LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Terrorist Conference in Florida

Wed, Dec 3, 2003 at 8:39:52 am PST

A newly formed group with a deceptively innocuous name, the Universal Heritage Foundation, is planning an Islamic conference in Florida. And they’ve invited a star-studded list of speakers, representing the broad spectrum of radical Islamic views and support for terrorists: Islamic conference speaker draws wrath. (Hat tip: TS.) The conference chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, says it’s all about tolerance, and to prove it he has invited the senior imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia—a raving freak who has gone on record calling Jews “the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs.”

Shah himself is former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, a group allied with the militant fundamentalist movement of Jamaat-e-Islamiya in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Steven Emerson’s book American Jihad describes the Islamic Circle of North America:

ICNA openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terrorist attacks, issues incendiary attacks on Western values and policies, and supports the imposition of shari'a (Islamic code of law). It has created several nonprofit charitable organizations that collect tax-deductible contributions for militant Islamic causes. ICNA’s views are disseminated through regular conferences and a monthly publication called The Message. ...

In 1995, ICNA’s president made the following comments on the topic of jihad at a conference in Columbus, Ohio: "Sometimes, especially nowadays, I hear some Muslims defining jihad, and they will talk and talk and talk about everything in jihad, but they'll be very careful that there is nothing of qital [battle, fight, combat] mentioned in there. Well, at least you should not be disrespectful of the people you're talking to. They can pick up a Koran of any translation, and see what is in there in an instant. And a strong part of Islam is qital, and all nations and all people have a legitimate use of violence and war. And in Islam we came up with the first international law, that when you have qital, you have 'culture of qital.' There's a method, there's a decision-making body. It's not that a person gets angry and he starts his own qital. But when you present jihad you have to present it in its entirety."

The Florida director of CAIR is, of course, defending the conference and the invitation of this radical Saudi imam, and predictably whining about discrimination:

Altaf Ali, Florida director of the council, said Al-Sudais and the other speakers are highly respected and that it has been "open season" on Muslims since the 9-11 attacks.

"I personally have never heard any of these individuals say anything hateful," Ali said. "Anybody associated with a mosque is immediately [considered] a terrorist suspect. We are being found guilty by association."

And this article at the Orlando Sentinel contains a shocking list of the other speakers at this conference—a who’s who of radical Islamic terror supporters:

* Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an "unindicted person who may be alleged as (a) conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, according to former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White. His Masjid al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y., hosted the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in a conspiracy to bomb the Holland and Lincoln tunnels in New York. Wahhaj testified as a character witness for Rahman. Wahhaj, whom his supporters say is "mainstream," has made numerous anti-American statements.

* Imam Maulana Shafayat Muhammad, principal of the Darul Uloom Institute & Islamic Training Center in Pembroke Pines. Dirty-bomb suspect José Padilla attended his mosque. Padilla, Brooklyn-born Muslim convert, is accused of plotting with al-Qaeda to explode a bomb containing radioactive materials in the United States.

* Muzzamal Siddiqui, who has spoken at pro-Hezbollah rallies, supported the creation of an Islamic state in the United States and praised martyrdom for the Islamic cause, according to the SITE Institute. In spite of his statements, Siddiqui has been a guest at the White House, and he spoke at Washington National Cathedral post 9-11.

* Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America and former director of academic outreach at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Federal agencies raided the institute last year on suspicion of funneling money to suicide bombers.

After 9/11 it’s just suicidal that our government is still allowing conferences like this to take place. We really have gone back to sleep—the radical Islamic groups can hear us snoring, and they have redoubled their efforts.

Advertisement

193 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 V the K  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:43:14am

Fears of "Jihad in America" seem less paranoid with every new hate conference announcement.

2 paste  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:44:08am
3 Let's Roll  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:48:51am

Florida, huh? Isn't that where we test MOABs...?

4 Ariel  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:49:07am

I hope to hell that the conference is bugged and they will use the infromation toward indicting folks.

In real life, however, the FBI is probably busier trying to figure out how to get an increase in its budget while not actually doing anything of material impact.

5 Poitiers-Levanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:49:24am

Is the meeting open to the public ?
We should tell everybody about it...the NYFD, the NYPD, I am sure that there could be some thousands, or tens of thousands of persons, very interested and eager to actively participate.
Lets' spread the truth, let's call everybody to discuss. I am sure these gentlemen will love a good, deep, long discussion of each one of their points.

A meeting of terrorists...are we going to allow a meeting of terrorists ?

6 dennisw  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:49:59am

They love to flit about in their jets to these idiotic Islamic conferences. It gives a facade of modern dynamism to a religious cult, to a lifestyle and mentality that's 500 years out of date, minimum. These clowns love conferences and "summit meetings". They love, simply adore, talking about themselves, their likes and gripes. About their "issues" and beefs.

7 Unmutual  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:50:18am

I live about 2 hours from Orlando. I'd think about going to this "conference".

8 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:51:58am
"I personally have never heard any of these individuals say anything hateful," Ali said. "Anybody associated with a mosque is immediately [considered] a terrorist suspect. We are being found guilty by association."

Well, golly gosh gee. It's no wonder you've never heard anything hateful; you'd have to have a working definition of 'hateful' in your pea-brain first. As for the 'guilty by association' bit, if the shoe packed with explosives fits . . . .

9 scaramouche  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:52:12am

I'm a bit fuzzy on the genetics here. If only my grandfather was a monkey, does that mean that my father was human, and the whole "apes and pigs" thing skips a generation? Maybe I should send my query in to "Ask the Iman". Hey, wouldn't it be great if Jewish protesters showed up carrying giants pig and monkey heads--while they were dressed as pigs and monkeys? Let the mainstream media in on the "dirty little secret" of Koranic-inspired hate.

10 J. Lichty  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 6:52:28am

The good thing about our enemies is that are bold. While our emboldening them is maddening, it certainly encourages them to come out in the open where we can see them.

They are being watched and they will play their cards too soon. America will not stay blind forever, I just pray it will not be too late.

11 SoCalJustice  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:01:00am

Thank you Orlando Sentinel, for reporting on this.

12 seafarious  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:01:13am

Central Florida is where Sami Al-Arian is from...

13 BH  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:03:48am

re the ICNA chairman's comments: Columbus, Ohio seems to be coming up a lot lately.

14 observer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:05:15am

Until our President can get himself to say that these people have declared war against the USA, against Jews and other infidels, against the West, we will do very little. Until 9-11 assumes the same meaning as Pearl Harbor, we have no enemy in sight. But don't hold your breath. We are just rooting out the "few rotten apples" in the Islamic barrel. Some of the European delusions and suicidal qualities are alive in the USA too.

And how did the "grandsons of monkeys and pigs" turn into the "rats of the world?" Clever, those Jews.

15 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:06:49am

"After 9/11 it’s just suicidal that our government is still allowing conferences like this to take place. We really have gone back to sleep—the radical Islamic groups can hear us snoring, and they have redoubled their efforts."

I'm sorry Charles, I have to disagree. The more conferences that are held, the more we know who and what is being said/planned. A free speech society does not take free speech just from a few. It IS better to know what is being discussed AND who are attending these things.

16 bill in tx  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:12:44am

I agree with #10 and #15. Let 'em meet and greet in broad daylight. As long as we have someone there gathering intelligence.

If not, well then we are asleep at the wheel for sure.

17 John K  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:16:43am

HOW in the hell do pieces of excrement like this Imam from the mosque in Mecca get into The United States? What in the world has happened to our government protecting us? Hate speach as the left is always harping about; should include this guy. If he does make it here; then why is he not arrested at the airport upon arrival? None of this stuff makes any sence to me!!!

18 Cornholio  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:18:12am

Why is our government allowing the Saudi Imam Abdur "monkeys and pigs" Al-Sudais to enter the U.S. to preach his evil message of hate? Who the hell granted his visa request?

19 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:18:28am

# 15 Kevin P.:

I'm sorry Charles, I have to disagree.

I couldn't diagree with your sentiment more. While these guys may have a 'right' to hold a terrorist conference, let 'em hold it in Cellblock 'Muslim' at Florence. Freedom of speech is not a right we have to allow those out to kill us to have. Since the atrocities of 9-11, they've earned our detailed scrutiny of their beliefs and goals. Too freakin' bad if they don't like our response to those beliefs and goals.

20 brett  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:23:46am

Are Floridians getting out and protesting this? One one hand, these rats can be defeated (and are being defeated) in the press and on blogs through the hard work of people uncovering their nasty records. However, if lefty loons can protest every wee imagined injustice, hold candlelight vigils for Michael Jackson and rally tons of media coverage when a drug-crazed behemoth dies while trying to kill two police officers, then why can't we make the effort to confront the Islamic murderers and terror cheerleaders on our own soil. If the "Arab street" can spend all their fricking time making posters and staging foam-mouthed "demonstrations," can't decent people just get out and tell these bastards to go crawl back under the (black) rock they came from?

We need the Florida chapter of Protest Warrior to mobilize!

21 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:24:39am

19 Rick Z

Good thinking Rick, then, after they go "underground" to hold conferences, ALL will be ok.

Outta sight, outta mind......(not to mention we probably wouldn't know a thing of what was being said OR who was attending)

22 Unmutual  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:33:08am

#19 Rick Z

Well put.

Those who's ideology does not permit freedom of speech shall not have the ability to hide behind free speech itself.

Islamics and Communists, for example, who necessarily would have to eliminate all forms of free speech should they "get their way" in the end, must not be given a podium in which to promote those views.

It is not a contradiciton in a free nation to reject ideas which run counter to our own principles.

23 Poitiers-Lepanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:33:15am

#21

With all due respect: you analysis is a bit too simple: they are in the open OR they are in the underground.
It is not like that.
They are holding underground meetings, of course, and to this they add the 'open' activities that are mostly useful to 'test' the waters and push for more of what is called 'political space'.
In fact, allowing these meetings we allow for further activities that will lead to more...
And so on.
Basics of subversion, everything already tested and done by the commies.

It is vital to cut the grass under their feet and fight for every inch.
Their political arm and their military arm are one and the same. We must cut their chances to act at any level, except if they engage in denouncing and fighting terrorism !!!

24 Unmutual  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:35:36am

#21 Kevin P

It's not a matter of their side going underground vs. being out in the open.

It is precisely the message that is sent to them, namely "crawl back under your rock", that will influence Joe Public more than any "underground" movement ever will.

25 TS  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:36:43am

Thanks for the hat tip Charles.
And look what else CAIR is doing...
Muslim Group Sues Congressman for Defamation
"With this lawsuit, we are sending a clear message to all those who make malicious and defamatory statements against American Muslims or their institutions that they will be held accountable in a court of law," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's director of legal affairs.
[Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

26 brett  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:37:13am

#21 Kevin P.

While I agree in the advice "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer," there is a point where letting a group of dangerous people assemble like this and basically incite violence in our midst becomes a signal to them that we are fast asleep. If investigators are deliberately giving them a pass so that they can swoop down on them at a later time, fine, but do you honestly think this is what's happening? Exactly when are we planning to let them know that (a) we see through the bullshit, (b) we have no patience for it, and (c) they are not welcome? My vote is that we tell them sooner than later and we give them a sign that theyhave indeed woken a sleeping dragon.

27 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:41:37am

#23 Poitiers-Lepanto

Anything coming out of those "open" conferences are a glimpse into what is being said "underground". You call it simple thinking, I call it keeping my enemies very close.

It is much easier to be able to attend open conferences, making contacts and moving further underground, than it is to have to find a contact in the underground.

What you are advocating.....where does it stop? Amending the first amendment.....(NO Thank you!)

28 Poitiers-Lepanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:44:02am

#25
the info about cair going to court is a good example of the fight that the islamofascists carry on at every level to force us to silence and subjection.
As I always say, they did the exact same things for ten years in france: meetings, conventions, demonstrations, whining about their oppression...
Now they kill Jews in the roads.
Tomorrow they will be a party, the day after nobody will be allowed to do anything without their permission.

They are using our Constituion against itself.

29 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:47:18am

#26 brett

BINGO! We have a winner!

I am not for anyone's freedom of speech being stopped.

You know my thinking Brett. By this being posted online, people WILL attend this "conference" for the simple fact to expose it for what it is.....hate. If it's a lgf'er or someone like Daniel Pipes, someone WILL expose the cockroaches to light once again.

It is easy to expose someone, when they openly flaunt their message openly.

30 brett  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:49:45am

Let them speak, but someone needs to be there to let them know that as a people, as a culture, and as a society, we do not welcome them or their "ideas." Someone needs to stand up to these people and take the attitude Dr. Laura took recently on her show. We all need to just get in their faces and say, "We're not afraid of your frickin' fatwas, we won't run and hide like Rushdie did every time you foam at the mouth, we live here and built this country, we saw what you did on 9/11, so you're not welcome."

Freedom of speech, fine. But they need to know we're watching them, we're listening, and we're looking for the first chance to lock them up or kick them out if they don't do a 180 real soon.

31 Gordon  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:50:03am

It's called free speech, Charles, the 1st amendment to the Constitution (did you ever study the Constitution in school?). It's why we let white supremacists spout their message of hate, why we let Nazis march in Skokie, ISM moonbats demonstrate in Seattle (the vandalism was not free speech, though), people burn American flags as a form of protest.

It's because if we stop these people, where DO we stop? What becomes reasonable.

Free speech does not give someone the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but that's about it.

The best way to combat this Islamic nonsense is to do exactly what you're doing; exposing it for what it is. Protests outside the event location would be appropriate too. Perhaps protesters should hold up a blasphemous figure of Mohammed at the event. That would be allowed too.

32 Poitiers-Lepanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:52:32am

Bingo,
we have the losers brainwashed by forty years of far left 'culture':
conspiracy is not protected by the first amendment.

Why do you allow the FBI to interrupt the meetings of Italian Goodfellas ? They are just TALKING...

33 Barking Pumpkin  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:58:46am

I say we let them into the country for their "conference" and then arrest them and send 'em to Gitmo so they can minister to their "people".

Seriously, if some of these "people" are, in fact, terror supporters (and as pious Muslims, I have no doubt that they support jihad, i.e. terror) then they should either not be allowed in or arrested on arrival.

34 Dom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:58:48am

OT From JUS:

Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry:
35 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 7:59:47am

32 Poitiers-Lepanto


Bingo! It's called HUMINT! (Human intelligence)

You talk about the "goodfellas".....where did they end up? IIRC, many doing many decades of a federal sentence. "Sammy the bull" ring a bell?

36 Renna  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:02:19am

When and where, exactly? I don't see a specific date. We need to find out if it's open to the public, and get somebody in there with a mic and a video camera.

37 Poitiers-Lepanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:02:58am

#34

Thank you (...so to say...) for the link: I see that they put the word terrorism in quotation marks, on the top of the page...

Why I feel like throwing them into a burning building ? Am I unsensitive to the First Amendment ?

38 The name explained  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:04:10am

The name "Universal Heritage Foundation" acknowledges the view of its founders that Islam is destined to conquer and convert the entire universe as we know it. Every kfir and infidel will be given the choice of conversion, subservient dhimmitude, or death.
Enjoy and have a nice day. :)

39 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:04:31am

#31 Gordon

{sigh}

Can we agree that events sponsored and attended by terrorists are an abuse of the 1st amendment?

40 brett  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:04:54am

#31 Gordon

Protests outside the event location would be appropriate too. Perhaps protesters should hold up a blasphemous figure of Mohammed at the event. That would be allowed too.

Gosh, do you think? Do you think we should ask them for permission first?

I say you get out there and do a tapdance on the fu**ing Quraan and tell them "If I hear you say the word 'jihad' just once during this 'conference,' then I'm making a citizen's arrest for incitement of violence."

Of course the government has no right to stop them from speaking, but to sit by a crochet while people espouse the glories of waging war on non-Muslims is stupid and something you have a lot of options to oppose without violating the First Amendment.

41 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:10:10am

#37 Poitiers-Lepanto

"Why I feel like throwing them into a burning building ?"

We all do, but we also know our country is ruled by a constitution.

"Am I unsensitive to the First Amendment ?"

I just think if we amend the first amendment to stop hate speech, we will end up being just like the Islamo-facist. Where would it end....lgf being shut down, because someone took offense to a post? Don't laugh, what you are talking about could very well go down that slippery slope....

42 Poitiers-Lepanto  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:10:18am

Human Intelligence to discover what ? That they are at war with us ?

Well, anyway each one has her/his opinions, my only problem is that the invaders KNOW that some of us tend to protect them (without offense) and they PLAY with this.

I just choose to call for an all out war, with no confusion between free speech and conspiracy.

And yes, I am for racial profiling and for keeping an eye inside every mosque and for expelling any muslim who just burns a traffic light...

And this is now...if they attack again you will like my ideas even less...

43 Joseph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:12:15am

Talk about a target-rich opp....

44 Joseph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:17:25am

Unmutual (7):

I live about 2 hours from Orlando. I'd think about going to this "conference".

How to prepare to fit in better:
1. Practice seething and whining.
2. Don't take a shower for 2 months.
3. Watch, listen, and read nothing but CNN, NPR, the NYT, etc. Get good and worked up over the US and Zionist crimes of trying to defend themselves from lunatic murderers.

45 Joseph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:19:36am

'Apes and pigs'?????

Hmmmm.... Doesn't say much for the fighting skills of Arabs....

46 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:22:50am

#42 Poitiers-Lepanto

"Human Intelligence to discover what ? That they are at war with us ?"

No, you keep bringing up conspiracy charges. Don't you need evedience first, or is this Nazi Germany now?

God, re-read your own posts. Amended freedom of speech and now trial convictions without any evedience to convict someone. Geeeeeeeee!

"Well, anyway each one has her/his opinions, my only problem is that the invaders KNOW that some of us tend to protect them (without offense) and they PLAY with this."

