Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 494
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?Page 11 of 44    (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)

Birth control is probably the best thing thats happened to the human population.


Even if that's true, it's a separate issue. That's not an argument for forcing Catholics to subsidize abortions.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 501
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 12/27/2010 9:38:01 AM
^^^^^^I wonder if Mr. Tarpley has evidence to support all that about Abdulmutallab, or if it's just his opinion.

We all should be concerned about our personal freedoms. But police, whether local or federal, don't have authority to search a person (unless he's foolish enough to consent to it) very far in a hotel or shopping mall just on a tip. If they go to talk with him and then discover he's a walking bomb, all that goes out the window. But not without some clear threat like that.

I think federal administrative agencies have way too much power, and I'd like to see Congress eliminate most of them. But they're not free to do pretty much anything they please. The rules agencies make have to be authorized by some federal law, and Congress can amend or repeal any law it's passed.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 503
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 12/28/2010 11:29:05 AM
^^^^^I think Mr. Shaffer's painting too bleak a picture. He should know that the "rule of law" is a general ideal even the most free and fair countries can't reach all the time. And never have. The worst thing is not to be committed to *trying* to reach it--to love the idea of arbitrary power, instead.

To me, that's what Mr. Obama and a lot of his followers are about. So I agree with the comments about how dangerous it is to let the U.S. government intrude too far into our private lives.


It borders on sedition to suggest that there are any restraints on the arbitrariness of governmental force. This is why those who engage in unprovoked wars, police brutalities, unlawful searches and seizures of property, the tasering of harmless individuals, and numerous other offenses, are almost never held to account for their wrongs.


That's just not true. I *hate* tyranny, and so I hate the fact federal agencies regularly do things I think are unconstitutional. But I'm surprised to see a law professor go as far as to suggest we live in a lawless, rampaging police state. The Constitution imposes all sorts of limits on what local, state, and federal authorities can do. Just because a court sometimes treats some of those limits with a wink and a nod, it doesn't mean most courts aren't all over them. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head, and I could find a lot more.

The New York cop who sodomized a suspect with a stick was convicted of violating federal civil rights law and is serving a life sentence.

Because of oversight by the Justice Department, both the LAPD and LASD have to be very careful--TOO careful, IMO--to respect every ginned-up "right" of every lowlife they deal with.

And Miranda is a gross misinterpretation of the 5th Amendment that interferes with effective interrogation of people arrested for crimes. But it's here to stay, because TV shows and movies have convinced millions of people it's practically holy writ. God knows how many criminals it's allowed to go free, or how many innocent people they've gone on to harm or kill. So much for the lawless, rampaging police state.


from the vivid revelations of Abu Ghraib atrocities, or the use of “waterboarding” and other forms of torture used by American forces in Iraq.


I'm sorry to see Mr. Shaffer spread the lie--which the New York Times did so much to cook up--that anything which was done at Abu Ghraib was an "atrocity." It insults the victims of REAL atrocities. That includes the U.S. servicemen in WWII that SS troops took prisoner and then shot in cold blood, or worked to death without food in rock quarries; and the thousands more that Japanese war criminals burned alive, used for live bayonet practice, beheaded, forced to run in the heat as they were dying of thirst and dysentery, or bloated with water and beat on their stomachs until they had heart attacks or choked to death.

If he's claiming U.S. forces tortured anyone in Iraq as a matter of policy--and not just that someone did it illegally--he doesn't say what that policy was. And he ought to know better than to claim anything the U.S. did to those three jihadists on the waterboard--which it's almost certain saved hundreds of innocent lives--was "torture," or even anything close to it. It's pretty well known that thousands of U.S. servicemen have been subjected to the same procedure.

I've studied the law on torture and the Justice Department memos on it pretty carefully, too. I don't make a habit of saying law professors are dead wrong, but I'll say it here. The U.S. abides by a 1996 treaty against torture, and it did then, too. The terms of this treaty are codified in federal law, and the CIA interrogators were careful not even to come close to violating that law. Without getting into details, the point this turns on is that Congress purposely made torture a "specific intent" crime.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 505
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 12/29/2010 3:42:46 PM

he is trying to make the point about the slippery slope theory and the slow desensitization of the American masses to what is acceptable from our government, thus being the mental war on what we will accept and that they push it a little farther each time. I didn't really take the article at its word but what the intent was behind it.


