Jim in Anchorage Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 "Our Thing", brother. As revealed the first time by Joe"Muhammad" Valachi.
meazza Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 How does "Al Quaeda" translate into English? This thing of ours.
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 "Our Thing", brother. As revealed the first time by Joe"Muhammad" Valachi. This thing of ours. How'd ya figure that out?
BringBackFergy Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 No need, I'm still right. Strategy and organization define terrorism, ideology merely motivates. La Cosa Nostra?? Organized and strategic...terrorists??
B-Man Posted May 23, 2013 Author Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Ordinarily I would scream that this is "Unbelievable" , but sadly............................I guess it isn't. Networks’ Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack What does a murderous jihadist terrorist have to do to get some recognition for his cause? You hack a British soldier to death in broad daylight on a London street while shouting “Allahu akbar” and then swear by the almighty Allah” that you’ll never stop fighting, and the U.S. broadcast networks still can’t bring themselves to utter a word about Islam. True, the ABC CBS and NBC evening broadcasts called the attack “terrorism,” but for all the information they gave viewers, the attackers might have been Basque separatists or animal rights zealots. On “Nightly News” NBC anchor Brian Williams said the attackers allowed “people to take video while they vent their message about religion and politics.” Correspondent Michelle Kosinski said one of the attackers “made a long political statement, weapons still in his blood-covered hands.” CBS “Evening News with Scott Pelley” went a bit further, as reporter Charlie D’Agata mentioned that “Witnesses said that the men shouted ‘god is great’ in Arabic during the attacks.” Hmmm. Presbyterians maybe? Over at ABC, on “World News with Diane Sawyer,” reporter Lama Hasan would only say British authorities were trying to find out including “whether or not one of [the attackers] is of African origin with ties to terrorist groups.” Of the one attacker’s video rant, Dian Sawyer said, “officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the meaning of this tape.” Yes, it’s a real head-scratcher. By contrast, the U.K. media seems to be calling the attacks what they are. The BBC (no right-wing media shop) reported that one of the attackers told a witness, “I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The BBC also said that “The Muslim Council of Britain said the murder was ‘a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly,’” and noted that “At least two plots by Islamist extremists to kill soldiers in the UK have been foiled in recent years.” This morning, the networks did identify radical Islam as the attackers' motivation, but their initial reluctance in the face of obvious evidence fits a pattern Read more: http://newsbusters.o...k#ixzz2U8I5SRBv Edited May 23, 2013 by B-Man
KD in CA Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 Ordinarily I would scream that this is "Unbelievable" , but sadly............................I guess it isn't. Networks’ Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack What does a murderous jihadist terrorist have to do to get some recognition for his cause? You hack a British soldier to death in broad daylight on a London street while shouting “Allahu akbar” and then swear by the almighty Allah” that you’ll never stop fighting, and the U.S. broadcast networks still can’t bring themselves to utter a word about Islam. True, the ABC CBS and NBC evening broadcasts called the attack “terrorism,” but for all the information they gave viewers, the attackers might have been Basque separatists or animal rights zealots. On “Nightly News” NBC anchor Brian Williams said the attackers allowed “people to take video while they vent their message about religion and politics.” Correspondent Michelle Kosinski said one of the attackers “made a long political statement, weapons still in his blood-covered hands.” CBS “Evening News with Scott Pelley” went a bit further, as reporter Charlie D’Agata mentioned that “Witnesses said that the men shouted ‘god is great’ in Arabic during the attacks.” Hmmm. Presbyterians maybe? Over at ABC, on “World News with Diane Sawyer,” reporter Lama Hasan would only say British authorities were trying to find out including “whether or not one of [the attackers] is of African origin with ties to terrorist groups.” Of the one attacker’s video rant, Dian Sawyer said, “officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the meaning of this tape.” Yes, it’s a real head-scratcher. By contrast, the U.K. media seems to be calling the attacks what they are. The BBC (no right-wing media shop) reported that one of the attackers told a witness, “I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The BBC also said that “The Muslim Council of Britain said the murder was ‘a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly,’” and noted that “At least two plots by Islamist extremists to kill soldiers in the UK have been foiled in recent years.” This morning, the networks did identify radical Islam as the attackers' motivation, but their initial reluctance in the face of obvious evidence fits a pattern Read more: http://newsbusters.o...k#ixzz2U8I5SRBv Big Media does need to keep the White House happy, so it's perfectly understandable.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 No need, I'm still right. Strategy and organization define terrorism, ideology merely motivates. Tom has given us his firmly stated opinion. As we all know, this constitutes fact. I'm pretty sure most of those are not news papers. They are tabloids. But yes, pretty chilling stuff. You have to love the Islamic extremest mindset.
Fan in San Diego Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 It was interesting to see a group called the EDL (English Defense League) protest that night or the second night. Sounds like it could lead to sectarian wars.
DC Tom Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 La Cosa Nostra?? Organized and strategic...terrorists?? The flip side of that argument being that any Italian that shoots someone is a made man...
meazza Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 The flip side of that argument being that any Italian that shoots someone is a made man... We all get made at our communions.
3rdnlng Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 We all get made at our communions. Horseshit, it was your baptisms.
Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 The flip side of that argument being that any Italian that shoots someone is a made man... now has more money.
chicot Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 It was interesting to see a group called the EDL (English Defense League) protest that night or the second night. Sounds like it could lead to sectarian wars. The EDL are ignorant racist thugs who need very little excuse to "protest". Their reasoned response to this atrocity was to throw bottles at the police. Thankfully they have very little popular support over here.
4merper4mer Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) The EDL are ignorant racist thugs who need very little excuse to "protest". Their reasoned response to this atrocity was to throw bottles at the police. Thankfully they have very little popular support over here. I have no reason to doubt what you say, but in this particular case I wonder if they have an "good enough excuse to protest". Reminder: Below is their excuse. Edited May 24, 2013 by 4merper4mer
3rdnlng Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 I have no reason to doubt what you say, but in this particular case I wonder if they have an "good enough excuse to protest". Reminder: Below is their excuse. He looks like a bloke with blood on his hands.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) The EDL are ignorant racist thugs who need very little excuse to "protest". Their reasoned response to this atrocity was to throw bottles at the police. Thankfully they have very little popular support over here. I would think that there might be a very violent response, and not something as trite as bottles at police. I would hope that there isn't, as the very last thing anybody wants more death of innocent people. I would hope that a more intelligent solution arises, and I want to see what you think about it: When does radical Islam become something that must be eradicated with 0 tolerance, no different than the KKK, chicot? If I was a lawyer in England, the first thing I would do when these guys are found guilty? File a lawsuit on behalf of the dead guy's family against their families, their mosque, everybody who belongs to it, the al-Muhajiroun group they belonged to, and everybody that was ever in that group. Hit them all in the wallet, and at the very least force them all to pay lawyers and defend themselves as a group, and individually in civil court. You want to live in the West? Fine, but, if you want to act like this? Then welcome to our civil court system. Easy money. That's how the Southern Poverty Law Center made all their $, and some smart British lawyer could do the same. Make it so they can't even afford printer paper, just like the SPLC did with the KKK. Make it impossible for them to radicalize anybody, because every time they meet, you sue them all, all over again. Based on what? Conspiracy to deprive the entire American people of their civil rights. I'm no lawyer, but, we do have cases like this here all the time, and while many are ridiculous, we still have them. Why should I care if this Fs some of them over unfairly? That's the price you pay for DECADES of toleration of idiocy in the name of your religion, while doing 0 about it. A couple of lawsuits later, what are the chances that the next time somebody is screaming Jihad on the street, we see non-radical Muslim guys, who don't want to get sued, cracking heads, and thankfully, not EDL hooligans? The solution to radical Islam MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent Muslims, no different than the solution to white racism MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent white people. These lawsuits just help kick start that 0 tolerance policy. That seems like a much more reasonable, effective and damaging way to attack these people, than bottles and hooligan behavior. Edited May 24, 2013 by OCinBuffalo
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 You're going to sue the Muslim religion? That's like going after the KKK by suing the Protestant church.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) You're going to sue the Muslim religion? That's like going after the KKK by suing the Protestant church. Read your history. The SPLC did exactly that. They sued many a so-called Protestant church, right after the Klan went from being the Klan, to being a church. How is radical Islam different, in any way, from the KKK, in the KKK's church form? It is not. Why should I care if a radical Mosque that is spewing crap, or allowing it's members to spew crap, has to close it's doors...or is seized as a result of a lawsuit? Where is the downside? Edited May 24, 2013 by OCinBuffalo
chicot Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 I would think that there might be a very violent response, and not something as trite as bottles at police. I would hope that there isn't, as the very last thing anybody wants more death of innocent people. I would hope that a more intelligent solution arises, and I want to see what you think about it: When does radical Islam become something that must be eradicated with 0 tolerance, no different than the KKK, chicot? If I was a lawyer in England, the first thing I would do when these guys are found guilty? File a lawsuit on behalf of the dead guy's family against their families, their mosque, everybody who belongs to it, the al-Muhajiroun group they belonged to, and everybody that was ever in that group. Hit them all in the wallet, and at the very least force them all to pay lawyers and defend themselves as a group, and individually in civil court. You want to live in the West? Fine, but, if you want to act like this? Then welcome to our civil court system. Easy money. That's how the Southern Poverty Law Center made all their $, and some smart British lawyer could do the same. Make it so they can't even afford printer paper, just like the SPLC did with the KKK. Make it impossible for them to radicalize anybody, because every time they meet, you sue them all, all over again. Based on what? Conspiracy to deprive the entire American people of their civil rights. I'm no lawyer, but, we do have cases like this here all the time, and while many are ridiculous, we still have them. Why should I care if this Fs some of them over unfairly? That's the price you pay for DECADES of toleration of idiocy in the name of your religion, while doing 0 about it. A couple of lawsuits later, what are the chances that the next time somebody is screaming Jihad on the street, we see non-radical Muslim guys, who don't want to get sued, cracking heads, and thankfully, not EDL hooligans? The solution to radical Islam MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent Muslims, no different than the solution to white racism MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent white people. These lawsuits just help kick start that 0 tolerance policy. That seems like a much more reasonable, effective and damaging way to attack these people, than bottles and hooligan behavior. I'd have no problem with going down the lawsuite route but I suspect (though I'm certainly no law expert) that it would be next to impossible to make anything stick.
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Read your history. The SPLC did exactly that. They sued many a so-called Protestant church, right after the Klan went from being the Klan, to being a church. How is radical Islam different, in any way, from the KKK, in the KKK's church form? It is not. Why should I care if a radical Mosque that is spewing crap, or allowing it's members to spew crap, has to close it's doors...or is seized as a result of a lawsuit? Where is the downside? Do you think we can sue this church? Sounds pretty inflammatory to me.
Recommended Posts