Muslims in Va. Supporting terrorism

[jimnyc]

Same story, just in our country this particular time.


********
Terror Probe Points to Va. Muslims
Local Network Provided Millions in Financing, Agency Charges

By Douglas Farah
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 18, 2003; Page A06

A secretive group of tightly connected Muslim charities, think tanks and businesses based in Northern Virginia were used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorists and launder millions more, according to court records unsealed yesterday.

An affidavit from Homeland Security agent David Kane said that the Safa Group, also known as the SAAR network, in Herndon had sent more than $26 million in untraceable money overseas and that leaders of the organization "have committed and conspired to . . . provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43559-2003Oct17.html

 

[Bry]

This has been going on for a very long time in the US, but the Muslims weren't the first. Private citizens from the US kept the IRA movement in Ireland going for many many years. On the other hand, since we like St. Patty's Day, and most Irish people are white, we hardly even consider them a terrorist organization. Instead of think tanks, though, the Mcs have drunk tanks.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
This has been going on for a very long time in the US, but the Muslims weren't the first. Private citizens from the US kept the IRA movement in Ireland going for many many years. On the other hand, since we like St. Patty's Day, and most Irish people are white, we hardly even consider them a terrorist organization. Instead of think tanks, though, the Mcs have drunk tanks.

Thats very interesting. But, do you see the difference between your post and mine? Mine is about Muslims, yours is not. This is the Muslim forum, not the IRA forum. If the IRA ever blows up 2 of our buildings and kills 3,000 people, be sure to post again!

 

[Bry]

This is sort of a broken record: that no posts here should make mention of groups other than muslims. But I don't really understand that. It's not as if you can pretend to criticize the muslim culture (or some of its more vocal proponents) in a vacuum: any criticism of a culture necessarily makes reference to the culture from which that culture is being cirticised, even if only implicitly. It seems obvious to me that any cultural criticism is necessarily based on COMPARISON between the culture in question and the native culture of whoever is making the criticism. As such, it seems emminently relevant to a thread about the terrorist funding of Muslim groups in the US to point out that Muslims are not the only group that have found significant monetary support from private citizens in the US. What does not seem appropriate is your tendency to eliminate one major source of response to the posts here by saying they aren't relevant if someone makes the seemingly obvious defense of pointing out that things you criticize muslims for are also characteristics of our own society as a whole, namely that of Judeo-Christians. Which is why I didn't understand when you moved some of the threads that were posted here because they referenced Judeo-Christian culture. In the end, you'll need one forum for talking about Muslims, another for talking about Christians, another for talking about comparisons between muslims and christians, and another for discussing Buddhism, and another for comparing Budhism and Christianity and another for comparing Buddhists and Muslims... see what I'm saying? It seems to me that all of these topics are just as relevant here as any other forum which is presumably dedicated to discussing cultural difference. Another example: if we are to criticize the muslim culture for its treatment of women, is it not relevant to point out that abuse and repression of women is a characteristic of every single human culture in history? (No real exception has been found, though some, obviously, are worse than others.) What sense does it make to criticize Muslims for something of which all cultures are guilty? And if someone wants to make and support the point that the US is just as guilty of this as the Muslim culture, wouldn't that be a relevant response to a thread that criticizes the Mulim culture on those very same grounds?

Anyway, just some food for thought which I offer respectfully to the USmessageboard dictator who just responded to me with a minor flame rather than addressing what I see is an obvious logical connection between two distinct "terrorist" movements. In the end, my response was at least as relevant in a forum on Muslims as a post which references the acts of a few individuals rather than the Muslim culture as a whole.

 

[jimnyc]

Would you go into a board about the New York Yankees and tell them their team is just like the Chicago Bulls? One is really irrelevant to the other.

People get angry here because articles get posted about Muslims in a bad light. Rather than discuss the article, or Muslims in general, they try to "retaliate" by comparing them to something else.

Your spin doesn't change the fact that your post had nothing to do with Muslims. It was more like a post about the USA in general and history related to supporting a terror organization.