FZ, I'm with you on that. I think one thing that would help prevent people from getting used to government outrages is just to know a little more about our history. You don't have to go back that far to find a time when most Americans never would have accepted a lot of the intrusions they tolerate now. That's one of the moral hazards of a strong central government--people more and more come to think it's normal for it to be heavily involved in their everyday lives. It's not, and the Constitution never meant it to be.

The English traditionally resented government intrusion on their personal rights, and we inherited that tradition. Look at almost any old British movie that involves the police. In most cases, they portray people as wanting to help Scotland Yard, or whoever--but still sort of prickly about having the police in their house, or answering too many of their questions. It's as if they recognize the cops or other government officials are necessary, but are wary that they'll step over the line if you don't know your rights and keep a close eye on them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 507
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 12/30/2010 11:27:43 AM
^^^^To stray a little further . . . that reminds me of my winters in St. Louis. About the only thing you could predict about the snowstorms was that the stuff would start falling Friday afternoon, while we were having our (Annheuser-Busch products only, of course) kegger. Just when the city workers had all gone home. The trucks wouldn't even start salting the main streets until Sunday (overtime work!) And getting from your door to that point was a chore for several days after that, because the side streets, sidewalks, and everything else was still buried.

To make it worse, I had a motorcycle the first year, before I wised up and got an old station wagon. Duh. . . but hey, I grew up in L.A.--what did I know? At least the bike was cheap to park, and I found out riding when it's five below is a great way to wake up! I never did figure out how doctors, ambulances, etc. got where they had to go. In the hilly parts of town, getting out of your driveway would have been just the beginning. It was hard even to walk up those streets when they hadn't been cleared.

Whenever it snowed too much for the bike, I had to go with the bus. But the schedule just disappeared. To be sure to get anyplace on time, you had to wait at the stop for a couple hours--sometimes with interesting company. (Geez, does that guy nest to me with the cornrows and tats need a knife *that* big just to clean his fingernails? And why does he keep sniffing and twitching like that?)

My stop also had the glass broken out, so it was nice and windy. And when the bus finally dropped me off, I still had to crunch through several blocks of snow to get to my classes. The people I knew who grew up with winters like that used to have fun ragging me about all this. And I'd smile, shake my head, and tell them they were just jealous of people from L.A.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 509
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/1/2011 5:41:15 PM
^^^^^My first thought is that some of those Christian terrorists that we know are everywhere were behind this. They probably hoped everyone would blame it on Muslims. That would give the U.S. and the Jews who run it, along with their Zionist lackeys in Israel, an excuse to slaughter even more innocent Muslims. As if the millions they've already murdered, in their Talmudic blood lust, weren't enough.

Then, of course, there's the version all the right-wing extremist Muslim haters will push, for all the sheeple and haters who are dying to believe it. Here's what they'll say. DO NOT fall for it!

After they've called the millions of fine, patriotic Americans who sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood "fifth columnists," "Quislings," or some other derogatory, hating name, they'll point out that the MB is the granddaddy of all modern jihadist organizations.

They'll also note that the MB was behind the assassinations of Egyptian presidents even in the 1940's, the later assassination of President Anwar Sadat, and at least one serious attempt to assassinate current president Hosni Mubarak.

They'll remind everyone that one of the MB's main religious advisers--the "Blind Shaikh"--was convicted and sentenced to life in Supermax for leading the conspiracy to bomb the Trade Center in February,1993 (the *first* 9/11.)

Then they'll drag up all that stuff about how the MB created Hamas, and how it set up CAIR and dozens of other front groups in the U.S. to put a smiley face on its jihadist agenda. Please.

They'll start attacking the Cordoba Project in New York, probably pointing out that the MB figures behind Feisal Rauf have openly declared their goal is to spread shariah in the U.S. More hateful neocon propaganda.

Don't be surprised, either, if you hear them slander these same honorable MB operatives for funding and creating the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center outside D.C. They'll tell you Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam there in 2000-2001, and that he was mentoring at least two of the men who hijacked those planes on 9/11.

They also love to remind us that when Nidal Hasan, M.D., the hero of Fort Hood, worked at Walter Reed, he was a member of Awlaki's congregation. That he presided over Hasan's mother's funeral. And they'll harp on those December, 2008 e-mails between Hasan and Awlaki, who by then was a top Al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen.

