It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslims - Moderate or fanatical in disguise?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
In response to the original post:


Originally posted by T0by
I saw an article on the news last night ( Australia here ) about a man that has done wiretapping on some of the figureheads of the muslim communities around the world, those whom are outwardly moderate, yet found to be secretly promoting the extremist sides of things.


I would like to provide this link I created last year that includes a link to the first article of an investigative series by Laura Mansfield. Unfortunately, the link to that article has died. But here is the article in its entirety (MODS: I apologize for the length of this cut/paste. But I was unable to find a direct link to this article):



By Laura Mansfield, Associate Director, Senior Investigative Analyst

It happened again this week. I came out of the office to find a flyer under my windshield wipers inviting me to a special informational presentation on God and family values, and how to bring them back to the forefront in America.

I’m a parent so the flyer caught my interest. But as an analyst for the Northeast Intelligence Network, my eyes were riveted to the address on the flyer: the session was being held at a nearby mosque.

Curiosity got the better of me, and I decided it would be a good time for some on site investigations of the mosque. In order to not attract undue attention, I dressed conservatively, wearing a navy jumper with a long sleeve white blouse, and low heels. I debated whether or not to put on a hijab (head scarf) then decided not to; after all, I was going to “learn”, not to pretend I was a Muslim.

www.lauramansfield.com...



Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 22/2/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Thanks to Mirthful Me for finding the article(s) and placing the link here. Read the entire series as all 4 articles pertain to the topic of this thread.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I liked that link... it was informative...

It reminded me of a friend that was incouraged by an FBI agent to convert to islam many years ago (he was a family friend)... there was no mixed message...
it was "we want to know what they are doing behind closed doors, ever think about converting to islam?"

That was back early in the 90's... When the CIA was still Al Queda and hadn't franchised yet...

Keep in mind regarding that link, that yes, there are many American muslims that have family members that are fighting the "jihad" but who is to say that particular family member isn't a suni Muslim, who is actually helping us by attacking the shia? They do tend to fight each other more than the USA.

Also... we dont know that this wasn't made up, to sell a book...
always keep an open mind


[edit on 22-2-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

Also... we dont know that this wasn't made up, to sell a book...
always keep an open mind


Laura mansfield is a reputable investigative journalist. Did you read all of the articles? I found the last one to be more poignant.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I find it interesting, that she doesn't disclose the type, or exact location of the mosque...

It would make a big difference of what her report means, if she would have included that fact...

But maybe I missed it...
If she stated the mosque was SA, sunni, or Shia, I didn't see it...
please correct me if I am wrong

that particular mosque does teach borderline terrorist training... I truly wonder why we haven't heard of this before in the mainstream, muslim bashing media...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I find it interesting, that she doesn't disclose the type, or exact location of the mosque...

It would make a big difference of what her report means, if she would have included that fact...

But maybe I missed it...
If she stated the mosque was SA, sunni, or Shia, I didn't see it...
please correct me if I am wrong

that particular mosque does teach borderline terrorist training... I truly wonder why we haven't heard of this before in the mainstream, muslim bashing media...

I read/skimmed most of the articles, and I coulda sworn she mentioned the name of the small town where the mosque was. Someplace in South Carolina, if I recall.

Edit: from the opening paragraph of the second article, this is what I read:

Deep in the Bible belt, students in the rural South Carolina town of Saluda are learning about Islam. Students in Mrs. Stribbles’ class at the Saluda Middle School are spending a considerable amount of time on a webquest, learning about Islam.

This from the same source on Laura Mansfield.

Regarding your question about hearing about this before, there was a discussion here on ATS last summer/fall, if I recall about mosques with similar teaching techniques. And they weren't down in the deep south, either. They were in the greater Washington DC area. The cobwebs are slowly dropping, nd thie school I allude to was sponsored by the Saudia Arabian gov't., I believe.

So all in all, I find her story quite believable.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Before I post, let me make clear that I respect the views of everyone in this thread, even those I disagree with most adamantly. Your experiences and perspectives have formed who you are and what you believe, and I will not sit here and hate or demonize you as individuals for beliefs formed through what you have seen and experienced in life to date.

That said, I must express myself with regard to this issue.

If I lived in the 1960's and used logic similar to some espoused in this thread, I would suspect that African American citizens of the United States were militant, destructive, and merely pretending to be peace-loving people seeking equality and civil rights in the country in which they lived. Let's examine the logic being put to work here, and apply it to that well known and historically important period.


------------------------



Hypothetical poster: "I know not all blacks are violent or malevolent, but it seems possible to me that a large portion of blacks between the age of 15 and 50 are passing themselves off as benignly seeking equal rights with whites, while concealing beliefs and passions that justify violence and destructiveness just beneath the surface, waiting to be provoked. What percentage of blacks do you feel is constituted by people like those described?"

Hypothetical replying poster B: "I see no evidence of this. On what do you base this? It seems to me that you are holding an at least slightly bigoted view point with regard to this. You cannot judge such a large demographic based solely on the actions of a few."

Hypothetical poster A: "I'm not saying that this is true of all blacks, or even the majority of blacks. I'm also not endorsing violence against blacks as some others in this thread have. I'm just asking about blacks aged 15 to 50 years, and pointing out that peaceful people do not go about burning property, rioting in the streets, and reacting in a fashion disproportionate to the offense they are provoked by. Indeed, don't some of their leaders state that they should seek to obtain freedom by 'any means necessary?' Wouldn't that justify working with us when it suits them, but becoming violent when it doesn't? Let's assume that they are indeed two-faced in this way."

Hypothetical replying poster B: "I refuse to agree to that assumption. You are applying the beliefs and actions of a small number of individuals to an entire people, and you are likewise ignoring the oppression these people have suffered, and the fact that you and I cannot - however much we may think we can, or want to - understand their perspective, having not suffered under similar oppression ourselves. On what do you based the '15-50' argument? What evidence is there for this?"

Hypothetical poster A: "I'm not proposing all blacks are inherently violent. I accept that it could be a relatively small percentage of blacks that meet that description. I'm just asking what numbers we think that percentage translates into, and whether or not we should be a bit less naive and somewhat less trusting of blacks simply because they are American citizens. For all we know, the black man sitting next to you smiling could hate you with a burning passion. I just think this is something we ought to consider, for the sake of our own wellbeing."

------------------------



I take serious issue with Hypothetical poster A. Time and history have borne out the fact that blacks fighting for their rights in the 1960's were doing just that - fighting for their rights. That fight was, predominantly, peaceful, law abiding, and was waged largely through pressure to pass new legislation. It succeeded, although there are of course still severe injustices suffered for no reason other than race and/or creed in this country. Was there violence in the civil rights movement? Of course. I don't endorse or defend violence in any event, but it did not represent the majority - or even a substantially large minority - of African American citizens, and while not justifiable in my mind (as no violence is; that is simply my belief) was at least understandable. There is a difference between being able to understand something, and being able to justify something. That difference seems lost on many today.

I will not defend the violence committed by those protesting the cartoon and other things they are offended by, any more than I will defend the war in Iraq and elsewhere. I believe neither can be justified. However, I do understand both, and respect both even while disagreeing with and being deeply saddened by them. Our society has rapidly grown into one in which opposites cannot coexist. For that reason, the most common response to that statement is, "How can you respect something you think is wrong?" to which I can reply only by saying, "How can I not?" If something warrants enough attention for me to formulate a belief with respect to it - whether that belief is in agreement with it or not - then it is worthy of respect. Respect is not the same as "like," "support," or even "tolerate." I do not tolerate war and violence, as I speak out against them regularly. I do respect, however, the experiences, forces, and view points developed through lives and circumstances every bit as valid as my own, which form them. No one does something they feel is unjustified. I may feel they are doing something destructive and it may deeply sadden me, but they still believe it is justified at the time. That doesn't make it right or defensible, but it does make it something I can comprehend and understand, saddening to me though it is.

