Terrorist Fundraisers for Obama

By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/23/2008

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).


But his leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot.

Hatem El-Hady's interest in "change" is understandable. Following the closure of Kindhearts, he said in response to the government's closure of his organization:


"It's dirty politics," said Dr. Hatem Elhady, chairman of the board of KindHearts, which raised $5.1 million in 2004. "They do not like the way things are going in Palestine. They do not like the election results. But that is not our problem. Our problem is providing aid to people in desperate need of help."


The Department of Justice had a very different version of events. According to the DOJ, Kindhearts assumed the role of lead terrorist fundraising in the US after the government had closed other such Islamic "charities":


"KindHearts is the progeny of Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, which attempted to mask their support for terrorism behind the façade of charitable giving," said Stuart Levey, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.


Not only was Kindhearts engaged in providing funds for HAMAS in Lebanon and the West Bank, it had hired as a fundraising specialist the man identified as the designated HAMAS bag man in the US, Mohammed El-Mezain.

And as investigative reporter Joe Kaufman revealed, "The Black Hearts of Kindhearts", a number of other Kindhearts officials were tied to terrorist fundraising and support:


KindHearts’ Director of Domestic Programs, Khalifah Ramadan. Ramadan was a training and evaluation consultant for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), two large Muslim organizations based in the United States that have links to overseas terror groups.
KindHearts’ Representaive, Omar Shahin. Shahin was an Imam for the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), the former home of numerous terror operatives, including Wael Jelaidan, who later helped found Al-Qaeda.
KindHearts’ Representative, Wagdy Ghuneim. Ghuneim, an Egyptian cleric, has been featured in KindHearts fundraising dinners for 2002, 2003 and 2004. During a rally at Brooklyn College, in May of 1998, Ghuneim attempted to persuade the crowd to support violent jihad and labeled Jews as “descendants of the apes.”
KindHearts’ Representative, Hatem Bazian. Bazian is an Islamic Studies instructor and a member of the faculty of Near Eastern Studies at UC Berkley. In April of 2004, during a San Francisco anti-war rally, Bazian, a native Palestinian, called for an “intifada” against the United States. This was just two months prior to Bazian being featured in a KindHearts Fundraising Dinner, entitled ‘Palestinians in agony!’
KindHearts’ Manager in Lebanon, Haytham Maghawri (a.k.a. Haytham Fawri). Maghawri, the past Social Services Director for HLF, according to the Treasury Department, “collected [KindHearts] funds and sent them to Hamas and other Salafi groups.” [One of the recipients of KindHearts funding was Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) Usama Hamdan, a leader of Hamas in Lebanon.]

And two months before Kindhearts closure by the US government, Beila Rabinowitz had revealed that the South Asia Division Coordinator for Kindhearts, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, had known ties to al-Qaeda, even conducting a 10-day tour with officials for the Tablighi Jamaat organization, which the New York Times had described as "a springboard for militancy" and a "recruitment" center for Al-Qaeda.

Barack Obama has promised change. And as indicated by the public support that his candidacy has received by accused terrorist fundraiser Hatem El-Hady, Obama's version of change that terrorists and their US supporters can believe in.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6203178D-C782-42E2-8D56-765A3D7EDCD7

So El-Hady signed up for BarackObama.com (I love the spin in the article; "his own dedicated page" ROFL!) and he put Michelle Obama as one of his buddies. Yes, this is definitely worthy of an article and a post here on allforums.

So El-Hady signed up for BarackObama.com (I love the spin in the article; "his own dedicated page" ROFL!) and he put Michelle Obama as one of his buddies. Yes, this is definitely worthy of an article and a post here on allforums.
Indeed.

Again... it's disheartening how much young people in this country are willing to overlook in their blind support for a candidate who never would have made it this far 20 years ago. Maybe y'all could join up with the other group listed on El-Hady's page...Groups: Muslims 4 Obama -- Joined: Feb 19th, 2008.

Politically correctness has sunk to a new low when people are willing to overlook a candidate's ties to proven terrorist groups, no matter how seemingly 'innocent' they may appear. (That's the key to forming a successful terrorist group, folks. No kidding... they all prefer to 'appear' innocent!)

Again... it's disheartening how much young people in this country are willing to overlook in their blind support for a candidate who never would have made it this far 20 years ago. Maybe y'all could join up with the other group listed on El-Hady's page...Groups: Muslims 4 Obama -- Joined: Feb 19th, 2008.

Politically correctness has sunk to a new low when people are willing to overlook a candidate's ties to proven terrorist groups, no matter how seemingly 'innocent' they may appear. (That's the key to forming a successful terrorist group, folks. No kidding... they all prefer to 'appear' innocent!)

LOL

Again... it's disheartening how much young people in this country are willing to overlook in their blind support for a candidate who never would have made it this far 20 years ago.
SMW, please. I am not an Obama supporter by any means. As it stands right now, my preferences in this election are:
1. McCain
2. Hillary
3. Obama
(Which, I believe, is exactly the same order of preference you have.)

So how about trying to actually look at the facts instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you "blind supporters".

SMW, please. I am not an Obama supporter by any means. As it stands right now, my preferences in this election are:
1. McCain
2. Hillary
3. Obama
(Which, I believe, is exactly the same order of preference you have.)

So how about trying to actually look at the facts instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you "blind supporters".

Amazing how, no matter what I post, you always think it's directed at YOU, dear. Must have a guilty conscience, eh?

BTW, 'disagreeing' with me has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm merely expressing my opinion on the subject... just like everybody else.

DF, after thinking about my response, I believe I owe you a little more explanation for my 'supporting Obama' statement, which on second thought... does include you.

There are many ways to 'support' a candidate besides actually voting for them. In this instance, it appears you 'support' Obama by joining in to ridicule an article raising questions of his motives by pointing out a FACT that his website includes fund-raising pleas by a person known to have been active in terrorist activities in the past.

That's the primary 'support' I was thinking of in my post. Did not intend to imply that you actually plan to vote for the man.

