Jihadists and Dhimmis consolidation thread

CreepyFloyd · Apr 25, 2006

HayesStreet said:

I didn't say in the US.
Click to expand...

you're still responding to me?

not only do you fabricate evidence....you lie as well

HayesStreet · Apr 26, 2006

CreepyFloyd said:

you're still responding to me?

not only do you fabricate evidence....you lie as well
Click to expand...

sigh. where have i done either of those things? your childishness is not suprising but you're going over the line now.

CreepyFloyd · Apr 26, 2006

HayesStreet said:

sigh. where have i done either of those things? your childishness is not suprising but you're going over the line now.
Click to expand...

how many times have you said that you're either gonna ignore me and/or not respond to me? yet you continue to respond.......you suffering from amnesia now?

and we all know about the fake photo you provided as "evidence" in the immigration thread....you were quickly called out on it

HayesStreet · Apr 26, 2006

CreepyFloyd said:

how many times have you said that you're either gonna ignore me and/or not respond to me? yet you continue to respond.......you suffering from amnesia now?

and we all know about the fake photo you provided as "evidence" in the immigration thread....you were quickly called out on it
Click to expand...

well, to accuse me of fabricating evidence and of lying is pretty ridiculous. first off i didn't 'create' the photo, so your charge of 'fabrication' is 100% baseless. second, i used it to illustrate my point, not 'prove' anything (read the thread - I said 'this is the kind of sentiment I'm talking about'). third, there is no proof it is fake.

OTOH you clearly used a 'source' to back up your opinion and then quickly backtracked when the source completely contradicted your conclusions about Iran, so don't throw stones while you're living in a glass house, *******.

CreepyFloyd · Apr 26, 2006

HayesStreet said:

well, to accuse me of fabricating evidence and of lying is pretty ridiculous. first off i didn't 'create' the photo, so your charge of 'fabrication' is 100% baseless. second, i used it to illustrate my point, not 'prove' anything (read the thread - I said 'this is the kind of sentiment I'm talking about'). third, there is no proof it is fake.

OTOH you clearly used a 'source' to back up your opinion and then quickly backtracked when the source completely contradicted your conclusions about Iran, so don't throw stones while you're living in a glass house, *******.
Click to expand...

you crack me up, you should go be an intern at the white house and i never backed away from anything i said

gwayneco · Apr 26, 2006

The wackos at CAIR are always good for a laugh. Here's an idea, if you don't want your scarf pulled off, dont slug a cop.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...00.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Scarf pulled off by cops, Muslims say
Protesters call suburb's mayor

By Deborah Horan, Tribune staff reporter. Freelance reporter Carolyn Rusin contributed to this report
Published April 25, 2006

Dozens of area Muslims have placed protest calls to Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder demanding that charges against a Muslim civil rights protester be dropped after allegations were made that police ripped off the woman's headscarf during her October arrest.

Between 80 and 100 calls have been received at Mulder's office since last week after the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim advocacy group, sent out mass e-mails asking people to protest the incident, said Maria Croy, an assistant to Village Manager William Dixon.

The mayor and the village were not involved in the police matter other than logging the number of calls that came in and passing them on to the Cook County state's attorney's office, Croy said.

"We just thank them for calling," Croy said.

The protester, Rehana Khan of Chicago, was arrested Oct. 15 with four other people while demonstrating in Arlington Heights in support of immigrant rights and against the Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigration. Khan is to appear in court Tuesday.

Khan is charged with battery and resisting arrest. She is accused of hitting a female officer and trying to break free while being arrested, authorities said.

Khan alleges that police handcuffed her and then ripped off her headscarf, or hajib, which observant Muslim women believe Allah commanded them to wear, according to Christina Abraham of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Police allowed her to put on the headscarf during the ride to jail but then forced her to remove it again while she was being charged with resisting arrest, Abraham said.

"It's analogous to having a blouse ripped off," said council spokesman Ahmed Rehab. "It's a state of forced nudity."

Village prosecutor Ernest Blomquist III said the charges against Khan would not be dropped. He disputed the allegations of police misconduct.

