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: 299
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlismPage 7 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)

Please understand that giving them trials in civilian courts will most likely lead to their cases being dismissed.


That's what so asinine about that show trial they proposed. You know, "Show the Muslims how fair we are, and they'll realize we're good guys and like us." An average 12-year-old's more savvy than that.

Those defendants would have an absolute constitutional right to act as their own lawyers. That means they'd have a right to see *everything* the government had against them--no matter how secret. Anything less would violate their right to due process. What, exactly, would stop them from passing anything they learned to their friends in Pakistan? Also, acting as their own lawyers, what would keep them from purposely acting up to cause a mistrial?

And why run the great risk of an acquittal, after a two-year circus in which these people could make America look foolish to the whole world, day after day--especially when none of these jihadists has ANY legal right to a jury trial in a regular U.S. court. There were more than 400,000 POW's held in the U.S. during WWII, and not ONE of them ever got inside a U.S. court.

KSM has already fully admitted his role in 9/11--bragged about it--and asked to be executed. We have the military tribunals ready to try his case, and if he's convicted, to sentence him to death. Then execute him, and let the Devil make him his butt boy. What possible reason is there for still more delay, nine years after his war crimes?

Let me suggest one: This country no longer has the courage of its convictions, and it barely has the will even to defend its culture against a deadly threat to it that could hardly be more clear. So many people have been indoctrinated to think America's an evil country that a lot of them would rather help the Islamists than destroy them.

If you really want to see them, just go over to the Quisling forum (if your stomach's feeling strong enough) and take a good look. Or watch the video of that coward cursing out an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor for daring to oppose this mosque. I only wish someone there had given the b-----d the beating he deserved. If there are more than a few million of these curs in the U.S., we're cooked.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 300
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/26/2010 7:21:47 PM
These quotes are from a 1942 Supreme Court decision on several Nazi saboteurs captured in the U.S. It's still good law, and it applies to KSM and the other jihadists who've made war on the U.S. It makes clear they're not entitled to the jury trial (and for federal crimes, indictment by a Grand Jury also) the 5th and 6th Amendments guarantee U.S. citizens charged with ordinary crimes.

In fact, one of these Nazis was a U.S. citizen, and even he wasn't entitled to anything but a military commission, because they were charged with war crimes. All six were electrocuted the same day in New York, only two months after they'd landed here by U-boat.

This decision also makes clear that all the whining we've heard for years about violating the rights of "POW's" held at Gitmo has been a lie (although, ironically, the U.S. voluntarily gave these captives all the privileges POW's would be entitled to.) I'm sure this propaganda was spread by many of the same America-hating fifth columnists who are now screaming at us for denouncing their Islamist pals' proposed "spit on America" monument. The quotes:


By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between . . . those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but, in addition, they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful . . .

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission . . . [Because the saboteurs were] charged with . . . an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, [they] were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

The case has some very interesting material in the footnotes on war crime cases tried by military commissions in the Revolutionary, Mexican, and Civil Wars. Here's the link:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/1/case.html
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 301
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/26/2010 7:59:24 PM

with a guy who hates, despises Israel.


I'm not so sure. The only way the Saudi royal family stays in power is by soft-soaping the Wahhabist maniacs in the country who threaten their rule. That's a lot of the reason they're afraid to liberalize the society too much. And if there's one thing the world does not need, it's to see an Islamist regime take over there, as happened in Iran thirty years ago.

The Saudis seem to be ready to let Israel overfly their country on the way to Iran. They don't want to see them get the bomb, either. If they do, the Saudis will get their own, and there will be no way to keep jihadists from getting them too.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 302
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/28/2010 8:11:53 PM
This is one of the things that got me concerned with politics. Here is an article that explains in detail how the Muslim Brotherhood, an infamous jihadist organization whose home base is Egypt, is supporting the Cordoba Initiative:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245004/why-they-can-t-condemn-hamas-andrew-c-mccarthy


The author, Andy McCarthy, knows a lot about the Islamist jihad against America. He led the federal prosecution of the "Blind Sheikh" and several other Islamists, who were convicted of conspiring to set off a 1,200-lb. bomb under the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993.