Yes, fine--Awlaki assured Hasan that Allah would smile on using violence against his fellow soldiers. And maybe that gave the brave Hasan the green light he needed to act. But so what?

After all, the FBI-led antiterrorist team that analyzed the intercepted e-mails knew about Awlaki. They knew that he'd met two of the 9/11 hijackers not long after they landed at LAX in January, 2000, and that they'd been under his wing for the next eighteen months. And *they* didn't think it was any big deal for an Army shrink to be exchanging e-mails with him. Come on!

And the tighty-rightys will no doubt mention that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was a group that splintered off from the MB; that Ayman Zawahiri was a leading figure in it; and that the EIJ was folded into Bin Laden's followers when Zawahiri co-founded Al Qaeda with him. But once again--what's the BFD?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 512
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/2/2011 12:01:50 PM
Let 's give the Devil his due. I saw the video of that person, and I thought he meant that *reading the Constitution out loud in Congress* was what had no binding power. Even someone on MSNBC couldn't have been dope enough to think the Constitution itself didn't have any.


“Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition,” writes Paul Craig Roberts. “The conservative assault on the US Constitution is deeply entrenched… Today’s conservatives are so poorly informed that they cannot understand that to lose the Constitution is to lose the country.”


I'm a conservative who supports every part of the U.S. Constitution, as written. I don't know Mr. P.C. Roberts. But I don't believe any of the things he claims conservatives do.

Any true conservative knows our civil liberties keep us a civil society. They separate us from the squalor, mayhem, and brutality that have always made much of the world a hellhole.

Once criminals are fairly convicted, they should be fairly punished. I think there are cases where that punishment should be execution, without any unreasonable delay. And I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision that the Constitution limits the death penalty to murderers. States should also be able to apply it in some extreme cases even though the victim of an attack survives, IMO.

Foreign jihadists have no rights under our Constitution. I don't think they always have even a right to a military trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a confessed mass murderer and an unlawful alien combatant. No one who knows how he planned 9/11 doubts he committed war crimes against this country. A quick military trial to make it formal, if we have to. But let's not keep his maker waiting.

No one who understands the First Amendment thinks it's foolish, or that it was meant to protect sedition. Some of us conservatives know that "seditious conspiracy" is a federal crime. And when the U.S. used it against jihadists in the 1990's, their lawyers didn't claim the statute violated the 1st Am.

Also, hiding behind the 1st Am. didn't keep the "Blind Shaikh's" lawyer out of prison. She claimed she was just giving press conferences, but the court found she was passing along coded messages for terrorist attacks that he'd given her when she visited him in his cell.

Mr. Roberts also claims that conservatives are engaged in an assault on the Constitution, and that they don't understand it's vital to this country. Really? Not this one.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 514
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/3/2011 7:40:13 PM
^^^^Oh, come on. These people, in all the excitement, may just have forgotten for a moment that Islam is the religion of peace. And Americans have to stop being soooo judgemental! They have to understand that these people's cultural norms are not like ours. Just because they were cheering, poking the splattered body parts with sticks, dancing around, showing off photos of their little 3-year-old Jamil in his dynamite vest, or whatever, that doesn't make them terrorists.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 516
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/5/2011 11:41:47 AM
^^^^^I don't see how the vast central government we now have would ever have been possible without 16th Am. of 1913, which authorized a federal income tax. Wouldn't it make sense to attack the problems that too much government causes at the source which feeds them, instead of pruning back one at a time while letting the others keep growing?

I don't claim this is practical--but then I'm not running for office. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that limited the income tax in some way--sort of like restricting the fuel supply to your car's engine so the car could only go so fast.

This might have to be combined with restrictions on deficit spending, to keep legislators from getting around the lack of tax revenues by borrowing against the future. And it would have to exempt necessities like defense, as well as some of the other basic requirements of any national government.

One thing is sure--if we go on as we have been very much longer, we won't have a United States we even recognize any more. And then we could be in more danger of going under than we ever have been, even during the Civil War.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 518
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/5/2011 9:49:25 PM
Progressive tax system, that name says it all.


The idea was taken directly from the writings of Karl Marx.

Paul, I have to differ with you on people with higher incomes being taxed at a higher rate. I think that's hard to argue *for*--not against. I know that money's not considered property for tax purposes. But all the same, it certainly is personal property.

