Republican donor charged with financing,supporting terrorism

I choose to believe that most people here see this for exactly what it is, a non-issue, and it matters not whether we are republican or democrat.

Revel, I agree that Muslims, as an entire group, got a bad rap particularly after 9/11. But for many years the west has been conditioned to see them a violent terrorists because every time we turn around, we read of muslims killing innocent people. Just as for a while everytime we turned around, we read about a Catholic priest molesting some child, and many now have a very low opinion of the priesthood as a whole. Particularly since there was very little condemnation of these priests. It is the same thing with Muslims. I don't care one whit why someone feels they need to blow up a bus full of people or fly an airplane into a building. Common sense says that is wrong, no matter what the reasons. And until Muslims begin condemning such acts wholesale, I take a dim view of their religious faith. And yes, many will treat the average Muslim with a bit of disdain. That is human nature, right or wrong.

But as to the point of this thread, I think the whole thing is a non-issue. And with that I will take my leave.

This is such a hoary old chestnut.

Yes, Muslims have spoken out en masse against the terrorism of extremists.

No, it has not been reported widely by the mainstream media, certainly not as widely as the terrorist acts themselves were.

Why? Because the newspapers are "pro-terrorism"? (Huh?) No, obviously.

Partly because it is good business sense for a medium to not go against their viewers/readers preconceptions too much. This may sound cynical, but stories about violent Muslims sell better than stories about peaceful ones.

But skip that argument, because I dont think you will buy it anyway. The major reason why pious condemnations of violence get little airtime, and airtime is therefore dominated by news of Muslim terror and violence, is that violence always sells better than peace. No matter who does it.

Things going wrong, murder rape and devastation, is NEWS; people doing or saying nice things rarely make the headlines. No matter what their religion.

I appreciate that you are able to talk about this in reasonable manner.

However, you seem to miss my point, more than likely the fault lay with me. I'll try again.

People can come to whatever conclusion they want to regard to how they feel about people--whoever or whatever religion they are. Opinions are just those opinions. But when it comes to the due process of law or civil liberties it passes past mere opinions or prejudices against people into a more serious matter.

For instance a person can hate homosexuals all they want, they can feel that they are a bad influence on their children or whatever. But if they start denying homosexuals the right to live where they want or get married then in my judgment they have violated that persons basic civil rights.

People no matter who they are or where they come from should have the right to defend themselves against charges (or simply being held in prison.) This includes alleged terrorist who are in our custody today or any future ones, be they Muslims or Jews or Christians or just atheist. They should have basic rights to be treated in a humane manner without humiliation no matter the urgency for interrogation answers or what hangs in the balance. That's just the way I believe and why so much about what is said from the ultra right upsets me so.

As for the topic of the this thread, I think Nimh is right, if it was an important democratic donor, much would have made of it from the likes of McG or MM or any of those others.

Sorry, not a non-issue.

Republicans have gone bonkers apesh*t over the idea that Dems have had any ties to organizations which may have ties to terrorism. It has been part of their strategy to attack Dems for years. Now the tables are turned, and you can hardly expect people not to care.

Just another example of how hollow the Republican 'morality' of national security really is....

Cycloptichorn

And since most people get their news from the major outlets, then until these outlets begin giving moderate Muslim voices their due, the message won't get out and people will continue to view all Muslims in the same light.

No republican had any ties to this gentleman. It was simply someone who donated money who happened to also donate to terrorist groups, at least that is how I understand it.

I would reiterate that this situation is no different than finding out someone who donated money to a democratic organization was a pedophile. Would that mean that democrats supported pedophiles? Of course not. Same thing here. And I firmly believe that most everyone here on a2k, republican and democrat, knows that.

Would you say that the Dems supported pedophiles in your example CR if they refused to give the money back?

Because, the NRCC has a real problem with giving money back, it seems... just ask 'em about Foley's money which they never gave back

Cycloptichorn

Either case, in my view, the problem is with the surreal grip that money's come to have on US politics, and the utter lack of scruples it has led the parties to engage when fundraising. If I had my way, there'd be publicly funded campaigns, both sides equal amount of money, no other financial support allowed. If people want to help, they can do retail politics, spread leaflets, canvass, like in the old days.

But thats probably a whole different separate topic.