In the end, you'll need one forum for talking about Muslims, another for talking about Christians, another for talking about comparisons between muslims and christians, and another for discussing Buddhism, and another for comparing Budhism and Christianity and another for comparing Buddhists and Muslims...

No I won't, because they don't have a place in a post 9/11 forum. I'm sorry you can't grasp that Muslims played a large role in that tragedy, but the others that you name didn't.

You are free to start any topic you care to in the General USA section or Chat section though.

Anyway, just some food for thought which I offer respectfully to the USmessageboard dictator who just responded to me with a minor flame rather than addressing what I see is an obvious logical connection between two distinct "terrorist" movements. In the end, my response was at least as relevant in a forum on Muslims as a post which references the acts of a few individuals rather than the Muslim culture as a whole.

You've been given an opportunity to express your opinion on ANY view you wish. The only thing I am asking is where these views are posted, and that makes me a dictator? If you don't like the hundreds of rules I set in place here, you are welcome to post elsewhere. I didn't realize rules you can count on one hand would be so hard for you to follow.

OR, you could always post your views in the General USA section or Chat section! People cry censorship here, but NO topic other than child porn is censored here.

 

[Creek]

I never beef with anyone here..but your post is off topic to this part of the board..I read into some of what you said....and it's just not for this part of the board...Why make an issue about it..and make your posts so ...so...like when some one reads them..they don't bother finishing......It's great you have something to share..but this approach you're taking is rude..especialy when there is no cencorship here......and you lash at us as your enemy,and as we're pricks or..something worse.

Now please apologize,and post your thoughts in the general section....If you have a beef..post in the general section and ask for a IRA section for the site..maybe the owner will make one up...if you just be half way cool.......I don't know him..and it's worth a shot..If you got something that really means alot..Go To The General Section..and post a message for the board owner to consider a IRA section...I havent read enough of your posts to know if you support them,or are against them...you behavior has made me ignore them..Now try..and be nice....

Creek

 

[Joan]

I am in full agreement with Jim and Creek! This is a section on Muslims - period! Any other thoughts should be posted elsewhere or in the general chat session. As for the moderator being a dictator - you are way out of line. I for one, feel he has put up with a lot of crap from some since this board's beginning.

My idea for you on Friday (Halloween if you don't know) is to strip down naked, hang a potato around your neck - and then you will see a dictator!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Joan
My idea for you on Friday (Halloween if you don't know) is to strip down naked, hang a potato around your neck - and then you will see a dictator!

LOL, that was a good one!

 

[Creek]

Oh boy....Joan...!!!!...Wow!!!!...(laughing)...I have an imagination..but that idea never sprung on me......!!!!....

You're right...I've seen no censorship here..or a dictator type moderation....That's a bologna thing to say....I'm hoping for this gentleman to step foward..and apologize for his slip of the tongue...........

Not sure...but thought he could be one of the guys who did not qualify for the winter expedition survival expedition set for January......If this is the guy...I'll explain to him why we disqualified him...It was for health reasons..not a disliking for this gentleman....

 

[5stringJeff]

OK, potatoes have NOTHING to do with Muslims... you are WAY off topic!!


Just kidding... sorry.

 

[Bry]

Keep your pants on, jim. The "dictator" bit was tongue in cheek, jokes about sticking potatoes in pants aside.

Would you go into a board about the New York Yankees and tell them their team is just like the Chicago Bulls? One is really irrelevant to the other.

If there was a board on the Yanks, and a Bulls fan criticized the Yanks for having a pathetic front office, I should think that pointing out that the Bulls front office is much worse would be considered a relevant response.

People get angry here because articles get posted about Muslims in a bad light. Rather than discuss the article, or Muslims in general, they try to "retaliate" by comparing them to something else.

