Obama Administration Bans The Truth About Islam And Jihad

Yes the administration is the only group that knows the truth.

Funny how the mentally challenged can get into such a dither about the imposition of Sharia law, but have no issues with imposing their fairytale based religious beliefs on others. For those that can actually read and comprehend the Constitution, the imposition of any religious based law is a greenlight to eradicate the instigators. Step up to the pump and go for it teavangelicals. Make my day.

Elaine, here is a politically correct version of what I said earlier. I can't believe some of your comments were collapsed right out of the box! That means you are doing your job well. You apparently have struck a nerve with the less informed because instead of making an intelligent counter comment they collapse it so they won't have to deal with it.

I will tell you one thing that I'm sure you already know, whenever someone sees a collapsed comment they are far more likely to read it out of curiosity and vote it up! I take it has a very high compliment and a badge of honor.

I just heard recently on the news that president Obama is try to get a bill passed that allows the FBI and CIA to deny the existence of documents when they are requested by any one including the freedom of information act. Just another act of suppression of information by a president who promised transparency. His orders to remove the so called offensive words about Islam in government documents reminds me of George Orwell's "1984".

This also proves that Obama really screwed up on his promise of transparency! Since he has been in office there have been nothing but coverups during his whole administration. He never lets the public access his college grades which I'm sure will prove he is not as smart as people give him credit for. Crafty, yes. Intelligent, not really. There is a lot of evidence that Obama is a Muslim. Could that be why he wants those words taken out of government documents? Because he finds them personally offensive? Sounds like something a Muslim would do, not an American.

He never lets the public access his college grades which I'm sure will prove he is not as smart as people give him credit for.

He has no obligation to disclose private records.

There is a lot of evidence that Obama is a Muslim.

There's none at all. He lived in Indonesia for a few years as a little kid. Big deal.

"He never lets the public access his college grades which I'm sure will prove he is not as smart as people give him credit for."

He graduated Magna Cum Laude. He made the law review, which correlates to the top 10 percent of his class. The top 10 percent graduate Magna. He was also voted president of the Harvard Law Review, which is predicated on ability and brains. He didn't have family connections to get him in, nor family money to buy him that spot. Dumb people usually don't get accepted into Harvard Law School, don't make the law review, don't become president of the law review, and don't graduate Magna.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html

Yeah so...you ever read any of his writings? seen his records? And how did he pay for Harvard?

Hey Vol,

5 seconds of research and you would have found this about Harvard.....

http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do

We invite you to explore our web site for a detailed description of all aspects of our aid program, including our Harvard Financial Aid Initiative for low and moderate income students, under which families with incomes currently below $60,000 are not expected to contribute to college costs. Beginning in the fall of 2012, financial aid will be further expanded for low income students, when this income level will be increased to $65,000.

So just get accepted...thats all it takes....tell your kids going to some over priced college "with a good football team" that all they have to do is get accepted to Harvard and they go for free....they can go for free...THEY CAN GO FOR FREE!!!! Read it?? See it??? good!!! Now you can drop that part.

Angry Left,

Does it state when that program was begun? Oh, wait, it doesn't mention it at all! So, in other words, that program could have started in 2009. Or, it might have been around since 1860. But, you don't know if that program existed when Obama attended; because it doesn't say. Nice try.

You're the ones with the questions about his financial aid package....until you can prove he did something illegal you got nothing...NOTHING!!! So until you have some proof of wrong doing, my statement stands as is.

Innuendo and maybes only mean anything in those right wing chain emails they send around to each other.

Isabella...I doubt most righties know what the latin honors are or what they mean....

"Isabella...I doubt most righties know what the latin honors are or what they mean"

Yeah, I know. They see Magna "Cum" Laude, they think it's a porn movie or the name of a condom.

"Yeah so...you ever read any of his writings?"

Actually, yes. You can go read it yourself:

"Obama's article, which is a six page summary, begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases"

Besides, you might want to read up on what's required writing by law students at Harvard:

"In their first year, most write the brief, anonymous "case comments" like Obama's"

"Like most second-year law students on the Harvard Law Review, Senator Obama wrote an unsigned student case comment that summarized a recent decision by a state or lower federal court."

As the president of the Law Review, his job was to edit and review articles, not write them.

"seen his records?

Don't need to. My post didn't sink in, huh? He made the Law Review. Only the top students at Harvard make it. If he did not have top grades, he would not of made the Law Review, and most certainly would not of been elected as the president of it.

"And how did he pay for Harvard?"

What a silly question. Like just about every college student does, financial aid. I guess you weren't paying attention during election, he and his wife had just paid off their huge financial aid debts the year before from the sale of his books. He probably got a few grants, and a few scholorships as well, like most smart kids get to help with college expenses.

"man-made disaster" aka this entire article/seed.

kjm,

Voted up!

Regards,

Mike

No wonder Obama bent so far over he could tie his shoes, while touring over in the middle east, I guess he wanted them to be able to get a good grip. We all know all Muslims are not terrorists but this politically correct BS is going to get people killed.

There is no such thing as Islamists extremists. They're just people. /sarc.

The Left and apologists will tell you that everytime you ask !

There is no such thing as Islamists extremists. They're just people.

You forgot, "peaceful" people. You can't judge them just because they have a bomb strapped to their chest....or their child. Just because they blow up stuff and kill innocent civilians doesn't make them bad people. They are peaceful and full of love for their fellow man.....as long as you believe the same things they do.

Islamic extremists are exactly as you describe. The other billion and half muslims share your view of the extremists among them. Which is why it is important to have now had two Presidents smart enough to know the difference.

It's funny, with the prevalence of guns amongst all the citizens in Islamic nations, why haven't these billion and a half moderate muslims kicked out the extremists? They should be on equal footing other than numbers.

You can't judge them just because they have a bomb strapped to their chest....or their child.

Sure you can - you can (and should) judge everyone based on what they do. You cannot judge accurately based on what they believe.

Was Andrew Joseph Stack III a Muslim? How about Anders Breivik? Or what about Scott Roeder? All are clearly terrorists. And extremists.

why haven't these billion and a half moderate muslims kicked out the extremists?

They have. Why do you think they are hiding in caves in Afghanistan or flock to places like Somalia, with no central government. There are more than 60 nations with majority muslim populations and all but a few fight the muslim extremists. They do more to combat them than we do. They lose more of their people to them than we do.

The other billion and half muslims share your view of the extremists among them.

Another, "What they think", when they don't speak up.

Wierd thing about that statement by Gator, It's a bitch trying to find the condemnation from Muslims on Terrorism. The few you can kinda find don't make up for the billion or so Liberals always seem to apologise for, that don't speak up.

Why do Liberals find it necessary to speak for the Muslim Religion ? Is it because the Muslims need a "Politically Correct" voice because they don't have one of their own? I was always taught, if you have something you don't like, SPEAK UP!

gator,

The extremists hide in caves because they are easily defensible and hard to get at by Western operatives. Actually, most of the extremists walk amongst the populace, hiding in plain sight. Why do you think we have such a hard time getting rid of Al Qaida?

Hiding in caves are they? I believe the Taliban are currently in negotiations with the Afghani government, hardly cave dwelling. They are currently poised to take power in Libya, oh those primordial cro-magnons. They are the focal point of entire military movements in Somalia, guess caves are hard to build in the sand. And they are currently taking the reins in Tunisia. Yes they are most certainly not in the mainstream at all gator. The left side of this entire argument has been an awesome display of the ignorance of the religion(Islam) and the individuals who practice it. But liberals have always been blind to any danger that they might use to further their own agenda. Blind until that danger is on their own doorstep and then we get the proverbial "why me? what did I do? I supported your rights!" Cries.

tesla,

You forgot that they control Egypt already.

Clarify....'They' referrs to Islamist governments. The Taliban to my knowledge and using that name are strictly an Afghani thing.

Excellent point Tom!

It's funny, with the prevalence of guns amongst all the citizens in Islamic nations, why haven't these billion and a half moderate muslims kicked out the extremists? They should be on equal footing other than numbers.

Nice talking point. I'd love to know your experience with such knowledge? Having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, not every family over there has an arsenal hidden in their dirt huts. That's like saying that every hick and yokel in the backwoods is hiding an arsenal in their homes. And they prolly haven't kicked anyone out for the same reason that moderate christians haven't kicked out their extremist brethren such as dominionists, the tools who parade in front of abortion clinics and threaten their families, the tools who denigrate and berate homosexuals for simply being who they are, or those two winners who are on trial for killing their adopted daughter. Where is your outrage in those respects or is it different because they're x-tians?

They have their taliban and we have ours. You want to keep them away from our shores? Stay out of their countries. Had the US learned this simple lesson decades ago, we could have saved ourselves much heartache and bloodshed. But for some reason our x-tian founded government has always been fond of meddling and attempting to colonize other cultures. I think it has something to do with the whole x-tian religion...

It's a bitch trying to find the condemnation from Muslims on Terrorism.

For a real challenge, try to find condemnation of terrorism from Christians. For example, did Christians condemn Eric Rudolph? Look at this:

Eric Rudolph is still in prison.

Bill Ayers is still free, confessing now of his past crimes and his misleading of the American people during a Presidential election.

And Rahm Emanuel is now elected the mayor of Chicago.

This week, the Norwegian guy, Anders Behring Breivik , who bombed the "White House" of Norway and killed a bunch of Marxists who were in turn allowing for unlimited Muslim immigration into Norway will become the new poster boy for Christian morality of all stripes, just as Eric Rudolph was so characterized back in his day for executing baby killers.

or this:

Whenever there are incidents of crime against abortion providers or supporters, the pro-abortion lobby gears up its propaganda machine to blame the whole pro-life movement for those crimes, such as the murder of abortionist Dr George Tiller or Eric Rudolph's bombing of an Atlanta abortion clinic. According to the pro-abortion lobby, founded on a philosophy that champions hate, violence and other bad/criminal things against abortion supporters and providers, the pro-life campaign naturally produces followers who endorse and execute criminal, terrorist and militant acts against the latter. However, this characterization of the pro-life movement is wrong and unfounded and is simply an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to defame and discredit the movement, paving the way for its persecution, oppression and ultimate destruction.

I did find one great condemnation of Scott Roeder, but it was from a "liberal" site so may not count.

Whoever Killed George Tiller Was Not A Christian
by pastordan
Sun May 31, 2009 at 07:35:40 PM PST

Let me tell you one thing: whoever it was that shot George Tiller as he entered church this morning was no Christian. (That person has been identified as Scott Roeder, a member of Operation Rescue, by at least one local news outlet.)

I'll leave it to other, more knowledgeable commentators to say how the rhetoric of Operation Rescue and other right-wing organizations may have created the atmosphere necessary for such a crime. Sara Robinson and Fred Clarkson have covered that ground pretty well. I'll pass as well on the question of whether Tiller's assassination constitutes domestic terrorism. I think it does, but I'm not qualified to make such assessments.

How many American landmarks, citizens, military personnel, was Eric Rudolf responsible for destroying and or killing Kate? How many buses full of innocent civilians did he blow up? Does he, to this day, fire rockets into another sovereign country? How many followers has Mr.Rudolf recruited in these past years?? How many suicide bombers has his faction claimed responsibility for?? Your comparisons are no comparison to the evil perpetrated by radical Islam, period. And frankly they are merely derails and deflections, because you know for a fact that radical Islam is INDEFENSIBLE, period. Want to talk about Christian crazies? Go find you a Christian bashing seed, I am sure this site contains a plethora from which to choose.

Great point Tesla. Condemning an entire faith based on what some do is really just mindless, bigoted bashing of that faith. If only you would apply that principle to your own bashing of Islam.

Perhaps you have not noticed in your attempts to be cordial gator, but I have prefaced nearly all my negative comments about Islam with the word radical to make sure there is no question of my deliniation between the two. Read, you can learn some awesome stuff.

It's gotta be a Liberal thing.

How do you go from an article about Obama, The FBI and Muslim Political Correctness, to a post about something Christian as an argument for Muslims and this administration ?

Please explain.

I have a simple explanation on why you can't find too many Muslims speaking out against the extremists, "THE ONES THAT DID SPEAK OUT ARE DEAD OR WILL DIE IF THEY SAY ANYTHING" !

It's gotta be a Liberal thing.

How do you go from an article about Obama, The FBI and Muslim Political Correctness, to a post about something Christian as an argument for Muslims and this administration ?

Please explain.

I'll do my best, since you asked nicely. (I don't think it's a "Liberal thing" though.)

You posted:

It's a bitch trying to find the condemnation from Muslims on Terrorism.

In response, I posted:

For a real challenge, try to find condemnation of terrorism from Christians.

As in, if you think THAT is hard to find, try finding THIS.

Terrorists come from all backgrounds, nationalities, races, religions, education levels, eye colors, political ideologies, ... If it bothers you that Muslims do not condemn terrorism, shouldn't it also bother you that Christians (and Hindus and Buddhists and ...) do not condemn terrorism?

If it bothers you that Muslims do not condemn terrorism, shouldn't it also bother you that Christians (and Hindus and Buddhists and ...) do not condemn terrorism?

The reality is that all religions, and members of all religions, do condemn terrorism, and they do so publicly, and constantly. You won't know that though, if all you read is American media, since they don't report the daily events in other countries unless it directly affects the US.

Good point, Dennis.

Dennis

The reality is that all religions, and members of all religions, do condemn terrorism, and they do so publicly, and constantly. You won't know that though, if all you read is American media, since they don't report the daily events in other countries unless it directly affects the US.

Then I guess you wouldn't mind posting some links to prove this claim since you're not in the United States, perhaps you have access to places that Americans don't have access to. The only things I've been able to find on the Internet regarding this subject is the Islamic extremists sites repeatedly saying how they're going to destroy America and turn it into an Islamic nation. You know like what they're doing to Turkey.

lol. They're not doing that to Turkey.

Here's a link to more than 5000 newspapers in 192 countries.

It's quite funny how I never knew turkey wasn't a muslim nation. I guess all of the muslim turkish soldiers I've served with in other countries must be from some alternate country...

No! no! no! Dennis you don't get off that easy! Bring a link that proves your claim. That's your job since you made the claim. Besides since you allegedly already know where this so called information is how about bringing it forward for everybody to see! Or are you just shooting Blanks again.

It's quite funny how I never knew turkey wasn't a muslim nation.

It's a secular nation with a largely Muslim population, much as America is a secular nation with a largely Christian nation.

What claim, ET? That religions and their people protest terrorism? No problem. Rather than searching for specific articles, though, here are some simple, but revealing Google searches:

Muslims protest against terrorism. 18,800,000 results. Hindus protest against terrorism. 2,1000,000 results. Christians protest against terrorism. 10,200,000 results.

Google is your friend.

*crickets*

Yes and he wasn't even born in this Country, only Rick Perry is on top of it at this stage.

Obama where is your birth certificate.

LOL Jesus Christ you folks just can't get through your thick head.

Obama where is your birth certificate.

Let it go already, there is NO SUBSTANCE At ALL for this Crap. In fact Crap has better substance than the Birthers agenda

Nick: Did you forget the snark tag or are there fools who still believe this crap?

I didn't make it clear that 7.2 was sarcasm, in a right wing bull@!$%# seed you get voted up for lying.

AHH Sarcasm, Well John you got me on that one. My Apologies.

Per Jeb Bush - "Republican candidates should categorically reject the notion that President Obama was not born in the United States," Bush declared. "It is a complete distraction from the failed economic policies of the president."

Gotta love those Bushes and anyone on the right nowadays - talking about the failed economic policies of President Obama! They really take the cake.

Dubya left a complete mess in President Obama's lap and he gets blamed for Dubya's failures.

And in three years time Tessy the most provocative solution to that mess from the Obama administration and it's supporters has been "It is All Bush's, And the Gotpublicorporodominionfacistdeniers fault!" hardly what I would call policy.

Tesla Obama was in office 16 months when the first comments abouts his failure to turn the economy around began to appear in papers on the news and in this blog. I did not vote for Obama so I do not have a vested intrest in his sucess but I do want him to suceed. As I would any president. If Obama loses the next election will it be fair, 16 months into the next presidents term, if the economy does not turn around, we can begin to call that administration a failure? Or will we blame it on the previous administration? No matter what was tried how long do you think a turn around ashould take?

I wanted him to succeed as well when he first got elected because I liked what he said and agreed with what he promised. So far he has broken every promise, has continually lied and is going out of his way to circumvent constitutional laws. Now that I know him better I absolutely don't want him to succeed with his agenda, if he does, we will become a Marxist Islamic country and our constitution will be destroyed.

So far he has broken every promise, has continually lied and is going out of his way to circumvent constitutional laws.

Broken every promise? Continually lied about what?

Can you provide some examples of his "going out of his way to circumvent constitutional laws"?

... we will become a Marxist Islamic country and our constitution will be destroyed

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
What do you mean by "Marxist Islamic" and on what do you base your fear?

Perhaps you need to widen your world view, find less emotional and more factual sources of information.

And still more excuses ................

This message brought to you by the committee for Bush Did It 2012.

Well, ... he did, lol.

This message brought to you by the committee for Bush Did It 2012.

im sorry but the policies that got the US into the recession are still in play, a lot of these policies were made by Bush and the Republicans. After he left the Whitehouse republicans have made record filibusters to stop any actual changing legislation. So saying its anyone else's fault but Bush's and Republicans is simply false.

Careful there Zen! I am sure you are aware that invoking the name of a "demon" to often, can sometimes call them up from the abyss!!!

Good to see ya!! Ya making it ok?

LoL, Hi Tesla! Yearp, we've been home since the end of April and getting settled in to our new space. Methinks bush and cronies have more to worry about from their horrid public image (altho with all the money they made off of us they're whole clan will never have to worry about working again) to be anything more than speed bumps in public.

How're things by you? Glad to see you're still around :)

Winter is comin on fast Zen. I will be whinning for next few months until I thaw, other than that I be getting along. :-)

Kate In Greensboro

So far he has broken every promise, has continually lied and is going out of his way to circumvent constitutional laws.

Broken every promise?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=91286

Continually lied about what?

Here is a little sample of the lies.

http://dailybail.com/home/obama-lies-7-times-in-under-2-minutes.html

Can you provide some examples of his "going out of his way to circumvent constitutional laws"?

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13091

President Obama's crimes dwarf those of Richard Nixon. Public evidence alone demonstrates that he is leading a conspiracy to subvert constitutional government, and to impose measures which would result in mass death of Americans, and the destruction of the nation. His high crimes and misdemeanors, as elaborated below, include actions which amount to a conspiracy to commit Crimes Against Humanity which will predictably result in murder or other atrocities, offenses or inhumane acts against the civilian population of the United States; actions which would lead to the imposition of genocide against civilian populations in other parts of the world; and actions would lead to the elimination of the sovereignty of the United States, by submitting control over its economic policy to supranational powers committed to reducing the world's population by billions of people.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
What do you mean by "Marxist Islamic" and on what do you base your fear?

Watch your head! Aren't you glad elephants don't fly? And as far as fear is concerned I don't have any. Fear is in "not knowing". I know who Obama is and what he is about. When he gets voted out of office in 2012 most of our problems will be solved. Here is his biography.

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm

Take your time reading it, it's going to take awhile.

Perhaps you need to widen your world view, find less emotional and more factual sources of information.

Perhaps you need to take some of your own advice.

Be careful what you say, you might be deleted.

Truth is not well liked on seeds like this.

13.1

Thanks..."Luke Wright" has a tendency to "collapse" me...it goes with the "extremist" mentality.

So RI Mom are you defining extremist as anyone not holding your world view? That would be the same POV the radical Islamist carries. And under what authority have you decided what are the intricacies of foreign policy? Are you an integral part of that mechanism? Or are your personal feeling towards a particular mind set and or Viner the only authority you require to become the end all of this discussion?

A normal person would not still be harping on the Muslim, birther nonsense.

If you still believe he is Muslim or not born in the United States, that is extreme.

tesla are you an extremist, or an extremist sympathizer?

I am just tesla013. Peddle your paltry and meaningless labels elsewhere sir. IMSHO what the President's real religion may or may not be or his country of origin are moot at this point, he is the president. However what his intentions may be were he a closet Muslim are certainly subject to speculation at any time as they would be with any other public political figure.

... I have prefaced nearly all my negative comments about Islam with the word radical to make sure there is no question of my deliniation between the two.

And yet no preface of "radical" here:

However what his intentions may be were he a closet Muslim are certainly subject to speculation at any time as they would be with any other public political figure.

Or, of course, if he were a closet radical Christian, right?

Doesn't apply to Christianity. Christianity is void of crazies./s

I gave you a vote up, RIMom, just in case Elaine gets itchy on the trigger finger again.

Kate again your comparison is in fact no comparison at all and quite frankly I find your logic in this instance to be baffling. But hey liberals can connect dots that are worlds apart I have seen it with my own eyes. It is quite similar to the liberal practice of putting words in others mouths when that other will not say them for them. But please let me know when you have an actual argument.

You are 100% correct KJM however this seed shows how very far we are from those definitions what is a radical, a fundamentalist. Who fit those definitions? And it would probably be better to define these things before the 'fact' in this case, no?

I'm not sure, Tesla. Oh I know you guys all mean well, but here's my problem - history in the 1850-1870s - American Indians. Were they all vicious Scalping devils? NO!!! Did we treat them like they were? YES!

Are we supposed to put Muslim-Americans into concentration camps? I do NOT HATE MUSLIMS! I hate terrorists! For that reason, and that reason ALONE, political correctness should not enter law enforcement. No other

1850-1870s was a period when the USA wanted land and gold, and the American Indians had both. The "scalping barbarians" excuse was used to justify the land grabs and violations of the treaties by the USA and citizens of the USA. Do I want to see Muslims treated the same as we did American Indians during that time? No, I don't. But, until they denounce the extremists and take steps to stop them; I won't trust them to do what is right. Right now, everywhere they have overthrown their governments in the name of freedom, they seem to be allowing the Islamist extremists to take over.

SO WHAT? Why is it OUR business what type of government they decide to have in Iraq or Libya or Egypt or wherever? It's not American soil! Who are you, their Daddy? THEY decide what they want, not you, not Americans! Why they have overthrown their DICTATORSHIPS isn't any of our business either. If they don't want Democracy, then it shouldn't be forced on them.

Besides, this topic has NOTHING to do with that. We're talking about training our FBI agents HERE on American Soil. to deal with problem HERE on American soil.

You are 100% correct KJM however this seed shows how very far we are from those definitions what is a radical, a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalist has to do with what a person/group believes. Radical has to do with what a person/group advocates and participates in. Learn to separate the two and you'll make a lot more sense - address the problem, not what you presume motivates it.

At some point what is happening over there will spread over here, if we don't take steps to stop it from reaching here. However, we have a problem with the significant numbers of Muslims that have emigrated here from many of these countries, either fleeing the governments that were overthrown or for other reasons. We have had Muslim clerics from here trying to get Sharia law enacted here. We actually have had US born Muslims go to other countries and help out Al Qaida. The evidence is strong that Islamic extremism is a WORLD problem not a Middle Eastern or Western problem. We need a comprehensive program to eliminate the extremism in Islam and being Politically Correct isn't the way to go.

NO, it WON'T "spread over here" unless we give it a reason to! Damn, why can't we just stay out of other people's business! Wish we had the problem with Switzerland's neutrality "spreading over here!" Tom, we've had US muslims go to other countries and help Al Qaida, yes. Big Deal! BUT we have also SENT US TROOPS to support insurgents in other countries. Do you think that HELPS our cause? Do you think it makes people like us more?

