The video tape is fake. The passports were stolen from Muslims like you suggested in another thread, but nobody knows by who. Crashing into the world trade centre doesn't mean Muslims did it - it means someone did. Who? Who knows. The cheering? Oh, you mean those videos where they were dancing. Well...1) that could easily have been a video recorded before 911 about a celebration (perhaps religious) and then used to portray the Muslims as the people behind the attacks. 2) They can celebrate all they want (even if it was about 911) - but it doesn't prove they were behind it. Lots of people around the world celebrated 911 to some degree, because the world for the most part dislikes Americans. You can't use celebrating as proof. Do you happen to be blind? The Osama bin Laden in the video where he admits to 911 sticks out like a sore thumb. His facial features are much wider, and his frame looks broad. His beard is darker, and his health looks exceptionally good, even though the video he took before and after the attacks showed him displaying a deteriorating/poor health circumstance (kidney failure). Mods, does this get an infraction?
I knows. There's video of the hijackers getting on the planes. The authorities have reason to believe they're responsible. You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but again it requires massive numbers of people to carry out, which is extraordinarily unlikely. Sorry. Those are the facts. Wrong. It shows cheering the day of the attacks. It's not pre-recorded. But I'm beginning to get the drift that you're one of those people for whom islam can never be in the wrong, nor any muslim, nor any political islam. You wouldn't be able to accept that musilms carried out the attacks no matter what evidence was shown, so I wonder if it would matter what evidence you say. Fine open mind you have there. Gee - is blind an insult. Rather, I happen to have functional eyes and an excellent brain. It's the same guy. Darker beard could be dirt, for all you know. Temporarily appearing more healthy is not cause for suspicion. 'Mommy, the bad man was mean to me.' Qa'Dark, you still haven't answered my question about which allowances for dhimmis you "didn't agree with" - free worship, tolerance or the permission to breathe. Complain away, extremist freak.
1) Please give me the video of the hijackers getting on the planes. 2) I never called it a conspiracy. I am only saying there is not a shred of evidence that would indicate Muslims committed these atrocities. 1) What evidence would lead you to believe the cheering was during the day of the attacks? 2) Like I said, even if they were celebrating, it doesn't warrant an invasion. The whole world was happy to some degree, because like I said, America is not well liked. Based on this logic, America should have invaded almost every nation because there are people around the globe who were happy for the attacks. Yes, I've heard kidney failure just magically cures itself every now and then, only to fail the person again.(Sarcasm). I get an infraction for saying "may it be his last", and was curious to see if you would get an infraction for basically calling me a "douchebag".
Well, if you have no points to bring up, this debate is really worthless. Please, answer the above questions I posed to you. Point by point, accusations against CAIR so we can debate them honesty without any need for rhetoric, etc. The vast majority of Muslim Americans are nonviolent, law-abiding citizens who do not care about taking the law into their own hands. As a matter of fact, I really don't know anyone who wants to hurt this foolish novelist. Let him be, he will be his own undoing. CAIR has the right to defend Muslims, and they have done a fine job. CAIR is a blessing to us, and is well-respected organization. The only people actually opposed to CAIR are the Republicans, who also view NAACP as an illegal criminal alien ™ organization
No kidding. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017242.php Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/30/report-mohammed-atta-martydom-video/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta (scan down; shows Mohammed Atta at the airport) "Atta (blue shirt) and al-Omari in the Portland, Maine airport on the morning of 9/11" http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/21/attacks.surveillance.video/index.html . Really? One cannot on the one hand opine that everything would be hunky-dory if only the evil evil Westerners would leave the Middle East alone and then perform an instantaneous volte-face to say that muslims had nothing to do with it. I know you are saying that there is no proof, but you are wrong. Gee. I dunno. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks Maybe you should contact the AP desk? You have evidence that Bin Laden had kidney disease? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations, you know. Like if someone "didn't agree" with granting dhimmis the right to religious observance, or public religious observance, or life. Qa'Dark, there wasn't anything "basic" about it. It was very specific. I said that anyone who believes that is probably an "islamic supremacist douchebag". This isn't the same thing as a regular douchebag, mind you. I recommend you see my comment just above.
Yet, you show no capacity or interest in debating any of the points I've raised to you. I submit that your statement is at best deceptive and at worst propaganda. For once, you are correct. Yet there is also a large minority that would take the law into their own hands. There is a fatwa on Rushdie. Claiming that you "really don't know anyone who wants to hurt this foolish novelist" is a crock: you've already made your stance clear on killing people who leave islam, so it is not possible now to claim that you would leave Mr. Rushdie alone. Made evident, seemingly, by the 90% of its members who have abandoned it. Wrong.
Probably in the States, I doubt the Europeans will be convinced. But then, Americans haven't shown much sense lately anyway in resolving their issues. The comments are pretty revealing though (the unmoderated ones, of course, though one can never say too much about brother "Hugh") edit: interesting that these companies chose to ban MEMRI as well; good to know my nose for BS is still going strong.
Hadn't heard there was a problem in Europe. Mostly an American thing. Should I now point to how those comments are reactive, as is done for Hamas and the rest? Are their words piercing your heart, then? How much more cruel than rockets and suicide bombs: words and worry. Rather, that some people are so eager not to offend that they'd do anything to avoid even the implication of bias. I'm afraid your nose is a bit broken. Anything a doctor can fix? Or do you prefer it that way, the better to spite?
Haven't been keeping up have you? Jihad watch is blocked in the UK as well. BNP has been gnashing their teeth over it. And the EU is planning on banning all sites/refernces that associate jihad with terrorism.
How silly. Jihad is terrorism; or at least it's always been so. I rather doubt jihadwatch is blocked in the UK - people will get it at home, at the least. Sam, what you're essentially so upset about - at a level I don't see for humanitarian issues for, say, the Copts or non-muslims in general in the islamic world - is that people are talking about these issues. Not threatening violence. Not killing people. Not burning mosques or attacking muslims on the street. But, rather, talking about the issues, and drawing very obvious conclusions thereby. It is certainly not to the benefit of anyone - save the obvious clique we've talked about - to silence the free speech of others. But I do take off my hat: you have seemingly become a far better socialist than I. In the vein of Wells, rather. One can try to drive the truth underground, but it doesn't make it any less true, Sam.
Umm hate sites are hate sites Geoff. Here is another site you should get familiar with http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/
This, of course, is not true. By the same token, because DH supports the murder of apostates and the like (and possibly of homosexuals, etc), I could make the claim that all islam does also. After all; who is censoring his comments?
Oh? I wasn't aware that newspapers like the LA Times, the NYT, the Standard, Sydney Herald, Asia Times and even - what is it? Pakistan Online? were hate sites. I had no idea. Do their editors know? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How about islamway? Is that a hate site? CAIR.net? "Ask the Imam"?