On Aug 21, 2:06*pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:22 pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:
-snip-
Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...
"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.
Remember this radical? No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."
I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words]
But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]
Jim
Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. * Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.
What the Imam said-- and what Glenn Beck said-- was that the
*policies* of the US help lead us down that road-
Here's the video-
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/17/jo...beck-on-the-to...
Jim
I saw that clip and I've read on the internet the controversial statements
Rauf said after 911. Yes, he does imply the US was an "accessory" to 911,
but it isn't anything outragious. I don't think you have to take the word
literally in the legal sense. If the US "helped" knowingly or unknowingly
they would be an accessory.
Jim- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
To each his own. I say coming days after the 911 attacks, it was
outrageous. Combine that with the fact that right now he refuses to
answer if Hamas is a terrorist organization and it tells me all I need
to know about him. Also, he claims that his purpose is to bring
together people. So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? One possible answer: Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory. If they build
that mosque, I can tell you right now what kind of people he will
bring together. Will you have Jews or Christians as guest
speakers? I think not. But I bet it won't be long before you have
radical Islamists speaking at the place. And then the left will be
saying, "Well, that's their first ammendment right...." Actually,
it probably won't happen, because it's unlikely the mosque will ever
be built. For starters, you won't find a construction crew in nyc
that will built it.