I'm pretty damned sick of America's "My way or the Highway" foreign policy!

KJM, the problem is the extremists won't stay out of our business! It works both ways. There are a lot of extremists that have paid over $10,000 per individual to coyotes on the Mexican border to get them into the United States. It doesn't matter if we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East and let them deal with their own problems because they are bringing the problems to us.

Chicken and egg, ET. WHY won't they stay out of our business? Because we keep going after them. We insult them. We try to tell them what to do. We pretend WE KNOW BEST. And here's a thought - bring those troops home from the middle east and put them on the border.

I'm sorry, but it's like the two little kids fighting - Johnny's touching me! Well you started it. Did not. Did so. Did not. Did so. What's Mom's solution EVERY TIME? GO TO YOUR ROOMS! Why? TO SEPARATE THEM. Moms know what works best - leave each other alone!

First of all Kate, I did serparate the two. You can read can't you? And second I already know what the terms mean in the generic sense. However we have to find the criteria by which they can be applied to the Islamic issue so that law enforcement can be properly trained. Simply acting as if they do not exist where the radical Islamist is concerned will only allow another 9/11 or worse.

WHY won't they stay out of our business? Because we keep going after them. We insult them. We try to tell them what to do. We pretend WE KNOW BEST.

And we have for 300 years. Now us, before us the British, before them the French.

Easier said than done kjmgirl

Unfortunately that is the way of the world. If people like you and I allow others like the extremists to get away with what they do, there is no hope for the future of a free nation. That is it in a nutshell.

Dennis P McCann,

What is the source of Militant Islamists?

Are they Christian converts?

What's taking the Moslem world so long to rid themselves of their extremism. Could it be that they have many sympathizers from within, like Saudi Arabia has?

I don't think any shift to a more politically correct stand on this issue will change the plans of these militant extremists.

What is the source of Militant Islamists?

What makes you think it matters?

I'm not sure why you think dealing with the source of a problem doesn't matter.

Political correctiveness will not address the problem of Islamic radicalism. Modifying FBI protocol will not stop a mother from sending her sixteen year old son on a suicide mission.

JM, let me expand on that. The problem is Middle Eastern militants, some of whom are Islamist, like the Taliban. Most other terror groups have no religious component at all, though they do tend to use religion as a means of justification and recruiting. Hamas and Hizb'allah, for example, are pissed off at Israel, because they feel the creation of that nation pushed them off their land. The conflict is purely political, though both sides paint it as, at least partly, religious. Al Qaida is pissed off about what they see as western Imperialism. We (the US, Britain, France) have been meddling in their affairs for 300 years, and they're trying to end that.

All of these groups have different grievances and different targets, but they do have one thing in common - they target civilians, which is what makes them terrorists, and none of them do what they do "in the name of Islam," with the exception of the Taliban, who are trying to set up an Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan.

So if I had to pick a single source for their anger...it would be us - the West. We need to stop invading their countries, deposing their leaders, installing our own puppet governments, controlling their economies, etc. And they need to stop targeting civilians.

This move by the administration is in no way 'politically correct.' It's simply telling the truth.

Dennis P McCann,

Thanks for a meaningful reply.

The single source for anger originates from the Quran and a percentage of the 1 billion followers. Moslems worldwide have a history of causing strife and basing their holy wars from their religious text. I am no fan of any religious extremists, be they Christian, Moslems or Jews.

Here are a few Quran quotes.

"...now that a Book confirming their own has come to them from God, they deny it...they reply: 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is truth...Say: 'Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel' (who has by God's grace revealed to you [Muhammad] the Koran as a guide...confirming previous scriptures)..will surely find that God is the enemy of the unbelievers.'...And now that an apostle has come to them from God confirming their own Scriptures, some of those to whom the Scriptures were given cast off the Book of God behind their backs...The unbelievers among the People of the Book, and the pagans, resent that any blessings should have been sent down to you from your Lord. " (Surah 2:88-, 98-, 103-)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

WHY DON"T THEY MAKE THEIR RELIGIOUS TEXT POLITICALLY CORRECT?

The single source for anger originates from the Quran and a percentage of the 1 billion followers.

Sorry, but not only are you wrong, but you've expressed an incredibly naive viewpoint. Look, these various militant groups employ reprehensible tactics, but many of their grievances are legitimate, and Islam has nothing to do with it.

People in the west like to point to ME terror groups while ignoring those in the west, or those who are not Muslim. The IRA? Same gripe as Hamas. Both feel that they are occupied by a foreign power. The LRA - no different than the Taliban. Trying to set up a theocracy, though in the case of the LRA, a Christian theocracy. And the list goes on.

Terrorism is a political tactic that hides behind religion or nationalism, and anyone who looks deeper than the surface can see that.

Hell, al Qaida even announced their reasons for the 9/11 attacks, and none of them were religious. Unfortunately, it seems no one listened.

Time will tell who is naive.

We're both just making words and more words. To ignore religious extremism, whether coming from within this country or abroad is naivety.

I'm all for promoting tolerance, but not for concealing truths about excessive religiosity and it's destructive influences. Islamists are not exempt.

Dennis P McCann

Terrorism is a political tactic that hides behind religion or nationalism, and anyone who looks deeper than the surface can see that.

And religion also was a political tactic that Muhammad used to build his empire upon. Look at history and how much he was concerned of conquests and building his empire more than anything else, except for women of course:))

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Winston Churchill
(Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)

Winston Churchill was no more naive about the Nazi menace anymore than he was naive about Islam.

Blaming their radicalism on Western powers is not the best solution and doesn't explain their dreams of conquest.

The single source for anger originates from the Quran ...

Perhaps you should read the bible, ya' know, just to compare its peaceful, loving message. Start, perhaps, with Deuteronomy 21:18, such a warm, fuzzy, feel-good bit of scripture.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Qouting Churchill? Was anyone ever more Imperialist than Churchill? This was a PM who saw his empire dwindling, and it scared the hell out of him. It used to be said that the sun never set on the British Empire. At one time they owned the world, and some people, like Churchill, thought they still should.

Blaming their radicalism on Western powers is not the best solution and doesn't explain their dreams of conquest.

First of all they're not radical, they're reactionary. Second, what dreams of conquest? When was the last time a Muslim government invaded a non-Muslim nation with the goal of making it a part of the Islamic world?

Besides, I was attributing their anger to the actions of the western world, and that is the cause of it. We've pissed them off too many times, and until we admit that, we'll continue to do so. These conflicts are not one-sided.

Perhaps you should read my posts. I know they are not the best worded, but please refer to #15.5. You'll see that I agree with you.

I am no fan of any religious extremists, be they Christian, Moslems or Jews.

That includes "warm, fuzzy, feel good bit(s) of scripture"

And religion also was a political tactic that Muhammad used to build his empire upon. Look at history and how much he was concerned of conquests and building his empire more than anything else, except for women of course:))

I have no idea what that word salad is supposed to mean.

Second, what dreams of conquest?

Dennis, I have a copy of the Quran. I have taken considerable time to review it and discuss it with a friend of mine, who is a devout Moslem. He actually gave me the book as a gift.

I think if you take the time to study and consider the various interpretations, your views may be different. The theme of worldwide Islamic conquest is a theme throughout the Quran.

I am truly sorry that your views about Churchill are so negative. He was an imperfect warrior, but a great leader during our "darkest" time. I don't dispose of his words as easily as you.

First of all they're not radical, they're reactionary. Second, what dreams of conquest? When was the last time a Muslim government invaded a non-Muslim nation with the goal of making it a part of the Islamic world?

The Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 27 July 1299 to 29 October 1923, was one of the largest and longest lasting Empires in history. It was an empire inspired and sustained by Islam, and Islamic institutions.

Hmmm. Not radical and no dreams of conquest?

Someone is forgetting a major historical fact that really was not that long ago.

