PDA

View Full Version : " The Mad Muslim are Revolting Against Gaddafi and Now They Want U.S .Aid ?"



megimoo
02-22-2011, 07:56 PM
US Muslim Group Demands Immediate Action For People Of Libya

On behalf of the American Muslim community, ISNA said Tuesday that it is appealing to President Obama to take the lead as the United Nations deliberates “over the unfolding atrocities committed by Gaddafi and his regime.” “We ask President Obama to intervene immediately on behalf of the Libyan people,” said ISNA, or the Islamic Society of North America, in a statement. ISNA noted that “Gaddafi, who has already used air strikes to gun down defenseless protesters, has stated he has not even used massive force yet and has threatened to use it against the entire country if they do not...

http://www.eurasiareview.com/world-news/north-america/us-muslim-group-demands-immediate-action-for-people-of-libya-22022011/

Sonnabend
02-22-2011, 09:11 PM
Obumboy will probably hand it over no questions asked.


On behalf of the American Muslim community

Pardon me but shouldn't that be the AMERICANS who also happen to be Muslim? Seems to me if they identify as Muslims first and Americans second, there's a problem here.

djones520
02-22-2011, 09:18 PM
Obumboy will probably hand it over no questions asked.



Pardon me but shouldn't that be the AMERICANS who also happen to be Muslim? Seems to me if they identify as Muslims first and Americans second, there's a problem here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't American come first in American Muslim Community? Or would you really want them to say "The Americans who also happen to be Muslims community"?

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 10:26 PM
Gaddafi Gaddafi, the peasants are revolting! Yes they are.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 10:28 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't American come first in American Muslim Community? Or would you really want them to say "The Americans who also happen to be Muslims community"?

You seriously think their loyalties aren't with Allah?

djones520
02-22-2011, 10:30 PM
You seriously think their loyalties aren't with Allah?

For many, yeah I don't think their faith is as strong as some of you seem to think it is. At least to the point of putting it before country.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 10:32 PM
For many, yeah I don't think their faith is as strong as some of you seem to think it is. At least to the point of putting it before country.

Their is not one bit of me that thinks you are that naive.

djones520
02-22-2011, 10:34 PM
Their is not one bit of me that thinks you are that naive.

Good, because there is no naivete with it.

Rock, I've seen a lot of this world. I've seen a lot of differant aspects of Islam. There is no denying there is a bad element here in the US, but I am not naive enough to believe that it even comes close to being the majority of Muslim Americans.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 10:36 PM
Good, because there is no naivete with it.

Rock, I've seen a lot of this world. I've seen a lot of differant aspects of Islam. There is no denying there is a bad element here in the US, but I am not naive enough to believe that it even comes close to being the majority of Muslim Americans.

You will be shown this post again someday.

djones520
02-22-2011, 10:37 PM
You will be shown this post again someday.

*shrugs* Save it as long as you like Rock.

Kay
02-22-2011, 11:50 PM
For many, yeah I don't think their faith is as strong as some of you seem to think it is. At least to the point of putting it before country.

To be a Muslim IS to put the religion before county.
You can't be one otherwise.

djones520
02-23-2011, 01:22 AM
To be a Muslim IS to put the religion before county.
You can't be one otherwise.

Then there are tens of millions of muslims world wide who aren't really muslims.

Sonnabend
02-23-2011, 05:33 PM
Then there are tens of millions of muslims world wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wide) who aren't really muslims.

They must be the ones who staged that massive march in solidarity for freedom and democracy, and who denounced the extremists....oh wait.....

KhrushchevsShoe
02-23-2011, 05:41 PM
They must be the ones who staged that massive march in solidarity for freedom and democracy, and who denounced the extremists....oh wait.....

People shouldn't have to demonstrate on a massive scale to prove a point to some narcissist pig who cradles some twisted military service fantasy like yourself. When's the last you demonstrated on behalf of democracy?

Sonnabend
02-23-2011, 05:45 PM
People shouldn't have to demonstrate on a massive scale to prove a point to some narcissist pig who cradles some twisted military service fantasy like yourself. Y'know, that phrase sounds awfully familiar.


When's the last you demonstrated on behalf of democracy?I don't have time. I work. Try it sometime.

There are no moderate muslims.

Odysseus
02-23-2011, 06:10 PM
US Muslim Group Demands Immediate Action For People Of Libya

On behalf of the American Muslim community, ISNA said Tuesday that it is appealing to President Obama to take the lead as the United Nations deliberates “over the unfolding atrocities committed by Gaddafi and his regime.” “We ask President Obama to intervene immediately on behalf of the Libyan people,” said ISNA, or the Islamic Society of North America, in a statement. ISNA noted that “Gaddafi, who has already used air strikes to gun down defenseless protesters, has stated he has not even used massive force yet and has threatened to use it against the entire country if they do not...

http://www.eurasiareview.com/world-news/north-america/us-muslim-group-demands-immediate-action-for-people-of-libya-22022011/
The Islamic Society of North America is not a moderate group. They were declared an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial, which means that they have been involved in fundraising for terrorist groups. They are bankrolled by the Saudis and spend most of their time advancing Wahhabi Islam, which is similar to the Salafi Islam espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the affection is mutual. From Discoverthenetworks.com:

ISNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document -- titled "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" -- as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."


Good, because there is no naivete with it.

Rock, I've seen a lot of this world. I've seen a lot of differant aspects of Islam. There is no denying there is a bad element here in the US, but I am not naive enough to believe that it even comes close to being the majority of Muslim Americans.
See above. ISNA is a very dangerous group.

Then there are tens of millions of muslims world wide who aren't really muslims.
Tens of millions out of a billion. Not exactly the kind of numbers that help me sleep at night.

People shouldn't have to demonstrate on a massive scale to prove a point to some narcissist pig who cradles some twisted military service fantasy like yourself. When's the last you demonstrated on behalf of democracy?

They aren't. They're demonstrating in order to overthrow secular governments in favor of Islamist states. They don't care what we think, unless we decide to convert to Islam. Otherwise, we're just targets.

Sonnabend
02-23-2011, 07:02 PM
Anyone else besides me see familiar brushstrokes in KS?

Madisonian
02-23-2011, 07:09 PM
People shouldn't have to demonstrate on a massive scale to prove a point to some narcissist pig who cradles some twisted military service fantasy like yourself. When's the last you demonstrated on behalf of democracy?

I never have and never will demonstrate on behalf of democracy. I am not really a fan of mob rule and as such do not believe in democracy as a form of representative government any more than I believe in communism, socialism, fascism or monarchies.
Neither will you find the word "democracy" in the Constitution, which guarantees a republican form of government, nor in the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the documents that framed our Constitution and read the words of the Framers, they loathed democracy. Refer to Federalist #10 for Madison's views on democracy.

To quote Jefferson:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Odysseus
02-23-2011, 07:27 PM
I never have and never will demonstrate on behalf of democracy. I am not really a fan of mob rule and as such do not believe in democracy as a form of representative government any more than I believe in communism, socialism, fascism or monarchies.
Neither will you find the word "democracy" in the Constitution, which guarantees a republican form of government, nor in the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the documents that framed our Constitution and read the words of the Framers, they loathed democracy. Refer to Federalist #10 for Madison's views on democracy.

To quote Jefferson:

There is a great line, erroneously attributed to Benjamin Franklin, that "Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner." The corrollary is that "a Republic is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, except the lamb has a gun."

Liberty does not come from the tyranny of the majority, it comes from the recognition of certain inalienable rights which may not be taken, no matter how lopsided the vote.

KhrushchevsShoe
02-24-2011, 12:25 PM
I never have and never will demonstrate on behalf of democracy. I am not really a fan of mob rule and as such do not believe in democracy as a form of representative government any more than I believe in communism, socialism, fascism or monarchies.
Neither will you find the word "democracy" in the Constitution, which guarantees a republican form of government, nor in the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the documents that framed our Constitution and read the words of the Framers, they loathed democracy. Refer to Federalist #10 for Madison's views on democracy.

To quote Jefferson:

Except of course the modern meaning of the word democracy is basically people voting to determine how their government runs. People voting in fair, contested and meaningful elections is a democracy nowadays; the word just doesn't mean continuous referendums on every issue anymore. Just because you want to flaunt some fake intellectualism and bring up the minuscule difference between a democracy and a republic doesn't actually mean there's a practical distinction between the two in the year 2011.

By the way single member districts, a staple of the American political system, is structurally friendly to a 50% +1 majority.

KhrushchevsShoe
02-24-2011, 12:28 PM
Y'know, that phrase sounds awfully familiar.

I don't have time. I work. Try it sometime.

There are no moderate muslims.

These might not have time either. They work. Try it sometime.

Odysseus
02-24-2011, 01:00 PM
Except of course the modern meaning of the word democracy is basically people voting to determine how their government runs. People voting in fair, contested and meaningful elections is a democracy nowadays; the word just doesn't mean continuous referendums on every issue anymore. Just because you want to flaunt some fake intellectualism and bring up the minuscule difference between a democracy and a republic doesn't actually mean there's a practical distinction between the two in the year 2011.

By the way single member districts, a staple of the American political system, is structurally friendly to a 50% +1 majority.

So, the words mean what you want them to mean, whenever it's convenient to your argument?

A republic and a democracy are two different things, even though there are common elements between them. By blurring the distinctions, you erode our understanding of what our system of government is and is not, which makes it easier to change it to suit you. Orwellian corruption of language may be your standard, but it is not ours.

A democracy is majority rule. A republic is majority rule within the framework of a constitution that checks and limits the powers of the majority. You either don't know this, in which case you are ignorant, or you do know it and choose to pretend otherwise, in which case you are dishonest.

Sonnabend
02-24-2011, 05:21 PM
These might not have time either. They work. Try it sometime.

Seen at these "protests"

Habitually unemployed who dont want to work
Uni students who have never worked a day in their lives
"professional students"

The great unwashed.

I have better things to do, frankly.

Madisonian
02-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Except of course the modern meaning of the word democracy is basically people voting to determine how their government runs. People voting in fair, contested and meaningful elections is a democracy nowadays; the word just doesn't mean continuous referendums on every issue anymore. Just because you want to flaunt some fake intellectualism and bring up the minuscule difference between a democracy and a republic doesn't actually mean there's a practical distinction between the two in the year 2011.

By the way single member districts, a staple of the American political system, is structurally friendly to a 50% +1 majority.

Regardless of how you wish to redefine the terms, there is still a major difference between a democracy and a republic.
It was never the original intent on the federal level to have people vote on how the government runs. That is why we elect those beings called representatives and hence the title of representative.

The Electoral College was put in place to be a deterrent to democracy as a form of government and even today, 221 years and 27 amendments later, there is no provision or requirement for the citizens of this country to participate in or directly elect a president. A state still could vote unanimously for candidate A and there would be nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the electors of that state from giving its designated electoral votes to candidate B. This is not a concept consistent with democracy as a form of government.

Until 1913 and the 17th amendment senators where chosen by the legislatures of the states, not by direct election. This was also foresight on the part of the founders as senators were to represent the states interest in the federal government, not the people directly.

The differences are not minuscule as you claim. A democracy could not have overturned Jim Crow laws in the South, as these would certainly have been reaffirmed by the voters at the time. Any group not in the favor of the electorate could have laws passed against it in a democracy if every thing where subject to a simple 50% + 1 vote of the people.

You want to see the dangers and despotism of democracy, look no further than local property taxes. Those without property are given the questionable right to vote on increases that they will not pay and therefore, no reason to vote against them.

This is not fake intellectualism, it is a reaffirmation of beliefs of the principles on which this country was founded.