• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shocking Anti-Islam Ad Campaign Coming To New York City Buses And Subways

Given the large numbers of American Muslims who live in New York City, I don't see this going over very well. And, of course, it is a stupid thing to alienate people like this. American Muslims aren't the problem. They're regular secular people, just like the rest of us. This campaign is no different than suggesting that every American Christian is a KKK member in the making. It'll do no good, and make a lot of regular people bitter.
I don't agree with Geller's Incitement Tactics... But she's Mostly Correct.
And I believe she's done it in the Subways before.
2 of the 3 are correct.
"Yesterday's moderate is Today's Headline".... 100% TRUE. Here and worldwide.
"Islamic Jew Hatred, it's in the Koran. ............ 100% TRUE.

Only the"'Hamas/ISIS" one Seems exaggerated, tho NOT "Hamas/CAIR".
Anyone Care to Debate the Truth of the matter?
I didn't think so.

Paschendale, OTOH, DISHONESTLY LIES/Apologizes about Islamism EVERY DAY, even when corrected.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...obama-isil-not-islamic-25.html#post1063746246
mbig said:
What a Despicable pieces of CRAP your posts on this topic are.

The Caliphate IS Emulating Mohammed.
The KKK is NOT Emulating Jesus.


Yours, posts, like Paschendale's on this Topic, are Horrendous and IGNORANT apologism and PC gone to hell.
ClueLess Filth.
A Disgrace to rational atheists.

mbig to Paschendale said:
Your Atheism wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't really just Socialist, anti-West/anti-Judeo-Christian, Islamist Apologism.
Numero Uno Islamist Apologist on DP.
Always at the ready for a DISHONEST Lie for Osama.


ie, 50 Foiled plots (and more than 100 arrests) in/against America since 9/11.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...omegrown-threat-and-the-long-war-on-terrorism
Not including 'Successful' plots like Fort Hood.[/b]
How could one forget/LIE about ie, Fort Hood?

Link above, SMALL Sample


"....2. Jose Padilla—May 2002. U.S. officials arrested Jose Padilla in May 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare airport as he returned to the United States from Pakistan, where he met with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and received al-Qaeda training and instructions.[11] Upon his arrest, he was initially charged as an enemy combatant, and for planning to use a dirty bomb (an explosive laced with radioactive material) in an attack in the U.S.[12]

Along with Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were convicted in August 2007 of terrorism conspiracy and material support. It was found that the men supported cells that sent recruits, money, and supplies to Islamic extremists worldwide, including al-Qaeda members. Hassoun was the recruiter and Jayyousi served as a financier and propagandist in the cell. Before his conviction, Padilla had brought a case against the federal government claiming that he had been denied the right of habeas corpus (the right of an individual to petition his unlawful imprisonment). In a five-to-four decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the case against him had been filed improperly.[13] In 2005, the government indicted Padilla for conspiring against the U.S. with Islamic terrorist groups.

In August 2007, Padilla was found guilty by a civilian jury after a three-month trial. He was later sentenced by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 17 years and four months in prison.[14] In September 2011, an appellate court ruling deemed Padilla’s original sentence to be too lenient.[15] Padilla is being held at the same penitentiary as Richard Reid and is awaiting resentencing.

3. Lackawanna Six—September 2002. When the FBI arrested Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Shafal Mosed, and Mukhtar al-Bakri in Upstate New York, the press dubbed them the “Lackawanna Six,” the “Buffalo Six,” and the “Buffalo Cell.” Five of the six had been Born and Raised in Lackawanna, New York.[16] All six are American citizens of Yemeni descent, and stated that they were going to Pakistan to attend a religious camp, but attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan instead. The six men pled guilty in 2003 to providing support to al-Qaeda. Goba and al-Bakri were sentenced to 10 years in prison, Taher and Mosed to eight years, Alwan to nine and a half years, and Galab to seven years.[17] Goba’s sentence was later reduced to nine years after he, Alwan, and Taher testified at a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal in the case against Osama bin Laden’s chief propagandist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul.[18]
Recent reports indicate that Jaber Elbaneh, one of the FBI’s most wanted and often considered to be a seventh member of the Lackawanna cell, has been captured in Yemen. It remains to be seen whether he will be tried in the U.S., since the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Yemen.[19]

5. Iyman Faris—May 2003. Iyman Faris is a naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Kashmir, who was living in Columbus, Ohio. He was arrested for conspiring to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge...

6. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali—June 2003. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is an American citizen of Jordanian descent
who was arrested in Saudi Arabia on charges that he conspired to kill President George W. Bush, hijack airplanes, and provide support to al-Qaeda.
7. Virginia Jihad Network—June 2003. Eleven men were arrested in Alexandria, Virginia, for weapons counts and for violating the Neutrality Acts, which prohibit U.S. citizens and residents from attacking countries with which the United States is at peace...

10. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj—August 2004. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, both reportedly self-radicalized, were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square Garden in New York City before the Republican National Convention.[36] An undercover detective from the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Division infiltrated the group, providing information to authorities, and later testified against Elshafay and Siraj.[37] Siraj was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Elshafay, a U.S. citizen, pled guilty and received a lighter, five-year sentence for testifying against his co-conspirator.[38]

11. Yassin Aref and Mohammad Hossain—August 2004. Two leaders of a mosque in Albany, New York, were charged with plotting...
[........]
[........]
[........]
[........]
[........]

paschendale posts Islamist apologist Filth. Is he lying or truly Blinded by his wildly partisan politics?
That goes for all the Other Disingenuous PCers like spud_meister.
PC is the board's widest and worst Delusion, encompassing members of Both parties.​
Which has to be Repeated near Daily to Refute Persistent Islamist-Apologist Socialist, Pashendale.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...alid-tactic-abuse-power-5.html#post1063760345

It's hard to Keep up with his Daily Taqiyyah and he's got lotsa PC Company here.​
 
Last edited:
one of the ads compares the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization in palestine, to the actions of CAIR, which is the acronym for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is an organization dedicated to the advocacy and civil rights of american muslims.

comparing CAIR to Hamas is factually untrue.
No, YOUR statement is "Untrue."

Several CAIR Founders were Linked to Terrorism/Hamas and have been arrested/convicted.
Wiki: Council on American

Allegations of ties to Hamas

Critics of CAIR have accused it of having ties to Hamas. Federal Judge Jorge A. Solis said that there was evidence to show that that CAIR has an association with the Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas. However, Judge Solis' acknowledged that this evidence predates the official designation of these groups as terrorist organizations.[86]

Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate,[59][87][88] have alleged[b[ ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestin[/b]e (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and US Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership."[89]

Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation
(which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order, and later convicted in court, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas), and the IAP.[90][91][92] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]."[93] Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations" body, "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."[94] Critics also point to a July 1994 meeting identifying CAIR as one of the four U.S. organizations comprising the working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization and supporter of Hamas.[95][96][97]

The Anti-Defamation League states that CAIR's work as a civil rights organization is tainted by past links to Hamas, sometime Failure to Condemn terrorist organizations by name,
and the presence of anti-Semites at some of its rallies.[98] Steven Emerson has accused CAIR of having a long record of propagating antisemitic propaganda.[8][99] Journalist Jake Tapper criticizes CAIR for refusing to condemn specifically Osama bin Laden and Islamic extremism, but rather making only vague and generic criticisms.[100][page needed] CAIR acknowledges that Nihad Awad declared support for Hamas in 1994. It notes that Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Awad made the comment.[101][102] Since then CAIR has denounced violence by Hamas, and in 2006 Nihad Awad said, "I don’t support Hamas today ... we condemn suicide bombings."[101]

As of 2007, FBI officials attended CAIR events. In 2009, Fox News said that the FBI broke off formal outreach contacts with CAIR, and shunned all of its local chapters, concerned about CAIR's ties to Hamas.[4] In 2011, the New York Times said that while the FBI and CAIR had no "formal relationship", CAIR officials and chapters worked regularly with FBI officials.

Also see:
*Anti-CAIR* Defending America from the Council on American-Islamic Relations
For a Littany of ties to terror and Hamas of CAIR's founders/leaders

[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
CAIR Officials CONVICTED Of Terrorist Crimes
* * * * * *

Royer.jpg

Randall "Ismail" Royer
CAIR-National Civil Rights Coordinator
& Communications Specialist
*CONVICTED*
Sentenced To 20 Years In Federal Prison
Committed Terrorist Crimes While Working For CAIR

Pled guilty to using and discharging a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence and with carrying an explosive during commission of a felony... admitted helping four people gain entry to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
[United States Of America V. Randall Todd Royer (pdf)]



GhassanElashi.jpg

Ghassan Elashi
Founder Of CAIR-Texas
Chairman of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
*CONVICTED*
Sentenced To 65 Years In Federal Prison

Committed Terrorist Crimes While Working For CAIR
Tried on 21 counts of conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. Found guilty on all 21 counts. CAIR's Ghassan Elashi and his fellow convicts tried to appeal their convictions to the Supreme Court and were DENIED.
[United States of America V. HLF]​

That's Right/Ironic:
Even at CAIR, "Yesterday's moderate IS Today's Headline."
 
Last edited:
Do you agree that the NYC transit system is a government entity, owned and operated by NYC and funded partially by NYC and the State of NY?

I acknowledged in an earlier post that the transit authority's decisions about what advertising to allow on buses are state action, as they would need to be for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to them. And it has to do that, because it's only through it that the First Amendment applies to the states. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has applied first one clause of it and then another to them by holding they are incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. It's done the same with most--but not all--of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Do you agree that the degradation of a religion is the equivalent of the promotion of a religion, when the government is the one degrading/promoting?

That would depend on the particular facts. But I don't see how these ads raise any issue under either the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses.

If you don't agree, then we have no need to further discuss the matter. If, however, you do agree, I would argue that a "law" that enables the degradation of a is against the provisions of the first amendment related to "impeding the free exercise of religion".

You can argue anything you want, but it's nice at least to have your arguments pass the laugh test. And I think your free exercise argument would have one hell of a hard time doing that. The clue should be that both this woman's group and the MTA's lawyers, who presumably have studied all this in great detail, have treated this as a free speech issue all along. After the MTA lost an earlier round, apparently, it tried to solve the free speech problem by casting these ads as incitement to imminent lawless action, making them speech the First Amendment doesn't protect. Cute--and contrived. Speech doesn't become unconstitutional in this country just because it makes some God damned Muslim jihadist son of a whore angry.

Seems to me, the Supreme Court determined that simply having a stone in front of a courthouse that contained the 10 commandments was against the first amendment rights of those who do not believe in the Christian faith.

There have been a number of Supreme Court cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious monuments and symbols in public places. In at least one of them, Van Orden v. Perry, the Court upheld the display of a granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. In his concurring opinion, which was decisive in the case, Justice Breyer quoted something Justices Goldberg and Harlan had written in a 1963 case, School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp:

"The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercise or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact."
 
Last edited:
So you don't care for the ads. Alright. But I am afraid you will see more and more of the same in the days to come because people are tired of walking on political correct eggshells while the threat of terrorism grows.
Yes, we are prosecuting and sending them to jail but not until after hundreds of man hours of those preparing for a prosecution and those who are in the trenches thwarting another terrorist attack at the taxpayers' expense. Look I have lost all tolerance for any "religious" person who wants to claim a religion of peace yet who will allow themselves to be used to hide a faction of those who are anything but what they claim. They need to start standing up and denouncing this crap and throw the Imams out are their asses that promote it and any member of their congregations involved in such things removed from their memberships. Until then they are allowing themselves to be enablers and more and more Americans will see them as a threat.



Then you have abandoned the very principles you are claiming to protect.

With the constitution shredded, rights violated, spying on civilians and arrest without warrant, how have the terrorists NOT won?
 
Then you have abandoned the very principles you are claiming to protect.

With the constitution shredded, rights violated, spying on civilians and arrest without warrant, how have the terrorists NOT won?

No I haven't shredded the Constitution. To demand personal responsibility is not violating anyone's rights. To be against using religious freedoms to hide evil doings is justifiable. When people allow themselves to be associated with evil doers they put themselves into a position not to be trusted. This radical Islam is not going to go away or even controlled until those of that faith will no longer tolerate their behavior.
 
My argument is not that terrorists aren't bad and not that most terrorists today are Muslims. My argument is with the placement of the ads in a government facility.

Do you agree that the NYC transit system is a government entity, owned and operated by NYC and funded partially by NYC and the State of NY?

Do you agree that a regulation established by a government entity fits the definition of a "law" as provided in the Constitution?

Do you agree that the degradation of a religion is the equivalent of the promotion of a religion, when the government is the one degrading/promoting?

If you don't agree, then we have no need to further discuss the matter. If, however, you do agree, I would argue that a "law" that enables the degradation of a religion is against the provisions of the first amendment related to "impeding the free exercise of religion".

All of what you post is fine, from my perspective, just not when using a government service/facility.

Seems to me, the Supreme Court determined that simply having a stone in front of a courthouse that contained the 10 commandments was against the first amendment rights of those who do not believe in the Christian faith. Seems to me, this action in NYC transit vehicles is similar in reverse.

The court has ruled that the bus adverts are a designated public forum. That make them fair game for anybody.
 
Tim Mcveigh fried for his crimes and no one defended white supremacists.

Actually, there were people who did. However, they were on the fringes of the militia movement.
 
If someone has a problem with it, let them take it to court. But until then, if I lived in NYC with the daily reminder that it was a few Muslim religious radicals that took over three thousand innocent lives in an act of terror with the knowledge they live among us and their numbers are growing, it's time to stop walking on eggshells and stop letting evil hide behind a religion.

Good evening Vesper - I don't disagree with your sentiment - but that doesn't mean a government service/facility should be used to express that sentiment. I'm sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of privately owned advertising venues in NYC that could be contracted to place these ads. As I said, my quarrel such as it is isn't with the content of the ads but the government venue being used.
 
Actually, there were people who did. However, they were on the fringes of the militia movement.

There were people that wept when Stalin died, too. Your point?
 
Where are the American Muslim voices denouncing these clerics and Imams that spread messages of such vile hatred in the name of their God? All I hear are "crickets". Here in Ohio, and North in Michigan, these Muslim congregations have been caught aiding and abetting those who were planning terrorist attacks and just recently here in the Columbus a group of Muslims from the local congregation were involved in a ring kidnapping young girls and selling them as sex slaves that crossed state lines into Minnesota. Seems Britain has had a real problem with that one too. So spare me with the KKK analogy. The KKK is not growing in numbers but has diminished because people of the Christian faith would not tolerate it. Same with the Westboro Baptist bozos.

Those who feel they are doing 'moderate' Muslims some good by denouncing those who point out Islamic terrorism are doing nobody a favor. Members of the US Government telling people what Islam is or isn't are as dumb as dirt and should be treated the way Pamela Geller is being treated.

Here is one of those 'moderate' Muslims speaking out. Is ISIS Islamic? Dr. Zudhi Jasser weighs in| Latest News Videos | Fox News
 
Good evening Vesper - I don't disagree with your sentiment - but that doesn't mean a government service/facility should be used to express that sentiment. I'm sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of privately owned advertising venues in NYC that could be contracted to place these ads. As I said, my quarrel such as it is isn't with the content of the ads but the government venue being used.
It is not the government though. The MTA authorities operate like quasi-private corporations, with boards of directors appointed by elected officials. Public authorities share characteristics with government agencies, but they are exempt from many state and local regulations. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
one of the ads compares the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization in palestine, to the actions of CAIR, which is the acronym for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is an organization dedicated to the advocacy and civil rights of american muslims.

comparing CAIR to Hamas is factually untrue.

If you have evidence that it's "factually untrue," you don't offer it. I think all you're saying is that the comparison irks you. Apparently there's at least one person here who's been taken in by the Islamists' efforts to portray CAIR as a moderate, reasonable group. And of course that's just why they created CAIR, as a public relations outfit to further Islamist causes while portraying Islamists as great guys who speak well and wear Western clothes. President Limpwrist and his senior officials frequently hobnob with CAIR officials, seeking their wise and unbiased counsel about all things Islamic.

The two organizations have one obvious thing in common--they are both creations of the Muslim Brotherhood. HAMAS states in its charter that it is the "wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine." The charter is available online--look it up. And I would have thought it was common knowledge that CAIR, like ISNA, IIIT, and quite a few other organizations, are front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. A Muslim Brotherhood document used as evidence in a federal trial some years ago, involving an Islamist group called the Holy Land Foundation, establish these connections pretty clearly. A number of the groups listed in this document were unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. This document is also available online, and I'd be glad to cite it for anyone who's interested.
 
I acknowledged in an earlier post that the transit authority's decisions about what advertising to allow on buses are state action, as they would need to be for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to them. And it has to do that, because it's only through it that the First Amendment applies to the states. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has applied first one clause of it and then another to them by holding they are incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. It's done the same with most--but not all--of the rest of the Bill of Rights.



That would depend on the particular facts. But I don't see how these ads raise any issue under either the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses.



You can argue anything you want, but it's nice at least to have your arguments pass the laugh test. And I think your free exercise argument would have one hell of a hard time doing that. The clue should be that both this woman's group and the MTA's lawyers, who presumably have studied all this in great detail, have treated this as a free speech issue all along. After the MTA lost an earlier round, apparently, it tried to solve the free speech problem by casting these ads as incitement to imminent lawless action, making them speech the First Amendment doesn't protect. Cute--and contrived. Speech doesn't become unconstitutional in this country just because it makes some God damned Muslim jihadist son of a whore angry.



There have been a number of Supreme Court cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious monuments and symbols in public places. In at least one of them, Van Orden v. Perry, the Court upheld the display of a granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. In his concurring opinion, which was decisive in the case, Justice Breyer quoted something Justices Goldberg and Harlan had written in a 1963 case, School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp:

"The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercise or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact."

An excellent post and good advocacy of your position. I'd like to see this go to court, but don't know that it will.

I'm a firm believer, however, that use of hate to overcome hate only grows more deep rooted and expanded hate. I don't see how such ads would encourage law abiding, respectful Muslims to inform law enforcement officials of activities within their places of worship and schools that are troubling and illegal. The heartening part, however, is that some Muslims do just that. It's why here in Canada we've had many activities reported and plans broken up. When this happens, however, we seem to simply say "see, we told you Muslims are terrorists" instead of focusing on the good that was done by disclosure.

You'll claim my position is naive, and perhaps rightly so. The complication for me is that I'm not the slightest bit religious having been raised a Catholic and abandoned it once old enough to see first hand the rot within its hierarchy. But I don't begrudge or criticize any other person who is deeply religious. I no more think Islam makes you a terrorist than Catholicism makes you a pedophile, but clearly something is wrong here and I don't think this is a method that is going to garner much success - it will get lots of attention and gin up hate, but that's about it.
 
And if I had to guess, those are the only goals.
Why should people like or respect terrorists? And why would anyone 'hate' 'moderate' Muslims?

The fact is that most Muslims do want to live peacefully, as we saw by those proud people in Iraq who pointed their purple fingers into the air when, for the first time in their lives, they were allowed to vote.

Who took this freedom away from them? It was certainly not the 'moderates'! It was those Islamists who you see portrayed on that poster who did that, and who also threatened these people when they dared to vote.. They are the ones being target by these posters and not those Muslims who want to live in peace with their neighbors. You should be able to tell the difference between the two.
 
Good evening Vesper - I don't disagree with your sentiment - but that doesn't mean a government service/facility should be used to express that sentiment. I'm sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of privately owned advertising venues in NYC that could be contracted to place these ads. As I said, my quarrel such as it is isn't with the content of the ads but the government venue being used.

Evening CJ. NYC collects revenue through ads to pay for services. There have been many controversial ads in the past you could say the same thing about. Many political in nature. It's what NYC does and just about every major city across the country. If someone renting space to display an advertisement for attorneys, or an organization promoting a view, or businesses, politicians, dentists, and insurance companies, the same argument could be made that government subsidized services have no business promoting one over another. I didn't hear any protest over any of the prior ones, just recently over Islamic extremism.
 
Those are only very extreme Conservatives, for one and two there are Liberals who agree.

No there aren't. Anyone who agrees isn't liberal, I don't care what you or they say.
 
Evening CJ. NYC collects revenue through ads to pay for services. There have been many controversial ads in the past you could say the same thing about. Many political in nature. It's what NYC does and just about every major city across the country. If someone renting space to display an advertisement for attorneys, or an organization promoting a view, or businesses, politicians, dentists, and insurance companies, the same argument could be made that government subsidized services have no business promoting one over another. I didn't hear any protest over any of the prior ones, just recently over Islamic extremism.

That's fair - I only took issue with it because of its close relationship to religion. I'm all for public transit using their space to generate revenue to keep taxpayer costs low and rider fees low as well. You didn't hear any complaints from me about the other stuff primarily because I never saw anything posted about it - but it wouldn't have been a first amendment discussion in any of those alternate cases you mentioned either.
 
Then you have abandoned the very principles you are claiming to protect.

With the constitution shredded, rights violated, spying on civilians and arrest without warrant, how have the terrorists NOT won?

What constitutional rights, specifically, are you claiming are being violated, by whom, and how? Quit hiding behind vagueness. Police arrest people without a warrant many hundreds of times every day in the U.S. They also conduct searches without a warrant, all the time. Police also spy on U.S. citizens through wiretaps, etc. all the time. What of it?
 
Why should people like or respect terrorists?

NOBODY IS DEFENDING TERRORISTS. Jesus Christ, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

And why would anyone 'hate' 'moderate' Muslims?

Well, they shouldn't, but ...

The fact is that most Muslims do want to live peacefully, as we saw by those proud people in Iraq who pointed their purple fingers into the air when, for the first time in their lives, they were allowed to vote.

Who took this freedom away from them? It was certainly not the 'moderates'! It was those Islamists who you see portrayed on that poster who did that, and who also threatened these people when they dared to vote.. They are the ones being target by these posters and not those Muslims who want to live in peace with their neighbors. You should be able to tell the difference between the two.

... did you read the first sign in the OP? "Yesterday's moderate is today's headline"? Yeah, that's not going to drum up hate and fear, using an isolated incident to portray all Muslims as potential decapitators.
 
NOBODY IS DEFENDING TERRORISTS. Jesus Christ, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.
I feel you are also.
Well, they shouldn't, but ...
But what?
... did you read the first sign in the OP? "Yesterday's moderate is today's headline"? Yeah, that's not going to drum up hate and fear, using an isolated incident to portray all Muslims as potential decapitators.
And they might well be. We really have no way of knowing. Perhaps that's why there should be more Muslims like this guy. Is ISIS Islamic? Dr. Zudhi Jasser weighs in| Latest News Videos | Fox News
 
I feel you are also.

Stop implying that anyone here is defending terrorists. It's dishonest as hell.

And they might well be. We really have no way of knowing. Perhaps that's why there should be more Muslims like this guy.

So let's endorse putting up MUSLIM WARNING signs on the buses.

Hey, you could be a child molester.* I really have no way of knowing.



* -- No, I am not actually referring to you as a child molester, chill. It's an example of how absurd the "we have no way of knowing" line actually was.
 
Stop implying that anyone here is defending terrorists. It's dishonest as hell.



So let's endorse putting up MUSLIM WARNING signs on the buses.

Hey, you could be a child molester.* I really have no way of knowing.



* -- No, I am not actually referring to you as a child molester, chill. It's an example of how absurd the "we have no way of knowing" line actually was.

We never see the Libbos defend Christians.
 
Back
Top Bottom