For the same reasons, I understand how beliefs form that for one's own good or the good one's own people, they should consider possible threats and subterfuge. I disagree with them, but I understand how that belief forms, and why it takes root. All I can say to those who hold that view is this. Please seriously devote some time to meticulously and ethically ponder this view point. I know - and respect - that you feel your view is justified and borne out by your own experiences and what you see on a day to day basis. However, the reason people use the term "slippery slope" is to denote a progression that is beyond our control; one which we can "slide" down before we even realize it. Even if one feels totally justified in their belief or suspicion, they can be completely unaware of the fact that they are a small part of a growing movement which may soon possess momentum and inertia greater than themselves or their original intent. Ask any psychologist what happens when people are given power over others in an isolated environment for any extended period of time. Almost without exception - and without any conscious input from any of the participants i.e. often without even realizing it - those in the advantaged position will begin to abuse those under their power. There have been experiments (in addition to the real life scenarios we see today and have seen throughout history) that demonstrate this without question. The average German didn't feel it was right to take part in public beatings of Jews in the streets before WWII. It happened anyway, because it became permissible, and because one group of people was granted authority and perceived superiority over another.

Before one even knows what is happening, they can find themselves part of a sweeping and spreading sentiment that extends beyond their own mentality. This is why one must be extremely responsible and mindful of their own feelings and beliefs, because they affect us all. I'm sure none of even the most close minded individuals taking part in this thread could imagine themselves subjugating Moslems as the Nazis did the Jews, or spraying them with fire hoses as we did to blacks in the past. Guess what? Neither did those people. That's why it's called a "slippery slope" This is dangerous thinking. It is far, far too easy to slide right over the edge. If we want Abu Ghraib and other abuses to stop and to be kept from spreading and multiplying, we must consciously and willfully resist the temptation to start suspecting an entire people - even just potentially - of being our adversary.

Some will point out that there are some on the other side of the fence already holding such views toward the entire Western world. That is very true, and is equally wrong in my opinion. However, we can only take responsibility for our own actions, and we should take care not to make that image into a twisted mirror of ourselves. One of the biggest reasons history repeats itself isn't that people fail to learn from it, but because people fail to have the humility to realize they too are susceptible to tendencies they believe they could never exhibit toward other human beings, because they feel they are good people. Hitler believed he was a good person, too. I'm not trying to demonize anyone, and am certainly not calling those who disagree with me Hitler. I'm just trying to illustrate how easily it can happen. I implore those who are suspicious of Moslems in general to take great care and responsibility for that belief. I know you want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, but I ask that you reconsider this particular stance, as it contributes to the larger problem that has brought us to this point ultimately. I hope that does not offend any of you, as that is not my intent.

Hate is not a belief, but rather a momentum and an inertia that subjugates beliefs and people. Be careful not to let it subjugate you.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Excellent post, AceWombat04. Nicely written, especially the last three paragraphs.

I find this part to be the most profound:


Some will point out that there are some on the other side of the fence already holding such views toward the entire Western world. That is very true, and is equally wrong in my opinion. However, we can only take responsibility for our own actions, and we should take care not to make that image into a twisted mirror of ourselves.


Underlined for emphasis. It should be noted that this holds true even if you changed the word 'Western' to 'Islamic'.

Overall, you are right here. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's what I got from that part. Just because the other side is being a real pain, doesn't mean you should be one, too. As they say, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I find it interesting, that she doesn't disclose the type, or exact location of the mosque...
that particular mosque does teach borderline terrorist training...


from the opening paragraph of the second article, this is what I read:

Deep in the Bible belt, students in the rural South Carolina town of Saluda are learning about Islam.

there was a discussion here on ATS last summer/fall, if I recall about mosques with similar teaching techniques. They were in the greater Washington DC area. The cobwebs are slowly dropping, nd thie school I allude to was sponsored by the Saudia Arabian gov't., I believe.

So all in all, I find her story quite believable.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by jsobecky]


Yep, considering the reports origin regarding a SA sponsored school, I beleive it as well.

and that is a big issue... because, as a previous poster claimed, Most of Islam opposes the Saudi Ruled version of islam, called Wahhabi
It is the religion of the 9-11 terrorists, and the origin of the worst of extremist Islam...
So why is it so widespread in America?
(this is where I wish I knew how to post pictures- there is a great one of the Saudi Leader and Bush holding hands like school girls)

because daily, when we fill our tanks, we are bending over for a foreign country that wants us dead... and we have given all kinds of benefits to these theives of Islam...

I think I might have finally made progress with my understanding of why things are happening the way they are...

