I consider your idea of ‘God’ or ‘Satan’ to be naive, wherever it comes from. Nothing is this black and white. Not intolerance, merely personal objection to this way of thinking. I havnt attacked your beliefs at all.

Andy – you are clutching at straws again, as non of those desperate ‘links’ actually lead to any constructive relationship (You even had the audacity to claim there was a ‘military alliance.’) Al Qaeda tried to get in touch personally with Saddam on one occassion, to request for permission to set up training camps there. Saddam did not even reply. But you’ve supposedly read the report, im sure you know this already.

Next – Zarqawi. You ignored my previous comment about this. You seem to think that because Zarqawi both trained with Al Qaeda, and worked within Iraq this means there was some kind of link between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. Not so.

You then copy and paste a piece of information about IRAN, which i have made no comment about. Iran has no place in this discussion. Not only is it a very different country from Saddam’s secular Baath party regime, the US has not invaded Iran.

Bin Laden was WILLING to set up links. I suggest you read your own information before quickly running it off as relevant.

After reading that, i have learnt absolutely nothing i didnt know, and you have failed to prove any links between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, MUCH LESS a ‘military alliance.’ I suggest you read your source full of ‘maybes’, and ‘willingness’ again, and quit the spin.

The staff report concludes that:
• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan.”
• “A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.”
• “Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan.”

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: “There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.”

Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.

For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi’s network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam’s regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was “good” and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
=============================================

Lest you claim that you have indeed read the 9/11 commisson report, might I kindly refer you to the downloadable National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States at 9-11commission. gov/report/911Report. pdf.

If you will browse over to page 62 (78th PDF page), under the chapter entitled THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM, we read the following:
==========================================
…Bin Ladin seemed willing to include in the confederation terrorists from almost every corner of the Muslim world [Remember 'Your Enemy Is My Enemy'?]. His vision mirrored that of Sudan’s Islamist leader, Turabi,[Remember this guy and the current genocide in Sudan?] who convened a series of meetings under the label Popular Arab and Islamic Conference around the time of Bin Ladin’s arrival in that country. Delegations of violent Islamist extremists came from all the groups represented in Bin Ladin’s Islamic Army Shura. Representatives also came from organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives [Remember Axis of Evil?]. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7, al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued in ensuing years.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December [Remember Clinton's call for regime change and his wagging the dog airstrikes?].

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
======================================

Perhaps your claims are predicated on the final two sentences above. Yes Iraq may have nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq and AQ were definitely in cahoots to enable each other’s mischief. There’s plenty more in that report, so perhaps you can put your weekend to good use and enlighten yourself.

Ciao

By the way, only secularist types consider that word a slur. Christians do not. To me, it’s akin to being called a homophobe. Totally meaningless and doesn’t rattle me in the least. In my view, this is the sort of attitude white conservatives should adopt when called racists. A discussion-stifling piece of fluff.

The word “intolerant” has taken on a whole new and unintended meaning. I don’t accept all lifestyles and ideas as true or equally valid. I am tolerant of others because we live in a civilized society, and my obligation is to be civil toward them. If I am considered “intolerant” because I don’t accept what they do, say or believe to be correct or good, so be it.

I have a feeling your exasperation with my response and this blog will lead you to say something inappropriate, so be warned: If you respond to me directly, don’t lose your temper.

Your point is so crude it defies belief. Firstly, Zarqawi is not a member of Al Qaeda. He runs his own organisation – Tawhid al Jihad. So what you are saying is, because Zarqawi spent some time in Iraq, that somehow means there was links between the two? Excuse me if im misunderstanding what you are saying – but if this is the case that point is very flawed. Does the prescence of the KKK in America mean the US government are cooperating with them?

Im relaying no myths. There is no room for subjectivity here. The 9/11 commission explicitly stated there was NO link between the organisation Al Qaeda, and the Iraqi government. Fact.

The people who kidnapped Ms Hassan are not only stupid, as the vast majority of Iraqi’s love her….it was a political move, as she is a well known character. The Qu’ran doesnt preach the oppression of women any more than the Bible does.

I respect you for holding your hands up to being intolerant. I do however feel you are going a little far in your zeal. Suggesting other faiths are Satan bred is just inane. It only supports my theory that religious faith only breeds conflict with those different. Frankly, i dont care what the Bible says. Im laying down how radical i think your views are in real terms, regardless of what it says.

Sadly, you’re still spinning the myth of the 9/11 commisson. Yes Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 AND yes Saddam was developing a relationship with AQ, as he had with any other terrorist organization.

In fact, I don’t think there was an organization that he didn’t at least entertain as long as they weren’t against him and conceiveably be a pawn in his Pan-Arabia quest.

Of course the OIC is confusing. Where did I say you endorsed it? The OIC conndemns NGOs that advocate human rights and which campaigns/interfere with a nation’s sovereign right to impose Sharia Law. Therefore, it would extend that rationale to any group of thugs to grab Mrs hassan who has lived and worked amongst Iraq’s wretched to advocate on their behalf.

She is by the OIC’s definition interfering with the misogynic culture that views women as equal to livestock to be bartered and kept out of sight — where is NOW and other women’s rights group on this atrocity? That you chose not to read between the lines and connect the dots is sKerry-esque.

If by your definition, I am intolerant, so be it — I make no apologies. As a Christian, I believe it when Jesus says ‘I am the Way, the truth and the Light, no man cometh to the Father. but by me’ (Jn 14:6) To me that means all other religions are false and therefore a spawn of Satan, who is a deceiver and seeks to devour all (1 Peter 5:8).

Likewise, 2 Jn 1:7 speaks of decievers who deny the incarnation of Jesus as antichrists. Islam teaches that Jesus is but a prophet, not the Son of God, and that Mohammed is the last and true prophet. Sorry if that bursts your bubble and moral equvilance.

Firstly, it is unclear which group exactly has Mrs Hassan. The use of OIC quote was somewhat confusing. Not only did i never endorse this group, the select piece you provided doesnt say anything about beheading, raping, or forcing conversions either.

Andy, you are JUST as intolerant of Islam as the minority radical fundamentalists are of Christianity and other religions. Calling it a spawn of Satan or whatever proves this. Its sad, it really is.

Between Heather MacDonald, Contributing Editor of City Journal and John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She is the author of “Are Cops Racist? How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans.”

And a delusional

Joe Williams, editor of Santa Cruz Indymedia, a counsellor with the GI Rights Hotline and the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for the House of Representatives in California’s 17th District.

Regarding the test you say is wrong (racial discrimination?), it is one of several tests we can use. Under the Establishment Clause test, religious expression does not trump a government’s obligation to protect its citizens. Religious groups who believe in human sacrifice, for instance, cannot be permitted to do so. In that regard, their right to kill people in the free exercise of their religion is “infringed.” A religion that sacrifices animals in violation of health codes cannot be permitted to do so. All things must be balanced. One’s free exercise of religion ends when it infringes on the rights and safety of others. If Islam’s adherents believe they are called to kill “infidels” and they actually try or succeed in killing, their “free exercise” will be infringed.

How do I tell an Islamofacist thug from a “devout” follower of Islam? I say the devout part is irrelevant. As for the other? Let’s see. If the follower is hell-bent on suicide missions to kill people and to a lesser extent, hell-bent on “taking over” other countries and societies via Islamic law and oppression, it’s probably an accurate indicator that said follower is an Islamofacist. Simply expressing hatred for the west, as bad enough as that is, would likely not be. Many people hate the west for various reasons, most of which I couldn’t care less about. And the world’s terrorist lunatics are NOT overwhelmingly followers of Islam, and the “factual record” can’t bear this out?

About Christians: If and when Reformed Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, plotting to kill Muslims and expressing hatred for all things Middle Eastern, with overt acts to back it up, I’ll write about my views on the profiling of Reformed Christian churches, including my own.

Furthermore, you’re misleading when you contend that the southern district of NY has “condemned” all of the PA, when in fact they focused on one element only. But, let’s dispatch with your latest twist in challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §2709.

