DescentBB

The real dirty little secret is that the leftiest leftie who ever lefted in the US would still be considered "center-right" on the overall political spectrum. Most Europeans I've talked to find the depiction of Democrats as "liberals" to be completely hilarious.

woodchip wrote:No goal post to move. Of course you on the left pay great credence to blogs and how truthful they are

Tell me, how do you know this isn't some whacked out liberal making a post to paint a picture of adulating adherents endorsing what happened ? You jumped on Cuda for linking some off the wall source, kindly do not do so yourself.

That's why I sought out a poetry source and not a ideological political site. Did you find something to question in the site I chose? It's starting to reek of weasel, I called you on something and now you're dancing like Astaire to avoid the possibility of my statement being accurate. On the intellectual integrity scale, not a high-scoring move, Woody......

Top Gun wrote:The real dirty little secret is that the leftiest leftie who ever lefted in the US would still be considered "center-right" on the overall political spectrum. Most Europeans I've talked to find the depiction of Democrats as "liberals" to be completely hilarious.

very true. Hell, from upbringing alone I would have probably been a Republican by now, if they still actually had a Rockefeller/George Romney wing of the party that was functional. Most Europeans I know or talk with find me a tad conservative. I suppose time will tell, but eventually you will figure out that I am hardly some hardcore leftist revolutionary type. Maybe even Woodchip will get it........

Yea, I’m sure you are a regular right winger, and a secret member of the tea party to boot.

Spidey wrote:Yea, I’m sure you are a regular right winger, and a secret member of the tea party to boot.

I didn't say I was an idiot.

callmeslick wrote:I suppose time will tell, but eventually you will figure out that I am hardly some hardcore leftist revolutionary type. Maybe even Woodchip will get it........

I hate to tell you this but I highly doubt that will happen.

you haven't been here very long and I already knew you weren't left at all.

Heck, most everyone still thinks I'm a left wing moonbat.

Yea, I’m not really a conservative…I just play one on a game board.

Spidey wrote:…I just play one on a game board.

Lol!

------------

This place does tend to amplify perspectives and differences, particularly in areas we feel strongly about.

you haven't been here very long and I already knew you weren't left at all.

I'm pretty sure Ferno is a nazi.

heil himmler!

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:No goal post to move. Of course you on the left pay great credence to blogs and how truthful they are

Tell me, how do you know this isn't some whacked out liberal making a post to paint a picture of adulating adherents endorsing what happened ? You jumped on Cuda for linking some off the wall source, kindly do not do so yourself.

That's why I sought out a poetry source and not a ideological political site. Did you find something to question in the site I chose? It's starting to reek of weasel, I called you on something and now you're dancing like Astaire to avoid the possibility of my statement being accurate. On the intellectual integrity scale, not a high-scoring move, Woody......

Dancing? I'm a master of the Texas Two Step. Still doesn't make your "Poem" relevant to videos of the Muslim masses dancing in the street, or Muslims saying it was good to attack the Great Satan. When you show me something similar to prove your point I'll concede. Until then all I see is a man clutching at straws.

How is it that people dancing in the streets has an effect on the political process of this country?

woodchip wrote: Dancing? I'm a master of the Texas Two Step.

well, there's a video I don't need to see....

Still doesn't make your "Poem" relevant to videos of the Muslim masses dancing in the street, or Muslims saying it was good to attack the Great Satan. When you show me something similar to prove your point I'll concede. Until then all I see is a man clutching at straws.

what you see, and illustrate with your very words, is manipulation of public thought via carefully fed video images. Needless to say, you weren't going to see PUBLIC celebration of OK City here in the US, because those doing so would have been publicly scorned and the movement to which they belonged utterly destroyed. Obviously, pockets of foreigners, on foreign soil less than friendly with the US, were able to celebrate without interference, and, despite the fact that those fools might have represented the sentiments of maybe 5% of the Muslim world(tops) showing those videos helps feed rabid anti-Muslim sentiment in the US. And, feeding such sentiment is standard practice before heading into wars. Pretty standard stuff, historically speaking.
I don't think I am clutching at straws, so much as you are either believing a fantasy(that there were none here that celebrated Tim McVeigh) or buying into the hate machine that's been running non-stop for a decade now. Or, likely, both.

Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event. with Oklahoma there was no such group accolades. That you can hunt and peck to find obscure website showing a few delusional individuals says volumes about why your attempts of rapprochment between Oklahoma city and 9/11 is specious and farcical at best.

woodchip wrote:Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event. with Oklahoma there was no such group accolades. That you can hunt and peck to find obscure website showing a few delusional individuals says volumes about why your attempts of rapprochment between Oklahoma city and 9/11 is specious and farcical at best.

Those darn goalposts, always moving.

woodchip wrote:Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event. with Oklahoma there was no such group accolades. That you can hunt and peck to find obscure website showing a few delusional individuals says volumes about why your attempts of rapprochment between Oklahoma city and 9/11 is specious and farcical at best.

any higher and that bar is gonna be touching the moon.

woodchip wrote:Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event

whoa, dude.....WHAT 'organized religious group' made a concerted effort to applaud 9/11??

