Two Men on United Flight from Chicago Arrested on 'Preparation of a Terrorist Attack' in Amsterdam
Suspects Had Been Cleared Sunday by TSA in Chicago, Birmingham Despite Security Concerns.
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/db70dab6524f0330b995a061176a6266-297.html

That's already been laid out about a dozen times.

Due process maybe.

First comes evidence. Then comes investigation. Then comes whatever comes of it.

If this doesn't occur then what you end up with is something like Obama's assassination program

I have no problem whatsoever with assassinating an enemy combatant who's actively engaged in war on the battlefield.

Then there's reason to believe that the person is not a moderate but a Hamas sympathizer, as evidenced on the YOUTUBE video I showed you of past self-proclaimed "moderates" who are in jail right now. (I'm assuming you even bothered to watch it.)

Then you get to look at even more statements that the self-proclaimed "moderate" has made on record. Like blaming America instead of Saddam for starving children in Iraq. And accusations of America having more blood on its hands than al Qaeda. And America being partially responsible for the 9/11 attack. Etc.

Then, of course, there's the name "Cordoba," and the "bridge building" goal which has turned out to be anything but, and the adamant refusal to consider any other building, including free property, and the plan to fund-raise in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and imam Rauf himself presently telling lies on his tax-paid mission.

I'm not quite sure what kind of "evidence" you believe is needed for grounds for suspicion, but there's plenty right there, given what we already know of the classic M.O. of radical imams posing as moderates.

Shockingly enough, with radical Islamists at war with America, it's not incumbent upon us to automatically take a self-proclaimed moderate at his word. When questions arise over his statements and actions, he's the one who gets to explain himself.

If this doesn't occur then what you end up with is something like Obama's assassination program:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/08/30/assassinations

Then what if they won't say Hamas is a terrorist organization? I personally know many moderate Muslims who would say they don't agree w/ the tactics of Hamas but would also condemn the Israelis. Does this make these Muslims terrorists? Do you arrest them? Kick them out of the country? What's the rest of your policy?

And what constitutes a non-moderate sentiment? And who determines what constitutes a non-moderate sentiment?

And how do we prove to them that we're moderate Americans? Do they get to ask us if we condemn the Israeli invasion of Palestine? Or the Iraq War?

Still trying to figure out how your plan works. It seems very arbitrary and subject to the prevailing pundit winds of the day. It would be nice to establish some principles based on something a little less circumstantial.

-David

"...But making these kind of distinctions doesn’t require us to suspend all judgment where would-be Islamic moderates are concerned. Instead, dialogue needs to coexist with pressure: Figures like Ramadan and now Rauf should be held to a high standard by their non-Muslim interlocutors, and their forays into more dubious territory should be greeted with swift pushback, rather than simply being accepted as a necessary part of the moderate Muslim package. (This is particularly true because Westerners have a long record of seeing what they want to see in self-proclaimed Islamic reformers, from the Ayatollah Khomeini down to Anwar Al Awlaki, and failing to recognize extremism when it’s staring them in the face.) And what’s troubling about some of the liberal reaction to the Cordoba Initiative controversy is that it seems to regard this kind of pressure as illegitimate and dangerous in and of itself — as though the First Amendment protects the right of Rauf and Co. to build their mosque and cultural center, but not the right of critics to scrutinize Rauf’s moderate bona fides, parse some of his more disturbing comments, and raise doubts about the benefits (to American Islam as well as to America) of having him set up shop as an arbiter of Muslim-Western dialogue in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center...."
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/acbf20e34949283ebf0b73a82d7ee519-294.html

Well, jeepers, that's odd. Last I checked, opponents consisted of 70-some-odd percent of NYers and about 67% of Americans nationwide. I do believe "moderate" Imam Rauf if telling lies on his tax-dollar-paid Kumbaya tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHnfFLZ9XU&feature=player_embedded

That one's in 4 parts.

Or you can just watch them on my site, since I put them there for your convenience and ease.

Still not sure what the plan is, CB. It sounds like first we ask all of the Muslims in America if they think Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Is that what I said? Maybe you should read my post again, where I state that when a self-described moderate espouses non-moderate sentiments, we should ask THAT person the question.

p.s. Post your Youtube videos here if you want me to look at them. On the web, clicks are currency. And I would rather not contribute to your site.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. There are no ads on my site, and I'm not an affiliate of Google Ads or any other online ad organization. I make zero money when you click on my site. I created that site so that my friends could finds things easily, in one place, rather than have to (for instance) hunt around for parts of movies on YouTube. But if you'd rather do that, for God knows what reason, here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=player_embedded

It's split into 10 parts. Have fun finding them.

Still not sure what the plan is, CB. It sounds like first we ask all of the Muslims in America if they think Hamas is a terrorist organization.

If they answer, no, then what? How do you intend to separate terrorists from moderate Muslims? What's the plan?

Cheers
-David

p.s. Post your Youtube videos here if you want me to look at them. On the web, clicks are currency. And I would rather not contribute to your site.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/30/new.york.islamic.center.campaign/index.html

Religious freedom isn't even the issue, but that aside, this provides great cover and support for an Imam who — for all the Left knows — is another Alamoudi. And if you don't know who Alamoudi is, type "Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi" into Wikipedia and read the biography.

Rauf needs to be asked one very simple question: "Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no." He has yet to answer "yes" to that question, and the Left needs to start, at the very least, WONDERING why.

The second thing is that the Left understands that the holy warriors, inside the United States, use mosques as recruitment centers and money-funneling operations. So conservatives would like for liberals to stop immediately leaping to the defense of "moderate" mosque builders and owners who come under fire and concentrate on WHAT they're under fire for: in this case, we have Imam Rauf on record as having espoused all the classic NON-MODERATE rhetoric.

So instead of auto-defending him, how about questioning WHY he's espousing classic anti-American rhetoric while claiming to be a moderate. IOW, consider the (distinct) possibility that he — like other self-proclaimed moderates, who've turned out, instead, to be working for the enemy and are presently sitting in prison — may not be the moderate he says he is. Become aware of the WARNING SIGNS and when they present themselves, THINK before politically correctly leaping to defend him. That is the very least you can do for your country, since phony Imams, working from the inside to bring Sharia to America, are part and parcel of this holy war.

Did you bother to watch the ad-free YOUTUBE film I directed you to?

How does your vision differ from the 2-pronged strategy I discussed previously? Who do you want to investigate and for what reasons?

I'd be more impressed if conservatives would stop with all the fearmongering and tell us what they want to do. But I guess that would just be silly, eh?

Cheers
David

Yeah, those "statistically zero" terrorists have been conducting a holy war all around the world, with plenty of innocent dead "infidels" under their belts. But, hey, as long as there's a neat little chart to downplay it all — and to casually leave off the Muslim SYPATHIZERS of the holy warriors — let's just forget that that we've got the enemy right here in this country, planning ways to kill innocent Americans as we speak.

Next time this country is attacked, let's all print out our chart and hold it up, to prove that we really don't have anything to be concerned about.