What right does anyone have to take someone else's personal property from them, and what gives them that right? None, and nothing, I think. But when a tax lets one group keep more of its property than another, it's being used to take property from the one and give it to the other.

All the same, I don't think incomes below a certain minimum should be taxed. Some people are born with mental retardation or severe illnesses, or other handicaps that practically guarantee they can't make much money. It's just wrong to tax people who don't even have enough to live on--that doesn't belong in a civil society. Maybe they could contribute some time or effort, if they were able, in lieu of paying tax.

That's exactly right about Coolidge. He was a better president than he's usually been given credit for. He knew the value of using a light hand, and not saying and doing things which tend to make investors uncertain. The man we now have is intelligent (although very much overrated on that), but he's a jackass about knowing when to use an easy touch.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 522
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/25/2011 1:04:09 PM
Obviously, Republicans have done a great job in convincing them that their planes will be blown up by Muslims if they don't.


Now why would any American, Republican or Democrat, ever think that Muslims would blow up commercial planes?

Last week, we learn from Barry Rubin of the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Imad Mustafa of al Azhar University in Cairo issued an eye-opening fatwa. It carries a lot of weight, at least with Sunni Muslims, because al Azhar is the world's most important Islamic university.

What's significant about this fatwa is that it calls for "offensive jihad," which the apologists for Islam have all along assured us was something only Al Qaeda and other extreme, violent groups advocated. Good Muslims, they say, shun that sort of thing.

Mustafa wrote:

“Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

“Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

Rubin notes that:

"In the current context, this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything 'necessary' to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas). In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere."

So now, influential mainstream clerics are calling for Muslims to wage jihad against countries outside the Muslim world. It's no longer necessary to wait and act defensively, targeting only those who have attacked Muslim lands; now, "extending God's religion" to other people is reason enough.

Jihadist groups now have support from the mainstream of Islam for their violent attacks. This is what the West's appeasement of Islamic extremists has invited. But don't look for it to be mentioned much, because it flatly contradicts what the appeasers want so desperately to believe.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 523
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/25/2011 6:07:50 PM
I think you obsess over fundamentalist Muslim issuing fatwas more than the rest of the mainstream Muslim world who generally could care less.


The claim you're repeating--that the poor and downtrodden are the jihadists' main source of recruits--is a myth. I would think it was common knowledge by now that many of the jihadist attacks, around the world, have been planned and even carried out by educated people, often from well-off families.

The Christmas Day bomber and the Fort Hood murderer are two typical examples. One of the scouts for the Bombay attack owned a small grocery store in Detroit. All but a couple of the men involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing lived comfortably near New York. The Pakistanis living in England who have carried out a number of attacks there have not come from the ranks of the poor and desperate, either. Nor have the Muslim rioters and murderers in the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere in Europe.

There's also no basis for your claim that "the rest of the mainstream Muslim world"--apparently because some of them like to wear expensive watches and drink whisky in London-- could "generally care less." It's just inane--like saying mainstream Catholics around the world could hardly care less about a groundbreaking new doctrine issued by the Vatican, because quite a few of them ignore Lent and don't stick to fish on Fridays.

I'll say it again: This fatwa, far from being the work of "fundamentalist Muslims," came from the most influential Islamic university in the world. If al-Azhar is not in the mainstream of Islamic doctrine, nothing is. Its official approval of jihadist violence--offensively, without any provocation--against non-believers outside the Muslim world is new, aggressive, and *very* significant. It will encourage jihadists everywhere.

This fatwa strongly suggests that the usual refrain of the dull and the appeasement-minded, including much of this administration and its lapdogs in the press--that Islam is a religion of peace, and the problem is with a small minority which has "hijacked" it for evil purposes--is a lie. The justification for jihadist violence comes right from the heart of Islamic doctrine, as Muslim scholars are now interpreting it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 524
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/26/2011 10:57:29 AM
Your comments are so full of conspiracies . . . your generalization just doesn't track with the real world


By saying that my comments are "so full of conspiracies," I guess you're agreeing that the attacks I mentioned were plots. That's not too hard--almost all jihadist attacks are. I never referred to them to make that point, though, but as an example which refutes your claim that jihadism appeals mainly to the dirt poor.

You've said before that you lived in a Muslim country. Is that how you know that "if you started talking about fatwas around most Muslims, they would simply laugh at you for making silly talk?" If so, you certainly *are* purporting to know how most Muslims think-- contrary to what you claim.