Please don't suggest the Muslim religion or even a single sect within it. Individuals who claim to be adherants of a religious philosophy do not 'an organized group' make.

.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) has issued a fatwa that puts Sharia law above democracy, causing some experts to call on the House Homeland Security Committee to subpoena the organization and testify.

http://tinyurl.com/3rbpmbf

Okay. How does this fatwa overrule the laws of the United States? I can declare crap to be "above" democracy all damn day, doesn't make it valid. Watch as I do it:

Baskin Robbin's ice cream is above democracy!

Tom Selleck's mustache is above democracy!

The knight's code of chivalry is above democracy!

null0010 wrote:Okay. How does this fatwa overrule the laws of the United States? I can declare crap to be "above" democracy all damn day, doesn't make it valid. Watch as I do it:

Baskin Robbin's ice cream is above democracy!

...

The knight's code of chivalry is above democracy!

You aren't a large conglomerate of jurists.

null0010 wrote:Tom Selleck's mustache is above democracy!

I think we can all agree on this one!

SilverFJ wrote:

null0010 wrote:I can declare crap to be "above" democracy all damn day, doesn't make it valid. Watch as I do it:
...
The knight's code of chivalry is above democracy!

You aren't a large conglomerate of jurists.

Are you suggesting it's valid under U.S. law for them to claim "sharia is the highest law" simply because they have numbers?

Have they been granted some kind of legal authority in the U.S.?

Foil wrote:Are you suggesting it's valid under U.S. law for them to claim "sharia is the highest law" simply because they have numbers?

Have they been granted some kind of legal authority in the U.S.?

Absolutely not. But you have to be careful when it comes to idiots in numbers. Therefore this is something that needs to be watched carefully.

Why? What will they do?

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

If you can't figure out how a bunch of biased jurists can affect a trial, you should be doing something involving bright colors to catch your attention.

SilverFJ wrote:...this is something that needs to be watched carefully.

Okay, I'll agree with that much.

The hype (e.g. Oklahoma, where they passed the ridiculous no-international-law-can-ever-be-considered statute) is way over the top, but I'll take "keep an eye on it" as a reasonable statement.

callmeslick wrote:...


BS. Are you telling me that a sizeable number within the goofball militia movement didn't celebrate?
Just because they weren't dancing in your town square doesn't equate to not celebrating.

Are you suggesting that the "sizeable" faction as you portray it, a subset of a relatively rare group itself within our population compares to the number of Muslims who celebrated and suggest america deserved the 9/11 attack?
Lol! Are you TC's twin? You have the same ability to detach from logic when trying to prop up a position that is as limp as freshly cooked linguini.
I would guess there are less than 100 Americans who thought the victims of Timothy-nutcase-McViegh deserved what happened to them. Even the two guys that helped him didn't think they deserved it!

I wonder, exactly what or who do you think you serve if you are successful in making anyone believe the radical Islamo-fascists are no more of a threat to the world than timothy McViegh and Eric Rudolph and the other three or four Christian-wacko killers that have attacked us?!? Please ask yourself that and then give yourself an honest answer.

I can just picture null's decapitated head on the floor looking up at the islamist with the bloody machete, "Ok, but how does this law apply to me?"

So just what makes you think you can stop a group of people within a larger society from living by it’s own law?

Can you stop the Mafia?

Spidey wrote:So just what makes you think you can stop a group of people within a larger society from living by it’s own law?

Can you stop the Mafia?

I don't know but at least when that group goes out and kills people we are allowed to refer to them as a danger...or maybe Slick wants to come in here and tell us all about how groups like the CubScouts once bullied the neighbors dog so we should back off of the Mafia too...

Spidey wrote:So just what makes you think you can stop a group of people within a larger society from living by it’s own law?

Can you stop the Mafia?

Point taken, and Will also makes a point in that we should be able to call something a danger when it is. I have no problem calling a group which defies domestic law and abuses/kills people evil. Shariah is evil, it's horrific, especially to women and children.

What I do have a problem with is the people who are claiming shariah can somehow gain legal authority here in the U.S. Sorry, but if someone commits rape or murder here, they can cry "shariah!" all they want, but they're going to get the full extent of our legal wrath. The idea that says, "they will get away with it by shariah law!" is the claim I'm balking at.

Will Robinson wrote:I would guess there are less than 100 Americans who thought the victims of Timothy-nutcase-McViegh deserved what happened to them. Even the two guys that helped him didn't think they deserved it!

I would guess that your estimate is off by over an order of magnitude. But, then again, we are just guessing,
both of us, as no one would dare cop to that sentiment, lest they be prosecuted or set upon by mobs.

I wonder, exactly what or who do you think you serve if you are successful in making anyone believe the radical Islamo-fascists are no more of a threat to the world than timothy McViegh and Eric Rudolph and the other three or four Christian-wacko killers that have attacked us?!? Please ask yourself that and then give yourself an honest answer.

radical whack-jobs are radical whack-jobs. In both cases, it is incumbent upon us all to defuse the extreme positions by having them discredited. Taking a position that Islamic extremists means non-Muslims should dump on the entire religion is the truly dangerous tack to take. By and large, xenophobic Americans do nothing but create endless loops of recruitment footage for the Islamic radicals.

