Posted on 12/13/2005 5:16:49 PM PST by ADemocratNoMore
Don't you understand that the concept of monitoring and spying on a religious group of citizens (that is ingrained into our New England culture, I might add) is repugnant? The Founders are spinning in their graves. The Quakers are no threat whatsoever to the security of this nation. And the fact that you have embraced this Boogeyman fabricated by the federal governmant is frightening. Radical Muslims are a threat to America. Quakers Terrorists are not.
Clinton sicked the IRS on the Christians and right wingers.
Yes, I know. I guess subtle points are lost on some people.
I was merely pointing out the our outrage seems to be a double-standard. It wasn't OK when Clinton did it, but it's OK for Bush?
My contempt for the MSM couldn't possibly get any higher.
If these communistic, America hating cretins were around in world war II. We would have lost.
Moonbats Frothing Over Quaker "Death Parties"
"Organizer's Name: Azita Ebrahimi "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507836/posts
"Organizer's Name: Azita Ebrahimi " Same Guy? Dunno..
http://www.wpibriefing.com/24yco52.htm
"Organizer's Name: Azita Ebrahimi " Same Guy? Dunno..
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/March/21%20o/Hello%20everyone,%20Azita%20Ebrahimi,%20Marcus%20Patton.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507836/reply?c=16
The American Friends Serivice Committee was founded in Philadelphia in April 1917 to protest American entry into WWI. During the 30s it cooprated with the Communist Party of the USA. During WWII many leaders opposed US involvement, even after Pearl Harbor: E.g., see a book published in 1942 by AFSC, 'Twenty-Five Years Under the Red and Black Star." Following WWII it was involved in every Marxist-led Peace Movement going until 1990. It was a pro-Mao, anti-Nuclear, one worlding operation. Today its members seem unable to decide whether they are Marxists or Anarchists -- showing a decided intellectual confusion in a most unintellectual and knee-jerk organization.
"The Quakers are no threat whatsoever to the security of this nation."
http://www.afsc.org/eyes/the-facts.htm
Realities of the Iraq War
Months before the war, doubts arose about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
In a statement to the U.N. Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency director said that he expected, “within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General
International Atomic Energy Agency
United Nations Security Council Transcript
New York, New York
January 27, 2003
“Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC. . . [A]ccess has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. . . .The environment has been workable.”
Hans Blix
Security Council Update
January 27, 2003
Experts now tell us none are to be found.
Former head of the U.S. inspection team David Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found. Kay said, "I don't think they existed."
Reuters
January 23, 2004
No Iraqis were involved in September 11. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the other four from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.
After examining the trailers said to be mobile weapons labs experts said they could not make weapons.
“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.”
David Kay
Head of the Bush Administration’s Weapons Inspection Team
October 2, 2003
A British scientist and biological weapons expert who examined the trailers in Iraq said: “They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were—facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.”
The Observer
June 15, 2003
Iraq did NOT buy aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons production.
The CIA Report...
... stated that while many specialists thought the tubes in question may have been intended for nuclear weapons building, “some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.”
“Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions"
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
July 1 through December 31, 2002
And an International Atomic Energy Agency report said the tubes were unsuitable for nuclear purposes.
Its report on January 20 concluded that the tubes had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, they were part of Iraq’s rocket program.
IAEA Update Report for the U.N. Security Council
January 20, 2003
Iraq had no biological and chemical weapons.
After months of searching, David Kay, the head of the U.S. Weapons Inspection Team, reported:
“. . . [W]e have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use chemical weapons against Coalition forces. Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq’s chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 chemical weapons stocks and chemical weapons agent production. . ."
David Kay’s Unclassified Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Defense, and theSenate Select Committee on Intelligence
There was no connection between Iraq and al-Queda.
An Exhaustive Study by the Prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Concluded That There Was No Connection
From the study:
There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and al Qaeda.
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it.
The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is highly dubious.
“WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications”
The Carnegie Foundation
January 2004
And making a connection between Iraq and al Queda contradicted basic facts, according to studies.
