Originally posted by JJay55
reply to post by Maxmars
Max, your pants are down.
So glad many other posters realize that apologists are our weakness.
We have a long battle ahead without a full taste of what will come because of the ease of infiltration of the US. It's a good idea now to prepare
instead of wasting time by being skeptical.
Well, how embarrassing for me - ever the apologist!
My
case apology(?) thus far:
- A suspect is a suspect until a court of law declares them guilty of a crime
- This is a sensitive case because of the propensity for it to be characterized as oppressive action targeted against Muslims in particular
- It has not been established that the crime in questions has something to do with the faith of the accused.
On point A I have had to contend with the objection that he fired at the law enforcement officers - thus making him a criminal.
This is legally incorrect. Guilt of a crime is not presumed in this country - ever. We accept as a community that no matter how the facts are
reported by either side, the system must determine and validate the facts via due process.
On Point B I confess we are treading on my personal opinion that vilifying any group of people is usually proven to be an incorrect approach to
solving a social problem; I have seen it done with Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Gays, Japanese, French, German, Irish, Italians, Puerto Ricans,
Mexicans, Homeless persons, Free Masons.... etc. etc. - there is always a reason to go down this path and it has yet to be the right path to have
taken.
I will grant that you may perceive it as a mamby-pamby liberal douche hippie position. Well, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it.
On point C you may prove to be correct when (if the media follows the story in an unbiased manner) the details regarding the FBI's case against him
shows that he was indeed involved in treason, sedition, or whatever capital offense against the nation you feel is 'inherently' part of his cultural
identity as a Muslim.
The Sharia Law specter that you are raising is a point of misunderstanding. You seem to contend that financial institutional policy is being adjusted
to accommodate the general restrictions against usury and exploitation to have weight in the UCC may be sinister in intent - some backhanded way of
surrending the legal framework to have us stoning our daughters and chopping of hands of accused shoplifters.
But I fail to see how policy is becoming a law? The banking community may be globalizing the inclusion, but that is not the same as law.
Are our legislators actually voting and arguing on these matters? Which bill or proposal can I review to make an analysis of how religion is being
interwoven with the law against our traditional national character? I may be ignorant of this and therefore guilty of the offense.
There seems to be a conspiratorial allusion being given to Islamic faith. I find that suspect only because I find it difficult to accept that 300
Million Americans will be oblivious to any enforcement in this direction (unless it is done secretly).
More importantly, I want those of you who have been discussing the matter to understand something - I value and encourage your continued vigilance and
willingness to discuss the matter. It is of vital importance to our community to have all the facts - which I can confidently say that none of us
have. Perhaps together, we can get closer to a fuller collection of the facts.
Taken as a whole, our collection of views and information can serve us all well. Just stop thinking of me as an adversary and we can gain ground on
the topic. I'm not struggling to change your minds, nor am I closed to changing mine. But cynical comments and snide remarks don't make a good
case.
Right now I see a shameful event that can be used by the divisive in either direction. That worries me, because in a world that is is represented by
a majority of people who simply 'consume' news; those with the public ear can inadvertently or otherwise create hatred where none should exist.
And yes, there are those who already hate us and wish us ill. There are also those who foster and use that hatred for their own personal agendas.
You keep vigilant on your perspective - I will keep vigilant on mine.
For the record mine is; if you think you can rationalize why I must fear, hate, or suspect my Muslim neighbor as a matter of principle, I will be
inquiring as to exactly why that is, and whether the claim is because of personal bias. It isn't about you personally, it's about needing more than
supposition to create an enemy where there may be no enemy.
