Ok, I'll be the one to say it. The only peace there can be with Islam boils down to two choices. Either become muslim, or eradicate muslims. These are not my rules, but theirs.
The tune being played is the one they chose. The world has been constantly notified of Islamic ambitions to enslave, convert, or kill all others.
I find it amazing that I hold the above opinion and am usually considered a hater or racist, yet I show them more respect than do their defenders. I take them at their word. Something, it seems, no one else does, despite centuries of proof that they mean it.
However, I do see problems with the way the "authorities" are handling the investigations. It seems innuendo and character assassintion (whether deserved or not) is are the mainstays of their efforts. Case in point, if someone is named as a co-conspirator why are they unindicted? If the proof is not strong enough for indictment, why are they publicly named as co-conspirators?
There may be sufficient reason for investigators to belive they are involved, but until they have proof sufficient to indict, it is inappropriate and almost certainly unconstitutional to try to destroy people when it is known you have insufficient proof to indict or bring to trial. Remember, if it can be done to anyone, it can be done to everyone.
Ok, I'll be the one to say it. The only peace there can be with Islam boils down to two choices. Either become muslim, or eradicate muslims. These are not my rules, but theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe tune being played is the one they chose. The world has been constantly notified of Islamic ambitions to enslave, convert, or kill all others.
I find it amazing that I hold the above opinion and am usually considered a hater or racist, yet I show them more respect than do their defenders. I take them at their word. Something, it seems, no one else does, despite centuries of proof that they mean it.
However, I do see problems with the way the "authorities" are handling the investigations. It seems innuendo and character assassintion (whether deserved or not) is are the mainstays of their efforts. Case in point, if someone is named as a co-conspirator why are they unindicted? If the proof is not strong enough for indictment, why are they publicly named as co-conspirators?
There may be sufficient reason for investigators to belive they are involved, but until they have proof sufficient to indict, it is inappropriate and almost certainly unconstitutional to try to destroy people when it is known you have insufficient proof to indict or bring to trial. Remember, if it can be done to anyone, it can be done to everyone.
David, I do not understand how you come up with so many different "only ones" quips! They are comedy genius!
ReplyDelete