Cat Stevens was guest of Canadian Hamas front

[drdon326]

Muslim singer criticized Judaism as a 'so-called' religion


Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was the guest of honour at a Toronto fundraising dinner hosted by an organization that has since been identified by the Canadian government as a "front" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

In a videotape of the 1998 event obtained by the National Post, Mr. Islam describes Israel as a "so-called new society" created by a "so-called religion" and urges the audience to donate to the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services to "lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land."

The Jerusalem Fund is one of four "fronts" named in a secret Privy Council Office memo that was sent to Jean Chretien, then prime minister, on May 23, 2000, discussing what it called groups that "have unsavoury links with terrorism.

"In a limited number of cases, fundraising in support of violent foreign struggles takes place in Canada through the cover of ethnic, religious or community-based associations and groups, lobbying and even criminal activity," the report says.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=572cea4b-839c-4080-9999-f53611a46aba

.............................................................

"so called religion".....so called drop dead cat.

[FatSlob]

1. If true, I give a big FU to Cat. eom

[demnan]

2. Jew bashing - what fun!

All religious fanatics are alike, no one else is legitimate.

[Cocoa]

4. but only Muslims are on no-fly lists

[SheilaT]

11. Ted Kennedy is a Muslim?

I didn't know that! He's been on the no-fly list, or someone else with the same name is.

LOTS of non Muslims are no-fly.

[Freddie Stubbs]

118. No, but he should be on the no-drive list

;)

[RivetJoint]

13. Cuz no Jews have flown airplanes

in any US skyscrapers...

[Cocoa]

22. you realize, that's bigoted

don't you?

[skooooo]

23. no, it's true

[RivetJoint]

24. How so?

Have Jews flown airplanes into US skyscrapers?

[Cocoa]

26. think about it

that's the only way you'll understand.

[Donkeyboy75]

29. Way to explain your point.

Well done. :eyes:

[DrWeird]

33. Doesn't really need an explanation.

That post was about as bigoted as it gets.

[RivetJoint]

36. Explain to me how so?

[DrWeird]

38. You're endorsing discrimination against hundreds of millions...

of innocent human beings based on the actions of nineteen.

[RivetJoint]

40. No, I'm not

Where did you get that? Show me where I say all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list.

[DrWeird]

44. Sure you are.

It's OK to stick muslims on no-fly lists because they ram planes into buildings, unlike jews, christians, and hindus who are better because they don't ram planes into buildings.

[RivetJoint]

48. No, but it's ok

to stick people who SUPPORT people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers onto a no-fly list, rather than stick people with NO ties to murderers on no-fly lits.

NO where did I say we should stick all Muslims on no-fly lists. Why are you making crap up?

[Donkeyboy75]

41. See?

That's just as easy to type as "think about it..."

That was my original point...

[DrWeird]

47. I get your point.

But frankly I think anybody can see the obvious without me pointing it out and anybody who says they don't is full of it.

[RivetJoint]

49. Why is it obvious?

Why do you keep lying? Where did I say stick all Muslims on a no-fly list?

[DrWeird]

51. Well, let's see...

Somebody said:

"Only muslims are on no-fly lists" Which is a statement about how muslims are being discriminated against in this post 9-11 hysteria.

To which you apologized for it:

"(that's OK) Jews don't fly planes into buildings."

It's a bit like saying:

"Jews are being round up and forced into concentration camps"

"That's OK, christians aren't corrupting the purity of the white race."

[RivetJoint]

52. Nice illogical leap

I expect that from you though.

Mixing fact with fiction; you seem to be good at that!

[DrWeird]

54. Religious discrimination is religious discrimination.

Doesn't matter if it's against Jews or Muslims.

[RivetJoint]

56. What religious discrimination are you talking about?

I'm talking about people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers and those that are linked to/fund/support them. If one is in one of those categories, one SHOULD be on a no-fly list. I don't think there are any Jews who fit those categories, do you?

BTW, are you SURE that ONLY Muslims are on the NFL? I bet you're wrong...

[DrWeird]

62. People are being put on the no-fly list because they're muslim.

People are being rounded up and held without charges because they're muslim.

People are being falsely accused of supporting terrorist groups because they're muslim and other people are assuming it must be true for the same reason.

And that's the only reason and that's religious discrimination.

Am I sure that only Muslims are on the no-fly list?

Of course not. They're using it to discriminate against political activists and members of the opposition party. But mostly it's about making bigots feel safer by discriminating against muslims.

[RivetJoint]

65. No, people are being put

on a no fly list because they have ties to terorist organizations (or are believed to have them). If your silly assertion was true, ALL Muslims would be on the list. The fact of the part is that only a tiny fraction of Muslims (or anyone else) is on the NFL.

