "A-HA!"?

Get real.

Maine is afraid to step on toes, hence I believe he never gets anything accomplished.

[Gunny]

Maine is afraid to step on toes, hence I believe he never gets anything accomplished.

Jell-O.;)

[retiredman]

Bullshit. But suppose you enlighten we mere mortals .... how is it you propose to identify radical Muslims without looking at them all? Wait until the radicals blow something up and exclaim, "A-HA!"?

Get real.

did we, in fact, place surveillance on every single white person in america in our efforts to identify white supremacists?

[Mr. P]

did we, in fact, place surveillance on every single white person in america in our efforts to identify white supremacists?

Man, if you can't separate a religion from a race, yer not thinking.

[retiredman]

Man, if you can't separate a religion from a race, yer not thinking.

just a simple suggestion: follow the threads from the outset.... don't jump out on the field and walk to third base and think you hit a triple.

[retiredman]

Man, if you can't separate a religion from a race, yer not thinking.

so if we were worried about an extemist group of American Jews preparing to do some act of terror, we should place every single Jew in America under surveillance? Just because they are Jewish?

[Mr. P]

just a simple suggestion: follow the threads from the outset.... don't jump out on the field and walk to third base and think you hit a triple.

:laugh:

I hit a home run in post #18 which I noticed you never addressed.

Pay attention to who goes where with any frequency. White, Muslim whatever and go from there. Trying to make this a pure discrimination issue is lame as hell.

[Mr. P]

so if we were worried about an extemist group of American Jews preparing to do some act of terror, we should place every single Jew in America under surveillance? Just because they are Jewish?

You are so lame it isn't funny.

[retiredman]

You are so lame it isn't funny.

how is that any different than placing ALL muslims in America under surveillance?

[Gaffer]

did we, in fact, place surveillance on every single white person in america in our efforts to identify white supremacists?

Would be hard to do. But at the same time we could eliminate all non white people as white supremists.

I think it would be safe at the same time to illiminate all non-muslims as muslim terrorists.

The white supremists were and are very volcal about their beliefs and can be infiltrated fairly easily. The muslim terrorists keep a low profile so as not to be identified. So it requires more effort to infiltrate the group.

At the same time the population they hide among does and says nothing against them, either out of fear, ignorance or support. Therefore you paint with a big brush until you can specify where the problem is.

[Mr. P]

how is that any different than placing ALL muslims in America under surveillance?

When did we place ALL muslims under surveillance?

[retiredman]

Well, now that you've loaded the question ......

I would endorse deporting all known Muslims affiliated in any way with any radical Islamic group. I'm fully-aware there are plenty of peaceul Muslims who just go about their business, and as long as that is what they do, I have no problem with them.

But we have radical Muslims here, and quasi-madrassas producing more, and hiding behind the Constitution to do so because of people like you who need to see dead bodies and/or destroyed property before you are willing to do anything about them.

I also have no problem with watching ALL Muslims, just to see what they're up to. If they aren't up to anything, then they have nothing to fear, and just watching is not violating anyone's Rights.

I bet you don't have a problem at all with the gov't watching white supremicist organizations. Why? Because some have proven to be a threat. Sounds reasonable to me.

so...Mr. P asks:

When did we place ALL muslims under surveillance?

to which I reply....

We never HAVE watched all muslims. If you would stick with a thread for a while you would be able to follow the discussion. Gunny here has advocated watching all muslims...and equates it with watching white supremacist organizations.... are you catching on here?

My point is...if we are going to watch ALL muslims (as Gunny suggests) in order to catch muslim extremists....why does he not also advocate watching ALL whites in order to figure out which ones are white supremacists? DO you see the connection I was trying to make here, Mr. P?

[Gunny]

so...Mr. P asks:

When did we place ALL muslims under surveillance?

to which I reply....

We never HAVE watched all muslims. If you would stick with a thread for a while you would be able to follow the discussion. Gunny here has advocated watching all muslims...and equates it with watching white supremacist organizations.... are you catching on here?

My point is...if we are going to watch ALL muslims (as Gunny suggests) in order to catch muslim extremists....why does he not also advocate watching ALL whites in order to figure out which ones are white supremacists? DO you see the connection I was trying to make here, Mr. P?

As Gaffer has already stated, watching all whites to find the white supremacist organizations is unnecessary since they are quite visible and vocal. Islamic extremists on the other hand make a point of hiding their activities.

But I'd be willing to bet that finding white supremacists began with a bunch of yankees crying that all Southern whites should be watched, and I'd also be willing to bet you had no problem with THAT.

If you don't start the process of elimination with "all Muslims," then how exactly do you identify the extremists?

As far as your comparison goes, you can start the process of elimination to find white supremacists with "all whites."

[Pale Rider]

I would also ban all muslims from entering the country. I would seal the borders with "armed" troops. So you can be thankful that Bush is in office and not me.

So would I. Too bad one of us ISN'T the president.

[retiredman]

As Gaffer has already stated, watching all whites to find the white supremacist organizations is unnecessary since they are quite visible and vocal. Islamic extremists on the other hand make a point of hiding their activities.

But I'd be willing to bet that finding white supremacists began with a bunch of yankees crying that all Southern whites should be watched, and I'd also be willing to bet you had no problem with THAT.

If you don't start the process of elimination with "all Muslims," then how exactly do you identify the extremists?

As far as your comparison goes, you can start the process of elimination to find white supremacists with "all whites."

I certainly would NEVER advocate putting surveillance on every white man woman and child south of the Mason-Dixon line in an effort to find and infiltrate white supremacist organizations... nor would I expect that whites in the south would take too kindly to having every one of them with a government tail on them for no reason other than the color of their skin (how would we DO that, actually, not only for all whites, but all muslims, for that matter?)

[retiredman]

So would I. Too bad one of us ISN'T the president.

if either one of YOU were President with that fascist attitude, I'd be one of the folks who would be trying to assassinate you.

[Gaffer]

if either one of YOU were President with that fascist attitude, I'd be one of the folks who would be trying to assassinate you.

So if someone else with out attitude gets elected you'll be getting in line for the attempt I take it.

[retiredman]

If someone wants to turn this country into a white christian fascist enclave, you're damned right.

IMHO, we got to be this wonderful multi-ethnic patchwork quilt of a country not by clsoing our doors, but by welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... for a bunch of white folks, descendants of european immingrants to think they can shut the door after THEY got here is profoundly unAmerican.

[Gaffer]

If someone wants to turn this country into a white christian fascist enclave, you're damned right.

IMHO, we got to be this wonderful multi-ethnic patchwork quilt of a country not by clsoing our doors, but by welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... for a bunch of white folks, descendants of european immingrants to think they can shut the door after THEY got here is profoundly unAmerican.

But I'm a white athiest fascist

The tired, the poor, the huddled masses are fine. The suicide bombers and mass murders and people that want to take control of this country because their religion says they must are not welcome. Or tolerated.

Multiculturalism just allows one culture to dominate all others eventually. We only need one culture here. The American culture. Not fifty different cultures.

[jillian]

If you don't start the process of elimination with "all Muslims," then how exactly do you identify the extremists?

I still like my earlier idea... start with the radical mosques.

I think it's really time we stopped making this a knee-jerk issue on both sides. We shouldn't reflexively say all muslims should be watched or none should. Either way is unrealistic. There are evil, radical fundie Islamists and those that are either unsupportive, neutral or who might tacitly approve of violence to a greater or lesser degree but who would never act on that approval. Start with the dangerous, radical imams and their followings. Follow their money and contacts. Go on from there.

Just where I am on the subject.

[OCA]

But I'm a white athiest fascist

The tired, the poor, the huddled masses are fine. The suicide bombers and mass murders and people that want to take control of this country because their religion says they must are not welcome. Or tolerated.

Multiculturalism just allows one culture to dominate all others eventually. We only need one culture here. The American culture. Not fifty different cultures.

Just curious but just what is "American culture"?

[Gunny]

If someone wants to turn this country into a white christian fascist enclave, you're damned right.

IMHO, we got to be this wonderful multi-ethnic patchwork quilt of a country not by clsoing our doors, but by welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... for a bunch of white folks, descendants of european immingrants to think they can shut the door after THEY got here is profoundly unAmerican.

Y'know, you sling the word "unAmerican" around like Al Sharpton does "racist." In fact, it is YOUR idealism that is destroying this Nation and the moral foundation it is built upon.

The fact that you would threaten to assassinate anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of fascism speaks volumes, mein herr.

[Gunny]

I still like my earlier idea... start with the radical mosques.

I think it's really time we stopped making this a knee-jerk issue on both sides. We shouldn't reflexively say all muslims should be watched or none should. Either way is unrealistic. There are evil, radical fundie Islamists and those that are either unsupportive, neutral or who might tacitly approve of violence to a greater or lesser degree but who would never act on that approval. Start with the dangerous, radical imams and their followings. Follow their money and contacts. Go on from there.

Just where I am on the subject.

The problem here is maine keeps acting like I'm out to go on a search and destroy, house-to-house, persecuting Muslims, when I've said no such thing. Since radical Islam IS our enemy, it only makes sense to see what they're doing, and identify the radicals.

Starting with already-known radicals is fine. But they're ALREADY being watched. It's the ones that aren't being watched that pose the real threat.

[retiredman]

I still like my earlier idea... start with the radical mosques.

I think it's really time we stopped making this a knee-jerk issue on both sides. We shouldn't reflexively say all muslims should be watched or none should. Either way is unrealistic. There are evil, radical fundie Islamists and those that are either unsupportive, neutral or who might tacitly approve of violence to a greater or lesser degree but who would never act on that approval. Start with the dangerous, radical imams and their followings. Follow their money and contacts. Go on from there.

Just where I am on the subject.

I agree wholeheartedly

[retiredman]

The problem here is maine keeps acting like I'm out to go on a search and destroy, house-to-house, persecuting Muslims, when I've said no such thing. Since radical Islam IS our enemy, it only makes sense to see what they're doing, and identify the radicals.

Starting with already-known radicals is fine. But they're ALREADY being watched. It's the ones that aren't being watched that pose the real threat.


your own words impeach you.. you would put surveillance on ALL muslims. Do you care to retract that?

[retiredman]

Y'know, you sling the word "unAmerican" around like Al Sharpton does "racist." In fact, it is YOUR idealism that is destroying this Nation and the moral foundation it is built upon.

The fact that you would threaten to assassinate anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of fascism speaks volumes, mein herr.

my idea of idealism is as American as apple pie.....

your idea of idealism is American as the swastika.

I don't have a brand of fascism...that is all about you.

[Gunny]

your own words impeach you.. you would put surveillance on ALL muslims. Do you care to retract that?

Nothing to retract. I have stated nothing to contrary. Agreeing as to where to start has nothing to do with whether or not I would check them all out.

You're fishing in an empty pond .......

[Gunny]

my idea of idealism is as American as apple pie.....

your idea of idealism is American as the swastika.

I don't have a brand of fascism...that is all about you.

Not only a fascist, but living in your own little world where you're special, and always right.

Declaring you would assassinate someone for not doing shit your way is about as American as Adolf Hitler was.

[jillian]

The problem here is maine keeps acting like I'm out to go on a search and destroy, house-to-house, persecuting Muslims, when I've said no such thing. Since radical Islam IS our enemy, it only makes sense to see what they're doing, and identify the radicals.

Starting with already-known radicals is fine. But they're ALREADY being watched. It's the ones that aren't being watched that pose the real threat.

Right... which is why you watch the radicals and watch who the radicals are dealing with. You watch the contacts of their contacts and, at all times, follow the money. You see where the funds are coming from because without funding, they can't do anything and go after the sources of the funds. I think that gives us an intelligent means of information gathering that doesn't conflict with our values. What say you?

I think perhaps you and maine are at odds because he isn't sure where you *stop* surveiling? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps if you clarify that, you will find out you aren't as far apart as you think.

[Nate]

Start with the dangerous, radical imams and their followings. Follow their money and contacts. Go on from there.

Who would be left?

:laugh: :uhoh:

[OCA]

my idea of idealism is as American as apple pie.....

your idea of idealism is American as the swastika.

I don't have a brand of fascism...that is all about you.

You do realize how ridiculous you look when you refer to anybody or anything that disagrees with you as a fascist or fascism, right?:pee:

[Nate]

He's just "speaking libtardese."

[Gunny]

Right... which is why you watch the radicals and watch who the radicals are dealing with. You watch the contacts of their contacts and, at all times, follow the money. You see where the funds are coming from because without funding, they can't do anything and go after the sources of the funds. I think that gives us an intelligent means of information gathering that doesn't conflict with our values. What say you?

I don't have a problem with your idea except for the obvious flaw. Following only those identified as radicals because they have identified themselves leaves those that choose to keep their nefarious deeds a secret free to act when and how they wish.

I also don't see that my statement; which btw, is a generalizatin, conflicts with our values. Our values are not meant to be misconstrued to the point that they make us defenseless before an enemy.

I think perhaps you and maine are at odds because he isn't sure where you *stop* surveiling? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps if you clarify that, you will find out you aren't as far apart as you think.

Maine and I are at odds because he is a pompous, overbearing, wannabe intellectual who is the PERFECT example of why I and those like me left the Democrats like rats jumping from a sinking ship.

[retiredman]

Right... which is why you watch the radicals and watch who the radicals are dealing with. You watch the contacts of their contacts and, at all times, follow the money. You see where the funds are coming from because without funding, they can't do anything and go after the sources of the funds. I think that gives us an intelligent means of information gathering that doesn't conflict with our values. What say you?

I think perhaps you and maine are at odds because he isn't sure where you *stop* surveiling? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps if you clarify that, you will find out you aren't as far apart as you think.

precisely Jillian... I have absolutely no problem with infiltrating radical mosques, and placing surveillance on those muslims who are preaching a radical and violent variant of Islam... all I have ever said was that placing ALL muslims under surveillance was unAmerican.

[retiredman]

and if ever the right wing wackos got in power that would advocate placing all muslims under surveillance as potential enemeis of the state, or sought to place them all in internment camps, I would see this as a time worthy of freedom loving Americans to rise up and overthrow the anti-American forces that had surreptitiously taken over our government.

[Roomy]

and if ever the right wing wackos got in power that would advocate placing all muslims under surveillance as potential enemeis of the state, or sought to place them all in internment camps, I would see this as a time worthy of freedom loving Americans to rise up and overthrow the anti-American forces that had surreptitiously taken over our government.

You have gone from threatening to assassinate a democraticaly elected president of the United States of America to starting a revolution and killing all Americans who disagree with you.You worry me a lot and the government should probably watch you, Commander wannabe.

[retiredman]

You have gone from threatening to assassinate a democraticaly elected president of the United States of America to starting a revolution and killing all Americans who disagree with you.You worry me a lot and the government should probably watch you, Commander wannabe.

are you always this much of a drama queen?

[Roomy]

are you always this much of a drama queen?


How long have you been working for the muslims?

[retiredman]

How long have you been working for the muslims?

how long have you been working on this "annoying prick" routine?

[Gunny]

precisely Jillian... I have absolutely no problem with infiltrating radical mosques, and placing surveillance on those muslims who are preaching a radical and violent variant of Islam... all I have ever said was that placing ALL muslims under surveillance was unAmerican.

No, it's called common sense and logic. Obviously, your extreme political idealism precludes your applying either.

"UnAmerican" is usually the jackass calling everyone who doesn't agree with his sell this country down the shitter idealism "unAmerican."

[retiredman]

anyone who advcocates placing 6 million American citizens UNDER SURVEILLANCE for no other reason than their religion does not understand the first thing about being an American.

you really are a disgrace to the corps.

[OCA]

anyone who advcocates placing 6 million American citizens UNDER SURVEILLANCE for no other reason than their religion does not understand the first thing about being an American.

you really are a disgrace to the corps.

Are you against all racial profiling in all matters domestic and foriegn?

Oh and BTW i've forgotten the best line of em all on this: the constitution is not a suicide pact. Meaning if some asshole's rights get violated for the greater good then so be it.

Maybe you should leave the dog out and call yourself "yellow democrat", cause you ain't got hair one on your balls.

[retiredman]

Are you against all racial profiling in all matters domestic and foriegn?

Oh and BTW i've forgotten the best line of em all on this: the constitution is not a suicide pact. Meaning if some asshole's rights get violated for the greater good then so be it.

Maybe you should leave the dog out and call yourself "yellow democrat", cause you ain't got hair one on your balls.

you're a tough sumbitch, aren't ya?

[retiredman]

I wonder...how would we go about putting all six million American muslims under surveillance?

[Gunny]

anyone who advcocates placing 6 million American citizens UNDER SURVEILLANCE for no other reason than their religion does not understand the first thing about being an American.

you really are a disgrace to the corps.

I have a 21 year record that says quite the opposite.

You, on the other hand, are just a disgrace PERIOD. You won't be happy until you sell this country down the shitter, and THAT is about as unAmerican as it gets.

All I've heard come out of your commie-ass suck is a bunch of dishonest literalism, misinterpretting any and everything to suit your whacko political beliefs.

Surveillance isn't a problem. You'll find an enemy of this Nation in the nearest mirror.

All of the your individual rights you keep whining about don't mean a thing if they don't exist, and people like you who want to ignore the obvious in favor of some pseudo-intellectual, politically correct bullshit would let them all be taken away without lifting a finger. And it's YOU that'd be whining the loudest when you realize they're gone.

[retiredman]

21 years and only a gunny?

wave your faux flag all you want.... you would put six million americans under surveillance simply because of their religion.

The founding fathers would puke.

Every marine I ever served with would be embarrassed by such a radical and unAmerican point of view from someone who claimed to be a marine.

[Gunny]

21 years and only a gunny?

wave your faux flag all you want.... you would put six million americans under surveillance simply because of their religion.

The founding fathers would puke.

Every marine I ever served with would be embarrassed by such a radical and unAmerican point of view from someone who claimed to be a marine.

25 years and only a Commander?

Any Marine you ever served with was probably the epitome of "professionalism," not letting you know he'd frag your ass with half the opportunity.

[MtnBiker]

I wonder...how would we go about putting all six million American muslims under surveillance?

How did you arrive at that number?

[OCA]

you're a tough sumbitch, aren't ya?

Not really, if I wanted to talk shit about asskicking take a day or two off and cruise up to Maine and track you down, wouldn't be that hard. I certainly wouldn't take the pussy way out and say how much of a badass I am from behind the keyboard.

[OCA]

How did you arrive at that number?

Biker this guy reaches into his ass and pulls numbers among other things out and calls them fact.

[retiredman]

How did you arrive at that number?

I checked a number of websites that listed population by religion.... the 6 million figure was from 2001... but I would imagine it is fairly accurate.

[Gunny]

How did you arrive at that number?

Because he's including ALL Muslims in the US, both Arab and those who were born and raised here and not of Arab descent.

[retiredman]

Not really, if I wanted to talk shit about asskicking take a day or two off and cruise up to Maine and track you down, wouldn't be that hard. I certainly wouldn't take the pussy way out and say how much of a badass I am from behind the keyboard.

I have never said that I was a badass.... grow up.

really...the more you say, the more I think the teenager from Cherry Hill is on the mark.

[retiredman]

Because he's including ALL Muslims in the US, both Arab and those who were born and raised here and not of Arab descent.

ahem...it was YOU who said that you wanted to put ALL muslims under surveillance.

[OCA]

25 years and only a Commander?

Any Marine you ever served with was probably the epitome of "professionalism," not letting you know he'd frag your ass with half the opportunity.

Gunny correct me if i'm wrong but my brother who was in 2nd marines out of Lejeune for 6 years during Haiti and all that crap used to tell me that the only thing the Navy was good for was a ride, sounds about right, yes?

[MtnBiker]

I checked a number of websites that listed population by religion.... the 6 million figure was from 2001... but I would imagine it is fairly accurate.

How does the website know?

The Census Bureau does not ask about creed.

[Gunny]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html

[retiredman]

25 years and only a Commander?

Any Marine you ever served with was probably the epitome of "professionalism," not letting you know he'd frag your ass with half the opportunity.

my room mate is a marine... I had a great time with every single jarhead I ever knew or served with...until you.

I keep in close touch with several of them...

[MtnBiker]

Do muslims gain more political power if it is perceived that their numbers are large and growing?

If that is true, wouldn't questioning the figures that muslims put forth be appropriate?

[Gunny]

ahem...it was YOU who said that you wanted to put ALL muslims under surveillance.

Be sure and leave out the part where I stated as part of a process of elimination.:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

my room mate is a marine... I had a great time with every single jarhead I ever knew or served with...until you.

I keep in close touch with several of them...

I'm sure. The Corps has its share of elitist, wannabe intellectual zeroes.

[Gunny]

Do muslims gain more political power if it is perceived that their numbers are large and growing?

If that is true, wouldn't questioning the figures that muslims put forth be appropriate?

Check out the links I provided. The numbers vary from less than 2M to 6M, depending on who's numbers you want to believe, and it is all about political clout.

[MtnBiker]

Check out the links I provided. The numbers vary from less than 2M to 6M, depending on who's numbers you want to believe, and it is all about political clout.

I did look at the links you provided, thank you.

[retiredman]

Be sure and leave out the part where I stated as part of a process of elimination.:rolleyes:

that doesn't matter...you would put ALL muslims under surveillance...and you neve excluded native born in your statements whatsoever...the entire premise is wacko..... how in the hell are you planning on placing two million ...six million american citizens under simultaneous surveillance? who do you imagine will do that job?

[MtnBiker]

Now it is 2 to 6 million?

[MtnBiker]

The 8-Million Muslim Lie




INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 1/17/2007

Demographics: Since Muslim Keith Ellison's election to Congress, there's been a lot of noise in the media about the growing clout of the 8 million-Muslim electorate. Eight million?

'There are 8 million Muslims in America now," boasted a spokeswoman for something called the Muslim Advancement Society. She appeared on CNN to talk about what a proud day it was for her and other Muslim-Americans to see a Muslim brother sworn into Congress for the first time.

It seems the size of the Muslim population in America jumps by an additional million every other year or so. Just a couple of years ago the consensus number bandied about in the media was 7 million. Before 9/11 it was 6 million.

Politicians in Washington are intimidated by the figure. They believe it.

But it's a wildly inflated estimate manufactured by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, something that the media could easily refute if they dared — simply by deconstructing CAIR's unscientific methodology.

While the number of Muslims is growing thanks to higher birthrates and immigration, it's nowhere near CAIR's claim. Even the most generous independent estimate puts it at half that size, or 4 million.

Finding reliable data for Muslims in America is hard because the Census Bureau does not survey creed. So CAIR, which has an agenda to Islamize America, has overfilled the vacuum.

