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

reply to post by Sublime620


I'm pretty sure that this article and the site it pertains to are very dodgy - first they mix up shia with sharia law, and then seek to make a connection between extremists and 9/11.

I don't think it matters too much to them the type of extremist, but using a muslim one would push all the right psychological buttons, and has the added bonus of embedding a relationship between CTers and extremists in the psyche (of some)

In theory, people who read this would then equate CT's with extremism - although I have to say that IMO it's a pretty poor attempt at manipulation.

It may be worth keeping an eye on fox to see if they run similar stories over the coming weeks/months.

It looks like the battle between the MSM and alternative news/conspiarcy angles is on

reply to post by jsobecky


No, jsobecky . Again you missed the point.

It's not that I support or sympathize, it's that I understand. You know the old adage:

"Know thy enemy."

Everything that we censor them, support their enemies, or occupy them, we gain more enemies.

That's fine, I understand that we are trying to do the right thing. However, we can't just do that, and then act holier than now. They will respond to what we do; and the longer we drag it out, the bigger the chance that they will hit us with everything they have.

**Edited to add:

And no, try as hard as the government might, I am not scared day to day of terrorist attacks. I do fear for my family, some of which lives close to NYC, my father often flies a lot for business, and my sister lives in D.C.

So, yes, I do sometimes fear for them.

Just understand one thing, jsobecky :

Every time we do these things to Muslims, we breed a new Islamic extremist. Are we prepared to go into a full scale holy war with them?

Maybe. We might be. What we can't do is what we are doing now, which is a half-in, half-out war.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Sublime620]

Edit to clarify who is being spoken to.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by budski


I'll be keeping an eye out for it.

I will definitely be reading that site for the next bit to see if I can find any more inconsistencies.

reply to post by Sublime620


It's certainly worth keeping an eye on

This report sucked in that it had no pretense of neutrality, but it did exactly what it said on the tin.

reply to post by jsobecky


When you get back, if you've calmed down, I'd be glad to continue debating this issue with you, jsobecky.

I will reiterate one more time what my stance is before you post:

Contrary to your previous posts, I am not pro-terrorists, or a terrorist sympathizer. I just understand that every action has a reaction.

We cannot sit here and sanction them and expect nothing to happen in return. If we continue to hurt them while helping their allies, they will retaliate.

So, in my opinion, we have limited options:

• Try to be more diplomatic. Allow some workable deals in the areas of distress (not sure this is a viable option, but talking never hurts).
  
  
• Full scale war.
  
  
• Back out, and let these regions figure out who will control the area.
  
  
• Do like we did to Russian in the '80s, and aid radical Islam's enemies in the background.

reply to post by budski


Yeah, but that's Fox News in a nutshell (along with all the rest of the news organizations in the US). Completely biased and moronic journalism. Very narrow minded. Absolutely no investigative journalism anymore.

The US news organizations couldn't crack a story if the main bulk of it was placed on their desk.