Late in 1994, the man who'd come from Pakistan and made this bomb--which nearly brought both towers down--was working with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on another plot. This man, Ramzi Yousef, told KSM his idea of flying airliners into the towers. And seven years later, nineteen murderers KSM had organized and directed put that idea into effect.

It's shocking to think it, but Islamist fanatics just like the ones who murdered three thousand Americans that morning now have millions of cheerleaders in America. They are now busy condemning the large majority of us who oppose their plan to spit on the ashes of the people murdered on 9/11--and to spit on America at the same time--as "Islamophobes."

I've tried to believe that these people mean well, and I'm sure many of them are just misinformed. But I'm also sure that more than a few of them support Islamist jihad because they, too, despise this country and want to bring it down from within.

A close associate of Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader and a man the proponents of the Cordoba Initiative greatly admire, wrote that the Brotherhood:

"must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [i.e. Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 304
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/30/2010 9:29:10 AM
^^^^^After reading through that list, I think the authors didn't do a very good job. And it seems to show either their bias, or their awareness of what administration they're working for.

They say the main reason for including a term was that local police were likely to have it come up. But then they talk about a number of obscure Islamic groups that they acknowledge have never been active in the U.S.

And even though what little they said about Hamas was accurate, they said zero about its dedication to murdering Israelis or its widespread activities in the U.S. I notice the list also left out Code Pink, which is subversive and has been very active here.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 306
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/30/2010 10:31:16 AM
^^^^Why, GC, your insensitivity toward Islam surprises me. Don't you know that Cordoba was the civilized, open-minded city where Christians and Jews lived in harmony for centuries with the Muslims who ruled them? That's the story progressive historians have revealed, by tearing away the now-discredited image of intolerance and violence Islamophobic writers about that era had foisted on us for so long.

This new history awakens us to a vision of old Cordoba as a happy, friendly cultural mixing pot--the sort of place America might be, if Christians and Jews would only put aside their resentment of Muslims. It tells us that Cordoba was a magic place where everyone spoke and worshipped freely, smiling children of all religions played together, and wise, enlightened Caliphs used to invite the city's Christian and Jewish leaders to his palace to share ideas over dinner.

Please try to understand--*that's* all Mr. Rauf and other peace-loving Muslims are trying to do with this project. He wants to build a bridge between our two cultures. If only Americans would relax their Islamophobia and let him try! As time passes, we may come to realize that the tragedy which happened that September morning was partly our fault, too. Once Americans can admit that--and the wonderful center Imam Rauf has proposed will help--the healing process can begin.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 308
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/30/2010 1:26:16 PM
The hardest part of all this for me is figuring out which ones just plain don't know the facts; which ones ignore the facts, because they interfere with irrational beliefs they're afraid to give up; and which ones know full well the Islamists are intent on subverting America and destroying Israel, and want to help them.

I think all these categories exist, and I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. Some of them are still open to new information, and it may change their views. They may not know the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is behind this project, or that it created Hamas. They may not know CAIR and several other prominent U.S. Muslim groups--including one whose representative Mr. Obama invited to the speech where he supported this project-- are fronts the MB created to subvert America.

Or, they may not know that the man convicted of leading the cell which bombed the Trade Center in 1993 was the spiritual adviser for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group which spun off the MB. And they may not know that EIJ was led by the man who co-founded Al Qaeda with Bin Laden and is still pretty much his equal in it.

The most extreme ones, though, are nothing but a fifth column for proven enemies who are determined to destroy the United States, Israel, Europe, and the civilized world in general. Everyone else in this country should condemn and shun them for that--and some of them should even be prosecuted for federal crimes. Instead, this administration sets the example by ignoring or covering for these people, just as it's shielding a number of captured jihadists. What's anyone supposed to make of that?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 309
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/30/2010 6:52:57 PM
I call them criminals. They violated state laws by destroying construction machinery, and they may also have violated federal civil rights laws. I hope whoever's responsible is arrested and prosecuted. Charge them with everything that applies.

If there's any reason to believe a mosque is being used for crimes--and many of them have been--there's a legal way to deal with it. Go there, observe, and if you see anything suspicious, tell the FBI about it.

The ideal people to do that are patriotic Muslims, and I hope a lot of them are doing it. The British have let several very radical mosques stay open, and I suspect it's because they've got agents in them picking up a lot of very valuable intelligence about jihadist plots.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 311
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/30/2010 8:45:06 PM
I've already heard one interview where the Muslim congregate says she fears for her life now after this incident. That is the goal of terrorists right . . . To strike fear?


I wouldn't call them "ecoterrorists." It doesn't make much difference whether you brandish a nightstick outside a polling place, set fire to machinery to keep a mosque from being built, vandalize equipment at an animal research lab, drive spikes into trees to ruin chainsaws, or threaten doctors at abortion clinics. It's all meant to interfere with something you don't want to happen, and it's all illegal.

But there's a world of difference between those things and mass murders of civilians by Islamic jihadists, meant to break the will of western countries. These aren't ordinary crimes--they're loosely organized acts of war by fanatics who don't wear uniforms or belong to any national army.

They're also supported by Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Sudan, and indirectly supported by Saudi Arabia, whose government lets private groups finance jihadists. It might be better to hold those governments directly responsible, and force *them* to control the problem, than to try to kill groups of fanatics in some of the most remote areas on earth. Maybe the U.S. is too worried that threatening these countries too much will lead to Islamists taking over their governments, and give us new Irans to cope with.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 313
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/31/2010 12:17:27 PM
^^^^^^^That bill to give tax break to small businesses probably has a rider in it that dissolves the Defense Department and creates a Department of Peace and Understanding. And if not that, I'm sure it's something equally idiotic and unacceptable to any rational American. Oh, for the line item veto!

And bring back the congressional veto, too. If this Court won't do it, let's amend the Constitution so Congress can overrule its decisions--on that, and a few dozen other things.

It's worth noting that the top *five* percent of U.S. income earners pay more than *sixty* percent of the federal taxes collected. That's life on Marse' Barry's plantation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 314
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/31/2010 6:20:01 PM
Oh, come on. That equipment is so fantastically expensive it can't sit idle for long. Before that moratorium's gone on for long, everything that can be moved will be. It will probably go to some other part of the world, and not come back. "Moratorium" just sounds better, because it seems like it's only temporary.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 315
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/1/2010 10:05:18 AM
PH, It's probably more often called the "legislative" veto. The decision where the Court held it unconstitutional is INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). It was a good way, I think, to keep administrative agencies in check.

EPA's a good example of why we need that. I've studied the legislative history of the federal laws EPA enforces, and of the agency itself. The congressmen who were promoting these laws, and who created EPA, never meant to have an EPA regulation control industry throughout the U.S.

And yet that's just what this administration means to do by defining CO2 as a "pollutant." It's a way for this president to put the "Cap and Trade" proposal into effect through the back door. If the Legislative Branch won't pass a law, well, now the Executive Branch will just do the job itself.

And credit the Judicial Branch with assisting in this presidential lawmaking--which I think one of the Founders said was practically the definition of tyranny. If not for its decision--written by the dear, departed Justice Stevens--that CO2 qualified as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, none of this would have been possible.


<div class="quote">The Congress already can legislate remedies to supreme court rulings.

That's true where the Court was interpreting a federal law. But when it rules on the basis of some part of the Constitution, it has the final say. That may only be because the Court itself has gotten everyone to accept that idea, but it's accepted just the same.

The Guantanamo decisions show how that works. (This isn't perfectly accurate, but it will give you the gist.) In one of them, the Court gave the detainees an extremely doubtful legal right, by overruling the interpretation of the federal habeas corpus *statute* it had made in a 1950 decision involving Germans held overseas as war criminals.

Once the Court's interpreted a statute, it almost never re-interprets it in another case when the statute hasn't changed. It cooked up a preposterous explanation of why the earlier case was different--when it was directly to the point--so it wouldn't have to acknowledge what it was doing. But when judges have a righteous cause, they have to get creative. And the illegitimacy didn't end there.

Congress then changed the law which covered the detainees to state clearly that it didn't intend aliens the president had designated as unlawful enemy combatants, if they were being held outside the U.S., to have any legal right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts. (Habeas petitions are usually a last-ditch effort--you try to get a court to hear your claim that you're being unlawfully held for some reason--and if it buys your argument, it can order you released.)

But the Court, determined to control the way the U.S. wages war--which it has absolutely no authority to do--wasn't going to be denied. So it then decided a habeas case involving this new law, but it struck *this* law down on *constitutional* grounds (the "Suspension Clause.") End of the line. So, we now have a process where a jihadist gets a formal hearing to review the reasons for holding him, but it's held in a military court rather than a regular U.S. court.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 317
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/2/2010 12:40:11 AM
^^^^^^This is just the sort of outrage I've come to expect from this administration. The only possible reason for the State Dept. to mention SB 1070 to the UN Human Rights Commission is that Judge Bolton ruled parts of it unconstitutional. And here, that's not nearly enough.

This was a "facial" challenge. To win one, the Court's said the party challenging a law has to prove that there is no conceivable set of circumstances under which that law could be applied without violating the Constitution.

The Court's emphasized that this is very hard to do. It's much harder to win than an "as applied" challenge, where someone claims that the way a law was applied *to him* violated one or more of his constitutional rights.

It hasn't been established that even one part of SB 1070 is facially unconstitutional, just because Susie Bolton said so. She didn't even come close to following the legal rules the Supreme Court has set out for judges hearing facial constitutional challenges. In fact, she stated those rules--and then did the very things the Court said judges may not do. What if the appeals court--as it should--overrules her?

And yet just by mentioning SB 1070 in this report to the UN, this administration is implying that one decision by one judge shows this law may violate someone's "human rights." Whatever those are supposed to be.

That's what's outrageous--the fact a highly questionable order which found several parts of SB 1070 facially unconstitutional is pending appeal gave the government more than enough reason not even to mention this law.

Why did it, then? Partly to embarrass and bully Arizona, I think, for interfering with Mr. Obama's plan to ignore the Constitution by declaring de facto amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. That's why he had the DOJ go after Arizona for daring to try to enforce federal immigration laws (the very thing Congress has repeatedly urged states to do.) Meanwhile, DOJ looks the other way as local governments defy those same laws by declaring themselves "sanctuary cities."

And a second reason is that Obama, Clinton, and Holder, like several Justices, love the notion of "transnational" law. Obama picked two law professors who are the best known proponents of this notion, Harold Koh and Cass Sunstein, to serve as "czars" in his administration. Transnational law is also what part of the Court (with help from Mr. Holder and others) was applying to the jihadists held at Guantanamo. And they did it at the expense of our constitution.

The gist of transnational law is that the fact we now live in an interdependent world requires us to subordinate American laws to international laws and agreements, rather than stick to the old-fashioned, silly idea that Americans, within America, are governed by American laws, and no one else's. Of course that violates the most basic principles in the Constitution, but let's not be so hidebound.

So, we assure the jackals from Libya or Iran or Syria or whatever hellhole regimes are represented on this commission that when it comes to "human rights," SB 1070's one of the things we're keeping a close eye on. Since when does the United States answer to regimes run by packs of scabby, illegitimate murderers?

Question: Shouldn't being exposed to the sight of Mrs. Clinton's legs qualify as some kind of violation of human rights? And how about having to hear Mr. Obama preen himself constantly on his wonderful accomplishments, as he destroys the once-greatest country on Earth and mouths one glib lie after another? That's *got* to be a violation of *some* basic human right.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 318
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:34:05 AM
^^^^^^Thank you! I agree with you 100%. This was meant to show Arizona up to the world. I saw Gov. Brewer interviewed about it, and she was so outraged she hardly could find the right words. It's the same kind of kind of thing this administration did by letting Calderon come here and lecture Arizona about how unfair the law was. Unheard of, ever.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 323
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:12:20 PM
^^^^^I saw a documentary on TV recently about Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist who's now in Yemen. (He's the only U.S. citizen a U.S. President has ever ordered killed without any legal process.)