;)
SMW

And the list of questionable characters that associate themselves with Obama grows. I tell you, if Mcain had even one person even half as questionable as any one of these clowns from Obama's past, the media would be full of storys about people with grave concerns about if he was qualfied to be president.

And the list of questionable characters that associate themselves with Obama grows. I tell you, if Mcain had even one person even half as questionable as any one of these clowns from Obama's past, the media would be full of storys about people with grave concerns about if he was qualfied to be president.

ITA, Trav. McCain OR Hillary Clinton. Simply amazing.

Politically correctness has sunk to a new low when people are willing to overlook a candidate's ties to proven terrorist groups, no matter how seemingly 'innocent' they may appear. (That's the key to forming a successful terrorist group, folks. No kidding... they all prefer to 'appear' innocent!)

What ties? You didn't that the article spent a measly TWO SENTENCES tying El-Hady and Obama together? The rest of the article was about how terrible of a person El-Hady is and somehow you gobble this stuff up. You'd think if there was any substantial ties, they'd write about it.

Again... it's disheartening how much young people in this country are willing to overlook in their blind support for a candidate who never would have made it this far 20 years ago. Maybe y'all could join up with the other group listed on El-Hady's page...Groups: Muslims 4 Obama -- Joined: Feb 19th, 2008.

It's disheartening how easily you fall for this crap. I hope your reaction is consistant when two months later we find out McCain once bought a sandwich from Osama's third cousin.

What ties? You didn't that the article spent a measly TWO SENTENCES tying El-Hady and Obama together? The rest of the article was about how terrible of a person El-Hady is and somehow you gobble this stuff up. You'd think if there was any substantial ties, they'd write about it.



It's disheartening how easily you fall for this crap. I hope your reaction is consistant when two months later we find out McCain once bought a sandwich from Osama's third cousin.

I don't base my disgust on the article, CBL. I went to the website and looked for myself. (Wonder how people would feel if McCain's website included a link for MUSLIMS 4 MCCAIN.) I'm very familiar with at least one of the groups with ties to El-Hady... having witnessed their HDQ, which is located in my own county, get taken down by the Feds and following their trial where they attempted to look innocent. They didn't fool anyone then... it's a shame people like you are standing in line to profess their innocence today -- simply because they have ties to Obama so they must be alright!

I'd say you're the one who's easily fooled.

It's disheartening how easily you fall for this crap.

Oh, I think we've all come to expect this sort of thing from SMW. What's really disheartening is that there are actually other people out there who think the same way she does.


I hope your reaction is consistant when two months later we find out McCain once bought a sandwich from Osama's third cousin.

:lolhit:

I'm afraid your scenario is as silly as you are, SMW, but speaking of McCain's website...

What's your opinion of Cindy McCain's "family recipes" (posted on hubby's website) that, it seems, were lifted word for word off of the Food Network site?

Does the fact that McCain has been married for DECADES to a completely dishonest and shameful! woman influence your opinion of McCain in any way?

Oh, I think we've all come to expect this sort of thing from SMW. What's really disheartening is that there are actually other people out there who think the same way she does.

The good news is... people like me will never be responsible for the downfall of America. Wish I could say the same thing about people like you, Frannie.

:slap:

I'm afraid your scenario is as silly as you are, SMW, but speaking of McCain's website...

What's your opinion of Cindy McCain's "family recipes" (posted on hubby's website) that, it seems, were lifted word for word off of the Food Network site?

Does the fact that McCain has been married for DECADES to a completely dishonest and shameful! woman influence your opinion of McCain in any way?

Good try, Fran... but I fail to see the threat to national security.

Wanna try another dance?

I don't base my disgust on the article, CBL. I went to the website and looked for myself. (Wonder how people would feel if McCain's website included a link for MUSLIMS 4 MCCAIN.) I'm very familiar with at least one of the groups with ties to El-Hady... having witnessed their HDQ, which is located in my own county, get taken down by the Feds and following their trial where they attempted to look innocent. They didn't fool anyone then... it's a shame people like you are standing in line to profess their innocence today -- simply because they have ties to Obama so they must be alright!

I'd say you're the one who's easily fooled.

My arguments have nothing to do with El-Hady or groups with ties to him, he can be the worst person in the world and it doesn't change the fact that the tie between him and Obama couldn't be any flimsier. I don't even feel right calling it a tie.

John McCain is friends with a former, domestic terrorist, is supported by a terrorist fund raising group, and has attended a virulently anti-American church for over two decades. In addition his wife has never been proud of her country.

McCain should not even be in consideration for the office of President.



Oh, wait, that isn't John McCain, it's Barack Obama. In that case all the above shrinks to insignificance because Obama is such a great guy.

My arguments have nothing to do with El-Hady or groups with ties to him, he can be the worst person in the world and it doesn't change the fact that the tie between him and Obama couldn't be any flimsier. I don't even feel right calling it a tie.

What would it take to convince you, dear... another attack on America?

ANY tie is one too many. IMHO, of course.

And another thing I'd like to point out.

Is Obama an innocent bystander when it comes to whose name appears on his official website? Can he not control the content? Wait... he's considered an innocent bystander when it comes to his own church's official website as well, isn't he?

Bless his heart... appears he's just not able to control much about his personal image, is he? Wonder how he'll manage to take responsibility for 300 million people's images once elected?

George Bush has stronger terrorist ties than Obama does, but people were pretty forgiving of all that, except for the very very far left.

I think this really ties back to the irrational bigotry towards Muslims in this country, which depresses me in the extreme.

Just my 3 cents.

Good try, Fran... but I fail to see the threat to national security.

The threat posed to our national security by Cindy McCain's lies about her family recipes is exactly equal to the threat posed to our national security by Barack Obama's middle name.

:slap:

What would it take to convince you, dear... another attack on America?

ANY tie is one too many. IMHO, of course.

How about Dubya's direct ties to the bin Laden family? Could that have something to do with 9/11? I will patiently wait for your answer.

Ask her about the Saudi royal family, too!

What's your opinion of Cindy McCain's "family recipes" (posted on hubby's website) that, it seems, were lifted word for word off of the Food Network site?

Does the fact that McCain has been married for DECADES to a completely dishonest and shameful! woman influence your opinion of McCain in any way?
I think it's disgusting, and yes, it paints her character in a negative light. Of course, what she did is a tad different than having a multitude of questionable (a euphemism, for sure) acquaintances, but whatever....

George Bush has stronger terrorist ties than Obama does, but people were pretty forgiving of all that, except for the very very far left.

I think this really ties back to the irrational bigotry towards Muslims in this country, which depresses me in the extreme.

Just my 3 cents.
Exactly. I don't give a shit about the "terrorists" that Bush is "friends" with, and same goes for Obama.

George Bush has stronger terrorist ties than Obama does.....
Yeah, but do you know how to differentiate the "friendship" they have with "questionable" associates? GWB declared war on his "friends", and wants them dead. That's a start wouldn't you say?
I think this really ties back to the irrational bigotry towards Muslims in this country, which depresses me in the extreme.
It does me, too. You know, when tens of thousands line the streets all over the Middle East chanting "Death to America", it just makes me think this whole "bigotry" thing is way outta line on our part. I mean, Muslims aren't bigots, so why are we!?! Seriously – we should ALL put our heads on the proverbial chopping block in an effort to prove how "progressive" and "tolerant" we are. You know, that's the first step in the healing process according to Stuart Smalley, and god knows - we should all heed his advice....

Oh come on Prae. Quitting the irrational hatred of all Muslims is not "putting our heads on the chopping block". We can fight terrorists without thinking that all Muslims are terrorists.

Exactly. I don't give a shit about the "terrorists" that Bush is "friends" with.....
You should. We're at war with 'em. Bush seems to want his buddies dead, as weird as that sounds. Now, Obama, OTOH, is waiting for his "friends" to vote his ass into office.

You should. We're at war with 'em. Bush seems to want his buddies dead, as weird as that sounds. Now, Obama, OTOH, is waiting for his "friends" to vote his ass into office.

What terrorists buddies?

Oh come on Prae. Quitting the irrational hatred of all Muslims is not "putting our heads on the chopping block".
It might as well be; the result is the same.

Oh, and BTW - I'm not talking about irrational hatred - I'm talking about what happens if we drop our guard.
We can fight terrorists without thinking that all Muslims are terrorists.
Of course, not all of 'em are terrorists - some are sympathizers, some try to rationalize the "hatred" their clerics spew, and some are just plain indifferent.

You know, DF - not every prisoner in San Quentin is a homosexual, but does that mean I should intentionally drop the soap while showering to prove it?

What terrorists buddies?
I assume you're referencing Bin Laden, right?

This is the problem right here. We fail to differentiate from true terrorist organizations and Muslims in general. In our overwhelming need to feel secure, we're starting to lash out at those who would be our allies simply because they choose to face Mecca. The United States' rhetoric towards Muslims has been combative at best. In much of the Muslim world, it appears that the United States and the West IS waging a war on Islam. How can you not expect antipathy towards us?

Prae, you bring up the point of thousands in the streets proclaiming "Death to America". Islam is the largest single religion in the world, recently surpassing Catholicism. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world, and by 2050, one quarter of the Earth's population is expected to be Muslim. The sample you've chosen is pathetically small, frustrated, disenfranchised group.

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have calm, clear-headed intellectuals justifying our hostility to an entire religion. We should know better.

The fact is, Islamic scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim have been debating this issue for years. Unfortunately, little of it gets any attention by the media due to the lack of explosions.


Just my 3 cents.

I assume you're referencing Bin Laden, right?

I meant from Obama's side; it looked like you were implying he has terrorist buddies.

In our overwhelming need to feel secure, we're starting to lash out at those who would be our allies simply because they choose to face Mecca.
Allies? Surely, you're aware it's THEIR religious dogma (admittedly, taken to the extreme) that creates...er...PROMOTES the hatred they have for our lifestyle. As long as these people continue to propagate this backwards, inhumane (the Sharia is a prime example of that), and needlessly BRUTAL religion, they'll never be our allies.
The United States' rhetoric towards Muslims has been combative at best.
And their rhetoric towards us hasn't been? Surely, you jest. Those people aren't even privy to news that's not adulterated by their brainwashing governments.
In much of the Muslim world, it appears that the United States and the West IS waging a war on Islam. How can you not expect antipathy towards us?
Fair enough, but why try understanding what makes 'em tick when doing so is like trying to understand what makes a retarded person say stupid things. Understanding 'why' doesn't make the person in question any less retarded, does it? Perhaps you're under the impression that "studying" them will change our perception of the "problem", thus making a future attack less likely, but what will your little academic exercise really accomplish, I wonder? Is it gonna change the way we do business in the M.E.? Will it make us less "decadent"? No, hence those "pathetically small, frustrated, disenfranchised groups" will continue to plan 9/11's regardless of our efforts. The only thing "understanding why" gets us is a thorough cornholing because it necessitates we drop our guard, and for what? The same situation? To make Columbia University proud? What, I'm curious?
Prae, you bring up the point of thousands in the streets proclaiming "Death to America". Islam is the largest single religion in the world, recently surpassing Catholicism. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world, and by 2050, one quarter of the Earth's population is expected to be Muslim. The sample you've chosen is pathetically small, frustrated, disenfranchised group.
Perhaps, but by your own words here, it's growing, no?

I seen Mr Bush smoking the peace pipe with an Israeli guy recently.
The same guy ordered the bombardment of Southern Lebanon.

A couple of weeks ago he was the guest of the most anti democratic regeme in the ME, Saudi Arabia.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Presidents usually try to avoid having meetings with groups that would cut his head off if they got the chance. SO don't expect the prez to be meeting with Hamas or the Taliban in the name of fairness.

Presidents usually try to avoid having meetings with groups that would cut his head off if they got the chance. SO don't expect the prez to be meeting with Hamas or the Taliban in the name of fairness.

Yeah your right, its much more decent to get a young fella to do that type of work from 5000 feet with a lazer guided.

That said, a Prez should meet these type of people to break the stalemate.

Prae: Why does understanding necessitate "dropping our guard"?

You have to understand your enemy before you can beat them.

Prae: Why does understanding necessitate "dropping our guard"?
Well, by its very nature and philosophy, understanding a person’s psychology requires that you do away with any preconceived notions to fully understand who it is you're studying. Disarming yourself is part and parcel of that process. On a personal level, it makes a lot of sense, but not when you're applying it to an entire group of people. Basically, it necessitates that we throw caution to the wind in an effort to be fair and impartial. The people here against racial profiling exemplify the typical 'let's drop our guard in an effort to understand' mindset. IOW, being tolerant is far more important to those people than being logically cautious or rational. JMO.

Is racial profiling illegal in US ?

You have to understand your enemy before you can beat them.
I agree. You have to get a read on his tactics, how he fights, where he hides, and what weapons he has at his disposal. Only then can you kill him and his cohorts effectively.

I agree. You have to get a read on his tactics, how he fights, where he hides, and what weapons he has at his disposal. Only then can you kill him and his cohorts effectively.
More or less that is correct, however, its wise to select targets very carefully, as making them martyrs only causes extra problems.

Is racial profiling illegal in US ?
Yeah, so is preventing people from entering a recruiting station - what's your point? You know, I'll have to admit it, I have a confession here - I didn't think you were one much for legality, but apparently, I was mistaken....

The fact of the matter is, it's technically "illegal" for me to ignore (as a car salesman for BMW, let's say) an 18-year-old black hoodlum because (as my experience has already affirmed) he doesn't have any money, and he'll waste my time. Will I ignore him anyway? Well, Paul, I'm curious - what would you do in that situation????

More or less that is correct, however, its wise to select targets very carefully, as making them martyrs only causes extra problems.
Here, I'm in 100% agreement with you. You're absolutely right.

First off, if you look at any religious doctrine, you can interpret it as a way to justify violence. Christians use it to bomb abortion clinics, justify crusades, hell, even the Holocaust was conducted under the banner of Christianity. That doesn't make Christianity a religion of violence. The word scholars use is Christendom. Nazis were products of Christendom but certainly not Christianity (Lewis).

Similarly, terrorist groups are products of what would be called Islamedom, but no such word exists. It takes the basis of an Islamic culture and incorporates non-Islamic or even anti-Islamic ideals.

Secondly, I believe you misunderstand exactly what Sharia is. Sharia law is the principles outlined in the Qur'an combined with the Sunna, how the Prophet led his life. This creates a set of moral codes by which Muslims can live by. This is not inherently backwards, as it is more or less the same as most other ethical codes. However, what is backwards is the literalist interpretation taken by these extremist groups. By taking the texts strictly at face value with no historical perspective, they use this code of ethics to justify brutal tyranny.

Prae, somehow you seem to be under the impression that if we could just go out and kill all the terrorists, we could solve this problem neat and quick. But it doesn't work like that. In our efforts to eradicate the symptoms (terrorists), we only aggravate the cause and create an atmosphere which is more conducive to extremism.

The population of actual terrorists is unbelievably small, less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent, yet our response to this small group has been massive. We're attacking a beehive with a napalm strike, and in the process, we're going to burn down the whole forest.

I speak of the frustrated masses. Why are they frustrated? Western weapons and tactics has brought them war, and more importantly, defeat. Western political influence has brought them dictators and tyrants. Western economic policies have brought them poverty. And now, Western armies are wrecking their homeland. I'd be pretty pissed too.

So what to these people do? They look back into history to try and find greatness. What they see is the golden age of the Islamic empire. They think that if they can regain the strength of Islam, they can recapture this lost strength.

Moderates and reformers approach this task by trying to adopt Western principles and incorporating them into modern Islam. Rejectionists see the West as the cause of the weakness and therefore seek to purify their faith by going back to its roots, and that means taking a literal and restrictive stance towards their religion and the world.

The enemy we are facing here is not extremists, but the ideas behind extremism. It's just like fighting Communism or any other -ism. The war will not be won on the battlefield, but in the minds of the people. The US is used to throwing it's weight around as the great hegemony, but that attitude isn't going to work anymore. The sooner that we realize the dynamics of the situation, the sooner we can start to change the world one little piece at a time.

Those who frame the world in black and white only display ignorance and disguise it as argument.

Just my 3 cents.

Amazing post, EH. You're absolutely right about this.

First off, if you look at any religious doctrine, you can interpret it as a way to justify violence. Christians use it to bomb abortion clinics, justify crusades, hell, even the Holocaust was conducted under the banner of Christianity.
Quite true.
Secondly, I believe you misunderstand exactly what Sharia is. Sharia law is the principles outlined in the Qur'an combined with the Sunna, how the Prophet led his life. This creates a set of moral codes by which Muslims can live by. This is not inherently backwards, as it is more or less the same as most other ethical codes. However, what is backwards is the literalist interpretation taken by these extremist groups.
Fair enough, but are you aware that it governs every aspect of their life? I mean, it's a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence for Muslims NO MATTER WHERE THEY'RE LIVING. They stone homosexuals based on that text. You don’t need to take a "literal" interpretation of it at all; it's barbaric in the extreme.
By taking the texts strictly at face value with no historical perspective, they use this code of ethics to justify brutal tyranny.
The text itself justifies brutal tyranny.
Western economic policies have brought them poverty. And now, Western armies are wrecking their homeland. I'd be pretty pissed too.
Noooo - THEIR economic policies have brought them poverty, and THEIR religi-laws have kept them stuck in the 12 century. All we did was pick sides out of necessity.
So what to these people do? They look back into history to try and find greatness. What they see is the golden age of the Islamic empire. They think that if they can regain the strength of Islam, they can recapture this lost strength.
I have no doubt you're absolutely right.
Moderates and reformers approach this task by trying to adopt Western principles and incorporating them into modern Islam. Rejectionists see the West as the cause of the weakness and therefore seek to purify their faith by going back to its roots, and that means taking a literal and restrictive stance towards their religion and the world.

The enemy we are facing here is not extremists, but the ideas behind extremism. It's just like fighting Communism or any other -ism. The war will not be won on the battlefield, but in the minds of the people. The US is used to throwing it's weight around as the great hegemony, but that attitude isn't going to work anymore. The sooner that we realize the dynamics of the situation, the sooner we can start to change the world one little piece at a time.
I see your point. Thank you for expounding, EH. It's appreciated, as always. :)

The text itself justifies brutal tyranny.
And the Bible doesn't? No one in their right mind would try to justify stoning people for eating shellfish now, even if we were in a country ruled officially by Christian principles.

And the Bible doesn't? No one in their right mind would try to justify stoning people for eating shellfish now....
Oh, you must be referring to the Old Testament; a chapter of the bible that's been widely dismissed as barbaric by, well, pretty much every sentient being on the planet. On that note, I wonder what's holding the Muslims up.
....even if we were in a country ruled officially by Christian principles.
Ah, but we're not now, are we - and for good reason.

Oh, you must be referring to the Old Testament; a chapter of the bible that's been widely dismissed as barbaric by, well, pretty much every sentient being on the planet. On that note, I wonder what's holding the Muslims up.
Jews still believe in the OT. :thumbs:

Well, everyone on Allforums knows they're evil. Oh, and good point. :)

You are very open to discussion on this Prae. Thank you, it's very appreciated.

Now,

I find it ironic that the people arguing that Islam is a religion of violence use the very same interpretations of the Qur'an that the terrorists use, even though it is widely acknowledged that those interpretations are incorrect.

In order to properly understand Sharia law, one must look at it through the lens of history. Just as if one wanted to properly understand the U.S. Constitution. The framers had no mind to spell out the creation of the FAA or the Department of Homeland security or the Civil Rights Act of 1965, yet they all exist with Constitutional justification. This is because our jurors have allowed for an evolving interpretation of the Constitution to fit the needs of modern times.

The same thing happened with Sharia law. Unlike other religious texts, the Qur'an is not just a religious document, but a practical guide for a functioning society. Society in the 7th century is a far cry from what it is now, and things that seemed normal then, are barbaric today. The key is understanding how the past and the present work together.

For instance: the status of women. The Qur'an states that in a contractual agreement, there should be one male witness, or two female witnesses, or any combination thereof. Does that mean that women are only equal to half of a man? Far from it. Back then, women were not often part of the business world and there was no public education for women. It would be reasonable to assume then that women would not have as firm a grasp of contractual negotiations as men, on the whole. However, groups such as the Taliban have taken this idea and interpreted it into a warped extreme to justify misogyny and tyranny.

The first part of understanding something is seeing it through the proper perspective, and realizing that your view is not the only one, and it may not even be the correct one.

The other issue I'd like to address is one I forgot earlier. Al Jazeera gets a bad rap here. Personally, I think that it's because it has a funny sounding name and everyone on it is brown.

Al Jazeera is an independent news organization. They have the same agenda as every other news organization; to make money. In countries like Syria or Iran, Al Jazeera is consistently banned because it speaks out against the local government and contradicts what the government news organizations say. Just because it doesn't provide the exact same talking points as Fox or CNN doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just a different perspective. I bet a lot of people could learn something if they took the time to actually watch it.

Just my 3 cents.

Nice posts, Homer. Very well said.

[QUOTE=Evil Homer]You are very open to discussion on this Prae. Thank you, it's very appreciated.

Like...NOT.
I find it insultingly silly that some feel the need to converse in
segmented chapters,as if their auditioning for a Press Conference.
Juts state yer overview in one or two,maybe Twee statements.
This is a Message Board.
No one will earn any sort of scholastic pts. or junior league
merit scholarship to a Norman Vincent Peele internet-at-home
for degree program.
Bee 4 Real...already.

Nice posts, Homer. Very well said.


The Iliad

" But we mortals hear only the news and no nothing at all. "
-- Homer

I apologize, Foolie, if my posting style isn't up to your standards of witty repartee. It takes me a little longer to get the complexity of my thoughts into a coherent form. We can't all be as clear and succinct as you are, my eccentric friend.

Assalam Alaykum

Yeah, so is preventing people from entering a recruiting station - what's your point? You know, I'll have to admit it, I have a confession here - I didn't think you were one much for legality, but apparently, I was mistaken.... Your right, stopping people entering a recruiting station is illegal, refusing to have a recruiting station in your face is not illegal.
Now,what makes you think Im against legality ?

The fact of the matter is, it's technically "illegal" for me to ignore (as a car salesman for BMW, let's say) an 18-year-old black hoodlum because (as my experience has already affirmed) he doesn't have any money, and he'll waste my time. Will I ignore him anyway? Well, Paul, I'm curious - what would you do in that situation????

What would I do, Id get him the car on drip, let him drive it home, get my comossion for the sale and let the finance company chase him for the payment.

What do I care if he can afford the car, I only sell them.

First off, if you look at any religious doctrine, you can interpret it as a way to justify violence. Christians use it to bomb abortion clinics, justify crusades, hell, even the Holocaust was conducted under the banner of Christianity. That doesn't make Christianity a religion of violence. The word scholars use is Christendom. Nazis were products of Christendom but certainly not Christianity (Lewis).

Similarly, terrorist groups are products of what would be called Islamedom, but no such word exists. It takes the basis of an Islamic culture and incorporates non-Islamic or even anti-Islamic ideals.

Secondly, I believe you misunderstand exactly what Sharia is. Sharia law is the principles outlined in the Qur'an combined with the Sunna, how the Prophet led his life. This creates a set of moral codes by which Muslims can live by. This is not inherently backwards, as it is more or less the same as most other ethical codes. However, what is backwards is the literalist interpretation taken by these extremist groups. By taking the texts strictly at face value with no historical perspective, they use this code of ethics to justify brutal tyranny.

Prae, somehow you seem to be under the impression that if we could just go out and kill all the terrorists, we could solve this problem neat and quick. But it doesn't work like that. In our efforts to eradicate the symptoms (terrorists), we only aggravate the cause and create an atmosphere which is more conducive to extremism.

The population of actual terrorists is unbelievably small, less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent, yet our response to this small group has been massive. We're attacking a beehive with a napalm strike, and in the process, we're going to burn down the whole forest.

I speak of the frustrated masses. Why are they frustrated? Western weapons and tactics has brought them war, and more importantly, defeat. Western political influence has brought them dictators and tyrants. Western economic policies have brought them poverty. And now, Western armies are wrecking their homeland. I'd be pretty pissed too.

So what to these people do? They look back into history to try and find greatness. What they see is the golden age of the Islamic empire. They think that if they can regain the strength of Islam, they can recapture this lost strength.

Moderates and reformers approach this task by trying to adopt Western principles and incorporating them into modern Islam. Rejectionists see the West as the cause of the weakness and therefore seek to purify their faith by going back to its roots, and that means taking a literal and restrictive stance towards their religion and the world.

The enemy we are facing here is not extremists, but the ideas behind extremism. It's just like fighting Communism or any other -ism. The war will not be won on the battlefield, but in the minds of the people. The US is used to throwing it's weight around as the great hegemony, but that attitude isn't going to work anymore. The sooner that we realize the dynamics of the situation, the sooner we can start to change the world one little piece at a time.

Those who frame the world in black and white only display ignorance and disguise it as argument.

Just my 3 cents.

Great post EH!
Well said!
There are extremists in every religion who cherry pick what they want from their religion to justify their actions. They are a tiny but troublesome minority.

Have you seen the new film, Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden? I think you might enjoy it.

I'm more of a literary person. I'm very wary of films that try to tell me what to think. Unless they're nature shows. Those are cool.

Mainly though, I prefer books because there's always a reply. Movies tend to wrap things up too neatly, when, in reality, the debate is ongoing. However, I can't say how this applies to "WITWI Osama Bin Laden".

I'm more of a literary person. I'm very wary of films that try to tell me what to think. Unless they're nature shows. Those are cool.

Mainly though, I prefer books because there's always a reply. Movies tend to wrap things up too neatly, when, in reality, the debate is ongoing. However, I can't say how this applies to "WITWI Osama Bin Laden".

The only reason I brought it up is I think it backs up part of what you were saying in your post. It was a documentary of his travels around the middle east, talking to lots of different people, showing what real conditions there are like and how complicated the situation really is.

Can you say media with a severe liberal slant?

Well, Dharm and FT can't say that.


And the list of questionable characters that associate themselves with Obama grows. I tell you, if Mcain had even one person even half as questionable as any one of these clowns from Obama's past, the media would be full of storys about people with grave concerns about if he was qualfied to be president.

Can you say media with a severe liberal slant?

Well, Dharm and FT can't say that.

Because it is not true.

The conservative corporate media does not have a "severe liberal slant".

SOmetimes it is hard to spot something if it is not different from are. Just like a smoker can't smell smoke on someone else, a liberal can't see how liberal the media is.

SOmetimes it is hard to spot something if it is not different from are. Just like a smoker can't smell smoke on someone else, a liberal can't see how liberal the media is.

Right. That explains why the liberal media has been so respectful of and gentle with Mr. Obama, and has gone so far out of its way to attack Mr. McCain for his failures/questionable activities/crazy friends.

:slap:

LMAO, the media IS gentle with Obama, it is so obvious even SNL did a skit on it. Where have you been?

Right. That explains why the liberal media has been so respectful of and gentle with Mr. Obama, and has gone so far out of its way to attack Mr. McCain for his failures/questionable activities/crazy friends.

:slap:
his failures/questionable activities/crazy friends pale in comparison.:slap:

Liberals can't see how liberal the media is, and conservatives can't see how conservative the media is. I don't think the media in general has a noticeable slant either way. I can see slants on individual news channels or papers, but no slant in general.

By the way, I think I'm qualified to judge this fairly impartially, since 1/3 of Allforums calls me liberal, 1/3 calls me conservative, and 1/3 agrees with me that I'm moderate. :)

In order to properly understand Sharia law, one must look at it through the lens of history. Just as if one wanted to properly understand the U.S. Constitution. The framers had no mind to spell out the creation of the FAA or the Department of Homeland security or the Civil Rights Act of 1965, yet they all exist with Constitutional justification. This is because our jurors have allowed for an evolving interpretation of the Constitution to fit the needs of modern times.

The same thing happened with Sharia law. Unlike other religious texts, the Qur'an is not just a religious document, but a practical guide for a functioning society. Society in the 7th century is a far cry from what it is now, and things that seemed normal then, are barbaric today. The key is understanding how the past and the present work together.

For instance: the status of women. The Qur'an states that in a contractual agreement, there should be one male witness, or two female witnesses, or any combination thereof. Does that mean that women are only equal to half of a man? Far from it. Back then, women were not often part of the business world and there was no public education for women. It would be reasonable to assume then that women would not have as firm a grasp of contractual negotiations as men, on the whole. However, groups such as the Taliban have taken this idea and interpreted it into a warped extreme to justify misogyny and tyranny.

The first part of understanding something is seeing it through the proper perspective, and realizing that your view is not the only one, and it may not even be the correct one.
Excellent points, and I'll have to agree - you're right. That's a very levelheaded way to view the situation.
The other issue I'd like to address is one I forgot earlier. Al Jazeera gets a bad rap here. Personally, I think that it's because it has a funny sounding name and everyone on it is brown.
This, I disagree with. I have a problem with Al Jazeera because their "perspective" (on about 80% of the stories they run) sucks.
Just my 3 cents.
You know, I think it's worth more. ;)

Your right, stopping people entering a recruiting station is illegal, refusing to have a recruiting station in your face is not illegal.
Now,what makes you think Im against legality ?
That's not what we were talking about regarding the Berkeley situation. You seemed to be OK with the protesters physically barring people from the door, and moreover, you dismissed the police officers' INaction to rectify it. There was also a blatant disregard for adhering to code, and in addition to that, the permits offered to code pink were extremely biased (read; illegally offered), and yet, you said nothing about it.
What do I care if he can afford the car, I only sell them.
Well, Paul, there's a fundamental problem with your objective here if the man we're talking about can't afford the car in question. You see, here in the states, we have something called "credit", and that's what determines whether or not he has the ability to drive away in "his" new car.