To come up with its own figure, it hired a "respected scholar" by the name of Ihsan Bagby to lead its "study." But Bagby not only lacks independence — he's a CAIR board member — he's not even a trained demographer.

Worse, he admits the number he arrived at is a "guesstimation." Here's how he came up with it:

1. With help from CAIR researchers, Bagby called the nation's 1,209 mosques and interviewed 416 of them, asking them how many people were involved in their mosque in any way. The average response was 1,625, which is probably high, given that two imams claimed 50,000 when the nation's largest mosque — Dar al-Hijrah in the D.C. suburbs — has only about 3,000.

2. Bagby then multiplied that fuzzy participation figure by the 1,209 mosques and came up with 2 million "mosqued Muslims."

3. Next, he multiplied that sum by a magical factor of three to capture Muslims who might not participate in mosque activities, and arrived at the original 6 million guesstimate for the size of the Muslim population in America.

He says his factor of three was an educated guess. More like a wild exaggeration. Or perhaps a political calculation, as it produced a number that conveniently matched the size — and potential political clout — of the Jewish population in the country, also estimated at 6 million.

CAIR then took the liberty of bumping up the Muslim count to 7 million. Now — presto — it's at 8 million, and climbing.

"Today, 8 to 10 million Muslims live in the United States," claims Navy Lt. Cmdr. Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam, who serves as Muslim chaplain for the new Marine mosque at Quantico, Va.

The Pentagon, which recently promoted Saifulislam, does not question the number. Neither does the White House, Congress nor the media — no matter how fantastic the number gets.

But it's the Wahhabi lobby's big lie. CAIR and other militant Muslim groups use it to intimidate politicians, corporations and media to change policy.

Eight-million-strong Muslims make the threat of bloc voting and boycotts a lot scarier. And the bigger the number, the bigger the foothold Islamists gain in American society.

But don't buy it. It's a total exaggeration.


http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253930273179676

[Gunny]

that doesn't matter...you would put ALL muslims under surveillance...and you neve excluded native born in your statements whatsoever...the entire premise is wacko..... how in the hell are you planning on placing two million ...six million american citizens under simultaneous surveillance? who do you imagine will do that job?

Problem with you, among the many, is you try your dishonest literalism with every post. I've already stated the statement was generalized statement. There's no plan there; yet, you keep trying to pass it off as one.

[retiredman]

Problem with you, among the many, is you try your dishonest literalism with every post. I've already stated the statement was generalized statement. There's no plan there; yet, you keep trying to pass it off as one.


no plan... that is not the point...the point is that you think that placing every muslim in Amereica under surveillance would be an American thing to do....

[retiredman]

Now it is 2 to 6 million?

gosh...I must admit that I haven't actually counted them all...Gunny's websites said anywhere between 2 and 6..so I used that range.

are you always this persnickity?

[MtnBiker]

I'm a skeptic and I wonder about motives.

[retiredman]

well...I gotta tell ya...I sure as hell am excited about the prospect of you nitpicking my posts from here on out.... do you note grammatical and spelling errors as well?

[MtnBiker]

gosh...I must admit that I haven't actually counted them all...Gunny's websites said anywhere between 2 and 6..so I used that range.



Yet your first number was 6 million based on some websites, then you changed you number to conform to Gunny's info. It's not about you counting them it is a matter of what is believable.

[MtnBiker]

do you note grammatical and spelling errors as well?

Lord I hope not, I need help in both of those areas.

[Gunny]

no plan... that is not the point...the point is that you think that placing every muslim in Amereica under surveillance would be an American thing to do....

You keep slinging that word "American" around. Gradeschool internet message board ploy to try and keep the offense. Same as using the word "racist" as the definitive end to any disagreement involving race.

There is nothing unAmerican about trying to keep America in one piece. There is however, something unAmerican in selling it down the river by refusing to identify threats because it isn't politically correct to point fingers at anyone but whites and/or Christians.

The threat exists and needs to be identified, and that isn't going to happen playing politically correct pattycakes.

Surveillance is but one method. I support whatever method(s) identify the threat and leave the least impact. If that means surveillance, fine. The process of elimination is going to trim that "every Muslim in America" card you keep trying to play down by probably 90-or-more percent from the start.

DO try to get over dishonestly protraying other people's words as something other than what they are.

[manu1959]

what should we do? should we assume that all muslims are our enemies? should be round up American muslims - including the elected member of congress - and put them all in detention camps for the duration of the war against Islam? What "rules of war" have anything to do with muslim worship in mosques in American cities?

you need to ask yourself what they would do if you were in their country spreading christianity and or secularisim and respond in kind

[retiredman]

Yet your first number was 6 million based on some websites, then you changed you number to conform to Gunny's info. It's not about you counting them it is a matter of what is believable.

so is six any more or less believable that two? and in the context of this discussion...is the establishment of simultaneous surveillance of TWO million people really feasible where SIX is not?