Dennis, I have a copy of the Quran. I have taken considerable time to review it and discuss it with a friend of mine, who is a devout Moslem. He actually gave me the book as a gift.

I think if you take the time to study and consider the various interpretations, your views may be different. The theme of worldwide Islamic conquest is a theme throughout the Quran.

I too have a Qur'an, which I've read several times. I'm also married to a Muslim woman, have hundreds of Muslim friends, and live in Turkey.

The Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 27 July 1299 to 29 October 1923, was one of the largest and longest lasting Empires in history. It was an empire inspired and sustained by Islam, and Islamic institutions.

Aside from the fact that the Ottoman Empire effectively ended in 1919, to say it was inspired and sustained by Islam is just wrong. Like all empires, it was inspired by, and sustained through power. What you've said is tantamount to saying the British Empire was inspired and sustained by the Anglican Church.

Resources, JM. Empires are built and sustained over control of resources. Nevertheless, how does an empire that ended nearly a century ago prove your assertion that Muslims today have 'dreams of conquest?'

Dennis, sir, you are married to a Moslem woman and you live in a unique modern Moslem culture that prides itself for being secular. Is it possible that you have a bias in this subject? Turkey has indeed moved forward with secularization, albeit at a slower pace than the west. Turkey is not similar to Iran, Saudi Arabia or other fundamentalist styled governments of the ME. My focus is not really on Turkey, but on it's predecessor, the Ottoman Empire.

Aside from the fact that the Ottoman Empire effectively ended in 1919

I know that the empire was already broken and "ended", but as part of a treaty, The Grand National Assembly of Turkey was officially declared the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923...that marked the official end, unless I'm mistaken.

I don't know how you can ignore the powerful Islamic influences that existed then and now (in some countries). The Ottoman empire sustained power over control of it's resources, i.e., it's people.

Doesn't the world famous Hagia Sophia represent Islamic power? If it wasn't for forward thinking Turks, this beautiful building would not have been converted to a museum.

Nevertheless, how does an empire that ended nearly a century ago prove your assertion that Muslims today have 'dreams of conquest?'

I can't prove my assertion. I can only form an opinion, based on what I've read and what I've experienced. Based on my investigation, I can understand how dangerous radical Islamic movements are spawned from a strict interpretation of the Quran. Fundamentalism is not a unique flaw of Islam nor Christianity. Both, at times, share disgraceful histories and have text that justify bad behavior.

Dennis, sir, you are married to a Moslem woman and you live in a unique modern Moslem culture that prides itself for being secular. Is it possible that you have a bias in this subject?

Anything is possible, but I don't believe that to be the case. My opinions are formed by extensive research, as well as life experience.

Turkey has indeed moved forward with secularization, albeit at a slower pace than the west.

Turkey has done a good job at achieving secularism. At only 88 years old, there is total separation of religion and government. At the same age, we were in the middle of a civil war.

I don't know how you can ignore the powerful Islamic influences that existed then and now (in some countries).

I don't, but I do realize that it's very few countries, and that they have a right to self-determination.

I can understand how dangerous radical Islamic movements are spawned from a strict interpretation of the Quran.

If you say the Wahabbists are nuts, I'll agree with you. If you stretch that to all of Islam, that's where we'll disagree.

Dennis P McCann

There is a very simple explanation to why we don't see any Islamic conquests today. Simply because not one Islamic nation has enough power to do so. And here where my salad which you did not understand clears up.

In early Islamic history, when Muhammad was weak, and could not invade the strong empires surrounding him, he used the tactic of invading the smaller tribes living around him, and when the Islamic empire grew strong, we saw the conquests of the two greatest empires in the region. The very same thing is happening today. None of the Islamic nations is strong enough to be a great power, so Muslims are spreading around the Western world, growing in numbers,, as well as power, and we already started to see trials to conquests some countries from within, like what is happening today in Europe.

There is a very simple explanation to why we don't see any Islamic conquests today. Simply because not one Islamic nation has enough power to do so

So they would if they could but they can't so they won't.

Can't beat that logic.

Thanks, Dennis for sharing your experience. I enjoyed the exchange.

As did I.

I love you guys.

;-)

The only three stages of the Islamic nation
The Prophet Muhammed's Morals

Muhammed and the devil
Debating Islam
The ultimate pass for killing all non Muslims (Infidels)
The colloection of the Quran
The reason why the Islamic terrorists percentage is small, some say 0.001% or so.
The Virgin Mary, was Aron, and Moses sister!
The preserved word of Allah
Allah hates you
Sharia law, facts, and conclusion!
The woman in Islam, part 1
The woman in Islam Part 2
The woman in Islam part 3
How old Aisha was when Muhammad married her?!
Islamic controversial concepts part 1 (terrorism)
Islamic controversial concepts part 2 (terrorism)
Islamic controversial concepts part 3 (terrorism)
Islamic controversial concepts part 4 (terrorism)
Islamic controversial concepts part 5 (terrorism)
Islamic controversial concepts part 6 (deception)
Islamic controversial concepts part 7 (deception)
Islamic controversial concepts part 8 (deception)
Islamic controversial concepts part 9 (abrogation)
Islamic controversial concepts part 10 (abrogation) final part

I am also so sorry that you were aggressively attacked for seeding this article. But banning law enforcement personnel from knowing these facts will not help in our security.

Those are not facts. Those are your opinions, based on erroneous information.

Dennis P McCann

My post #16.2 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:58 PM EDT

Your post #16.4 - Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:14 PM EDT

In it you said

Those are not facts. Those are your opinions, based on erroneous information.

In exactly 16 minutes you were able to build up your opinion of that many articles and post a reply?! I don't think so. Are you also trying to tell me that the information in both Al Qur'an and hadiths are erroneous information?! Once again, I don't think so.

In exactly 16 minutes you were able to build up your opinion of that many articles and post a reply?!

I've been reading Pipes, Spencer, et al. for nearly a decade. You simply say the same things they do...at times, word for word.

Are you also trying to tell me that the information in both Al Qur'an and hadiths are erroneous information?!

What if I were to tell you that the word 'pray' now means kill? The Bible would be a whole different book, right? That's what Pipes and Spencer have done, and you've fallen for it. They took a noble concept like jihad, and changed the meaning to "Holy War." They told you taqiyya applies to all Muslims (it doesn't) and told you it means deception, lying (it doesn't). And so on.

If you buy their definitions (as you have), the Quran becomes downright scary...but their definitions are all flat out lies.

By the way, you've said before that you are a Christian. When Peter denied knowing Jesus on the night he was arrested (three times) THAT was taqiyya. A denial of faith for the greater good.

Dennis P McCann

I've been reading Pipes, Spencer, et al. for nearly a decade. You simply say the same things they do...at times, word for word.

Did you ever think that this is because the source is one, the holiest Islamic texts?!

What if I were to tell you that the word 'pray' now means kill?

Unless you prove it, I will not believe you.

Obviously you don't read things and comprehend them if you don't know what Jihad, or taqyia refer to in Islam.

Read the articles, they don't have a single word other than, Qur'an its interpretations by the greats Muslim scholars and hadiths of Muhammad.

If you buy their definitions (as you have), the Quran becomes downright scary...but their definitions are all flat out lies.

For your information, I don't know any of those people and never listened to them or read what they wrote.

What if I were to tell you that the word 'pray' now means kill?

Unless you prove it, I will not believe you.

Yet you believe the erroneous definitions spewed by the anti-Islam propaganda sites without question, and if someone shows you the real definition, from an Islamic source, you dismiss that as propaganda.

Anyone who would think that an American blogger knows more about Islam than an Islamic scholar is just buying into the hate machine.

Dennis P McCann, Peter did not deny Christ for the greater good. He denied Christ in his weakness. And he was forgiven.

Dennis, so now I see you are claiming to be an Islamic scholar? Shame on you! That's OK I am wearing my hip waders.

Peter did not deny Christ for the greater good. He denied Christ in his weakness.

Both, actually. By staying alive, he was able to continue with his ministry.

Dennis, so now I see you are claiming to be an Islamic scholar?

I claimed no such thing. I said:

if someone shows you the real definition, from an Islamic source, you dismiss that as propaganda.

Dennis P McCann

Your post number 16.8 is nothing but pure lie. Not one om my posts is not supported by either the two sources of Islam which are the Qur'an and Sunnah, or one of the greatest Islamic scholars interpretation.

I challenge you to give me one single time in which I interpreted Islamic text. I may comment on text, but not once interpreted anything.

lol. Look at the first link. You correctly provide a list of three stages. Every other word in the article is your interpretation. Without that interpretation, the article would be about 10 words long.

Call it commenting, explanation, interpretation - whatever you want...you give Islamic terms followed by YOUR definitions and explanations, which are almost always wrong.

Oh, and in that article - no sources cited. None. Your standard MO. And then you have the audacity to present those links as "proof."

One of of tons, doesn't make them all my owns. In contrast what did you present?! And by the way you will not find any Muslim scholar dare to explain what I explained in that topic openly, but if you study enough and understand enough, this topic will be the only logical conclusion.

So you better come up with a different one.

Dennis P McCann

I remember once before when we were discussing another topic, when I asked you to present somethings debunking what I was presenting you told me, you were tired of explaining things over and over again.

To tell you the truth, I don't think you have, or your ever had some solid arguments to present here on the vine, because if you had, it would have occurred to you, as it did to me and many others, to put those undeniable facts of yours in forms of topics, and being discussed by many of us, also being ready to be linked to when needed just as I did.

You are very good at jumping on topics and diluting them by trying to policies everything Islamists do, but you don't have any solid Islamic material, to prove your claims.

but you don't have any solid Islamic material, to prove your claims.

I've noticed the same pattern. I saw some amadiyya platitudes one time but that was about it...

Why was 16.1 collapsed?

To northern girl (16.17) -- IMO, Elaine's 16.1 was collapsed, because saying "thank you" to a fellow Viner now apparently violates CoH according to some people. See a pattern?

16.1 should not have been collapsed. C'mon, people, follow the CoH.

I've seen some stupid, lame collapses in my day, but I think the collapse of 16.1 might be award-winningly stupid. Of course some of the reactions to it (#16.18 and #16.19) demonstrate an attitude that fosters incivility.

Dennis (16.20) -- Hallelujah .... for once, you and I agree. Thank you.

Kate (16.21) --- You started out with my being able to concur with you, but I changed my mind when I read your second sentence. Please explain why you feel both 16.18 and 16.19 "demonstrate an attitude that fosters incivility." Neither Elaine nor I said anything that fosters incivility.

Definitions for "incivility" ....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incivility

Synonyms from same link:

Synonyms: dis (also diss) [slang], discourteousness,disrespect, disrespectfulness, impertinence, impertinency,impoliteness, impudence, discourtesy, inconsiderateness,inconsideration, insolence, rudeness, ungraciousness

Really Kate? You expect people to be civil when there are asshats running around collapsing "thanks yous"? You're right in that it wins the stupidity award, and for that alone, you should understand why people are upset. I just want to know if the ones that collapsed it have the balls to admit it. Any bets on whether or not they'll come forward?

Please explain why you feel both 16.18 and 16.19 "demonstrate an attitude that fosters incivility." Neither Elaine nor I said anything that fosters incivility.

You don't think phrases like

The "Free Speech Crowd" (sarc) went on a collapsing spree.

and

IMO, Elaine's 16.1 was collapsed, because saying "thank you" to a fellow Viner now apparently violates CoH according to some people. See a pattern?

foster incivility? Just my opinion, but neither comment invites support - each implies persecution by organized bullies, victimization. Snark/sarcasm have their place, but when complaining about perceived mistreatment, it almost always comes off as "Help! help! I'm being repressed!" but without the humor of Chapman, Cleese, Idle, Gilliam, Jones, and Palin.

I don't know why people vote "inflammatory" or "no value" on posts that are clearly not violating the CoH, but waving the victim flag and drawing attention to it just invites more of the same.

Really Kate? You expect people to be civil when there are asshats running around collapsing "thanks yous"?

No - I expect people to act like adults. Incivility is a poor response to asshattery.

Dennis P McCann

Hello, I see that you have lost your swiftness in replying my posts, what happened?? Or there is nothing solid for you to share with us?!

teufelhund

I've noticed the same pattern. I saw some amadiyya platitudes one time but that was about it...

This had to be addressed as he never gave any Islamic teachings supporting his claims. and I mean Islamic teachings, like the ones that I present reaching the Qur'an and Sunnah, and this is always what I base my discussions upon.

Hello, I see that you have lost your swiftness in replying my posts, what happened??

If you must know, last weekend I moved from Ankara to Edirne. Loaded the truck on Sunday, drove for nine hours, unloaded on Monday. It's now Friday and I'm still moving in. It's a ton of work, and I don't have the time to be here to answer your, um, points on your schedule.

This had to be addressed as he never gave any Islamic teachings supporting his claims.

I've been here for 6 years. Go read my column. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum, beginning years before either of you ever heard of this site. You guys are just the latest in a list of hundreds of people who posted the same exact things...and eventually left when proven wrong.

Dennis P McCann

I don't have the time to be here to answer your, um, points on your schedule.

But you were here to answer everyone else but me!

I've been here for 6 years. Go read my column. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum, beginning years before either of you ever heard of this site. You guys are just the latest in a list of hundreds of people who posted the same exact things...and eventually left when proven wrong.

I have been to your column, and found nothing to answer those questions, and If they were, would you be so kind to re-post them here, for everyone to see your answers to my questions, instead of making it hard on everyone to find your "so called" answers. I made the effort to post here, so please post here your answers when you get a chance, if you realy have answers.

But you were here to answer everyone else but me!

Lucky timing, I guess.

I have been to your column,

Um...my original column.

Go read my column. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum, beginning years before either of you ever heard of this site.

If they had been answered before with any success, there would be no reason for you to keep posting on the subject.

You guys are just the latest in a list of hundreds of people who posted the same exact things...and eventually left when proven wrong.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be...

If they had been answered before with any success, there would be no reason for you to keep posting on the subject.

People leave, new people come. Often, saying the same exact things.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be...

True, but every day I have deja vu all over again.

Dennis

I've been here for 6 years. Go read my column. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum, beginning years before either of you ever heard of this site. You guys are just the latest in a list of hundreds of people who posted the same exact things...and eventually left when proven wrong.

I beg to differ Dennis, I am one of those so-called hundreds. In fact I am still here! And as a matter of fact on this very subject on one of my articles you were the one who left. Why don't you just face it, you say there were hundreds who disagreed with you, why don't you take a hint and admit it is you who are wrong! It won't hurt you to admit it, everybody already knows you are. Perhaps you should stay out of discussions on religion altogether since by your own claims you don't believe in any of them. And they don't need you defending them like you're the lone ranger, you're doing more damage than good. That is my observation from my experience with you.

you say there were hundreds who disagreed with you,

And most of them are gone, because they were trolls. There are also many who see that Muslims are simply people too.

Dennis P McCann

I visited your column that you linked to, I tried reading a couple of seeded topics, and they all linked to broken pages!

Women in The Quran; An article especially for those in the BNP, UKIP, English Democrats or English Defence League | The Conservative Blog
Qadri terms terror attacks unIslamic
Anti-Islamic websites blah blah blah
A Global Islamic Jihad?

You said that you wer

e against attacks on religions, and you wanted tolerance, ironically, on that column I see you are attacking Christianity, and accusing it to be violent. Is that called double standards?!

Christianity Is Inherently Violent

So you still have nothing to say.

People leave, new people come. Often, saying the same exact things.

And if you're going to debate them, you should back up your arguments accordingly...it's a cop-out to say you've already made the arguments previously.

True, but every day I have deja vu all over again.

Sounds like dementia...

I visited your column that you linked to, I tried reading a couple of seeded topics, and they all linked to broken pages!

All those pages just opened for me. Check your browser.

You said that you were against attacks on religions, and you wanted tolerance, ironically, on that column I see you are attacking Christianity, and accusing it to be violent. Is that called double standards?!

Christianity Is Inherently Violent

I see you didn't get past the title of that article I clipped to my column.. Try actually reading it. The article debunks the title.

And if you're going to debate them, you should back up your arguments accordingly...it's a cop-out to say you've already made the arguments previously.

It's not my fault I've argued against every thought in your head before you even got here.

Sounds like dementia...

Personal attack reported. It was a quote from Yogi Berra, just as the one you used was from the same source.

Dennis P McCann

All those pages just opened for me. Check your browser.

Still didn't open, can someone else confirm whether they open, or they don't?!

I see you didn't get past the title of that article I clipped to my column.. Try actually reading it. The article debunks the title.

I see all your posts on that article were deleted, wonder why?

It's not my fault I've argued against every thought in your head before you even got here.

But it is part of your duty, if you want to re-argue those points, to re-post them here instead of asking to go and find them on your articles, as we all do.

Still didn't open, can someone else confirm whether they open, or they don't?!

Sorry, Dennis, but...

Women in The Quran; An article especially for those in the BNP, UKIP, English Democrats or English Defence League | The Conservative Blog

Links to a website main page, not an article.

Qadri terms terror attacks unIslamic

Links to a file not found error.

Anti-Islamic websites blah blah blah

"invited users only"

A Global Islamic Jihad?

Links to VOA error page

Christianity Is Inherently Violent

Links to Thom Stark page, but there's no "body" to it. Might have moved it to Facebook, I'm not going looking.

I see all your posts on that article were deleted, wonder why?

When an account is deleted, comments go with it. It's a unique situation that the account was restored, and everything didn't make the trip.

Sir Richard Owen

Thank you for checking out the links.

Elaine, why was 16.2 deleted?!

I did not receive any notification of this post being deleted. and that post had nothing but links.

Don't tell anyone what you saw happen here.

The Cigarette Smoking Man is watching.

Sally deleted her own comments? LOL. I only vaguely remember what that was about now, does anybody else? Message me if you do - this is just PLAIN WEIRD!! This will probably get deleted too, LOL!

I don't have to be PC, because I'm not running for public office.

What if you cause someone to start smoking!!!!

I'll recommend that they buy their smokes on the Reservation.

Huh, what was that about? I didnt get an email notification that my comments were deleted.

Von,

It was about the advertising button being used to delete instead of collapse comments. Guess thats a subject we arent allowed to talk about.

Wow, really? Guess that subject is taboo.

Well it does match the topic of the article! In fact it is a perfect example proving the article correct. Obama is banning certain information from documents just as Sally is deleting comments from articles! But no matter how hard she tries the truth is out. I made sure of that. How about banning those people who were abusing the system? Were going to ban Obama from the White House so why can't Sally ban those offenders?

Notice this post is on topic.

Substitute 'propaganda' for truth, and 'policy change' for banned...and you'll be a whole lot closer.

Substitute 'propaganda' for truth, and 'policy change' for banned...and you'll be a whole lot closer.

But reality is so boring.
/s

A week ago TPM ran a story on the announcement to alter training:

DOJ Official: Holder ‘Firmly Committed’ To Eliminating Anti-Muslim Training

interesting to read it as a news item rather than an anti-Islam screed.

They stress that they believe in Moses and Jesus.

Perhaps because it's true.

They refrain from calling Jews and Christians "infidels",

Because they're not, and never were.

nor would they call them "Zionists" or "Crusaders".

Two different things, and there hasn't been a crusade in nearly 900 years.

All you've said is that they're telling the truth. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't seem to match up with what you want to believe.

Instead of living in isolation from society, they are using now a completely new terminology. Words like love, grace... are now part of their vocabulary. Theological Christian terms such as : Salvation, Justification and Sanctification are now part of their teachings.

LOL. Now that's hilarious, because there's nothing new about it. That's 1400 year old Islamic terminology. Apparently 'islamreview' just noticed.

My god, those blogs are so damn embarrassing. The fact that anyone would be so foolish as to write that drivel is surpassed only by the fact that some people fall for it.

No. Agnostic.

Ah, but that statement isn't true. Those investigations are ongoing. Teaching that those motives are Islamic is off-limits, because that's not true.

Pershing got rid of his Muslim problem using Pigs Blood to execute all the Muslim prisoners but one .

And that makes him better than those he executed, how?

It's not a matter of being better , McCann . It's defence against a radical enemy that is killing your brothers and sisters and won't stop no matter what you say or do to get them to stop the killing .

It's defence against a radical enemy that is killing your brothers and sisters and won't stop no matter what you say or do to get them to stop the killing .

And that's exactly what those like bin Laden say they do.

Can you remembervthe towers McCann ?

Of course. Can you tell me the significance of your question?

Of course. Can you tell me the significance of your question?

McCarthyism... You're either with us or against us.

Bin Laden , won't be saying anything at this point .

I ref . the terror on America to certain events , like the destruction of the marine barracks , USS Cole , Somalia , twin towers , etc . I honestly feel like we attacked Iraq because they aided those who attacked America . I know people say it was the oil that caused us to attack Iraq , but I disagree . Saudi Arabia welcomed us in that country , Bin Laden had no say in that decision .

By the way , great art , pictures and a beautiful bride .

I understand more since I learned you live in Turkey . We all have a different view from our mountain peak .

Actually, the 9/11 attacks weren't an attack on America, per se. They were an attack on western military and economic policies that some on the Middle east see as Imperialistic. That's why they picked the targets they did - the Pentagon (military headquarters of the west) and the World Trade Center (economic headquarters of the west). Had they been only attacking America, they'd have probably hit the White House or Congress instead.

I honestly feel like we attacked Iraq because they aided those who attacked America .

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein hated al Qaida more than we did.

By the way , great art , pictures and a beautiful bride .

Thank you.

I understand more since I learned you live in Turkey . We all have a different view from our mountain peak .

I'm from Chicago. It's as flat as it gets.

Actually, the 9/11 attacks weren't an attack on America, per se. They were an attack on western military and economic policies that some on the Middle east see as Imperialistic. That's why they picked the targets they did - the Pentagon (military headquarters of the west) and the World Trade Center (economic headquarters of the west). Had they been only attacking America, they'd have probably hit the White House or Congress instead.

You know, I always try to respond with civility at the least, but this is a bit too much.

ARE YOU F"ING KIDDING ME!

You DO realize, don't you, that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for Washington DC, and, that but for the heroism of the passengers on board, who lost their lives in an attempt to stop them, they WOULD have crashed into the Capitol or the White House...you DO realize that don't you, Dennis?

If not, then obviously you are not as well informed on the attacks as you would like us to believe, and if so, then your post was a deliberate attempt at whitewashing the intentions of the terrorists as "not being against America"...which, I must say I find despicable to say the least, considering the number of Americans who died in those attacks, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the "western military and economic policies".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789502/ns/dateline_nbc/

You DO realize, don't you, that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for Washington DC, and, that but for the heroism of the passengers on board, who lost their lives in an attempt to stop them, they WOULD have crashed into the Capitol or the White House...you DO realize that don't you, Dennis?

No I don't, and neither do you, because we have no idea of the intended target of that plane. It's merely conjecture.

But the attack was still against America by Muslims. The plane that didn't make it is basically a moot point since it obviously "didn't make it!"

Dennis, you never fail to amaze me with your bizarre version of reality. And I thought I was out of this world.

Then explain why they picked the targets they picked. Why the WTC? Why not Capitol Hill, the Statue of Liberty, Times Square? Why not the Empire State Building, or a packed football stadium?

And if the motivation was religious, why America? Why not the Vatican? Why not other non-Islamic religious sites?

They hit the nerve center of the western economy, because they see the western economy as Imperialist and oppressive. Think.

