Posted on 06/23/2005 12:57:42 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry
EL PASO — A man who admitted trying to firebomb the Islamic Center of El Paso last year has been sentenced to more than 14 years in prison, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
Antonio Flores pleaded guilty in March to charges related to hate crimes. Investigators said that Flores threw a Molotov cocktail at the center in September and put a similar device near a gas meter on the center's property.
According to court records, Flores told investigators that he was angry about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and wanted to scare Muslims.
Flores was sentenced to 171 months in prison and three years of probation.
I got every bit of your sarcasm. Thats well put.
"I think much needs to be done to rid America and the world of radical Islam."
There's that "radical Islam" quote I so often hear. I know how many moon worshippers bothered to show up at the great "Muslim's against radical Islam" rally. A handful.
Now you're going to tell me that the great mulitude of Muslims were afriad of being attacked by their fellow Muslims for daring to appear at such a rally. Who was going to attack them? Where did they get the message that they should not attend? Could it be that they heard it from their Imams' at their local mousqe? If not, it means they were NOT intimidated, they agree with Osama's attack, or they just don't give a shit. Islam is Islam- you can't point out the good points because there aren't any.
Well, you ignored my other points and focused on two little words. I'll take off "radical" if you want. I just wonder, are you advocating violence against individuals because of actions of some of the group? If so, you probably shouldn't post it.
I don't really know what you're talking about in regards to the rally. I was never going to tell you anything about them being afraid of being attacked. There's no question that the majority of Muslims have not been outspoken in denouncing terrorism. Still doesn't mean I want lunatice running around throwing firebombs
An Islamic centre near a major border crossing. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Is it okay with you if the President of the United States orders bombs away on terrorists outside our borders? Would you complain if we destroyed a mosque or two in Iraq in order to kill those inside? How about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Chechnya? Philippines? Mexico? (Texas?)
"Is it okay with you if the President of the United States orders bombs away on terrorists outside our borders?"
Yes
"Would you complain if we destroyed a mosque or two in Iraq in order to kill those inside?"
No
"How about Afghanistan?"
Outstanding
"Pakistan?"
Sweet
"Chechnya?"
You betcha
"Philippines?"
Absolutely
"Mexico?"
Now you're talking
(Texas?)
Hmmm, that's a tricky one. I guess my answer is, that I'm all for it, if they're engaged in insurrection against the US. Otherwise, well that would kind of remind me a little of Waco. You know, killing religious lunatics who aren't engaged in any wrong doing.
ditto.
They are.
"They are."
Yes, some of them are. So I would support that. However, I thought this was a thread about a lunatic throwing firebombs. Not a good idea.
Ping. You'll probably enjoy reading this thread.
Well isn't that special. How fricking precious.
So all followers of islam are the enemy, provided that they are outside our borders, but once they are in the US only "some of them are?"
So, all followers of Islam within the United State are the enemy and should be destroyed?
Yes.
...and should be destroyed?
Converted away from the Death Cult would be better.
"Converted away from the Death Cult would be better."
Here we find undisputed agreement.
"I agree that many of us have probably thought about similar actions. Only the dangerous lunatics act on those thoughts."
Interesting.
Are we at war?
Is this man a lunatic, or a man of passion, a man who acted?
In your readings here, and elsewhere, do you believe that islam is the enemy, or is it simply a fantatical element of islam?
"Are we at war?
Is this man a lunatic, or a man of passion, a man who acted?"
Well, you appear to be a man of great passion on this subject. Since we're at war, and given your postings, I must assume that you are out there killing every Muslim you see. If not, why not? Is it because you still have control over your impulses? You're rational? You think it should be handled by the military/law enforcement? What?
"do you believe that islam is the enemy, or is it simply a fantatical element of islam?"
I believe that Islam is a demented theology and the world would be a much better place if it was eradicated. That doesn't mean that I would throw a firebomb at the mosque down the street.
"I must assume that you are out there killing every Muslim you see. If not, why not? Is it because you still have control over your impulses? You're rational? You think it should be handled by the military/law enforcement? What? "
I'm not sure. I don't know what the answer is. This is not an attack, it's a debate. We are at war. I don't think we're doing enough, but I don't know exactly what is "enough". I'm exasperated by those who seek to undermine our country and aid our enemies. islam is the enemy within. Do we deport them? Would it be enough if we were all just so hostile that no muslim in their right mind would come here? Assimilation is out of the question. We know that muslims regard coexistance in the same light as we regard subjugation.
So, what do we do? Is there a time where we take it to the streets? (Very unappealing, but perhaps it could come to that).
"I believe that Islam is a demented theology and the world would be a much better place if it was eradicated."
I couldn't agree more. So, now, how is that accomplished? Do we have them over for cookies and tea and tell them we find it disturbing that they enjoy cutting the heads off of infidels? They seem to only respond to, and understand force. What do we do? That's an honest question. Clearly I'm leaning towards the use of force. But how, when? How do we nullify the effect of an enemy in our house? How do we do it without losing our humanity? I guess that's one of the key differences between islam and Christains, Christians worry about such minor points as civility, humanity and pleasing a loving God.
These are troubling times to be sure.
That was a very thoughtful response. One thing you said raised what I believe is a very serious question.
"I guess that's one of the key differences between islam and Christains, Christians worry about such minor points as civility, humanity and pleasing a loving God."
There was once a time when this was not the case. If you were on the receiving end of a Crusade or an Inquisition you would probably disagree with the above statement. There are many more examples I could list of barbarity in the name of official Christendom.
But that period ended. Could the same happen with Islam? I doubt it, but in the Dark Ages I probably would have doubted that Christianity would change to the extent it did.
So what's the answer. I have always felt that there was a simple answer to the Islamic terrorism problem. I would have announced the Bush doctrine on September 12. Any Islamic terrorist attack against the USA would result in the leveling of a random major Islamic city. We wouldn't want to do it, but if announced ahead of time, it would be their own damn fault. We could even make it like a lottery, with a spinning wheel in the White House.
I would suspect that afterthe first time there wouldn't be a second time. Maybe this is why I'm not President
Rule #1. Never, ever, ever, ever compare a sentence handed out in California to a sentence handed down in Texas. There is nothing at all comparable between justice in California and Justice in Texas. We tend to be harsh on criminals here, and California tends to cradle theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.