ThunderBunny wrote:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) has issued a fatwa that puts Sharia law above democracy, causing some experts to call on the House Homeland Security Committee to subpoena the organization and testify.

http://tinyurl.com/3rbpmbf

Wow, you all argue about this quote, and not a single one checks the primary source? It's here:
http://translating-jihad.blogspot.com/s ... +democracy

Even that is a translation, no idea how accurate/faithful to the original it is.

A few things of note:
1. A fatwa is not legally binding (for most Muslim sects), but it is a religous/legal opinion of one scholar.

2. It was not a fatwa issued by the The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA). It appeared on the website of one scholar, who is also the secretary of AMJA. It is therefore the opinion of one scholar, not of the organization.

3. Even in the translation, I see no clear preference of the Sharia over Democracy. Its mainly a text that attempts to make clear the difference between the Shura (not Sharia), a historical process by which muslim scholars reached an opinion, and Democracy. What it does make clear is that Democracy is not limited by god's law, while the Shura is only applied in the areas in which the Quran is not clear.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event

whoa, dude.....WHAT 'organized religious group' made a concerted effort to applaud 9/11??

Please don't suggest the Muslim religion or even a single sect within it. Individuals who claim to be adherants of a religious philosophy do not 'an organized group' make..

ditto. As far as I know all major sects have issued fatwas condemned 911 and terrorism/extremism.
See here for a list of several100 sourced quotes with regard to that:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph ... _i_fatwas/

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Slick, you are getting beyond what the topic is about. With 9/11 there was a concerted effort by a recognized religious group, including their religious leaders, to applaud the 9/11 event

whoa, dude.....WHAT 'organized religious group' made a concerted effort to applaud 9/11??

Please don't suggest the Muslim religion or even a single sect within it. Individuals who claim to be adherants of a religious philosophy do not 'an organized group' make.

.

From US News:

"But if all that were true, why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim "street," stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden's henchmen had accomplished? For that matter, why were certain Islamic jurists in Pakistan issuing fatwas directing Muslims to fight American infidels if they attacked Afghanistan? And why do firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world continue to issue equally inflammatory decrees? Most disturbing, some of those same voices of moderation had occasionally expressed their approval of Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that engage in terrorism."


The following line from the article should make one think twice about thinking the terrorists are only a few and thus no threat:

" And even if extremist Islamists are only a minority within Islam, no one should forget the lesson of the Russian Bolsheviks: Determined minorities sometimes win."

http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/art ... ebrate-911

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...
Taking a position that Islamic extremists means non-Muslims should dump on the entire religion is the truly dangerous tack to take.
...

I don't see those extremist voices as the only ones being shouted down. You have challenged numerous opinions that clearly qualified the target of their anger as the radical component within Islam and you don't hesitate to rush in and ignore that distinction and by doing so you imply that any voice raised against a Muslim is inherently wrong. You are making blanket excuses for all Islam and horrible rationalizations that protect the radical component from critisism. Your tactic is just as dangerous as the one you complain about, it simply swings to the other extreme.

Will Robinson wrote:

Spidey wrote:So just what makes you think you can stop a group of people within a larger society from living by it’s own law?

Can you stop the Mafia?

I don't know but at least when that group goes out and kills people we are allowed to refer to them as a danger...or maybe Slick wants to come in here and tell us all about how groups like the CubScouts once bullied the neighbors dog so we should back off of the Mafia too...

I won't belabor the two of you on the obvious points of how society has traditionally been more than able to cope with such threats, with varying degrees of success. I will merely repeat that anyone who feels that Sharia law will be any threat to the day-to-day lives of American citizen is a loon, apparently willing to ignore about a hundred FAR more real threats to our nation, to focus on xenophobic paranoia.

The idea that says, "they will get away with it by shariah law!" is the claim I'm balking at.

Nobody's making that claim, Foil.

If you create your own little walled community with members of your cult, with you as leader- you can force your own "law" upon community members. Nobody will challenge you unless you break some outside law (like killing someone overtly)- but you operate under the assumption that you're a colony seeking to eventually take over and spread your own law when you join up with your fellow cult adherents in their expanding "walled" communities.

In Europe these 'ghettos' practice their own law and rule by intimidation. They become 'no-go' zones for non-muslims including the police. They may operate outside of, say, French law, but they burn cars, riot and kill people to enforce their borders within the borders of other countries.

French website detailing these "no-go zones:" http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

Daniel Pipes explains them: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11 ... -of-france

They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are convienently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control.

There is even a handy "map tool" that is available for people to avoid the "no-go zones" http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Cartographie/8201020

Do we want this here in our country?

I think you made my point, TB. The only way such things happen are outside the law of the nation. We don't have such places here, and honestly I don't see any reason to fear that there will be.

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