Gaza Students: Clean the World of Jews

[Coyote]

"...CAIR is on record saying Shariah law is the way as well as wanting a Muslim President.."... Link: ?We are above the law of the land?

WorldNetDaily is a media outlet funded by and leaning heavily towards stereotypical US Conservative political perspectives and agendas, so, I take with a grain of salt, what outlets like that serve-up.

Nevertheless, this 'caution' does not negate the value of their reporting.

So long as they are accurately quoting someone, it doesn't matter a damn who is doing the quoting.

Having said that, the article reads as follows:

===================

Actually, WND has a reputation for tabloid style reporting with about as much accuracy and I think that does negate "the value". No where can I find the quote in it's full context.

I'd like to see the entire thing. I know how easily things can be cherry-picked to change the meaning.

 

[Hossfly]

I have never heard that from Muslims here and I live here. Do you have a source for that claim?

I meant "here" as in "on this message board" here, not whatever "here" you thought "here" was.

Well, you said "there are many Muslims in USA" - so that was exactly how I took it...

Well. some do and some don't want Shariah law.


Muslim Group Seeks to Ban Sharia Law in America | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[Coyote]

I meant "here" as in "on this message board" here, not whatever "here" you thought "here" was.

Well, you said "there are many Muslims in USA" - so that was exactly how I took it...

Well. some do and some don't want Shariah law.


Muslim Group Seeks to Ban Sharia Law in America | Video | TheBlaze.com

Most don't and are smart enough to recognize a piece-of-crap discrimminatory legislation when they see it

 

[Kondor3]

"...Actually, WND has a reputation for tabloid style reporting with about as much accuracy and I think that does negate "the value". No where can I find the quote in it's full context. I'd like to see the entire thing. I know how easily things can be cherry-picked to change the meaning."

I agree that caution should be exercised when analyzing reports of such disturbing remarks by a news outlet that has a tabloid style and which seems inherently biased against a group.

Which I why I opened-up that can of worms in advance of posting the text - to get it out in the open air and on the table - but not to distract us beyond the realm of validation or authentication.

If those remarks were, indeed, made at the place and in the context and in the manner described, then I will not bother overly much about extending further benefit of a doubt to the persons uttering such declarations.

I understand the great benefit to be attained through a thorough and objective analysis of Significant Policy Statements - even on the Verbal or Unpublished level.

But I also understand the great harm that can result from a needless and prolonged picking-apart... analysis-paralysis... and the great harm that can result from failing to make hard decisions and to reach hard conclusions once the evidence is gathered and weighed, when indicated.

I have nothing but this Conservative tabloid article to go on so far, but the question remains:

Is this all real, and faithfully reported in-context?

If true, then... "Houston, we have a problem".

And, of course, at a bare-bones minimum, it appears to get Hossfly off the hook, in meeting a challenge to cite substantive reports or declarations of such Muslim intentions.

But I could be wrong, and I'll let him and others sort that one out.

 

[Coyote]

The problem I have is this - nowhere can I find the context or complete speech - all I find is this little snippet circulated around the rightwing blogosphere.

Where is it's entirety? We can't judge nor should we judge it, without it.

 

[Kondor3]

The problem I have is this - nowhere can I find the context or complete speech - all I find is this little snippet circulated around the rightwing blogosphere. Where is it's entirety? We can't judge nor should we judge it, without it.

I really don't trust the Right Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it.

Then again...

I really don't trust the Left Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it, either.

There is only one way to interpret at least some of those truly alarming remarks.

This may not hold true for some remarks, but it almost certainly holds true for others.

I agree that it would be helpful to see the entire text of the speech in order to gauge context.

But, within the sampling-domain of those remarks that can only be reasonably construed in one way, I do not perceive the absence of the full text as a barrier to acceptance as fact.

 

[sealadaigh]

The problem I have is this - nowhere can I find the context or complete speech - all I find is this little snippet circulated around the rightwing blogosphere.