I never purported to *know*what the world's Muslims will think of this fatwa. Without polling all billion-plus of them, who could? But given the prestige of al-Azhar, I agree with Rubin (and others) that it's reasonable to believe it gives jihadist groups a valuable cover. They can now cloak their violent attacks on innocent people outside the Muslim world in official legitimacy. A religious seal of approval is the last thing mass murder deserves.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 525
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/26/2011 2:41:00 PM

Then maybe it should be left out of the conversation as it it irrelevant other than to be used to inflame people who don't know any better.


You can put whatever you like in your posts. I don't agree. The likely effect of this fatwa on the way Muslims view jihadist groups is completely relevant. I think it will tend to legitimize them, making Muslims in Europe, especially, less hesitant to support them.

The quote I included from the fatwa, however cleverly the author couched its meaning in poetic phrases (a technique jihadist groups also use) has only one reasonable meaning in practice. It's this: The most prestigious center for Islamic doctrine in the world has just put its official stamp of approval on the mass murder of innocent civilians in the West.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 526
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/26/2011 9:22:11 PM
Arabic is like that....there's nothing sinister about that.


Baloney. Read the quote from the fatwa. In practice, it can't reasonably mean anything except what I stated. If I wanted to take the time, I could cite evidence that jihadist and Islamist groups have routinely done just what I described, and done it expressly to hide their real motives.

CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and a number of other Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. do just that--they have even pointed out its importance in "dawa," or as Robert Spencer has called it, "stealth jihad." Just like blood-and-guts jihad, dawa has its apologists and abettors in the U.S. Some of them can be found making excuses for Muslim jihadists right in these forums--while servicemen whose boots they're not fit to clean get wounded and killed for them.

Anwar al-Awlaki, once an imam at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic center outside D.C. (built by the same men who are backing Faisal Rauf's Cordoba Project in New York) called for the same thing. I've heard a recording of him describing in one of his sermons how this sort of phrasing should be used to deceive Americans about what Islamist groups are really doing.

(For those who don't know about Mr. Awlaki, he was the mentor for two of the 9/11 hijackers during the 20 months before that day that they spent in the U.S. He was also the one who assured Nidal Hasan, in a series of e-mails in December, 2008, that whatever retaliation against the U.S. military he might be planning would have Allah's blessing. His conscience cleared by this news, the courageous Doctor Hasan went on to murder thirteen unarmed people at Fort Hood.)

Could this interaction between Hasan and his old imam from 2000-2001, when Hasan worked in D.C., have made it easier for him to attack? Nah--surely we know that no advice or pronouncement by a respected authority on Islam, as Imam Anwar was, could change a thing. In the same way, how could anyone think this fatwa will make the jihadists' work easier? I mean, all it does in assure the world's Sunni Muslims that Islam blesses "offensive jihad," so that murdering unbelievers serves Allah's will.


Wow, what can I say to that.


Nothing very responsive, apparently.


That is truly a conspiracy theory.


I doubt if anyone could hate conspiracy theories more than I do. As to your assertion, I'm satisfied to let anyone who wants to read my posts and decide for themself. I'll leave it there--nothing further.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 527
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/27/2011 2:24:25 PM
Paul,
What you see here and in other threads where jihadism has come up is willful blindness, to borrow from the title of Andy McCarthy's book. It doesn't matter how many facts are presented, or how well they're argued, because you're dealing with people who are afraid to admit the truth--that the root of jihadist murder is in Islam itself. Of course by rolling over for the jihadists, you're helping them force their will on us--but who cares about a minor detail like that?

Notice, too, how none of the *substance* of the points is usually challenged. To do that, you'd actually have to know something about jihadism. Instead, the attack focuses on the person, the procedure followed, or both.

So now we hear that most of the world's major terrorist attacks not only are not inspired by Islam, but that they're not even the product of conspiracies. (Even 9/11, I guess--come on, that was no conspiracy!) All these people were just lone wolves. That is so obviously false that it can only result from complete ignorance of the facts, or intellectual dishonesty.

And now we discover that logic somehow changes at the doors of courtrooms. (Unfortunately, the mystical process by which this happens is not revealed.) Logic applies OK inside them, but outside, in the real world which courtrooms are not a part of, it's ridiculous. Who knew?

We also learn that in court, lawyers can use any argument they like, relevant or not. I'm trying to figure out how that squares with the fact that the most basic requirement of all for any evidence--say a witness's testimony--to be admissible is that it be *relevant.*
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 529
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/27/2011 5:50:58 PM

John Wayne Gacy or any other wackjob people's version of "fatwa" to read either . . . to obsess over writing of some nutcases.


Some people reading this thread might wonder how Imam Mustafa of al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world's most prestigious institute for Islamic scholarship, came to be compared with "wackjobs" or "nutcases" or John Wayne Gacy or the Aryan Nation.

If you had understood the discussion, you'd know the whole point is that the very thing which makes this fatwa so significant is that it is NOT the product of some deranged mind, but of mainline, influential Sunni scholars. The facts don't lend themselves to denying it, which you want to do, so you change them and hope no one notices.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 530
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 1/31/2011 11:48:10 PM
Here's sort of a postscript to what I said earlier about this fatwa from Al-Azhar University in Cairo--since Egypt seems topical at the moment.

We may be hearing more about the Muslim Brotherhood (aka the "Ikhwan") in the days ahead. They're the gentle folks who wanted to "bridge" our cultural differences by having their lackey Faisal Rauf build the "Ground Zero Mosque."

Hamas is one of the MB's creations, as are CAIR, the ISNA ,and dozens of other front groups in the U.S.--the ones Mr. Obama likes to cozy up to.

The man who ruled Egypt before Hosni Mubarak, who is now at the center of the storm there, was Anwar Sadat. The amiable, Westernized fellow with the mustache and pipe.

After he'd made peace with Israel (the hated "Zionist Entity") during Mr. Jimmy Carter's love fest at Camp David, he was marked as a traitor to Islam and assassinated in 1981. How did this happen?

A radical Egyptian jihadist group called Gamaat al Islamia had ties to the Ikhwan. It was incorporated into Al Qaeda when Bin Laden co-founded that group in 1992 with the Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri. Zawahiri's own group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, also became part of Al Qaeda.

The Gamaat's great religious authority was Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Shaikh." Mr. Rahman became better known later for leading the conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993--the too-often overlooked "beta" version of 9/11.

(Like Rahman, Lynne Stewart, his treasonous communist lawyer, is also in prison for passing along his coded instructions for attacks to jihadists overseas. He'd give her certain meaningful phrases when she visited him in prison, and she'd then work them into what she said at the news conferences afterwards.)

But what got Anwar Sadat killed in 1981 was a fatwa issued by Abdel Rahman, accusing him of betraying Islam and calling for his death. Fatwas. You know--those instigations to violence that Islamic holy men put out every so often.

One poster has assured us that these fatwas are hardly worth even mentioning, because so many normal, ordinary Muslims are too busy buying jewelry and perfume and Scotch in Paris and London to listen to such ridiculous, primitive things.

But it seems like the right people were listening to Rahman's fatwa in 1981, because they murdered Sadat, as he'd advised. And that's how Mr. Hosni Mubarak came to be ruling Egypt today--where the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of all modern jihadist groups, is still very much alive and scheming.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 531
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 2/1/2011 5:43:12 PM
Paul, I think you may be right about Jordan. This disgraceful president is partly responsible for encouraging all this by showing such weakness toward Muslim extremists.

Those speeches overseas in which he kissed their backsides were disgusting enough. So was his whitewashing of Hasan's mass murder at Fort Hood and Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up 300 people over Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. "To hell with the facts-- no Muslim jihadists were involved." And there was his almost total silence while the jihadist regime in Tehran beat and murdered protesters two summers ago. He held his tongue to curry favor with that regime.

For the same reason, he allowed the release of several very important Iranian agents captured in Iraq. These men had trained networks of Iraqi jihadists and provided them with armor-piercing explosives--made in Iran--which they then used to kill many hundreds of U.S. servicemen. Mr. Obama knew that one of the Iraqi Shiites he released, Qazzali, had conspired with Iranian operatives to stage a 2007 attack in Karbala. In that attack--which was a war crime on several counts--four U.S. soldiers were kidnapped and then murdered while they were still handcuffed together.

