1 - 10 Next
This makes perfect sense if you assume that Obama, if not Muslim, is sympathetic to the aims of ISIS and other muslim fundamentalists. That he in fact does not disagree with the attacks, which is true of the majority of Muslims and their leaders as indicated by their lack of outrage an condemnations.
WTF. In what world is it in the interests of National Security for Central Command to have Twitter/Facebook/etc. social media accounts. Social media is ALWAYS a security risk. The existence of the links/users provides the doorway to gain access, all that is really needed is patience and perserverance. Did everyone in the DOD just get out of kindergarten? ....
In response to:

Muslim “Cleric”?

Clayton43 Wrote: Jan 10, 2015 9:43 AM
You are operating under the erroneous assumption that Choudry and others of his kind are misrepresenting Islamic teachings and aren't representative of the broader Islamic community. In fact, what Choudry states is 100% aligned with Islamic teaching - there has never been a Reformation movement like Christianity went through. The almost total silence from thebIslamic community in expressing any condemnation of the attacks is a clear indication that most of that community does not disagree with them.
This sounds too much like 'it's their fault for publishing such outrageous trash". Once you start down the road of trying to qualify acceptable speech, you have in fact given up free speech - which is the goal of both progressives and Muslims, which is why they are bed fellows. The fellow travelers an wanna bescsrecsubjecting the rest of us to tortuous fantasy rationales, contrived straw men, and grammatical hair splitting all in an attempt to obscure the ultimate goal. There is no getting around the fact the Islam only coexists peacefully with others when it's existence is under real threat. Once that is not a threat their writings demand they subjugate and destroy all that is not Islam. That is what the conversation should be about, not splitting hairs and torturing the language trying to rationalize the attack.
Voluminous article that does more to obscure than illuminate. You are trying to split hairs that are essentially meaningless against the hard backdrop of the war on Christianity and western civilization by Islam. Your points might have some value if this were an aberration being loudly and widely condemned by the world wide Islamic community - but there is no such condemnation. This indicates that the Broad Islamic community at least does not disagree with these attacks. That means there really is no 'moderate' Islamic community to support your articles underlying assumptions.
There really is no getting around one fact. The only people trying to say these terrorists aren't muslim/Islamic are non Muslim left wing who would not characterize themselves as Chrstian and can barely tolerate claiming to be American. Lacking any general outrage or condemnation from the Muslim community anywhere pretty much indicates they at a minimum don't disagree with these attacks which is the same as supporting them.
Their definition of a peaceful protest is one where none of the victims fight back
Unfortunately this sounds like a repeat of the Lacrosse team gang rape story. The media wanted it to be true, do tried and convicted the team in the press. Yet they offered no apology it it was determined the supposed victim had lied about everything.
I believe the article is factually incorrect about the funding for ICE. Yes it collects fees, but it does not automatically get those fees as an operating budget. It has to submit a budget request and have the allocation be approved. The meme that any government agency that is self funded and exempt from congressional oversight is completely false.
In response to:

A Tent Too Big

Clayton43 Wrote: Nov 13, 2014 8:12 AM
The first issue I take is your view that a single front runner at this point is somehow desirable. The situation with Hillary is in my opinion a good example of the toxicity within the Dem party toward anyone outside the 'machine'. The GOP problem has been the RNC and establishment's poorly hidden desire to be Dem lite. The announced surrender on Obamacare by McConnell and Paul before the GOP majority can take office shows how pernicious this is. The TNC needs debates but only a few - anything more than three is just feeding the circular firing squad that the Dems and liberal moderators chosen last time are all too eager to facilitate. 2012 was another shining example of the GOP establishment pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. I think it is too much to assume the party leadership is so stupid as to allow the brand and candidate to be so thoroughly tarnished is an accident.
1 - 10 Next