You must be pretty desperate, CB, if the best you've got is "get real" :)

I realize you're trying to generate traffic for your website. But "get real, come visit my website" isn't working for me.

As I stated before, I don't click on advertising.

Nobody's accused or suspected of anything UNTIL such time as (for instance) they're asked if they perceive Hamas as a terrorist organization and they can't bring themselves to say "yes." That's a major tip-off to anyone with common sense. Get real, David.

We have to discover who they are first, David. The bad guys, posing as "moderates," are mixed in with the good guys. So the way to figure out who's who is to look for classic warning signs, e.g., an Imam who claims he's "moderate" though refuses to state that Hamas is a terrorist organization. That's the point at which we need to question if that Imam is genuinely "moderate."

This will explain it all. For your own sake, please watch it: http://chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

And it you don't have time to watch the whole thing right now, at least watch the first two parts. They're just a couple of minutes each.

I noticed you still didn't answer the question. What about the Muslims you're targeting who aren't terrorists?

And, what's your process for distinguishing between those who are and those who aren't terrorists?

I guess, using your definition, if they disagree with you, they're pro-terrorist. Because you're anti-terrorist and the only other option is pro-terrorist.

Whew, that's gonna be a lot people. Not just Muslims.

What do you do with all of us once you define us as pro-terrorist?

I'd just like to know where you're going with all of this.

If targeting terrorists is a problem for Muslims, well then that is a prime indication of where their sympathies lay, now isn't it?

No. I think it's an indication of anger at being unjustly accused and suspected of being a terrorist. Would you like being suspected of being a terrorist?

Let's see. So what you're saying is you're anti-terrorist and anyone who disagrees with you is pro-terrorist?

You're being ridiculous again, Michale. We just have different views of how to combat terrorism. I'm anti-terrorist too. I just disagree with your views on how best to address terrorism.

The difference between us is that you're trying to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist.

Yes, I agree that we should work with and win over moderates.. But moderates need to PROVE that they are moderates.

So how do you intend to have 1.5 Billion Muslims prove they are not terrorists?

I'm curious to know what you're thinking here.

And ... do we have to prove to them that we're moderate? I think this would only be fair.

Cheers
David

How can you even THINK that that person is a moderate??

That's why I keep asking: What does a self-proclaimed "moderate" have to say or do to raise a liberal's suspicion?

Sorry, CB. I don't click on advertisements. Post here if you'd like me to read.

Huh? It's my website. It's a like to a video.

Michale, once again still no answer. Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

I think targeting more TERRORISTS is likely to decrease the number of terrorists..

If targeting terrorists is a problem for Muslims, well then that is a prime indication of where their sympathies lay, now isn't it?

Anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who has a problem with aggressively targeting terrorists is someone who is not much worth anything anyways...

One is either PRO-terrorist or ANTI-terrorist...

There is no gray area, despite the common misconception on the Left..

No one is arguing this, Michale. I just believe that an important part of our strategy should be to win over the moderates. Something you already said you agree with.

Yes, I agree that we should work with and win over moderates.. But moderates need to PROVE that they are moderates.. We cannot, we WILL NOT just assume they are moderates because they say they are.

It sounds like that's what you want to do.

When you have a Muslim who SAYS he is a moderate, but says things like the US has more blood on their hands then Al Qaeda and that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks....

How can you even THINK that that person is a moderate??

Michale.....

No one is arguing this, Michale. I just believe that an important part of our strategy should be to win over the moderates. Something you already said you agree with.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "being nice to terrorists" thing. I'm all for going after those who commit terrorist crimes and taking preventative measures (common ground). But I also believe that this strategy alone is not strong enough. And, I also believe that by doing things like targeting 80% of American mosques, we lose the support of the moderates.

So basically I'm not sure who you're arguing with.

Cheers
David

http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

Sorry, CB. I don't click on advertisements. Post here if you'd like me to read.

Michale, once again still no answer. Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

-David

http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

ROFL. One would think so. Especially since it's the same behavior exhibited by former "moderates" who are now sitting in jail cells on various terrorism-related charges.

Let me ask you this...

Let's say you take a trip to Islamabad, Pakistan. Or Baghdad, Iraq. Or Somalia. Or Yemen.

Do you think it would be safe to assume a politically correct attitude that not all Muslims are terrorists??

I mentioned Berg and Pearl previously. They assumed that not all Muslims are terrorists.

Look where that got them...

But what really irks me is not that the Left wants to live by their ideals and principles. I find that admirable. Berg and Pearl lived by their ideals and principles as well. They also died for them.

No, what irks me is that the Left would have their ideals and principles IMPOSED on the rest of us who would prefer to go on living rather than having their principles...

There are several officers of the US Army who were in a direct position to stop the Hasan massacre before it started..

Can you imagine the living hell they are going thru, knowing that they let political correctness influence their decisions and now 13 people are dead because of it?

What we need is a little more common sense and a LOT less political correctness..

When you have a religious leader who won't label a known and proven terrorist group AS a terrorist group, when he says that the US has more blood on it's hands than Al Qaeda and says that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, then isn't it COMMON SENSE to suspect that something is untoward??

Hasan gave MANY of the exact same indications and those indications were ignored...

And we know the result..

Do you want to wait until there are more deaths at the hands of terrorists connected with Rauf and the Cordoba Group?? Or isn't it more logical to be PRO-ACTIVE and investigate the group fully.. And maybe STOP those deaths??

I'll take option B...

Michale.....

I can hardly see terrorists on that graph. Looks to me to be pretty close to statistically zero.

Well, those "statistically zero" terrorists did quite a bit o damage about 9 years ago...

The point is, they should have been ALL but eliminated if, as you claim, the majority of Muslims do not support and condone terrorism.

How can such a "statistically zero" group still thrive in the face of 1.5 BILLION Muslims against them??

The fact is, they couldn't.. IF the vast majority of those 1.5 Billion Muslims were actually against terrorism and not supporting it..

Huh? This question doesn't make any sense. No one's being politically correct towards terrorists.

How do you know your not?? The Cordoba Mosque group may be a total hotbed of terrorist activity.. And you don't want to have them investigated for fear of being politically incorrect...

I don't know how familiar you are with the Palestinian issue, Michale. But after WWII, a lot of Jews got together and decided they would create a new country around what they saw as their holy land. To do this, they had to do something with the people who lived there. And they've been doing something with these people ever since. I think it's far more likely this is the reason for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah

I am intimately familiar with the Palestinian issue.

But once again, we are back to your position that, if we be nice to terrorists, they will stop being terrorists..

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support such a claim and boo-koo (it's an industry term) evidence to support the contrary..

We could ask Nicholas Berg or Daniel Pearl.

Oh wait. No we can't. Because they were butchered by terrorists..

Yes, we know, CB. We get it. It's all liberals fault. Everything. That's what I keep tell you.

No one is saying that. But I have noticed that you always respond in this off the cuff humorous/sarcastic manner when you are backed into a corner..

It is undeniable that political correctness very much contributed to the Hasan attack...