Obviously, as I explained, I disagree with categorizing such a response as a retaliation. Cultural criticism is inherently a process of comparison, and any criticism of the Muslim culture on a "USmessageboard" implicitly carries the Judeo-Christian perspective as part and parcel, and as such, responses and commentary on the Judeo-Christian culture ARE a relevant response to criticism of the Muslim culture. The pot that calls the kettle black would be (relevantly) shown a mirror. To call such a response irrelevant introduces a conception of relevance that is so strict as to become meaningless for impracticability.

How is my post "spin"? It is a commentary on the practicability of debate in general and cultural criticism in specific, not an ideologically complicit commentary. Cultural criticism is what it is, which is why we don't call it an elephant.

No I won't, because they don't have a place in a post 9/11 forum. I'm sorry you can't grasp that Muslims played a large role in that tragedy, but the others that you name didn't.

Sorry? what? huh? A "post 9/11 forum"? What the hell does THAT mean? That all posts on the board are only relevant in as much as they reflect on a historical date? Buddhism is suddenly irrelevant because a handful of resourceful (Muslim) youngsters took out the most visible symbol of Capitalism in the world? What is "chat ABOUT the Muslim community" but an invitation to cultural criticism? Why don't you just go ahead and name the forum "Xenophobic bashing of the entire Muslim culture because of what a few practicing Muslims did to us", which, by the way, is a lot closer to the old forum titles you recently changed?

Or perhaps you were expecting such relevant possible responses as "gee, what's your problem? I think stoning a woman to death for adultery is a perfectly good and right action,". Thanks, but no thanks. If you want any responses at all, you should expect cross-references to the culture of the US.

I'm not crying cencorship, I'm only offering a suggestion for expanding your definition of relevance (which, by the way, you only seem to be enforcing rigorously on the Muslim, France, and Canada forums: interesting when those are the three forums that are dedicated to cultural criticism.

I think you'll agree that in general I try to keep my posts relevant to the thread titles. In this case, I'm just suggesting that a too-tight definition of relevance may damage the viability of real debate on certain forums.

(It's really funny how offended everyone got by the word "dictator". Especially Creek... I have NO... idea what he...was rambling about. But sorry if I've offended anyone's delicate sensibilities. If you don't think support for the IRA is relevant to support to Muslim extremists in that the two things provoke very different responses from certain sectors, well, just delete it then, or stick it where ever the hell you want. Like I said, I was just offering some food for thought.)

 

[5stringJeff]

Look, I've got to agree with Bry on this one here. He did draw a comparison between the IRA and Muslim terror groups, in that they both have received financial backing from American citizens in the past (or, in the case of Muslim terrorists, the present). I personally don't see how that is off topic in the Muslim forum, in a thread about supporting terrorism.

 

[Bry]

Thanks jeff.

BTW, I like your new icon thingy -- pretty funny stuff.

 

[jimnyc]

Ok, ok, I'll listen to what the members here want.

Everyone is free to discuss what they consider relevant to the topics discussed. There will be no moderation, other than to protect abuse of the board.

I thought it would be nice to keep things in the manner in which we started the original board, about how our lives were effected by 9/11. We moderated the board from posts that weren't germane to the topic.

You guys are now free to initiate a slug fest. Hope you enjoy the Yahoo "feel".

 

[Joan]

Buddhism is suddenly irrelevant because a handful of resourceful (Muslim) youngsters took out the most visible symbol of Capitalism in the world?

Is this in reference to 9/11? And how many innocents were taken out along with this symbol?

Keep your pants on, jim. The "dictator" bit was tongue in cheek, jokes about sticking potatoes in pants aside.

There was no mention of potatoes inside pants - please reread.

Perhaps you are right in your opinions about coming back in comparison with the IRA, but it was your pompous wording that I think was a little offensive.

I do believe though, that when this board was formed, that it mainly focused on the events of 9/11 - and the subject of this forum is "Muslim - chat about the muslim community". Seems like whenever anyone disagrees with the venue, they have to toss in comparisons. Such as in the political forum - the Bush supporters will usually bring up references to Slick Willy - and the democrats will agree with nothing the President does.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Ok, ok, I'll listen to what the members here want.

