The significance of "allahu Akbar"

[Peikko 1,575]

Mind you, Alien posted nothing factual for me to lengthily disect. The Libyan's were arms dealers, not the source of funding. The Labour party did not initiate the Peace Process. Sinn Fein is the legal arm of the IRA. Happy now?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Mind you, Alien posted nothing factual for me to lengthily disect. The Libyan's were arms dealers, not the source of funding. The Labour party did not initiate the Peace Process. Sinn Fein is the legal arm of the IRA. Happy now?

Are you saying the the world renowned, respected, scholarly, Wiki is incorrect?

[Peikko 1,575]

Mind you, Alien posted nothing factual for me to lengthily disect. The Libyan's were arms dealers, not the source of funding. The Labour party did not initiate the Peace Process. Sinn Fein is the legal arm of the IRA. Happy now?

Are you saying the the world renowned, respected, scholarly, Wiki is incorrect?

I have no idea, I haven't looked at it. I know what I know, I don't need to consult Wiki.

[nowhereman 1]

When I verbally attack Islamic extremists you take it as an attack in Islam in general. You need to wake up.

Not that you said that in this thread, but your reputation on this board does not come from attacking Islamic extremists.

I'm less worried by Joe than I'm by the moderate Americans Muslims who have a track record of doing little to nothing beyond talk in helping to clean out those who radicals are getting Islam a bad name.

Can anyone give me some concrete examples to prove me wrong because I hope I am on this one? Should be plenty in the last eight years alone.

As a conservative how often have you (or conservatives as a whole) done anything to clean out right wing hate groups? Moderate Muslims have a similar relationship with radical Muslims, so why would they be held to a higher standard?

I don't support hate groups nor do I belong to any so screw you with your false accusations. Now that's out of the way. . .

We have the FBI and Justice Department and the courts go after these right-wing groups and they have had FBI agents penetrate this groups which have long been on the decline and you know it. By contrast, most Americans can't speak Arabic and can't blend easily to investigate these groups. Beside who claims these extremist rightwing are being unfairly targeted when something bad happens? You guys always turn it around and can't answer my original question so that sez a lot.

Why should be held to a higher standard- you said that, not me. I want them held to SAME standard and to help out to

put radicalism in check but people like you will always find a way to blame good old American racism for everything. No, you're not racist but you just throw out when somebody disagrees with you. The idea we got neo-Nazis and KKK still around somehow justifies us to have more domestic groups is silly PC #######.

I think you missed my point. First of all I wasn't suggesting that you're affliated with hate groups, just like moderate Muslims shouldn't be affliated with radical Muslims. My point was that right wing hate groups pervert the conservative point of view, just like radical Muslims pervert the peaceful teachings of law-abiding Muslims.

As for the FBI and Justice Department my point is still the same... they go after any group that promotes hatred, ignorance & violence. Doesn't really matter if it a reactionary right wing hate group, radical left wing hate group or a terrorist organization. As for your original question I thought I was addressing it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Mind you, Alien posted nothing factual for me to lengthily disect. The Libyan's were arms dealers, not the source of funding. The Labour party did not initiate the Peace Process. Sinn Fein is the legal arm of the IRA. Happy now?

Are you saying the the world renowned, respected, scholarly, Wiki is incorrect?

I have no idea, I haven't looked at it. I know what I know, I don't need to consult Wiki.

It was a joke. Loosen up.

[alienlovechild 75]

There is nothing factual in your post. You are wrong about the main source of funding, you are wrong about the peace process. What's left?

Sinn Fein? This pot is for the legal organ only

Ok, what was not factual again? Looks like you don't have anything to back your mere opinion.

"In 1985 and 1986 the IRA took delivery of nearly 120 tonnes of arms and explosives from Libya, including a tonne of Semtex explosive and 12 SAM-7 ground-to-air missiles. The weaponry has been used in Ire. land, Britain and other European countries. These are the findings of a French judge, backed by further investigation by The Economist

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-8847943.html

"In the 1990s, with fewer nationalist grievances left to exploit, the I.R.A began talks with the British government. A ceasefire was enacted in 1997, and the next year the main political parties of Northern Ireland, including the I.R.A's political wing Sinn Fein, renounced violence in the US-brokered Good Friday Accord. In 2005 the I.R.A itself disarmed

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference...army/index.html

"As many as one in 11 British Muslims agree with and proactively support terrorism, a Government adviser has warned police. Haras Rafiq also told officers at Scotland Yard that up to 20 per cent of the Muslim population ' sympathise' with militants, while stopping short of being prepared to 'blow themselves up'."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-47...l#ixzz0WgDnzASY

[Peikko 1,575]

Your claim, Libya was the major source of IRA funding. The reason for that claim, a denial that the US played any significant part in the funding of the IRA and this is your 'proof' that this is false?

The Peace process began during the Conservatives long reign in government. This is well documented fact not opinion. The reality is that essentially the process was above the pettyness of party politics.

Not sure what the last bit was supposed to prove, but the source was the Mail, so forgive me if I don't bother to lend it any credence.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[nowhereman 1]

Your claim, Libya was the major source of IRA funding. The reason for that claim, a denial that the US played any significant part in the funding of the IRA and this is your 'proof' that this is false?

The Peace process began during the Conservatives long reign in government. This is well documented fact not opinion. The reality is that essentially the process was above the pettyness of party politics.

Not sure what the last bit was supposed to prove, but the source was the Mail, so forgive me if I don't bother to lend it any credence.

Joe has been consistently wrong in this thread, but (mark this on a calendar, it may never happen again) I agree with him that the Libya/ IRA discussion is

[alienlovechild 75]

I think you missed my point. First of all I wasn't suggesting that you're affliated with hate groups, just like moderate Muslims shouldn't be affliated with radical Muslims. My point was that right wing hate groups pervert the conservative point of view, just like radical Muslims pervert the peaceful teachings of law-abiding Muslims.

As for the FBI and Justice Department my point is still the same... they go after any group that promotes hatred, ignorance & violence. Doesn't really matter if it a reactionary right wing hate group, radical left wing hate group or a terrorist organization. As for your original question I thought I was addressing it.

Which prominent conservatives or major conservative organizations are giving excuses for violent far rightwing groups? Who's saying conservatives are misunderstood and that your ignorance is the problem thereby fueling rightwing hate groups justifications for their actions? Substitution conservative for moderare Muslim and hate group for Muslim extremist?

No you didn't address efforts by moderate Muslims to root out the radicals. No examples. We need people who can blend in order to stop terrorism in all its form before it happens.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it isn't. The thrust of the argument has been is it important to label the army Major a specifically muslim terrorist.

The gunman in question was certainly a zealot but he almost certainly did not belong to any terrorist organization. This distinction is important because if one simply believes that one can eliminate the danger of murderous plots by screening out and targeting only one group of zealots, one is very much missing the point.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Anyone who wants to help the fight against Islamic radicalism need only convert to Islam and begin attending a mosque.

[alienlovechild 75]

Your claim, Libya was the major source of IRA funding. The reason for that claim, a denial that the US played any significant part in the funding of the IRA and this is your 'proof' that this is false?

The Peace process began during the Conservatives long reign in government. This is well documented fact not opinion. The reality is that essentially the process was above the pettyness of party politics.

Not sure what the last bit was supposed to prove, but the source was the Mail, so forgive me if I don't bother to lend it any credence.

Never claimed the IRA didn't get funds from a tiny minority of Americans and you failed to show me in what poll by percent of Americans supported the IRA. Didn't discuss how a significant of percent of British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombings so that stands as unchallenged.

The point is you don't blame extremist the U.S. for supporting the IRA and Americans in general without qualification. You do give British Muslims a pass though for sympathizing with violent means. Why not blame them as quickly as you do every American argue with on this subject?

I said nothing about the Tories but you don't remember they opposed negioations with Sein Fein until they certified the IRA had decommissioned their weapons.

[nowhereman 1]

Which prominent conservatives or major conservative organizations are giving excuses for violent far rightwing groups? Who's saying conservatives are misunderstood and that your ignorance is the problem thereby fueling rightwing hate groups justifications for their actions? Substitution conservative for moderare Muslim and hate group for Muslim extremist?

No you didn't address efforts by moderate Muslims to root out the radicals. No examples. We need people who can blend in order to stop terrorism in all its form before it happens.

Did I say conservative organizations are condoning the actions of violent far right wing groups? What I asked (rhetorically) is if they are taking action against such groups. As for conservative being misunderstood yes that happens & with all due respect some of it is self-inflicted (e.g. controversial comments made by conservative pundits like Limbaugh & Coulter). As for substituting conservative for moderate Muslim & hate group for Muslim extremist yes I am making that comparison. It's not meant to be an offensive comparison.

As for your last point of course it would help if more moderate Muslims actively sought to stop terrorism but to imply that they have a duty to do so would be like saying conservatives have a duty to infiltrate right wing hate groups or liberals to infiltrate left wing hate groups. Now I believe you were talking about American Muslims but if you meant Muslims as a whole do you know how incredibly dangerous it is for them to be associated with the US in any way? I have worked with Iraqis who had close relatives abducted & killed because of their association with the US military & we had two workers abducted & killed shortly before I arrived in Iraq. How many Americans do you think would be willing to put their families on the line to combat terrorists? Most would rather run their mouth & point fingers than actually lift a finger & take action.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your claim, Libya was the major source of IRA funding. The reason for that claim, a denial that the US played any significant part in the funding of the IRA and this is your 'proof' that this is false?

The Peace process began during the Conservatives long reign in government. This is well documented fact not opinion. The reality is that essentially the process was above the pettyness of party politics.

Not sure what the last bit was supposed to prove, but the source was the Mail, so forgive me if I don't bother to lend it any credence.

Never claimed the IRA didn't get funds from a tiny minority of Americans and you failed to show me in what poll by percent of Americans supported the IRA. Didn't discuss how a significant of percent of British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombings so that stands as unchallenged.

The point is you don't blame extremist the U.S. for supporting the IRA and Americans in general without qualification. You do give British Muslims a pass though for sympathizing with violent means. Why not blame them as quickly as you do every American argue with on this subject?

I said nothing about the Tories but you don't remember they opposed negioations with Sein Fein until they certified the IRA had decommissioned their weapons.

So what? You think public posturing is any indication of what actually went on?

Your 'tiny minority' of American IRA sympathisers is laughable and your attempts to bring the British muslim extremists into this conversation simply incomprehensible, particularly if this is some lame attempt to deduce that I somehow accept their agenda.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No, it isn't. The thrust of the argument has been is it important to label the army Major a specifically muslim terrorist.

The gunman in question was certainly a zealot but he almost certainly did not belong to any terrorist organization. This distinction is important because if one simply believes that one can eliminate the danger of murderous plots by screening out and targeting only one group of zealots, one is very much missing the point.

You aren't the one who brought it up, but the #######-for-tat with this and the IRA has failed.

Again, where in the world does someone saying "hallelujia" ever spark the thought of terrorism?

No where.

Hasan is a terrorist.