And it is this kind of political correctness that is on display here.

Let me ask you. Do you think it's a good idea to investigate the Cordoba Group and it's funding to make SURE that there are no terrorist ties??

It's a simple yes or no question..

p.s. I hate to say it, but I'm waiting for the moment when some conservative pundit just comes out and calls for investigations of liberals. I used to think there was no way this could ever happen, but lately, it seems more and more likely.

You mean like when Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation of those that oppose the Cordoba Mosque???

Is THAT the kind of "investigations" you mean???

Michale.....

Sooner or later I think someone will quit insinuating and start screaming. Seems to be the modus operandi.

Any takers on this bet?

Yes, we know, CB. We get it. It's all liberals fault. Everything. That's what I keep tell you.

We need to get these insidious liberals out of office before their political correctness destroys Christmas. And puppies.

Liberals. What will they destroy next?

Paid for by the committee to elect a Republican Congress in 2010

It's hard to take you seriously, CB, when your conclusion is always the same. No matter what the topic. It's the liberals. The liberals done it.

At least Michale has an independent streak in him. You just seem to be all anti-liberal, all the time, 24x7.

Not that you're aware of at the time you're doing it. It's not until after the "moderate" Imam or so-called peaceful Muslim organization has been exposed as a terrorist-linked, and people are arrested and convicted, can one look back at how political correctness enabled them to get as far as they did. Hasan is perfect example of that.

I can hardly see terrorists on that graph. Looks to me to be pretty close to statistically zero.

Are you sure you're not looking at another graph? :)

Doesn't that make MORE sense then worrying about being politically correct towards terrorists?

Huh? This question doesn't make any sense. No one's being politically correct towards terrorists.

And if that is the reality, as all the evidence clearly shows, then doesn't it behoove us, as Americans, to be vigilant against Islamic terrorism?

Sure. But let's do it within the law and within our principles. This shows that we are for freedom of religion and are not trying to deny anyone this fundamental right and that we are not getting sucked into some kind of Holy War that extremists want us to get sucked into.

Or is the reality that the vast majority of Muslims SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE the Islamic terrorists and THAT is why the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah have been allowed to flourish as Islamic terrorist organizations?

You're doing it again. Confusing terrorists with Muslims.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Palestinian issue, Michale. But after WWII, a lot of Jews got together and decided they would create a new country around what they saw as their holy land. To do this, they had to do something with the people who lived there. And they've been doing something with these people ever since. I think it's far more likely this is the reason for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

And I noticed you didn't answer this question: Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

Would you rather have less than 10,000 terrorists? Or 1.5 billion?

Cheers, off to beers,
David

So "political correctness" is ignoring the First Amendment?

No, political correctness is ignoring obvious warning signs for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings..

Give you a fer instance...

In the state of AZ, it's perfectly OK to walk around while armed with handguns..

Now, in this office, you have a guy who always comes to work armed.. Perfectly legal to do..

But the guy is a hothead, always getting into arguments with people. But, because everyone wants to be politically correct, no one says anything to him about it... Mustn't tread on the guys rights and all that, right??? Mustn't hurt his feelings or anything..

Til one day the guy just snaps and shoots everyone in the office...

THAT is a case of political correctness trumping public safety..

Ironically enough, it's nearly identical to the Hasan/Fort Hood situation, except you substitute a terrorist sympathizer for the hothead...

Doesn't this mean you can ignore the Constitution whenever you want?

No, it means that you show a little common sense and realize that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.. You realize that if it's a choice between being politically correct and obeying the Constitution to the letter and taking a bullet to the head or saying, "Frak his rights, I am going to survive" guess which one common sense dictates???

Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

The point of the graph is why can't 1.5 Billion Muslims eliminate Al Qaeda instead of supporting terrorists???

If things are as YOU say and that the vast majority of Muslims are AGAINST terrorists and terrorism, then Islamic terrorism would be all but eliminated..

IF things are as YOU claim them to be...

Or is the reality that the vast majority of Muslims SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE the Islamic terrorists and THAT is why the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah have been allowed to flourish as Islamic terrorist organizations??

And if that is the reality, as all the evidence clearly shows, then doesn't it behoove us, as Americans, to be vigilant against Islamic terrorism??? I mean, since the US is the prime target of Islamic terrorism, doesn't it make sense to guard AGAINST terrorism, rather than make it EASIER for terrorists to attack us??

Doesn't that make MORE sense then worrying about being politically correct towards terrorists??

I can see why Matt likes it.

Yea, well he has his own issues, to be sure.. :D

Like maybe Spring Break is called Spring Break because Easter is never on the same day each year.

Yet it was perfectly fine for decades.. Until POLITICALLY CORRECT became the vogue... :D

I wish we were powerful enough to have a vast conspiracy which could rename holidays. But ... to put the joke back on us ... do you think liberals could ever truly be that coordinated? :)

Apparently so... They took back control of Congress and the White House...

However temporarily... :D

Michale.....

Meanwhile, for you, David: Y'know how one of the big liberal kneejerk defenses for "moderate" Rauf is that he helped the FBI? We also have a history of phony moderates doing that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PgmFH_8fRU

Helping law enforcement is how these radical Imams help build credibility and "moderate" reputations for themselves.

So "political correctness" is ignoring the First Amendment? I thought you wanted to restore our country to its Constitutional roots. Conservatives are so confusing. One minute they're screaming "Constitution, Constitution, Constitution ..." The next they're saying, well, the Constitution's all well and good, but we can ignore it just by saying the words "national security" and clicking our heels.

Doesn't this mean you can ignore the Constitution whenever you want?

I just don't think you're taking this seriously, CB. What you're talking about is putting millions of lives at stake rather than just single incidents like Ft. Hood. Instead of freedom for all, what you want America to stand for is freedom for some. When Al Qaeda attacked us their goal was to provoke the U.S. into attacking indiscriminately, harming the innocent as well as the guilty. They expected this reaction and counted on it to build support. And when we invaded Iraq, we created a whole country of potential terrorists. Now you want to create 18 million more potential terrorists (thx for the graph, Michale) by associating more Muslims with terrorists.

Seriously?

Al Qaeda represents around 10,000 of that 1.5 Billion, which is like what??? .00000001% or something like that??

That's a great graph, Michale. Thanks for sharing. I can see why Matt likes it.

.00000001%. Statistically, that's zero.

Zero would be desirable. I know you'll agree. But if you listen to security experts, they say zero is impossible. You can't make computers 100% secure. You can't eliminate 100% of crime or terror. Unless you have precognition. All you can do is try to reduce the probability.

And that graph, to me, looks like the probability is pretty damn close. Meaning that our culture and Muslim culture does a good job of creating non-terrorists.

Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

Cheers
David

While I wouldn't subscribe to the "war on Christmas" theory, it is undeniable that there is a co-ordinated effort to curtail CHRISTIAN religious freedoms.

LOL. You either believe it or you don't, Michale.

You can't say you don't believe it and then in the same sentence say that there's some kind of coordinated anti-Christian movement.