Where is it's entirety? We can't judge nor should we judge it, without it.

it surely has a context that is being neglected if you read the whole thing. i think he even says he is joking or the benefit if the fearmongers and then goes on further to explain himself.

 

[Hossfly]

"...Actually, WND has a reputation for tabloid style reporting with about as much accuracy and I think that does negate "the value". No where can I find the quote in it's full context. I'd like to see the entire thing. I know how easily things can be cherry-picked to change the meaning."

I agree that caution should be exercised when analyzing reports of such disturbing remarks by a news outlet that has a tabloid style and which seems inherently biased against a group.

Which I why I opened-up that can of worms in advance of posting the text - to get it out in the open air and on the table - but not to distract us beyond the realm of validation or authentication.

If those remarks were, indeed, made at the place and in the context and in the manner described, then I will not bother overly much about extending further benefit of a doubt to the persons uttering such declarations.

I understand the great benefit to be attained through a thorough and objective analysis of Significant Policy Statements - even on the Verbal or Unpublished level.

But I also understand the great harm that can result from a needless and prolonged picking-apart... analysis-paralysis... and the great harm that can result from failing to make hard decisions and to reach hard conclusions once the evidence is gathered and weighed, when indicated.

I have nothing but this Conservative tabloid article to go on so far, but the question remains:

Is this all real, and faithfully reported in-context?

If true, then... "Houston, we have a problem".

And, of course, at a bare-bones minimum, it appears to get Hossfly off the hook, in meeting a challenge to cite substantive reports or declarations of such Muslim intentions.

But I could be wrong, and I'll let him and others sort that one out.

Nobody is stopping Coyote from getting in touch with this guy to ascertain if he really said what he did this month. As far as Coyote saying that World Net Daily's articles have a reputation as being tabloid-style reporting (of course that comment would come from those who think like Coyote), let us not forget that everything that comes from any publication that doesn't fit in with her opinion is a tabloid, even if the one behind the site happens to be an Arab himself. We should only believe as the truth if is comes out of a publication that meets with Coyote's approval, such as Press T.V.

Dallas CAIR Director: ?Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.? | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Hossfly]

The problem I have is this - nowhere can I find the context or complete speech - all I find is this little snippet circulated around the rightwing blogosphere. Where is it's entirety? We can't judge nor should we judge it, without it.

I really don't trust the Right Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it.

Then again...

I really don't trust the Left Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it, either.

There is only one way to interpret at least some of those truly alarming remarks.

This may not hold true for some remarks, but it almost certainly holds true for others.

I agree that it would be helpful to see the entire text of the speech in order to gauge context.

But, within the sampling-domain of those remarks that can only be reasonably construed in one way, I do not perceive the absence of the full text as a barrier to acceptance as fact.

Every article is either Left Wing or Right Wing but no matter who reports an event, the words of the speaker are etched in stone and when they start joking about their subject, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Here's more of the same with a description of many of the proponents.


?We are above the law of the land?

 

[Coyote]

The problem I have is this - nowhere can I find the context or complete speech - all I find is this little snippet circulated around the rightwing blogosphere. Where is it's entirety? We can't judge nor should we judge it, without it.

I really don't trust the Right Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it.

Then again...

I really don't trust the Left Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it, either.

There is only one way to interpret at least some of those truly alarming remarks.

This may not hold true for some remarks, but it almost certainly holds true for others.

I agree that it would be helpful to see the entire text of the speech in order to gauge context.

But, within the sampling-domain of those remarks that can only be reasonably construed in one way, I do not perceive the absence of the full text as a barrier to acceptance as fact.

Every article is either Left Wing or Right Wing but no matter who reports an event, the words of the speaker are etched in stone and when they start joking about their subject, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Here's more of the same with a description of many of the proponents.


?We are above the law of the land?

WND is really a bad source - it's like Prison Planet or Media Matters.

The thing is - your new article still only gives the same tiny snippet of a quote: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.


Surely you know how easily something can be taken out of context and distorted - you've seen that from both sides.

 

[Coyote]

"...Actually, WND has a reputation for tabloid style reporting with about as much accuracy and I think that does negate "the value". No where can I find the quote in it's full context. I'd like to see the entire thing. I know how easily things can be cherry-picked to change the meaning."

I agree that caution should be exercised when analyzing reports of such disturbing remarks by a news outlet that has a tabloid style and which seems inherently biased against a group.

Which I why I opened-up that can of worms in advance of posting the text - to get it out in the open air and on the table - but not to distract us beyond the realm of validation or authentication.

If those remarks were, indeed, made at the place and in the context and in the manner described, then I will not bother overly much about extending further benefit of a doubt to the persons uttering such declarations.

I understand the great benefit to be attained through a thorough and objective analysis of Significant Policy Statements - even on the Verbal or Unpublished level.

But I also understand the great harm that can result from a needless and prolonged picking-apart... analysis-paralysis... and the great harm that can result from failing to make hard decisions and to reach hard conclusions once the evidence is gathered and weighed, when indicated.

I have nothing but this Conservative tabloid article to go on so far, but the question remains:

Is this all real, and faithfully reported in-context?

If true, then... "Houston, we have a problem".

And, of course, at a bare-bones minimum, it appears to get Hossfly off the hook, in meeting a challenge to cite substantive reports or declarations of such Muslim intentions.

But I could be wrong, and I'll let him and others sort that one out.

Nobody is stopping Coyote from getting in touch with this guy to ascertain if he really said what he did this month. As far as Coyote saying that World Net Daily's articles have a reputation as being tabloid-style reporting (of course that comment would come from those who think like Coyote), let us not forget that everything that comes from any publication that doesn't fit in with her opinion is a tabloid, even if the one behind the site happens to be an Arab himself. We should only believe as the truth if is comes out of a publication that meets with Coyote's approval, such as Press T.V.

Dallas CAIR Director: ?Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.? | FrontPage Magazine

So, to sum it up, you are unable to find the complete quote and are spinning in place trying to justify a lousy source?

 

[Hossfly]

I agree that caution should be exercised when analyzing reports of such disturbing remarks by a news outlet that has a tabloid style and which seems inherently biased against a group.

Which I why I opened-up that can of worms in advance of posting the text - to get it out in the open air and on the table - but not to distract us beyond the realm of validation or authentication.

If those remarks were, indeed, made at the place and in the context and in the manner described, then I will not bother overly much about extending further benefit of a doubt to the persons uttering such declarations.

I understand the great benefit to be attained through a thorough and objective analysis of Significant Policy Statements - even on the Verbal or Unpublished level.

But I also understand the great harm that can result from a needless and prolonged picking-apart... analysis-paralysis... and the great harm that can result from failing to make hard decisions and to reach hard conclusions once the evidence is gathered and weighed, when indicated.

I have nothing but this Conservative tabloid article to go on so far, but the question remains:

Is this all real, and faithfully reported in-context?

If true, then... "Houston, we have a problem".

And, of course, at a bare-bones minimum, it appears to get Hossfly off the hook, in meeting a challenge to cite substantive reports or declarations of such Muslim intentions.

But I could be wrong, and I'll let him and others sort that one out.

Nobody is stopping Coyote from getting in touch with this guy to ascertain if he really said what he did this month. As far as Coyote saying that World Net Daily's articles have a reputation as being tabloid-style reporting (of course that comment would come from those who think like Coyote), let us not forget that everything that comes from any publication that doesn't fit in with her opinion is a tabloid, even if the one behind the site happens to be an Arab himself. We should only believe as the truth if is comes out of a publication that meets with Coyote's approval, such as Press T.V.

Dallas CAIR Director: ?Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.? | FrontPage Magazine

So, to sum it up, you are unable to find the complete quote and are spinning in place trying to justify a lousy source?

I have a suspicion if I posted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights it would be called a lie and a Right Wing plot.

 

[sealadaigh]

I really don't trust the Right Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it.

Then again...

I really don't trust the Left Wing blogosphere any further than I can throw it, either.

There is only one way to interpret at least some of those truly alarming remarks.

This may not hold true for some remarks, but it almost certainly holds true for others.

I agree that it would be helpful to see the entire text of the speech in order to gauge context.

But, within the sampling-domain of those remarks that can only be reasonably construed in one way, I do not perceive the absence of the full text as a barrier to acceptance as fact.

Every article is either Left Wing or Right Wing but no matter who reports an event, the words of the speaker are etched in stone and when they start joking about their subject, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Here's more of the same with a description of many of the proponents.


?We are above the law of the land?

WND is really a bad source - it's like Prison Planet or Media Matters.

The thing is - your new article still only gives the same tiny snippet of a quote: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.


Surely you know how easily something can be taken out of context and distorted - you've seen that from both sides.

if there were the head of a american muslim organisation the magnitude of CAIR seriously advocating the replacement of our laws with shariah laws, it would be on the six o'clock news for days or weeks on end and arrests would be made.

 

[sealadaigh]

Nobody is stopping Coyote from getting in touch with this guy to ascertain if he really said what he did this month. As far as Coyote saying that World Net Daily's articles have a reputation as being tabloid-style reporting (of course that comment would come from those who think like Coyote), let us not forget that everything that comes from any publication that doesn't fit in with her opinion is a tabloid, even if the one behind the site happens to be an Arab himself. We should only believe as the truth if is comes out of a publication that meets with Coyote's approval, such as Press T.V.

Dallas CAIR Director: ?Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.? | FrontPage Magazine

So, to sum it up, you are unable to find the complete quote and are spinning in place trying to justify a lousy source?

I have a suspicion if I posted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights it would be called a lie and a Right Wing plot.

i doubt it. in fact, there is probably a higher probability that it would be called a left wing plot...except for the second amendment.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody is stopping Coyote from getting in touch with this guy to ascertain if he really said what he did this month. As far as Coyote saying that World Net Daily's articles have a reputation as being tabloid-style reporting (of course that comment would come from those who think like Coyote), let us not forget that everything that comes from any publication that doesn't fit in with her opinion is a tabloid, even if the one behind the site happens to be an Arab himself. We should only believe as the truth if is comes out of a publication that meets with Coyote's approval, such as Press T.V.

Dallas CAIR Director: ?Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.? | FrontPage Magazine

So, to sum it up, you are unable to find the complete quote and are spinning in place trying to justify a lousy source?

I have a suspicion if I posted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights it would be called a lie and a Right Wing plot.

I think there is a world of difference between a well recognized and easily available document such as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and a snippet of a quote, about a religion, with no context or completeness....don't you? Surely you can locate the entire talk?

 

[Hossfly]

Every article is either Left Wing or Right Wing but no matter who reports an event, the words of the speaker are etched in stone and when they start joking about their subject, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Here's more of the same with a description of many of the proponents.


?We are above the law of the land?

WND is really a bad source - it's like Prison Planet or Media Matters.

The thing is - your new article still only gives the same tiny snippet of a quote: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.


Surely you know how easily something can be taken out of context and distorted - you've seen that from both sides.

if there were the head of a american muslim organisation the magnitude of CAIR seriously advocating the replacement of our laws with shariah laws, it would be on the six o'clock news for days or weeks on end and arrests would be made.

Isn't it strange that people from all over the world have come here for generations (and are still coming) and have had no problems living under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and yet there are others who want to live under the law of their religion and not of this great country to which they immigrated?

 

[sealadaigh]

WND is really a bad source - it's like Prison Planet or Media Matters.

The thing is - your new article still only gives the same tiny snippet of a quote: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.


Surely you know how easily something can be taken out of context and distorted - you've seen that from both sides.

if there were the head of a american muslim organisation the magnitude of CAIR seriously advocating the replacement of our laws with shariah laws, it would be on the six o'clock news for days or weeks on end and arrests would be made.

Isn't it strange that people from all over the world have come here for generations (and are still coming) and have had no problems living under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and yet there are others who want to live under the law of their religion and not of this great country to which they immigrated?

i think we have enough digressions going on. thanks.

 

[Hossfly]

Every article is either Left Wing or Right Wing but no matter who reports an event, the words of the speaker are etched in stone and when they start joking about their subject, it is whistling past the graveyard.

Here's more of the same with a description of many of the proponents.


?We are above the law of the land?

WND is really a bad source - it's like Prison Planet or Media Matters.

The thing is - your new article still only gives the same tiny snippet of a quote: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.


Surely you know how easily something can be taken out of context and distorted - you've seen that from both sides.

if there were the head of a american muslim organisation the magnitude of CAIR seriously advocating the replacement of our laws with shariah laws, it would be on the six o'clock news for days or weeks on end and arrests would be made.

Who are you kidding, Seal. A lot isn't on the news. Was it on your news about a murdered Muslim woman living near San Diego, and C.A.I.R. was beating their drums that it was a hate crime (when it eventually was found out that it was the husband who killed his wife because she asked for a divorce?

 

[Kondor3]

The bottom line here is that Hossfly was challenged to produce evidence that 'many Muslims' in this country want to see Sharia Law implemented here in the United States.

He accepted the challenge and exceeded all expectations; producing viable media reports of the Chair of C.A.I.R making just such utterances at a public rally earlier this year, with other alarming related remarks embedded within that same article.

While we are arguing about the credibility of one media outlet, understand that that same story is splattered all over the Internet, and related stories have emerged about this same organization and leadership from higher-order media outlets, sufficient for our purposes here.

Hossfly has produced evidence in support of his contention; cited in multiple sources.

If one cares to challenge the credibility of the report then it is incumbent upon the challenger to produce evidence that contradicts the source.

Hossfly is correct in this instance - a personal bias or dislike against a source is not sufficient to cause the evidence to be discarded.

Just sayin'...

 

[Coyote]

The bottom line here is that Hossfly was challenged to produce evidence that 'many Muslims' in this country want to see Sharia Law implemented here in the United States.

He accepted the challenge and exceeded all expectations; producing viable media reports of the Chair of C.A.I.R making just such utterances at a public rally earlier this year, with other alarming related remarks embedded within that same article.

The expectations must have been exceedingly low when you claim that a single snipped quote with no context and no link to the entire speech is "viable". Think of all the out of context quotes that have been used to smear people. At the very least I would hope someone would provide the original speech and no one seems to and sadly - wants to- before jumping to conclusions to smear Muslims. If this were done towards Jews - you would be outraged.

When some makes the claim that "many Muslims" want to see Sharia Law implemented in the US I would expect to see something in the forms of polls or political activity indicating such. I'm guessing you are unable to provide it and all you can do is use WND's bits and pieces of incomplete speeches. That's pretty shamefully little "proof" in which to smear an entire group of Americans.

While we are arguing about the credibility of one media outlet, understand that that same story is splattered all over the Internet, and related stories have emerged about this same organization and leadership from higher-order media outlets, sufficient for our purposes here.

What we are arguing about is the LACK of the complete quote and the fact that only this snippet seems to be floating around and it is only floating around in WND and the rightwing blogosphere which is sourcing from WND.

Hossfly has produced evidence in support of his contention; cited in multiple sources.

If one cares to challenge the credibility of the report then it is incumbent upon the challenger to produce evidence that contradicts the source.

It is impossible at this point to "contradict it" because the COMPLETE QUOTE seems unavailable. Usually, when that happens - one wonders if it was fabricated?

Hossfly is correct in this instance - a personal bias or dislike against a source is not sufficient to cause the evidence to be discarded.

Just sayin'...

A personal bias, in this case - is not the reason for discarding the "evidence". It's lack of evidence - as in complete evidence.

Just sayin'


P.S. - I assume you would be fine if I used Media Matters?