[retiredman]

You keep slinging that word "American" around. Gradeschool internet message board ploy to try and keep the offense. Same as using the word "racist" as the definitive end to any disagreement involving race.

There is nothing unAmerican about trying to keep America in one piece. There is however, something unAmerican in selling it down the river by refusing to identify threats because it isn't politically correct to point fingers at anyone but whites and/or Christians.

The threat exists and needs to be identified, and that isn't going to happen playing politically correct pattycakes.

Surveillance is but one method. I support whatever method(s) identify the threat and leave the least impact. If that means surveillance, fine. The process of elimination is going to trim that "every Muslim in America" card you keep trying to play down by probably 90-or-more percent from the start.

DO try to get over dishonestly protraying other people's words as something other than what they are.

Look.... I have no problem with using whatever domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering and infiltration methods we use to find any other group of criminals to be used to find extremist muslims. You are the one who said that we should place ALL (your word, not mine) muslims under surveillance. If that was just hyperbolic rhetoric, fine....just say so. Simply put...either stand by your words or retract them. Until then, I will continue to take your unretracted words at face value and repeat that placing every single muslim in America under surveillance is not only an idiotic thing to do, it is an unAmerican thing to do.

[retiredman]

you need to ask yourself what they would do if you were in their country spreading christianity and or secularisim and respond in kind

unfortunately for them, they do not live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, do they?

This discussion has never been about whether or not it is a good idea to keep tabs on islamic extremists...of course it is. This discussion has been about considering ALL muslims, even those who are native born Americans, as enemies worthy of surveillance and distrust.

I most DEFINITELY would NEVER advocate "responding in kind" to the actions of barbarians and despots.

[Roomy]

unfortunately for them, they do not live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, do they?

This discussion has never been about whether or not it is a good idea to keep tabs on islamic extremists...of course it is. This discussion has been about considering ALL muslims, even those who are native born Americans, as enemies worthy of surveillance and distrust.

I most DEFINITELY would NEVER advocate "responding in kind" to the actions of barbarians and despots.

You said you would kill the president and take up arms against those that disagree with you.

[retiredman]

You said you would kill the president and take up arms against those that disagree with you.

that's an incorrect paraphase, to say the least....

[MtnBiker]

so is six any more or less believable that two? and in the context of this discussion...is the establishment of simultaneous surveillance of TWO million people really feasible where SIX is not?

Pointing out the misrepresentation of a group of people by a likely 200 percent is important in any context.

[avatar4321]

unfortunately for them, they do not live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, do they?

This discussion has never been about whether or not it is a good idea to keep tabs on islamic extremists...of course it is. This discussion has been about considering ALL muslims, even those who are native born Americans, as enemies worthy of surveillance and distrust.

I most DEFINITELY would NEVER advocate "responding in kind" to the actions of barbarians and despots.

How do you tell the extremists from the non-extremists if you dont look into everyone? And why do you conclude simply because you were born here, you will be loyal?

[Grumplestillskin]

You said you would kill the president and take up arms against those that disagree with you.

I don't see it that way. I see him saying he'd do what Washington et al did to your/our Limey forebears in 1776...:dev:

[Grumplestillskin]

How do you tell the extremists from the non-extremists if you dont look into everyone? And why do you conclude simply because you were born here, you will be loyal?

The whole point of a terrorist act is to spread terror. Timothy McVeigh was a soldier. A good one, too apparently. How loyal was he? You want to put every disaffected white male under surveillance? Good luck to you...

[retiredman]

How do you tell the extremists from the non-extremists if you dont look into everyone? And why do you conclude simply because you were born here, you will be loyal?

how exactly do you plan on looking at every single muslim in America? And why should we conclude, that ANYONE will be loyal? WHy are native born muslims any more likely to be disloyal than any other native born citizen? why not advocate putting us ALL under surveillance.... why not make it so Big Brother can watch ALL of us ALL the time? Wouldn't that be just American as apple pie? We could have cameras in every house and every bedroom...then,. not only could Big Brother figure out if any of us were being disloyal, they could also weed out the homos and deviants at the same time. Damn! Just the thought of it makes me wanna stand up and salute!

