Posted on 12/09/2006 7:59:56 AM PST by veronica
You people on this thread ardently defending against even the very mention of questioning him or his loyalties may be right, but that doesn't mean you have to impugn others to get your way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687508/posts
I guess nobody has been paying attention for the last 5 years. If I'm not mistaken, when push comes to shove his loyalties must be towards Allah and Islam first. Which makes him ineligible for public office in my mind. Ditto the other public/elected officials whose loyalties are in doubt.
Thanks Don. I'd forgotten that little incident.
He was appointeed by Pres. Reagan to oversee foreign policy in the Middle East.
Is that a fact too inconvenient to the Bush bashers and the anti-Islam crowd?
Thanks to all of those who are supporting Khalilzad. I used to think Western bigotry was dead. I see it merely shifted. I wonder who'll get the shaft next?
What facts did you present?Your 'facts' were "Muslims are untrustworthy."
If that's a 'fact', I'm the King of England.
Would he tape other Muslims?
There's a rule that says that every spelling flame has to have a misspelled word of its own.
The word is spelled "grammar".
grammar grammar (gràm´er) noun Abbr. gram. 1. a. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences. b. The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history. 2. a. The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language. b. The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language. 3. a. A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes. b. Writing or speech judged with regard to such a set of rules. 4. A book containing the morphologic, syntactic, and semantic rules for a specific language. 5. a. The basic principles of an area of knowledge: the grammar of music. b. A book dealing with such principles. [Middle English gramere, from Old French gramaire, alteration of Latin grammatica, from Greek grammatikê, from feminine of grammatikos, of letters, from gramma, grammat-, letter.] Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
And this is supposed to make us feel good?
This part is of concern: "Khalilzad's close connections to Islamic extremists......and the Bush's have close ties with our friends the Saudi's....
...and shall we list the long history of white, native born Christian Amurikans who have betrayed their country for personal gain? Shall we question their loyalty as a group?? Shall we list some Jews who have betrayed their country for a buck? Shall we be suspicious of all Jews for ever and ever and be forever skeptical regardless of individual history?
So you're questioning loyalties...good for you!!! You're a wonderful patriot who trashes individuals regardless of their personal histories because some of their tribe have been crooked....you're bold!/s
Dude, what.....is ......your....point....?!
What it boils down, to, IMO, is a single question: Is he a "nominal" Muslim, or a pious Muslim?
The real fear in America is when the muslims work their way into the political circles. You think we are constantly surrounded now by things we never thought we would face - wait until the muslim groups are making policy for American Christians.
If the latter, then history has shown us that we'd better brace for the unexpected. Case in point the FBI agent linked a few posts above this one.
Pious Muslims will have no compunctions whatsoever of doing whatever is in the ultimate interest of Islam. This includes such trivialities as lying with a straight face, and giving whatever reassurances are deemed necessary to convince us that they're telling the truth. Case in point, Iran's nuclear ambitions.
There's an Arabic word (coffee-lack, I forget the word at the moment) that applies to a peace treaty entered into when it's not possible to defeat the opponent by force. Once entered into the peace treaty, the opponent will let down his guard -- while the Muslim side quietly builds up its forces -- and when the balance of power shifts, the treaty is discarded, and the adversary is attacked.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat invoked that word when the more irate folks from his side berated him for entering into a treaty with Israel. He told them -- in Arabic -- that it was "that" kind of treaty (and dang, I wish I could remember the word. Maybe someone can help me out here and post it so that I don't have to spend my coffee-time in Google looking for it :)
His point, of course, was that the "treaty" was simply a vehicle to get the heat off the terrorists, so that they could regroup, and then attack once they'd grown strong enough, and the treaty was of no further use to them.
On the other hand, "nominal" Muslims -- let's call them "MINOs" -- are not going to play those games with us.
So the thing is to find out which type this guy is. Is he a "five times a day" Muslim, or a "Ramadan and Eid" Muslim.
I've personally known both types. I know they both exist -- and, that they really are different from each other, even though they both bear the same name.
[...]
OK, ya drove me to it. :) I did some googlin' and found this:
Ahmadinejad's 'License to Lie'
Everyone -- regardless of your sentiments on this particular appointment (and regardless of his actual qualifications) needs to read this short article. It is sobering, and it is important to remember, because we are culturally disposed to not deal in that manner, and thus, to project our cultural characteristics on other cultures, where they do not apply at all.
This, in times like these, is beyond suicidal.
The man is a muslim. Are not muslims 'allowed' by Allah to lie to their enemies? Are not muslims willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah? If so, how do we know if this man was risking anything? How do we know anything for sure?
I am not saying to throw him out. I am only advising caution. As a 'mouthpiece' it is less of a concern than if he was a policy maker -- unless he is privy to sensitive information.
There isn't anything wrong with caution and scrutiny and repeated security checks. It isn't racist, just prudent.
Thank you.
Maybe interning Japanese Americans during WWII wasn't right but putting possible sympathizers to the enemy into high government positions doesn't seem to make much sense to me either.
Caution. Scrutiny. Prudence.
I invite you to point out to me specifically where I trashed the ambassador, please. I won't bother going back and explaining what prompted my post in the first place. Your demeanor is just plain nasty and insulting if you ask me, and debating back and forth with you is useless because you still don't get it. Attack the messenger, attack the questioner, attack anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you 100% because you know it all. You must be a real treat at partys....
Nice job.
I don't owe any explanations to you. You can't find where I specifically 'trashed' the man unless you want to call the possibility of questions about him 'trashing' him...get lost.
Yes, you're right, I just realized I had you mixed up with another poster.
Fair enough. I'll take you off of my "WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT" list.
My guess is you are NOT shocked by the Know-Nothings.
Truthout? BWAAHAAAHAAA.
Couldn't find a better reason to support this guy.
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.