See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: GLENN BECK: RON PAUL SUPPORTERS ISLAMO-FASCISTS
Source:
http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/
URL Source: http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.co ... AUL_SUPPORTERS_ISLAMO_FASCISTS
Published: Nov 17, 2007
Author: Glenn Beck
Post Date: 2007-11-17 10:00:04 by robin
Ping List: *Ron Paul for President 2008* Subscribe to *Ron Paul for President 2008*
Keywords: None
Views: 4862
Comments: 204
Subscribe to *Ron Paul for President 2008*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 168.
#11. To: robin (#0)
LOLOL! The "Revolution" "Led by Ron Paul" includes "Islamo Commie Fascists"; "Fawkes"-like domestic terrorists according to David Whorowitz and Glenn Beck? What a bunch of Tories! For a bit of understanding, Glenn Beck is one of if not the ONLY radio host that has both poked a stick at the North American Unioners AND visited the Jorge Arbusto White House in the last quarter...
I wonder if David Horositz hangs out in the MN airport bathroom with Senator Widestance?
It's a false dichotomy to argue that people who support Ron Paul are unaware of the threat Islamic extremism poses to the west. I see several in Horowitz's comments. Supporting an America-first candidate may be the only way we can ever succeed in ending aid to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Likewise, we've never had such a pro-Islamic government since Bush took office.
You know, the new media seems to be saying that we (America) are supporting both sides of everything. I'd say everybody needs to stop and re-evaluate the situation.
I'd say everybody needs to stop and re-evaluate the situation. You see through the schtick. What the MSM does not clarify is that our "aid" to Muslim countries like Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan is to bribe them to stay "friendly/non-confrontational" to Israel so it's like additional foreign aid for Israel's benefit. Saudi Arabia we protect ( I don't think we give SA foreign aid) mainly for oil industry's benefit.
We prop up the Saudi monarchy by providing them with all the toys a modern police state could wish for.
But they hate us because we're free.
Ring a bell?
It does. We need to tap into the oil at Gull island, Alaska. The Federal Reserve is eating us out of house and home. I want the Saudis out of our national affairs.
Please tell me examples of the Saudis in our national affairs. Here's what the virtual jewish library has to say about Arab lobby groups: www.jewishvirtuallibrary....urce/US-Israel/lobby.html "From the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in organization. There are several politically oriented groups, but many of these are one man operations with little financial or popular support..."
For all your dust-up about the Saudis, you are either purposely or naively missing the elephant in the room - the nation whose lobby is #2 most powerful in DC; the nation we send $3+ Billion foreign aid per year; the nation we protect from numerous UN resolutions and censure; the nation that is a paraiha on the world's stage due to its brutal occupation of land it has stolen; a nation that refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with us or anybody else but whose heads of state prod us to start wars to benefit it - Iraq and now Iran. The Saudis' negative influence on our nation is peanuts as compared to Israel's. The Saudis lobby is a laugh if that's what you mean by "legendary" - in fact American Jews speak derisively about the Arab lobbies' lack of organization and lack of influence and support from the general public. Even major US corporations ( apart from oil companies) do not support the Arab lobbies for fear of retaliation from the Israel Lobby. I suggest you read the article at the following url: www.jewishvirtuallibrary....urce/US-Israel/lobby.html "The Israeli and Arab Lobbies" As for Yaroslav Trofimov's information, I would suggest to you that due to Mr. Trofimov's tribal membership, he writes with a purpose and with a particular slant. I noticed via Google hits that he is embraced by IsraelFirst journals and organizations and blogs. We don't need Trofimov's biased judgement of what constitutes "a major element" of Bin Laden's anger towards the USA. We only need to listen to Bin Laden's words. OBL himself has reiterated the 4 reasons why he hates us - our resolute unyielding support of Israel in spite of its brutal treatment of the Palestinians ( that's the biggie most important one in OBL's eyes) - our occupation ( and desecration) of Islamic Holy places - in Iraq and formerly in Saudi Arabia - our support of several brutal strongmen in Muslim lands like Mubarrek in Egypt, the Saudi Princes in S.A., Musharref in Pakistan, the Prince Abdullah of Jordan - our excessive use and abuse of Muslim oil resources paid for at minimal prices - so our economies flourish while Muslims live in poverty Our fealty to Israel come hell or high water is the main sticking point with OBL and other fundies. End of story. With regards to the "complex" B.C.C.I affair you forget to include the name of Israeli Iran-Contra merchant, Adnan Khashoggi, and primo legal advisor Robert Altman. Regardless of who was involved, the BCCI affair was in the main about money laundering from drugs and illegal weapons sales with so many interests participating so it's hard for me to understand your claim that the Saudi Arabian gov't used BCCI to furnish nukes to Pakistan. That's a stretch. With regards to weapons, the US is a major weapons manufacturer and seller on the world scene, like it or not. The Saudis are just one of our nation's creepy clients. What's your beef? At least the Saudis pay top dollar for our weapons. They don't free-load like Israel. And the Saudis don't use the weapons to bully its neighbors ( like Israel does to Lebanon) or to steal land from others ( like Israel does to the Palestinians 24/7). Moreover Israel doesn't care if the US sells weapons to the Saudis because Israel gets to whine and get more foreign aid as a result. Also Israel doesn't fear attack from Saudi Arabia. In the article url about Arab and Israel lobbies, it clearly states that there is little conflict between the 2 sides because the Israel lobby could care less about the US selling Arab nations arms. The war in Iraq had all to do with the USA protecting its oil interests in the ME. The US did not need any urging from Saudi Arabia to beat back Uncle Saddam. And Bush Sr. got a UN resolution supporting Gulf War I - it wasn't like the Saudis were the only ones wanting Saddam cut down to size. One of the biggest financial backers of Gulf War I was Japan. Also, it was due to pressure from the Gulf nations that Bush Sr was not allowed to invade Iraq. The Saudis and other Arab nations PREVENTED a full scale invasion of Iraq during Gulf War I. They did not want a de-stabilizing ME war in their backyards ( unlike Israel who enjoys Arab states being de-stabilized and Muslims offed by the kazillions). As for the madras - so what? - you think these schools cause hatred for us? Hello, it's our governments aggression in the ME and our gov'ts stalwart defense of Israel inspite of its war crimes that is the major source of Muslim hostility to us. It's our flawed foreign policy that's damaging our credibility far more than any madras cleric teacher could hope to achieve. If you have not already read Drs. Mearsheimer's and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" I suggest you do. Read pages 141 - 146 wherein the 2 scholars make it very clear that Saudi Arabia specifically, the oil industry, and the Arab lobbies are modest if not trivial influences on our nation's foreign policies. Keep this quote in your mind when you consider negative influence of a lobby group: www.newyorker.c om/archive/2005/07/04/050704fa_fact "Real Insiders: A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting" ... aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”-Clinton’s-“headquarters … and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty- four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”...
I don't think I'm missing anything at all. I'm interested in eliminating all types of foreign interference withing our government, not just the Zionist lobby. I would suggest to you that due to Mr. Trofimov's tribal membership, he writes with a purpose and with a particular slant. Are you denying that the CIA participated in the hostage crisis? What is your specific objection to the basic facts I'm citing here? With regards to the "complex" B.C.C.I affair you forget to include the name of Israeli Iran-Contra merchant . . . You asked for examples of Saudi involvement in our government and I gave them to you. I'm confident that you can provide all of us with a long list of Jewish and Israeli interference. The Saudis are just one of our nation's creepy clients. What's your beef? I think we should disengage with the entire region. I hope those are Ron Paul's intentions. I would start the disengagement by cutting weapons sales off completely to the region. As for the madras - so what? - you think these schools cause hatred for us? It's part of the radicalization of the Islamic world, yes. I especially object to the Saudi mosque construction here in the United States. We've had hundreds going up around the country since the 1979 grand mosque incident. If you have not already read Drs. Mearsheimer's and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" I suggest you do. Read pages 141 - 146 wherein the 2 scholars make it very clear that Saudi Arabia specifically, the oil industry, and the Arab lobbies are modest if not trivial influences on our nation's foreign policies. Trivial? I would hardly call the past 35 years of our petrodollar based economy trivial. "Real Insiders: A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting" Once again, you asked for a list of Saudi interferences, and I gave them to you. You dispute them, fine but the longstanding and close ties between the American Establishment and the Saudis is of public record. You come up with Israeli counter-examples, and I say no doubt. Let's eliminate both.