[Gunny]

Look.... I have no problem with using whatever domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering and infiltration methods we use to find any other group of criminals to be used to find extremist muslims. You are the one who said that we should place ALL (your word, not mine) muslims under surveillance. If that was just hyperbolic rhetoric, fine....just say so. Simply put...either stand by your words or retract them. Until then, I will continue to take your unretracted words at face value and repeat that placing every single muslim in America under surveillance is not only an idiotic thing to do, it is an unAmerican thing to do.

In other words, you are going to continue your dishonest literalist argument because you're a nimrod who comprehends nothing but what he wants to.

I'm not retracting shit. Surveillance is an option. I'd damned sure support watching every move made by you and others of your ilk.

[retiredman]

you are the one who said we should watch ALL muslims...

I am on record as thinking that idea is loony and unAmerican.

so either defend it or retract it... or slink away. Your choice.

[retiredman]

In other words, you are going to continue your dishonest literalist argument because you're a nimrod who comprehends nothing but what he wants to.

I'm not retracting shit. Surveillance is an option. I'd damned sure support watching every move made by you and others of your ilk.

why not watch every american? then you could be sure that we saw all the unAmerican activities. Why not advocate putting little cameras in every room of every home and every office in America? If you aren't doing anything unAmerican, you certainly have nothing to hide....that is unless you are worried that your fetish for wearing women's underwear to sleep at night might be considered unAmerican by Big Brother, of course. But look at the upside...if we actually watched EVERY American in every room of their homes and places of work, we could be SURE that not only would we catch any potential terrorists, but that we would also identify all those homos or adulterers or anyone else that wasn't living life the way we wanted them to. Wouldn't that just be the American dream for sicko fascists like you?

[Roomy]

why not watch every american? then you could be sure that we saw all the unAmerican activities. Why not advocate putting little cameras in every room of every home and every office in America? If you aren't doing anything unAmerican, you certainly have nothing to hide....that is unless you are worried that your fetish for wearing women's underwear to sleep at night might be considered unAmerican by Big Brother, of course. But look at the upside...if we actually watched EVERY American in every room of their homes and places of work, we could be SURE that not only would we catch any potential terrorists, but that we would also identify all those homos or adulterers or anyone else that wasn't living life the way we wanted them to. Wouldn't that just be the American dream for sicko fascists like you?


Are you also homophobic?Are you the last bastion of moral America?:no:

[retiredman]

Are you also homophobic?Are you the last bastion of moral America?:no:

neither

[avatar4321]

The whole point of a terrorist act is to spread terror. Timothy McVeigh was a soldier. A good one, too apparently. How loyal was he? You want to put every disaffected white male under surveillance? Good luck to you...

thanks for making my point. simply because you were born here doesn't imply you are going to be loyal.

[avatar4321]

how exactly do you plan on looking at every single muslim in America? And why should we conclude, that ANYONE will be loyal? WHy are native born muslims any more likely to be disloyal than any other native born citizen? why not advocate putting us ALL under surveillance.... why not make it so Big Brother can watch ALL of us ALL the time? Wouldn't that be just American as apple pie? We could have cameras in every house and every bedroom...then,. not only could Big Brother figure out if any of us were being disloyal, they could also weed out the homos and deviants at the same time. Damn! Just the thought of it makes me wanna stand up and salute!

Because they adhere to a doctrine that is frequently used to justify war against us. If Christians had some sort of doctrine that could be used to justify war against us, id probably feel the same thing for them.

As for how to do it, its not that complicated. Set up a system that looks at more than just ones religion as a factor. You know, profile. That way you can focus on those who are more likely to be a threat and eliminate the ones that are less likely to be. Then you dont have nearly the same number of people and can keep track of them alot easier.

Of course, even then there is flawless, but its better than saying we cant look at anyone. Thats just stupid.

[avatar4321]

why not watch every american? then you could be sure that we saw all the unAmerican activities. Why not advocate putting little cameras in every room of every home and every office in America? If you aren't doing anything unAmerican, you certainly have nothing to hide....that is unless you are worried that your fetish for wearing women's underwear to sleep at night might be considered unAmerican by Big Brother, of course. But look at the upside...if we actually watched EVERY American in every room of their homes and places of work, we could be SURE that not only would we catch any potential terrorists, but that we would also identify all those homos or adulterers or anyone else that wasn't living life the way we wanted them to. Wouldn't that just be the American dream for sicko fascists like you?

Because all Americans arent seeking our destruction. Just extremists among the muslim community. so it makes no sense to watch every American.

[retiredman]

Because all Americans arent seeking our destruction. Just extremists among the muslim community. so it makes no sense to watch every American.

there are millions of muslims in America.... many many many of them are native born patriotic American citizens. Are you honestly suggesting we put American citizens under surveillance simply because of their religion, and if so, how in the world would you actually do that? How would you put millions of American citizens under surveillance?