It showed him, in one of his sermons, going on about the indecency of American culture and how nudity and sex are disgusting. It then had a San Diego cop talking about how Awlaki had been arrested there, twice, for picking up prostitutes in the sleazy part of town near the mosque where he was preaching. They'd also questioned him once for hanging around an elementary school.

I guess shepherding 9/11 hijackers around was hard work. Maybe he figured Allah wouldn't mind if one of his soldiers indulged himself now and then with some of the Great Satan's women. I hope they got top dollar from the little squid--I suspect he had some very unusual requests.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 325
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/8/2010 10:39:09 AM
^^^^^I wouldn't burn those books myself. But I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for a bunch of murdering savages to get a taste of their own intolerance, even if millions of blameless Muslims are offended. Maybe that's the price for having gone along so quietly, as they watched the b------s among them commit one atrocity after another against civilization.

The free world can't be held hostage to the threat that Islamists somewhere will riot, unless the people they consider their underlings kiss their feet just the right way. They're lucky they're making war on decent people--if our positions were reversed, they would have killed most of us a long time ago.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 326
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/8/2010 12:45:09 PM
^^^^^It's interesting that Islamists haven't made too much headway in India. Maybe that has something to do with the willingness of some of the more extreme Hindus there to give as good as they get.

A few years ago, a Hindu group had just opened a grand temple in a city in northern India. Some Muslim extremists--as I remember from a city in the west, hundreds of miles away--went there and damaged this new building. The response? A mob of enraged Hindus in the area the attackers had come from set fire to a train carrying several hundred Muslims, killing a lot of them.

The regional police were called in, but they didn't get there for quite a few days. A variety of reasons for the delay were offered, none of which seemed to make much sense. And meantime, the Hindus were rampaging around administering street justice to every Muslim they could find.

I'd be the last one to approve of that kind of thing. And I'm sure most Muslims and Hindus would condemn it. But I don't need to approve of it to wonder if it doesn't suggest that it's easier for Islamists to put their intolerance of everyone else into action, when they're sure these lesser beings will only respond to their outrages with tolerance. You're less likely to go around hitting people in the face, when you know they'll hit back even harder.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 327
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/8/2010 2:09:04 PM

He said spreading the wealth is a good idea.


I think he also talked about redistributing wealth a couple times. He was lamenting one time that the Constitution didn't provide for redistribution of wealth (which, except for the income tax amendment, it doesn't.) It's oriented very strongly toward protecting individual property rights.

But in any case, what's the difference between spreading wealth and redistributing it? Aren't they just two different ways to say the same thing? It seems to me if I spread jam on my toast, I'm also redistributing it across the surface. No?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 330
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/9/2010 4:06:20 PM
It's not all that clear this Cordoba Project will be built. The would-be developers don't own the land, and they are all involved, more or less, with the Muslim Brotherhood through its many North American front groups. Rauf is a shill for a network of largely foreign Islamists which has been involved in everything from the creation and illegal funding of Hamas--a listed terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating Jews--to the founding of the Dar-al-Hijrah Islamic center near D.C.

This nest of jihadism once hired Anwar al-Awlaki as one its imams. When he came there from San Diego, he brought along two new members who had also been part of his flock at the mosque he preached in there. These were Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, both 9/11 hijackers-to-be that he'd been mentoring ever since they landed at LAX in January, 2000.

Another notorious worshipper at Dar-al-Hijrah was Nidal Hasan, then an Army psychiatrist at Walter Reed. He even had Awlaki preside over his mother's funeral. Eight years later at Ft. Hood, as he began to think about butchering U.S. soldiers in a glorious act of jihad, it came to him to consult old imam Awlaki--who'd gone to Yemen to recruit jihadists soon after 9/11.

After Awlaki's e-mailed assurances had given Hasan the spiritual green light he needed to salve his conscience, this coward proceeded to arm himself, yell "Allahu Akbar!" and murder thirteen unarmed soldiers in cold blood. And another member of the flock at Dar al Hijrah is doing life in prison for attempting to assassinate President Bush. No doubt the Islamists' fifth column here considers that a heroic act--but U.S. laws do not.

