Group claims US diplomat's murder in Sudan

Radio Netherlands ^ | January 04 2008

[knighthawk]

Khartoum (4 January) - A hitherto unknown Sudanese Islamist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of an United States diplomat and his driver. They were shot dead in Khartoum on New Year's Day.

The group, Ansar al-Tawhid, made the claim on the internet, saying the men were killed because the Americans were trying to establish Christianity in Sudan. The chauffeur was said to have bartered away his religion.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[b4its2late]

Sudanese Islamist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of an United States diplomat and his driver.

Radical muslims huh? Whoda thunk?

[farmer18th]

Wow. You mean all Islamic terrorism isn’t limited to the known watch-list groups? Terrorism just sort of springs up everywhere that, um, Islam goes?

[RDTF]

and then there is this..

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/01/04/sudan.diplomat/index.html

Group claims responsibility for killing U.S. diplomat in Sudan

-snip-

Jane Granville, John Granville’s mother, said she had no interest in discussing the claim of responsibility.

“That is not going to help bring John back, or his driver, and I really — that is of no interest to me,” she told CNN in an exclusive interview.

-snip-

[AmericanVictory]

Obviously the fault of the American diplomat; you could ask Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

[farmer18th]

Yeah, that’s my only problem with Paul—he doesn’t recognize the nature of Islamic extremism. Even Tom Jefferson understood Islamic terrorism, but you should never ever compare Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich. That’s like comparing George Mason to Fidel Castro.

[Kolokotronis]

Oh, this must be wrong. The Bush Administration diplomats and for that matter TROP Pres. Bush himself work for the crushing of Christianity and the triumph of Mohammedanism, not the other way around. Why, just ask the few Orthodox Christians left alive in Kosovo!

[AmericanVictory]

Here we think a lot of the George Mason (there were actually a bunch of George Masons). Our daughter was one of the leaders of the drive to get his memorial on the mall, the only non-President so honored. Ron Paul is no George Mason. In particular in the years from the defeat of the British at Yorktown to the end of the War of 1812, what has been aptly termed the time of the “securing of the Revolution,” it is difficult to see that Ron Paul would have been on the right side of things.

[farmer18th]

Ron Paul is no George Mason.

I think Ron Paul can distinguish between an attack on American soil (the war of 1812) and what he would call (but I don't call) a pre-emptive war in Iraq. Where Ron might be a little challenged is in understanding the danger of Barbary pirates. As a friend of the constitution, however, he's a lot closer to George Mason than any of the current crop, on either side of the aisle. The Constitution isn't just what a post FDR generation of conservatives say it is. It is what is written in the document. Even GWB would have been well advised to read it. You don't declare war without an act of Congress. It's pretty simple. On that front, Ron Paul is more conservative and constitutional than Romney, Bush, Rooty, Huckabee, Hunter, or anyone in the field--and to compare him to the socialist Dennis Kuckle-brain is unfair.

In other words, give him credit where credit is due, even if you wouldn't vote for him for president.

[AmericanVictory]

Between Yorktown and the War of 1812 none of the fighting was on American soil. In the “undeclared war” with France and the ongoing struggle with England all the fighting was at sea or overseas and then there was the war with Islamics, which is what the Barbary Pirates were, enslaving Christians, just as they still do. Ron Paul’s positions today indicate he would not have been effective during that crucial period.

[AliVeritas]

The OBL plan was to get us in Sudan next...

He’s gonna get a surprise.