Why do Democrats Trivialize The Threat From Radical Islam

[keee keee]

Durkin. D'oh. Nuts.

He is known as Turbin Durbin or little Dick Durbin. I'm from Illinois and this guy is a real POS. Hope this loser is replaced like the last dem loser Senator. Bumblin Burris who took over the Obama seat!!!! If it wasn't for family and not being able to sell my property due to the economic problems which are being made worse due to the govenor and President I would be gone!!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've already pointed out that a "fatwa" is nothing more than an unenforceable rant, akin to a pox.

Yes, but then you're as stupid as a fucking stone.

Anyone can issue one.

{An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.}

Fatw

Good gawd but you're fucking stupid.

I mean that most sincerely.

 

[BlindBoo]

But the problem is no one is denying that the radical element of Islam exist and are evil

Might I introduce you to Dr. Drock and MaggieMae?

Okay? Do either one ya'll deny that there is a radical element in Islam that truly wants to kill Americans and Westerners?

 

[keee keee]

Durbin represent our enemies of the United states not the citizens!!!!

 

[logical4u]

Senate to Hold Hearings on “Anti-Muslim Bigotry

Senate to Hold Hearings on “Anti-Muslim Bigotry”




On a day when Islamic jihadists exploded a bomb in Jerusalem that murdered at least one woman and wounded thirty, and when Islamic jihadists opened fire on and killed two Christians outside a church in Pakistan, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) announced that he was going to hold hearings on the rise in “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Durbin, of course, was retaliating for the hearings recently conducted by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who himself bowed to politically correct pressure and dropped several witnesses that he had originally announced his intention to call, including ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and terror analyst Walid Phares.

Not only was the timing of Durbin’s announcement ironic, but also the fact that his retaliatory hearings were unnecessary in the first place. King, after all, gave a prime platform at his hearings to the weepy Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), whose pilgrimage to Mecca was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood ‘s chief operating arm in the U.S.

Ellison used the bully pulpit King gave him to paint a lurid picture of Muslim victimhood, all the while saying nothing (of course) about the sharp increase in jihad terror plots in this country over the last two years. How can Durbin top that?

Senate to Hold Hearings on

I don't know why dems don't give more concern over terrorist , but if your talking about internment camps for American muslims like we did with the Japaneses during WWII that was a big enough fuck up of paranoia that doesn't need repeating ,

we don't need a return to McCarthyism either .

The concern is there, but the difference in the discussion about it is that I, personally, trust that the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA stay on top of the terrorism issue and their activities are, for good reason, rarely made public. What can I as an individual do? Run around screaming my head off that any day now bin Laden will lob a nuke at us or cringe in fear that the lady coming toward me dressed in Muslim garb has a bomb hidden beneath her gown? Geezus, even Bush warned against becoming overreactive toward Muslim people following the 911 attacks.

Who is overreacting? We are trying to have a "truthful" discussion.

 

[Hot Wire]

Islam and freedom are totally incompatable,And we the true patriots will NEVER give up our freedoms!
Let the liberals and thier muslim savage backward beasts know that!Burn the qurans or use them for ass wipe!!

You know it's been proven over and over in this thread that there is no ideological connection between American liberals and Radical Islamic types. I think the fundemental Christians have more in common with the radical Muslims than the American Liberals do.

lol.I dont hear any conservative Christains defend the evil cult of islam,Some LIBERAL Christians may defend them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Tea Party Movement defined itself as "Teabaggers".

That's a lie - but then most of what you post is.

NRO's Stanley Kurtz was the first one to call Tea Party attendees "Teabaggers." In his defense, he didn't mean it the way you scuzzy leftists do. Kurtz was referencing the common act of sending members of congress tea bags - not the sex act. Of course once the KOS kiddies and HuffingGlue shit-eaters heard it, it's all a progressive can say.

Michelle Malkin » A Tax Day Tea Party cheat sheet: How it all started

 

[drsmith1072]

Anybody who compares Christians to Radical islam is delusional, and doing just what most liberals do. I'm sure that if congress were having hearings on some "rightwing" Christian militant group the Dems would be all for it

Uh you do realize that u2008 who you thanked previously is doing just that don't you?? He and others are arguing that all of islam is radical and therefore any comparison made between islam and chrisitianity is comparing christianity to radical islam in their minds. So thanks for calling them delusional. LOL

Oh and on investigating christianity as a whole?? NO I wouldn't be "all for it" but thanks for the spin.

 

[Hot Wire]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the first captured following 911;

Confirming that he was NOT captured and tried by Clinton's team in the 93' bombing case and validating that what you claimed was false. Funny, wasn't he in IRAQ - which your hive claims had nothing to do with Al Qaeda? (I don't expect an answer, you are but a drone - not a thinker-bee.)
He was identified as being one of the perpetrators of the 1993 bombings, and tracked down eventually being captured in Pakistan on March 3, 2003 (two weeks BEFORE the invasion of Iraq). But your initial statement implied Clinton sat on his ass and diddle Monica. Which was a lie.

Terry Nichols was convicted in 1997 and is still behind bars, unless he died.

Again, only AFTER he was involved in another atrocity.
So? You have no grounds here, none, nada, zip.

There is a concept for the sentient beings - stop them BEFORE they strike. You really wouldn't understand.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I think I'll alert DHS that there are wild-eyed reactionaries like you who are a combination of sociopaths and narcissists, a deadly combination, and you should be tracked down and locked up before you can do bodily harm.

You should be sent to a islamic nation to get stoned with your muzzie friends unless you wear a burka .Tell the families of the victims of 9/11 and the Ft. Hood shooting about overreacting.You stupid ass liberal!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Tea Bag gatherings protesting Obamacare, etc., happened in 2003? Imagine that.

Uh, dumbfuck - it was about the Iraq war. The hive has just attempted to recycle slander.

Wherever the original poster first appeared is moot: You decided to call me out on spelling an apt description of YOU "moran" and calling me a cretin, when I was merely intentionally spelling it the way I saw it on a sign.

You are a cretin, the sign was held by a leftist. Look at the other signs again, cretin.

Good gawd but you're fucking stupid - seriously.

 

[logical4u]

As is Biblical law....and we STILL have some of those on the books.

Please list for me the murders that have been done in the last 50 years while screaming "Jesus is Lord"!! List for me the countries that are populated predominately with Christians that: own slaves, murder women by stoning on the word of one other, murder homosexuals, rape men and women found alone, promote pedophilia (dancing boys), etc, and the population that welcomes and celebrates that culture by pilgrimaging to a giant rock for a yearly ritual.
Show me the places in the New Testament that openly encourages the "rape" of every woman around you, including aunts and cousins. Quote chapter and verse please, because "your" statement implies that all this is so with Christianity. Show your hand, or fold.

Well with pedophelia and homosexuality, you can always turn to the Catholic Church for your answer.

WOW! Instead of actually having a truthful discussion, you want to sidestep? Please list where the "priests" that do this are celebrated and accepted.

You are too much. You admit that there is a radical element of islam infiltrating those that would prefer to keep islam, spiritual, but you will not state it openly. This is a problem. In the EU, countries tried for years to welcome muslims into their countries. Everywhere it has been tried, the muslim "community" rejected the welcome and insists on living as they did in the ME (absolute poverty and misery). Similar to socialism, communism, liberalism, islamist ideals are not sustainable and destroy the societies they claim they are "trying" to improve. "Spiritual" islam is welcome here. What is not welcome here is the government rule of Sharia that accompanies islam and "promotes" islamists (that is the radicals for you). If we don't speak of it, we can not seperate it or improve it.

 

[logical4u]

How many different quotes do you want on the Bible saying rape is ok or encouraged? 1 is too easy, you give me a number and I'll happily oblige to further educate you on your own religious book.

When was the last time a Christian community stoned a woman to death for being raped?

(In fairness, it's been almost a week for the Muslims.)

Now Maggie Mae will show her support for woman's rights by lying to cover up the atrocities by Muslims!

The medieval aspects of Islam are supported by the State in some countries, there is where you see such things going on.

The medieval aspects of Christianity are NOT supported by the State in just about every country.....now.

The main differences between Christianity and Islam...the differences we all agree we hate are NOT based on what the religions say, it's based on whether governments incorporate religious rules in their civil law.

Turkey has learned what European countries and the U.S. has learned....religion and government do not mix well.

Which "religion" cannot be seperated from "their form" of government (Hint: it is spelled Sharia).

 

[logical4u]

Please list for me the murders that have been done in the last 50 years while screaming "Jesus is Lord"!! List for me the countries that are populated predominately with Christians that: own slaves, murder women by stoning on the word of one other, murder homosexuals, rape men and women found alone, promote pedophilia (dancing boys), etc, and the population that welcomes and celebrates that culture by pilgrimaging to a giant rock for a yearly ritual.
Show me the places in the New Testament that openly encourages the "rape" of every woman around you, including aunts and cousins. Quote chapter and verse please, because "your" statement implies that all this is so with Christianity. Show your hand, or fold.

The better comparison is to compare biblical texts with texts from the Q'uran.

Just about every horrifying disgusting thing that the Q'uran says you can find the same thing or it's immoral equivalent or worse in the Bible.

That's what this thread is doing, comparing religions, so the religious books should be compared.

As I recall, it's in the Book of Ecclesiastes where you will find just about every form of violence radical fundamentalist Islamists practice because they take their Quran's words relating to violence and jihads as 'gospel.' The difference in practice, of course, is that so many Islamic countries are still living in the 15th Century anyway and have never evolved and assimilated along with modernity in other parts of the globe. There's little modern western people can do about that.

So.... when they come here (the practicers of that "religion"), we should just stay silent as they try to implement Sharia law here (hate crimes is a form, you cannot make statements against the prophet or his followers, that would be: hate)? Why would you avoid a discussion with some muslims that believe it is their "duty" to overthrow the government here, and replace it with a Sharia....based government (look at the ME to see what kind of country that will be)? Why not talk about it in the hopes that muslims can see for themselves that "freedom and liberty" are really good things (and many of them agree it is a good thing), and allow them to use reason to join the "culture" of this country to be the best they can be?

 

[logical4u]

The better comparison is to compare biblican texts with texts from the Q'uran.

Just about every horrifying disgusting thing that the Q'uran says you can find the same thing or it's immoral equivalent or worse in the Bible.

That's what this thread is doing, comparing religions, so the religious books should be compared.

Show me a comparison:

“AMJA issued fatwa #2982:

In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.”

BTW: this is the same as a death sentence. If she is "rebellious", the men of Sharia can claim she is not living according to the faith, therefore must be put to death.

I've already pointed out that a "fatwa" is nothing more than an unenforceable rant, akin to a pox. Anyone can issue one.

Still waiting for that list of victims that were murdered by Chistians yelling "Jesus is Lord".

 

[bodecea]

When was the last time a Christian community stoned a woman to death for being raped?

(In fairness, it's been almost a week for the Muslims.)

Now Maggie Mae will show her support for woman's rights by lying to cover up the atrocities by Muslims!

The medieval aspects of Islam are supported by the State in some countries, there is where you see such things going on.

The medieval aspects of Christianity are NOT supported by the State in just about every country.....now.

The main differences between Christianity and Islam...the differences we all agree we hate are NOT based on what the religions say, it's based on whether governments incorporate religious rules in their civil law.

Turkey has learned what European countries and the U.S. has learned....religion and government do not mix well.

Which "religion" cannot be seperated from "their form" of government (Hint: it is spelled Sharia).

Hint: it is spelled "Blue Laws"

 

[logical4u]

Please provide evidence for your statement.

Or just admit that you made it up.

Thank You

"Wafa Sultan, courageous author of the indispensible jeremiad "A God Who Hates," strove gamely to educate Bill O'Reilly -- " from article: American Thinker Blog: Educating Bill O'Reilly on the 'Rape Factor' in Islam (updated)

I watched her and she is quite knowledgeable about the subject.

Why don't you just buy a copy of the English version of the Quran instead of reading cherry-picked biased interpretations from right wing websites and publications? It's very small and inexpensive on Amazon.

Because it reads like L Ron Hubbard's works: blah, blah, blah for eighty pages, something twisted from the Bible, repeat.

 

[logical4u]

The only group you demonstrated to have declared war on the United States is bin Laden's. But to be fair I'm sure there are several radical groups that have done the same.

That's like saying Christianity has declared war on So. Africa.

How many "Christians" have chopped off the heads of South Africans, and celebrate in the street after a tragedy happens there?

It was an allegory. Christianity has not declared war on anyone. Neither has Islam. Several Christian and Muslims groups are at war.

“Actually, Christians have a long history of cutting off heads, and butchering people. You might even say that they invented it. During many of the sieges of the "Holy Land" during the Crusades they launched the severed heads of Muslims at the "infidels" (so named by the Church) that they were fighting. And displaying the heads of conquered enemies on poles was rather common throughout most of European history right up through the 17th century, and it wasn't the Muslims or the Jews that were doing to the beheading and mounting.”

Why did Christians fight in the Crusades??????? Hint: the muslims invaded Jerusalem and stole the "cross" that was used to crucify Yeshua. That would mean the pillage and plundering culture of death and destruction were invading the "Holy Land". War by any party is UGLY. The Christians were trying to stop the invasion, not that you would care to discuss how islam got any of "its lands". Got it, Centuries ago, those Christians, were bad-asses.

Let us talk about.... NOW. How many Christians are cutting off people of other faith's heads? How many Christians are burning churches of other faiths? How many Christians are calling for the destruction of other countries because they disagree with their religion?

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[logical4u]

The medieval aspects of Islam are supported by the State in some countries, there is where you see such things going on.

The medieval aspects of Christianity are NOT supported by the State in just about every country.....now.

The main differences between Christianity and Islam...the differences we all agree we hate are NOT based on what the religions say, it's based on whether governments incorporate religious rules in their civil law.

Turkey has learned what European countries and the U.S. has learned....religion and government do not mix well.

Which "religion" cannot be seperated from "their form" of government (Hint: it is spelled Sharia).

Hint: it is spelled "Blue Laws"

And there I was thinking you had some credibility....

Seriously, are you saying that "blue laws" interfere with citizens' "rights" the way
Sharia interferes with citizens' rights?

 

[Sunni Man]

Why did Christians fight in the Crusades??????? Hint: the muslims invaded Jerusalem and stole the "cross" that was used to crucify Yeshua. .

Please provide evidence or link of muslims stealing Jesus's cross.

Or once again; just admit that you made this nonsense up.

Waiting for your response.

 

[Londoner]

Many on the Left see the War on Terrorism not as a war of Good versus Evil, but...Muslim resistance to foreigners who seek influence over the region's geopolitical assets and vital resources. This resistance typically takes the form of asymmetrical warfare, e.g., "terrorism". Why? -because long-colonialized regions have been denied the right to develop sophisticated weaponry.

Which is to say: The Left has a different interpretation of the War on Terrorism. They think Washington Bureaucrats strategically use national security threats (real or exaggerated) to insulate their decision making from poular review so they can create policies which, after the damage has been done, fail the smell test, like Iraq.

The Left wants the talk radio listener to think more about the very complex reality of American Power, and how that power has shaped certain regions in ways that occasionally lead to blowback, e.g., attacks against US military, financial, and foreign assets like Israel, the Pentagon, and the Twin Towers. This interpretation doesn't stem from hating America - which is the Right's favorite straw man - rather, the Left believes you can hate a Government policy (like Vietnam Iraq Kosovo Libya or the the New Deal) but still love the country. The ability to disagree with a government policy is the cornerstone of a free society.

The conflation of government policy with "the country" or "the people" is a species of fascism (which the far Right has always been sympathetic to because they are more likely to believe in an inviolable set of absolute, universal values that all must share, typically embodied in a centralized power like God or one of His earthly interlocutors like Ronald Reagan. Does the Rightwing voter ever notice how messianic Reagan, Bush, or Obama sound when they're saving the world from evil barbarians? They are so clearly trying to stamp the harsh realities of geopolitical hardball with a divine mandate)

Getting back to my point about different interpretations. The Left offers historical evidence of how Washington (a place we think you trust too much) has used military, CIA, and economic leverage to over-manage the affairs of others, e.g., Iran 1953; the Carter Doctrine which declared that the US will use military force to protect its energy interests; Reagan's support of Hussein or the mujahideen in the 80s; Reagan arming monsters on several continents from Iran to the Contras; Washington's longstanding financial and weapons support to places like Saudi Arabia & Libya; and a pattern of supporting ruthless regimes so that they will protect our regional interests. Not to mention the dizzying array of Pentagon protected business alliances, like that between Ken Lay and the Taliban when they were trying to run a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. All of these things add immense complexity to the "good versus evil" narrative told to women, children, and republicans in order to insulate them from the evil men must do in the outlying colonies.

Needless to say: the Left realizes that when Washington Bureaucrats try to control political outcomes in places like (say) Iran, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, there is likely to be harsh resistance, some of which calcifies into violent proto-military groups like Hezzbolla or Al Qaeda.

The Right sees all this conspiratorial geopolitical talk as lies or exaggerations, even though our military and financial support of "bad" regimes is on the official record, and easily researched.

So I agree with the OP that this story is tragic. I also hope the guilty party is brought to justice, harsh justice. I just wish the OP wouldn't accept Washington's framing of The War on Terrorism because we need critical thinkers who understand our long complicated history in the region. We need the OP to have a detailed understanding of the policies that have been initiated at least since Eisenhower. He doesn't.

One of the reasons Washington (since WWII) has been allowed to waste so much blood and money on failed military intervention is because The Bureaucrats have created useful idiots who buy into simplistic stories.