1
   

Fundamentalism, Wahhabism, and the sources of terrorism

 
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 05:30 pm
Try reading the examples I posted above.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 07:20 pm
Hobit wrote:

Try reading the examples I posted above.

What ? From ridiculous sources like--Refuse and Resist--Middle East report (online) and Truthout.Org.

You've been screaming about citing plausible sources and now I ask the audience to examine your sources.

I quoted from the text of the Patriot Act--
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 07:26 pm
Percy, face it. You once again made a ridiculous assertion that you cannot back up, and now you are resorting to invective. Are you familliar with the authors of the pieces? Have you ever heard of a television network called PBS? I'm not going to participate in yet another 'everyone is picking on percy' conversation. If you would hold yourself to the standard you demand that others be held to, you might find more people willing to take you, and your ideas, seriously.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 07:34 pm
Hobitbob

I hereby end this ridiculous discussion with someone who only wants to foil attempts to find terrorists. Your agenda is obvious ---- down with Ashcroft and up with hiding the terrorists among the several million Muslims in this country.

End of discussion
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 09:16 pm
Which action is more conducive to terrorism:
Harrassment of ethnic/religious minorites, expanded surveilance of citizens, etc...
Or
Behaving in ways that would demonstrate the principles of a free democracy: i.e. enforcement of the bill of rights?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 09:42 pm
Bingo, Hobit.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2003 11:26 pm
This has become ridiculous. Too bad your thread was hijacked, tart.

But one can never argue with uneducated people.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:01 am
hobitbob may be correct about Bernard Lewis. I do not know hobitbob's level of expertise or qualifications. However, it is felt by many that Bernard Lewis is the nation's leading expert on Islam.

The idea that the Islamic fundamentalist radicals( a small minotiry) seek the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate in the world has been brought forth by many writers besides Lewis.


I think hobitbob denigrates a fine scholar without showing exactly why he is wrong.

I also must ask Mamajuana why she is being so insulting. Mamajauna indicates that Tart's idea has been highjacked and that one can never argue with uneducated people. She does not indicate who she is speaking about but I guess it would be perception.

I have no idea of the quality or quantity of perception's education but mamajuana's ad hominem statement adds little to the discussion.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:08 am
Go to bed, massa.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:13 am
I have read parts of the Patriot Act with interest.

It well may be that the Act is too far reaching.

However, I must confess that I placed my trust in both my senators- One Democrat and One Republican who both voted for the Patriot Act.

In fact, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act- 98-1.

The only negative vote was Senator Finegold.

I can't believe that Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Byrd, Senator Edwards, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Jeffords, Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin and last, but not least, Senator Kerry, would vote for any bill which would place out civil rights in danger.

Perhaps it is time for the citizenry which views the Patriot Act as a danger to call, write and campaign for the elimination of the Patriot Act. I have heard of and seen no efforts in the Senate to seriously negate the Patriot Act by abolishing it.

Does anyone know whether there has been any movement in this regard?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 01:03 am
The Patriot Act isn't getting a free ride:

Quote:
Patriot Act Complaints Reviewed Associated Press
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59709,00.html

01:59 PM Jul. 21, 2003 PT

WASHINGTON - Justice Department investigators found that 34 claims were credible of more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest.

According to a report Monday, Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general, looked into allegations made between Dec. 16, 2002, and June 15 under oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Many complaints were from Muslims or people of Arab descent who claimed they were beaten or verbally abused while being detained.

Among these are a claim by a Muslim inmate that he was ordered to "remove his shirt so that the officer could use it to shine his shoes" and a complaint from an Egyptian national that he was improperly arrested by the FBI after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The report also substantiated a claim by a federal prison inmate who said he was told by a prison doctor, "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did." The doctor received a verbal reprimand from the Bureau of Prisons, the report said.

In other cases, an immigration official allegedly held a loaded gun to the head of a detainee, while another was said to have "rudely" asked a person being detained if he "wanted to kill Christians and Jews."

The FBI was accused of illegally searching an Arab-American's apartment, vandalizing it and seizing property, later to return "to plant drugs in the complainant's home," the report says. A complaint from a naturalized citizen of Lebanese descent contends that the FBI and other federal agents raided his home searching for an AK-47 assault weapon based upon false information.

Most of the credible complaints remain under investigation, the report said. None of the individuals or locations involved was named in the report.

The Justice Department inspector general is required to monitor and issue regular reports on allegations of civil rights and civil liberties violations as part of the USA Patriot Act, a law Congress passed shortly after the terrorist attacks that broadened government powers of surveillance and investigative methods.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said Monday that the agency is "committed to pursuing every allegation of civil liberties violations by federal law enforcement officers." But he added that the relatively small number of credible complaints makes it "pretty clear that this is not a huge problem."

But Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the latest report shows "there was a pattern of violating immigrants' rights" by the Justice Department after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The latest report follows one by Fine in June that was highly critical of the department's detention of 762 people on immigration violations after the attacks. That report said some detainees were held for as long as eight months, sometimes mistreated and kept confined for 23 hours a day.

"Will the Justice Department ever admit that it has gone too far?" said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Three previous complaints investigated by Fine's office were closed during the six-month time frame because the allegations could not be substantiated. These included an immigration detainee who said he was beaten and denied medical treatment and a prison inmate who said a guard slammed a food tray into his face, causing a nosebleed.

There were 1,073 new complaints forwarded to Fine's office between December and June. Of those, 431 were found to be outside the inspector general's jurisdiction because they mainly involved other federal agencies.

Another 370 cited no credible improper act by a Justice Department employee, made no direct claim of civil rights or civil liberties violations or were from individuals contending they were under 24-hour CIA surveillance or that their phones and e-mails were being intercepted.

The report identified 272 complaints as within the inspector general's jurisdiction, of which 34 were deemed credible and investigated



For some real amusement, wander over to www.freerepublic.com and do a keyword search on "Patriot Act" ... you'll probably be amazed by the sentiment born toward that bit of legislation by everyone from moderates to right wingnuts.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 02:13 am
I want to thank Timberlanko for his post. It shows that there is a great deal of concern in the USA with regard to the Patriot Act. However, I view the concern as ineffective if there is no legislation introduced to change the Law.

Inasmuch as the latest Gallup Poll indicates that 66% of the American People approve of President Bush's handling of "terrorism", I am very much afraid that the legislators in DC, knowing that the vast majority of the American People are almost completely unaware of the possibly dangerous elements in the Patriot Act, will confuse the attempt of any legislator to change the act with an effort to derail President Bush's apparently popularly approved actions against Terrorism.

The ACLU and other such organizations will bluster and fume.

The Patriot Act will remain.

If President Bush is re-elected, it may even be enlarged insofar as a re-election may be viewed as a mandate.

We shall see.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 09:40 am
The NYTIMES magazine has an interesting piece about why we should be concerned with our own fundy loonies:The Culture Wars Reignite
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:22 pm
Just a note: If you want to commission a Gallup poll (which you pay for), it is fairly easy to contact them and tell them what you're looking for. This taints the poll. It's also one reason why the Bush people prefer the Gallup poll over all others. Their figures are always higher on Gallup tha anywhere else.

Zogby is considered one of the leading polls in the country, along with the Pew research, Fields, and a very few others. This is based upon their demographic, gender, voting, and other positions, which they break down. They also tell you the numbers and proportions reached by phone vs on-line. Zogby is considered a more conservative poll.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:28 pm
Pew is very careful -- much more than most -- about asking questions which do not "beg" answers, which are not leading in any way. Very difficult to do. Gallup, which used to be so good, seems to be way off track -- whether through incompetence or because they're "bought" (in the widest sense), I don't know.

That said, one can play the poll game ad infinitum, getting nowhere. I don't think we'd see the kinds of defense mechanisms being used here in A2K if the perception that the Bush administration is in trouble weren't universal.
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 12:46 pm
Italgato wrote:
I have read parts of the Patriot Act with interest.
It well may be that the Act is too far reaching.

However, I must confess that I placed my trust in both my senators- One Democrat and One Republican who both voted for the Patriot Act.
In fact, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act- 98-1.
The only negative vote was Senator Finegold.

I can't believe that Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Byrd, Senator Edwards, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Jeffords, Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin and last, but not least, Senator Kerry, would vote for any bill which would place out civil rights in danger.



From http://unansweredquestions.net/timeline/main/timelineafter911.html#a100201patriotact
(emphasis mine)
Quote:
October 24, 2001: The House of Representatives passes the final version of the Patriot Act and other previously unpopular Bush projects: Alaska oil drilling, $25 billion in tax cuts for corporations, taps into Social Security funds and cuts in education. [CNN, 10/25/01] Republican Congressman Ron Paul states: "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

It is later found that only two copies of the bill were made available in the hours before its passage, and most House members admit they voted for the Act without actually reading it first. [Insight, 11/9/01] Two days later, the Senate passes the final version of the Patriot Act. Anthrax targets Senators Daschle and Leahy now support the bill. Bush signs it into law the same day (see October 26, 2001). [Fox News, 10/26/01] Were the anthrax attacks a deliberate plot to help pass the Patriot Act, and whip up public support?

More info at http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 01:12 pm
Italgato, Just because the majority of liberal senators signed the Patriot Act, doesn't mean it's good legislation. When it lets our government take action without legal protections, our basic freedoms are taken away. What has happened to Arab Americans as a consequence of the Patriot Act is unforgiveable. It has given our government special powers under the guise of security to take away our Constitutional Rights. Be careful what you wish for, but first do your own homework.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 01:51 pm
We had a case here recently when a state rep voted for a very unpopular bill. When listeners on a local talk show harangued him for supporting it, he let it slip he'd co-sponsored it too BUT HAD NEVER ACTUALLY READ IT!

Just too busy.

Campaigning.

Raising money.

And guess what: he won the next election.

He's a Republican.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 08:01 pm
Sorry, Tart ---latest CNN poll shows Bush at 52%, with disapproval climbing to 48%. Wonder what his speech did for him?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2003 08:12 pm
I'm sure that for the true believers it reinforced their glowing image of the commander in cheap. My brother in law crowed : "See, I have always known that Iraq was behind the 9/11 murders." sigh. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 07:33:14