Oh, and if America is their enemy, why London and Madrid?

If I was going to "pick a target", I would pick something like Hoover dam...or maybe a nuke plant.

Right, if you were at war with America, which they're not. They're at war wih the economic and military policies of the west. That's why the hit the business and military headquarters of the west, hit transportation targets in order to cripple business, etc.

LOL!

Too small a target from 10,000 feet? If they can hit the WTC they can hit the ESB.

So Islam isn't at war with America huh Dennis? Then explain these.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214245

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/islam-declares-war-on-america-and-the-world/blog-360493/

http://palestinename.com/Islam_declares_war_on_America.html

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=11533

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2VqqVDgRs

http://wn.com/RADICAL_islam_DECLARES_WAR_AGAINST_AMERICA_AND_THE_WEST

And before you try to debunk any of these links try to provide a link to counter these first. Keep in mind I am making a note of the time stamp. And this is only a small sample of what I found.

First one: The Muslim Brotherhood isn't "Islam" any more than any given Christian group represents all of Christianity.

Second one: a blog entry written by "The Infidel Alliance." Pfft.

Third one: A few guys in Egypt, as translated by MEMRI, no less.

Find some real sources, ET, not just those that say what you want to hear. These far right sources are in no way reliable, and only those on the far right think they are.

And before you try to debunk any of these links try to provide a link to counter these first. Keep in mind I am making a note of the time stamp. And this is only a small sample of what I found.

You can't debunk opinion. Give me fact, if you have any. Oh, and stop portraying this or that group as all of Islam.

No I don't, and neither do you, because we have no idea of the intended target of that plane. It's merely conjecture.

No, we do know the "intended target"...it was Washington, DC. That has been confirmed by interrogations of Bin Laden's driver and an interview given by Sheik Mohammed to Al Jazeera, among others. The only "conjecture" involved is that the driver said it was supposed to hit the Capitol, Sheik Mohammed said the White House.

Are you seriously trying to say that Islamic terrorists don't hate America, Dennis? SERIOUSLY?

Are you seriously trying to say that Islamic terrorists don't hate America, Dennis

He didn't say that. Are you seriously trying to put words in his mouth?

The point is that al aqeada terrorism is not exclusive to attacks on the US. Whatever hate there is for America is not exclusive to America. Those attacks, intended targets, hate, are subsets of actions and attitudes related to a broader concept. Imperialism (by their definition of the concept) is the enemy against which they fight. Their radical enemy is the forces of imperialism.

Are you seriously trying to say that Islamic terrorists don't hate America, Dennis? SERIOUSLY?

I'm saying that Middle Eastern militant groups hate the policies of the west that have oppressed them for centuries. Of course that includes America. It also includes Great Britain, France, and anyone else who has meddled in the ME for centuries.

The point is that al aqeada terrorism is not exclusive to attacks on the US.

Exactly. The World Trade Center. Trains in London and Madrid during business hours. Airline lights. What do all those things have in common? They are all essential parts if doing business. Knock down the economic headquarters, then make people afraid to travel for business or go to work.

Bin Laden's stated goal was to bankrupt us. Unfortunately, with Bush's help, he did a pretty good job of it.

Well, also, to be honest, there are many more types of people who hate us besides the "islamic militants". They don't have the monopoly on America hate.

To think their gripe is exclusively with America is just hubris. They've hit England, Spain, Turkey and a slew of other nations. Their enemy is 'the west,' which they see as an oppressive force in their region.

Especially since none of your comments that were collapsed were in the least bit offensive. It is obvious misbehavior by those who do not know how to debate.

Agreed. May not agree with the opinions, but you are certianly entitled to them without being censored by people who don't agree with you.

Maybe not offensive to you, ET. To intelligent, rational, patriotic Americans they are very offensive.

Thats a cop out, unless you are offended by differing opinions. None of the posts deserved to be collapsed on their contecnt alone.

Intelligent, rational and patriotic american 'adults' would be able to provide differing opinions without having to censor somebody elses.

I am not offended by differing opinions. I am offended by bigoted opinions; opinions that suggest that all of a particular faith, a particular race' a particular ethnicity are the same. In this case, the comments suggest that there is something inherently evil about Islam and Muslim people. That is bigotry. I also am offended when people misrepresent facts in support of their opinion. That is what is being done in the seeded article and the comments in support. I specifically said I did not think her first comment should be collapsed, although it is highly offensive. Her comment about sharia law is wholly inaccurate.

# 6.1 Collapsed b community: 'Yes, thanks very much Goes.'

So tell me why this should have been collapsed?

#1.10 Collapsed by Community:

Anyone that believes that Sharia law could take effect in the US needs to be denied the right to vote, forever. Blow that RWNJ dog whistle, blow it baby, blow it.

LOL! I guess you missed the morning news out of Florida!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/florida-appeals-court-rejects-petition-to-block-judge-from-imposing-islamic-law/

What was that you said about your voting rights?

And this one, so now we're collapsing just because she provides a reference, whether or not the opinion is valid, providing a reference should never be colapsed, just debunked.

#1.15 Collapsed by Community:

Bible thumpers really kill me.

No, Bible thumpers annoy you, but Islamic terrorist really KILL YOU

And this one, she's not even the one who made the bible thumper comment. tell me why this was collapsed?

Again I will say, I don't agree with her opinions, but she has as much a right to them as the people arguing against her, there are alot of other posts on here that deserve collapsing but they aren't, simply becasue they are opinions that the people doing the collapsing agree with.

Things are collapsed because, for various reasons, multiple individuals vote them "no value" or "inflammatory." It's not a conspiracy and no one is ever going to agree with everyone else. Life goes on. Get over it.

This is supposed to be aforum for mature conversation and discussion. If you are not able to hear toher peoples opinions without faulting them for it then you have no place in the discussion. Life goes on sure, but the people doing the collapsing are the ones that need to get over it. Thats the problem with the vine these days, this sort of thing is becoming more and more common, if you can tell me what justified the collapsing of the commetns i reference while others are still left open, tell me, otherwise it is a bunch of petty people who hate to be disagreed with.

As you say, noone is ever going to agree with everyone else, disagreeing is not a valid reason for collapsing.

For the record, I probably mark things "inflammatory" once or twice/year - at the most, "no value" maybe once a month - limited to obvious, obnoxious trolls. I can't justify or explain what other people do. "Collapsed" can still be read and commented to, so what's the big deal?

I know that Kate, I have seen you on other seeds, no ill will towards you intended.

I am the same, very rarely do I flag somehting, unless it is a blatant attack on someone. Civil conversations are a good thing, similar to the one we are having right now.

That being said, Being able to still comment is not the issue, the issue is having respect for someone elses opinions and having an open discussion without resorting to childishness, which is what ti is when it is collapsed for no reason except you don't agree. It is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming na-na-na-na.

Keith. Did you read where I said the comment should not collapsed? I said it twice. As for her comment in 1.10, it was completely false; in accurate. There was no court ruling that held what she claims it held. Nevertheless, I did not support collapsing that. In fact, I responded by pointing out the falsity of what she posted.

Frankly, I prefer to leave silly, bigoted and untrue comments up for all to see.

Frankly, I prefer to leave silly, bigoted and untrue comments up for all to see.

Me, too!

gator...

To intelligent, rational, patriotic Americans they are very offensive.

And you were informed by whom?

So, this is where the Collapsing Community is playing these days.

Still having trouble playing well with the other children?

...

bigotry n

1. unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs

2. the attitudes, behaviour, or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice; intolerance

3. obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry

#22.16 looks a lot like a personal attack. An attack filled with bullsh*t, but still personal.

Elaine, you call that moderation?

For what it is worth, I didn't mark 22.16 as inflammatory or no value. All I did was comment on its rudeness. I'm pretty sure that's appropriate, proper and within the CoH.

I didn't either since it was already collapsed when I saw it, but I did report Elaine's reaction to your comment, since I expect better from the moderator of a column.