good for peter king, but i fear that others will get their way

[Bosun]

Peter King is an idiot.

here we go.... Who pissed you your dog food this evening...

 

[Bosun]

I am amazed that anyone can be so delusional as to be a muslim. And what is even more perplexing to me are those who are not muslims but who are MuslimArseLickers.

How the fuck can you be a muslim or a MuslimArseLicker after knowing the Historical Documentation of one of the most vilest humans in the History of Mankind, THIEF, MASS MURDERER, RAPIST and PEDOPHILIC RAPIST MOHAMMED is truly beyond my comprehension.

Not only that, this Mass Murdering Maniac Mohammed concocts the document Qu'ran which clearly and unmistakably makes the following statement the CENTRAL INSTRUCTION OF ISLAM: "Make the World the Caliphate of Islam, preferably by word, by SWORD (caps mine) if necessary."

Yet, in this very thread we have delusional idiots either following, or defending this Piece of Shit's bullshit.

guess you will not be interesting in some nice prayer rugs that I have for sale.

head in the sand arselifters assocation.....

 

[Bosun]

NetLibrary
A translation of Tarikh al-Tabari
CAn be found @ that link you will have to sign up @ your local library to gain access.
searchable Hadith collections can be found on most torrent sites as can Brill's encyclopaedia of Islam.

but, bro, some have claimed that al-tabari was just a Zoroastrian influenced liar who was hired to defame islam. me i sit on the sidelines eating my popcorn, shaking my head at mo, his companions, all the infighting bastards that came after.....

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp...hNo=2&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

 

[Mr. Shaman]

good for peter king, but i fear that others will get their way

Yeah, like those who've (already) demonstrated a history of supporting Irish-terrorists!!

​

"Since a Washington Post story over the weekend pointed out that in the mid-1980s Rep. Peter King (R-NY) "was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant [Irish Republican Army] and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland," there's been a growing buzz on the Web about whether he's being hypocritical by planning to hold a hearing Thursday on what he says is the growing danger of "Muslim radicalization" in the U.S."

Hypocrisy Watch​

 

[skookerasbil]

Peter King is an idiot.

here we go.... Who pissed you your dog food this evening...

Hey........Sallow is amongst the most hopelessly naive on the forum. ALQueda could be marching an army down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and he'd be setting up a fruit stand to welcome them!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

good for peter king, but i fear that others will get their way

Yeah, like those who've (already) demonstrated a history of supporting Irish-terrorists!!

​

"Since a Washington Post story over the weekend pointed out that in the mid-1980s Rep. Peter King (R-NY) "was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant [Irish Republican Army] and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland," there's been a growing buzz on the Web about whether he's being hypocritical by planning to hold a hearing Thursday on what he says is the growing danger of "Muslim radicalization" in the U.S."

Hypocrisy Watch​

Another anti-American mental case sounds off............

 

[skookerasbil]

My signature says it all.............please with the politically correct BS

Nobody is going to stop Rep King. Write it down..........he takes shit from nobody.

 

[Bosun]

good for peter king, but i fear that others will get their way

Yeah, like those who've (already) demonstrated a history of supporting Irish-terrorists!!

​

"Since a Washington Post story over the weekend pointed out that in the mid-1980s Rep. Peter King (R-NY) "was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant [Irish Republican Army] and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland," there's been a growing buzz on the Web about whether he's being hypocritical by planning to hold a hearing Thursday on what he says is the growing danger of "Muslim radicalization" in the U.S."

Hypocrisy Watch​

Another anti-American mental case sounds off............

peter king explained it very well this morning. the good bro took it out of context and must have got his talking points from his brothers at CAIR and his sisters at the Huffpo....

 

[Sallow]

Peter King is an idiot.

here we go.... Who pissed you your dog food this evening...

No one.

Peter King is an idiot.

You're normally a decent chap..except when someone starts throwing the "M" word around..

 

[Agit8r]

As long as he is going to hold other radicalized religions and their apologists to the same standard

Nah..he was a big supporter of the IRA.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09king.html

Wow! Peter King is a worthless terrorist sympathizer! He should be investigated by congress

 

[Bosun]

Peter King is an idiot.

here we go.... Who pissed you your dog food this evening...

No one.

Peter King is an idiot.

You're normally a decent chap..except when someone starts throwing the "M" word around..

in some circles i am accused of disbelief or "shirk" my brother... I will admit that Fitnah is much better than Fitrah, if you know what I mean....

As far as Peter King being an idiot, I think idiot is a rather strong word. He was honoured by President Clinton and others in helping to forge a peace in Ireland between the IRA and the Brits. I have heard comments by some, taken out of context with talking points from the progressives to discredit Peter. I would urge you and others to study the totality of the issues and perhaps you may come up with another hypothesis. I believe that Peter King falls somewhere in the middle between Murshid (what you might consider a Saint) and Jinn. He is correct that the western societies should begin to focus on the causes of radicalization.

In another forum, I have urged others to read Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' book My Year Inside Radical Islam. Daveed did a very good job discussing his conversion to Islam and his eventual Apostate views. Daveed offers and insight into spiral of a convert to moderate to radical. Daveed's brothers in the Al-Haramain foundation steered him toward Salafism. Their ideology was simple and from the Qur'an; it is not the place of any person to question the will of allah. he learned that there are many things haraam and slowly slipped into a more radical mindset. Fortunately Daveed bailed out of Islam... As a matter of fact the FBI had him on their radar for the Al-Haramain Foundation. Daveed offered some insight to the FBI and helped their investigation. Daveed's book does not give many answers, but, is useful as an insight as to how someone might be drawn toward radicalism.


Bro, this is a very complex and difficult problem that we are facing...

 

[Bosun]

Link to belief net interviews with Daveed and some other links you all may find interesting... Surviving 'My Year Inside Radical Islam'

By the way, Daveed was a accused by progressives and muhammadans of fueling islamophobia when he wrote his book and when he helped the FBI... You know, when one disagrees with the radical left or the likes of radical leaning muhammadans, one must be attacked... now they have peter king to kick around...

 

[Bosun]

Link to belief net interviews with Daveed and some other links you all may find interesting... Surviving 'My Year Inside Radical Islam'

By the way, Daveed was a accused by progressives and muhammadans of fueling islamophobia when he wrote his book and when he helped the FBI... You know, when one disagrees with the radical left or the likes of radical leaning muhammadans, one must be attacked... now they have peter king to kick around...

a brief essay by daveed: When Faith Goes Too Far, By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Seduced by Radical Islam excerpt:

One summer morning, I realized just how much I had come to accept a worldview that I once would have rejected out of hand. A visiting scholar who lived in Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Qaadir Abdul-Khaaliq, told me after one of his lectures that an 11-year-old boy had asked a question. The youth's mother had left Islam for Christianity, so his question was natural enough: "If someone had been Christian, then became Muslim, but went back to Christianity, could she return to Islam?"

Abdul-Khaaliq immediately answered, "Some people think you should kill them."

He explained that a Muslim commits not only to Allah but to the Islamic state. So turning your back on that commitment is treason.

Instead of being outraged at the idea that people should be killed for changing religions, I heard myself say, "That makes sense." If this was true Islam, it was precisely what I should believe.

Early on at Al Haramain, I learned of an essay written by a former Saudi chief justice, "The Call to Jihad in the Qur'an." Knowing it would challenge my moderate principles, I avoided reading it for several months. Eventually, though, I decided I was ready for it.

The jurist outlined the historical phases of jihad in Prophet Muhammad's life and concluded that those who reject Islam must be conquered. And if they refuse to abandon their old religion, they must pay the Islamic state "with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The implications were unsettling: Jihads against non-Muslim regimes were just wars, and non-Muslims in Islamic countries should be given the choice of conversion or living like second-class citizens. But my duty wasn't to question these teachings. Rather, it was to strengthen my faith so I could more easily accept them.

Later that night, I sat on my prayer rug in a corner of my room and, for the first time, prayed for victory for the mujahedin, the holy warriors.

 

[Bosun]

Link to belief net interviews with Daveed and some other links you all may find interesting... Surviving 'My Year Inside Radical Islam'

By the way, Daveed was a accused by progressives and muhammadans of fueling islamophobia when he wrote his book and when he helped the FBI... You know, when one disagrees with the radical left or the likes of radical leaning muhammadans, one must be attacked... now they have peter king to kick around...

a brief essay by daveed: When Faith Goes Too Far, By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Seduced by Radical Islam excerpt:

One summer morning, I realized just how much I had come to accept a worldview that I once would have rejected out of hand. A visiting scholar who lived in Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Qaadir Abdul-Khaaliq, told me after one of his lectures that an 11-year-old boy had asked a question. The youth's mother had left Islam for Christianity, so his question was natural enough: "If someone had been Christian, then became Muslim, but went back to Christianity, could she return to Islam?"

Abdul-Khaaliq immediately answered, "Some people think you should kill them."

He explained that a Muslim commits not only to Allah but to the Islamic state. So turning your back on that commitment is treason.

Instead of being outraged at the idea that people should be killed for changing religions, I heard myself say, "That makes sense." If this was true Islam, it was precisely what I should believe.

Early on at Al Haramain, I learned of an essay written by a former Saudi chief justice, "The Call to Jihad in the Qur'an." Knowing it would challenge my moderate principles, I avoided reading it for several months. Eventually, though, I decided I was ready for it.

The jurist outlined the historical phases of jihad in Prophet Muhammad's life and concluded that those who reject Islam must be conquered. And if they refuse to abandon their old religion, they must pay the Islamic state "with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The implications were unsettling: Jihads against non-Muslim regimes were just wars, and non-Muslims in Islamic countries should be given the choice of conversion or living like second-class citizens. But my duty wasn't to question these teachings. Rather, it was to strengthen my faith so I could more easily accept them.

Later that night, I sat on my prayer rug in a corner of my room and, for the first time, prayed for victory for the mujahedin, the holy warriors.

anyone ready to take the journey to intelligently discuss muhammadanism and the negative aspects on the western world by jihadists and fundementalists? anyone up to it? the weak, the liberals, the apologists, and the appeasers better stay home...

 

[editec]

Haven't a clue if this hearing will actually advance human knowledge.

But as to whether this society needs to know if radical Islam is really a threat to our way of life?

I think that's a valid question that needs study.

 

[QUENTIN]

The reason King is unfairly targeting Muslims is two fold and neither are because he's targeting Muslim radicalization, a genuine problem worthy of the effort.

The first is that he's not just limiting the scope to Muslim radicalization but outright refusing to address or investigate other forms of violent radicalization.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) explained why he wasn't planning on expanding the focus of the hearings to include clinic bombers or even the radicalization of men like Jared Loughner, accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killing eight people.

"First of all, the Department of Homeland Security was set up after September 11th. The committee was set up after September 11th. We're talking about a radicalization in this country which is linked to an overseas enemy. This is al Qaeda internationally that's attempting recruitment in the United States. People in this country are being self-radicalized, whether it's Major Hasan or whether it's Shazad or whether it was Zazi in New York, these are all people who are identifying, one way or another, with al Qaeda or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is an international movement with elements here in the United States. And to me, that is a real distinction. There's always going to be isolated incidents, isolated fanatics, isolated terrorists even. But an organized terrorist effort, to me, is different, which is why it requires an investigation itself."

People in this country are being self-radicalized, but they're not just Muslims. If he wants to address Muslim radicalization specifically, okay, it's a distinct form of it. But James von Brunn, Buford Furrow, Benjamin Smith, Joe Stack, the Spokane MLK parade bomber (possibly Kevin William Harpham), Jared Loughner, etc. also represent a trend of dangerous radicalism founded on extreme anti-government beliefs, conspiracy theories, and in many cases white nationalism which also resulted in the devastating Oklahoma City Bombing.

There may be random lone wolf shooters of any background and belief who are difficult to target and prevent, genuinely just insane people who snap, but the above mentioned domestic terrorism cases are not isolated and should not be ignored. To refuse to even look into homegrown terrorism that isn't Muslim evinces an unjustifiably narrow and prejudiced, politicized focus that leaves us vulnerable to continued attack. It's unfair, unsafe, and unintelligent because it pretends Muslim radicals are the only problem or threat when that isn't remotely the case.

The second is that there is an absolute refusal to address or even acknowledge the sources of Muslim radicalization in an effort to prevent it. America's intelligence and defense communities have long understood what leads to Islamic attacks on our country and it isn't that they hate us for our freedom. As even Donald Rumsfeld was forced to acknowledge all the way back in 2004 when the Defense Science Board Task Force he commissioned concluded:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

“American efforts have not only failed....they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended. American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy....

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

• ... Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam."

When combined with the statements of the captured Muslims who've attempted terrorist attacks, all of whom cite a desire to kill innocent American civilians in retaliation for the murder of innocent civilians in Muslim lands by the American government, it's quite clear, blindingly obvious really, why these attacks occur.

To attempt to combat domestic radicalization and homeland attacks while refusing to even consider addressing the many valid policy complaints that foster and bolster violent extremism is a pointless, self-defeating exercise. We don't need to limit Americans' freedom one iota or compromise with genuine extremism, we need to stop killing and torturing innocent Muslims, stop invading and endlessly violently occupying Muslim lands, stop propping up totalitarian despotic puppets who will do our economic bidding while enraging and oppressing their countries' Muslim populations, stop using flying killer robots to drop bombs on civilians in Muslim countries we aren't at war with, and put an end to dozens of other counterproductive policies that turn otherwise moderate, normal, non-violent Muslims into radicals willing to do us harm.

Think about how many American civilians, previously not prone to violence or radicalism, would attempt attacks on Pakistan and Yemen (particularly if they lived in those countries), if Pakistan and Yemen were launching drone strikes on American neighborhoods that killed dozens of children a year, were imprisoning and torturing hundreds of Americans overseas, and were running a military occupation of American lands. The source of that anger isn't extremist religion, but universal human nature.

If we can cut off the sources of legitimate grievance among the non-radical global Muslim population, then we'd only be dealing with isolated incidents of genuine radicals, extremists and crazy folk who make up a tiny minority of any group, decimating the threat. That is in our best interest not only for security and defense purposes but generally. So long as we keep our fingers in our ears and head in the sand and pretend we have no idea why "they" hate us and there's nothing we can do but send in more bombs and soldiers, we have no hope of preventing Islamic extremism and will only exacerbate it.

In short, King is full of it and unfairly targeting Muslims not because he wants to investigate Muslim extremism but because that's the only extremism he cares about and he doesn't sincerely have an interest in curbing it. He's just playing politics to an Islamophobic base.

 

[Bosun]

Haven't a clue if this hearing will actually advance human knowledge.

But as to whether this society needs to know if radical Islam is really a threat to our way of life?

I think that's a valid question that needs study.

very good response.... might want to go to the fox news poll and vote there also and review some of their info...

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is holding a controversial hearing Thursday examining the threat posed by radicalized American Muslims. (For more on the King hearings, click here.) Should Congress be investigating Muslim radicalization?

 

[Bosun]

The reason King is unfairly targeting Muslims is two fold and neither are because he's targeting Muslim radicalization, a genuine problem worthy of the effort.

The first is that he's not just limiting the scope to Muslim radicalization but outright refusing to address or investigate other forms of violent radicalization.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) explained why he wasn't planning on expanding the focus of the hearings to include clinic bombers or even the radicalization of men like Jared Loughner, accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killing eight people.

"First of all, the Department of Homeland Security was set up after September 11th. The committee was set up after September 11th. We're talking about a radicalization in this country which is linked to an overseas enemy. This is al Qaeda internationally that's attempting recruitment in the United States. People in this country are being self-radicalized, whether it's Major Hasan or whether it's Shazad or whether it was Zazi in New York, these are all people who are identifying, one way or another, with al Qaeda or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is an international movement with elements here in the United States. And to me, that is a real distinction. There's always going to be isolated incidents, isolated fanatics, isolated terrorists even. But an organized terrorist effort, to me, is different, which is why it requires an investigation itself."

People in this country are being self-radicalized, but they're not just Muslims. If he wants to address Muslim radicalization specifically, okay, it's a distinct form of it. But James von Brunn, Buford Furrow, Benjamin Smith, Joe Stack, the Spokane MLK parade bomber (possibly Kevin William Harpham), Jared Loughner, etc. also represent a trend of dangerous radicalism founded on extreme anti-government beliefs, conspiracy theories, and in many cases white nationalism which also resulted in the devastating Oklahoma City Bombing.

There may be random lone wolf shooters of any background and belief who are difficult to target and prevent, genuinely just insane people who snap, but the above mentioned domestic terrorism cases are not isolated and should not be ignored. To refuse to even look into homegrown terrorism that isn't Muslim evinces an unjustifiably narrow and prejudiced, politicized focus that leaves us vulnerable to continued attack. It's unfair, unsafe, and unintelligent because it pretends Muslim radicals are the only problem or threat when that isn't remotely the case.

The second is that there is an absolute refusal to address or even acknowledge the sources of Muslim radicalization in an effort to prevent it. America's intelligence and defense communities have long understood what leads to Islamic attacks on our country and it isn't that they hate us for our freedom. As even Donald Rumsfeld was forced to acknowledge all the way back in 2004 when the Defense Science Board Task Force he commissioned concluded:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

“American efforts have not only failed....they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended. American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy....

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

• ... Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam."

When combined with the statements of the captured Muslims who've attempted terrorist attacks, all of whom cite a desire to kill innocent American civilians in retaliation for the murder of innocent civilians in Muslim lands by the American government, it's quite clear, blindingly obvious really, why these attacks occur.

To attempt to combat domestic radicalization and homeland attacks while refusing to even consider addressing the many valid policy complaints that foster and bolster violent extremism is a pointless, self-defeating exercise. We don't need to limit Americans' freedom one iota or compromise with genuine extremism, we need to stop killing and torturing innocent Muslims, stop invading and endlessly violently occupying Muslim lands, stop propping up totalitarian despotic puppets who will do our economic bidding while enraging and oppressing their countries' Muslim populations, stop using flying killer robots to drop bombs on civilians in Muslim countries we aren't at war with, and put an end to dozens of other counterproductive policies that turn otherwise moderate, normal, non-violent Muslims into radicals willing to do us harm.

Think about how many American civilians, previously not prone to violence or radicalism, would attempt attacks on Pakistan and Yemen (particularly if they lived in those countries), if Pakistan and Yemen were launching drone strikes on American neighborhoods that killed dozens of children a year, were imprisoning and torturing hundreds of Americans overseas, and were running a military occupation of American lands. The source of that anger isn't extremist religion, but universal human nature.

If we can cut off the sources of legitimate grievance among the non-radical global Muslim population, then we'd only be dealing with isolated incidents of genuine radicals, extremists and crazy folk who make up a tiny minority of any group, decimating the threat. That is in our best interest not only for security and defense purposes but generally. So long as we keep our fingers in our ears and head in the sand and pretend we have no idea why "they" hate us and there's nothing we can do but send in more bombs and soldiers, we have no hope of preventing Islamic extremism and will only exacerbate it.

In short, King is full of it and unfairly targeting Muslims not because he wants to investigate Muslim extremism but because that's the only extremism he cares about and he doesn't sincerely have an interest in curbing it. He's just playing politics to an Islamophobic base.

As-Salāmu `Alaykum my friend... i disagree....