The idea that Saddam Hussein would trust Al Qaeda enough to give Al Qaeda operatives chemical or biological weapons -- and trust them to keep quiet about it -- is simply not plausible. Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy.”
“Why Hussein Will Not Give
Weapons of Mass Destruction to Al Qaeda”
Cato Institute
March 3, 2003
By Gene Healy
“[T]here is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. . . Hussein was a secular Muslim ruler, and bin Laden is a radical Muslim fundamentalist—their ideological views are hardly compatible.”
“Iraq: The Wrong War”
Cato Institute
December 15, 2003
By Charles Pena
“The conflation of al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. . . [ignores] critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action.”
“Bounding the Global War on Terrorism”
Army War College Report December 2003
By Jeffrey Record
http://www.afsc.org/about/default.htm
About AFSC
Ohhh, well, now it all makes sense! Why of COURSE the Pentagon needs to be spending time, money, and human resources to monitor a bunch of peace-loving Quakers! It's all part of The War Against Terror!
Gee, I thought he did.
The only problem is the quakers is that they have been co-opted by the fringe lunatic left.
How far would they go with non-violence? How far do you support non-violence?
Someone is pointing a weapon at your child's head and you could kill that person, do you? If I understand the Quakers, killing the person threatening your child is not an option.
Will you support non-violence if it results in Sharia law replacing our judicial system?
If I understand the Quakers, they would have no problem with Sharia Law replacing our judicial system and the crushing of all Western culture by Islamofacists, as long as it was done without violence.
You like this future?
Just because their beliefs are weird, it does not justify spying on American citizens who pose no threat to the government. The fact that they are so vehemently anti-violence makes this monitoring program ludicrous.
I am shocked that so many Freepers support this kind of thing, all in the name of The War Against Terror. I guarantee if this were a liberal President doing the exact same thing, Freepers would be nearly rioting in the streets.
If I understand the Quakers, they would have no problem with Sharia Law replacing our judicial system and the crushing of all Western culture by Islamofacists, as long as it was done without violence.
You like this future?
"Interesting... and how would you feel if Clinton had decided that
"right-wingers" and Christians needed to be monitored after OKC?"
I be suprised if he hadn't.
IIRC, talk radio (predominantly conservative) and other right-of-center
groups got tarred with Clinton's broad brush after it appeared that
the OKC Bombing was wholly an American enterprise.
AND, if Clinton did put such surveillence forward, I'd have a
freakin' heart attack if the New York Times or Washington Post would
ever publish it.
Other than in a paragraph on p. A23.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22982
You like this future?
It's a dumb question because it will never happen. Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the federal government is spying on peaceful American citizens, instead of focusing on the wild and ridiculous speculations of the Islamic Boogeyman coming to get us all.
'Sharia Law replacing our judicial system...' yeah, right.
"Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the federal government is spying on peaceful American citizens."
I would agree if we were talking about the Quakers before they embraced communism, before they embraced socialism, one world government, activism that gives the terrorists propaganda talking points, providing al-Jazeera footage of anti-war protests to show how the USA is being crushed from within.
Providing footage to al-Jazeera of anti-war protests for the Islamofacist recruiters that it is just a matter of time before they win the war. "Because the whole USA is revolting against the Bush regime"
The quakers don't have to be actively plotting against our government to cause great harm to the USA and our military.
They have the right to protest and say what they will. If we say that government can not keep an eye on ANY religious group. That loophole will be used by our enemies.
You seem to be OK granting this immunity to the Quakers just because they call themselves Quakers. What happens when the Quaker's membership rolls start reading like al-aquri, rasheed bin-steenking, muhahmed al-quera?
The American Friends Service Committee is planning to hold a series of parties all across the country when the 2000th US soldier is killed in Iraq: Not One More Death. Not One More Dollar.
https://www.afsc.org/2000/default.php
So what??? Let them hold their little meetings. It is not a threat to the country to have dissenting opinions, in fact it makes us stronger.
Again, I am shocked that so many Freepers approve the monitoring of private American citizens simply because they don't agree with their politics.
Same freedom extended to Islamic American citizens? They should never be watched?
Your New England culture is the reason we are in the shape we are in now. Nuff said!
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.