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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


No, good point. That's why I posted this. The other person who reported this article did it just to post an article.

I posted it because the article seems fishy.

Why call him a Muslim extremist, and then say he thinks 9/11 was an inside job? Wouldn't any true Muslim extremist claim 9/11 as a victory?

Here's some links set up on the site to rebut the Fox News story:

Silencing the Foxy Lies

RevolutionMuslim.com, Starring Yusuf Al Khattab, W. Bill Hemmer, Megyn Kelly, Now in theaters!

This whole site seems like a joke. By joke I don't mean funny, I mean these guys are clowns.

Is this the new breed of Muslim extremists?

I can't figure out these guys motives.




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
And it appears you are right.

It's called Sharia Law. Shia is just a form of Islam, I believe the Shiites?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


There does seem to be something of an undercurrent to this doesn't there.

I think you called this one right - there's something fishy about the whole story.

I'm also pretty sure (80%) I've seen that photo before somewhere - but in the UK press.

It wouldn't surprise me if the whole site (of the alleged cabby) was a complete fabrication.

Yep, this article stinks.

Reply to 2nd post this page.

Yes, there are sunni and shia muslims - the main 2 sects in iraq.

Sharia law refers to the system of law allegedly based on the koran, although some countries take a more moderate interpretation than others.
It's essentially religious law, with precedents, based on interpretations of what passages in the koran mean.

For instance, nowhere in the koran does it say that people should be stoned to death for their (different) crimes - another example of man corrupting the word of "god" for their own ends.

[edit on 10/4/2008 by budski]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Somebody needs to tickle him until he wets himself.

Admin Note: Removed the harsher opinion and replaced it with something softer, but still dramatic.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Originally posted by Sublime620
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.

That is absolutely untrue. We help the Saudi monarchy to stay in power, and that's just fine with them. Of course there are wackos like bin Laden who are mortified that we dare set foot on their sacred land, but he'll just have to come into the 21st century.


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

Easy for you to say this, but it is unfounded. How do we support oppression in, say, Mindanao?



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?


Once again, unfounded. Give some examples.



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.


Ever been to Saudi Arabia? Go there and try to buy a martini with your dinner. Then come back here and tell me that we are westernizing them against their will.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Is it really OK with you that the US helps an unelected, un-democratic, absolute monarchy who practice one of the more extreme versions of sharia law to stay in power?

Bush says a lot about democracy - are the saudi's exempt?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Isn't all of this just more propaganda to make 9/11 truth sound like a terrorist idea?

Terrorist sympathizers etc.?

This is transparent.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Originally posted by budski
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Is it really OK with you that the US helps an unelected, un-democratic, absolute monarchy who practice one of the more extreme versions of sharia law to stay in power?

Bush says a lot about democracy - are the saudi's exempt?



Where did you ever get the impression that it is OK with me "that the US helps an unelected, un-democratic, absolute monarchy who practice one of the more extreme versions of sharia law to stay in power?"

Where did I ever say that?

Just because I state a fact doesn't mean I endorse that fact.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Isn't all of this just more propaganda to make 9/11 truth sound like a terrorist idea?

Terrorist sympathizers etc.?

This is transparent.


Not at all. Read the man's background and you will see that he has been doing this for some time now.

9/11 was caused by Islamic extremists, btw.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
answering-islam.org...

You want to learn all you can about those who some here say would leave us alone or appeasement would work?

Read this site/



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is absolutely untrue. We help the Saudi monarchy to stay in power, and that's just fine with them. Of course there are wackos like bin Laden who are mortified that we dare set foot on their sacred land, but he'll just have to come into the 21st century.


I think you may have some misconceptions. Fundamentalist Muslims (extremists, if you will) HATE Saudi Arabia.

We support Saudi Arabia. So what is untrue about that?

So, again, I'll state, we help the psuedo-Muslim Saudi monarchy stay in power. I guess you agree? Or are you just disagreeing with me for the sake of it, as usual?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Easy for you to say this, but it is unfounded. How do we support oppression in, say, Mindanao?


Easy for me to say? How is it easy? It's not unfounded, it's stuff I learned from reading. They are called books, you should look into them.

Mindanao's Muslim refugees

In the conflict zones on the island of Mindanao, refugees are everywhere.

Forced to flee from their homes, many have pitched bamboo tents along busy highways, under trees, and even inside a small mosque.



I witnessed one incident when, during a lull in the battle, a group of refugees negotiated with the soldiers to go in to harvest some corn.

One of the soldiers replied:" You are free to move around here. Just don't go too far or you might get shot."

He added that the troops had left everything on the ground exactly as they had found it.

But a short walk into the village told a different story, with 90% of houses burned to the ground.

"I don't know why this happened," one refugee said.

"The soldiers told us they did not burn any of our houses, but now that we are here, we see that our houses are burned to ashes."


We are supporting the Filipino side of this conflict, therefore, we are supporting the repression of Muslims - right or wrong.

Capiche?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, unfounded. Give some examples.


This was about us sanctioning Muslims states from attaining weapons. You are saying it's unfounded? I don't even need a book to tell me that. Really, becky? Really?

You can look that one up yourself.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Ever been to Saudi Arabia? Go there and try to buy a martini with your dinner. Then come back here and tell me that we are westernizing them against their will.


I don't even know what that has to do with it. Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this other than we support them. We support them, and extremists Muslims HATE the Saudi state. Hate it.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


That's exactly what I was saying. Equating 9/11 truth to terrorists.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


We seem to have gotten off the point a little, but good post nonetheless - starred.

Is the dodginess of the news story no longer an issue?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Yeah, decent point.

I guess I was just trying to prove why this guy and his website are so backwards. The whole thing is a contradiction to extremist Muslims. Osama would shake his head at that site.

What's he going to put on there next, "America needs to be more like Saudi Arabia", or "Free Israel"?

*Edited to add:

Just in case becky wants to say that Muslims hating the Saudi state is "unfounded", here is the best proof I can give off a 2 sec google search:

Bin Laden Identifies Saudi Arabia as the Enemy

Focus on Saudi Arabia – an interview with Osama Bin Laden

And that's just the titles copied word for word. I won't even get into the things he said.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Originally posted by Sublime620
I think you may have some misconceptions. Fundamentalist Muslims (extremists, if you will) HATE Saudi Arabia.

That's not what I was responding to. I was referring to Blue Raja's correct statement that
we are not in those countries against their will.

Fundamentalist extremist Islamics hate everything. So what? Are we supposed to form our foreign policy to fit their feelings?


Originally posted by Sublime620
We support Saudi Arabia. So what is untrue about that?

I already said that.



Originally posted by jsobecky
Easy for you to say this, but it is unfounded. How do we support oppression in, say, Mindanao?

Originally posted by Sublime620
Easy for me to say? How is it easy? It's not unfounded, it's stuff I learned from reading. They are called books, you should look into them.

No need to get pissy because your position is being challenged.



Originally posted by Sublime620

We are supporting the Filipino side of this conflict, therefore, we are supporting the repression of Muslims - right or wrong.

Capiche?

Your view of the Phillipines is distorted, and 180 degrees out of whack. The Phillipines are a haven of muslim terrorism. We are assisting the Phillipine gov't in rousting them out. We are not "oppressing muslims".




Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, unfounded. Give some examples.

Originally posted by Sublime620

This was about us sanctioning Muslims states from attaining weapons. You are saying it's unfounded? I don't even need a book to tell me that. Really, becky? Really?

You can look that one up yourself.

In other words, you don't have an answer to the question: which muslim states are we sanctioning from attaining weapons?

But it sure sounds good when you spout baseless rhetoric about the big bad USA, doesn't it?




Originally posted by jsobecky
Ever been to Saudi Arabia? Go there and try to buy a martini with your dinner. Then come back here and tell me that we are westernizing them against their will.

Originally posted by Sublime620

I don't even know what that has to do with it. Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this other than we support them. We support them, and extremists Muslims HATE the Saudi state. Hate it.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]

It was meant to expose your very limited knowledge of the area.

Oh yeah, btw:

Originally posted by Sublime620

No, good point. That's why I posted this. The other person who reported this article did it just to post an article.


Don't ever presume to know what my motives are for doing anything. And "Something smells fishy" is not a good enough reason to break the rules of posting in BAN. You also broke the rule of posting a BREAKING NEWS article - not 3 days later.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Originally posted by Sublime620
Just in case becky wants to say that Muslims hating the Saudi state is "unfounded", here is the best proof I can give off a 2 sec google search:

Bin Laden Identifies Saudi Arabia as the Enemy

Focus on Saudi Arabia – an interview with Osama Bin Laden

And that's just the titles copied word for word. I won't even get into the things he said.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]


You really are a poor debater. If you read the thread you would see that I HAD ALREADY STATED the following:


That is absolutely untrue. We help the Saudi monarchy to stay in power, and that's just fine with them. Of course there are wackos like bin Laden who are mortified that we dare set foot on their sacred land, but he'll just have to come into the 21st century.


I'm way ahead of you.

And the username is jsobecky, not becky. I'd appreciate it being used correctly.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's not what I was responding to. I was referring to Blue Raja's correct statement that
we are not in those countries against their will.


Iraq? Saudi is against some of their wills, just the monarchy seems to like it - for obvious reasons.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Fundamentalist extremist Islamics hate everything. So what? Are we supposed to form our foreign policy to fit their feelings?


I guess that depends on what our goals are. Is our goal to not get attacked? Then, yes.

Is our goal to destroy radical Islam? If so, we're doing a terrible job of it. Half-assed, just like Vietnam.

My point is that we keep sitting in the middle of the issue to make both parties happy (though neither is). We are not fully committed to wiping out radical Islam.


Originally posted by jsobecky
No need to get pissy because your position is being challenged.


It wasn't challenged, you said it was unfounded. You didn't bother researching it first or at least understanding my position, so instead you just said, "that's unfounded".

Touche?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Your view of the Phillipines is distorted, and 180 degrees out of whack. The Phillipines are a haven of muslim terrorism. We are assisting the Phillipine gov't in rousting them out. We are not "oppressing muslims".


You missed the right or wrong part, didn't you? I understand what the Filipinos are facing. That's not the point.

The point is that, once again, we are supporting radical Islams enemies, and then we act surprised that they hate us.


Originally posted by jsobecky
In other words, you don't have an answer to the question: which muslim states are we sanctioning from attaining weapons?

But it sure sounds good when you spout baseless rhetoric about the big bad USA, doesn't it?


...*sigh*

Fine. I'll do the research for you, again!

Here's an oldy but a goodie, and it's an ironic one at that:

To Pakistan, With Thanks

Now... I know what you're thinking, "Ohh ohh, Pakistan is a Muslim state and we gave them weapons". True. However, we gave them to fight Muslims with (pay attention for the twist at the end).


The United States imposed weapons sanctions in the 1990s after it found out about Pakistan's secret nuclear bomb program. But then came Sept. 11 and the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan became our new best friend, and the sanctions were lifted.


The bolded part is mine to show where we had sanctioned them in the 90s to aid their enemies, the Hindus.


Other equipment Pakistan is getting from the United States—navy surveillance planes, for example—is similarly useless against a guerrilla insurgency. They would, of course, be useful in a war against India.

The majority of questions Pakistani journalists asked in the show's press conferences were centered around one theme: "Can this help us beat India?"


That's the twist. We sanctioned them to help Hindu India, and then after 9/11, we gave them weapons for them to help us against the Taliban, but all they cared about was using them against India.

And there are more. That's just one. Iran would be another example.


Originally posted by jsobecky
It was meant to expose your very limited knowledge of the area.


I guess I would classify that as an epic fail then, because it seems your knowledge of the subject is fairly limited.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't ever presume to know what my motives are for doing anything. And "Something smells fishy" is not a good enough reason to break the rules of posting in BAN. You also broke the rule of posting a BREAKING NEWS article - not 3 days later.


Actually, jsobecky, the whole point of the alternative news forum is to relate it to a conspiracy on this site. It is not to just report some news and give an opinion. So, yes, you broke the rules, not I.

And I posted it the same day, just 4 hours after you. Maybe you should have checked that.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


First, I'll call you whatever I want.


Second, it's not fine with everyone. Most people, including Westerners do not like the Saudi regime. They play both sides of the coin, teaching hatred towards the West while supporting us.

*Edited to add:

Though my debating skills may be lacking, I do know how to cite sources and make my opponent look foolish.


Reaffirming the "Breaking Alternative News" Forum

The Intent of the "Breaking Alternative News Forum" is to provide a single-source place to post relevant articles from other sources that are less than 48 hours hold. By relevant we mean topics that related to the "conspiracy theory" and "alternative topics" themes of the AboveTopSecret.com forums. Many of the threads we see in the first to pages of the "Breaking Alternative News Forum" should have been started in other forums on ATS or AbovePolitics.


Maybe you should take your complaint up with him. You can let the site owner decide who's thread was more relevant and properly done.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Anyway, back on topic:

They truly do seem to hate Israel on this site. That fits the norm.

However, keep reading and you will see that occasionally they slip up and talk in very western ways.

A "secular" Muslim.., an OxyMoron


Bro, is this guy gay? What's up with his fetish of animal urine and breastmilk? I think he drank too much of it or had too many golden showers.


That looks like something you'd see a 16 year old white kid post on some video game forum to another player.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 

Let's take a look at the rest of your post:



Originally posted by jsobecky
Fundamentalist extremist Islamics hate everything. So what? Are we supposed to form our foreign policy to fit their feelings?

Originally posted by Sublime620
I guess that depends on what our goals are. Is our goal to not get attacked? Then, yes.

So your foreign policy would be based upon terrorists feeling. :shk: Making sure we didn't hurt their feelings.

Riiight.



Originally posted by jsobecky
Your view of the Phillipines is distorted, and 180 degrees out of whack. The Phillipines are a haven of muslim terrorism. We are assisting the Phillipine gov't in rousting them out. We are not "oppressing muslims".

Originally posted by Sublime620
You missed the right or wrong part, didn't you? I understand what the Filipinos are facing. That's not the point.

The point is that, once again, we are supporting radical Islams enemies, and then we act surprised that they hate us.

Do you realize how silly you sound? "we are supporting radical Islams enemies"?? Uh, yeah! That surprises you and upsets you? I didn't realize you were a sympathizer.

You seem to want to placate the terrorists, indeed, make that part of our foreign policy.

Is this because you live in fear of them attacking you?

 

Moderator edit to remove off-topic and insulting comments.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by dbates]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join