I am protecting no one, except MY freedom of speech. Once you take it away from one group, NONE of us has freedom of speech!

47 up-Abu's Wahzoo  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:24:09am

I'd written the author of the article when i got a copy of her story stating how whizzed i was that this was occuring with our troops on the line and the anti-american sympathy and contempt most of islamaville had for us. In addition requested she and the paper to do its utmost to prevent the terror festive.

Here's the reply i got back, please drop her a line, her emails at the end of the story:

Dear

Thanks for writing. Believe it or not, I have gotten very little feedback on an issue I was sure would arouse people's feelings. We definitely will be attending the conference and following up on the plans of this group.

I appreciate your input.

Sincerely,
Susan J.

48 Teacake  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:26:57am

This is just another flaunting fest. They know they can get away with anything they want because we and the rest of the world are PC obsessed.

49 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:28:06am

#47 up-Abu's Wahzoo

Thanks for writing her, now it is up to us also, to spread this "conference" story around. Daniel Pipes would be very interested I bet, along with many others.

50 Joseph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:29:18am

For anyone who missed it, the link #25 posted to had some good 'contact' info:

Arsalan Iftikhar, 202-488-8787, 202-415-0799; Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, cair@cair-net.org; Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, rahmed@cair- net.org
51 Teacake  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:29:57am

Ah but Gordon, the constitution also allows us to take action against foreign elements that wish this country harm, and not many people are pushing for that part of the constitution when that should be foremost.

52 Joseph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:32:39am

It seems that any woman in the world can come here as tourist or even illegally, give birth, and her offspring is automatically a US citizen...

Is this really true??????

53 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:33:59am

#51 Teacake

EXACTLY! This is not a 1st amendment issue. These people are seditionists. Thank you for pointing out the obvious better than I did.

54 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:34:07am

#52 Joseph

Sadly, yes.

55 CCR abu qwerty  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:34:12am

Gordon's dead right here. It may be possible to amend the first amendment to exclude idiologies that expressly seek to destroy freedom of speech without gutting it entirely, but it hasn't been done yet. The proper response is not to outlaw these conferences, but to show up outside them and counterdemonstrate, possibly blaspheming Mohammed or perhaps not. Infiltrating them with lots of recording devices is another good idea.

Anyone who we can prove has conspired against us should be dealt with immediately after the conference, but those who we cannot prove a case against must be left free even if they are guilty. We cannot do otherwise and remain who we are.

56 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:35:33am

#53 Thom

So what would YOU do about this then?

57 neo_con  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:37:03am

Zulfiqar Ali Shah, chairman and chief executive officer of the foundation and former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, envisions a home base in Florida's tourist corridor that would attract Islamic scholars and promote tolerance among religious groups.

Translated: they want tolerance towards islam in societies where they are a minority. But where they are dominant, expect dhimmitude for all non-muslims.

58 SoCalJustice  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:38:36am

(#34) Dom

Someone should e-mail those idiots to let them know that it's only 4 Jewish Americans who run the media. Levin resigned from AOL/TimeWarner last year, and the Bronfams are Canadian. ;-)

They definitely are "unspun" over there. Which is good, because they will lose.

59 EW1(SG)  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:39:03am

OT: Interesting article in yesterday's WaTimes.

60 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:40:53am

#56 Kevin P.

I would cancel the event, shut down CAIR and every other islamist group in the US, arrest US citizens involved with them, and deport foreign nationals.

61 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:42:43am

#60 Thom

And you would do this, under what authority? FBI, local police?...more details!

62 HouTexJew  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:45:18am

(Note: Scroll down page to read full text of the following link.)

Here is the Florida conference's chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, in Toronto in October of 2000 raising money for a group called the "Jerusalem Fund for Human Services" (JFHS):

Visiting from Florida, Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, vice president of the Islamic Circle of North America, assisted Dr. Kasim with the fund-raising. Dr. Shah spoke eloquently of how the blood of Palestine’s youth must wake up Muslims, and that Muslims must come together to liberate Jerusalem.

Here is an article (originally published in the National Post) exposing Prime Minister Jean Chrétien as a total weenie for being unwilling to shut down JFHS, even though a declassified Canadian security memo identified them as a fundraising-front for HAMAS:

A "secret" list of terrorist fronts operating in Canada was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by the Opposition, which demanded to know why the organizations have not been outlawed under Ottawa's anti-terror law. In an unusual disclosure of security intelligence information, the Canadian Alliance released a declassified memo to the Prime Minister that listed Canadian fronts for Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, PKK and Sikh terrorist groups. The report, marked "Secret-Canadian Eyes Only," named the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services, World Tamil Movement, Canadian Kurdish Information Network and Babbar Khalsa as terrorist fronts in Canada.

Some LGF'rs down in Florida need to ask why a known HAMAS fundraiser is going to be allowed to hold this conference.

63 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:48:49am

#61 Kevin P.

C'mon man! I haven't written a danged policy paper on the subject!

But I would begin with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918.

64 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:58:36am

# 31 Gordon:

Free speech does not give someone the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but that's about it.

Don't you think yelling 'jihad' in a crowded country, full of loathesome potential victims, is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater? The Constitution is not a doormat, a coffin, nor a suicide pact.

65 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:59:19am

You never mentioned taking these people to trial until now............


If someone has broken any US law, gather evidence, prosecute them. If they haven't there isn't a thing any of us can do, except expose them for what they are.

Once you go down the slippery slope of amending freedom of speech, we ALL lose.

67 David (Abu Frogman)  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:00:50am

Pupils, shall we analyse this interesting sentence:

The conference chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, says it’s all about tolerance, and to prove it he has invited the senior imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Two words immediately catch the eye:
1- tolerance
2- Mecca

Form a sentence with them:

e.g. The tolerance of Islam does not extend to allow kaffirs to pollute Mecca, its holy place.

Got the lesson??

68 HouTexJew  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:02:39am

It never ends...

Looking a little bit closer, it turns out that the biggest check written during the JFHS fundraiser (see post #62) came from a group called "Human Concern International."

The director of HCI is a senior Bin-Laden associate, and his son is being held for the murder of a U.S. Special Forces medic killed in Afghanistan.

Ugly details here.

69 Smitty  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:04:12am

PDM strikes again!

70 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:05:04am

#65 Kevin P.

I'm not talking about amending the 1st amendment. I'm talking about suppressing islamic sedition.

71 Renna  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:06:58am
it’s all about tolerance

Well, it is all about tolerance: For us to tolerate them no matter what they do.
But no tolerance the other way.

72 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:09:45am

70 Thom

That is fine, but you can't do it without any evidence!

No one seems to see what I do.....once you suppress someone's freedom of speech, we have all lost something near and dear to what America is; The ability to say what we want.....doesn't mean anyone has to listen. But it is much easier to expose people like this by letting them hang themselves.

73 tomcat  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:13:22am

#9
I agree and I hope we're not running around, chasing our tail or scratching our heads over that statement.


/scm off

74 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:18:33am

# 71 Renna [and Thom and Kevin P.]:

Well, it is all about tolerance: For us to tolerate them no matter what they do.

Until [if?] Islam becomes a religion of tolerance and humor, f*ck 'em if they can't take a joke. Free speech is not free, never has been and never will be. There are consequences, some monetary (The Ditzy Chicks), some political (Spiro T. Agnew), some personal, but consequences none-the-less. The sooner the barking moonbats praying to a pedophile prophet who reside here come to that realization, the better off the US of A will be. And please note the distinct use of the word 'reside': IMHO, they are not citizens, born or naturalized, or partners in this great experiment called democracy. No, they are simply wolves in democratic clothing, salivating at the thought of eating us alive. We do not have to allow them here, nor should they expect a 'Welcome' with open arms. They've shown their true colors, and the color is black, covered with the smell of death.

75 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:21:40am

#72 Kevin P.

Sedition is not free speech! Their seditious agenda is public knowledge. Just because most people are unaware of it doesn't change that. What's lacking is the will to do what needs to be done. So, while we polish our legal sensibilities, islamic seditionists are meeting to plot the destruction of the US. In the US.

76 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:23:42am

#74 Rick Z

I agree totally, Rick. If I was closer to Florida, or had the money to go, I would be out asserting MY first amendment rights to this slime to their faces.

77 fred from AL  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:27:43am

#31 Dear Gordon, you absolutely useless tool:

It's called free speech, Charles, the 1st amendment to the Constitution (did you ever study the Constitution in school?).

Where in the context of Charles's comment is the question to which you so graciously provide the answer?

I see nothing in the comment that suggests this tool should not be allowed to speak, there is only a comment as to in what historical light the tool's diatribe should be viewed.

Or does Charles lack the rights you so assiduously defend for the Imam.

I have broken my own rule by wasting the effort to address this, but your comments are so devoid of rationality that I cannot allow them to stand without comment.

78 Engineer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:27:51am

#72 Kevin P.

No one seems to see what I do.....once you suppress someone's freedom of speech, we have all lost something near and dear to what America is; The ability to say what we want.....doesn't mean anyone has to listen. But it is much easier to expose people like this by letting them hang themselves.

I agree. We can not stop an American from expressing views within the laws. But that should not apply to Non-Americans. Any of these Muslims who is not a citizen, should be deported.

79 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:28:45am

#75 Thom

So....I take it that you have informed the local FBI office, or the web site, of this sedatious agenda?

If not...why not?

If you feel they are breaking the law, turn them in, but they DO have to be convicted, before being sentenced.

As far as I can remember, no one has been convicted by public knowledge either.

If you are in Florida, contact the authorities about this.

80 rabidfox  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:31:35am

WHEN is this conference being held? 19-21 Dec? I have a sister living in the area that I just might beg a room from. (Assuming she'll let me - she's still an Islam appologist). Unmutual, if you're serious will you e-mail me? Maybe we can work something out. I live in the panhandle. Where the MOAB is tested.

81 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:32:21am

#78 Engineer

Unfortunately, non-citizens have the right to free speech here also.

82 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:36:14am

#79 Kevin P.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Dhimmitude here we come.

83 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:39:02am

#82 Thom


According to your attitude; Nazi America, here we come!

84 fred from AL  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:39:18am

re my #77

AAAWWW F**k

I have read the start more carefully and see that I have inserted my foot in my mouth. I started skinning a deer at 6 am and have had a few. Forty three..f**k me.

Fiftytwo...f**k you anyway, Gordo.

85 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:44:35am

#83 Kevin P.

Yeah. I'm a Nazi. But don't worry, your 1st amendment rights were never at risk to begin with. And islamic seditionists are still having open meetings. Feel better?

86 BIG  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:50:08am

#66 PDM

Is that the correct info on where and when this event will take place? I live in the Tampa area and I would like to make sure that the local media here is notified about this event and its attendees. I would also contact Norman Gross, he is the guy that kept the pressure on Sami Al-Arian down here.

Everybody else: I'd like some ideas for signs to carry while protesting this event. I'm sure the LGF faithful can provide some interesting quips.

87 Ed Moran:Abu Potential E. Coast Blizzrd Disaster  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:50:22am

Concerning Scaramouche's question, how many generations do I have to be removed from my pig & monket ancestors to qualify as a full blooded human.


I can handle a little piggishness, but I'd hate to think I passed that on to my kids.

88 PDM  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:54:40am

#86 BIG,

Location and Directions:
[Link: www.uheritage.org...]

89 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:55:29am

85 Thom

"Yeah. I'm a Nazi."

YOUR words, not mine. I am just saying, go by our existing laws. YOU on the other hand, want to throw the rule of law out the window.

"But don't worry, your 1st amendment rights were never at risk to begin with."

Good! Once ANY of us lose any part of freedom of speech, we all lose.


"And islamic seditionists are still having open meetings."

And you have the US Federal court case number so I can see the trial transcripts in the sedation case? I would appreciate seeing those.

"Feel better?"

Not really, I don't like seeing "conferences" like this, anymore than anyone else. But, once you throw out our laws, the lynching squad might be at your, or my, door next.

The best approach is for private citizens expose these hate "conferences" for what they are, tools used by islamo-facist to further their agenda.

If they have broken US laws, prosecute them. If not, shed light upon them and watch them scurry like roaches.

90 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:56:22am

From Islamic Circle of North America:
Oh no the muslims are going to play hardball:

Finally, we have let our opponents put us over a barrel with this whole terrorism thing. We are not getting up to defend ourselves the way we should be. They are not playing nice and our own shyness and humble nature are aiding them in getting away with saying the most bigoted and outrageous things, and getting away with it! They’ve succeeded in getting the average no-nothing person to hate and fear Islam for no other reason than they have seen Muslims being bashed and not answering back. Oh, to be sure, we have our little programs and do our little letter-writing campaigns, but let’s face it, for the most part it has not stopped the daily drubbing we receive.

We need to throw off the gloves and throw their propaganda back in their face. They label Islam as terrorist. We can label Christianity as genocidal and then give all the examples. They say our schools teach violence. We can lambaste them for having thousands of pedophile priests and ask them how the representatives of the very religion itself can be so bad. They say the Qur’an teaches violence. Let us trumpet up all the many, many violent and genocidal teachings in the Bible and put the quotes on billboards. Let’s revive the great work of Ahmed Deed, Jamal Bedawi and Zakir Naik, among others and show them we can play hardball, too. They say Muslim societies are backward and demeaning to women? Let us comb their own government’s statistics about violence towards women in this land and then link it to Christian culture.
[Link: www.messageonline.org...]

91 Ed Moran:Abu Potential E. Coast Blizzrd Disaster  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:58:02am

But help me, other than the gratuitous insult aimed at our Lizardoid Leader, I agree with most of Gordon's post up there at 31.

I hope I'm not catching something.

92 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 9:59:22am
We can lambaste them for having thousands of pedophile priests and ask them how the representatives of the very religion itself can be so bad.

I don't think you want to go there. Mo's too big of a target.

93 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:02:14am

#89 Kevin P.

I don't want to see the law tossed out the window. I just want it vigorously and selectively enforced. If that were to happen then the actions in #60 would come about in short order. I was not saying that it should be done by fiat.

But, as I said, the government - and, by extension we, the people - has no stomach for this. So we sit around and bitch about conferences that should never have been permitted in the first place.

94 fred from AL  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:06:06am

#91 Ed

Yes, you are right, it is important that freedom of speech be preserved. Gordo is on the right side in this instance. [spit]

One of the most important aspects of freedom of speech is that the people can see the "speakers" for what they are.

We live in interesting times.

95 Renna  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:06:28am

Remember folks, it is not just a conference. Universal Heritage Foundation is planning a university (not yet accredited), a heritage institute to "build bridges of understanding and affection between people of various faiths, cultures, and ethnicities", an islamic institute to serve "the spiritual needs of the Muslims, and sharing the message of Islam with others", and an outreach program to do charity work "in the tradition of services provided by the Catholic Charities, and the Lutheran Social Services." All permantly located at
233 Academy Drive
Kissimmee, FL 34744
p. 407.518.6886
fx.407.518.6876

96 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:08:33am

#93 Thom

I agree with most of your post, but.....the only way we, private citizens, can stop this crap IS by exposing it. Bush is busy walking the tightrope as far as islam is concerned.

If the conferences break some sort of law, then the authorities should stop anymore. But the authorities can't do it, just because you don't like it. THAT is all I am getting at.

Do I want this conference to happen? HELL NO! What is the only way of stopping it? EXPOSE IT!

97 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:17:21am

# 90 ralph:

Any comparisoans Muslims attempt to amke between their culture and America/The West would be like comparing apples and donkey carts!

They say our schools teach violence. We can lambaste them for having thousands of pedophile priests and ask them how the representatives of the very religion itself can be so bad.

Just from that sentence, all one needs to know is that Muslims have no clue, will never have a clue, and will, with luck, cease and desist with a clue by four as their epitaph. They can't see that the Catholic Church members are the ones that have generated the 'scandal'; self-introspection is not a Muslim thingy. And I can't ever remember hearing a priest praying for the violent death of the enemies of the Church, even during Vietnam and the whole Cold War era (and I heard a lot of sermons; I was an altar boy). The article just shows more Muslim ranting and raving without a basis in reality (at least the reality of Western Civilization [Renaissance, "Rights of Man," Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, etc.] as opposed to the Islamic reality of honor killings, mysogyny, child abuse, suicide bombers, etc.). And the fact that these clowns can't understand that what the Church did 500 years ago has no comparison to what Muslims are doing today.

I am always reminded of a certain bathroom graffiti when it comes to Islam and how it has 1.2 billion followers, so it must have something to it: Eat sh*t, 11 billion flies can't be wrong.

98 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:19:38am

#96 Kevin P.

I wish I could be more clear.

* Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an "unindicted person who may be alleged as (a) conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, according to former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White. His Masjid al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y., hosted the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in a conspiracy to bomb the Holland and Lincoln tunnels in New York. Wahhaj testified as a character witness for Rahman. Wahhaj, whom his supporters say is "mainstream," has made numerous anti-American statements.

* Imam Maulana Shafayat Muhammad, principal of the Darul Uloom Institute & Islamic Training Center in Pembroke Pines. Dirty-bomb suspect José Padilla attended his mosque. Padilla, Brooklyn-born Muslim convert, is accused of plotting with al-Qaeda to explode a bomb containing radioactive materials in the United States.

* Muzzamal Siddiqui, who has spoken at pro-Hezbollah rallies, supported the creation of an Islamic state in the United States and praised martyrdom for the Islamic cause, according to the SITE Institute. In spite of his statements, Siddiqui has been a guest at the White House, and he spoke at Washington National Cathedral post 9-11.

* Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America and former director of academic outreach at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Federal agencies raided the institute last year on suspicion of funneling money to suicide bombers.

If the law were vigorously enforced, these people would be in jail and the conference would be a bust.

The imam from SA has openly called for the destruction of America. Why is he being allowed in?

As I said, it is a lack of will. The information is out there and these people are known to the government.

Private citizens must indeed expose these people, and spread the word. But we're not the ones with badges and guns.

99 observer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:25:44am

I'm not clear on this point: what law(s) would some of you want enforced to prevent these speakers from attending this conference?

We are not at war with any of the countries from which they are coming.
They have been linked with terrorist groups and goals, but not one has been convicted of a terrorist act or of giving aid to terrorists.

If the German-American Bund had invited Reichsminister Goebbels to speak here in 1938, could/should he have been kept out? By what law or regulation?

100 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:30:33am

98 Thom


You are correct, if anyone has broken the US laws, then they should not be allowed in.

But, hiding behind "what if's", and according to's,is NOT being convicted of breaking US laws.

If I am drinking in my own house, I can now be arrested for
possibly driving drunk under your assertions.

If someone breaks the law, they should be dealt with. What if's/possibilities/maybe's are not part of any law in the US as far as I know...


fred from AL said it best; "One of the most important aspects of freedom of speech is that the people can see the "speakers" for what they are.

We live in interesting times."

101 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:37:47am

#100 Kevin P.

If I am drinking in my own house, I can now be arrested for possibly driving drunk under your assertions.

Under my assertions you could drink until your liver explodes for all I care because my assertions are directed towards a specific enemy: i.e., you are not an islamist.

At any rate, this is all pretty theoretical isn't it? Not until we're nuked by islamists or on the verge of sharia or civil war will anything like I envision even be considered by the powers-that-be. I'm just ahead of the curve, baby.

dB^)

102 Engineer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:39:30am

Sorry, work called

#81 Kevin P.

Unfortunately, non-citizens have the right to free speech here also.

We can change that without harm to the first amendment.

103 ploome  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:46:13am

99 observer

sedition

[Link: www.yale.edu...]

That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be ho]den to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

104 axiom/Malik al-Malook  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:47:19am

One would think that the repeated invitation of such controversial subjects would deter or at least inspire different sort of thinkers capable of invitation, but no CAIR repeatedly assosciates itself with known advocates of violent revolution in the name of the Prophet.

105 ploome  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:49:32am

the koran and the principals of islam teach that the secular based laws of the United States are invalid,

and are to be obeyed only, until such time as muslims are strong enough to overturn them

and install sharia

106 BIG  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:54:51am

#88 PDM

Thanks. I'm not sure what I can do, but I will take some of the information presented here and send it to the local papers. There are a couple of radio DJ's here that hate the Islamics, so I will also send them the info about this group.

107 scott in east bay  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:55:31am

For the benefit of the grand poobah from Mecca: perhaps a few signs outside the conference saying such sensitive things as "Go back to Mecca you rotten piece of pork" or words to that effect would inflame some passions. Welcome to free speech, Omar!

108 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 10:59:30am

103 ploome

".........person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall......."

Can I now see the federal, state or local court case numbers for these individuals?

109 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:01:06am

#105 ploome

the koran and the principals of islam teach that the secular based laws of the United States are invalid,

and are to be obeyed only, until such time as muslims are strong enough to overturn them

and install sharia

Yup. Let's put that in our 1st amendment pipes and smoke it.

110 observer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:02:48am

#103, ploome

Yes, that's sedition all right (1798, 1918 Acts)--but where's "clear and present danger beyond a reasonable doubt," which courts after WWI, especially in peace time, required?
If that can't be established, free speech rules. That could be changed, but it's a slippery slope.
Declaring war is another option, making some of these thugs "enemy aliens."
Something has to happen first.

111 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:02:50am

107 scott in east bay

Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

If someone goes to protest this, I would suggest taking a pig on a leash with them. We all know how islamo-facist love pork! ;o) lol (or throw pork chops at them)

112 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:12:36am

# 111 Kevin P.:

(or throw pork chops at them)

No, can't do that. Throwing pork chops would be a hate crime against Homer Simpson's stomach.

113 ploome  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:15:24am

#110 observer

"clear and present danger beyond a reasonable doubt,"

the fact that these 'preachers', imams, and their followers have been convicted of violent acts against the US?

the first WTC bombing?

the Lakawana 6?

Mike (whatever)?

etc

114 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:22:31am

This is a very strange thread.

I would never dream of hurling pork products at a muslim.

I can all too easily see those same products being hurled at Jews. That is too painful to imagine.

Logically, anyone who would support bacon hurling at muslims by the anti-muslim camp would also have to support bacon hurling at Jews by the anti-Jew camp.

In the name of "free speech".

But I'm taken to task for wanting to take the PC handcuffs off the justice system to have these islamists arrested or deported because they pose an existential threat to the US.

115 Lively  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:24:32am

Speaking of hate speech:

calling Jews “the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs.”

What if a "white" group said *all* Afro-Americans are the grandsons of monkeys and pigs. You could hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Hollywood to Maine. The head of the organization(s) would lose their jobs, etc.

116 observer  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:25:39am

#113, ploome

I'm with you in spirit, but have these individuals been convicted of anything? The one who was in The White House? Could the FBI establish direct links between them (conspiring, supporting financially etc) and specific acts of terrorism? Links that would hold up in court?
If so, why ain't they doing it?
If not, we're still a nation of laws.
Up to the government to declare who/what the enemy is. Or, redefine what we mean by "terrorists" and their "supporters." I haven't seen acknowledgment yet that this is a new ballgame.

117 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:26:07am

# 114 Thom:

Logically, anyone who would support bacon hurling at muslims by the anti-muslim camp would also have to support bacon hurling at Jews by the anti-Jew camp.

Well, I see your point. However, I can also see both being done, but with one being acceptable in our society, and one being not acceptable. Two points if you figure out which is which.

118 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:36:57am

#117 Rick Z

I think they're both outrages and I hope I never see the day that either one happens here. Incitement and abuse is not the rule of law.

I don't want to torment, humiliate, or abuse muslims, I just want them the f*ck out of here, or else carefully monitored and restricted (as members of a seditious group whose ideology specifically calls for the eventual replacement of the Constitution with sharia), or else safely in jail as the individual situation warrants.

PC will not allow that to happen. So the justice system proceeds at its usual glacial pace with terrorists like Moussaoi publicly making us laughing stocks and terrorists openly meeting in Florida.

119 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:39:42am

Thanks to all, for a civil debate. All I am saying is knee-jerk reactions like,"The government shouldn't let this happen" are very dangerous statements.

Where is the line drawn for stopping things. Who controls what is and is not allowed?

People throw out laws such as sedation and others, yet I have yet to see one person show me a conviction.

Like I said, if they have broken the law, they should be dealt with, according to the laws.

Thanks again!

120 Rick Z  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:46:12am

# 118 Thom:

I don't want to torment, humiliate, or abuse muslims

You're correct, we shouldn't so that; Muslims do that to themselves quite nicely without our help!

I just want them the f*ck out of here, or else carefully monitored and restricted

Well, I vote for the profiling/monitoring. When one is from a country where the enemy (Islamic fundamentalism) survives and/or thrives, then 'guilty by association' may not be pretty, but it's pretty damn safe as a public policy to prevent further atrocities by these cult creeps.

# 119 Kevin P.:

You are welcome.

121 scott in east bay  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:47:28am

I don't want to torment Muslims either. I don't want to hurl pork products at them. A sign is different. This guy from Mecca has called for the destruction of America, and yet he is going to be allowed to come here and bellow his filth IN America. Fine. But he needs to know that he has a lot of enemies here, and we know what he said, and we don't like it. Tough if it is offensive. Someone calling for the destruction of my country is also offensive and I am not shy about saying so. And there is nothing wrong with confronting Muslims and Muslim organizations to demand that they make their feelings on the war known clearly and in public. You have the right to hate me, my country, or anything else you like, but I have the right to confront you, argue with you, denounce you and protest against your presence in my community. It's the American way!

122 fred from AL  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:50:53am

Kevin P

People throw out laws such as sedation and others

Sedation??? Damn, that's serious stuff. Like in the Soviet Union? ;-P

123 BIG  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 11:57:28am

#114 Thom

I really wouldn't mind you throwing Bacon at me as long as you also threw Lettuce, Tomato, and white toast. A pickle on the side would be nice.

124 Barbara Skolaut  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:00:21pm
Islamic conference in Florida

Sounds like a target-rich environment to me. ;-)

125 ploome  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:00:48pm

I need some sedation

now!

126 Thom  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:05:33pm

#123 BIG

LOL! Would you like tater chips with that?

127 ploome  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:06:31pm

I want wheat toast, dry, please

128 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:23:52pm

I'd throw stale bagels at the Iman.

129 scott in east bay  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 12:54:36pm

Could someone also throw some cole slaw with sour cream dressing? Oh, and maybe some red beet horseradish from Goldberg's deli in Paris.

130 erp  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 1:22:32pm

Since they're kind enough to all gather in one place, why not round them up and bring them all to Gitmo and find out what they know. Then one by one they can try to prove themselves innocent. If they succeed, repatriate them to their country of origin. If not, well Allah the compassionate can welcome them to paradise.

Sounds like a plan to me. Mainly, get them the hell out of the U.S.

131 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 2:54:06pm

#130 erp

Simply fucking amazing...I feel I am in Nazi Germany.

You ACTUALLY said let them PROVE themselves innocent?!

Maybe my convictions about lgf was off the mark. Some here are advocating the SAME THING Nazi Germany did...

Fucking sickening!

(Sorry for using the "f" word, just my honest opinion.)

132 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:03:54pm

#131 kevin p.

Simply fucking amazing...I feel I am in Nazi Germany.

What the f@@k do you know about Nazi Germany other than your "feelings"?

133 TS  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:07:30pm

Now I read that the group who is organizing this conference says Ralph Nader is headlining it...

Nader denies appearance with racist Muslim
But organizer insists he will headline conference with sheik who labeled Jews 'scum of humanity'
[Link: www.wnd.com...]

134 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:11:52pm

#132 ralph

ONLY what I have read, but the America I was born and raised in, you ARE INNOCENT, until PROVEN guilty!


Care to SHOW ME where THAT law has changed?!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Some here are advocating THE SAME thing going on in islamo-facist countries.

Congrats, you have become your enemy!

135 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:15:31pm

#134 kevin p.

ONLY what I have read, but the America I was born and raised in, you ARE INNOCENT, until PROVEN guilty!


And #130's post changed that? And your knee jerk response is National Socialist Germany not the Soviet Union in regards to being tried by innuendo is telling.

136 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:20:01pm

Btw, ralph, I was stationed at Ramstien AB, Germany for two years and talking to MANY older germans who WERE a part of the Nazi party during World War 2, what qualifications do YOU have on discussing this matter?

I have stood behind Israel in UNWAVERING support of them all of my life. Yet now, some who also stand behind Israel is advocating the SAME thing Nazi Germany was in the 30's and 40's.

Say this when they knock on YOUR door, ralph. You can PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT!

End of story, if you don't get what some are saying. YOUR loss, not mine! YOU have become what you hate so much about islamo-facist. You BOTH stand for the SAME EXACT THINGS!

137 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:23:13pm

135 ralph

I believe you should read ALL of what I said. YOU are one of a few advocating that people should prove themselves innocent, NOT ME!

SHOW ME WHERE ANY OF THESE MORNS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING OR WHERE THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED!

Put up or shut up...................

138 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:26:02pm

I will put it this way, I have FAITH in the US Constitution, too bad some here don't! Because you have become exactly what you hate. Anti-freedom islamo-facist. A.K.A.-It's my way or the highway (FUCK the constitution)

139 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:29:35pm

#16 kevin p.

YOU have become what you hate so much about islamo-facist. You BOTH stand for the SAME EXACT THINGS!

Oh I see #130 makes an off the cuff remark and that changes the legal system of the USA instantaneously. Your 2 years of service(which I salute you for) makes you an expert on the legal system of National Socialist Germany. You're are like a loose cannon on the deck of a ship that has been set of unintentionally and fires randomly hoping to hit a target to argue with. Get a grip and a better line of arguement.

140 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:32:24pm

#137 kevin p.

YOU are one of a few advocating that people should prove themselves innocent

Please cite where I said this or stop libelling me.

141 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:34:19pm

#139 ralph

And Your arguement is the SAME THING Nazi Germany did to people during World War two.

I feel ok with myself, how do YOU FEEL?!

Guilty until proven innocent, nice concept. Off the cuff comment? IT's the SAME thing the Nazi's did in Germany!


DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

142 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:39:59pm

#140 ralph

I digress, I was wrong to say that and please accept my apologies.

I hope you know what I am saying...

Once we change our constitution, the islamo-facist have won. For the simple fact we would not have as much freedoms as before 9/11. That is what they are striving for in some aspects. I don't remember exactly who it was I read that said that, but it's true, think about it, ralph.

I am not sticking up for this "conference", but I will stand up for their right to free speech.

143 ralph  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 3:56:34pm

#142 kevin p.

Yes they can say anything they want. It doesn't mean we can't hold them to the absolute letter of the law. Sedition is a crime.

144 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 4:04:18pm

#143 ralph

(ONCE AGAIN) WHO has been convicted of sedation then, ralph?!

145 Kevin P.  Wed, Dec 3, 2003 4:28:52pm

Ok, now I see how some in this blog want America to be. Putting the horse before the cart......(A.K.A.- convicting someone before you try them)


Nice....very nice........


Can ANYONE give me a link to anyone in this group convicted of something. Otherwise, let them hang themselves and we shall laugh about it later.....


Simply amazing how such a simple man, such as myself, was proven right constitutionally, again......

Read this again tomorrow folks and think about what some of YOU are advocating.

146 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 4:02:24am

#144 Kevin P.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No one has been convicted of sedition.

This is because the law is not being enforced.

Because the government lacks the will to enforce it.

Because of the PC police.

Why can't you get that through your head??

147 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 5:30:50am

I get that part, Thom. Why don't you get that some are advocating the SAME THING Nazi Germany did? The US government cannot throw someone out of the US just because you don't want them to speak. If you do that, welcome to the new Nazi movement, right here in the US. You might as well trash the first amendment, not to mention a few more amendments while you're at it.

Thom, I am not saying I stand for what these morlocks are saying. I am saying the US government cannot blindly condemn certain people's rights to freedom of speech.Once you do that, who controls such decisions? What if they don't like what is being said at a blog like lgf? It's a slippery slope I not want the US to start traveling down. The US government can NOT abridge anyone's right to free speech. If you want a place like Nazi Germany, fine, I would suggest Cuba might be more to your liking. Where there is NO freedom of speech.

148 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 5:47:19am

#147 Kevin P.

Sedition is not protected speech.

With that, I think I shall surrender.

149 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 5:58:15am
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The law is there, just waiting to be enforced.

150 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 6:21:17am

That IS what I am talking about, you on the other hand, have convicted them before a trial has even began. BIG DIFFERENCE!

151 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 6:26:45am

Thom, it is my sincere hopes that those who have called for the destruction of the US will not be allowed entry into the US. BUT, the US government can NOT stop them from speaking if they are allowed entry. THAT is a job for people like you and I to do, common citizens, to shed truth on islamo-facist such as these. Otherwise, we have, in essence, become somewhat the same as them....

152 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 8:31:41am

Not to worry, Kevin. Thanks to the 9th circuit court of appeals, we are busily using the Constitution to self-destruct.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

SAN FRANCISCO — In a potential blow to the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror, a federal appeals court overturned part of a sweeping law the government has increasingly used to arrest or prosecute suspected terrorists.

The decision Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involves a 1996 terrorism law that outlaws financial assistance or "material support" to organizations classified as terrorist by the State Department.

The San Francisco-based appeals court struck down part of the law, ruling that it is unconstitutional to punish people — sometimes with life in prison — for providing "training" or "personnel" to a terror group.

Increasingly, the charge of choice for prosecutors in the war on terrorism is that someone provided some form of material support to terror groups. The decision Wednesday means that for the first time, part of that strategy has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
...
In addition, the court wrote that it is unconstitutional to criminalize donations of personnel or training, which fall under the "material support" section of the law, because that "blurs the line between protected expression and unprotected expression."

We are firmly committed to national suicide and dhimmitude. And people like you and the 9th circuit court of appeals are beating the path for us.

Plug your ears and chant "1st amendment" as much as you like. The islamists will thank you for your useful idiocy with slavery or death.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

153 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 8:39:38am

Kevin P.

I think you need to sort things out a little bit. I'm looking at your comments below, and I don't find them all that consistent.

The US government cannot throw someone out of the US just because you don't want them to speak.
Thom, it is my sincere hopes that those who have called for the destruction of the US will not be allowed entry into the US. BUT, the US government can NOT stop them from speaking if they are allowed entry.
you on the other hand, have convicted them before a trial has even began.

Of course nothing is going to happen without due process, and I don't think anyone here would seriously advocate kicking out a Muslim just because it was rumored that they called for the destruction of the U.S. I don't know if you followed this John Mohammed sniper trial, but here was a guy caught red-handed, and he still had the right to tell his story to a jury, and they even took time to deliberate his fate a little bit; you know, it's been a year since he was killing people, and he's still able to ride the judicial process and probably will for many more years.

And of course no one is advocating throwing U.S. citizens out of the country just because they say a nasty thing or two about the administration; Taliban John is back home safe in the USA right now, even after fighting against it.

But what is being argued here is that there is a line that can be crossed in speech where we as a public do not have to wave posters in the streets to protect ourselves from its dangerous consequences -- we have already passed laws protecting this line. We passed these laws because we as a society decided that we'd rather not wait until there's a lynch mob in the street or a crushing stampede at the theater door before we decide that immeasueable horror was caused, essentially, by something someone said.

So, yes, if someone calls for the violent destruction of the U.S., it should trigger a higher level of reaction other than citizen protest; and we do have laws to this effect. But no, some American citizen arrested on charges of inciting violence or sedition will not be convicted without a trial, and no one here would seriously advocate such a thing; arresting and charging is not convicting. But yes, if the person is not a citizen, and the things they say would normally make them unwelcome anyway, then they really don't have full access to due process, and sending them home (a) does not violate our rights as citizens, (b) is probably the easiest legal maneuver anyway, and (c) just makes sense. Let them publish from overseas, and people here can order their books should they please ... I don't see why we should roll out the red carpet and offer a hotel room to people who want to destroy us.

154 Geepers  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 8:45:12am

Kevin P. (#151),

Otherwise, we have, in essence, become somewhat the same as them....

One man pushes a woman in front of a bus, another pushes her out of harms way.

Both are guilty of pushing a woman, right?

155 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 8:51:07am

#153 brett

Thank you! That is exactly what I have been trying to say.

156 Gordon  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 9:12:35am

#51 Teacake: You have a good point in that non-citizens of the U.S. don't have our free speech rights. If any (and I'm sure many are) of these conference speakers are non-citizens, they should be deported to their country of origin.

157 Gordon  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 9:16:59am

#63 Thom: I smell you too. I smell borscht and caviar, befitting someone like you who should have been a Soviet Commissar, rather than a U.S. citizen.

158 Gordon  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 9:20:54am

Kevin P.: thanks for standing up for American values against those like Thom would destroy the U.S. in order to save it.

159 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 9:28:16am

Hmm. Let me amend my #152 slightly:

We are firmly committed to national suicide and dhimmitude. And people like you and the 9th circuit court of appeals and Gordon are beating the path for us.

You really are a fucking idiot who obviously hasn't bothered to read a single word I wrote. Either that or you're intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.

With you, it's a toss up as to which is the case. So I'll offer a third option: you are a disingenuous idiot.

160 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:02:55am

#152 Thom

9th circuit court.....and you know how many times this circuit courts rulings have been over-turned, don't you?!
I am not letting anyone "off", I want people to act like humans, instead of Nazi storm-troopers, Thom.


#153 brett

brett, look at my first post, disagreeing with what Charles said. I am disagreeing that the US government should quash freedom of speech. If they do that now, what/who is next?! If someone advocates the overhtrow or destruction of the US government, arrest them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But, to just assume someone guilty is not a place I want the US to go. It would be the same thing the Nazi's did in Germany, plain and simple!


#158 Gordon

You're welcome, I am merely standing up for EVERYONE's freedom of speech. What some advocate here is the same thing Nazi Germany did. Finding someone guilty without a trial, no charges, nothing. And, as you can see, those advocating the same tactics that were used in Nazi Germany can't see the error in their thinking....too bad, so sad....

161 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:06:47am

Thom,

Gordon is more confused than Kevin P. -- dismiss him. As usual in these circumstances, there's always someone who cannot actually break down other people's arguments and offer well-reasoned, fact-based rebuttals ... but who nonetheless has a lot of stuff gushing from their mouth. They're usually over at Demo-Underground, but sometimes they show up here.

When G gives me a point-by-point rebuttal, I'll listen. Until then, how's the weather where you live? Done all your holiday shopping?

Cheers

162 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:09:18am

#152 Thom

"Plug your ears and chant "1st amendment" as much as you like. The islamists will thank you for your useful idiocy with slavery or death."

At least I won't be marching in goose-step chanting "sieg hiel". like you do!

163 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:12:47am

#161 brett

I am not confused at all brett. You are the one confused, I believe. When was the constitution changed that said someone was guilty before being charged with a crime? I look forward to your "rebutal" to my question. Thank you!

164 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:13:46am

Kevin P.

I am disagreeing that the US government should quash freedom of speech
assume someone guilty

Did you not read a word I wrote? Exactly where did I say that (a) I wanted the US government to quash all free speech, and (b) that I assumed someone was guilty? Please point these out for me. Point (b) is especially annoying, since I specifically talked about "due process," which in this country means that one is presumed innocent.

Stop foaming at the mouth about Nazi this and Nazi that and use your head. Read the arguments and offer reasonable rebuttals. All Thom and I are arguing is that the government (which currently has a citizen-elected presisent and follows citizen-created laws) enforce the laws erected for our own security in cases where it suspects (not assumes) they've been broken, and do so using due process. Full stop.

165 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:15:14am

Kevin P.

When was the constitution changed that said someone was guilty before being charged with a crime?

When did I say they were? Please point this out for me or stop making a fool out of yourself.

166 ploome  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:17:52am

162 Kevin P.

At least I won't be marching in goose-step chanting "sieg hiel".

so now, we dont have to go to counterpunch to read shit like this?

why don't you take your 'intellect' there?

167 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:19:30am

I missed this one before in post #160 ...

Finding someone guilty without a trial, no charges, nothing.

Again, where is this being advocated here? Did I not talk about due process? Did I not use examples of people who appear amazingly guilty but were given multiple chances for their defense?

Don't argue against positions no one is taking.

168 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:20:39am

#164 brett

I am not "foaming at the mouth", seems like the one's who want to convict someone without a trial are the one's "foaming at the mouth". I said LONG ago, if they did/do something against the law, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but some here, would rather them be guilty without a trial.

Maybe you should go back to and read the WHOLE arguement again.

My Nazi analogy is a good one, some here want someone stopped from speaking at a conference by the US government, just because they don't like what the morons would be saying. JUST LIKE THE NAZI's DID!

169 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:22:13am

#161 brett

And he still doesn't get it!!

What some advocate here is the same thing Nazi Germany did. Finding someone guilty without a trial, no charges, nothing.

If he didn't understand your exceptionally clear post, and missed my enthusiastic endorsement of it, then I really do surrender. This is just pointless.

Anyhoo, I'm sittin' here in MD waiting for Ed's monster storm to dump on us! Snow, sleet, ice. Yuck!

As far as shopping, I avoid that like the plague! Fortunately (?) my wife loves it so the holiday shopping thing is well under control.

Well, I'm off to a rally at Nuremberg. Catch y'all later.

170 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:22:56am

Kevin P.

the one's who want to convict someone without a trial

Again, please point out where I said this. You have not pointed out exactly where I have advocated a presumption of guilt or conviction without trial. Do this first, and then we can discuss.

171 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:23:12am

brett, do you agree with my FIRST statement or not?

#15 Kevin P. 12/3/2003 09:06AM PST

"After 9/11 it’s just suicidal that our government is still allowing conferences like this to take place. We really have gone back to sleep—the radical Islamic groups can hear us snoring, and they have redoubled their efforts."

I'm sorry Charles, I have to disagree. The more conferences that are held, the more we know who and what is being said/planned. A free speech society does not take free speech just from a few. It IS better to know what is being discussed AND who are attending these things.


If not, why not?

172 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:23:32am
the one's who want to convict someone without a trial

Who, me? Thom?

173 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:26:32am

Dammit. Am I a nazi or a stalinist? Should I go to the Nuremeberg rally, or the May Day parade? I'm so confused. But I guess it doesn't really matter just as long as nobody gets in my way while I shred the Constitution, take over as Dictator, and set up the gulags. {Kevin, I'm looking in your direction. BWAHAHA!!}

174 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:26:45am

brett, show me where ANY of these morons have been convicted of ANY crime in the US. People keep throwing the sedation laws out, NO ONE has yet to show me where ANY of these morons were convicted. They want them throw out by the US government, for what? They have NOT been convicted of anything yet! DUH!

It's a sad couple of days in lgf, with some avocating bypassing the constitution because you want to.

175 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:30:35am

Kevin P.

brett, do you agree with my FIRST statement or not?

Well, sort of: please read my post #26 when I responded to you.

The problem is that you've gone off the deep end arguing against a straw-man of a position in order to rally support for your first statement, which I did actually give some qualified support for.

ANYHOO, Thom,
Yes, it's supposed to be the first real storm of the season, although we've already seen some flurries here in NYC. I do all my shopping on line, and I only go to the stores to see the window displays. Christmas is beautiful in teh city -- you should visit if you haven't already.

176 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:34:07am

#166 ploome

No thanks.

Why don't you SHOW me WHAT LAWS these morons who want to speak at the conference have been convicted of?! ONCE, no one has shown me anything, just a weak arguement that avocates the same things the Nazi's did. Guilty BEFORE a trial or anything.

If you can show me that, I will leave lgf and never return, otherwise back up your arguement WITH fact instead of snide comments.....

ALL I am saying is that it is NOT the US government's job to stop someone from speaking. If during that speech, they break the law, prosecute them!

IF the US government does stop someone from speaking, we have NO constitution at all then! If you don't get that part, you never will.

I look forward to your "facts" on these morlocks convictions! Thank you.

177 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:36:47am

Kevin P.

show me where ANY of these morons have been convicted of ANY crime in the US

So let me see if I have this straight: you have to be convicted of a crime before you can be arrested for it? Someone should tell those Neverland prosecutors, since they've arrested Michael without even charging him!

As for immigrants, like I said, my guess is that throwing them out is not only legal but all you can really do outside of an international incident; that may actually not require any sort of conviction, but I don't know immigraton law. In any case, I'm sure there are lots laws involved, and I'd advocate some sort of hearing first, of course. No sense in creating bad will by tossing out someone innocent.

178 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:40:38am

Ok brett, fair enough, are you looking up where the constitution has been changed? I look forward to your links.

My arguement is a simple one;
1. The US government can not stop someone from making statements at a so called conference without any proof of them breaking the law.
2. Some here would want the US to stop them without being convicted, or even charged, with breaking a law.
3. If the US government does stop them, who makes that decision. Who, or what, will be in their cross-hairs next?
4. I have yet to see ANY facts stating that these persons have broken, much less being convicted, of any US law.
5. I don't want their hatred spread inthe US, but according to our own constitution, we cannot stop them, until they do something wrong.

Like it not, THOSE are facts!

179 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:43:28am
have been convicted of

I dont' need to, since no I have not suggested they have been convicted of anything. In fact, my first post suggested protests only, although, if they're here on a visa, I don't see any problem with revoking those visas based on their past writing and speeches.

What I and others have said is that we suspect they are in violation of certain laws concerning incitement of violence and sedition, and we encourage law enforcement to actually enforce those laws if reasonable people see (or hear, rahter) that they're being broken. When a guy goes on for 20 minutes to a crowded convention center about jihad and the glories of 9/11, it's an arguable point that they are crossing some of the boundaries of free speech we've erected in our legal code. If so, arrest them and have them tell it to the judge.

180 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:47:19am

#177 brett 12/4/2003 12:36PM PST

So let me see if I have this straight: you have to be convicted of a crime before you can be arrested for it?

LOL! That's about it in a ... ahem ... nutshell.

181 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:52:46am

#177 brett

I agree, I said that LONG ago. If they have spoke against, or called for, the US. Don't let them in!

Otherwise, the US government cannot stop them from spreading their hate.

Here is a comment that really pissed me off;

"Let them prove themselves innocent"

182 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:54:37am
1. The US government can not stop someone from making statements at a so called conference without any proof of them breaking the law.


But what if they (a) have proof from their previous writings, and (b) collect more evidence while the converence is going?

2. Some here would want the US to stop them without being convicted, or even charged, with breaking a law.


Who? I've only advocated protesting them. However, if I haven't done this already, I also advocate (a) tossing out those on visas who have been spewing hate in their home countries (no legal problems here, I'll bet), and (b) having police hover like hawks at their speeches to hear what they have to say.

3. If the US government does stop them, who makes that decision. Who, or what, will be in their cross-hairs next?


The government doesn't stop anybody -- juries, judges, laws, and the whole legal apparatus stops or frees people. They'll have plenty of chances, even if the cops do slap the cuffs on them mid-speech.

4. I have yet to see ANY facts stating that these persons have broken, much less being convicted, of any US law.


Well, doesn't the original article give us evidence that these folks have made some rather damning statements in the past? I'll bet some of it is worth revoking a visa or two, at least.

5. I don't want their hatred spread inthe US, but according to our own constitution, we cannot stop them, until they do something wrong.


Of course. The question is, are you willing to actually stop them when they incite violence or not? Moreover, are you willing to put the brakes on immigrants who have been doing this for a long time in their home countries?

183 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:57:23am

......against, or called for, the US.

Should be; against, or called for the destruction of the US.

184 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 10:58:14am
Otherwise, the US government cannot stop them from spreading their hate.

Yes they can. They give them enough rope to hang themselves, and then law enforcement actually (metaphorically speaking, of course) hangs them! There is a different between letting them say their hate once and letting them spread it! Damn straight the government can stop the spreading of it: one strike and you're out!

185 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:03:49am

#181 Kevin P.

Here is a comment that really pissed me off;

"Let them prove themselves innocent"

1) Who made that comment? 2) Did anyone endorse it? 3) Did anyone express disapproval?

Answers:

1) #130 erp. Apparently a drive-by poster who didn't follow up on it.
2) No.
3) Yes.

Are you calling me a nazi because of what a drive-by poster wrote?

186 brett  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:07:25am

#185 Thom 12/4/2003

Thanks, Thom. Facts are wonderful things.

Now I have to run, so you'll have to take it from here.

187 Thom  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:13:07am

#186 brett

Take care, and thanks for your posts. (I have a feeling I'll be hitting the road soon as well.)

188 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:15:07am

#182 brett

"But what if they (a) have proof from their previous writings, and (b) collect more evidence while the converence is going?"

Fine, that is what I was saying. The government can only stop them at the ports of entry if it is known they have advocated the destruction of the US. Collecting more evidence was what I said long ago. Some just want these morons not be able to speak if they do get in. I, and the constitution disagree.


"Who? I've only advocated protesting them. However, if I haven't done this already, I also advocate (a) tossing out those on visas who have been spewing hate in their home countries (no legal problems here, I'll bet), and (b) having police hover like hawks at their speeches to hear what they have to say."

I agree with you totally, some don't agree with you and I.

"The government doesn't stop anybody -- juries, judges, laws, and the whole legal apparatus stops or frees people. They'll have plenty of chances, even if the cops do slap the cuffs on them mid-speech."

I agree, but the government cannot be called upon to "stop" this conference for the simple fact it is not the government's job to do so. So, in fact, Charles was incorrect calling for the US government to stop this from happening(My main arguement).

"Well, doesn't the original article give us evidence that these folks have made some rather damning statements in the past? I'll bet some of it is worth revoking a visa or two, at least."

Maybe, maybe not. I see some things like "according to, who may be alleged, is accused of". Not very hard proof, if you ask me. Revoking visas would be fine by me, who wants them spreading hate anyways. Certainly not me!

"Of course. The question is, are you willing to actually stop them when they incite violence or not? Moreover, are you willing to put the brakes on immigrants who have been doing this for a long time in their home countries?"

I would be fully willing to stop them, our FBI is another story tho. I would be all for stopping someone who has preached their hatred in other countries to be not be given a visa, permitting travel in the US. THAT is different than the US government stopping them from making speeches.

My main arguement is that once you go down a slippery slope of stopping someone from asserting their freedom of speech rights (although, I don't like non-citizens having those same rights) we ALL lose our freedom of speech rights in one way or another.


GO ahead and re-read some comments made in this thread. I hope you see what I mean.

Thanks for being civil, take care and god bless you.

189 Kevin P.  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:26:13am

185 Thom

Ok Thom, here is what I think;


1. The INS should not let these morons in, because if they do, only private citizens can try to stop the conference.
2. If they are let in, the FBI (or whoever) should be monitoring their activities for prosecution, if needed.
3. People such as you and I, who hate islamo-facism, will be there to expose their vile hatred of the US. (along with authorities)
4. I just don't want people to throw out the constitution, for the simple fact that; once we do, we lose....they win.

I apologize for the Nazi comment, it was uncalled for and inappropriate.

Some in here thinks that just an accusation of being a sedationist is also being one. No one has been convicted of anything....yet.

And yes, I do agree with you about the courts being to "PC-minded". They are a disgrace!

190 Gordon  Thu, Dec 4, 2003 11:55:32am

Kevin P., Thom, Brett, Ploome :

There is a way to stop Islamofascism in the U.S., other than deporting non-citizens, and other than throwing out the First Amendment.

It is a method that has been blazed by Morris Dees and the Southern Anti-Poverty Law Center, who have filed civil suits against extremists when it can be shown that their words and actions incited another person to commit a crime. As soon as the Islamofascists words result in any kind of crime, sue them. Take away their money. Take away their property. Take away their Mosque and turn it into a church, or a casino, or a synagogue, or blow it up.

That's the American way. Hooray for the lawyers!

191 Pastor Lee Wasson  Sun, Dec 7, 2003 2:20:53am

We lease a 10,000 sq. ft. building right in the middle of where this conference is scheduled and where Universal Heritage is opening their college.

The Islamic conference in Kissimmee Florida is being held on property purchased by a "petroleum" company in south Florida. It is a 31 acre former college campus. This petroleum company has been trying (unsuccessfully so far) to evict our Christian School and small church from one of the buildings there. The property we lease was part of the overall land purchase.

They have actually pictured the building we lease on their website and call it the "Islamic Training Center". (They must have though that they could close us by now).

We have sued them.

For now, we have the only Christian Church and school located on the property of and in the middle of an Islamic College.

We have been interviewed on Local Fox TV but there is little or no activity from other local ministries so far.

We are not only on their doorstep, we are on the property.

192 Geepers  Sun, Dec 7, 2003 5:10:46am

Pastor Lee Wasson (#191),

Good luck, and God bless you.

If you need help there are a lot of people here who are on your side and will do what we can to give you assistance in any way that we can, even if that only means exposure of your situation.

Don't let them bully you.

193 Pastor Lee Wasson  Sun, Dec 7, 2003 8:45:03am

Thank you.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Save an extra 5% on pre-orders! 125x125
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Deer hunting without an accordion.


Barnes & Noble Home