I guess you instead believe in the War on Christians. And the War on Christmas is just one small battle in this war. But it's a much larger conspiracy than just Xmas!!! (Whups, I slipped up. Now you know that I'm part of the vast scheme to take the Christ out of Christmas!!!!)

Ok, ok. I'm sorry. But yunno. Maybe there's other explanations than a vast conspiracy. Like maybe Spring Break is called Spring Break because Easter is never on the same day each year.

I wish we were powerful enough to have a vast conspiracy which could rename holidays. But ... to put the joke back on us ... do you think liberals could ever truly be that coordinated? :)

Political correctness compromising national security. Right there you have a perfect portrait of it.

You yourself said the guy was a whack job, Michale. And now you're going to blame it all on liberal political correctness.

Well, I said he was a "fruitcake", but "whack job" will also do nicely.. :D

Secondly, I am not blaming it "all" on political correctness. I am very big into "personal responsibility" and Hasan needs to "have a heapin' helpin' " of it...

But it is undeniable that political correctness and the "hands off Muslims" attitude played a BIG part in the massacre..

Hasan would not have been in a position to take those lives if the military had did it's job and not worried about what our political leaders and the hysterical Left might have thought...

While I wouldn't subscribe to the "war on Christmas" theory, it is undeniable that there is a co-ordinated effort to curtail CHRISTIAN religious freedoms.

Why do you think we have "Spring Break" instead of Easter Vacation?? Why do you think we have "Winter Break" instead of Christmas Vacation??

Because those on the Left made it happen by their co-ordinated effort to curtail the religious freedom of Christians...

Which is why it is so hypocritical and ironic that the Left is so up in arms about pushing religious freedom for the Cordoba Mosque..

It's almost as if the **LEFT** thinks that Islam is "Anti American" so the Left wants to give Islam all the freedom it wants...

Intellectually, I know this is not true, but you can't help but wonder what is prompting the religious freedom crusade of the Cordoba Mosque issue..

Speaking of Islam, there is a pretty nifty graph that was brought to my attention this morning..

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7py0hxcyx1qblt18o1_500.jpg

Now take a look at this graph...

According to this graph, there are approx 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world..

Al Qaeda represents around 10,000 of that 1.5 Billion, which is like what??? .00000001% or something like that??

Now, this begs the question..

How could Al Qaeda exist under the "scorn" and "condemnation" of 1.5 BILLION Muslims??

The fact is, it couldn't....

Ergo, there IS no scorn or condemnation against Al Qaeda coming from the vast majority of those 1.5 Billion Muslims..

Only support and approval...

I want to thank Osborne Ink for bringing this graph to my attention. It really shows better than anything else, the exact threat that radical Islam represents to the safety and security of this country in the form of those 1.5 Billion Muslims.

Michale.....

There's a little more at stake than that, David. This isn't about politics and partisanship; this is about national security. We have a documented history of radical Islamists inside this country assuming phony, "moderate" fronts, who depend upon political correctness to shield them AND aid their efforts. And it's incumbent upon every American to not only be informed of this very serious problem but to take warning signs seriously; not just automatically leap to the defense of any Muslim who cries "Islamaphobia!" When a do-gooder's rhetoric does not jive with his "moderate" label or so-called noble mission, you have to ask questions, NOT immediately attack anyone who dares to raise them. These phony moderates are counting on you to do just that.

[excerpt] Consider Bob, who feels so offended by antimosque activists in his state of Tennessee that these feelings alone drive him to support more mosques—without prior thought to what, exactly, he's supporting. "I found local citizens to be intolerant and un-American," Bob tells me over email. "So as a gesture of tolerance and Americanism, I donated to the mosque building fund."

I am not saying that Bob should cast his lot with antimosque demonstrators. I am simply saying he should not give them the power to commandeer his brain by hijacking his heart.
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/c54e21182d8df7abd80535099833ee15-259.html

That article is well worth reading. This is not a gotcha game between political parties. This is a very real, concerted effort going on inside our borders by radical Islamist posers, hell-bent on turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation.

Well, if the 1st Amendment is "political correctness", I'll be happy to take credit for that as a liberal. See? Liberals created our Constitution.

We sure are a powerful bunch.

Reading between the lines ... hmmm. I'll take my quatloos now, please.

Do you find anything ironic about raging against political correctness and everything liberals say at the same time?

Yunno ... you feel you're being silenced ... or some other conservative viewpoint is being silenced ... so you shout out against the enemy you're told is doing this to you. Even though no one ever really did to you until you shouted out your opinion in the first place.

It's kinda like the phony war on Christmas. The media tells you that liberals are warring against Xmas and are anti-Christian. So you have to defend yourself. And fight back against the liberals. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

The same pattern repeats with the mosque story. The media strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives. A mosque is going to be built. And liberals aren't doing anything to stop it The conservatives go after the liberals. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

It's the same with the Tea Party. They're telling you your freedoms are threatened by liberal communists. So you need to go after the liberals and take our country back. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

After a while, you start to see the pattern. Like a broken record, as my mom would say.

I bet the people in the story factory get a kick out of all the power they have in turning folks against each other.

Just some random thoughts late on a Thursday night.

G'nite all!
David

Cheers
David

Well, you can believe the report issued for public consumption..

Or, you can look at the facts...

Internal investigations
Main article: Joint Terrorism Task Force
The FBI noted that Hasan had first been brought to their attention in December 2008 by a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). Communications between Hasan and al-Awlaki, and other similar communications, were reviewed and considered to be consistent with Hasan's research on radical beliefs at the Walter Reed Medical Center. "Because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else derogatory was found, the JTTF concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning." However, both the FBI and the Department of Defense plan to review if this assessment was handled correctly.[108]
FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed William Webster, a former director of the FBI, to conduct an independent FBI review of the bureau's handling of possible warning signs from Hasan. The review is expected to be long-term and in-depth, with Webster selected for the job due to being, as Mueller put it, "uniquely qualified" for such a review.[116]
On January 15, 2010, the Department of Defense released the findings of the departmental investigation, which found that the Department was unprepared to defend against internal threats. Secretary Robert Gates said that previous incidents had not drawn enough attention to workplace violence and "self-radicalization" within the military. He also suggested that some officials may be held responsible for not drawing attention to Hasan prior to the shooting.[117] The Department report did not touch upon Hasan's motivations, including his multiple contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, and his yelling "Allahu Akhbar" as he began the attack.[118]
James Corum, a retired Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Dean at the Baltic Defence College in Estonia, called the Defense Department report "a travesty", for failing to mention Hasan's devotion to Islam and his radicalization prior to the attack.[119] Texas Representative John Carter was also critical of the report, saying he felt the government was "afraid to be accused of profiling somebody".[120] John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, said he felt that the report "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become."[118] Similarly, columnist Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote: "Even ... if the report's purpose was to craft lessons to prevent future attacks, how could they leave out radical Islam?"[121] The leaders of the investigation, former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Admiral Vernon Clark, responded to criticism by saying their "concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations", and that they did not want to conflict with the criminal investigation on Hasan that was under way.[118]
In February 2010 the Boston Globe obtained a confidential internal report detailing results of the Army's investigation. According to the Globe, the report concluded officers within the Army were aware of Hasan's tendencies toward radical Islam since 2005, and adduced one incident in 2007 in which Hasan gave a classroom presentation titled "Is the War on Terrorism a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective". The instructor interrupted Hasan's presentation as it appeared he was justifying terrorism, according to the Globe. Despite receiving complaints about this presentation, and other statements suggestive of his conflicted loyalties, Hasan's superior officers took no action, believing Hasan's comments were protected under the First Amendment and that having a Muslim psychiatrist contributed to diversity. However, the investigation noted Hasan's statements might have been grounds for removing him from service as the First Amendment did not apply to soldiers the same way as for civilians.[122]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

Even a civilian could read between the lines of this and realize that the military feared being accused of discrimination against Islam..

Political correctness doomed the Fort Hood victims..

Michale.....

Really? That's what the report said?

You willing to put some money on that, Michale?

Specifically, I'd like to bet you that the report didn't say "his superiors were afraid to take action because of the politically correct attitude fostered by the Obama Administration that said, 'Hands Off Muslims!'"

I don't know which report you're referring to, but the DoD report classified this as an act of workplace violence.

How about a friendly 10 million quatloos if an official report actually says that?

:)
-David

Report I read: http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf

From the previews, it looks like season 2 of "24."

It made me consider that even MORE torture is necessary, if you can believe that....

I mean, you got to feel for Samuel Jackson. He is the real hero in the movie....

Michale.....

And who conducted this research?

BTW, that's fine and dandy if, in fact, the mosque is a "moderate" mosque. Problem is, radical Islamists like to pose as moderates, to trick folks. Get it? Remember that nice "moderate" Alamoudi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxoPMzBSuQ

From the previews, it looks like season 2 of "24."

Following the Mosque Money Trail
A closer look at controversial developer behind Ground Zero Islamic center.
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d18f41b1d62292eb9756932640176c38-252.html

One minute Sharif el-Gamal is waiting tables. Next thing ya know, he's purchasing the Burlington building for $4.8M... cash.

What the research shows is that moderate mosques and a strong sense of community can reduce terrorist recruiting.

OK.. Good.. Common ground again. :D

But, look at all the evidence piling up that indicates the Cordoba Mosque would NOT be a "moderate" mosque..

The chosen name "Cordoba".

Statements of the Imam that fault US policies that makes the US an "accessory" to the 9/11 Attacks. Rauf's refusal to label HAMAS a terrorist group. Rauf's claim that the US has more blood on their hands then Al Qaeda.

Rauf's wife's claims that extremists are watching this issue and she implies that New York will be attacked if the Cordoba Mosque isn't built.

The leader of the developer group walks out of a news conference when asked if he will meet with the 9/11 families that oppose the Cordoba Mosque.

These are NOT the statements and actions of "moderate" Muslims..

C'mon Michale. Do you really have any evidence that his actions are the result of any type of outreach program?

Have you read the AA reports??

They show that there were MANY indications that Hasan was becoming a radicalized Muslim. But his superiors were afraid to take action because of the politically correct attitude fostered by the Obama Administration that said, "Hands Off Muslims!"

So, yes.. The evidence clearly shows beyond ANY doubt that this sort of "outreach to Muslim" mentality directly contributed to the Hasan massacre.

This guy is a guy who's unhinged. Someone who can't be won over. I'm not arguing for trying to win him over. I'm arguing for keeping the moderates from becoming terrorists. Part II of the strategy.

There's no doubt that Hasan was a fruitcake... But, if the Obama administration hadn't pushed this "Outreach" mentality, Hasan would have been stopped long before he killed all those people.

p.s. Movies and TV are interesting, but I'd rather not base policy on them.

The nice thing about TV, Movies and other fiction is it allows us to examine possibilities without the tragic loss of life.. They allows us to challenge our pre-conceived notions (hint, hint) in an environment that is safe.

9/11 was just a Tom Clancy book..... Until it wasn't.

You can bet that UNTHINKABLE *has* happened, except not on the scale portrayed. You can also bet that UNTHINKABLE *will* happen just on that scale in the near future.

If you watch it, you will see what I mean..

Michale.....

Moderates aren't trying to do that. They're assimilating into American life and laws. Radicals are the ones who want Muslims in America to have Sharia courts (similar to the mess going on in the U.K.) And the fraudulent, so-called "moderate" Rauf supports it. Hence, his waxing poetic about how similar Sharia is to the Constitution, which is patently absurd on its face, given that women are anything but equal under Sharia, and not to mention, there isn't exactly a separation of church and state going on with Sharia. Sharia law applies to all aspects of Islamic life: religion, government and politics.

Yet right away, there you are, immediately buying right into his utterly bogus description and comparison: no questions asked.

I think you need to learn a bit more about Sharia law, D. It is, in and of itself, extremist. And Rauf supports it.

I don't think anyone said anything about addressing complaints from terrorists. This is what always confuses me so much about both you and Chris - I'm never sure where you're getting all these ideas.

What the research shows is that moderate mosques and a strong sense of community can reduce terrorist recruiting.

Again, the strategy I believe in includes two parts. The second part is: win over the moderates. Keep them from becoming terrorists.

Hasan's attack on Fort Hood is a DIRECT result of the exact kind of "outreach" that you propose.

C'mon Michale. Do you really have any evidence that his actions are the result of any type of outreach program?

This guy is a guy who's unhinged. Someone who can't be won over. I'm not arguing for trying to win him over. I'm arguing for keeping the moderates from becoming terrorists. Part II of the strategy.

I think Petraeus' strategy is very similarly two-pronged. And there's evidence that moderate influences can limit terrorist recruiting.

Yet he's serving it up as something that would fit right in with American law.

Rauf talked about his view of Shariah law. CB, you're talking about some extremist view. I'm not sure how this relates to Rauf. Once again, it looks like you're associating moderates with someone else's extremist view.

Now CB. You've said on one hand, no one's saying all Muslims are terrorists. Yet on the other hand, you keep trying to associate moderates with terrorists by bringing up all kinds of scary scenarios of moderate Muslims trying to take over the U.S.

It's getting harder and harder to give your arguments credibility when you keep contradicting yourself. And spouting more and more conspiracy theory about moderate Muslims wanting to take over the U.S.

Cheers
David

p.s. Movies and TV are interesting, but I'd rather not base policy on them.

Let me ask you this..

If we addressed EVERY complaint, EVERY bitch and moan from the terrorists.....

Do you think that they would just stop being terrorists??

Michale.....

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Let me analogize that statement.

"I wouldn't say that the women deserved to be raped, but her policies of wearing short skirts and tight tops were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Now, you say that to any woman and watch how fast you end up on the floor with a kick to the bollocks.... :D

You see, that statement is a mitigational statement.. It is an attempt to mitigate or justify, however minutely, the act...

Whether the act be a rape or a terrorist attack, there can be no "BUT" following the statement, "I wouldn't say that the United States/the woman deserved what happened."

Because any "but" afterwards is simply mitigating or justifying, no matter how subtly or minutely the horrific act.

I believe that associating Islam with terrorism only escalates the tension and has the potential to generate recruits.

But there already IS an association between Islam and terrorists... Outside of the US, the association is a LOT closer than within the US..

By NOT recognizing, acknowledging or being pro-active about the association, we run the risk of their being SUCCESSFUL Times Square bombings or a rash of Major Hasans.

The Hasan incident is a PERFECT example, a TEXTBOOK example of what tragedy the Left's kind of "Prevent Radicalization Programs" brings about.

Hasan's attack on Fort Hood is a DIRECT result of the exact kind of "outreach" that you propose..

Michale.....

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/6/5/ballot-to-ban-sharia-law-in-oklahoma.html

Be sure to jump directly on that pro-Sharia bandwagon. It's sounds like such a nice law, after all, because Rauf made people smile over it.

Are you not aware of the wholesale LACK of rights for women? Do you not know that women are stoned to death for being raped, for instance, unless they can produce four male witnesses of the rape, all of which must be Muslim? Shariah law is the OPPOSITE of our laws. Yet he's serving it up as something that would fit right in with American law. And you're sitting there, nodding in agreement. Like so:

If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me.

Yes, that's the point, David. It's supposed to sound good to you. And, in time, as they push harder and harder for America to incorporate Shariah law into America, you're supposed to be all for it and help the nice terrorists — y'know, the ones who want to take over the country, working from the inside — accomplish that.

And he makes a nice joke about America being a "Shariah compliant state" ... did you hear the laughter?

"It's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it?" - Foghorn Leghorn

Yeah, Raub must have only been joking. Yeah, that must be it. He couldn't possibly be busily conditioning Liberals to say, "If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me. I don't see anything terrorist about this."

Lol, CB. This was a good video of Rauf.

Instead of escalating the tensions like so many on both sides seem to want to do, he's easing the tensions between the U.S. and Islam by showing how much we have in common.

Do you disagree with any of the rights he talks about?

1.The right to life
2.The right to property
3.The right to freedom of religion
4.The right to family
5.The right to mental well being

If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me. I don't see anything terrorist about this.

And he makes a nice joke about America being a "Shariah compliant state" ... did you hear the laughter?

"It's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it?" - Foghorn Leghorn

I'm not sure why you want to escalate this into a holy war, CB.

Do you, like Rauf, think that the US partially deserved 9/11??

Rauf didn't say this. And neither have I.

Here's what Rauf said:
"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

It's very similar to what Beck said. Our policies have caused problems.

The people who are saying this are conservative pundits saying "Rauf said this".

And as for your worldview, Michale. Yes, this is where we disagree.

I believe the strategy to fight terrorism has 2 prongs:

1) Go after the terrorists - the people for which there is actually evidence
2) Win over the moderates and the vast majority of good people like Rauf has tried to do

I believe that associating Islam with terrorism only escalates the tension and has the potential to generate recruits.

-David

"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems." -Glenn Beck

So what would you say to Glenn Beck?

Saying that something "causes problems" is a LONG way and a FAR cry from saying that the US partially deserved 9/11...

Well, according to Michale, I would be a fraudulent moderate or terrorist sympathizer because I hold some similar views on U.S. foreign policy. Me and Glenn Beck.

Well, we have established that Glenn Beck does NOT think that the US partially deserved 9/11..

What say you??

Do you, like Rauf, think that the US partially deserved 9/11??

Au contraire, Michale. I think there's a lot of gray area when it comes to even the term "terrorism". Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have been guilty of killing civilians towards a political end. Who are considered "terrorists"? Well, I suppose both could. Or, it could depend whose side you're on politically.

Sorry, David. But in this, you are as wrong as wrong can be..

There is no "gray area" in terrorism. Period.

It's like saying there is a "gray area" in child molestation. There isn't..

Terrorism, like child molestation, is as black/white an issue as could possibly exist...

Take your Palestinian/Israeli example.

In it, you seem to think that Israel has killed innocent civilians for a political end. But, what you DON'T seem to realize is that it was Hamas who PLACED the vast majority of dead Palestinians deliberately in harm's way, for PR purposes..

There is an old "joke" amongst CT operators in the region.

When the attack sirens sound in Israel, the Israeli government rushes their civilians into shelters to protect them.

When the attack sirens sound in Gaza, Hamas rushes their civilians to the target to reap PR rewards.

You simple cannot compare the actions of the respective governments in the Palestinian/Israeli issue. It's like comparing apples and alligators.

The problem here is that the Left thinks that everyone (except for the Right) is basically good and that bad people, like terrorists and child molesters, aren't really bad, but just misunderstood.

But you are wrong. I am sorry, I don't know how to sugar coat it, but you are as wrong as wrong can be.

There ARE bad people in this world. And to think that one can win over these bad people by being nice to them and giving them "rights" and "considerations" is almost a certain guarantee to disaster and loss of life on an unprecedented scale.

Michale.....

And, once again, everything's just a big ol' joke to you. You didn't happen to bother to read the manifesto, didja, D? Y'know, the one that laid it all out in black and white:

"The Ikhwan 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 is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack."

There's plenty more where that came from. But, by all means, just continue making jokes about it all, and rushing to the defense of any Muslim, no matter what, and with no questions asked. Instead, just attack anyone who dares to question them, for any reason. And just forget about that Grand Jihad thingie, because it's all so unpleasant, after all.

Not quite. Beck, like anyone else, recognizes and supports constitutional rights. Only that's never been a point of contention. Here's his stance, where he supports finding out about this Rauf guy, and he sure as hell does not support Rauf's contention that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda; nor does he hesitate to call Hamas a terrorist organization; nor does he contend that WE starved Iraqi children — all anti-American messages this fraud of an Imam is spreading while at the same time saying he's a moderate who's building bridges: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4307739/beck-the-moderate-imam-behind-ground-zero-mosque/

You believe America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? That's we're the ones responsible for Iraqi children starving to death, not Saddam?

It depends on what those statements are and who's saying them. And it IS evidence when sentiments shared by Hamas are coming out of the mouth of someone who's selling himself as a "moderate" to Americans, but refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist org. That is, indeed, evidence, David. This is the same exact pattern we've seen from PAST Muslim phonies, who've gained the same respect as Rauf by positioning themselves as moderate, peace-loving Muslims, only to find themselves in prison upon being BUSTED and having their manifesto come out in a court of law. Rauf is exhibiting all those classic signs.

And here we now have Daisy Kahn now branding anyone who's against the GZ mosque as "Islamophobic." Bridge-building, my foot. Over 70% of New Yorkers and 68% of Americans nationwide are "Islamophobic" for daring to ask where the money for CORDOBA is coming from, and why Rauf, who positions himself as a "moderate," won't call Hamas a terrorist org, and why he and his anything-but-bridge-building wife don't give a hoot about the wishes of the 9/11 families. He's taken no fewer than five positions that are straight out of the manifesto, David.

THEN come back to me and say that personal liberty MUST be paramount...

Watch Showtime's series "Sleeper Cell," David. That'll straighten ya right out.

Which is just as bad as being a terrorist.

"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems." -Glenn Beck

So what would you say to Glenn Beck?

Guess he's as bad as a terrorist because he's saying the same thing as Rauf, eh?

What's the M.O.. of a fraudulent "moderate"?

Well, according to Michale, I would be a fraudulent moderate or terrorist sympathizer because I hold some similar views on U.S. foreign policy. Me and Glenn Beck.

The other standard you and Michale seem to believe in is that a terrorist is whoever some rightwing pundit thinks is a terrorist.

As for my beliefs, I will restate them. I believe in evidence of terrorism or planned terrorism. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

And this belief comes from the 5th and 6th amendments of our Constitution.

There is no "gray" area when it comes to terrorism.

Au contraire, Michale. I think there's a lot of gray area when it comes to even the term "terrorism". Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have been guilty of killing civilians towards a political end. Who are considered "terrorists"? Well, I suppose both could. Or, it could depend whose side you're on politically.

And the terrorists living within this country would rather you lived under Shariah law instead of the government our founders created, and they're seeking to make that happen, right under your nose and with your (albeit unknowing) cooperation.

Yes, yes. We know. It's the giant Muslim conspiracy to build mosques to deradicalize Muslims and then take over the country by voting! What we need to do is not allow them to reproduce because then we'll always outnumber them!!! Right under our non-Shariah law sniffing noses! :)

-David

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZ0Qmqn3Wo

Why, one can hardly tell the two apart, when you really think hard about it, right? All men AND WOMEN are created equal, don'tcha know. Shariah law doesn't TREAT women equally, but, hey: listen to the good Imam anyway. He's just as "moderate" as the day is long. And he really seems to be well-intentioned, doesn't he?

And the terrorists living within this country would rather you lived under Shariah law instead of the government our founders created, and they're seeking to make that happen, right under your nose and with your (albeit unknowing) cooperation. So, like it or not, the Michales of the country are going to protect you from being duped by these dedicated holy warriors, whose defense liberals are always so quick to rush to: no questions asked. Ever.

Speaking of Shariah law: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/20/saudi.arabia.paralysis/index.html?iref=obnetwork

This is the Islam religion we're supposed to, quite naturally, perceive as simply dreamy and wonderful.

Don't look now, but that's exactly what fraudulent Imams and Muslim leaders are quietly and covertly in the process of doing — with a whole lot of help from kneejerk liberals, which is the most ironic part of it all.

Putting aside that we would rather not wait until people are already dead, what are the warning signs that a high-profile Muslim leader may not be who and what he presents himself as? What's the M.O.. of a fraudulent "moderate"?

And what you seem to forget — or never knew in the first place — is that a pattern exists with these fraudulent moderate leaders, now in jail for terrorism. And one of them is a refusal to acknowledge that terrorists organizations as terrorist organizations, as demonstrated in the video I showed you.

Yet, once again, here you are immediately trying to downplay the SAME pattern, present in the SAME statements made by Rauf, as a mere disagreement with U.S. policies. Well, DUH, yeah, terrorists seeking to overthrow this country DO have disagreements with this country's policies, David. That's one of your big tip-offs. That would be why they're seeking to conquer from the outside, through violence, and on the inside, through recruitment, indoctrination, and infiltration into this country's educational and political systems.

*sigh*

In this country, which is (hello) AT WAR with terrorists — including terrorists inside our borders — and with a manifesto that surfaced during a terrorism trial, laying out the game plan to overthrow this nation from within, yes: a "moderate" who makes anything-but-moderate statements DOES have to start proving to us that he's on the up and up. We don't have to prove a damned thing to him. Because we, as a nation, have a history of unearthing and jailing "moderates" who turned out to be the enemy, instead.

What part of that do liberals not get? And, again, WHAT would an up-to-no-good Imam have to do before a liberal even begins to question if the Imam's intentions are as noble as he claims?

Let me put it to you this way..

Let's say that you want me to condemn torture and say it's evil and it's wrong...

I refuse to do so...

Wouldn't that lead you to believe that I have some sympathies for torture.. That I DON'T believe it's wrong??

Now, I want Joe Blow to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization....

Joe Blow refuses to do so...

Doesn't the same "sympathies" argument apply??

Michale.....

And we're back to asking what "essential" liberty have you given up?? :D

One thing you seem to forget is that disagreeing with U.S. policy does not make a terrorist. Neither does a non-acknowledgement of Hamas.

No, you are right. Failure to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization doesn't make one a terrorist..

It simply makes one sympathetic to terrorists..

Which is just as bad as being a terrorist...

There is no "gray" area when it comes to terrorism..

You are either with the terrorists or you are not with the terrorists...

Which is it???

Watch UNTHINKABLE... SERIOUSLY... I'll GIVE it to you, if necessary...

THEN come back to me and say that personal liberty MUST be paramount...

Michale.....

One thing you seem to forget is that disagreeing with U.S. policy does not make a terrorist. Neither does a non-acknowledgement of Hamas.

To be a terrorist, I'll paraphrase a Michale definition here, you have to kill or plan on killing civilians to advance a political agenda.

The way you seem to be using the word is to refer to people who don't always agree with U.S. policy on terrorism.

That's not evidence of terrorism.

Guilty until proven innocent.

*sigh*

It's how best to save innocent lives in a dangerous world where it's not so easy to do.

I wish you'd quit trying to protect us, Michale. I don't want your protection. I personally would rather live in a free world, then in a world of the 1% doctrine. Because the 1% doctrine, basically means the government can investigate whoever they want, whenever they want, and come to whatever conclusions they want.

This isn't the America I want. Nor our founding fathers. Hence, checks and balances and the Bill of Rights.

I do know you mean well, Michale, and that's why I think we'd get along well until certain issues come up :), but don't you find it ironic at all when people fight to take away the freedoms they say they're fighting for?

We ourselves are the ones taking away our freedoms, something no terrorist has managed to do.

Ok ... we're at about the flash point where we've gone down this road before and have hit an impasse at liberty vs. safety.

No one's used the word "nazi" yet, though, so that's a good sign :).

Cheers
David

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin

Is that anything like the ole 'one percent doctrine'? :)

Very similar...

It's how best to save innocent lives in a dangerous world where it's not so easy to do..

"Because they stand on a wall, and they say `nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!'"
-Demi Moore, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale....

Is that anything like the ole 'one percent doctrine'? :)

If you treat someone as a threat and you are wrong, you can always apologize and hope they forgive you.

If you treat someone as a friend and you are wrong, you (and probably many many other innocent people) are dead and then it's Game Over.

Michale.....