"If it was a priest wearing a cross around his neck, we'd take that," Blomquist said. "The police followed standard Police 101: how to protect yourself and others. It makes no difference what religion she is. She was singled out because she struck an officer."

Assistant State's Atty. Rich Karwaczka said Khan's headscarf was "shifted" during the course of the arrest but was never pulled off. She was required to remove it during processing at the police station, which Karwaczka said is normal practice. "For safety reasons it always is [removed]," Karwaczka said.

Khan could not be reached for comment.

The incident has outraged some Muslims who learned about it via the e-mail from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which often rallies people to protest anti-terrorism laws and derogatory comments about Islam.

"Would the police pull off a woman's wig?" said Assad Busool, a professor at the American Islamic College in Chicago. "Do they strip people naked? No. Therefore there is no need to remove her head cover."

In the past the Council on American-Islamic Relations has called on members to protest parts of the U.S. Patriot Act and the appointment of Daniel Pipes, a controversial academic, to the U.S. Institute of Peace.

It was unclear, however, how much this call to action had rallied Chicago's Muslim community. Yousif Marei, host of a local radio show, said he was aware of the case but wasn't sure how many of his listeners had heard about it. He said it had not come up on his show.

"I didn't call," Marei said. "I was busy with the radio station. But we need fairness to all, including Muslim Americans."

----------

dhoran@tribune.com
Click to expand...

Jackfruit · Apr 26, 2006

gwayneco said:

Let's start with some campus follies at Michigan State. So far, the admins haven't caved, so they have not handed a victory to the Jihadists.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/NEWS05/604250381
Click to expand...

Gwayneco,

Why haven't you joined me in applauding UPenn yet for promoting free speech and the free exchange of ideas? Oh wait...is it because the only free speech you like is the one that derides and bashes Muslims? Why else would it be that you call PSU cowards, yet fail to compliment UPenn.

For what its worth, this Wichman clown at MSU is a moron at best. I find it appalling that you find nothing wrong with the statement,

" I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' " ?

Instead, you decide to bold these two statements:

"He was cautioned that any additional commentary ... could constitute the creation of a hostile environment, and that could ... form the basis of a complaint" under the policy, Denbow said."

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also is urging the university to take "appropriate disciplinary" action, saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.

If that is the mentality of the average person in America, to where seeking disciplinary action is more agregious than blatant intolerance, then we as Americans (and yes, like it or not, Wichman is wrong and even Muslims are Americans) need to fear you more than "Jihadists" or "Dhimmis."

Looks like the Jihadist win streak has come to an end.

mulletman · Apr 26, 2006

Pakistani Jihadi here in the US found guilty of supporting terrorists

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/04/25/state/n155810D12.DTL

Jury finds Lodi man guilty in federal terrorism case

- By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, April 25, 2006

(04-25) 16:21 PDT SACRAMENTO, (AP) --

A federal jury on Tuesday convicted a 23-year-old Lodi man of supporting terrorists by attending an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan three years ago.

Hamid Hayat, a seasonal produce worker in the agricultural town south of Sacramento, was convicted of one count of providing material support to terrorists by attending the camp and three counts of lying about it to FBI agents.

The defendant, who has a sixth-grade education, stood with his head bowed and arms crossed as the jury departed after the verdicts were read. He patted his attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, on the shoulder before he was led away.

Afterward, Mojaddidi said she would file a motion seeking a new trial.

"I am obviously devastated and disappointed," she said. "I believe they are wrong in their decision. Hamid Hayat never attended a terrorist training camp. This fight is not over.

"There were outside influences that affected their decision (but) I am not prepared to elaborate at this time. An innocent man has been charged and found guilty."

The verdicts came hours after a separate jury hearing a case against the man's father deadlocked, forcing U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. to declare a mistrial.

The father, 48-year-old ice cream truck driver Umer Hayat, is charged with two counts of lying to the FBI about his son's involvement in the training camp. Defense attorneys and prosecutors will meet in court May 5 to decide whether he should be retried.

Both men are U.S. citizens and stood trial in U.S. District Court before separate juries. They have been in custody since their arrests last June.

The case against the father and son initially generated widespread interest because it raised concerns about a potential terrorist cell centered in the wine-producing region about 35 miles south of the state capital.

But the government presented no evidence of a terrorism network during the nine-week trial. The case instead centered on videotaped confessions the men gave to FBI agents and a government informant who secretly recorded hundreds of hours of conversations but whose credibility was challenged by the defense.

Prosecutors described Hamid Hayat as having "a jihadi heart and a jihadi mind" who returned from a two-year visit to Pakistan intent on carrying out attacks. Possible targets included hospitals, banks and grocery stores.

They presented no evidence to show that such attacks were imminent or even planned. But in closing arguments, one of the prosecutors defended the case by saying it was intended to prevent terrorist attacks "long before anybody is hurt."

Defense lawyers for both men argued that the government didn't have a case against their clients because it had produced no evidence that the son ever attended a terrorist training camp.

Their biggest hurdle was trying to persuade jurors to discount the men's videotaped confessions. The statements were given separately last June during lengthy interrogations at the FBI's regional headquarters in Sacramento.

Defense lawyers said the confessions were made under duress, after the men had been questioned for hours in the middle of the night.

The father and son eventually told the agents merely what they thought they wanted to hear, without realizing the legal consequences, their lawyers argued.

During the trial, Mojaddidi, Hamid Hayat's attorney, discounted his statements to authorities as "a meaningless confession."

The trial is the result of what the government initially thought might be a much larger case. Its investigation into Lodi's 2,500-member Pakistani community began after agents received a tip in 2001 that Lodi-area businesses were sending money to terrorist groups abroad.

That investigation ultimately produced no results, but it did lead agents to Naseem Khan. The 32-year-old former Lodi resident was working a variety of fast-food and convenience store jobs in rural Oregon when agents approached him in October 2001, just a month after the terrorist attacks.

Khan, a Pakistani native who moved to the U.S. as a teenager, was recruited to infiltrate Lodi's Pakistani community.

He initially investigated the money laundering allegations and then targeted a pair of local imams before finally befriending Hamid Hayat. The two eventually grew so close that the Hayats considered Khan like a member of the family.

After Hamid Hayat left for Pakistan in spring 2003, Khan kept in touch and recorded their telephone calls — some of which show Khan urging Hayat to attended a jihadi camp. In one such conversation, Khan can be heard yelling at Hayat to "be a man — do something!"

Hamid Hayat's lawyers seized on such conversations to show that the FBI informant was pushing Hayat to attend a training camp, but ultimately produced no evidence that he had.

They also questioned the informant's credibility, in part because of his own testimony. Khan said that just before he was recruited, he told FBI agents he had seen Osama bin Laden's physician and two other international terrorists living in Lodi during the late 1990s. At the time, they were wanted for attacks in the Middle East and Africa.

Defense attorneys and terrorism experts said it was highly unlikely they would have been in the U.S. at that time, a point prosecutors conceded later in the trial.

Hamid Hayat's family and lawyers said he traveled to Pakistan in 2003 to find direction in life, search for a wife and care for his mother, who had returned to Pakistan for medical treatment. They also said he was prone to exaggeration and wild storytelling.

The government presented another picture of Hayat. Prosecutors said he had an affinity for terrorists and held anti-American sentiments, views formed during the 1990s when he lived in Pakistan with his grandfather, a prominent religious and political leader.

They say Hayat used his return trip to Pakistan to train at an al-Qaida camp and returned to the U.S. awaiting orders on what targets to attack.

The investigation became public last year when authorities arrested the Hayats and detained two local imams. The clerics and one of their sons were later deported for immigration violations, and the Hayats were the only people criminally charged in the probe.

The case unfolded as federal prosecutors were trying to recover from a series of missteps involving terrorism cases nationwide.

The Hayats' trial also was overshadowed by the death penalty phase of the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, which was going on at the same time in a federal courtroom in Virginia. Moussaoui is the only person charged in this country in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Hamid Hayat's sentencing was scheduled for July 14.
Click to expand...

Forums

Jihadists and Dhimmis consolidation thread

CreepyFloyd Member

HayesStreet Member

CreepyFloyd Member

HayesStreet Member

CreepyFloyd Member

gwayneco Contributing Member

Jackfruit Contributing Member

mulletman Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!