I'm sure the swine behind the Cordoba Initiative hope it will someday have a congregation which includes Islamists just as fanatic as Dar al Hijrah's. And the ones who aren't planning to murder innocent, unarmed people can always help with the "Shia Indexing Project" Rauf and his dirty Muslim Brotherhood accomplices have been working on. Surely there will be enough room for that in a 15-story building, even if a floor or two is used for weapons storage and a safe house for jihadists passing through New York.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 331
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/9/2010 7:36:48 PM
^^^^I can't stand this constant bowing and scraping to Muslim sensitivities. It's more than politeness--it's the very kind of submission Islamists want to intimidate everyone into showing them, just as they've done in big parts of Europe.

Meanwhile, they reserve the right to trample on everyone else's values as brutally as they please. And we nod and smile and act polite as they insult us, afraid we might make them angry. Just imagine what they might do!

This preacher's a dope--but it's time *someone* in the western world put Islamists back on their heels. Why care what they like, or don't like? And let the majority of Muslims who don't sympathize with them start understanding and excusing Americans' anger, as we're always lectured to understand and excuse theirs.

No one questioned the legal right of leftists who hate America to burn the U.S. flag, or to display signs saying "F--- Amerikkka," or to burn George Bush in effigy, or to denounce Christianity in a thousand ways, using whatever obscene terms they liked. Our self-anointed ruling class tells us we should appreciate a crucifix placed in urine or the Madonna covered with dung as art.

But at the same time, we're supposed to accept that burning the Koran--the guide and inspiration for the death cultists who have slaughtered thousands of Americans and hope to slaughter millions more--is "beneath us." How about a South Park episode that makes fun of Mohammed, or some cartoons that mock him, or a film that exposes brutalization of women by Muslims? Are those things "beneath us," too?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 332
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:55:49 PM
^^^^^What was Obama doing by sending FBI agents to talk to that guy? He hasn't broken any laws, nor was he planning to. Apparently some other group is also planning to burn the Koran. Maybe someone can organize a march and cap it off with a bonfire where they burn 10,000 of them. Invite Rauf and his buddies.

Or how about displaying artworks showing the Koran in a jar of urine, or Mohammed seducing a young boy? How would they prohibit *that* without violating the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech? If tens of thousands of people started doing these things, what could the Islamists do about it? Order them all killed?

The Islamists think they're clever to use our freedoms against us. I don't see why we shouldn't use our freedoms against them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 333
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/10/2010 7:48:14 AM
Jones is a dope, all right, but I don't see how he's dangerous.

I'm not surprised the Germans would have done that. The people who have been studying this subject for years agree that laws like that, which also exist in the Netherlands, Canada, and other countries, show just how far Islamists have progressed there. They've intimidated the locals into protecting their sensibilities with laws. And they've used the threat of violence--terrorism-- to do it.

Ordering Salman Rushdie to be killed for writing a book the Khomeinists in Iran considered blasphemy, rioting all over because an obscure Danish paper published cartoons making fun of Mohammed, rioting and killing in Nigeria because of a beauty pageant which offended Islamists, hacking Mr. Van Gogh to death in the street for making a film about Islamist brutality to women, and a lot of other savagery like that has rattled people. So much so, that even one person's vague threat on a website (for which he's since been arrested) was enough to cow the creators of South Park into eliminating part of an episode that joked about Mohammed.

But that's changing. Germany finally shut down the mosque which was a breeding ground for all sorts of jihadism, including the 9/11 plot. Ms. Merkel's government is also under pressure to stop letting Hamburg be the center of a huge trade with Iran, which gives the Revolutionary Guard hundreds of millions of dollars each year to spend on terrorism. France is reacting against Islamic agitation and rioting in all-Muslim towns, where the residents want to make their own laws. The Dutch politician Gert Wilders is fighting attempts to prosecute him for speaking out against Islamist brutality and intolerance. Mark Steyn, a conservative writer, is fighting the same sort of witch-hunting by Canada.