[DrWeird]

70. Ted Kennedy has ties to terrorist organizations?

My goodness.

If people really had ties to terrorists organizations, how come they're not just arrested and charged, instead of not just being allowed to fly?

[geek tragedy]

72. I'm guessing that there are a few IRA guys named

Kennedy on the list.

[RivetJoint]

74. Hmm so NOT only Muslims are on the list

Beats me. Ask LE.

[skooooo]

43. ..only discrimination against people who want to commit violent acts..

..or fund groups that also do so. Is that so wrong?

[DrWeird]

46. i.e. muslims.

As opposed to christians, jews, and hindus.

Who according to you do not blow up children.

[skooooo]

50. No...not at all.

You're the one who is saying by defacto that all Muslims are terrorists, not me. I'm referring to individuals who support or perpetrate violence - Muslim, Irish, whatever. I don't care who or what they are, what they had for breakfast, who their mother is, if they love their mother, if they had a hard life. Whatever.

[DrWeird]

53. Here's what you said below:

skooooo  (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-28-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. umm..

"..how many jewish / christian / hindu groups are blowing up planes, slaughtering school children, etc.?"

So you're linking 9-11 with Beslan. The ONLY thing those attacks have in common is the terrorists were muslim. And then you mention other world religions, which implies the problem is Islam. Of course you don't mention Oklahoma City, or Eric Rudolph, or the bombing of school children in Iraq, or the forced conversions at Abu Ghraib, the IRA, or any of the other massacres caused by Jews, Christians, or Hindus.

You didn't come out and say that all muslims were terrorists, but you did say that all terrorists were muslims.

[skooooo]

60. Ok...

Yes, it does seem to me that most of the terrorism going on in the name of religion is going on in the name of some radical brand of Islam. With the possible exception of Israeli settlers who may be perpetrating terrorism on the Palestinians for religious reasons, that seems to be true to me. I don't see Israeli settlers (as an example) hijacking planes and trying to terrorize the rest of the world to prove some point.

I also said that individuals, regardless of what religion, who are involved or suppoorting groups responsible for "terrorism" are fair game. That would include Eric Rudolph, and whoever.

Facts are facts. Sorry if you disagree that people who fund Hamas (assuming Cat did, in fact, needs to be proven) shouldn't be allowed in the country. I do.

[Donkeyboy75]

39. Fine. I may even agree with the poster.

But writing something like that is pointless. Either don't respond, or explain yourself. It's as bad as the other side spouting off talking points...

[RivetJoint]

30. Let's see

Nope...still can't think of any Jews flying airplanes into skyscrapers...can you?

[jobycom]

57. So should Christians be forbidden from renting Ryder trucks?

Since McVeigh was a Christian?

It wasn't Islam or Muslims who flew planes into skyscrapers, it was a group of terrorists using Islam as their excuse, just as a lot of American voters have used Christ as an excuse to slaughter people in Iraq (Remember the general who claimed we were fighting evil?) and Israel has used Judaism as an excuse to bomb civilian populations in Palestine.

When you start blaming people for something that others with some similar identifying trait have done, you have crossed into bigotry. Yussuf Islam may have insulted Judaism, but that doesn't make him a terrorist any more than Bush claiming that Jews were condemned to Hell for their religion. Yussuf also insulted the nation of Israel, but last I heard it was still acceptable to criticize other nations. Our so-called president does it regularly.

Unless it can be shown that Yussuf Islam was knowingly encouraging people to give money to an organization that he knew was going to use that money for terrorist actions, then what's the fuss? So far, he's criticized a nation and encouraged people to give money to a relief charity. Sounds like a concerned world citizen to me. Much like Jimmy Carter.

[RivetJoint]

61. If there was a federal "No Rental Truck" list

I would have NO problem with placing McVeigh supporters on it.

[jobycom]

66. You dodged the question

I didn't say McVeigh supporters. I said Christians. It was his religion, he was fanatical about it, and there were those who agreed with him, but the vast majority of his religion disagreed with him.

Exactly the same is true of Bin Laden and Islam.

Now, again, is it okay to label someone a terrorist simply because he or she is Christian? Because that's what the post implied about Muslims. Now if you can show me evidence that Yussuf Islam has praised 9-11 and said he hopes someone has the courage or fidelity to do it again, I'd agree to ban him, not because he's a Muslim, but because he supports violent actions against us. But no one has shown that yet. A vague comment supporting a nebulous relief organization that may or may not have terrorist ties is not grounds for such a ban.

[RivetJoint]

68. Where did I imply that?

Why do you insist on perpetuating a lie? The Cat man supposedly supports a terrorist organization (Hamas). I see no reason NOT to ban him from the US for doing so.

[jobycom]

77. Don't play that

You implied that it was okay to ban Islam on flimsy evidence because he's a Muslim, and Muslims flew planes into skyscrapers, and implied that the same wouldn't be true for people of other religions, specifically Jews, because they hadn't.

If that's not what you were trying to say, then you need to explain yourself better, because obviously it wasn't just me who thought so, or you wouldn't have this big tree under your first post.

Islam asked for donations for a charity that may or may not have also been using their funds to support Hamas. There's no evidence that, even if they were, Islam knew this.

You don't ban people for "supposedly" doing something, not in America-- although I guess since December 12th, 2000, there hasn't really been an America.

[RivetJoint]

83. Where did I say that?

Don't put "words" into my mouth.

I said that Jews are not on the NFL(even though there are probably some who are) because there were no Jews who flew airplanes into the WTC. What was the catalyst for creating the NFL? It sure wasn't Tim McVeigh or the blowing up of the US Capitol. The proximate cause of the NFL was the events of 9/11, and 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims NOT Jews.

Nowhere did I say it was okay to ban someone "becaue they were Muslim." IMHO it is okay to ban someone who has ties to the group that carried out 9/11, or those who support that and other groups like it. Guess what? Most of the people who support AQ are Muslims; not Jews, not Hindi, not X-ians, but Muslims. Since AQ receives MOST if not all of it's support from Muslimi, it stands to reason that the NFL would be comprised MOSTLY of Muslims. WTF would you expect to find on the list? Lutherns from Scandinavia?

Furthermore, I did not say nor imply that ALL Muslims should be on the NFL, get it?

The big tree under my first post is because some people are quick to cry bigotry EVEN with zero proof of it.

[jobycom]

88. Ah

Everyone is wrong, you are right.

Hate to say it, but your further explanation in this post sounds no less bigotted to me. I hope that is just a misunderstanding on my part, frankly. It probably is. But the fact that to you 9-11 was perpetrated by Muslims, whereas you don't claim, for instance, that OKC was perpetrated by Christians, is bigotted. That's why everyone is responding to you the way they are.

[RivetJoint]

94. The perps of 9/11 were Muslim

Fact, or not? I'm saying the Perps were Muslim, not that Islam was the perpetrator. There is a difference.

The Perps of OKC were X-ian. Agreed. I have no problm with putting the guys who support McVeigh and his brothers on a federal watch list. Since it's unlikely that supporters of McVeigh would be Muslim or Hindi, I'd EXPECT that list to be made up primarily of White, X-ian, men.

Just like I'd expect the NFL to be made up of, predominately, Muslim men; since the vast majority of the people who support what AQ did are Muslim. Again, that's NOT saying that all Muslims support AQ. But it is a FACT that the small number of AQ memebers and supporters in the world are Muslim, is it not? I don't think there are many Hindu or X-ian AQ members.

People are responding that way because SOME want to see bigotry in even TRUTHFUL statements.

[bicentennial_baby]

120. But they were not acting in accordance with Islam

There's a good quote from my Global Islamic Politics textbook about this

"In the United States, Christian antiabortion zealots firebombing health clinics are never portrayed as "Christian terrorists, and for good reason. They are not acting as Christians or in the loving spirit of Christianity when engaging in acts of fanatical violence. Logically then, the mass media should refrain from decrying "Islamic terrorism".

-Mir Zohair Husain, Global Islamic Politics, pg 309

[RivetJoint]

125. Didn't claim they were

And I know they were not.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Are you saying the JDL never bombed anyone?

Just asking

[RivetJoint]

76. I'm saying the JDL never

flew airplanes into the WTC. BTW, I'm willing to bet there ARE some Jews on the NFL.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. And your statement is NOT racist how?

A white guy drove a truck filled with cow shit into the OK Fed bldg...should we profile all white guys on tractors?

[RivetJoint]

85. Where did I say we should profile all Muslims?

SHOW me where I said that?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

87. Real simple..you equate a guy that writes songs and does charity with

the fact that SOME muslims flew planes into buildings..replace it with all blacks..all whites or ALL of any race and you will have the crux of your statement which is tantamount to saying Stevens deserved to be racially profiled because SOME muslims of which there are MILLIONS flew planes into buildings.

Now...your statement is not racist HOW? I am waiting. *taps fingers*

[RivetJoint]

95. He's not being racially profiled.

He was on the list because he was linked to an organization which supports Hamas (a terrorist organization).

Where did I say that all Muslims deserve to be profiled? BACK up your silly allegation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. Here is your original statement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=870568&mesg_id=870614&page=

and it isn't racist how? Answer the fucking question.

[RivetJoint]

100. How is that Racist???

The NFL is NOT comprised of mostly Jews because the primary reason the NFL exists is because of 9/11, right??? The people who flew the planes into the WTC were Muslim, right??? The people who support the people who flew the planes into the WTC (either financially or through other menas) should to be on the NFL, right??? Guess what? A lot of those people on the NFL are therefore GOING to be Muslim. Period. That is a FACT. That is NOT saying that ALL Muslims are terrorists, or that ALL Muslims should be on the NFL. Only the miniscule amount of people who SUPPORT terrorist groups (and that includes their fund raising arms) should be on the NFL. That said, it is NO surprise that there are Muslims on the NFL. It's a recognition that THOSE who support AQ and other Muslim terrorist groups (so far, the only kind who have flown airplanes into skyscrapers) are more likely to be Muslim than Jewish. Is that so hard to understand? Show me where my logic is wrong.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. One can make racist statements that are logical

You still haven't demonstrated how a guy that met with Bush's faith based funding people AFTER 9/11 i.e. Cat Stevens deserved to be profiled....

BTW...you've already been provided with examples of terrorism NOT involving muslims...your original statement as made in and of itself was racist and I already demonstrated how it was so.

[skooooo]

103. Really? I thought by definition racist comments were not logical..

..Can you give us an example of another racist logical statement?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. My point is one can follow the rules of logic and make a racist statement

that would not make it valid...

[RivetJoint]

106. By definition

it would NOT follow the rules of logic if it were invalid! Now I see what I am up against...good grief!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. Now I see what I am up against

One CAN make a valid argument which is unsound. You did. I have to assume everything you said was TRUE in order for your argument to be valid AND sound. A perfect example of valid but not SOUND reasoning would be David Horowitz's treatise against reparations.

Please don't argue deductive reasoning with me..I will be happy to run circles around you.

[RivetJoint]

114. No, you are wrong once again

If it follows the rules of logic, the conclusion is valid. Now, if I started with a false permise....I'd have a false conclusion, but it would be a valid conclusion following the rules of logic. You have confused valid with true.

BTW, show me where my arguement was unsound. I'm sure you can't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

122. ARRRGHHH....you just PROVED MY POINT..but nevermind..allow me to dissect

your statement since you are dying for someone to demonstrate to you that your statement is inaccurate...please see my response below to SKOOOO..for how your statement was racist...

The NFL is NOT comprised of mostly Jews because the primary reason the NFL exists is because of 9/11, right???

No...right out of the gate you are incorrect. The NFL exists in order to prevent the skies for being used for terrorism. 9/11 in that context might be considered a catalyst but the NFL addresses the future not the past. Frankly, I don't know who is on the NFL nor do you, so you also ask me to validate or accept as true a statement that cannot be qualified.

The people who flew the planes into the WTC were Muslim, right??? The people who support the people who flew the planes into the WTC (either financially or through other menas) should to be on the NFL, right???

Um, there's evidence that the Saudi Royal family gave funds to some of these people...to your knowledge are they on an NFL?

Since the remainder of your statement forces me to make assumptions based on your first statements which I have already indicated are a leap of faith to follow..I can take the rest of the day off.

Have fun jumping to conclusions

[RivetJoint]

127. So we had the NFL before 9/11?

You are sying the NFL was NOT a reaction to 9/11? Uneffingbeliveable!

There are probably members of the Suudi Royal Family on the US NFL, yes.

LMAO

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

129. Reaction or not...it's actions are in the future not the past

Using your logic in this thread, I can easily wager jihad on an airplane as long as I am not muslim which is why racial profiling creates a false sense of security.

And there you go jumping to conclusions again since you certainly can't prove an SRF's are on the no fly list.

All your arguments in this thread are conclusionary and designed to justify the racist statement you made above.

Have a nice day...I'm going to go dye my hair blond and buy some blue contacts so that I may freely travel in the USSR...I mean US of A

[patcox2]

113. Thats an idiotic statement.

That something is logical does not and never has guaranteed its validity or truth. Thats why science is based on empiricism, not logic.

The majority of superstitions are very logical. Take the buddhist beleif in reincarnation and karma. very logical. Superstition nonetheless.

One could argue that the greatest impact of the scientific revolution was the rejection of logic as the arbiter of truth in favor of empirical evidence. Read Aristotle on biology, for an example or pre-scientific faith in logic. So logical, so wrong.

[RivetJoint]

115. Not valid at all according to the rules of logic

try again.

[skooooo]

116. Superstition and racism are not "logical"....

..no matter how you spin it. And not everything can be proven empirically, so what are we left with?

[patcox2]

130. Sure they're logical, they are just based on false premises.

Logic is nothing but the subjective manifestation of certain grammatical principles used by our brain in processing information. What we perceive as making "sense" is simply an illusion, having nothing to do with reality or truth. There are no absolute "rules" of logic, they are just subjective perceptions related to the limitations of our perceptions and thought processes.

[skooooo]

131. If that's true..

then nothing we say or think matters. Nothing you say can proven invalid. Maybe we should start a new thread for this discussion. It's interesting, but far afield...

I think Socrates would disagree with you.

[skooooo]

107. Example of this??

If it's so clear, it should be easy for you to show another example.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Why would I want to make a racist statement? I deplore racism

now perhaps we can return to the subject at hand or you can go pick a fight with someone else. I already made my point with the poster.

Have a nice day defending the story in a right wing rag wherein the comments of the subject were taken out of context.

[skooooo]

109. Why? To prove your point that a racist statement can be logical.

You're the one who said it. I don't think that's a true statement. By definition, racist comments are not logical. Since you concede that there is a logic in what we are saying then, it would seem you also concur that there is some validity in your opponent's argument.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. we? are you and Rivet Joint the same person?

[skooooo]

112. no..

but we are essentially arguing the same thing, as far as i can tell

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

117. well I haven't been reading your specious arguments, only his..but lest

you think I would shrink from an explanation, Rivet Joints original comment was racist as follows - please note that my comments were TO the original statement he/she made NOT to his whole line of one liners scattered throughout this thread.

Here is Rivet Joint's original statement:RivetJoint (759 posts) Tue Sep-28-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #4

13. Cuz no Jews have flown airplanes


in any US skyscrapers...


here is my rationale:

1. Rivet Joint's statement was in response to Cocoa's statement that only muslims were on no fly lists.

2. Rivet Joint offered the statement as justification for only muslims being on no fly lists

3. Rivet joint by that statement would have us believe only muslims commit terrorism (which is hardly true) therefore only muslims belong on no fly lists.

4. Rivet Joint then decided to dance around and make other claims and assertions throughout the thread.

5. Since Rivet Joint made the original statement without any other sentences or assertions in response to Cocoa's original post, the statement, as it stands alone, begs the reader to form the conclusion that muslims belong on no fly lists since 19 muslims committed a crime on 9/11.

That is racism..it begs the reader to agree with Rivet Joint that all muslims should be treated with prejudice for a few.

Any questions?

[skooooo]

121. Cocoa said "only muslims are on the no fly list"..

...Ok, first of all, this is not a true statement. I'm sure there are non-muslims that are on the no-fly-list.

RivetJoint's statement that Jews didn't fly into the WTC is a true statement. Since Rivet doesn't know whether there are non-muslims on the no-fly-list at worst his statement is extraneous, not racist.

I don't think Rivet's statement begs anything. If someone wanted to jump to conclusions that Rivet's statement could be used to justify banning Muslims from flying, that would be on their shoulders, not Rivet's. And indeed, that would be a wrong assertion and would be based on "flawed logic".

edit: grammar

[RivetJoint]

126. Sound of clapping

You just made the most illogical arguement I have EVER seen; full of inference and unsubstantiated beliefs. Well done!

NO WHERE did I say that only Muslims commit terrorism. The FACT is that one would EXPECT to find those who support those that carried out the events of 9/11 to be on a NFL. ANother fact is that one would expect that THOSE would be Muslim NOT Jewish.

[RivetJoint]

104. You did nothing of the sort and

it was NOT racist. Period. When people fly airplanes into skyscrapers, you'll see those who support them them on the NFL. It just so happens that "like tends to support like." Muslim terorists are likley to be supported by Muslims, X-ian terrorists, by X-ians, Jews by Jews. Since it was not Jewish terrorists who took out the WTC, I would not expect to see the NFL comprised primarily of Jews, would you?

Stevens was NOT profiled. He gave money and raised funds for a group that the US says supports Hamas. He was placed on the NFL for what he DID, not for what he is.

[LastDemStanding]

134. Not even close to the truth

A sick man parked a truck filled with Ammonium Nitrate and set it off while he was away from it. And tractors had nothing to do with it.

Where did you get your incorrect version of the story?

[skooooo]

15. umm..

..how many jewish / christian / hindu groups are blowing up planes, slaughtering school children, etc.?

[Gabysan]

133. Seen any Jews crash planes into buildings lately?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. And we know that the "Jerusalem Fund" is a....

..."front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas" because somebody else claims that it's so?

And where do you think Canada got this information? It wouldn't have been dictated to them by their increasingly obnoxious neighbors to the south, would it?

Tell me about the history of YOUR religion, drdon326.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. What does the history of his religion have to do with it?

Islam's statement is obnoxious, and gives us a peek at the sort of Islam he practices. Judaism is not at so-called religion, in fact, it is to be respected, according to what I've heard of the Koran.

It's latter-day fundamentalist Islam that has begun the weird notion that a faith that has existed long before their own is somehow so-called, because they choose to call it so.

I can't speak to his involvement or lack of involvement in a Hamas front. But his own words betray a pretty obnoxious point of view.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. If you have to ask the question, you obviously are not very....

...well versed on historical subjects, particularly those subjects having to do with religion and the causes of war.

[JerseygirlCT]

137. I'd say just the opposite: your comment shows a rather glaringly

simplistic view.

[jobycom]

63. Exactly, o ye of true name.

It may have been almost acceptable to trust our intelligence services in past times, but given that they've been wrong more often than right lately, I'll put my money on the man who began releasing peace songs on the eve of the Iraqi invasion long before I'll trust anything that gets filtered through Bush's government these days.

[jpgray]

5. Note please, that we have Fallwell, Robertson and Swaggart here

If bigotry against a religion or advocating the deaths of a group you find morally reprehensible were grounds for not being allowed in the US, these fellows would have to be deported. But they will not be--only Muslims will be.

[GHOSTDANCER]

9. Nice

I think I watched a Fallwell sermon once on my tv. Should I be detained when I visit a muslim country?

[Donkeyboy75]

18. Huh?

[jobycom]

67. If the world follows Bush's lead

you will be.

[Donkeyboy75]

14. But you can't deport U.S. citizens.

And who the fuck would take Falwell and the like? :shrug:

[Wat_Tyler]

20. Go about a hundred miles north of where you live, Donkeyboy.

They'll take them.

[Donkeyboy75]

25. Falwell's big

in Galway, yeah? :spank:

[Wat_Tyler]

27. I'm sure he'd be big in certain sections of Belfast.

OK. Maybe two hundred miles, eh?

[Donkeyboy75]

31. I know.

I was being a jackass. :evilfrown:

[DrWeird]

35. But we just did.

There was just that US citizen who was held for a couple of years, never having been charged with a crime, who was just deported to Saudi Arabia.

[Donkeyboy75]

55. I think you have to be a dual citizen

to be deportable. I doubt Falwell is ;)

[Wat_Tyler]

6. Why are people trying to crucify Yusuf Islam for his deeply-held beliefs

when his music was a far greater crime? :shrug:

[skooooo]

8. Obese Train sounding louder..

...Everyone jump on the obese train!!

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Did you see this?

http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=961


"Hours after being refused entry into the United States, 1970’s recording artist Cat Stevens lashed out at the U.S. government today, vowing to resume his recording career “immediately” as the ultimate act of revenge.

Appearing on the Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera, a visibly angry Mr. Stevens threatened to attack the U.S. with the full force of his insipid folk-rock music."

and more...

Pretty funny, although I did like a lot of his songs.

[Wat_Tyler]

16. I know, I just can't resist the joke.

[skooooo]

19. omg what have we wrought?

[qwertyMike]

10. I've always had trouble with this Jewish thing

Each to their own.
I have a LOT of trouble with the Israel thing.
Aren't the Irish God's Chosen?
Or the Amerindians?

[foo_bar]

97. what sort of trouble?

is it the rough archetype of Leopold Bloom or a more ancient sin?

[livinbella]

17. Cat is awesome! Now I love him even more than before

[Donkeyboy75]

21. Enjoy your brief stay, compadre.

[daleo]

28. National Post is Canada's right wing piece of crap

Take anything printed in it with a grain of salt the size of a planetoid.

[Donkeyboy75]

32. Can I just drop that grain of salt on

Cat Stevens' guitar instead?

Nah. That won't work. Still has CDs out there...

[daleo]

34. I am just saying that it is not a reliable news source

I don't really have an opinion on the singer or the claims made pro and con at this point. But, taking the National Post at face value is like accepting Fox News at face value.

[Wat_Tyler]

37. The National Post is an arm of the Conrad Black spiritual fascist empire.

[skooooo]

45. that doesn't mean this story is necessarily wrong..

They do cite other sources. We harp on about cons attacking the messenger instead of the message, so why is it okay here? If someone can discredit the information presented here, that's a different story.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. Right. You go ahead and keep believing that.

[skooooo]

64. Show me evidence otherwise...until then I am at least open to believing ..

..the story.

[DrWeird]

71. Guilty until proven innocent?

You know, they say John Lennon was a commie sympathizer. Good thing the FBI was after him. And it's a good thing they're banning his music now, wouldn't want to give the kids improper thoughts.

[skooooo]

82. whatever...

You're interpreting everything I say in the worst possible light.

Just because someone says that Canadian newspaper is a propangada piece isn't enough for me to immediately discount it. I said my mind was OPEN. I've said several times that IF Stevens is indeed guilty of ties w/Hamas, then I agree with the decision to inhibit his entry. If he was banned because of a stupid spelling error, then, indeed, I think that is a case of discrimination. I really have nothing more to say about this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. Perhaps if you read the whole article and saw his comments in context

you would realize the spin placed on his comments by the few paragraphs cited in the OP

[Aidoneus]

42. the latest in a long line..

this poster's offerings of choice are usually from the sort. You get used to it. The cartoons are just lovely.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. I'll just let Cat Stevens speak for himself

God almighty! Is this the same planet I'd taken off from? I was devastated. The unbelievable thing is that only two months earlier, I had been having meetings in Washington with top officials from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to talk about my charity work. Even further back, one month after the attack on the World Trade Center, I was in New York meeting Peter Gabriel and Hillary Rodham Clinton at the World Economic Forum!

Had I changed that much? No. Actually, it's the indiscriminate procedure of profiling that's changed. I am a victim of an unjust and arbitrary system, hastily imposed, that serves only to belittle America's image as a defender of the civil liberties that so many dearly struggled and died for over the centuries.

Need I say that any form of terrorism or violence is the antithesis of everything I love and stand for? Anyone who knows me will attest to this. I have spent my life in the search for peace and understanding, and that was mirrored clearly in my music. Since becoming a Muslim, I have devoted my life to education, charity and helping children around the world.

Consistently I have condemned the attacks of 9/11, stating that the slaughter of innocents, the taking of hostages and coldblooded killing of women and children have nothing do with the teachings of Islam. I've openly and publicly repudiated the actions of groups that resort to such acts of inhumanity — whatever their names. Any allegations to the contrary are fabricated. The Koran equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of all of humanity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-islam28sep28,1,5160393.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[jobycom]

79. "God almighty! Is this the same planet I'd taken off from?"

Many of us wonder the same thing.

Thank you, big sis, as always. Perfect.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. So much for him being a 'Peace Activist'

[Minstrel Boy]

78. Reuters is pissed at the neocon Nat Post for rewriting its stories,

and putting the Asper family's peculiar spin on things.

Reuters upset by CanWest's misuse of 'terrorist'
Sept 17

OTTAWA - The world's oldest news agency, Reuters, says it will complain to CanWest Global's newspaper chain about its use of the word "terrorist" when editing stories dealing with the Middle East.

Papers owned by CanWest Publications, Canada's largest newspaper chain, have been altering words and phrases in some newswire copy stories dealing with the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby changing their meaning.

In one Reuters story, the original copy reads: "… the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank."

In the National Post version, printed Tuesday, it became: "… the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a four-year-old campaign of violence against Israel."

http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_reuters20040917

Take it from a Canadian: The National Post is not credible. It's a neoconservative propaganda organ.

[daleo]

90. Seconded by another Canadian

I might take this more seriously from the Globe and Mail, even though it too has its biases.

[Wat_Tyler]

93. Well this Canadian totally disagrees.

The National Post is the best newspaper ever. Times a million. :evilgrin:

[daleo]

96. Well, it has won "bird cage liner of the year"

At least in my most recent poll of likely bird voters. O8)

[Wat_Tyler]

98. You'd line your birdcage with that?

Brave man.

[CHIMO]

119. Aspers flex their media muscle

'Go CanWest young man or go to hell'

MONTREAL – Collecting their newspapers from their porch steps one morning this month, employees of the Montreal Gazette found a little surprise waiting inside.

There, for all to see, was a speech given the day before in Oakville by David Asper of CanWest Global Communications – the paper's owner – attacking his own employees as "bleeding hearts" and "riff-raff" who engaged in "pathetic politics" and "childish protest."

But the stinger was yet to come.

Arriving at their downtown offices that day, these same employees found a company memo reminding them it was "a privilege" to work for Mr. Asper's company.

http://209.47.161.50/articles/TorontoStar/torontostar011223.htm

Before getting all excited about an article in the National Post or one of its papers I would want to verify the sources.

[kysrsoze]

135. Precisely. Hamas began as a Palestinian charitable organization, BUT..

...there is a militant, splinter group of Hamas which is responsible for the suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. Hamas is now pretty much "the political party" for Palestinians because Israel has dismantled the PLO and the PA by destroying its government and police infrastructure. Nearly 50% of Palestinians support Hamas - which does NOT mean 50% are terrorist supporters. People need to read a lot more before they can begin to understand the situation.

[gottaB]

136. People should start by reading the charter of Hamas

Charter of Hamas

This is their slogan:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Read their charter to learn more.

[GainesT1958]

80. Poor Cat. It must have been the drugs...

Anybody (outside of Iran) who'd have a picture of Khomeini mounted on his wall has lost it!:crazy:

B-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. Likudniks have bastardized Judaism and don't speak for this Jew

I just read all his statements in the article in context and completely agree with them. What the Likudniks are doing in the settlements has nothing to do with religion.

[jobycom]

86. Has anyone read the article? Stevens says the opposite of what they claim

"The video opens with a scene of Niagara Falls, overlayed with the Jerusalem Fund logo, which features the al-Aqsa Mosque and the maple leaf. It begins with an unidentified man explaining the activities of the Jerusalem Fund, which he describes as "helping the Muslims in Palestine" by financing hospitals, health clinics, families in need and orphans.

"Palestine is close to the heart of each and every Muslim. What the Muslims of Palestine have been doing for many years now has been that bright light shining, that hope ... that they are still believers that can raise the banner of jihad in the most difficult of circumstances."
"
-----
my comments:

For the record, jihad does not mean Holy War, it means a struggle to keep the faith, similar to the way the word Crusade can be used.

------

Here's Islam's comment: ""So this city which is blessed because of its religious nature. Therefore, what we see today is the result of the departure of religion from this area, of the uprooting of religion. So many of the people of the faith have been exiled from this region, moved on, to make way for what? Strangely and ironically, they moved on in the name of so-called religion, on behalf of ... the Jews.

"Of course, that would explain what is happening. Because the moment that religion and religious virtues disappear, there for sure follows trouble, tyranny, oppression," he says. "So what do we see then today? The concoction of a so-called new society based on an old society.""

end quote.

If you notice, he didn't say what they claim he said. He did not call Judaism a "so-called religion," he said that those who who were committing atrocities in Israel were doing it the name of "so-called religion." The implication is very clear, that he is claiming they were not following any religion, that religion did not allow such atrocities, not that Judaism was a false religion. You may disagree with his assumption that Israel is committing atrocities, but to claim he called Judaism a "so-called religion" is a blatant lie. This paper should be ashamed, but shame is far beyond the ability of the media these days.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. Exactly..he was commenting about the people who hijacked MY religion

not ALL Jews...but don't count on the thread starter to be intellectually honest...

[geek tragedy]

92. Except he then talks about those damn infidel "Jews."

His anti-semitism is pretty clear, as is his stated desire of driving the Jews into the sea.

I don't see how the context contradicts his statement--it very strongly implies that Israel is not a real society, and that the Jews don't have a real religion.

Given his support for the barbarians who issued the death fatwa on Rushdie and these comments, the man is simply indefensible. Just another fundy scumbag.

Edited to add: If this is really true. I'll wait for a legitimate news source to report it.

[bpilgrim]

102. thank you

i don't usually read the articles posted by the thread starter because of his well established bias on anything related to israel.

cat stevens is a man of peace and the hawks/propagandist only reveal themselves by obsessing over someone like him.

i think his unfortunate ordeal will only serve to highlite how far we as a nation have fallen.

peace

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. And a big 'so what'?

he spoke at a dinner for a Candian charity back in 1998, which, by 2003, still had charitable status from the Canadian government. If the Canadian government was happy with it for another 5 years (and may well still be - this is the latest official reference to it), why shouldn't Islam have been?

[daleo]

128. Also, a mention in a privy council note is not proof of anything

The National Post may well have taken this out of context. It is the sort of thing they are well known for.

[Jacobin]

124. They let Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart fly

WTF is the difference?

[gottaB]

132. This is not the only evidence of Yusuf Islam's antisemtism

See Blood on the Holy Land

The fact is that 15 years ago Yusuf Islam was a not a man of peace, but a militant fundamentalist zealot.

He was clearly militant. He supported the aims and methods of Hamas. He endorsed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. He disdained musical instruments, although he thought machine guns were appropriate accompaniment for his nasheeds:

Afghanistan--the Land of Islam

His supporters, if they are being truthful, will acknoweldge that he held these views in the past, but they will say that he has mellowed, that he is a gentle man who does many good works and avoids hateful rhetoric. His critics, like Salman Rushdie, remain skeptical.

When I learn that Yusuf Islam has raised money on behalf of AIDS victims, I am glad for this kindness towards his fellow human beings, and I suspect that he no longer believes that AIDS is a punishment from God. I also suspect that he still holds on to homophobic views, and I know that there are cases where his views on sex education, for example, are at odds with more liberal views. (I have the same misgivings about Christian fundamentalists, of course.)

[Moderator]

138. Locking

This discussion is no longer ( if it ever was) productive.