It doesn't help, either, that the Obama administration now says it would be open to an Egyptian government that included the Muslim Brotherhood, if it renounced violence. I guess Mr. Obama would just take their word for that. And why not? He seems to get along just fine with the MB. When he gave his speech defending the Cordoba Project in New York as a free exercise of religion, a couple members of the ISNA--one of the dozens of Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S.--were there as honored guests.



but now it won't be in random terrorist actds, from now on it will be from govts who have been co-opted by militant islamists.


There IS a bright side to that, though. Countries have lots of vital targets that don't move. For that same reason, if Egypt should become radical and attack Israel one day, I wouldn't want to be near any Egyptian target big enough to use a nuclear weapon on.

Since Egypt promised peace with Israel, it's received about $50 billion worth of U.S. weapons--including several hundred very modern tanks. Israel could find itself facing a much more powerful Egyptian military than it had to deal with in 1967 or 1973. Now that Iran's proxy Hizbollah seems to be in control of most of Lebanon, Israel would be in a very tight spot if Egypt ever became a radical Islamist nation. Also, the Muslim Brotherhood is already in Gaza--we know it as HAMAS.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 533
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 2/10/2011 7:58:47 PM
I would ask Mr. Paul how Ethiopia provoked the invasion by Italy in WWII.


You sure nailed that one. That exposes the whole isolationist pipe dream as a lie. Mussolini sold that invasion to the people, in part, as revenge for the Ethiopians' massacre of Italian troops at Adawa in WWI.

One interesting question about it is whether letting it happen invited WWII. It was in 1935, when Germany was still pretty weak. Britain looked for a while like it was going to try to stop the Italian fleet and troop ships from going through the Suez Canal--but in the end, the will wasn't there.

Churchill wrote later that he thought it had been one of the best chances to avoid the war, maybe at very little cost. The British had a large air and naval base at Alexandria, and the strongest navy in the world. They could have stood in the way of the Italian fleet, with much more than it could handle.

Mussolini then would either have had to turn the ships back, or be sure of losing them, along with thousands of troops. Either way, Churchill thought the humiliation probably would have ended his rule. Even more important, he said, was the fact Hitler watched all this, and it made him more sure than ever that England would never challenge him.
 CorinneOXOXOX
Joined: 7/4/2009
Msg: 536
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 2/15/2011 9:46:23 PM
-Politics touch every part of your life. I first became involved in Politics when I was a jr in high school. At that time, Civil rights were the discussion and then Abortion. I worked for the state government in Colorado as a volunteer for a Senator.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 538
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 2/21/2011 7:21:17 PM
fzxhuster
Guess that $150 million gift blows the $100 million Obama budget cut mentioned in your other post. Lets see by this math we have a net debt increase of $50 million.

You will need to redo your personal budget.

As of 2/17/2011 our goverment debt is $14.123 trillion. According to my crystal ball it will be $15.5 trillion on 2/17/2012
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 540
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 2/22/2011 1:40:56 PM
Jimmy Carter pressed Congress to create the DOE in exchange for campaign support the teachers' unions had given him. I don't see that elevating it to cabinet-level status has improved public education at all. I also don't think it's all that clear Congress has any authority to regulate education in the first place--but at most education should be a bureau-level office in some other department.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 548
view profile
History
The real cost of education
Posted: 2/26/2011 1:15:58 PM
If teachers are so valuable then why do college graduates need a union, or would even want a union to represent them. Aren't unions for blue collar workers.

In Calif they have unions throughout the state workers including engineers, nurses, and many others with 4 year degrees, yet the private industry does not. I remember working at USS when the union got raises they had to give the same raises and benefits to the non-union management in order to keep pay scales relative.

Not to be in disagreement but public unions will be the ruin of USA as we see it today. They negotate these contracts with elected officials in private sessions and usually only the fact that a new contract or strike settled is disclosed to the public. None or very little of the settled contract aggrements are disclosed. This tie is so strong that I bet you couldn't find one elected democrat to speak out against the union for even minor concessions.

If you want to see whats coming take a look at Greece or any other nation that can't pay the benefits that were promised. It took a bailout loan for Greece and when thats gone what happens then.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 551
view profile
History
The real cost of education
Posted: 2/27/2011 1:51:55 PM
I wonder how many present-day "liberals" realize their philosophical ancestors--the progressives--were very big on eugenics. For them, it was almost as important a cause as women's suffrage or prohibition. It was a respectable progressive idea, until the Nazis took it to its logical conclusion. I guess abortion is the closest thing to it today.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >