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.

 

NYC Cabbie Who Runs Anti-American Islamic Web Site Mocks GI Deaths, Calls for Shia Law In U.S.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

NYC Cabbie Who Runs Anti-American Islamic Web Site Mocks GI Deaths, Calls for Shia Law In U.S.


www.foxnews.com

Al-Khattab claims the Sept. 11 terror attacks were an “inside job,” and he blames U.S. foreign policy for spawning the terrorism that carried out the attacks.

He calls Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002 by Islamic extremists in Pakistan, “a convicted spy.”

“I could care less about Daniel Pearl,” al-Khattab said in an interview with FOXNews.com. “I’m happy to see that he’s gone.”

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I saw that someone posted this story earlier. I had a different take on it, and I wanted to relate it to this forum, as I believe we are supposed to.

The reason I thought this article was relevant had to due with the first statement above:


Al-Khattab claims the Sept. 11 terror attacks were an “inside job,” and he blames U.S. foreign policy for spawning the terrorism that carried out the attacks.


Why would a Muslim extremist believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation? Wouldn't someone who believes the government is evil not hate the US public?

Doesn't this seem more like a smear campaign versus the 9/11 truth movement?

That's what caught my eye.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Technically September the 11th was in response to the: August 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan so he isn't strictly wrong about saying that US Policy caused it.

""Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."

web.archive.org...://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sudbous.htm



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Extremists don't just hate the government. They hate the people, and anybody who stands in the way of their ideology, and anything that furthers their cause is permissible.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree.

Every attack has named a reason, and none have ever had to do with the US public and everything to do with our foreign policies.

Why would an extremist not know this?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The joker needs his cabbie license taken away and put into quarantine. Before he can cause any damage or instigate something that the country will later regret.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
The joker needs his cabbie license taken away and put into quarantine.


if for no other reason than his own protection if he's using his real name.

some former or current soldier or marine may "may express their displeasure of his opinions in no uncertain terms"

sure he's got a right to free speech...but sometimes just cuz you can do a thing doesnt mean you SHOULD do a thing



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
This clown will probably be dead within the week. There are lots of ex soldiers and families of dead soldiers living in New York that will not stand for this crap.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree.

Every attack has named a reason, and none have ever had to do with the US public and everything to do with our foreign policies.

Why would an extremist not know this?



So is it your belief that extremists meticulously plan their terror attacks so that only the government is affected, while no harm comes to those with nothing to do with policy matters? Additionally, do you deny that they'll kill anyone if it furthers their ideological cause, to include fellow Muslims.
Do you believe that anybody is safe from extremists, if they present the extremists with an opportunity to kidnap, injure, kill them?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


No, you are right about all of that. They will kill innocents, despite their claims they that won't. They said the 9/11 attack wasn't against innocents because many of the WTC employees were government, but I suppose they didn't think about the people on the planes.

They will attack innocents; I don't agree with their cause at all.

What I'm saying is:

If the US fixed our foreign policy with the Middle East, they wouldn't attack innocents, at least US innocents in America. They may disagree with our lifestyle, but they would not be attacking us if we weren't pushing our lifestyle on them.

Now, there may be some extremists who still want to attack us, but they would be hard pressed to find recruits.

Agree with that?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


That's right. Better watch your mouth. We don't tolerate opinions what disagree with ourn!

Are you kidding me? He should have his license revoked? Screw that. This guy has every right to express his opinion, no matter how asinine it is. If you've never taken a taxi with a kooky nut behind the wheel, I doubt you've ever actually taken a taxi.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Already been covered here, several days ago.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
He says that because he has the freedom to say it.

Should we punish him for speaking his mind?

My question is why was there an entire news story made on what a New York cabby was saying, while there are two madmen (Bush and Cheney) in the Whitehouse who is going to push us into war with Iran very shortly?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Yeah, I saw you posted it. I didn't see where you had related it to the board in any way, so I decided to make a new thread about it.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620


What I'm saying is:

If the US fixed our foreign policy with the Middle East, they wouldn't attack innocents, at least US innocents in America. They may disagree with our lifestyle, but they would not be attacking us if we weren't pushing our lifestyle on them.

Now, there may be some extremists who still want to attack us, but they would be hard pressed to find recruits.

Agree with that?



Why is it that it's only Muslims that take such exception to our foreign policy, to commit these acts of violence, if that's in fact the sole cause?
I'm not buying that they'd be non-violent if it weren't for us. Appeasement is not the best course of action in my estimation. Where does it stop once you go down that road?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Because we occupy their lands, I think much of it to protect Israel.

See, you are correct that they find our "freedom" offensive. Not our freedom, per se, but our free lifestyles. Sex out of wedlock, pornography, etc.

However, since we have begun to occupy their lands, we have forced that on them, in their territory. We have sanctioned them from building weapons, and then sold weapons to their enemies.

We have attempted, often successfully, to change the curriculum taught in their schools to be more western.

Let me switch things up a bit to put it more in perspective:

Say the United States was broken up into many parts. Christian Law ruled the land, but there are different types of Christians, and they are fighting each other for control.

Then China comes in and says, "You know what, we like Mexicans, and you stole their territory", and gives it back to them. The southwest becomes Mexico's land again, and everyone living there is under Mexican Law.

Then China comes back a little bit later and says, "Your countries are out of control, we're going to come occupy Florida". So China comes in, occupies Florida to set up a stronger government. But no one can decide who gets control: the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, or the Methodists. So the fighting rages on.

Meanwhile, China and it's allies are loading up Canada, the Native Americans, and Mexico with bookoos of weapons.

Then to top it off, China comes in and starts changing our school system's curriculum. They start teaching communism, alternative religions, and attempting to change our overall government.

Now, yes, from an outside perspective... we need to get our stuff together, quit fighting, and just fix things. But what would we see? These damn people from China keep coming in and making things worse. Because we've spent so much time fighting each other, we are far behind in military might. So we can't very will attack them with a military.

Eventually, a small group of "extremists" (or from our point of view "freedom fighters") would probably pop up.

That's what is happening. And quite frankly, that's the short of it.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


A-Because we occupy their lands, I think much of it to protect Israel.


B-However, since we have begun to occupy their lands, we have forced that on them, in their territory. We have sanctioned them from building weapons, and then sold weapons to their enemies.

C-We have attempted, often successfully, to change the curriculum taught in their schools to be more western.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]


A- Which Arab country has forces US forces in it against the government's will? The Iraqi government could always ask us to leave, as could any other Arab country.

B- So by prohibiting countries that have demonstrated themselves to be sponsors, safe havens, financiers, trainers, etc... of terrorists, from obtaining WMD, that's justification for them to continue to attack us?

C- What- that women aren't second class citizens, and that Jews aren't lower than animals, and drinkers of Arab blood?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


A) Firstly, we support pseudo-Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Trust me, they are not happy about this.

Second, we support oppression in Kasmir, Mindanao, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang Province, Palestine, and of course the Arabian Peninsula.

B) If we are going to stop them from building weapons, WMD or otherwise, we shouldn't be giving them to their enemies. Fair? It kind of puts the battle on our front doorstep, don't you think?

C) I don't agree with their lifestyles. They don't agree with ours.

We can't keep playing these games with them. They aren't just going to Westernize because we say so. Either we bring in full force military and wage a war against the entire region, or we need to completely rethink our strategy.

Kind of just stalemating each other right now.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

My question is why was there an entire news story made on what a New York cabby was saying, while there are two madmen (Bush and Cheney) in the Whitehouse who is going to push us into war with Iran very shortly?


Because there are already several million (literally) "news" stories plus ATS threads on the subject of Bush, Cheney, et al. This story is new, different, and one that many will not agree with.

So, can we go ahead and just discuss the NY cabbie now?



[edit on 4/10/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
A small point, but a valid one nonetheless.

Shouldn't the headline read sharia law?

This helps to convince me that this story may not be entirely on the money, although I could be completely wrong - I've never heard of shia law.

I have heard of the Shi'a sect of islam though - maybe that's what they meant?

Either way, sloppy journalism.

Sorry for the digression.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join