By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
President Yahya Jammeh, who has for twenty-one years served as Gambia’s president, declared his nation an Islamic republic claiming this action would serve to break from the nations “colonial past.”
Though Gambia’s population is ninety percent Muslim and this would be in many ways seem an alignment with the culture of its people, the nation nevertheless has a very poor reputation for human rights, especially in its treatment of its homosexual citizens.
Jammeh is a vehemently and vocal anti-gay leader who told gays and lesbians in 2008 to leave the country or risk decapitation. Five women have now been arrested as accused lesbians in what human rights groups are calling a national campaign of terror and torture by the police.
The law criminalizes what it calls “aggravated homosexuality,” involving “serial offenders” and people living with HIV or AIDS. The law lumps such “repeat offenders” who engage in homosexual relations with people who engage in homosexual acts with someone who is under 18, disabled or who has been drugged or is under the “authority” of the homosexual. The accused face life in prison.
Amnesty International has charged that people are being tortured by police and forced to confess to homosexual acts or to accuse others of such acts.
Last year the European Union withheld aid packages to the small nation over its human rights record.
President Jammeh claimed in a television interview that no dress code would be enforced and promised that people of all religions would be allowed to practice their faith. He continued, “As Muslims are the majority in the country; the Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy.”
Jammeh withdrew Gambia from the British Commonwealth in 2013 claiming it was a neo-colonial organization.
By Darren Smith
Source: BBC News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Darren,
I posted a response some time ago, in the usual way, to something john smith addressed to me, but it hasn’t appeared in the comments section.
Any idea what the trouble may be?
Ken Rogers
Also, Tom, if you insist… I never thought of using the civil war as an example of christian terrorism, but if we are gonna use the shiites vs sunni, or the Iraq civil war as example of islamic terrorism…then obviously the american civil war certainly would fit the bill.
By the way, finished your homework about the muslim mother Theresa yet?
Paul C. Schulte
1, December 16, 2015 at 9:54 am
po – evidently logic is not something that you every took or if you did ever passed.
Yes, Muslims are terrorists. Your evidence proved that Muslims are terrorists even as you tried to prove they were not. Now it could be that all Muslims are terrorist, but few act on it. Or, few Muslims are terrorists. The numbers of terrorist activities only show the number of successful actors.
——————————————————–
Paul, that post above shows a few things:
1- You do not know what words mean. look up terrorism.
2- You are logically deficient…which makes sense considering logic requires knowledge and you are deficient in that.
3- You do not know the principle of causality…of cause and effect…and how to be guilty of something, one has to actually commit the something.
4- you are now trying to redefine both words and logic in order to twist your tortuous argument back into some sort of recognizable shape.
5-According to that illogic, you, paul, are a terrorist based on the fact we do not know (yet) the (many) unsuccessful terrorist acts you have committed.
Prove to us that you aren’t.
Of all the bad arguments you have made here since your teaching job abruptly ended, this one is the WORSE.
Let us assume you have never made it… no one saw it… your secret is safe with me 🙂
po – you are wacko. I have not seen a decent argument from you all day. And you have no logic. BTW. when are you going to answer my questions on the Grand Mufti of Palestine and Hitler?
Paul, you wouldn’t know a decent argument if it hit on the noggin, which it has been doing all day…
Your question about the grand Mufti? That’s its own answer!
it does not deserve a response beyond the ridicule you and Bibi earned from asking it.
I mean 2 minutes online should show to you the extent of either your ignorance or deception…or both 🙂
po – did or did not the Grand Mufti of Palestine meet with Hitler and ask for help with his Jewish problem?
Paul, you tell me, and please provide a source.
po – again you deflect, as always. I gave you two sources and you never looked at them. You deflected then, too. Go back to the sources I sent you.
Good point, Paul, let’s apply it to you too, go back to my initial reply with the quotes if offered.
po – you deflected, you did not reply.
Paul, you remember the first time you asked the question?
Well, I did respond then… why not find your initial question and there you have my response?
Unless you want to pay me to dig it out from the pile 🙂
po – you deflected on every question I have asked. You are no longer worth my time. BTW, there isn’t a Muslim Mother Theresa
Paul, what question haven’t I answered?
You know, it is as easy as typing on google, “Netanyanhu ridiculed for blaming holocaust on grand mufti of Palestine”” and …
“Muslim Mother Theresa””…
…or is it worth more coming from me :)?
Also, John, if we acknowledge White christian and Israeli Jewish involvement into 9/11, how do we then not discount Muslim involvement?
The narrative was that it was all and just Saudis…if we then find that Mossad was involved, and we, on this side were participants somehow… how do we know the initial narrative is still valid?
Wouldn’t it then give credence to the suspicions of false flag operations, and that therefore Osama BL was not actually the guilty party…which would then demand we no longer accept that Saudis were the hijackers?
No?
if we are talking about Africa, guess what, Uganda which is 42% Catholic, does quite well compared to many of its neighbors, at least since the tyrannical Idi Amin, who by the way was a Muslim. NIgerian Catholics of whom I know a few, are usually quite a bit “more Catholic” than westerners of the same name. There is something there worth considering.
Most geostrategic analyses by Americans treat religion as if it was just a tool of the powerful to control the weak. That is a vast oversimplification and a conceited pretense of the west. A more sophisticated consideration with better predictive value treats religions with respect, and that is part of the reason Putin has been ten steps ahead of Americans on so many problems that we can’t seem to manage properly. A. Dugin is worth a look.
let’s be fair to “Christianity” too as a religion. Its second major schism the Protestant reformation was a disaster for Europe even worse than the first with the Orthodox. and therein lies also the genesis of the “Enlightenment” which is the explicitly anti-Christian ideology of secularism that underpins every major western state. So, when you talk about the wars among Europeans, those are actually a failure of Christianity, not because of it. Christianity properly understood explicitly invokes “one holy catholic and apostolic church” since that creed was formalized, and that meant and means one Church, not ten thousand.
ok ken but understand, if you parse through the information we have which is anomalous to the 9/11 official narrative, it does not EXPIATE the Muslim terror participants, it just adds: hundreds of Israelis who apparently knew what was coming, and countless American (gentile, nominally “Christian” perhaps) intelligence apparatchiks who facilitated the mess, like the CIA which ordered their fbi liason not to notify fbi that al queda terrorists had entered the country, to say nothing of the bizarre failure to scramble jets to intercept, etc. we have no idea however WHO if anybody accelerated the disaster with prepositioned explosives. we have evidence of thermite but no clue who put it there. that’s how I read the most credible information. so understand all the 9/11 truth stuff does not exonerate the Saudis, in fact most of it just reinforces the likelihood that the Saudi government had a role. we don’t know what the redacted portions of the 9/11 official report says either but it seems from comments from politicians involved in making it, that there was significant whitewash to protect Saudi government, and the classified portions relate to them.
So that’s my point, the 9/11 stuff does not exonerate Muslim terror. it just implicates Saudi government elements as well as elements of the Israeli and American security apparatuses who have have been complicit.
sorry…I did not mean to add the extra “O”.
With “moderate” Muslims like Po, who needs enemies?
Tom, forgot to include link, that write up was not mine, but the facts in it? Still factual!
Are you gonna challenge the facts …or like Ralph before you, like Nick, like bambam, you are satisfied with the non-sequiturs?
Whatever rocks your boat, friend!
““Muslims are not Terrorists”-Po.
The Mafia never had Italians-Spinelli
Just making a point, Nick.
According to your logic, you shoulda said: Muslims are not terrorists. Italians are not mafiosis. The way you wrote it instead? managed to undermine whatever point you were attempting to make.
Ahhhhhhh! This is waaaay too easy!
Since I’ve got you here however, another round of facts you won’t be able to challenge…
By the way, I have hired Nick to keep and eye on you and bambam, you both are a danger to our society 🙂
———————————————-
No, Muslims Are Not More Violent Than People of Other Religions. Here Are the Facts to Prove It.
Posted on Nov 15, 2015
By Juan Cole
Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.
As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.
I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame (the secular nationalist Young Turks also committed genocide against the Armenians during an invasion of eastern Anatolia by Russia).
Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)
Belgium– yes, the Belgium of strawberry beer and quaint Gravensteen castle– conquered the Congo and is estimated to have killed off half of its inhabitants over time, some 8 million people at least.
Or, between 1916-1930 Tsarist Russian and then Soviet forces — facing the revolt of Central Asians trying to throw off Christian (and then Marxist), European rule — Russian forces killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. That is horrible, but no one, whether in Russia or in Europe or in North America has the slightest idea that Central Asians were mass-murdered during WW I and before and after, and looted of much of their wealth. Russia when it brutally conquered and ruled the Caucasus and Central Asia was an Eastern Orthodox, Christian empire (and seems to be reemerging as one!).
Then, between half a million and a million Algerians died in that country’s war of independence from France, 1954-1962, at a time when the population was only 11 million!
I could go on and on. Everywhere you dig in European colonialism in Afro-Asia, there are bodies. Lots of bodies.
Now that I think of it, maybe 100 million people killed by people of European Christian heritage in the twentieth century is an underestimate.
As for religious terrorism, that too is universal. Admittedly, some groups deploy terrorism as a tactic more at some times than others. Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active terrorists in the 1940s, from a British point of view, and in the period 1965-1980, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups. (Members at one point plotted to assassinate Rep. Dareell Issa (R-CA) because of his Lebanese heritage.) Now that Jewish nationalsts are largely getting their way, terrorism has declined among them. But it would likely reemerge if they stopped getting their way. In fact, one of the arguments Israeli politicians give for allowing Israeli squatters to keep the Palestinian land in the West Bank that they have usurped is that attempting to move them back out would produce violence. I.e., the settlers not only actually terrorize the Palestinians, but they form a terrorism threat for Israel proper (as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin discovered).
Even more recently, it is difficult for me to see much of a difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Hebron massacre.
Religion_distribution
Or there was the cold-blooded bombing of the Ajmer shrine in India by Bhavesh Patel and a gang of Hindu nationalists. Chillingly, they were disturbed when a second bomb they had set did not go off, so that they did not wreak as much havoc as they would have liked. Ajmer is an ecumenical Sufi shrine also visited by Hindus, and these bigots wanted to stop such open-minded sharing of spiritual spaces because they hate Muslims.
Buddhists have committed a lot of terrorism and other violence as well. Many in the Zen orders in Japan supported militarism in the first half of the twentieth century, for which their leaders later apologized. And, you had Inoue Shiro’s assassination campaign in 1930s Japan. Nowadays militant Buddhist monks in Burma/ Myanmar are urging on an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya.
As for Christianity, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilities that displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?
Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.
Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.
It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as “nice” and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasn’t been repeated.
Poo, you forget to include the American Civil War, I think. Those casualties on our side of the “tally” may further bolster your case.
Since you are an American Muslin of Mexican, Afrfican, and Oriental heritage, you bring a unique experience to this forum.
Do yo consider USIS, al Queda, Book Harem, et Al to be violent Islamic organizations?Do you consider the massive Iraq and Iranian casualties to be Islamic violence?
Do you consider the what you claimed to be 4 million deaths after Gulf War II_ largely Sunni on Shia violence, and to some degree Shia on Sunni violence, featuring car bombings, suicide bombings, etc to be Islamic violence?
Or are all of those deaths the fault of the U.S._ for freeing” Iraqis to slaughter each other. Or were American forces doing the car bombings, the suicide bnombings, in your mind?
You are on really shaky ground talking about how “peaceful” Muslims are.
Tom, let me make it easy on you…add up all those exactions by those islamic groups, all of them… and the tally on your side still dwarfs the other.
Secondly, I don’t recall ever making the case that Muslims are inherently peaceful… that would be a dumb argument…no religion is inherently anything…my point is always that human beings are inherently political, and religion is a cloak one uses to justify one’s political motives.
It is as dumb as saying that democracy is inherently violent because in the name of democracy, wars have been waged and millions massacred.
The value of refraining from pointing the finger, is that it allows one to take stock of his side….
so whether historically or presently, the toll on humanity has been overwhelmingly caused by white Christianity affiliated…it does not condemn Christianity, it condemns those who use Christianity to justify their evil…including Bush and his generals.
So, in light of the KKK alone, I would be very shy of pointing a finger…
And John, there is no either or, all religions are the same. So one to all…if Ugandans are lynching gays in the name of religion, how does it differ from ISIS throwing them off roofs?
Po……nothing’s been easy when I’m having to travel 8-10 hours a day. You mentioned the KKK, which probably peaked in strength in the 1920s. They may have had some influence on violence internationally; as far as I know, they were not that big internationally.
As I mentioned before, you forgot to mention the American Civil War to argue that there’s some kind of phony equivillancy between “christian terrorism” and islamic terrorism”.
It is fitting and consistent that you now use the KKK, now basically an irrelevant shell organization, as an another” example” of “Christian terrorism” to downplay Islamic terrorism. I would argue that “nonbelievers/infidels” have more to fear from ISIS, et. Al, then non-Chrstians have to fear from the KKK.
Tom, my point, which should not be missed, is not that islamic terrorism is not to be feared…or that the kkk is a bigger threat globally, far from it …it is always fairer to stick to the issues we are discussing rather than mixing them …right?
Your point was that Muslims are not peaceful, which, in order to argue, you had me contend that Muslims are peaceful, which I never contended.
So…when I used the data, facts as some may call them, to show that statistically, Muslims, in spite of the claim we are more violent than any other religious group, are certainly not so, you find refuge in a different argument that challenges the relevancy of the kkk in this debate.
Perhaps we ought to change the topic to current islamic terrorism vs current Christian terrorism… if you so choose…
But, as it is now, my original claim is still valid that if we are using numbers, the number of victims claimed by Islamic terrorism, and contrast them with the number of victims claimed by other groups, religious or secular, including Christianity, then Muslims are not any more violent than any of those other groups, perhaps even a great deal less so 🙂
Po-“Ironically”, your N. Carolina stats were SINCE 9-11, and only included terrorist acts AGAINST Americans.
Another in your series of specious posts.
Po….I don’t happen to care a rat’s ass about what you’re
“getting tired of”, or your phony claims of victimization.
Again, Mr. Po, I salute your courage, using your real name as a “moderate muslin”.
The following is for you, tom.
America’s greatest danger?
White males of christian background.
We ought to round them up into camp until we can vet each one of yous.
—————–
Muslims Are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam
Every time an act of terror or shooting occurs, Muslims closely watch the news with extreme trepidation praying that the suspect is not Muslim. This is not because these terrorists are likely to be Muslim but rather because in the instances where they happen to be, we see amplified mass media coverage and extreme unjustified hatred towards Muslims.
As a Muslim, I am tired of condemning terrorist attacks being carried out by inherently violent people who hijack my religion. I am tired of condemning these attacks to people who are calm and apathetic when Muslims are killed by these same radicalized terrorists.
I am tired of hearing the word “terrorist” not being used when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a non-Muslim. I am tired of the “mentally disabled” excuse being recycled when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a Caucasian. I am tired of seeing hundreds of terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims not get the same coverage of even a single terrorist attack where the suspect happens to be Muslim.
Above it all, I am tired of having to repeatedly say that Muslims are not terrorists. It is time we silence this Islamophobia with facts. My next five points will prove once and for all that Muslims are not terrorists:
1. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI itself, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States since 1980 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact reasons that we cannot blame the entire religion of Judaism or Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under the names of these religions, we have absolutely no justifiable grounds to blame Muslims for terrorism.
2. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.
3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.
4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are peacemakers because 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims.
5. If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.
When a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the car manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is because we understand that we cannot blame an entire car company that produces millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars was hijacked by a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So what right do we have to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion peaceful people because of the actions of a relatively insignificant few?
I will not deny that terrorism is a real threat, it definitely is. However, it is extremely incorrect to associate the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” when literally all the facts implore you to do otherwise. The only way that we as Americans can defeat terrorism at home and across the world is by accurately targeting its root causes. There have been 355 mass shootings in the United States this year and falsely blaming Muslims for the San Bernardino shooting will do absolutely nothing to address this serious problem. It is time that we begin addressing terrorism on an educated and factual level.
As an American Muslim, I plead you all to deeply consider the facts mentioned here the next time you see a news headline about Muslims and terrorism. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that”. We cannot allow the disparity in media coverage to blind us from the facts and turn us into hateful people, we are smarter than that.
Right, Po. They just have a lot of bad press.
“Muslims are not Terrorists”-Po.
The Mafia never had Italians-Spinelli
Just making a point, Nick.
Po-if you’re tired of the word “terrorist”, how about they’re “just a little mixed up” to molify you?
po – evidently logic is not something that you every took or if you did ever passed.
Yes, Muslims are terrorists. Your evidence proved that Muslims are terrorists even as you tried to prove they were not. Now it could be that all Muslims are terrorist, but few act on it. Or, few Muslims are terrorists. The numbers of terrorist activities only show the number of successful actors.
And by civilization, Ralph, you mean the ability and willingness to murder people in spades, kind alike this:
—————————————
Another fact that Americans can’t be proud of is knowing that the most warring nation on earth just since World War II alone has murdered up to 30 million people around the globe with an estimated 90% of them being civilians. Having initiated 201 out of the total of 240 armed conflicts from the end of WWII to 2001, it then follows that between those years the US Empire of Chaos and Destruction has murdered 27 million innocent people whose lives have tragically been cut short through no fault of their own for simply living in the wrong place at the wrong time belonging to the wrong ethnic nationality targeted by America’s full spectrum dominance and global superpower hegemony. And that was before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And what does it take to be targeted as a US foreign enemy? Any country whose leaders choose to support their own citizens’ well-being, independence and quality of life over US Empire’s fascist transnational corporate interests is attacked economically through sanctions and embargos, politically through propaganda lies and threats, or militarily though unnatural disasters/weather warfare, occupied invasions involving long term bloody conflict or acts of terrorism, coups and assassinations. Just ask Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo North Korea, Donbas, Palestine or Russia just to name more than a dozen.
People around the world have been victimized for well over a century by American Empire’s willful rape and pillage of their lands in the name of stolen natural resources and inhumane forced slave labor, and those are the nations whose puppet dictators willingly succumbed and acquiesced to US demands and pressures. In fact in the tradition of the British Empire, North America’s entire domestic and foreign history has been made of genocidal killing, enslaving, stealing and subjugating other darker-skinned races into death and submission. Given this context with the bigger picture perspective, “supporting our troops” is really supporting mass murder around the world. So bearing that sobering, grim reality in mind, it’s time for Americans to cease and desist with their jingoistic rah-rah that only adds insult to injury to the rest of the victimized world.—————————–
In whose name were those massacres committed, Ralph?
Whose name/religion did Bush invoke when he led us into Iraq?
Based on that standard above, the US is the MOSt uncivilized country on earth…and Christianity has sure killed a LOT of people.
Oops, forgot, you are allergic to questions.
po – no one is more allergic to questions than you, po. Answers my questions about the connections between the Grand Mufti of Palestine and Hitler. Answer them and the truth shall make you free.
This is a great thing. We need more Islamic republics. Civilization is vastly overrated.
Ralph, questions are to the ignorant as kryptonite is to superman…you do your disappearing act anytime I ask you questions…kinda like karen, Nick and bambam,
Why are you guys so afraid of simple questions?
I bet you were those kids in class who would disappear into their ink wells for fear of being called upon!
po – still waiting for you to answer for the Grand Mufti of Palestine and Hitler. All you did was sidetrack, which is your usual tactic when you cannot answer a question. Tell us, why did the Grand Mufti put together a Waffen SS division for the Germans? Why did he ask for German help in exterminating the Jewa in Palestine? Why was he considered a war criminal?
Paul, do you remember how I addressed those questions when you asked them previously?
I shared the ridicule Bibi netanyahu got when he made the same claims, along with some breakdowns of those claims.
Followed by the German chancellor, Merkel, when she was asked about it, replying that there was no reason to change history and Germany’s responsibility in the holocaust.
So, again, I could do your homework for you and dock you points for it (you are in the negative right now)…or you can study history on your own and come up with the answer, the real answer, the historical answer…the one everyone else but you and Bibi subscribe to.
You can see I hope why I keep thinking you were fired from teaching 🙂
Have you submitted your paper on the Muslim Mother Theresa yet? no?
Hint? Edna… Nope, that’s all you are getting!
po – you don’t seem to remember they were a different set of questions. So, answer mine. See, you deflected again, CAIR is giving you good material.
Yes Ralph…..it could save us from the massive global problem of Christian terrorism, so often cited here.
From a national security perspective, when we solve the top national security issues of global warning and “Christian terrorism”, all will be well.
@john smith
1, December 14, 2015 at 2:01 pm
“Hey Ken, I am up on 9-11 truth and wtc7 and all that stuff, but why are we talking about this in a Gambia thread? Seriously.”
All of the comments in response to “Gambia Declared Islamic Republic By President” have addressed the significance of this development in terms of Islamic human rights records and in terms of Islamic jihad.
“Nick Spinelli
“1, December 13, 2015 at 9:01 pm
“Tom Nash, If people in the West would read and listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali they would know just how many Muslims support violent jihad. She’s been predicting this increase in violence for over a decade now. The people who disparage Ms. Ali just elevate her. The critics are jihadists or enablers. I doubt we have any jihadists here, but we sure have some enablers and deniers.”
One of the comments addressing Islamic violence explicitly referred to the attacks of 9/11 as an example of Islamic violence, and of course 9/11 has been used as the main excuse for invading two predominantly Islamic countries, Afghanistan and Iraq for their alleged roles in the 9/11 attacks.
As 9/11 is “the event that changed everything” in terms of the West’s relations with Muslim countries, it is obviously noteworthy if the evidence points away from Muslims as the perpetrators of the “crime of the century.”
“Tom Nash
1, December 13, 2015 at 6:55 pm
“It took a strong commitment for the 19 [9/11] hijackers to slaughter thousands, with the belief that their ‘martyrdom’ was a ticket to paradise.”
“The invasion of Afghanistan was a direct result of the massive casualties of 9-11, in addition to the previous Al Queda attacks. Since the Taliban rolled out the red carpet for Al Queda, and AL Queda was based in Afghanistan ( and more ” centralizred” (sic) at the time), the U.S. went after both.”
My comments in this thread regarding 9/11 have been in direct response to these and similar comments.
What a loon!
Bam, please don’t disparage Nick like that, that man is a fixture on this blog, so please show some respect!
I agree with you regarding that sentiment, he is indeed a loon, compensating with aggression for what he lacks in intelect but, like all of us, hold it inside and murmur it into your pocket, don’t voice it, especially publicly!
Sheeesh!
No respect!
Hey Ken, I am up on 9-11 truth and wtc7 and all that stuff, but why are we talking about this in a Gambia thread? Seriously.
John, all roads lead to Rome/ are paths come to 9/11, everything echoes from the fall of the towers… millions have died since, in the name of the 3000… so gambia or Syria, everything contains the seed of 9/11 in it.
@po
1, December 14, 2015 at 12:12 pm
“To add to that, Ken, the few among them who took flying lessons, practiced on a tiny aircraft, nowhere near the behemoth that is that boeing…to believe they could have steered it according to the specifications of one Bin Laden in order to hit the tower exactly whereas to cause the maximum damage sounds far fetched.
At this point, there is enough evidence that we can believe 2 things with some measure of certainty:
1- The planes hit the buildings
2- Something else helped the building come down…something other than the impact of the planes.
“Everything revolves around the second point.”
Yes, the irrefutable eyewitness, video, and audio evidence of explosions in the North and South Towers and Building 7 are key to understanding their reduction to microscopic dust.
Collapsing steel and concrete simply can’t pulverize other steel and concrete below it, nor can kerosene (jet fuel) fires at their hottest melt steel, let alone pulverize it.
The video below shows graphically what, on the other hand, the explosive, thermate, can do to steel, physical evidence of which was found in the WTC buildings’ rubble.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.html
I do remember reading about the account of a supervising security guard who was there on 9/11 and ended up playing a vital role in steering the workers out safely. He testified that there were crews of workers in the building days before the event, and he added hearing detonations in the building in which he was before the first plane hit.