Everyone is free to discuss what they consider relevant to the topics discussed. There will be no moderation, other than to protect abuse of the board.

I thought it would be nice to keep things in the manner in which we started the original board, about how our lives were effected by 9/11. We moderated the board from posts that weren't germane to the topic.

You guys are now free to initiate a slug fest. Hope you enjoy the Yahoo "feel".

Hold on now...

First, it was Bry and I vs. you, Joan, and Creek... so if we are voting, then you guys win, 3-2.
Secondly, I wasn't arguing for no moderation, I was arguing that his post was indeed relevant to the thread. Whether it is or not is your decision, as the moderator. I would hope that you would take input from the board members, but the ultimate decision is yours.
It's your board, you get to moderate. I was just throwing in my two cents on that particular post.

 

[Creek]

Ok..Bry..I thought you were a Brian we disqualified from the expedition force winter survival our board members take part in......I assumed by your posts,that you were upset about the health qualifications for this outing..but obviously you are a different Brian......My point then just put,is the reactions about the confrontation you had with a moderator.....I felt as you were drowning him with words...I myself didnt wana bother reading the details...cause it was to much reading between the lines with your posts............

 

[Bry]

Again, I agree, jeff. No need to pout and throw moderation to the wind.

and for you, Joan, give me a break. My post was not pompous, unless you count using big words and complete sentences as pompous. Surely there were a few misspellings that reveal me as human, too human. As I said, the "dictator" bit was tongue in cheek.

And I did read your post, but the first time I heard that joke about dick + potato = dictator was slightly different. So, did you want us to believe you were the first person to make that clever pun, or might you accept that there are different ways to tell the same joke? If you were offended by my Irish referece, maybe it will help to point out that my own heritage is Irish, and my name starts with an Mc, and that I have a tendency to consume alcohol in large quantities (on rather infrequent occasions). But for "pompous", mine was certainly no more pompous than jim's which I'll repeat here for your reference.

Thats very interesting. But, do you see the difference between your post and mine? Mine is about Muslims, yours is not. This is the Muslim forum, not the IRA forum. If the IRA ever blows up 2 of our buildings and kills 3,000 people, be sure to post again!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Hold on now...

First, it was Bry and I vs. you, Joan, and Creek... so if we are voting, then you guys win, 3-2.
Secondly, I wasn't arguing for no moderation, I was arguing that his post was indeed relevant to the thread. Whether it is or not is your decision, as the moderator. I would hope that you would take input from the board members, but the ultimate decision is yours.
It's your board, you get to moderate. I was just throwing in my two cents on that particular post.

This was far from the first thread where I was condemned for not allowing replies that, in my opinion, weren't on discussion for what the board was intended. Quite a few users feel that my decisions on "what is on topic" and "what is not" is flawed.

Like I've said earlier, "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".

The only thing I was trying to avoid was having users like Dawoud go from forum to forum and thread to thread posting his articles in response to whatever is being discussed. I had another user do the same last week that I had no alternative but to ban.

I just hope the posts about how Bush's actions in Iraq have slowed down viewer ratings for Monday Night Football doesn't make it's way into the sports forum!

I have listened to members, from day 1. Members have a say in operations and have been given opportunities to make changes on this board from day one, something I doubt you'll find on most boards. I've always respected everyone's right to say what is on their mind.

Anyway, what is "off topic" will now be up to the posters discretion, hopefully it'll stay sane in here.

 

[Creek]

I have to aggree with jim on this one....Once again he bends over backwards to keep this place a free speech board.......it's a pain in the ass.....Jeff you're right too....Bry makes sence too...but we all can't be king of the hills to keep the place running smooth......


Bry as a poster,to another..work with Jim..he'll give you room for shout..and 1000s will see your post too...

Jeff...good diplomatic skill..and negotiating qualities....

I just bumb when the guy that makes this free speech board possible..has to deal with so much free speech...enough to drive a guy mad!!...LOL!!!

Keep up the good work Jim,and I hope we can all walk away shaking hands...and doing some good posting!!..

Creek