On that note, what the hell do you use over there to verify someone's purchasing power? A credit card impression?
What would I do, Id get him the car on drip, let him drive it home, get my comossion for the sale and let the finance company chase him for the payment.
Well, it's a common practice to screw the morons here, too. I assume that's what you mean by "drip", no?

Unfortunately, rarely do those dipshits even know if they've leased or purchased the vehicle we're talking about, and if not to make matters worse, typically, IF (operative word here) they're given an opportunity to purchase the vehicle through a lending institution that specializes in "poor credit" approvals (on, let's say, a 120 month plan :eek: ), then they're gonna pay roughly 300% of that car's total worth over the duration of the loan. READ; it's not even worth taking the time to find out if they can eek their way into the driver's seat.

P.S. Nice backpedal though, and uh, I almost forgot - you'd be as shitty salesman. ;)

That's not what we were talking about regarding the Berkeley situation. You seemed to be OK with the protesters physically barring people from the door, and moreover, you dismissed the police officers' INaction to rectify it. There was also a blatant disregard for adhering to code, and in addition to that, the permits offered to code pink were extremely biased (read; illegally offered), and yet, you said nothing about it. As regards the Recruiting Station, I said at the time that protesting against its location is a 'right' enjoyed by Americans, just as much as the people flown in to support it had the 'right' to protest in its favour.

The Federal Gov, or parts thereof were wrong to 'threaten' the city with witholding funding for other programmes as a result, just shows, Government comes before the people.

Well, Paul, there's a fundamental problem with your objective here if the man we're talking about can't afford the car in question. You see, here in the states, we have something called "credit", and that's what determines whether or not he has the ability to drive away in "his" new car. Well ya see,believe it or not, we have something called 'credit' here also. These credit companies,just like yours,use a scoring system to dish out finance,the secret about getting credit is to tell the finance company what they want to hear,just ask anyone with a subprime.

Well, it's a common practice to screw the morons here, too. I assume that's what you mean by "drip", no?
'Drip' is a term used for purchasing an item and paying for it monthly,like a car,TV,freeer, ''getting it on the drip''.

Unfortunately, rarely do those dipshits even know if they've leased or purchased the vehicle we're talking about, and if not to make matters worse, typically, IF (operative word here) they're given an opportunity to purchase the vehicle through a lending institution that specializes in "poor credit" approvals (on, let's say, a 120 month plan :eek: ), then they're gonna pay roughly 300% of that car's total worth over the duration of the loan. READ; it's not even worth taking the time to find out if they can eek their way into the driver's seat.Now we're talking about selling a car here, whats with the 120 month plan,c'mon.

P.S. Nice backpedal though, and uh, I almost forgot - you'd be as shitty salesman. ;)Backpeddling on what ?

PS: I already sold the 18yo black a car while your questioning the morals of the sale Mr Professional Businessman,hows that.

Anybody who thinks there is a liberal bias in the corporate media needs to have their heads examined.

The media treats McCain far more gently than they do Obama. For Pete's sake, Rev. John Hagee, who McCain sought out for his support, says essentially the same thing as Fred Phelps, that America is being punished by God for our tolerance of homosexuals.

That is worse than ANYTHING Rev. Wright ever said!

LMAO, the media IS gentle with Obama, it is so obvious even SNL did a skit on it.That seems to have been the turning point. The media's been on Obama's ass ever since.

Anybody who thinks there is a liberal bias in the corporate media needs to have their heads examined.

The media treats McCain far more gently than they do Obama. For Pete's sake, Rev. John Hagee, who McCain sought out for his support, says essentially the same thing as Fred Phelps, that America is being punished by God for our tolerance of homosexuals.

That is worse than ANYTHING Rev. Wright ever said!

Has Mcain been going to HAgee's church for the past 20 years? no. If you can not understand the difference then you are either stupid or purposely ignorant. On the other hand I can understand how you see insulting homosexuals as a greater offense then subjecting all of America to god's damnation.

Its a pity the 'media' isnt 'liberal' in America. It would show how much bullshit is wrapped up in stars and stripes and sold as 'national security'.

Its a pity the 'media' isnt 'liberal' in America. It would show how much bullshit is wrapped up in stars and stripes and sold as 'national security'.

Note;

...virtually ALL of the mainstream Corporate propaganda that is wrapped up and shoved (through the various media outlets like t.v., radio, magazines, newspapers, etc) down the throats of the Public in America is **bullshit is wrapped up in stars and stripes and sold as 'national security'**.

THAT is how the vast herd is kept in line, kept complacent, kept in the dark, kept docile and subservient, kept being convinced to vote against their own best interests.

As regards the Recruiting Station, I said at the time that protesting against its location is a 'right' enjoyed by Americans, just as much as the people flown in to support it had the 'right' to protest in its favour.

The Federal Gov, or parts thereof were wrong to 'threaten' the city with witholding funding for other programmes as a result, just shows, Government comes before the people.
In short, you missed roughly 9 of the 10 most salient points in that argument, Paul, but we're not gonna rehash it here.
Well ya see,believe it or not, we have something called 'credit' here also. These credit companies,just like yours,use a scoring system to dish out finance,the secret about getting credit is to tell the finance company what they want to hear,just ask anyone with a subprime.
I know, I was being facetious when I mentioned credit. My point: you can't just "sell" someone a car if they can't afford it.
'Drip' is a term used for purchasing an item and paying for it monthly,like a car,TV,freeer, ''getting it on the drip''.
Oh, I see. Well, that's cool - I learned a new 'euro' expression. :)
Now we're talking about selling a car here, whats with the 120 month plan,c'mon.
Well, here in the States, that's called a 'screw the dumbfucks' plan. It's pretty simple, actually. It allows your average degenerate to finance (what you were calling, "on the drip") a 50 thousand dollar truck over 10 years at a low, low 24% APR with nothing down (when that very same idiot just so happens to rent a 600 dollar a month apartment).

I will comment on the 'finance' issue only, as the rest pretty much makes sense, tho anyone paying fifty grand for a pick up is fucken nuts.

I have always found that getten finance is no problem, not just for me, but for anyone.
Once you know how to work the system, its easy.

Sales Reps couldnt give a shit if you can afford re-payments on a car or not, some even go to the extent of filling in application forms for the buyer, to make sure they 'clear' finance, all they are interested in is getten the commision and moving on, if the car is a repo 6 months down the line, its no skin off their nose.

My point: you can't just "sell" someone a car if they can't afford it.

Sure you can. Happens all the time. Same thing with houses and RVs and big screen TVs. People are always tempted to live beyond their means, and there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there more than happy to sell those people things they can't afford.

Sure you can. Happens all the time. Same thing with houses and RVs and big screen TVs. People are always tempted to live beyond their means, and there are plenty of unscrupulous people out there more than happy to sell those people things they can't afford.
I knew someone would bring that up, and to be honest, you're absolutely right. Look, my point was simple; the people who typically get approved for financing an item they can't "afford" (through the standard 5 or so lending institutions) are usually the ones who won't buy the item in question because they've proven to be responsible with their cash.

However, OTOH, you're correct in assuming it happens all the time with regards to impulse buys (TV's, appliances, home stereo's, etc). Even the most savvy amongst us can fall prey to that, but no seemingly responsible person gets themself into a bind over a car or home. I mean, seriously - one has to go to special lengths to screw themselves when they start bringing in high-risk, third party lenders, who specialize in 8 and 10 year car notes at 20+%. Most salesmen already KNOW this, and they're not gonna waste their time trying to find out which institution green-lights financing a bona fide loser when the whole process takes a lot of time and there's only about a 25% chance of it happening.

That was my whole point to Paul, and it turned into this. Oy Vey. :eek:

I will comment on the 'finance' issue only, as the rest pretty much makes sense, tho anyone paying fifty grand for a pick up is fucken nuts.

bite your tongue mister! i'm shopping for an F-450 diesel and a wedge trailer.

I mean, seriously - one has to go to special lengths to screw themselves when they start bringing in high-risk, third party lenders, who specialize in 8 and 10 year car notes at 20+%.

That was my whole point to Paul, and it turned into this. Oy Vey. :eek:

I know. I just wanted to yank yer chain a little. :D

bite your tongue mister! i'm shopping for an F-450 diesel and a wedge trailer.

Sounds like something that shoots off the end of an aircraft carrier.

I know. I just wanted to yank yer chain a little. :D
Damn it! And you made me type that!? You're evil.

Sounds like something that shoots off the end of an aircraft carrier.
Actually, it's an all AMERICAN pick 'em up truck, Paul. Here's a photo of one:

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2008/ford.f450.super.duty/ford.f450.340.jpg

Damn it! And you made me type that!? You're evil.

It's part of my charm. :p

Actually, it's an all AMERICAN pick 'em up truck, Paul. Here's a photo of one:

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2008/ford.f450.super.duty/ford.f450.340.jpg

Thats a big bitch, I could park my car on the back.

No doubt ya need to have a gas truck follow ya round in one of em.

Thats a big bitch, I could park my car on the back.
Not only could you do that, you could tow 20 of 'em. (look at the silhouette of the diff for Christ's sake! :eek: )
No doubt ya need to have a gas truck follow ya round in one of em.
Nah, they hold A LOT of diesel, and that's a good thing, 'cause, uh...they need to. ;)

Thats a big bitch, I could park my car on the back.

No doubt ya need to have a gas truck follow ya round in one of em.
that's kind the idea behind having a wedge trailer...

http://www.4x4plus.com/Bldg-Trailer.jpg

:lolhit:

I was informed before [by Drew I think] that US filling stations usually dont have diesel pumps, and that diesel is very unpopular.

Any probs filling that beast up ?

I was informed before [by Drew I think] that US filling stations usually dont have diesel pumps, and that diesel is very unpopular.

Any probs filling that beast up ?
It's becoming incredibly popular as common rail diesels typically offer better economy than their gas-burning counterparts (with a wider band of usability). We're just now (as in, the last few years) starting to get low sulfur diesel here.

Not only could you do that, you could tow 20 of 'em. (look at the silhouette of the diff for Christ's sake! :eek: )
24,500 lbs of fifth wheel it will pull:thumbs:
Nah, they hold A LOT of diesel, and that's a good thing, 'cause, uh...they need to. ;)
it comes with a big tank, but you can always make'em bigger with an auxiliary tank.

Actually, it's an all AMERICAN pick 'em up truck, Paul. Here's a photo of one:

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2008/ford.f450.super.duty/ford.f450.340.jpg


Beautiful truck......too bad it's a Ford :D





I'm gonna get it for that

That truck is freakin' GORGEOUS. I'm a Ford girl when it comes to trucks, but it's not like I hate Chevys or anything. In the muscle car department I like Fords and Chevys equally.

In the muscle car department I like Fords and Chevys equally.
They were equal. The Dodge hemi was the superior performer due to a serious innovation at the time; hemispherical heads.

Had enough with the gearhead talk, ladies? :D

Speaking of Dodge, I was reading an article in Motor Trend about the new Challenger. I have to say, it looks amazing.

That truck is freakin' GORGEOUS. I'm a Ford girl when it comes to trucks, but it's not like I hate Chevys or anything. In the muscle car department I like Fords and Chevys equally.


The Ford jab is a joke between Mike and me.
I love the F Series trucks,that one pictured especially. I'm shallow in the way that I go for looks first then assess the inner workings of a vehicle.


Had enough with the gearhead talk, ladies?


nope,by all means,go ahead and talk the talk Prae. :D

....I was reading an article in Motor Trend.....
:eek:

You're not like any chick I've ever met.

:eek:

You're not like any chick I've ever met.
she bakes cookies too.