Saudi terrorists attack us... they are hated by the islamic world...
We then decide to attack countries that hate Saudi Arabia, and its elitist corrupt leaders.

So I guess I know who the secret leaders of the USA are... Servants to Saudi Arabia...

And I really wonder why we picked the wrong side... other than oil and corrupt politicians that is...



[edit on 24-2-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
If something warrants enough attention for me to formulate a belief with respect to it - whether that belief is in agreement with it or not - then it is worthy of respect. Respect is not the same as "like," "support," or even "tolerate."


Ace;

Thank your for the post; you clearly put a lot of thought (and time) into it.

Those Muslims who are angry and rioting over the cartoons are asking [us] not to depict their prophet in pictures or satiracle cartoons. They say they want people to respect their beliefs and not publish satiracle pictures of Mohammed. I suggest, hoever, that it's not respect they are asking for; but rather; they are asking others to submit to the Islamic requirement that Mohammed not be pictured. It is submission veiled by the request for respect. Why should everyone who is non-Muslim embrace the covenants of Islam?

This is the fundamental difference between blacks in the 60's fighting for their rights and Muslims today burning buildings and killing because people refuse to follow Islam.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Freedom For sum...
I complement you on your determination... and I feel that when your efforts are specific to Saudi Mosques, they are entirely accurate... (they are our true enemy)

I hope that this analogy finds it purchase on the slope of your doubt, but here goes...

When you are in a gas fight, dont throw lit matches...

The ironic and tragic thing about all this is:
the reasons the wacko Saudi Extremists hate us so much, is that we are so cozy with their government... (if we hadn't provided protection/weapons to the Saudi elite, they would have been overthrown long ago) which is why we are upset with our government also.

So we are actually on the same page... but different sides...

(*side note: dont ya wish we would have invested in Solar, and wind farms back in the 70's, instead of paying inflated prices and political blackmail to arab coutries?)
We could just sit back and let the islamic world destroy itself, without ever getting involved... or critisized...
wouldn't be our fault, if we would have stayed out of it... but oil dragged us in...



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Freedom For sum...
I complement you on your determination... and I feel that when your efforts are specific to Saudi Mosques, they are entirely accurate... (they are our true enemy)


What do you mean by "Saudi mosques"? There are thousands of mosques, here in the US (they aren't Saudi); and I'm willing to bet that a large number of them preach alot of the anit-West, anti-Jew crap you can get in most any other Arab Islamic country.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
When you are in a gas fight, dont throw lit matches...


Sorry; not being obtuse here. But I don't see the analogy. How about this one: When you're in a pissing contest, aim downwind!



Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
The ironic and tragic thing about all this is:
the reasons the wacko Saudi Extremists hate us so much, is that we are so cozy with their government... (if we hadn't provided protection/weapons to the Saudi elite, they would have been overthrown long ago) which is why we are upset with our government also.


They hate us so much becaue they hate anything that is not Islamic. They hate the ruling "elite" because they engage in commerce with those who are un-Islamic. Whether or not they would have been "overthrown" without our involvement is speculation, at best.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
(*side note: dont ya wish we would have invested in Solar, and wind farms back in the 70's, instead of paying inflated prices and political blackmail to arab coutries?)


Nah. There are many elements in our society that wind/solar power would be insufficient for our needs (flight for example).


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
We could just sit back and let the islamic world destroy itself, without ever getting involved... or critisized...


That would be nice...but it's naive to think that our cultures wouldn't have clashed eventually anyway


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
wouldn't be our fault, if we would have stayed out of it... but oil dragged us in...


We weren't dragged in. We want to buy oil; the Saudis want to sell oil. It's that simple. Just because "extremists" don't want this kind of relationship with us doesn't mean we should roll over and yield to their wishes.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I appreciate your in depth reply...

Now in regards to what other mosques teach... please include some links...

The example you gave, is very convincing towards the specific "version of islam known as Wahhabi, or Saudi islam" but not surprising... they did 9-11

As to what those mosques teach... it is not what all mosques teach... your example is about one distint and separate form.

if you can prove that other types of American Mosques teach the same, please do... Without support, I have trouble beleiving it.

Wahhabi, and western ideology is incompatable true... but is true islam the same thing? Not according to Muslims worldwide..

Do other brands of Islam hate us also... at times, yes... but we have come to their aid also... so the hatred is not insurmountable...

If you have links regarding incidents like this with other sects of Islam, please post them... it would go far in convincing me.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong


if you can prove that other types of American Mosques teach the same,


Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country outside Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is under Wahhabi control. Eighty percent*) of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced,

(BUT: This does NOT mean that 80% of American Muslims support Wahhabism!!!)


*) Source: “Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States.”
(Hearing before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, June 26, 2003, Serial No. J-108-21 (101 pages) - printable version avaliable at: www.gpoaccess.gov)




The entire gamut of "official" Islamic organizations in the U.S., particularly the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are Wahhabi fronts (NRO)





It should also be noted that Wahhabi mosques in the U.S. work in close coordination with the Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), Saudi state entities identified as participants in the funding of al Qaeda. (source)



Maybe also of interest:
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques,”
Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom January 28, 2005 (89-page report, pdf)



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
The example you gave, is very convincing towards the specific "version of islam known as Wahhabi, or Saudi islam" but not surprising... they did 9-11


If you find comfort labeling this fundamentalist form of Islam "Wahhabi" and limiting all Islamic terrorism solely on its influence; then so be it.

According to Steven Emerson approximately 80% of American mosques/madrassas are funded with Saudi money and preach fundamental Islam. The question which begs to be asked is: Who is attending these mosques and maddrassas?

The problem I have is that so-called "moderate" Muslims have been relatively quiet about these "extremists" who have been hijacking their religion. And there are organizations like CAIR who label as "Islamophobe"those who ask critical questions of Islam. Instead of answering those questions, and denouncing the extremists in a meaningful way, they use our legal system to silence those who are critical of them and Islam. These are organizations who claim to represent Muslims in America.

So you want to call it "Wahhabi"? Fine I'll concede. I'd just like to know exactly who the majority of "moderate" Muslims are and which mosques they go to.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The silence of Muslims and its damaging effect in the "war on terror" is elloquently described in this article from www.frontpagemag.com

Excerpts:



I am overwhelmed with sadness over the state of the Muslim world. I am looking at the photograph of an Iranian woman about to be stoned to death in Iran, buried to her waste in dirt to keep her from running away.

The picture of the stoned woman has been seen by some Muslims I know in the Middle East and also fellow Americans, Christians and Jews. The first reaction by the Muslims was “what did she do?” while the first reaction by Americans was “How could this happen?”

The Muslim majority here in the US remains silent seeing the outrageous brutal medieval-style and inhumane punishments practiced in many parts of the Muslim world. Americans, who are puzzled by the silence of the so called “moderate” Arab-Americans after 9/11, do not understand that Arabs learned to be silent and indifferent to terror before even coming to America. Generations after generations of Muslims lived under dictatorships and were trained to look the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorized other Muslims. The result is a population de-sensitized to seeing brutality and horror. Too many of them see cruel punishment as normal. Their silence over the killing was not just an insult to America after 9/11, but is aiding and abetting the cruel culture of hate, terror, torture and beheadings.




[edit on 27-2-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
So i guess we have a very weak Islamic influence in America that is not dominated by extremist terrorist ideology...
all supported by Saudi Arabia...

Who also has domination over all the so called "islamic" groups, and councils...

People... Wahhabi is not compatable with the western ideology...
and it is not at peace with other branches of Islam.

So why didn't we attack and take over Saudi Arabia instread of Iraq?
IMO that not doing so, and distracting us from that enemy is tantamount to treason.

Some stats:
Iraq: over 300,000 troops before war
Saudi arabia: 75,000 troops
iraq: thousands of armor units
Saudi Arabia: 735

Why would we have attacked a former ally, that we equiped/trained THAT HAS NEVER ATTACKED US.

When a present ally attacked and continues to attack us, thru their domestic terrorism training schools that are being allowed to operate, even 4 years after 9-11...

My question is this?
why didn't we just attack Saudi Arabia (that we had legal right to attack as a response) and take over this far more profitable and easier to subdue country?
If we were to immediatley turn over Mecca and Medina to Egypt or Jordan we would prevent an islamic world reprisal.
We would have control of the main origin of all extremist Islam... and could dunk it in a river if we wanted, or reeducate it with other true islamic states help.