How do you know it's "being mistaken" when your first reaction is to simply and immediately leap to the defense of any Muslim whose intentions come under scrutiny. I think liberals really need to educate themselves better. It's like you're totally unaware that this problem of Imams and Muslim leaders posing as "moderates" has already been encountered, many times, with these guys ending up in jail. Yet liberals are right there the next time, dutifully crying "Islamophobia!" when the next suspicious Imam arises.

Are you even aware of the manifesto that came out in the Texas trial? Here's my favorite section:

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The
Ikhwan 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 is made victorious
over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and
have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work
wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that
destiny except for those who chose to slack.

You can download it here. There's a link at the end of the paragraph: http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/thirdjihad.html

The English translation begins on page 16. Notice how helpful the politically correct Liberals have been to these fraudulent "moderates," giving them credibility, and elevating them in stature, and promptly having a Kumbya breakdown when anybody dares questions their intentions. Just like what's happening with Rauf and his CORDOBA House.

I hear some more choice quotes of his are about to come out, about how the U.S. has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda.

Our first and foremost responsibility is to protect this country by going after terrorists and fraudulent Muslim "leaders" in this country, not hearts and minds. Check out the 1:16 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbnaWpSS8Dk&feature=player_embedded#!

"Moderate" Imams and Muslim leaders have turned out to be not so moderate after all. Quite a few have been charged with terrorism of one kind of another. That is why we have to question this Imam Rauf, whose words and actions are not jiving, starting with his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization.

No one is drumming up fear and suspicion in NY at all.

American Muslims (at least those not associated with Imam Rauf and the Cordoba Group) are as against the Cordoba Mosque as the rest of the country is...

This is well documented..

Michale.....

If there's evidence of terrorism, let's go after the terrorists. What I'm against is hyped up suspicion, innuendo, and paranoia being mistaken for evidence.

Fair enough..

But.....

Considering what's at stake, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and public safety, rather than individual rights and liberties??

I mean, when one possible outcome is the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of innocent Americans, it seems to me that personal liberties should be WAY down on the list of priorities..

You watch UNTHINKABLE yet???

Michale.....

I never said anything of the sort. Talk about spin.

If there's evidence of terrorism, let's go after the terrorists. What I'm against is hyped up suspicion, innuendo, and paranoia being mistaken for evidence.

Same thing I was against when we invaded Iraq.

What I'm arguing is that in addition to going after proven terrorists, we need to win over the moderates. This is the same strategy Petraeus has adopted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar and Baghdad when you're drumming up fear and suspicion in NY?

Cheers
David

http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/thirdjihad.html

As for this, the claim is factual..

Do I need to recount how many religious functions and activities are under attack from the Left??

Not that it really matters to me. I am as agnostic as they come, both politically and religiously..

But I call a spade a spade and it is undeniable that many on the Left do their utmost to pull religious aspects from Americans and their every day lives.

These activities are especially acute around Christmas time. Or, as the Left would insist I say it, "The Holiday Season"... :D

Michale.....

Wow. The conspiracy theory deepens. Now the "left" is responsible for Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, and Jonestown. And for taking religious freedom from Christians.

I have NO idea what you are talking about.

You implied that LEOs do not target Christian groups.

I simply informed you that you are wrong and provided examples..

Michale....

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/05/smoking-gun-holy-land-foundati.html

How about an "Okay, no more becoming radicalized, you guys" law? I'm quite sure they'll comply with it.

Any of your creative spin? Not really. 'D

Is there anything the "left" can't do we're so evil and powerful? :)

(Seriously, do you really believe any of this?)

What makes you think the FBI isn't targeting radical Christian groups? They target anyone who poses a threat to the United States, David. They just busted a "militia"-type group not too long ago, if that makes ya feel any better.

Why the heck are you so resistant to radical Islamists in this country being targeted?

Then why not target Christians too, Michale? I believe it was you yourself who brought up Tim McVeigh and fundamentalism. Why aren't we targeting Christians?

You don't think that Law Enforcement doesn't???

Branch Davidians??

Randy Weaver??

Jonestown??

Any of these ringing any bells??

It's just that picking on the "poor" Muslims get's all the press from the Lefty types..

That's why I think it is so ironically hilarious to see the Left so hysterical about religious freedom for Muslims when they actively STOP religious freedom from Christians...

Winter Vacation instead of Christmas Vacation... Spring Break instead of Easter Vacation..

Shall I go on???

Michale.....

This is because of deeply held beliefs in the power of laziness. Ahem.

I just thought this would be a good column to test people's reaction, but if the mega-scrolling isn't bugging anybody, then I'm fine with leaving things the way they are. Any pro-pagination types out there?

Now head over to today's column, to see a fun little survey...

-CW

p.s.
Of course. But as you and CB have pointed out there is a big difference between the radical type of Islam they follow and Islam.

So you have to "target" the groups to determine that.

Then why not target Christians too, Michale? I believe it was you yourself who brought up Tim McVeigh and fundamentalism. Why aren't we targeting Christians?

Come to think of it, you can't tell terrorists just by their religion, so wouldn't we technically have to investigate everyone? What about the Irish? What about the Israelis? What about the Quebecois? Then we can lock up everyone who can't prove themselves innocent!!!

(FTR- You know I don't really believe this. But it does show the flaw in logic when you take something to its absurd extreme.)

Link to the Duke Study
http://www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf

1,2,3,4,5,6 ALL

When the lady is right, the lady is right... :D

Michale.....

I think pages would be good but 50 comments per page would be far better than 25.

Also, and Michale will like this, you might consider allowing an option that shows all pages ...

1,2,3,4,5,6 ALL

You must be well on your way to 100K comments by now! You'll have to keep us posted on that. :)

al-Qaeda would beg to differ.

I honestly doubt it...

CW,

Just my personal taste, but I LIKE having everything on one page..

For example, using YOUR example of us being on the 4th page, I would have to scroll back 4 pages to get back to the main CW page.. yea, I know.. You could have a HOME link that would take me right back, but still...

I like it all on one page, even if it's a gazillion lines long..

Just my opinion...

Michale.....

OK, I've got a technical question for everyone who sees this comment.

When I did the site upgrade, I noticed a new feature that I didn't implement -- paginating comments. This would mean you'd see pages of comments if the total number got big enough. HuffPost, for instance, puts up pages of 25 comments.

When I was doing the programming, I thought "most of my comment threads aren't long enough to justify the work it would take to do this." Now I'm not so sure.

So, with 152 comments here (and counting), what do you think of the idea? I'd lean toward longer individual pages (50 comments?), but I'm thinking it might be better to have pages rather than these endless-scroll-down comment threads. If I went with 50, we'd be just beginning the 4th page here, for instance. I would likely keep the "FIFO" display (comments go from oldest down to newest), so to see the most recent comments you'd have to check out the last page.

Anyway, what does everyone think? Even if you love the idea, it may take me months to get it ready and up and running, I caution. But let me know, one way or the other.

Thanks.

-CW

However, I would point out that many of Rauf's statements align him WITH Al Qaeda rather than opposite Al Qaeda...

al-Qaeda would beg to differ.