The plaintiffs (an ISP & ACLU) contened that it violates the 1st, 4th & 5th Amendments, and that the non-disclosure provision violates the 1st.

Like most of our constitutional law’s hardest cases, this dispute is about two fundamental principles: values and limits. The court accepts that it violates the 4th, at least as currently applied, because it effectively bars or deters any judicial challenge to the propriety of said request. The court also concluded that the permanent ban on disclosure violates the 1st.

However, the court declined the invitation to measure it against the 4th in general or in any particular case. The court also did not review this in light of the 5th. Thus it is the court’s opinion that there are structural flaws in that it is too broad and the non-disclosure could be enforced in perpetuity, with no means of lifting the non-disclure ban down the road.

The court has recognized and re-affirmed that there is a difference in prosecuting crimes that have been committed and in pre-empting terrorist plots (stopping the crime before it can be committed). Hence the court has stayed enforcement of this for 90 days pending appeal or measures by the government to address the flaws in structure and implementation. That gives the government till the end of the year to fix that provision.

In summary, the Patriot Act still stands, but like any other major effort, it will be tested, tweaked and fine-tuned to ensure that the government can effectively combat terrorism while ensuring that your rights and mine are protected. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, that is to be expected.

“just because an act of congress says something, it does not – per force – make it “constitutional,” andy.”

I never contended that, if it didn’t come across clearly, my bad.

As for congress being able to put certain laws beyond the court’s review, the mechanism does exist, as a check against activist judges. Difficult to implement perhaps, nonetheless, doable if congress is so inclined. We have not reached that point for that pre-emptive option to be considered and should Bush win, it may well be moot.

Should sKerry win, he may well unravel the PA to our overall detriment for the time being, but you can be sure that will again change should AQ attack us again on his watch. I wonder if another 3,000 American lives are worth the sacrifice in proving to the rest of us, and you, that sKerry is wrong about everything on terrorism and Islamofascism?

As for the rest of your ACLU’s koolaid-induced psychobabble, whatever dude, and hasta la vista.

I’m sure you’ve read interpretations of the Constitution, particularly those dealing with what is permissible discrimination and what is not. For instance, if race/ethnic discrimination is used to further a “compelling state interest” and is “narrowly tailored” to that end, the discrimination is permissible. The question is whether profiling Muslims is both compelling and narrowly tailored. I say it’s both.

We were attacked by radical Muslim thugs longing for Allah and 72 virgins. They were on a suicide mission. Radical Muslims across the globe have made clear their desire to see us all dead. We have terrorist cells right here in our own country with more Middle Eastern men sneaking across our porous southern border. I would say we have a compelling interest in protecting our homeland from radicals who don’t play by anyone’s rules but their own.

If there are mosques in this country suspected or shown to be funding/hiding these lunatics, the government has every right…the obligation, to protect us by “profiling” such places and investigating their activities. Surveillance of suspected mosques and Muslims, in my view, is narrowly tailored enough to be permissible under the Constitution, especially given the fact that most terrorists are Muslims. Radical Muslims seek out radical Muslims to plot to kill Americans. It is not only suicidal but astonishingly stupid not to consider ethnicity in this war on global terrorism committed by Muslims. As they seek to deprive us of our civil liberties, namely the right to LIVE, some of the liberties of those fitting the profile must be infringed, unfortunately. The good and the bad go hand in hand in this fallen world.

As an aside, I’d like to note that our Supreme Court only last year decided that skin color “diversity” was a compelling state interest. In that regard, discrimination against those not in the protected category (whites, Asians) is permissible, thus saith Sandra Day O’Connor. Racial/ethnic discrimination is permissible so that black and white college students can be “enriched” by each others’ presence, yet law enforcement cannot profile (discriminate against, if you will) Muslims or Arab males who are trying to blow us all to kingdom come? Interesting.

I appreciate your enthusiasm about this issue, but I’m one of those touchy people who doesn’t like sarcasm, so please curb your enthusiasm for it, at least toward me.