And here, as long as we support the Constitution, at least, people will never be silenced. I don't see why anyone should care whether Muslims are offended by this or that. Too bad. All sorts of vile slurs against Christianity have offended Christians, too. And most Americans feel angry and disgusted when they see Nazis marching, or see our flag being burned. But no one seriously claims we can make laws against doing those things, just because they're offensive.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 334
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/10/2010 8:03:38 AM
Here's an article by Michelle Malkin about this same subject. Notice how many times Muslims here or there have engaged in or threatened violence over all sorts of supposed slights to Islam. That's why a lot of them are just not compatible with a civilized society.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246165/eternal-flame-muslim-outrage-michelle-malkin
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 335
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/10/2010 1:56:26 PM
the reason why the Twin Towers were chosen, is because they are the symbol of America and the Western civilization to the Jihadists


That's part of the reason, for sure, but I suspect there's more. Ramzi Yousef, who made the bomb set off under the WTC in 1993, links that attack to 9/11. In 1994, he went from Pakistan to Manila with the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They and three other men planned to blow up several U.S. airliners each day for several days. The bombs would be timed to bring the planes down over water, so that it would be hard to recover evidence.

That plot backfired, but not before Yousef had tested a couple of these bombs, which used nitroglycerin set off by a wristwatch. He left one under a seat in a theater, where it gave several people a surprise ending to their movie. He also mixed one up in the restroom on a flight, put it under a seat, and got off at the next connection. On the next leg of the flight, it blew a hole in the plane big enough to suck a young Japanese man halfway out. Other passengers finally pulled him back in, but he'd almost been cut in two and soon died. Only some very skillful flying by the pilot saved everyone else from being killed, too.

So Yousef had *almost* brought down the Twin Towers, and then he'd *almost* brought down an Philippine airliner. But not quite. Each time, the bomb had barely missed doing the job. So one night, as he and KSM talked about mass murder, Yousef told him his idea. Instead of planting bombs under buildings or in airplanes, make the plane itself an even bigger bomb, by flying it into a large building. KSM, a private pilot himself, liked that idea. And seven years later, long after Yousef had been sent to prison, he put it into effect.

The original reason the jihadists chose the WTC in 1992 was to kill as many Jews as possible. One of their pals, a lunatic named Nosair, was in Attica for murdering the Jewish extremist Meir Kahane. He was bitter, and he wanted them to avenge him on various Jews who had been involved with his trial. They agreed, and they began to talk about bigger things. How about all the Jews who worked in the Trade Center--if only they could get them, too! After the "Blind Sheikh," the spiritual adviser of the Muslim Brotherhood, got word of the private revenge plot, it expanded into something much more ambitious. And soon expert help was brought in from overseas.

I don't claim to know that the original reason for picking the WTC survived until 9/11. But considering how much everyone involved in both attacks hated Jews, I think it probably was one consideration.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 336
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 9/10/2010 5:56:20 PM
Mr. Clinton batted zero. He spent eight years doing almost nothing as Islamic jihadists plotted against and attacked the U.S. time and again--at the Trade Center in 1993; again in New York as the "Blind Shaikh" and the Hassan Turabi regime in Sudan plotted to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and the U.N. building; in the "Bojinka" plot in Manila to kill thousands of Americans by bombing airliners; at Mogadishu, Somalia, where Bin Laden sent jihadists to help local Islamist thugs kill U.S. special forces; at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. air force personnel were killed by a bomb in 1996; and in Yemen, where the cruiser Cole was bombed in 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

When Clinton had the perfect chance to kill Bin Laden in 1996, he refused, because we couldn't prove he'd committed any crimes. And besides, a party of Saudi falconers was close to his location outside Kandahar and might have been hit by a missile attack. An investigation of the foreign connections with the 1993 Trade Center bombing--including a connection with Saddam Hussein--would have revealed that foreign Islamic jihadists had conspired to murder Americans en masse in America. But Mr. Clinton told Janet Reno to treat the whole thing as nothing but a domestic crime. He didn't want to acknowledge what was unfolding in the world, because if he had, he would have been obliged to do something serious about it.

But it's convenient for Mr. Clinton's followers to blame Mr. Bush for the fact a catastrophe finally happened--after Clinton had spent eight years practically inviting it.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >