Osama Bin Laden is dead.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

But whatever, they're all extremist sand niggers trying to convert our kids to orthodox religious radicals, right?

Sure, in the same way that 1 incident involving Muslim Americans in a country with 25,000 commercial airline flights every day deserves a thread to discuss the bigotry and Islamophobia of Americans.

[Jive Turkey]

touché

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by yolland

(The estimated number of polygamous partnerships in NYC alone is higher than the estimate given for all of the UK in the article you posted.)

A good argument to retain DOMA.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A good argument to retain DOMA.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Sure, in the same way that 1 incident involving Muslim Americans in a country with 25,000 commercial airline flights every day deserves a thread to discuss the bigotry and Islamophobia of Americans.

YouTube - Muslim Mosque Protest Yorba Linda Ca.

[Irvine511]

^ ha ha, that was awesome -- it's fills the American heart with pride to watch wealthy OC'ers scream insults at Muslim children going to a charity event.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

I'm sure no one else will, so after a 1 minute goggle search of "Yorba Linda" and "mosque" lets put a story to the video.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE | North Orange County Conservatives

Important Statement from NOCCC to the Community:

On the afternoon of February 13, NOCCC joined the call for a peaceful protest of ICNA’s fundraiser at the Yorba Linda Community Center. We discovered that the Imam speakers, Malik Ali and Siraj Wahhaj are terrorism activists who are known for their anti-American, anti-Semitic beliefs . These radical Imams, who are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, do not hide the fact that they support Hamas. A popular speaker with the Muslim Student Union on college campuses, Malik Ali openly promotes jihad and dying for Islam. Siraj Wahhaj, supposed co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was a character witness for the convicted blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

While we held our peaceful, organized and informative program on the grass area, away from the building, a group of unknown, uninvited protestors gathered near the entrance to the community center to stage their own noisy protest. CAIR has taken advantage of this situation to produce an extremely edited, greatly distorted YouTube video, giving the impression that all of our invited speakers’ words were filled with rude comments and inflammatory rhetoric against all Muslims.

NOCCC stands behind our participation in the protest. We will not allow this despicable hit job and the intimidation tactics of CAIR to stifle our patriotism or diminish our resolve to educate and expose the bigotry of these and other anti-American Imams and the threat of radical, political Islam and sharia law they represent.

We have publicly denounced these badly behaved protestors. However, we have to wonder who plans and attends a fundraiser hosted by two anti-American, radical Imams in a patriotic community like Yorba Linda and then is surprised and offended when the community demonstrates its righteous outrage.

ICNA Protest Organizer Karen Lugo Responds to “Hate Comes to Orange County”

As a planner — and the emcee — of the protest of the Islamic Circle of North America’s (ICNA) fundraiser featuring radical Islamists Malik Ali and Sirhaj Wahhaj, I am very disturbed by CAIR’s representation of the gathering in Yorba Linda. The video presentation with footage and quotes selected for their sensational and hurtful value, is an intentional misrepresentation of the program that evening.

There were two groups demonstrating on February 13th and CAIR chose to only present video of the splinter group that was not invited and not welcome. The main program was in a completely different area and continued with speakers while the ICNA fundraiser began. Never did the main group dismiss and gather at the entrance to the community center.

The obvious goal of deflecting attention from our clear statements about ICNA’s extremist speakers is an obvious attempt to intimidate, discredit, and silence our efforts to expose the true nature of the Muslim fundraiser’s organizers. This will not work. We are committed to moderate Muslims and will continue to expose groups and individuals that are working against American constitutional freedoms.

Here are the facts that the CAIR video (while CAIR does not take credit for production of the video, they distributed it) did not present. The event was planned, as the flier shows, as a “peaceful and patriotic” protest. Instructions on the fliers even requested that demonstrators bring only flags, and no signs. CAIR has chosen to spotlight only the most incendiary remarks. Furthermore, not one of the protest organizers recognized anyone in the group that splintered off. We do not know who they were or who sent them.

What CAIR also does not address is why hundreds of individual Southern Californians many of whom have never protested against anything before, were out on a beautiful Sunday afternoon waving flags and listening to speakers. These people, many not affiliated with an organization, were all there to express solidarity in declaring that extremist Muslims like Malik Ali and Siraj Wahhaj are not welcome in the community.

Featured speaker, Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named as a possible co-conspirator in the to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and testified as a character witness for the convicted terror mastermind, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Imam Malik Ali frequents America’s university campuses and speaks on the theme of “the convergence of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X: we shall overcome by any means necessary.” He is known for his anti-Semitic statements and his credo or pledge including the lines, “Jihad is my spirit” and “I will die to establish Islam.” The sponsor organization, ICNA has been called a friend by the Muslim Brotherhood, is aligned with extremist organization Jamaat-e-Islami, and has been praised by the Brotherhood as an ally that could help teach American Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands… so that… God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” (Arabic translation via Discover the Networks) This is why community members were alarmed and joined in protest.

We applaud the members of Congress: Rep. Ed Royce and Rep. Gary Miller, as well as Mayor Nancy Rikel, for their participation. We also strongly support the efforts of Rep. Peter King to conduct hearings into why and how Islamists are being radicalized in the United States.

Isn't that interesting? Not exactly St Jude Children's Research Hospital is it?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A good argument to retain DOMA.

Just look at that.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Just look at that.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I know, radical isn't it?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Excellent 60 Minutes interview. I think that might be the most impressed I've ever been with President Obama.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Isn't that interesting? Not exactly St Jude Children's Research Hospital is it?

i find it interesting that you immediately believe the "North Orange County Conservatives" and believe their rationalizing for verbally assaulting Muslim children. but then, you like politicians who think their president would "pall around" with known terrorists like Bill Ayers.

you'll also note that they weren't protesting the two men who supposedly said they liked Hamas once, but they were spewing vile, bigoted things through megaphones at Muslim families who were attending an event to raise money for women's shelters and fighting homelessness in Orange county. because that's a "patriotic protest."

i know, i know ... it's just a splinter protest. well, let's look at what the OC politicians had to say:

YouTube - Hate Comes to Orange County

and, for actual news, rather than propagandic news releases, we can look to the Orange County Register:

U.S. flags, signs at protest of Muslim event
By JAN NORMAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Story Highlights

YORBA LINDA – Several hundred people from as far away as Corona and the San Fernando Valley filled the lawn outside the Yorba Linda Community Center Sunday afternoon and lined Imperial Highway in response to a fundraising event by a Queens, N.Y.-based Muslim group Islamic Circle of North America Relief USA.

People started gathering about 3 p.m., two-and-a-half hours before the fundraiser began. Many in the crowd waved U.S. flags and carried signs saying, "God Bless America" and "No Sharia Law," in reference to Islam's sacred law. In the afternoon, the event had the atmosphere of a July 4 picnic. Many brought lawn chairs and blankets, sang patriotic songs and tied red, white and blue bandanas on their dogs.

As the fundraiser started, a splinter group of about 100 stood about 50 yards from the community center entrance and booed, yelled "go home" and chanted "no Sharia law" as attendees entered the building. Among their signs were ones that said "ICNA supports Hamas and Hezbollah."

ICNA spokesman Syed Waqas said the protesters "should know the facts. We have no links to any overseas organization. We absolutely denounce violence and terrorism."

He said the group started in Southern California about eight months ago and is trying to raise $350,000 to start social programs such as women's shelters, fighting hunger and homelessness in the area.

About 300 were expected to attend the event. Admission was $25.

One of the attendees, Khwaja Ahmad, said he was surprised by the protests. "I am supporting the group because they are raising money for the beggar women."

A woman attendee who declined to give her name said, "It is surprising, but everyone has a right to express their opinion."

Many in the crowd outside the event said they were concerned about past anti-American statements by the event's two keynote speakers, Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Wahhaj is an imam at a mosque in Brooklyn. A U.S. attorney named him and 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement.

Malik Ali is a Bay Area Islamic activist who spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010. There he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group.

Chandler Endresen of Yorba Linda stood on Imperial Highway with about 30 others waving American flags. "I had seen what had gone on at UCI in 2010 when (Malik Ali) spoke. He caused trouble there. I don't want that here."

"This is not about hate. We are not hate mongers," said Karen Lugo, one of the speakers outside the community center. Several people said they had sent out thousands of e-mails about the ICNA Relief USA fundraiser and encouraged people to show up for a pro-America rally.

One organizer, Steven Amundson of Huntington Beach said, "A week and a half ago I would have been happy to have six people show up. It's not right for terrorism to come to Yorba Linda. I always stress the need to be peaceful and positive."

About 11 police officers were near the community center entrance, keeping an eye on the crowd, and at one point asked non-attendees to move back.

The fundraiser was not sponsored by the city. The city's attorneys said the city cannot block the ICNA from using the building. The group has rented the community center many times, according to member Shahid Hussain.

Hundreds protest Muslim event in Yorba Linda | america, fundraiser, wahhaj - News - The Orange County Register

[A_Wanderer]

If those protestors were genuinely committed to secularism then they wouldn't be discriminating against one theocracy.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

I think Krammy and Earnie meant 'Hijab' rather than burka.

I find hijabs kinda sexi myself. Nice to have another form of personal expression out there for women, ya know?



But whatever, they're all extremist sand niggers trying to convert our kids to orthodox religious radicals, right?

I think that holding this type of religious clothing as an example of free expression is a very modern take on something derived from a time when women were treated as chattel. Obligatory modesty codes that says women must cover themselves because men cannot help themselves should be problematic for liberals.

As a matter of free expression and religious I oppose bans, but I don't think that it's a good thing. And please take this line of thinking and apply it to many other forms of religiously required fashion.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

My God.

That's horrifying. They're the direct descendants of those who were screaming at the high schoolers trying to get educated in Little Rock. How do they sleep at night?



Ed Royce is my Congressman. Now I despise him even more, if that was possible.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I know, radical isn't it?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You somehow made a statement about polygamy about homosexuality, which is 1) retarded and 2) unrelated to the quote you cited.

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Women in burkas on the treadmill next you is a common occurrence. Really?

I meant Burka.

And as I said, it is almost as common as a guy in tight running shorts.

Hijabs are more common than guys in tight shorts at my Y.

We have a huge Somali population in Minneapolis.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A good argument to retain DOMA.

Don't you believe in biblical marriage?

[MrsSpringsteen]

(CNN) -- Was the killing of Osama bin Laden legal under international law?

The administration says yes, absolutely. Experts are unsure.

Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. raid on bin Laden's compound was lawful "as an act of national self-defense."

Bin Laden "was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."

The raid "was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the laws of war," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Carney declined to offer specifics, but said "there is simply no question that this operation was lawful. ... (Bin Laden) had continued to plot attacks against the United States."

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had all issued orders to kill or capture the al Qaeda leader.

"The authority (during the raid) was to kill bin Laden," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday during an interview with PBS. "Obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered, and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

A number of experts have told CNN the question of actual legality may come down to bin Laden's response at the moment U.S. Navy SEALs burst into his room.

"If a person has his hands in the air, you're not supposed to kill him," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, told reporters she wants a "full disclosure" of the key facts.

U.S. officials have revised their account of the assault on the compound in Pakistan. Bin Laden was not armed during the 40-minute raid, they now say, but he put up resistance to U.S. forces.

The al Qaeda leader was moving at the time he was initially shot, according to a U.S. official who has seen military reports of the incident. The official declined to describe the movements more specifically.

Asked if bin Laden tried to grab a weapon or physically attack a commando, the official would say only that "he didn't hold up his hands and surrender."

Officials earlier claimed that bin Laden was an active participant in the firefight that erupted, implying that he was armed and gave the SEALs little choice but to shoot him.

Groves, citing the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, told CNN that, based on the most recent White House account, "there is nothing to indicate anything illegal happened."

Bin Laden, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of al Qaeda, needed to immediately make clear a desire to surrender, if that was his decision, in order to avoid being shot. That apparently didn't happen, Groves said.

"The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused," Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' special rapporteur for human rights, said Tuesday. "Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag."

Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights lawyer who has defended WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange among others, made clear that international law requires any killing to be done in self-defense.

If members of the SEAL team "reasonably (believed there was) a risk to themselves, then the killing was justified," Robertson asserted. But given the changing White House account of the raid, "there needs to be an inquiry," he said.

Cherif Bassiouni, head of DePaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute and a former U.N. war crimes investigator, said that the "killing of any individual sought by law enforcement in the course of a lawful arrest is always a question of facts. Did the person resist? Did the person have a deadly weapon? Were the arresting officers in fear of their lives? These are all pertinent questions."

Bassiouni stressed that any "extrajudicial execution of an unarmed person is in violation of international law."

"It is necessary for the Navy to conduct an internal investigation into the appropriateness of the use of armed force," Bassiouni told CNN. "However, it is also important not to make the Navy SEALs be the scapegoats for (any) secret orders which the public is unaware of to simply kill bin Laden no matter what."

Was the incursion of U.S. forces into Pakistani territory without the clear permission of Islamabad legal?

In response to that question, the U.S. intelligence official echoed Holder's and Carney's remarks, asserting that "since 9/11, the U.S. has had the authority to kill Osama Bin Laden."

"The operation was the subject of a rigorous legal review and was planned in strict accord with American law," the official said. "As a matter of international law, al Qaeda has attacked the United States and continues to pose an imminent threat to the United States. As such, the United States may use force against al Qaeda consistent with its inherent right to national self-defense under international law."

The operation "was conducted under the CIA's authorities contained in federal law, unlike most military operations which are under the control and legal authority of the Defense Department," the official noted.

Bin Laden was an indicted international criminal who had evaded all attempts to apprehend him, Robertson said. As a consequence, he asserted, the operation was legal.

Groves argued the use of the SEALs in Pakistan does "present complications," though he noted that there has been a "kind of a wink and a nod game (the U.S. government has) been playing with the Pakistanis for years" in terms of predator drone strikes and other attacks against Islamic extremists on Pakistani soil.

Bassiouni argued that "the mission to capture was legal, even though there are some questions under international law about one state sending its forces into another state to kidnap a person wanted for trial."

The issue first arose in the early 1960s, Bassiouni noted, when notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina and subsequently brought to Israel for trial.

[Canadiens1131]

Public international law doesn't really matter, to be honest.

Everything from a big superpower sending drones into your airspace, down to softwood lumber disputes, is not realistically enforceable.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A good argument to retain DOMA.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Isn't that interesting? Not exactly St Jude Children's Research Hospital is it?

American Exceptionalism at it's finest