LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an Al Qaeda-influenced group nursing a "profound hatred of U.S. citizens" were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday.

The three men had some 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide -- easily enough to make a bomb with the explosive power of 1,200 pounds of TNT, prosecutors said at a news conference.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295753,00.html

It will be interesting to see if these suspects are spun to be harmless like those who wanted to blow up JFK or the ones who had planned the attack on Fort Dix. Regardless, kudos to the German authorities.

Also note the mention of similar arrests in Denmark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4389538.stm

It is certainly fair to question how Pres. Bush is conducting the War on Terror(ism) but I don't think you can question its existence. Bumper sticker indeed Sen. Edwards.

I thought Edwards' bumper sticker read:

"Ignore the money, I'm just like you!"

No doubt the threat is real and people want to kill us. However, the approach and the way to fight this ideology should be fully debated. Of course I don't want to wait for the debate to end while radicals are blowing up people. Personally I don't think this country has had a full and honest debate. It's also tough to believe that you can fight this "war" with conventional military forces primarily. Again, this proves that with good police work and given the resources to do their job they can do it. Should the military be employed when necessary? Absolutely. The Pittsburgh police can not call up a F-16 air strike or a cruise missile when needed. I agree that we also may need boots on the ground in some cases. Can all attempts be stopped? No. Fortunately the wiretaps haven't made it inside our heads to read our thoughts. Or have they?

The Pittsburgh police will need alot more then F-16's if this politically correct nonsense continues:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48295525@N00/1322221771/

Sonny wrote:The Pittsburgh police will need alot more then F-16's if this politically correct nonsense continues:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48295525@N00/1322221771/

What is the "politically correct nonsense" here? Giving a group the right to set up a display at a fair of some type? Where was this "bazaar" taking place? Do Islamic groups not have the same rights as others for self-expression?
From Wikipedia;

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international, Sunni, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state (caliph).

Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a Sufi Islamic scholar and appeals court judge (Qadi) from Jerusalem, founded the organization in 1953.

The party promotes "an elaborate and detailed program for instituting an Islamist state" which will "establish the laws of the Islamic Shariah and to carry the Da'wah of Islam to the world." It believes this "comprehensive solution" will provide "sincere leadership that cares for and protects its citizens from the colonial foreign policies of Bush and Blair" and bring an end to "US interventions, energy inspired wars, puppet (Muslim) governments and western values forced by the barrel of a gun." HT is strongly anti-Zionist and calls for "the dismantling of the illegal entity of Israel," whose leadership "has never concealed its hatred of Muslims and have been calling for the destruction of Muslims since the very beginning." HT believes a caliphate "will provide stability and security to all the people of the region, Muslims and Non-Muslims" .

Certainly not a group that I follow, since they want to establish a caliphate governed by the teachings of the Koran. It shows why our principles of separation of church and state should be valued, and not mocked when people protest about religious items in public places. That is just another side of this same coin.

They are accused of being anti-Semetic, but they also reject that claim with a viable argument...

We reject decisively the charge of anti-Semitism ... at the same time we decisively reject Zionism represented in the form of Israel...The state of Israel is founded upon a land that it took by force, after it drove out its people, both Muslim and Christian. This is injustice, which we will never accept from an Islamic perspective, regardless of the race of the perpetrators. In Palestine, Islam is in conflict with Israelis — not in their capacity as Jews who historically had lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries — but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors.

They have not been found to be a terrorist organization by the US or Britain...

Global Security has stated that:
"The United States Government is continuing to monitor Hizb ut-Tahrir. Despite the statements of governments of the region, the United States has found no clear ties between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity. Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been proven to have involvement in or direct links to any recent acts of violence or terrorism. Nor has it been proven to give financial support to other groups engaged in terrorism. Because of that, it falls outside the definitions used by the United States and others to designate a terrorist group.

According to a leaked unpublished government report produced for Tony Blair, revealed to The Guardian Newspaper printed on 8th August 2005, the prime minister has been advised that the party is not involved in violence or terrorism. A paper called ‘Young Muslims and Extremism’, was prepared for Mr Blair on the orders of the home and foreign secretaries. It says:

"Most of the structured organisations, e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, will not directly advocate violence. Indeed membership or sympathy with such an organisation does not in any way presuppose a move towards terrorism."

The document adds that young people attracted to terrorism may shy away from HT because they do not espouse violence, and would be seen as only engaged in "pointless pontification and debate". UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Bill Rammell agrued that;

“ "We have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organization advocates violence or terrorism. Nor are we aware of any co-operation between it and Al Qaeda."

They also condemned the 9/11 attacks...

HuT issued a leaflet on September 18, 2001 after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York stating:

The rules of this Message forbids any aggression against civilian non-combatants. They forbid killing of children, the elderly and non-combatant women even in the battlefield. They forbid the hijacking of civilian aeroplanes carrying innocent civilians and forbid the destruction of homes and offices which contain innocent civilians. All of these actions are types of aggression which Islam forbids and Muslims should not undertake such actions."

So while this is an organization that has a goal that I would be opposed to (after all, they would ban the use of alcohol), if we want to protect our civil liberties we need to protect their civil liberties, as long as they follow the laws of our nation.

I just find statements like "politically correct nonsense" to be reflective of the general anti-Islamic sentiment that is so widespread. While understandable, it is wrong - and only feeds the perception that the entire religion is under attack from the West.

Oh, by the way, I applaud the work of the German and Danish police in monitoring and thwarting the actions of violent extremists,just as I do the same with our efforts here. Just use the lawful tools we have (which are already vast) and quit trying to trample on the Bill of rights and the Constitution in the vague name of GWAT.

We reject decisively the charge of anti-Semitism ... at the same time we decisively reject Zionism represented in the form of Israel...The state of Israel is founded upon a land that it took by force, after it drove out its people, both Muslim and Christian. This is injustice, which we will never accept from an Islamic perspective, regardless of the race of the perpetrators. In Palestine, Islam is in conflict with Israelis — not in their capacity as Jews who historically had lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries — but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! What he meant to say was:

The United Nations came up with a plan to split up the area that wasn't and has never been a nation of "Palestine" and have it under UN control to avoid any conflict...Israel accepted...and the local Arabs rejected it. Then Israel proclaimed itself a nation as the British mandate ended and was attacked almost immediately by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. A war which Israel won. In the meantime, yes...Arabs left Israel due to persecution and war...just as jews left the surrounding middle eastern countries due to persecution and war. Almost ironic since jews were living in that territory since BEFORE Islam was created in the 7th century....since apparently it is an Islam vs Israel war.

Beta wrote:

We reject decisively the charge of anti-Semitism ... at the same time we decisively reject Zionism represented in the form of Israel...The state of Israel is founded upon a land that it took by force, after it drove out its people, both Muslim and Christian. This is injustice, which we will never accept from an Islamic perspective, regardless of the race of the perpetrators. In Palestine, Islam is in conflict with Israelis — not in their capacity as Jews who historically had lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries — but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! What he meant to say was:

The United Nations came up with a plan to split up the area that wasn't and has never been a nation of "Palestine" and have it under UN control to avoid any conflict...Israel accepted...and the local Arabs rejected it. Then Israel proclaimed itself a nation as the British mandate ended and was attacked almost immediately by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. A war which Israel won. In the meantime, yes...Arabs left Israel due to persecution and war...just as jews left the surrounding middle eastern countries due to persecution and war. Almost ironic since jews were living in that territory since BEFORE Islam was created in the 7th century....since apparently it is an Islam vs Israel war.

Yes, but possession being 9/10's of the law, one can understand the feeling of the population that inhabitated the region of Palestine at this time that their land was being taken unjustly from them. Whether it was officially a nation or not, it's where a large group of people were currently living;

In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were 700,000 people living in Palestine:
Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions.

By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews

I'm sure we would feel the same way if the Native Americans came around and laid claim to their historic homelands that had been forceably taken from them, backed by an international mandate that we weren't a party to - "You'll take this land when you pry my cold fingers from the barrel of this gun!" It's not like this area of the world was devoid of people and you could just come in and plunk down the nation of Israel without affecting anyone.

The United Nations didn't magically transport all of the Jews to that area on a whim. The Jews were already there and decided they should create a nation then massive migrations into (Jews) and out of (muslims) occurred during/after then 1948 War. The Jews didn't "take the land" or "kick out" the islamics...they said "We are starting a nation" and violence erupted. Perhaps had the non-Jews in the area at the time decided to be civil and delegate instead of using rare islamic-violence then maybe 5 other nations wouldn't have waged war (and lost) against the new nation....and maybe a gov't that existed could have taken place...like the United Nations had proposed (and was rejected by the islamics). Apparently the US agreed that Israel was a nation...within what...10 minutes after Israel declared itself?

Yes there were more than half of a million Jews and one and a half million islams and some small numbers of Christians. The people that left during the war weren't necessarily kicked out...they maybe considered leaving because there was a war going on and lots of people were dying. Israel then proceeded to win more land in the 6 Days "War".

I don't see too many Americans today feeling too bad about the Native Americans and giving them their land back. While it is unfortunate, yes....progress happens...as cold-blooded as it sounds. Considering there was no "Nation of Palestine" and no formal "Palestine" in existence...it seems to me like the land was available. The United Nations tried...and even said they would govern it to avoid violence...but islam said no, and islam started killing.....WEIRD.



or



I think the Jews did a good job with the sand pit.

Why would the Dept. of Homeland Security be at this convention? Are they recruiting from the radical fringe of Islam? Or just passing out Koozies and candy? Kinda of like letting the Fox in the Hen House to me. I'm sure they will be at the Methodist or the Southern Baptist convention next week, right?

I'm sorry if I don't support any organization that wants to institute a Islamist state and Sharia law in the US (or any other Western country for that matter). And I don't think our federal government should be supporting these types of radical organizations at any level, period. Besides the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, it reinforces the view that the US is weak. It is political correctness to the 10th degree.

laxfan25 wrote:Yes, but possession being 9/10's of the law, one can understand the feeling of the population that inhabitated the region of Palestine at this time that their land was being taken unjustly from them. Whether it was officially a nation or not, it's where a large group of people were currently living;

I know you probably believe that war is bad and should be avoided, etc. But is Israel the only country in the world that isn't allowed to keep and occupy the land that they won in a war? I can't help but think that some people are biased against Israel when they continue to trot out this same old tired rhetoric.

Someday, Islam will join the 20th century. I fear how much more blood will need to be shed to get there.

Sonny wrote:I know you probably believe that war is bad and should be avoided, etc. But is Israel the only country in the world that isn't allowed to keep and occupy the land that they won in a war? I can't help but think that some people are biased against Israel when they continue to trot out this same old tired rhetoric.

Iraq wasn't allowed to keep Kuwait after they won that war.

OAKS wrote:

Sonny wrote:I know you probably believe that war is bad and should be avoided, etc. But is Israel the only country in the world that isn't allowed to keep and occupy the land that they won in a war? I can't help but think that some people are biased against Israel when they continue to trot out this same old tired rhetoric.

Iraq wasn't allowed to keep Kuwait after they won that war.

Neither did the US.

Someday, Islam will join the 20th century. I fear how much more blood will need to be shed to get there.

Whoa whoa whoa Sonny...eeeeeasy there. That's not very tolerant of you to say that humans should become civilized.

If they became civilized then all of the people in America that only side with the "other-side" of controversial issues just to go against the grain would be left out in the cold.

A country getting land after a war? Impossible...that doesn't happen Sonny. Didn't you know that every country EVER was founded by super special meetings with cupcakes and ponies and horsies and bunnies and rabbities and everyone sang and danced and there were garlands of fresh herbs? Yeah...you didn't know that did you? It's not like America had to fight for it's freedom and land (twice) with Britain.

Ask Mel Gibson when he's drunk, he'll tell you!

Beta wrote:A country getting land after a war? Impossible...that doesn't happen Sonny. Didn't you know that every country EVER was founded by super special meetings with cupcakes and ponies and horsies and bunnies and rabbities and everyone sang and danced and there were garlands of fresh herbs? Yeah...you didn't know that did you? It's not like America had to fight for it's freedom and land (twice) with Britain.

Ask Mel Gibson when he's drunk, he'll tell you!

Though I don't necessarily have an opinion (that I want to share) on this topic, I would argue comparing the 21st century to colonial times is not really accurate. Ways of living, moral values, etc. were very different. Basically, not comparing apples to apples.

mulax06 wrote:I would argue comparing the 21st century to colonial times is not really accurate. Ways of living, moral values, etc. were very different. Basically, not comparing apples to apples.

Ughhhh I just picked America since we be here and the majority of Americans seem to think the Revolutionary War was good stuff. Fine, then replace the Revolutionary War with the Croatian Wars circa 1990ish (since that was the first thing that came to mind, there are others too). Hell, Vietnam is another example.

In modern times (21st century) no...there are not countries absorbing other countries...after Germany did that (once or twice) during WWII...there have been motions in place (UN, NATO, etc) to keep things like that from happening. But up until the WWII era (when Israel became a nation) that sort of practice was still going on...especially in an area where there was not a country, as it was a British Mandate that was ending.

If a country keeps getting attacked from a strategic location constantly, I am pretty sure it's in their best interest to keep that land that they won during the war....after the war(s) is over....to keep a repeat of history from happening. And by repeat of history..I mean Islamic violence...since it is apparently an Islam vs Israel war, as that one society claimed.