Are you denying that the CIA participated in the hostage crisis? What is your specific objection to the basic facts I'm citing here? You asked for examples of Saudi involvement in our government and I gave them to you. I'm confident that you can provide all of us with a long list of Jewish and Israeli interference. It's part of the radicalization of the Islamic world, yes. I especially object to the Saudi mosque construction here in the United States. We've had hundreds going up around the country since the 1979 grand mosque incident. Trivial? I would hardly call the past 35 years of our petrodollar based economy trivial. Once again, you asked for a list of Saudi interferences, and I gave them to you. You dispute them, fine but the longstanding and close ties between the American Establishment and the Saudis is of public record. You come up with Israeli counter-examples, and I say no doubt. Let's eliminate both. Your initial harangue against the Saudis' so-called interference in our national affairs in message #47 and #32 said nothing about eliminating all lobby groups including the "leviathan" one ie. the Israel Lobby. This is the first I've read of your desire to eliminate all lobby groups. I would agree with you that would be a fine goal. But I'd also qualify that goal by saying that we should start with the biggest and most influential one first ie. AIPAC. Would you agree? With regards to some of your new points about the Saudis - I disagree with most of them particularly the ones regarding the start of AQ linked to the Mosque hi- jacking and the Saudis insisting that OPEC use the greenback and the Saudis funding the construction of mosques stateside. a. AQ had its beginnings vis-a-vis our meddling in the Soviet -Afghan War. - Brezinski and Carter gave the go-ahead to the CIA to train the mujahideen to fight the Russians. OBL himself was trained in that stupid CIA project and it was in Afghanistan that OBL suddenly realized how the Muslims were being used as proxy fighters/as pawns in the Cold War that existed between the Soviets and America. AQ's formation was an unintended consequence of the CIA training of and financial aid to the mujahideen. Zbigniew Brezinski brags about the project. He told an interviewer in 1998 that the U.S. began funnelling aid to the mujahideen terrorists six months before the Soviet Union intervened, with the intention of drawing the Soviets into their own Vietnam. Robin Cook, who was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2001, is quoted as saying on 07/08/05: "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west." Our government created the monster called AQ and that monster has come back to bite its master. b. As for the Saudis insisting that oil industry use petro dollars - I think you have things switched around regarding who benefits from this system. It's in America's interests that all OPEC oil purchases continue to be denominated in US dollars and in fact this dollar hegemony over global oil markets was a result of an agreement between the USA and Saudi Arabia in the 1970's. In fact, Saudi Arabia at an OPEC meeting this past week prevented discussions about formally switching to a basket of currencies due to the diminishing value of the greenback. Get it? Saudi Arabia argued on our nation's behalf. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are experiencing record high inflation rates due to their sticking to the US $ peg. However, Israel looked out for itself recently - Israel demanded that US foreign aid be sent to it in Euros not US dollars. Nice. Here's a decent article describing our US dollar dominence and how we extracted an agreement from OPEC in the 70's to use peg their oil sales to the greenback. www.atimes.com/global- econ/DD11Dj01.html "US dollar hegemony has got to go" By Henry C K Liu 04/11/02 c. As for mosques being built in the USA - so what? Last I heard freedom of religion is a guaranteed right stateside. Ours is a tolerant pluristic society. Are you worried about those eeeevil "Islamofacsists" in our midst who might congregate in mosques funded by the Saudis? I have no doubt there are a number of FBI divisions specifically assigned to monitoring what goes on in the mosques here so you can sleep better that no AQ are hiding there. d. As to the madras and spread of Wahabiism - it was at the direction of the Carter Admin that Saudi Arabia fuel the Afghan Islamic fundie screed. But like our CIA arming and training the mujahideen, the Saudis funding the madras came back to bite us and them. The Saudi Princes are illegitimate rulers in the eyes of fundie Islamists, btw. From a BBC article on the beginnings of "Jihad": ..."Bernard Haykel, professor of Near East studies at Princeton, believes the Saudis set in motion a process over which they lost control. The Saudis' funding of militant Islam reached a new pitch in the 1980s when, with the United States and others, they bankrolled the jihad against Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan. The Afghan war was the crucible from which emerged al-Qaeda. "The genie came out of the bottle," says Professor Haykel, "and the Saudis could no longer put it back in." ... e. Btw, I have never disputed that there is a long standing relationship between Saudi Arabia and our government. What I have said is that the pluses of that relationship out weighed any minuses. Ideally it would be great if our economy was not oil based because then we would not need to involve ourselves with OPEC and the Saudis. But until be can become self-reliant in energy we will continue to need the assistence of the House of Saud. However, I believe are in the driver's seat with regards to the Saudis and they play a beneficial role by running interference for us at OPEC. That is not the case with Israel. Israel is a financial parasite and a political burden of enormous proportions and its lobby groups and individuals have negative influences on our nation's ME foreign policy.
It's a false dilemma. We don't have to choose which, since we can eliminate both by electing a non-interventionist, Constitutional candidate who is focused on the needs of the American people first and foremost. Brezinski and Carter gave the go-ahead to the CIA to train the mujahideen to fight the Russians. I'm familiar with that. It does not contradict my point of view at all. In fact, it supports my point of view that western involvement in Arab dictatorships encourages extremism. We should disengage, specifically because our role has thus far been to prop up the house of Saud instead of letting the Arab people decide their own destiny there. I will not agree with you that the extremism would not have existed without Establishment ties. From Indonesia and Afghanistan to Kososvo and Chechnya, the factions were there. CFR think tankers simply realized that they had a natural ally in the pro-Islamic fighters. What I have said is that the pluses of that relationship out weighed any minuses. Leaving the individual Arabs out of this, I see the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States as having been dominated by the Establishment. As a strong critic of the Establishment's tendencies toward global government and the sacrifice of American sovereignty and cultural integrity on the altars of international commerce, I would be willing to concede that much of what I continue to think of as an unhealthy relationship has been brought on by our own reliance on the Council on Foreign Relations and before that, the Round Table Club. With military disengagement with the region, we could rethink our ties to factions within Saudi Arabia. I suspect that the Saudis are going to face one crisis after another regardless of what we do next. As those problems mount, I would like to see the American involvement in them reduced or eliminated so that we have fewer chances of incurring additional blow back.
b. I'm familiar with that. It does not contradict my point of view at all. In fact, it supports my point of view that western involvement in Arab dictatorships encourages extremism. c. As a strong critic of the Establishment's tendencies toward global government and the sacrifice of American sovereignty and cultural integrity on the altars of international commerce, I would be willing to concede that much of what I continue to think of as an unhealthy relationship has been brought on by our own reliance on the Council on Foreign Relations and before that, the Round Table Club. d. With military disengagement with the region, we could rethink our ties to factions within Saudi Arabia. a. It's not a false dilemna. It's called being realistic. Electing a constitutionalist President Paul is just one step on a long road ahead of us to set our nation straight constitutionally speaking. Changes are not going to happen overnight. There's still Congress that needs to be cleaned out of all its incumbent sold out bought out punks so constitutionalists can be installed in their places. Therefore eliminating ALL lobby groups is not going to happen right away. Eliminating the biggest one regarding our mis-directed current foreign policy would be a realist goal for starters. And in that regard, the Israel Lobby would be my pick as being the most noxious one to our nation's interests. Would you agree? b. Whatever. You say white and I say black. At least I recognize that you and I disagree. You pretend that my arguments support your position. They do not. The Israel-Palestinian situation and our blind faith backing of Israel's war crimes is the single most attraction of Muslims to AQ. The major hatred for America is not our supporting Mubarrek, the Saudi princes, the King of Jordan. If we became fair peace brokers in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it would diminish 60% of the Muslim hatred directed at America today. c. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. You have 1 sentence that ran 6 lines. Whatever floats your boat. d. We can disengage from propping the Saudis AFTER we figure out a cheap fossil fuel alternative for running our industries and cars. Until then, the Saudis are a necessary vice to keep our economy from running into the gutter overnight.
Are you sure we don't have as much or more oil than the Saudis do? Lindsey Williams says that we have enough to last more than 200 years in Alaska, but it's being held under wraps to prop up our securities deal with OPEC. I'm against America's involvement in the United Nations and I would not support a presidential candidate who promised to pressure Israel regarding the Palestinian issue. For me, disengagement is not about retreating from Islamic anger. It's about maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity.
b. I'm against America's involvement in the United Nations and I would not support a presidential candidate who promised to pressure Israel regarding the Palestinian issue. For me, disengagement is not about retreating from Islamic anger. It's about maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity. a. Is Lindsey Williams an oil expert? Is Lindsey a geological engineer? I'm not an oil expert but I doubt there's 200 years of oil resources in Alaska or if there is vast quantities it would be expensive to extricate much like the oil from the tar sands of Alberta. The beauty of the ME oil resources is that it is so inexpensive to get and use. It almost literally spouts out of the sands. b. I could care less whether we're in the UN or not. It's not a biggy issue to me apart from the fact that US tax dollars are wasted in the support of Third World thugs and thieves. With regards to Israel, I could care less whether it survives or dies on the vine. America's survival is not contingent on what happens to Israel. Countries need to defend themselves to survive and earn nationhood longevity. African nations have come and gone as long as they could or could not support themselves financially and defend their sovereignity. So it should be for Israel. However it would be in Israel's interest of survival to back off to 1967 borders and make strong neighbors of the Palestinians peoples. In the near future the population explosion of Muslims in nearby nation states will over run the Israelis. It's a demographic fact of life. No walls or tanks or rockets will prevent Israel from being swamped in the future by very very angry Muslim tribes. We made a mistake of supporting a UN resolution to create Israel out of thin air. We shouldn't double that mistake by giving Israel a false sense of security that it can do whatever war crimes it wants to the Palestinians and Lebanese and we will support it forever. We will not support Israel forever especially if it is over run by Muslim hordes. Americans will not knowingly put American soldiers in harm's way to protect and defend Israel regardless of what our political punks yammer to the media and especially if 40 Million Mexican illegals get US citizenship and play a dominent role in future US elections. Mexicans identify with the down-trodden brown skinned Palestinians not the Israelis. So if Israel wants to survive, it needs to redress the wrongs it has committed over the years against the Palestinians. The Muslim wrath against the Israelis regarding its ill-treatment and land thievery of Palestinian land is well founded. I don't see that we would "retreat" from Muslim anger by trying to honestly broker a fair resolution to the unfair situation that exists today. But if we can't be fair and honest brokers for peace, then we should bow out completely from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and let other powers intervene. The Israeli-Palestinian situation has nothing to do with "maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity" that I can see.
Williams says it costs us $3/barrel to get in Alaska. Even if he's wrong, we've cut back on our oil refineries and exploration here, and every CFR member politician opposes drilling in ANWR, in the Everglades, and on California's coastline. This puts OPEC at a distinct advantage. It puts Saudi Arabia at a distinct advantage. Their purchases of our treasury securities, even if not secretly quid pro quo, only serve to prop up our increasingly socialist and interventionist system of government. I could care less whether we're in the UN or not. It's not a biggy issue to me apart from the fact that US tax dollars are wasted in the support of Third World thugs and thieves. It's a huge issue for American nationalists. We typically supply foreign aid directly to our favorite dictators rather than going through the UN. These are separate issues. Our sovereignty is diminished by pressures to adhere to international court rulings and treaties signed with the UN, as well as to send our troops to war. UN resolutions were invoked as we bombed Serbia and invaded Iraq, for example. We occupy Kosovo because of NATO agreements. The list of problems caused by our participation in international organizations is long and dreary, but it adds up to lost American freedoms. We made a mistake of supporting a UN resolution to create Israel out of thin air. We shouldn't double that mistake by giving Israel a false sense of security that it can do whatever war crimes it wants to the Palestinians and Lebanese and we will support it forever. Participation in the UN a problem? In any case, I have no objections to the actions the Allies took in the former Ottoman empire and Palestine, as these steps proved strategic during WWII and the Cold War. In 1973, we could have walked away from Israel and never gone back as far as I'm concerned. Certainly I agree that we do not need to take another action to ensure its survival at this time. A hundred years of manipulating the region's boundaries and cultures have caused us more than enough trouble. But the most serious aspects of it were from the Nazis and the Soviets. Now that those threats are diminished, we can walk away. I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm just letting you know where I stand. The Muslim wrath against the Israelis regarding its ill-treatment and land thievery of Palestinian land is well founded But if we can't be fair and honest brokers for peace, then we should bow out completely from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and let other powers intervene. As of 1973, it works for me. In fact, we're more likely to get along with our former Russian rivals in the region if we disengage militarily with all of these countries. The Israeli-Palestinian situation has nothing to do with "maintaining our own territorial boundaries and cultural integrity" that I can see. None of this does, which is why we should disengage militarily with all nations in the region and go back to talking and trading. I am confident that nature will run its course with us or without us.
Just my two cents before turning in. Here's a bit I posted "over there", quite a while back. No nation that enforces sharia can be "modern". Agreed, and virtually every ME nation, given the opportunity of Whorge's imposition of "democracy" on them, will choose sharia, IMO. There is only one sensible policy with reference to the God forsaken ME: 1) Cease the ill conceived "crusade", SAP. 2) Listen to the advice of Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles Magazine contributor, who urges quarantine of the ME nations, i.e, strengthen the security of our borders, severely and very selectively limit immigration of Muslims to our county, and strengthen our weakened C.I.A. Anything less and we will go the way of Great Britain and the rest of Europe that has failed too long to impose such logic, thus placing them in very precarious positions. ============================================================================== While searching for (and failing to find) Trifkovic's fine article on this topic, I found and offer this by Jim Pinkerton. I found it thought provoking.
Our immigration levels of Muslims are pawltry as compared to the Europeans. Our cheap labor has been from Mexico by the millions. The Europeans have used labor from Muslim nations who were in some cases former colonies. Also we have done a much better effort to assimilate the Muslim immigrants we have taken in than the Europeans have. Fyi the Iranians for example are the most upwardly mobile of all immigrant groups we have taken in the past 30 years. I don't fear the religion of Islam whatsoever. Muslims don't try to convert me. They have their beliefs and I have mine. The fundie Christo nutters are far more annoying for evangelizing. And the Jews are far more aggressive with regards to having Christianity wiped off the historical place marks of our nation by submitting legal court challenges and intimidating municipal departments regarding a their interpretation of separation between church and state. What MSM has Americans all worked up about ( and falsely so I believe) relates to the small subset of Islamics - the fundies. Every religion has the same extremist minority. Mainstream Islam itself calls for tolerance and acceptance. In fact prior to Israel being established, the ME Muslims were far more tolerant of Jews than the Christians in Europe were. As for cultural social concerns, I think you have more to fear from La Raza and its illegal Hispanic foot soldiers who want to claim southern border states for Azetlan. When you call gov't departments your choice of language is English and Spanish not English and Farsi.
My summary reaction to your posts would be to crown you King of American Multiculturalists. Personally, I don't fear rogue elephants whatsoever, but then we keep elephants pretty well contained and controlled. Jews don't convert. Muslims most certainly do. Have you noticed where they are most active? In our prisons and with the most alienated members of our turmoil torn society. Has it occurred to you that the most significant conversion successes are with those that are least assimilated and ready made for conversion to a violent and aggressive "religion"? There's quite a difference between being "annoyed" by "fundis", Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses and being converted Muslim style. BTW, try not to get "converted" by them, "uncoversion" is not in their vocabulary. We had, if you'll recall, no sooner imposed Bush's "democracy" on Afghanistan when some poor bastard was threatened with death for attempting to convert and marry a Christian girl. Stoning and murder of innocents are what they carry in their conversion kits, not tracts. Their stonyhearted god of rules and their heavenly reward of virgins is alien to our historical Judeo-Christian republic. Their cultures are antithetical to all of western civilization. Their concept of tolerance is Dhimmitude. Islam means "Submission", and before you give me a sanitized Islamic definition of allow me to provide one recent illustration of Muslim tolerance and assimilation (examples abound). In Nov., 2004 a brutal murder shocked Holland and the world. On a busy Amsterdam street, in broad daylight, a prominent film maker named Theo van Gogh was shot, stabbed and mutilated in front of dozens of witnesses. A young Muslim radical was arrested. What was described as a ritual slaughter set off alarm bells throughout Europe and the United States, where millions of devout Muslims live as minorities in secular society. For the Dutch who have prided themselves for centuries on a tradition of tolerance, it was a painful awakening, the prospect of a homegrown jihad in the world's most liberal state. Preventative medicine is the way to go not, "feel good", unreal anticipation of some future reasoning with the unreasonable. One may feel comfortable and unthreatened at the moment in Paris, TX, .... Paris, France or London, England is quite another Finally, why introduce the invasion of our southern border into the discussion? Only the elitists now in control of a (hopefully temporary) helpless and bewildered American fail to see the phenomena as our most significant threat. Epilogue:
b. Finally, why introduce the invasion of our southern border into the discussion? a. Because I am not threatened by different ethnicities or cultures, does that make me "King of Multiculturalists?" Let's be clear on this matter so you don't go around labelling me something I am not, based on your limited ( a couple of days posting here) knowledge of my political positions. I'm very much pro-melting pot as opposed to multi-culturalism. I'm very much pro-legal immigration that matches America's economic/professional needs to immigration candidates. Ergo, if we are in need of experienced M.D.'s, I would take a Pakistani or Iranian M.D. over a Catholic bartender from Ireland. I could care less about "religious beliefs". I care about skills that our nation needs at any given time that cannot be supplied by Americans already here. So are we clear on where I stand? b. You introduced the concept of "threat" to our cultural social fabric first with your linked article to the "carnage and culture blogspot". I was merely responding to your expressed concerns. And what "threatens" our nation currently is not the prospect of Sharia Law but rather it is racist anti- American organizations like La Raza and its millions of illegal Hispanic foot soldiers(who appear to have zero interest in assimilating into American culture even if they were made legal overnight) as well as the US politicians who pander to this group of law breakers. My point is if you are going to stay up at night worrying about "ciulture and carnage" at least wring your hands about something that is real and under your nose and not something that is a neocon- manufactured fear mongering "Islamofascist" concept. P.S. Re: your fears about Sharia Law use in the West - it's my understanding that it would be used much like Orthodox Judaic Law is currently used - to resolve family legal disputes and it would only be applied if all parties consent. Fyi, in Canada for example one of the most vocal supporters of Sharia Law implementation in one of the provinces was the Jewish community.
For those that equate Rabbis to Imams .... and other such drollery My next to last word on the matter
Last word, the accompanying editorial: Article published Tuesday, November 20, 2007 Your petro-dollars at work STRAIGHT from the news pages, here’s a case of Middle Eastern justice that ought to be pondered by Americans as they fill up their cars with gasoline made from Saudi Arabian oil. After being raped about 18 months ago, a Saudi woman was sentenced to 90 lashes for having been sitting in a car with an unrelated man when she was kidnapped and assaulted. When the woman’s lawyer appealed and complained publicly about the severity of the sentence, the court increased the penalty to 200 lashes. And added six months in jail. That’s right. Under the Saudi legal code, based on a strict version of Islamic law known as Wahhabism, female victims of crime are punished along with the real offenders, in this case a band of seven men. This woman’s crime, although we are loathe to dignify use of that word, was meeting privately with a man who was not her husband or a family member. Her lawyer’s offense was pointing out the injustice, which the court then turned against the victim by increasing her punishment. We shouldn’t have to point out — but we will anyway — that the raw barbarism and misogyny represented in this case are abhorrent to and incompatible with virtually every precept of modern Western thought and ideals, especially when masquerading as a foundation for law that governs the everyday life of human beings. The fact that the United States, which gets at least 15 percent of its oil from Saudi Arabia, indirectly subsidizes and perpetuates these cruel practices under the repressive Saudi government only makes them more repugnant. The woman in question was 19 when she was raped, reportedly by a gang of men, who kidnapped her from a car where she was talking to a former boyfriend about return of some photographs. She and the ex-boyfriend, who also was sexually assaulted, originally were sentenced to 90 lashes each, harsh even by the standards of Saudi courts, which legal sources say typically prescribe 60 to 80 lashes for adultery. But adultery was not alleged. As for the attackers, the New York Times reported that their sentences ranged from ten months to five years and 80 to 1,000 lashes. Their prison terms also were lengthened after the case went public. Not surprisingly, further public comment on the case has been muted inside Saudi Arabia. The tribal kingdom does not pretend to be a democracy and the medieval treatment of women in its society is well known. But we’d be remiss if we failed to point out that the leaders of a nation with a system of justice that countenances such cruel and unusual punishments should not be surprised when westerners categorize them as uncivilized and culturally backward. The American people, meanwhile, are caught between distaste for anti-democratic governments abroad and their own nation’s shameful reliance on imported oil, much of it from the Middle East, for transportation. Perhaps such policy failures would be more meaningful if motorists, the next time they fill up their gas tank, would envision a woman barely in her 20s facing 200 lashes for no crime at all. That’s the way American petro-dollars are being put to work in some of the darker corners of the world.
When the non-profits get finished with this country, we're going to look just as savage.
There are no replies to Comment # 168. End Trace Mode for Comment # 168.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: FOH, robin, Peppa (#11)
#13. To: buckeye (#12)
#14. To: Peppa (#13)
#15. To: buckeye (#14)
(Edited)
It's a false dichotomy to argue that people who support Ron Paul are unaware of the threat Islamic extremism poses to the west. I see several in Horowitz's comments. Supporting an America-first candidate may be the only way we can ever succeed in ending aid to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Likewise, we've never had such a pro-Islamic government since Bush took office.
#19. To: Peppa (#15)
(Edited)
You know, the new media seems to be saying that we (America) are supporting both sides of everything.
#26. To: scrapper2 (#19)
Saudi Arabia we protect ( I don't think we give SA foreign aid) mainly for oil industry's benefit.
#30. To: Dakmar, FOH (#26)
We prop up the Saudi monarchy by providing them with all the toys a modern police state could wish for.
#31. To: buckeye (#30)
"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave." - King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
#32. To: FOH (#31)
#34. To: buckeye (#32)
(Edited)
I want the Saudis out of our national affairs.
#47. To: scrapper2 (#34)
(Edited)
Please tell me examples of the Saudis in our national affairs.
I could go on but this should illustrate some of the influences the Saudis have had on the United States over the years. Since the allies helped establish its borders after WWI, the Saudis have had a very close relationship with Americans.
The Saudi foreign minister said Saudi Arabia is a peaceful country in an area of tremendous threat and upheaval. “So it is not strange that it is trying to acquire a posture of defense that will protect the interests and safety of the people of Saudi Arabia.” — Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faysal at a press conference in 2007 announcing a large portion of $20 billion in sales to the region.
#68. To: buckeye (#47)
Our military strategy in the Mideast continually benefits the Saudis. Consider the war in Kuwait, and the Iraq war now. Consider our support of Sunnis during the Iran-Iraq war. We provide them with high-tech military hardware. Quote: The Saudi foreign minister said Saudi Arabia is a peaceful country in an area of tremendous threat and upheaval. “So it is not strange that it is trying to acquire a posture of defense that will protect the interests and safety of the people of Saudi Arabia.” — Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faysal at a press conference in 2007 announcing a large portion of $20 billion in sales to the region. Remember the complex B.C.C.I affair, which is rumored to have helped funnel money from Saudi Arabia and the CIA to Pakistan for nuclear weapons development. Consider the strategic implications of The 1979 Siege of Mecca and our CIA's involvement in directing the operations against the zealots. Yaroslav Trofimov argues that this is one of the major elements of bin Laden's anger toward the United States. The Saudis are a massive source of Wahhabi propaganda. Trofimov also states that the royal Saudis had to make a deal with the clerics before the attack on the zealots to spread Islamic extremism around the world. The Bush family's links to the Saudis are legendary. The Saudi Lobby in DC is legendary. Lindsey Williams argues that America has a deal with OPEC to buy their oil in dollars in exchange for securities purchases. It is no secret that the Saudis lobby to keep oil denominated in dollars, and do own a sizable portion of our national debt. I could go on but this should illustrate some of the influences the Saudis have had on the United States over the years. Since the allies helped establish its borders after WWI, the Saudis have had a very close relationship with Americans.
#72. To: scrapper2, iconoclast (#68)
(Edited)
For all your dust-up about the Saudis, you are either purposely or naively missing the elephant in the room...
#79. To: buckeye, iconoclast (#72)
I don't think I'm missing anything at all. I'm interested in eliminating all types of foreign interference withing our government, not just the Zionist lobby.
#82. To: scrapper2 (#79)
But I'd also qualify that goal by saying that we should start with the biggest and most influential one first ie. AIPAC. Would you agree?
#87. To: buckeye (#82)
a. It's a false dilemma. We don't have to choose which, since we can eliminate both by electing a non-interventionist, Constitutional candidate who is focused on the needs of the American people first and foremost.
#88. To: scrapper2 (#87)
We can disengage from propping the Saudis AFTER we figure out a cheap fossil fuel alternative for running our industries and cars.
#90. To: buckeye (#88)
a. Are you sure we don't have as much or more oil than the Saudis do? Lindsey Williams says that we have enough to last more than 200 years in Alaska, but it's being held under wraps to prop up our securities deal with OPEC.
#93. To: scrapper2 (#90)
The beauty of the ME oil resources is that it is so inexpensive to get and use.
#96. To: buckeye, scrapper2, Zipporah (#93)
#100. To: iconoclast (#96)
(Edited)
#101. To: buckeye, scrapper2, Zipporah, wbales (#100)
I don't fear the religion of Islam whatsoever. Muslims don't try to convert me.
#102. To: iconoclast, buckeye, Zipporah, wbales (#101)
(Edited)
a. My summary reaction to your posts would be to crown you King of American Multiculturalists.
#166. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, buckeye, All (#102)
P.S. Re: your fears about Sharia Law use in the West - it's my understanding that it would be used much like Orthodox Judaic Law is currently used - to resolve family legal disputes and it would only be applied if all parties consent. Fyi, in Canada for example one of the most vocal supporters of Sharia Law implementation in one of the provinces was the Jewish community.
#167. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, buckeye, All (#166)
#168. To: iconoclast (#167)
Replies to Comment # 168.