What Shariah means:

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:12 pm

Heck, even U.S. native-american reservations (managed by tribe authority) don't fall outside federal law.

Maybe not, but Native Americans aren't seeking to stifle free speech or force their women to be subservient property.

(Funny thing is they have more legitimacy and right to this land than we do. We're the invaders that took over, forced our religion upon them and so on. Is it islam's turn?)

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:28 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:
Foil wrote:Heck, even U.S. native-american reservations (managed by tribe authority) don't fall outside federal law.
Maybe not, but Native Americans aren't seeking to stifle free speech or force their women to be subservient property.

Exactly!!!

Native-american tribal leadership are very reasonable and peaceful, yet they aren't allowed to be "outside U.S. law".

So, if a peaceful group with actual ties to the land can't get full own-law rights in the U.S., what makes you think that a violent/murderous group can?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Foil wrote:
ThunderBunny wrote:
Foil wrote:Heck, even U.S. native-american reservations (managed by tribe authority) don't fall outside federal law.
Maybe not, but Native Americans aren't seeking to stifle free speech or force their women to be subservient property.
Exactly!!!

Native-american tribal leadership are very reasonable and peaceful, yet they aren't allowed to be "outside U.S. law".

So, if a peaceful group with actual ties to the land can't get full own-law rights in the U.S., what makes you think that a violent/murderous group can?

Violent/murderous group... hrm, sounds like the european colonists as seen by Native Americans no?

[ Post made via Android ]

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:52 pm

Okay. Your point?

Mine: Whether peaceful or not, history in the land or not, no group is being given authority to act outside U.S. federal law.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:40 pm

I guess TBs point is, if you are in France and persistently violent enough to drive the authorities away then you can act outside of the law and there is no reason to expect the same behavior wouldn't eventually work in America or anywhere else.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:30 pm

Foil wrote:Okay. Your point?

Mine: Whether peaceful or not, history in the land or not, no group is being given authority to act outside U.S. federal law.

Yeah, 'cause look what happened to the Branch Davidians.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:53 pm

I guess TBs point is, if you are in France and persistently violent enough to drive the authorities away then you can act outside of the law and there is no reason to expect the same behavior wouldn't eventually work in America or anywhere else.

Exactly.

The other point is- unfortunately in the REAL world- "might always makes right."

Force of arms is the only real reason anyone inevitably obeys the law (even as 'educated and cultured' as we regard ourselves to be.)

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:42 pm

Wait, now you guys are suggesting a violent group could exert enough violence/power to keep U.S. law enforcement out?

[I think the Davidians are actually a pretty counter-example to that.]

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:51 am

Wait, now you guys are suggesting a violent group could exert enough violence/power to keep U.S. law enforcement out?

They aren't a cult or religious group- but mexican drug gangs are already doing that in places along the Arizona border. There are literally no-go zones for American citizens:

Arizona Park a ‘No-Go’ Zone for American Citizens
The Sonoran Desert National Monument is so overrun with drug gangs that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has warned Americans not to enter the park.

"We are out gunned, we are outmanned, and we don’t have the resources here to locally fight this. … We need action. People are getting killed out there. We have drug cartels at war with each other. … It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/arizona-pa ... -citizens/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:57 am

Foil wrote:Wait, now you guys are suggesting a violent group could exert enough violence/power to keep U.S. law enforcement out?

[I think the Davidians are actually a pretty counter-example to that.]

No, I meant how even a peaceful group that does not agree with the govt. can expect tanks outside

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:18 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

Well, we didn't win this one, but people will sure try.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:35 pm

SilverFJ wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

Well, we didn't win this one, but people will sure try.

more loons loose in the hinterlands. And, getting what they deserved, IMHO......

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:14 pm

TB is correct though in the example of a group having free reign of an area of our country, even shooting at local law enforcement and the fed merely posted signs warning us to stay away.
As far as I've read the drug cartel still owns that part of America...and the dems still hold the advantage in the publics opinion of being pro-Latino...

The threat of law enforcement is only as strong as the political will to use it. In a heavily Muslim populated political district it isn't hard to fathom an incumbent administration telling it's law enforcement to back off in the Muslim area out of a desire to win the votes in a tightly contested campaign.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:35 pm

Will Robinson wrote:TB is correct though in the example of a group having free reign of an area of our country, even shooting at local law enforcement and the fed merely posted signs warning us to stay away.
As far as I've read the drug cartel still owns that part of America...and the dems still hold the advantage in the publics opinion of being pro-Latino...

I think you'll find that most Latinos in the States are far from supportive of Mexican drug cartels.

The threat of law enforcement is only as strong as the political will to use it. In a heavily Muslim populated political district it isn't hard to fathom an incumbent administration telling it's law enforcement to back off in the Muslim area out of a desire to win the votes in a tightly contested campaign.

but, we already have large districts in urban areas in the East that have a lot of Muslims(African American districts in Philly come to mind). Yet, no bizarre Sharia type stuff, no coddling by politicians to bend to Muslim practice. I'll repeat again, you all are focusing on a problem akin to a paper cut, while total organ failure looms elsewhere in the body.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:48 pm

Yet, no bizarre Sharia type stuff,

I could flood this thread with the stories and photos of all of the young women and girls that have been killed here in the states for 'dishonoring' their muslim upbringing. They are considered 'apostates' or whores by their own families...and apostates must be killed under shariah.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2010-03- ... x-arizona/

http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2008/0 ... honor.html

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... iling.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/musli ... tatus.html

on and on...

But I guess it's not 'bizarre.' Not anymore.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:45 pm

Actually during the 60s there were many places in Philly that the police wouldn’t go. (unless in mass, for a very good reason) Most of the domestic violence was a pass…

Say what you will Slick…I was there.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:46 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:TB is correct though in the example of a group having free reign of an area of our country, even shooting at local law enforcement and the fed merely posted signs warning us to stay away.
As far as I've read the drug cartel still owns that part of America...and the dems still hold the advantage in the publics opinion of being pro-Latino...
I think you'll find that most Latinos in the States are far from supportive of Mexican drug cartels.

Well it's a god thing I didn't claim they do then isn't it? But dems are refusing to enforce our laws so they can hold themselves out as being the party that isn't anti-Latino.
You have a real knack for tossing yourself a strawman or red herring to fight against....kind of like a real wiffleball champ aren't you? Why not just discuss what is really brought up?

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The threat of law enforcement is only as strong as the political will to use it. In a heavily Muslim populated political district it isn't hard to fathom an incumbent administration telling it's law enforcement to back off in the Muslim area out of a desire to win the votes in a tightly contested campaign.
but, we already have large districts in urban areas in the East that have a lot of Muslims(African American districts in Philly come to mind). Yet, no bizarre Sharia type stuff, no coddling by politicians to bend to Muslim practice. I'll repeat again, you all are focusing on a problem akin to a paper cut, while total organ failure looms elsewhere in the body.

Well once again you exaggerate the degree of that "focus" but that is your way.
There are some predominantly Muslim areas in Michigan where the Muslims have already lobbied to have Sharia law be the guide in civil court where they feel complying with U.S. law causes the Muslim to betray his faith. That is where you will probably see the first concession made. We've seen liberals in charge of our public schools demand no overt display of chritian rituals and then turn around and have dress-like-a-muslim-day so the need by some in authority to pander is already in the works
We've seen what happened in Europe and now they are living with the problems it causes so yea we mention it here....contrary to your accusations it doesn't mean we don't notice other problems. You seem to try too hard to dismiss anything that might indict a member of Islam as an unwarranted attack on the religion as a whole. Why the hypersensitivity?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:11 am

no hypersensitivity on my part, Will. I simply feel it is very counterproductive to waste time on a subject so trivial, given so many more important issues facing the nation. The issue strikes me as a smokescreen to keep people from focusing on more serious issues which should be settled in the naton.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:47 am

callmeslick wrote:no hypersensitivity on my part, Will. I simply feel it is very counterproductive to waste time on a subject so trivial, given so many more important issues facing the nation. The issue strikes me as a smokescreen to keep people from focusing on more serious issues which should be settled in the naton.

Well I agree that there are those on the right that would love to use it as a shiny object to keep the slaves on the right side of the plantation but that doesn't mean there is no substance to the concerns about the growth of what we call radical Islam into western culture where it often collides into our way of life like a Boeing 757 into a big building.

I just like to see some intellectual honesty from those who feel compelled to disparage anyone who wants to discuss it. For example, the way you bend reality to categorize the violence produced by modern day Christians and those produced by modern day Muslims at the same level. There is a vast difference between the two no matter what common threads they have there is a reason Muslims are one or both of the participants in most of the worlds hot spots. A reason they are one of the leaders in terrorism etc. etc.
Now I know the violence isn't inherent to faith in general but the behavior of the flock is usually a result of the shepherd and we are concerned about the unusually high ratio of radical Muslim shepherds and their recruiting. And of course any of our politicians who seek to make excuses for them and empower them...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:02 am

Will, I am going to stop the circular discussion and leave you with this simple thought: No where did I suggest a high level of violence by modern-day Christians. All(and damn, I seem to be repeating this for the umpteenth time) I suggested was that:
1. The idea of Sharia law overtaking US law is ludicrous.
2. Focusing on it is largely a right-wing smokescreen
3. Most religious people of all religions are good.(I tend toward being liberal, liberals view man
as essentially good, it's part of the core definition going back to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau,etc).

that's it. Any other inferences are your own, and not based upon my actual words.

Infer away.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:15 am

1. The idea of Sharia law overtaking US law is ludicrous.
2. Focusing on it is largely a right-wing smokescreen

"Islam is a right-wing smokescreen." - Ahh sooo...we see the true "reasoning" behind your closed minded (non)thinking.

Ok...so leftist talking point made. I suppose we can expect no other actual discussion on the matter with you.

Slick, dismissed.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:16 am

Oh btw Slick, I can design a nice red Che' T-shirt for ya if you'd like. Ya'll think those are stylish for some reason.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:23 am

ThunderBunny wrote:
1. The idea of Sharia law overtaking US law is ludicrous.
2. Focusing on it is largely a right-wing smokescreen
"Islam is a right-wing smokescreen." - Ahh sooo...we see the true "reasoning" behind your closed minded (non)thinking.

wow, read the two above and go back and work on reading comprehension. Is English a second language with you, or didn't you read the word 'it' as referring to "the idea of Sharia law overtaking US law"?Thoughtful of you to be so dismissive, but, in the future, try not to look like a complete idiot while doing so...

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:27 am

Hehe. Such a cute lil' Slickdude.

<pat pat> Now go play on the forum.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:36 am

I wouldn't say it's impossible, at the very least in localized regions. The Davidians also, no matter what your opinion of them, did everything outward and openly and legally. I'm not sure they are a good contrast. Hell, I see 15-30 year olds on Gangwars and the history channel brandishing fully auto weapons. Illegally I'm sure. If their were to become a large concentrated population of Muslim, they could present a real challenge. I'm still more of the mind of Slick at this point, They are hugely predictable, and at this point a political tool to bring about change.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:48 am

ThunderBunny wrote:Hehe. Such a cute lil' Slickdude.

<pat pat> Now go play on the forum.

can you read, I ask again, or do you simply prefer to make up what others said? Because what you claim that I said was clearly not what I wrote. Feel free to make a Che T-shirt, and then feel free to let me tell you what to insert it in.....yeesh!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:53 am

callmeslick wrote:Will, I am going to stop the circular discussion and leave you with this simple thought: No where did I suggest a high level of violence by modern-day Christians. All(and damn, I seem to be repeating this for the umpteenth time) I suggested was that:
1. The idea of Sharia law overtaking US law is ludicrous.
2. Focusing on it is largely a right-wing smokescreen
3. Most religious people of all religions are good.(I tend toward being liberal, liberals view man
as essentially good, it's part of the core definition going back to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau,etc).

that's it. Any other inferences are your own, and not based upon my actual words.

Infer away.

Funny, you claim to have made no other assertions than 1, 2 and 3 above yet all my responses to you were about the other things you said.
I didn't fabricate or infer anything. It was actual comments you made, silly attempts to equate the two factions that spurred most of my responses to you and those comment you made are NOT covered by 1,2 and 3 above...
Just go back to the beginning of this thread and see how I DID NOT respond to your initial points that Sharia Law is unlikely to pop out in America. It was after you started into that rhetoric about how the threats and destruction caused by Christian radicals and Islamo-facsist radicals are the same. You are being very disingenuous to claim you haven't made the comparisons that were in fact the only reason I responded to you.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:06 pm

Will,
Find me where I wrote about Christians being responsible for mass violence in contemporary times?
I merely referred to events over history showing that both religions(and, frankly, EVERY major religion) have been the impetus for wrong-headed violence and inhumanity. I just find it idiotic to look at Islamic radicals and make some sort of dimwitted inference that it reflects on Mohammed, or the Koran in general.
Given that none of you has shown any depth of knowledge about the subtleties, subsects and wide variation within Islam, I don't see where it is me that is 'disingenuous'.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:34 pm

callmeslick wrote:Will,
Find me where I wrote about Christians being responsible for mass violence in contemporary times?

there you go tossing out the red herring again...

callmeslick wrote:....I merely referred to events over history showing that both religions(and, frankly, EVERY major religion) have been the impetus for wrong-headed violence and inhumanity. I just find it idiotic to look at Islamic radicals and make some sort of dimwitted inference that it reflects on Mohammed, or the Koran in general.
Given that none of you has shown any depth of knowledge about the subtleties, subsects and wide variation within Islam, I don't see where it is me that is 'disingenuous'.

You consistently try to equate the level of threat posed by the likes of Timothy McViegh to the threat posed by the likes of al Queda. No one ever said Islam is unique in the way it produces violent radicals. We point to the much higher ratio of threat/death toll/etc. and you try to sluff it off as equivalent to other groups. you can deny it but I think you have done it enough times now that your posts speak for themselves and betray your protests.

You can read the words of Muhammad and compare them to the words of Christ (as I have already pointed out to you and you dodged) and see that only one of them taught misogyny, murder and racism as a method to please his god. Again you try to tell me I don't know the subject matter so shouldn't be talking about it...wrong again.
even those who haven't studied it can tell the difference between a Pope preaching how we should love the sinner and hate his sin versus a cleric issuing a deadly fahtwa against a comic strip creator who offends the clerics prophet with his humor.

It isn't that Islam is unique in being a catalyst or excuse for very bad events it is the alarming ratio of those events in modern times relative to other religious groups that we have focused on and the excuses some people make for them, while you have focused on offering excuses and trying shame us into not talking about it.

It isn't the crack house that the neighbors complain about it's the unusually high number of criminals that operate out of there..and it is the politicians that need the ghetto vote who tell us we are racist for pointing out the crack house is a shelter for those operations. We know a few rich kids smoke crack in the suburbs but we don't accept that as an excuse for the high ratio of drive by shootings, robberies, gang wars and child junkies etc. etc. in the ghetto! that would be a stupid argument to accept and that is the argument you are making.
And we don't want to see the same dynamic played out if people like you can successfully shame citizens into ignoring high ratio of violence/abuse/racism followers of Sharia Law perpetrate.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:04 pm

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:52 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
callmeslick wrote: I just find it idiotic to look at Islamic radicals and make some sort of dimwitted inference that it reflects on Mohammed, or the Koran in general.
Like Will, I also called you on your attempt to see Mohammed and Jesus as being equivalent but you blew me off instead. Maybe you would like to revisit this because your logic is failing here.

Bettina

I equate them as two founders of religions, or cornerstones, more accurately. In both cases, their teachings have been used to ill ends by a small minority, and to peaceful, generous end by far more. Messages of both are dissimilar in tone, which is probably where you get irate with me, but as all religions are, in my view, human creations, subject to human interpretations and misinterpretations, I merely equate them in light of that. That most Christian abuses of the message came hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, ever. And, anyone who actually studied Islam, or the practice thereof, would realize that it isn't some sort of universal Islamic mandate to practice, as Will puts it, misogyny and racism. The core difference in Jesus' message was to 'judge not others, lest you be judged', and, admittedly the Islamic religion doesn't have that message embodied. Obviously, the two religions differ in many ways, but what I am trying to decry is the blanket condemnation of Islam the religion, as well as the goofy inference that somehow Muslims constitute some sort of boogeyman that threatens the US to any great extent. Let's face it, 9/11 was tragic, but in the overall picture trivial. Far more people in the US died from the flu in 2001. Far more innocent individuals have died as a result of the US response, which, to a very real degree, makes the US look like the heavy in this particular passion play. Some of the words written serve to do nothing but reinforce the idea that the US is an overreactive bunch of xenophobes. That notion would be as untrue as any blanket characterization of Muslim, now wouldn't it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:48 pm

Slick, give it up. You're just not being very effective with all your explanations. As Shakespeare said, "He Doth Protest Too Much"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:38 pm

callmeslick wrote:....

... Let's face it, 9/11 was tragic, but in the overall picture trivial. Far more people in the US died from the flu in 2001.

In the real overall picture some people from everywhere die of the flu and it isn't the result of a group of murderous zealots who think god approves of causing the deaths!
In America, on 9-11-2001, 3000 people died a very non-trivial death at the hands of those zealots in addition to our share of the worlds flu deaths.

Do you know lots of people who think like you? Because that scares me more than Sharia Law.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:59 pm

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:44 pm

Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.

Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.

Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1JtoTcoZY

Secular pluralistic society in the 21st century for you...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:38 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:
Secular pluralistic society in the 21st century for you...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:14 pm

from the New Advent(Catholic online encyclopedia):

"Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. "

doesn't quite sound like Will's description does it? Oh, and the site I named above clearly elaborates that many views of who Mohammed was and stood for are shaped by those their either revere him or revile him and thus are suspect. The words above are attributed to a more scholarly,dispassionate work done by a couple of Catholic scholars.
Bottom line is this--trying to judge who Mohammed was, or what Islam is, when you clearly do not attempt to study the culture, religion or tribal nature of the Arabian peninsula is suspect, at best. And, sorry, but those of you doing the condemnation here have shown me nothing that indicates you are making judgement based upon a standard Protestant view that dates back to Martin Luther.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:21 pm

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:39 pm

callmeslick wrote:from the New Advent(Catholic online encyclopedia):

"Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. "

doesn't quite sound like Will's description does it? Oh, and the site I named above clearly elaborates that many views of who Mohammed was and stood for are shaped by those their either revere him or revile him and thus are suspect. The words above are attributed to a more scholarly,dispassionate work done by a couple of Catholic scholars.
Bottom line is this--trying to judge who Mohammed was, or what Islam is, when you clearly do not attempt to study the culture, religion or tribal nature of the Arabian peninsula is suspect, at best. And, sorry, but those of you doing the condemnation here have shown me nothing that indicates you are making judgement based upon a standard Protestant view that dates back to Martin Luther.

Nice try slick but as I told you I know a little about it and it doesn't come from a standard Protestant view...I don't think much of my perspective can be traced to standard anything organized religion.
I've studied the text books from Saudi schools from the 1990's, read the lessons about how you can lie to an infidel and it isn't a lie in allah's eyes, etc. How the Jew is the root of much evil in the world.
I've observed the paths of a couple of Muslim cousins who moved here and became our classmates and friends around 1980 when I was in high school.
We heard their version of how life compares here in a melting pot of ideals compared to Beirut which was quite cosmopolitan itself back then considering the region yet the culture/religion "was a strangle" according to my friend and we watched as he turned into an average american guy and his cousin went back to fight in Lebanon because his god was being threatened by Jews, much to the dismay of his family. I think he died within a few years of his return, his family doesn't know where he is or what happened to him.
After 9-11-2001 I got very interested in the region and have read a bit and paid attention to a lot of sources of info especially the live ones who lived there.

You have more than just a touch of condescending superiority in your constant reminders that 'we aren't smart enough, 'we don't know enough', to comment on current events. I think you should run for office with a D by your name, you already have the attitude down pat.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:46 pm

Bet51987 wrote:...

Let's continue that same paragraph you found word for word.....

Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.
....
Bettina

Nice catch Bee!
Slick, you are pathetic.
From Bee's discovery: slick's sited source for his selective quote
I find it exceptionally despicable that slick chastises us for potentially relying on 'suspect sources' and in the same paragraph he seriously edits the content of the one he uses to shoo us to the back of the bus!