The Saudi Government should have been long gone by now, and we should be paying $1 a gallon for gas, and not have a constant growing population of terrorists coming from Saudi schools...

IMO that the only reason this isn't so, is lots of money in certain pockets... there is not enough political justification to protect our enemy Saudi Arabia.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

So you want to call it "Wahhabi"? Fine I'll concede. I'd just like to know exactly who the majority of "moderate" Muslims are and which mosques they go to.



Most muslims just go to the mosque to pray, dude. They've no interest in knowing who's on the board of directors or where the mosque gets it's funding and such. But that is not to say all of them have this indifference.

I can say with an almost absolute certainty that most who attend are just interested in fulfilling their obligation to pray. Out of that many people, only around 10% or less will hang around after Maghrib (after sunset) prayers to listen to whatever sermon might be held. Nobody's obligated to sit and listen to it.

The only sermon one is obligated to listen to is the Friday sermon before Friday prayers (in the afternoon and it's a males-only affair). And if how it is in my country is any indication of how it is elsewhere, most people fall asleep during that time. I'm serious -- it can be pretty boring and predictable, you know that term they use, "same shiite, different day", plus you just had your lunch before you went to the mosque... what a wonderful time for a siesta, whether on purpose or not.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humster
There are around 1 Billion Muslims in this planet.
Most of them just want to get on with their daily lives.





www.contenderministries.org...
I wonder how many of those billion muslims wish
Hitler had been able to finish the job he started?

Beachcoma said

most muslims just go to the mosque to pray


Yes Beachcoma ... but this is what they listen to each time they go -
www.freedomhouse.org... -


[edit on 2/28/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
FlyersFan, that article reminded me of the one about the white supremist twin girls. They do not speak for the majority.

How many Muslims do you know? I know a couple that are very dedicated to their faith, and they are perfectly cool with drinking beer, and shooting pool with a lily white Christian like myself. I hear no Jihad. They actually told me that in the Koran it says that even Christians will have a place in their afterlife. I havent read the thing yet, but I plan too.

We all pray to the same God...just with little cultural twists, and extra prophets. For every fanatical muslim there is a fanatical Christian who just hasnt been pushed far enough to act on their fanatical beliefs. The Muslims have been pushed too far, and now they are pushing back. Only the fanatics are going too far.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
So why didn't we attack and take over Saudi Arabia instread of Iraq?


It wasn't Saudi Arabia who attacked us or an ally. We did NOT have the legal justification to invade Saudi Arabia.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Why would we have attacked a former ally, that we equiped/trained THAT HAS NEVER ATTACKED US.


Iraq attacked an ally (remember the Gulf War?). This current war is a legal continuation of that war. More importantly, Saddam Hussein was a potential threat since it was widely believed he held WMD (compelling evidence shows that much of that WMD was moved to Syria with Russia's assistance). With WMD in hand, the fear was that Saddam, using the old expression: "The enemy of my enemy if my friend;" would provide WMD to Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
When a present ally attacked and continues to attack us, thru their domestic terrorism training schools that are being allowed to operate, even 4 years after 9-11...


Saudi Arabia never "attacked" us. You are right, however, that this issue needs to be addressed. The problem is that these "terrorism training schools" are preaching hatred through publications, seminars, and lectures; which is a legal form of expression. I believe what the Justice department needs to do is label this hate-teaching as child abuse; and in those cases where children are involved, arrest and punish the abusers and place those children in "de-programming" treatment. This MUST include white supremacy, naziism, and other forms of hate indoctrination as well.

If you have ANY interest whatsoever in curbing this hate indoctrination, write your senator and communicate your desire to label this as child abuse.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
My question is this?
why didn't we just attack Saudi Arabia (that we had legal right to attack as a response)


Please explain where we have the legal right to attack SA.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
The Saudi Government should have been long gone by now, and we should be paying $1 a gallon for gas, and not have a constant growing population of terrorists coming from Saudi schools...


Um; the alternative to the current ruling regime in SA is much worse. They would shut off the supply of oil and you'd see oil prices significantly higher than they are now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join