Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 89
  1. #31
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu View Post
    What I am saying is that you are preaching hate and fear basically just like the government has been doing to make it easier to trample on people's rights.
    Oh... I and the government are preaching hate by exposing radical Muslims who frequently associate with terrorists and by doing so keeping them out of the country. Obviously none of this guy's associations, activities or own words will change your mind that he might be something other than a fine upstanding example of moderate Islam. We should ignore all that evidence because I am preaching hate for pointing it out. Forever the victim...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu View Post
    This does apply straight to the issue at hand, since the real big issue here in the threads you've put up is not whether they actually are factual or not, but rather why you put them up in the first place.
    So lets ignore the facts listed. Instead lets examine the poster's motivation. What a novel approach for a rebuttal. Thats as strong selling point to support your claims to the "factualness" of the articles as trek's tendency to point out the geographic location of those posting the facts...lol.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #32
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Belgium
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,271

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    ^^ My nick has never before popped up in so many quotes. I don't know if I should be satisfied or paranoid

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Sorry... you passed on the links I provided and went to Wikki instead? Lots of terrorism supporters CLAIM to be trying to be "uniters" or "building bridges". Basically will say anything to gain access to the US. His actions, activity and close ties to terrorists paint an entirely different story however. You seem focused on one claim in one link provided. There are several reasons why he might not be getting in.. these are just a few reasons publicly known. I'm sure the DHS and State dept. have much more information... and they are not compelled by law to lay out a case.

    Here is some more background:



    Tariq Ramadan: Terrorism connections cited for revoking slated Notre Dame professor's US visa - Muslims-CAIR& Chicago Tribune protest
    Excuse me for wanting additional info from some of the material you provide Scooter. I am satisfied with your effort though

    Many of the articles quoted by MIM.org are rather vague, based on opinion pieces and speculation. But you'd have to know French of course. MIM.org seems to take speculation as fact though. Yet in the quoted articles it is clearly said that Ramadan has had nothing substantial proven against him.

    Ramadan did find a silver lining, however. “After two years of investigation, the State Department cites no evidence of ‘suspicious relationships,’ of meetings with terrorists, or encouraging or advocating terrorism, of so-called ‘doublespeak,” he writes. This “puts an end to the rumors and baseless allegations that have circulated since my original visa was revoked. . . . I am glad that the State Department has abandoned its allegation that I endorse terrorism.”

    Ramadan currently teaches at Oxford.

    http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc092706
    Taking this from another opinion piece provided this above quote of interest.
    Apparently the investigation into Ramadan by the US state department has not found any evidence of suspicious relationships.
    I'm not saying Ramadan is a totally honest man but if the man is such a danger to Western society, then why is he currently a professor at Englands most renowned university?
    Whisper Performance setup:
    Asus Maximus Formula (X38)
    Asus Geforce EN8800GT
    Intel Q6600 3720 Mhz 1.45v.
    2x 74Gb WD Raptors RAID-0
    WinXP Pro SP2
    Eheim 1048 // Apogee GT // Black Ice GT Stealth 240 XFlow
    TT Mozart Tx

  3. #33
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf2000me View Post
    ^^ My nick has never before popped up in so many quotes. I don't know if I should be satisfied or paranoid

    Excuse me for wanting additional info from some of the material you provide Scooter. I am satisfied with your effort though

    Many of the articles quoted by MIM.org are rather vague, based on opinion pieces and speculation. But you'd have to know French of course. MIM.org seems to take speculation as fact though. Yet in the quoted articles it is clearly said that Ramadan has had nothing substantial proven against him.
    Sorry if it appeared I jumped on you.. it was not my intent. I would say the preponderance of evidence pretty thoroughly debunks how this guy tries to recreate himself as a "uniter". To that end.. even if this was all the evidence available I'd still be glad the DHS prefers to err on the side of safety.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf2000me View Post
    Taking this from another opinion piece provided this above quote of interest. Apparently the investigation into Ramadan by the US state department has not found any evidence of suspicious relationships. I'm not saying Ramadan is a totally honest man but if the man is such a danger to Western society, then why is he currently a professor at Englands most renowned university?
    I'd disagree. But to be sure the State Dept. is not telling us everything. Nor do they need to. As to why he is still teaching at one of England's most prestigious universities... well I'll let my opinion of contemporary academia in other threads speak for my theory there.. . Here are a few other resources you might find useful:

    Tariq Ramadan is not a victim

    Police fund visit by academic who justifies suicide bombings

    Danger: Tariq Ramadan is coming to the US

    Tariq Ramadan

    Why Tariq Ramadan lost

    Tariq Ramadan: The Case of the Grand Deception

    Tariq Ramadan – Reformist or Islamist?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #34
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Scooter -

    It surprises me not that you have such trouble in this forum. You fail to properly interpret even the smallest of sentences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    Generally speaking Scooter, to win an argument you must support your own assertions with evidence. Maybe that should be part of the sticky for this forum?
    The above quote was made after Wolf2000me requested evidence from you and you told him

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    If you truly seek information(which I doubt), do a bit of research on your own.. ther is plenty of information out there.
    My comment was not a request for the information as I could care less about anything you attempt to debate on this forum. I've seen the depths of your intellect and walked away underwhelmed.

    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.

    I was shocked to find that presenting your OWN evidence was not in fact listed on the stickies at the top of this forum, hence my suggestion. It dawned on me to remind myself of whom I was dealing with -- if it isn't mentioned in a sticky for you to read, how was I to expect that you would figure out the idea of supporting your own arguments with evidence instead of having others gather it for you?

    My Israel comment you attribute to discrimination. Expected. I suppose it's too much to ask that you think about the possibilities before dismissing them outright. You've never accurately depicted my position on Israel. I suppose the problem is your hatred of Muslims makes you think I hate Israel and its citizens.

    We understand now Scooter. You hate Islam. You hate Muslims. You don't care where your information comes from as long as it discredits one or both of those groups.

    Wolf2000me pointed out that in your own linked articles, Ramadan has had nothing substantial proven against him. Your response to that?

    Crickets.

    He then pointed out that our own State Department investigation has found no evidence of any suspicious relationships.

    Your reply?

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    But to be sure the State Dept. is not telling us everything. Nor do they need to.
    Now you know what the State Dept. knows? Earlier you made it sound like anything the State Dept. said was as good as gold. Suddenly when it contradicts your position the tune changes to "They obviously aren't telling us everything?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyposcooter
    But lets pan the FACT the State Department itself say's this guy is a no-go.
    As long as it fits into your arguments Scooter, it seems you are quite willing to coddle up next to whichever teat the Government offers you and suckle away happily with the other tinfoil-hat brigade members.

  5. #35
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,784

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    gee whiz. I was really enjoying that last response until the end where Trek felt he had to stoop to scooters level of colorful offtopic personal comments...

    You really didn't need to, brother, er, bother. We all know his position here.

  6. #36
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Scooter -

    It surprises me not that you have such trouble in this forum. You fail to properly interpret even the smallest of sentences.

    Generally speaking Scooter, to win an argument you must support your own assertions with evidence. Maybe that should be part of the sticky for this forum?

    The above quote was made after Wolf2000me requested evidence from you and you told him
    That much surprises you is more telling of your inability to explain away what you write, than my ability to understand what you write. Perhaps in the future you should refrain from making comments that state I need to provide evidence if you are going to make latter posts claiming you were not asking for evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was not a request for the information as I could care less about anything you attempt to debate on this forum. I've seen the depths of your intellect and walked away underwhelmed.
    You point out that you felt I did not offer up evidence (the links provided clearly show otherwise) and pointing it out was not a request. That you did it supposedly on someone else's behalf(unsolicited) does not change the nature of your comment. And again... the weakness of your position is emphasized with your tendency to lean on personal attacks instead of substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    No... you again passed over the information provided and then made a request for evidence. I "suggest" you try another angle.. or just fall back on personal insults. Neither will work, but you are clearly better at one than the other. Also please provide evidence that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    Lotsa threads and responses from me. For someone who claims to be a proponent of providing evidence to support an argument... you sure make some unsupportable claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    I was shocked to find that presenting your OWN evidence was not in fact listed on the stickies at the top of this forum, hence my suggestion. It dawned on me to remind myself of whom I was dealing with -- if it isn't mentioned in a sticky for you to read, how was I to expect that you would figure out the idea of supporting your own arguments with evidence instead of having others gather it for you?
    I was shocked that this is the best you could do at attempting sarcasm + a personal insult....... well not really. Stick to the latter...

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My Israel comment you attribute to discrimination. Expected. I suppose it's too much to ask that you think about the possibilities before dismissing them outright. You've never accurately depicted my position on Israel. I suppose the problem is your hatred of Muslims makes you think I hate Israel and its citizens.
    He's dodgin..... he's weaving... he's still getting slapped about in the face of his own hypocrisy... it's TREK!! Whats wrong bud?? Run out of excuses for using "logical fallacies" in place of substance as requested? Let me re-quote that lil blerb I'm sure you'd like to forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    If you want something substantial to refute the articles you've linked, how about the fact that 50% of the 'experts' listed on terrorfinance.org work for or live in Israel? I'm sure Israeli citizens/employees have no personal grudge against Islam in general.
    This is what passes as "substantial" evidence in Trekwerld. Pointing out the geographic location of the authors. Not refuting their data with "evidence" as he seems to like to suggest other should do... but instead pointing out where they live. And then stereotyping them as holding a grudge against Islam "in general".... nope... no discrimination or hypocrisy to see here... move along...

    Hey Trek... I think you are wrong about just about everything. I have "substantial" evidence... you live in Fort Collins.

    Your "logic" bud. Live with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    We understand now Scooter.
    Was there another vote where "everybody" elected you as their spokesperson again Trek?? I seem to miss a LOT of those. Odd.. what with the amount of time I spend here and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You hate Islam. You hate Muslims. You don't care where your information comes from as long as it discredits one or both of those groups.
    Prove it... again Trek shows his tendency to "do as I say... not as I do" hypocrisy. You have nothing that even remotely resembles "evidence" that I hate Islam or Muslims. Again, for someone who claims to be a proponent of providing evidence to support an argument... you sure make some unsupportable claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Wolf2000me pointed out that in your own linked articles, Ramadan has had nothing substantial proven against him. Your response to that?
    Was to provide more material... to which he responded and you ignored:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf2000me
    Excuse me for wanting additional info from some of the material you provide Scooter. I am satisfied with your effort though
    Once again you rush to defend someone that has not asked for your help. And again you are wrong. Wolf2000me(remember him??) seems satisfied and can carry on a conversation just fine on his own... perhaps you should stick to propping up your own hypocrisy and let others debate as they wish without your unsolicited "help".

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Crickets.
    ^^^ Exactly what I expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf2000me
    He then pointed out that our own State Department investigation has found no evidence of any suspicious relationships.

    Your reply?
    Read much? My reply:

    I'd disagree. But to be sure the State Dept. is not telling us everything. Nor do they need to. As to why he is still teaching at one of England's most prestigious universities... well I'll let my opinion of contemporary academia in other threads speak for my theory there.. . Here are a few other resources you might find useful:
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Now you know what the State Dept. knows? Earlier you made it sound like anything the State Dept. said was as good as gold. Suddenly when it contradicts your position the tune changes to "They obviously aren't telling us everything?"
    Oh.. I guess you did see reply after all. How does this statement contradict my earlier statement when my earlier statement was that the State department was not compelled by law to give a reason? Hmmmm... logic... goood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As long as it fits into your arguments Scooter, it seems you are quite willing to coddle up next to whichever teat the Government offers you and suckle away happily with the other tinfoil-hat brigade members.
    Its really impressive to watch you stroke your superiority complex while hurling personal insults about. Have to clean your keyboard often?

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #37
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Lets try and keep this civil boys....name-calling and personal attacks are never accepted around here.

  8. #38
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Some thoughts I'll leave you with Scooter:

    1) Somewhere between the screen where you see my words written, and your brain where they get processed, you make an error in the interpretation. That isn't my problem to fix. You were asked for evidence and information and you replied to Wolf2000me to do his own research instead.

    That isn't supporting your argument with facts; that's the cheap and easy way out as you have taken with me time and time and time again when I've requested the same evidence in other threads that you 'contribute' in. I'll be happy to do a search later and come up with some examples of this behavior from you.

    2) As far as your sources go and their credibility being questions due to bias. Are you suggesting that if I came up with some anti-Israel argument and supported it with 'proof' written by scholars in say...Iran, that you wouldn't cry shenanigans and say my sources weren't credible?

    You have a problem with Islam. We've all seen it, and your topics continue to be more and more exclusively about Islam and your complaints about the followers. If you don't believe the possibility of bias to be a substantial argument then again: that is not my problem to fix. It will however help in understanding your behavior.

    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.

    On one hand you believe everything you are spoon-fed by the Government and explain away suspicion by saying 'they don't tell us everything.' However when the State Department says they have found nothing substantial at all, you make up evidence with the same reply?

    Which is it Scooter. Is the State Department telling the truth by saying he's a terrorist supporter, or is the State Department being truthful in saying they found nothing?

    You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    By the way, I don't have to clean my keyboard when dealing with you at all. It doesn't take much effort to construct replies to beat down your claims.

  9. #39
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Some thoughts I'll leave you with Scooter:

    1) Somewhere between the screen where you see my words written, and your brain where they get processed, you make an error in the interpretation. That isn't my problem to fix. You were asked for evidence and information and you replied to Wolf2000me to do his own research instead.

    That isn't supporting your argument with facts; that's the cheap and easy way out as you have taken with me time and time and time again when I've requested the same evidence in other threads that you 'contribute' in. I'll be happy to do a search later and come up with some examples of this behavior from you.
    You made the request for proof and then tried to claim you made the request on someone else's behalf. In either case, you are flatly wrong. No amount of personal insults thrown my way will change the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    2) As far as your sources go and their credibility being questions due to bias. Are you suggesting that if I came up with some anti-Israel argument and supported it with 'proof' written by scholars in say...Iran, that you wouldn't cry shenanigans and say my sources weren't credible?
    Your words not mine. I simply pointed out the utter hypocrisy of your claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    If you want something substantial to refute the articles you've linked, how about the fact that 50% of the 'experts' listed on terrorfinance.org work for or live in Israel? I'm sure Israeli citizens/employees have no personal grudge against Islam in general.
    Very telling.. and I'll say again: This is what passes as "substantial" evidence in Trekwerld. Pointing out the geographic location of the authors. Not refuting their data with "evidence" as he seems to like to suggest other should do... but instead pointing out where they live. And then stereotyping them as holding a grudge against Islam "in general".... nope... no discrimination or hypocrisy to see here... move along...

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You have a problem with Islam. We've all seen it, and your topics continue to be more and more exclusively about Islam and your complaints about the followers. If you don't believe the possibility of bias to be a substantial argument then again: that is not my problem to fix. It will however help in understanding your behavior.
    I have a problem with radical Islam and those in Islam that promote, support/enable and carry out terrorism. I'd have a issue with any religion were it predominantly responsible for the acts of terror in the world today. That is my stance and always has been. You have 0 proof to the contrary other than your word. Show me one thread I started or responded to where I have stated I hate Islam/Muslims. You cannot. As usual you have a hard time living up to the standards you demand of others. I hope we are not going to get treated to another geographical reference as "substantial" evidence of my hatred..'in general" that is.. You seem to be unable to accept the reality that radical Islam is a problem at all. Your issue... not mine. I'm simply pulling it into the light for all to see.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    You have seen the State departments evidence? No... Your claim that they have no case is null and void. A point I will prove emphatically with the evidence they have already provided below. Continue reading
    ... for FACTS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    On one hand you believe everything you are spoon-fed by the Government and explain away suspicion by saying 'they don't tell us everything.' However when the State Department says they have found nothing substantial at all, you make up evidence with the same reply?
    Thats right... stick to the personal insults... something you think you are good at. It's really worked well for you up to this point.

    Where does the State Department say they found nothing substantial?? I think you are confusing Tariq's statements with those of the State Department. What he says:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tariq's
    He says the State Department denial letter claims the visa was not issued because he gave a small amount of money to a charity in France that helped Palestinians and this is evidence the US Government believes he does not support terrorism (and that he does not engage in “double-speak”).
    What the State dept states:

    Quote Originally Posted by The State Department
    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.

    The media reports indicate a statement from the State Department noting otherwise; that the visa denial was in fact, "based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."
    I do not see where they say they have no evidence. I see where they say "AMONG OTHER THINGS".. which does not lead me to believe they found "NOTHING" as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Which is it Scooter. Is the State Department telling the truth by saying he's a terrorist supporter, or is the State Department being truthful in saying they found nothing?
    Again...perhaps some reading is in order on your part. Where does the State department say they found nothing as you assert? Pleas provide me one quote from the state dept. where they state they found NOTHING. Good luck with that one in advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
    I agree... do tell me how it's working our for ya when you are done eating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    By the way, I don't have to clean my keyboard when dealing with you at all.
    If you did not feel a need to stroke so much... you would not have to clean it at all. Comon... I was bound to push back a lil eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    It doesn't take much effort to construct replies to beat down your claims.
    Ya... you've once again shown exactly how competent your replies are.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #40
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    You made the request for proof and then tried to claim you made the request on someone else's behalf. In either case, you are flatly wrong. No amount of personal insults thrown my way will change the facts.
    That's your comprehension problem again flaring up. With therapy perhaps someday you can minimize the occurrence. I had no vested interest in this thread other than pointing out your bs of "do the research yourself" replies.

    I have a problem with radical Islam and those in Islam that promote, support/enable and carry out terrorism. I'd have a issue with any religion were it predominantly responsible for the acts of terror in the world today. That is my stance and always has been. You have 0 proof to the contrary other than your word. Show me one thread I started or responded to where I have stated I hate Islam/Muslims. You cannot. As usual you have a hard time living up to the standards you demand of others. I hope we are not going to get treated to another geographical reference as "substantial" evidence of my hatred..'in general" that is.. You seem to be unable to accept the reality that radical Islam is a problem at all. Your issue... not mine. I'm simply pulling it into the light for all to see. [/QUOTE]

    In that case, feel free to show me where I say "I hate Israel." You accuse me of antisemitism. How does the label feel when it's applied to you? Stop accusing me of something I am not and perhaps I'll return the favor. Otherwise, continue with the strong majority of your threads dealing with Islam or Muslims and I'll continue with the accusations that you are a intolerant jerk who hates them.

    Are you denying that if I posted something anti-Israeli from an Iranian source that you wouldn't cry and bitch about credibility?

    As for the State Dept issue, perhaps you missed this:

    http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc092706
    Last edited by Trekari; 02-27-2007 at 11:43 PM.

  11. #41
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    I like how you only responded to the portions you "think" you can defend yourself on. New tact?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    That's your comprehension problem again flaring up. With therapy perhaps someday you can minimize the occurrence. I had no vested interest in this thread other than pointing out your bs of "do the research yourself" replies.
    Again... not my problem.. yours. It's a shame your not going to follow up on your claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    Simply going to vacate your previous lie? I was really looking forward to the Dodge-n-weave.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    I have a problem with radical Islam and those in Islam that promote, support/enable and carry out terrorism. I'd have a issue with any religion were it predominantly responsible for the acts of terror in the world today. That is my stance and always has been. You have 0 proof to the contrary other than your word. Show me one thread I started or responded to where I have stated I hate Islam/Muslims. You cannot. As usual you have a hard time living up to the standards you demand of others. I hope we are not going to get treated to another geographical reference as "substantial" evidence of my hatred..'in general" that is.. You seem to be unable to accept the reality that radical Islam is a problem at all. Your issue... not mine. I'm simply pulling it into the light for all to see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    In that case, feel free to show me where I say "I hate Israel." You accuse me of antisemitism. How does the label feel when it's applied to you? Stop accusing me of something I am not and perhaps I'll return the favor. Otherwise, continue with the strong majority of your threads dealing with Islam or Muslims and I'll continue with the accusations that you are a intolerant a-hole who hates them.
    Show me where I say you hate Israel or are Antisemitic. I love the mentality though. Stop quoting me or I'll hurl personal insults, blackmail and slander you into submission. Nicee... shows the strength of your argument. It's Trek Jihad!!! Oh noe's!!

    Lets review what I really said now:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    This is what passes as "substantial" evidence in Trekwerld. Pointing out the geographic location of the authors. Not refuting their data with "evidence" as he seems to like to suggest other should do... but instead pointing out where they live. And then stereotyping them as holding a grudge against Islam "in general".... nope... no discrimination or hypocrisy to see here... move along...
    Nope... no accusations of hate or antisemitism in there. Just facts relating to your statement stereotyping people in Israel as "holding a grudge against Islam "in general". Your words... better learn to live with what you say if you intend to continue posting here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Are you denying that if I posted something anti-Israeli from an Iranian source that you wouldn't cry and bitch about credibility?
    I'd provide evidence to the contrary if there were facts, quotes and links listed. As they are in the links I provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As for the State Dept issue, perhaps you missed this:

    http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc092706
    What HE states from that story:

    Ramadan did find a silver lining, however. “After two years of investigation, the State Department cites no evidence of ‘suspicious relationships,’ of meetings with terrorists, or encouraging or advocating terrorism, of so-called ‘doublespeak,” he writes.
    What the State Dept. has to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by The State Department
    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    So again, I did not miss anything... matter of fact I pointed out YOUR confusion between what he claims and what the State Dept. says in my last post quite clearly.

    Or as you would say "That's your comprehension problem again flaring up. With therapy perhaps someday you can minimize the occurrence." I recommend you take your own advise.

    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-28-2007 at 12:13 AM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #42
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Show me where I say you hate Israel or are Antisemitic.
    I believe this link will refresh your memory.

    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...2&postcount=16

    And I expressly stated my opinion on Israel here:

    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...2&postcount=16

    Which you never bothered replying to, yet never retracted your allegation either.

    As for your refusal to provide evidence to support your claims:

    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...45#post3848745

    In that thread, I even offered up a fantastic bribe for you to provide evidence of your claim: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...&postcount=100

    Still nothing.

    I'll grab more later if I can be bothered to wade through the ugly history of your comments on this forum.

  13. #43
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    I cannot help but notice your "selective" responding theme continuing here. Perhaps you took your own advise about that "comprehension problem again flaring up. With therapy perhaps someday you can minimize the occurrence.". As to the antisemitism.. I figured you were speaking of claims in this thread. But lets continue anyway and see how short I can get your next reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    I believe this link will refresh your memory.

    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...2&postcount=16
    What I said from that thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Naw.. you don't HATE Israel. You merely share the opinion of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah that Israel should not exist. They surely do not hate Israel either...
    What I used as an example of you NOT hating Israel:
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...1&postcount=80

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    "As long as we support Isreal (which shouldn't even exist) and basically turn a blind-eye to THEIR atrocities and part in the escalation of violence in the M.E. then we will continue to be hated.
    Ya... I guess there is no way stating the Israel "should not even exist" could be seen as antisemitism. A suggestion.. You might want to rethink using the contents of that thread as a defense against claims regarding you and antisemitism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    And I expressly stated my opinion on Israel here:
    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...2&postcount=16

    Right... you also said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As long as we support Isreal (which shouldn't even exist) and basically turn a blind-eye to THEIR atrocities and part in the escalation of violence in the M.E. then we will continue to be hated.
    Double talk is pretty easy to spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Which you never bothered replying to, yet never retracted your allegation either.
    Did not need to. Your own previous statements which you tried to deny you ever even made dammed you before you could even start.

    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...&postcount=126
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    By all means Dutch, show me where I've *ever* said Israel doesn't deserve to exist? Back up your allegations.

    Nor have I ever said Israel *shouldn't* exist.
    Again for clairty:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As long as we support Isreal (which shouldn't even exist) and basically turn a blind-eye to THEIR atrocities and part in the escalation of violence in the M.E. then we will continue to be hated.
    Any questions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As for your refusal to provide evidence to support your claims:
    http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...45#post3848745

    ^^ What I said:

    Your right... I would have to do some fabrication to find a protion of the Constitution that says specifically WHAT YOU INTERPRIT it to be. Cannot disagree with that. But then again, why would I want to go through the trouble of trying to help you prop up YOUR argument that I disagree with? Seems like an odd request.
    So you are saying that my refusal to fabricate evidence to prop up your interpretation is an example of what you claim? Good thing you are not prone to exaggeration either.

    Hmm... so a false example is all you can come up with to support your claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    Not looking too good for you Trek. Please provide proof that "every time" someone asks me for evidence I tell them to do their own research. I have over 6,600 posts trek... if I did this "EVERY TIME" I would think it's be easy for you to site a plethora of accurate examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    In that thread, I even offered up a fantastic bribe for you to provide evidence of your claim: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...&postcount=100

    Still nothing.

    I'll grab more later if I can be bothered to wade through the ugly history of your comments on this forum.
    Ya.. we'd hate to "bother" you to actually support the claims you make. Like your claim that the State department found no evidence on Ramadan. Instead let's just whittle your replies down with the things you can actually prove, which so far is nothing.

    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-28-2007 at 02:00 AM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #44
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    You persist in ignoring my actual position on Israel/Israelis and Jews Instead of perpetuating this argument, how about this:

    If I hear so much as a pipsqueak out of you regarding my supposed antisemitism, I'll push to have you banned from the boards. It's an insult I won't tolerate. There is a large difference between disagreeing with how Israel came to be a 'nation' versus hating those who live there. You're being warned right now not to test me on this.

    As for your 6000+ posts, I clearly cited an example where my 'interpretation' of facts was not part of the equation. You never did understand that I linked the EXACT text and asked you to show me where it said what you claimed it did. It is a false example in your mind - not in mine. I demonstrated the Constitution itself and asked you - BEGGED you - to show me where your claims could be founded in evidence and you came up with nothing short of claiming the Constitution is an opinion.

    6000+ posts does not equate to 6000+ examples for me to show. I've shown one quite plain and simple one and to be honest, reading even ten of your posts a day pisses me off with your ignorance and foolishness. Attempting to sift through the several hundred-few thousand you may have had here in TLR is not something I'd be able to undertake without a healthy dose of Valium.

    As for his donations, you've curiously omitted the following information regarding his terrorism financing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    "The U.S. Embassy informed Ramadan that he "reasonably should have known" that the charities provided money to Hamas. His donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003."
    You also left out this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Washingtonpost Op
    In court, the government's lawyers admitted that they could establish no connection between me and any terrorist group; the government had merely taken a "prudential" measure by revoking my visa. Even then, the government maintained that the process of reconsidering my visa could take years. The federal court -- which issued a ruling recognizing that I have been a vocal critic of terrorism -- rejected the indefinite delay. In June, it ordered the government to grant me a visa or explain why it would not do so.
    Let's not forget this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Same WashPost article
    On Sept. 21, the long-awaited explanation arrived. The letter from the U.S. Embassy informed me that my visa application had been denied, and it put an end to the rumors that had circulated since my original visa was revoked. After a lengthy investigation, the State Department cited no evidence of suspicious relationships, no meetings with terrorists, no encouraging or advocacy of terrorism. Instead, the department cited my donation of $940 to two humanitarian organizations (a French group and its Swiss chapter) serving the Palestinian people. I should note that the investigation did not reveal these contributions. As the department acknowledges, I had brought this information to their attention myself, two years earlier, when I had reapplied for a visa.

    In its letter, the U.S. Embassy claims that I "reasonably should have known" that the charities in question provided money to Hamas. But my donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003. How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew? I donated to these organizations for the same reason that countless Europeans -- and Americans, for that matter -- donate to Palestinian causes: not to help fund terrorism, but because I wanted to provide humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it. Yet after two years of investigation, this was the only explanation offered for the denial of my visa. I still find it hard to believe.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2901334_2.html

  15. #45
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You persist in ignoring my actual position on Israel/Israelis and Jews Instead of perpetuating this argument, how about this:
    I ignored your "actual" position? Hell trek... I quoted you. The only thing I "persist" in doing is pointing out your "actual" position. one you deny vehemetly... but cannot escape your own words. Here is a reminder of your "actual" position... in a comment you DENIED making.. then beat a hasty retreat from the thread when you were quoted in your own words:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    By all means Dutch, show me where I've *ever* said Israel doesn't deserve to exist? Back up your allegations.

    Nor have I ever said Israel *shouldn't* exist.
    Again for clairty:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As long as we support Isreal (which shouldn't even exist) and basically turn a blind-eye to THEIR atrocities and part in the escalation of violence in the M.E. then we will continue to be hated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    If I hear so much as a pipsqueak out of you regarding my supposed antisemitism, I'll push to have you banned from the boards. It's an insult I won't tolerate. There is a large difference between disagreeing with how Israel came to be a 'nation' versus hating those who live there. You're being warned right now not to test me on this.
    Back to threats? A common theme. BTW... for someone as prone to personal insults and threats as yourself... I'd back off on the "I'll push to have you banned" rhetoric. Your last threat:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    In that case, feel free to show me where I say "I hate Israel." You accuse me of antisemitism. How does the label feel when it's applied to you? Stop accusing me of something I am not and perhaps I'll return the favor. Otherwise, continue with the strong majority of your threads dealing with Islam or Muslims and I'll continue with the accusations that you are a intolerant a-hole who hates them.
    My response is still the same.

    Show me where I say you hate Israel or are Antisemitic. I love the mentality though. Stop quoting me or I'll hurl personal insults, blackmail and slander you into submission. Nicee... shows the strength of your argument. It's Trek Jihad!!! Oh noe's!!


    And let's have another look at that post where you "CLAIM" I call you antisemitic and also "CLAIM" I state you hate Israel.:

    Quote Originally Posted by amdscooter
    This is what passes as "substantial" evidence in Trekwerld. Pointing out the geographic location of the authors. Not refuting their data with "evidence" as he seems to like to suggest other should do... but instead pointing out where they live. And then stereotyping them as holding a grudge against Islam "in general".... nope... no discrimination or hypocrisy to see here... move along...
    Again... show where I called you antisemitic and said you hate Israel... I'm still not seeing it. I doubt anyone can see what is not there. Try quoting the part where I call you and antisemitic and where I say you hate Israel next reply. I anxiously await your reply.



    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As for your 6000+ posts, I clearly cited an example where my 'interpretation' of facts was not part of the equation. You never did understand that I linked the EXACT text and asked you to show me where it said what you claimed it did. It is a false example in your mind - not in mine. I demonstrated the Constitution itself and asked you - BEGGED you - to show me where your claims could be founded in evidence and you came up with nothing short of claiming the Constitution is an opinion.
    You clearly cited nothing of the sort. You proved that I refused to fabricate material to support YOUR opinion... nothing more. I said as much in the post. I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    Again... please show where "every time" someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research. You made the claim and now you are getting called out on an obvious lie. Either cowboy up and admit it is not true, or offer up some proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    6000+ posts does not equate to 6000+ examples for me to show. I've shown one quite plain and simple one and to be honest, reading even ten of your posts a day pisses me off with your ignorance and foolishness. Attempting to sift through the several hundred-few thousand you may have had here in TLR is not something I'd be able to undertake without a healthy dose of Valium.
    So far it does not equate to ONE example for you to show. Out of over 6,600 posts... your accusation that ""every time" someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research" is not looking too hot.

    But please stick to the personal insults. It really strengthens your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    As for his donations, you've curiously omitted the following information regarding his terrorism financing:
    Oh... the donations involved last time you claimed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    You remember... back in the last two posts where I clearly pointed out to you TWICE that you were quoting Tariq... not the State Department?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You also left out this part:
    Ok.. lets make that at least 3 times you have now quoted Tariq's claims and tried to pass them off as comments from the State Department. Despite me laying the evidence at your feet in the last two posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Let's not forget this part:
    Ok.. up to four now. the OPED was written by Tariq... not the State Department.

    Once again for your edification as you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between Tariq and the State Department.

    Quote Originally Posted by The State Department
    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    Please be sure to craft one of your personal insult riddled responses... this is a good example of where you might start:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    On one hand you believe everything you are spoon-fed by the Government and explain away suspicion by saying 'they don't tell us everything.' However when the State Department says they have found nothing substantial at all, you make up evidence with the same reply?
    Please be sure to stick to your "State Department says they have found nothing substantial at all" claims made by Tariq so I can continue to show that you still cannot distinguish between what he says and what the State Department says.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2901334_2.html

    And be sure to continue to quote this WAPO OPED by Tariq and try to pass it off as State department comments. But you might want to take a look at the title next time. "Why I'm Banned in the USA"... is the State department really bannable in the USA??

    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-28-2007 at 01:37 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •