Sharia courts in the U.K.: "these privatized legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women" - Jihad Watch

It's ugliness I don't want to see and cannot agree with. So shoot me.

Sharia Courts are already in operation in Africa, Malaysia, and the Caucuses.

If a secular nation will not follow Islamic law then the Muslims will set up such pseudo-courts to bypass secular law.

Harrydawg

Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You.

Maybe sooner than you think.

Mary Price99224

It's ugliness I don't want to see and cannot agree with. So shoot me.

They will definitely do.

Watch this video called sobering on the following link or youtube

http://arabsonofgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-us-to-act.html

http://arabsonofgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-us-to-act.html

Watch this video called sobering...

Indeed.

^ I've seen that before. Eye opener.

We've already set a precedent by allowing a very civilized and respectful Jewish court to exist, here.

bonos, as usual, spreading misinformation.

The Bet Din is mostly in place for the purpose of dissolving a Jewish marriage. The woman is afforded much protection by the Jewish court, however, an uncooperative future ex-husband can complicate matters by invoking CIVIL law, which is NOT permitted in the Bet Din. It is the CIVIL court which allows the husband to extort additional concessions from the wife.

The Bet Din is very balanced and straightforward. Moreso than our system could ever hope to be.

Thanks bono.

Always a pleasure.

Beit Dins, can not supersede US law and it is the woman don't have to abide by the ruling of the Beit Dins. They do so because they want to remain within their community. And in most sects of Judaism, woman no longer need to get a their husbands to grant a divorce called to get a Get ( divorce papers). This only remains within the Orthodox community.

And in most sects of Judaism, woman no longer need to get a their husbands to grant a divorce called to get a Get ( divorce papers). This only remains within the Orthodox community.

True.

That said, there is much pressure put on recalcitrant husbands, in the Orthodox community, to refrain from acting in such a manner. I've read of instances of blacklisting businesses and social isolation in order to force the man to, er, can I say "come to Jesus"?

I have read that, too. I think that it's much better not to need the Get in the first place, because it does put the husband in the position of thinking he's the boss. We all know in a Jewish marriage, the man only thinks he's the boss but the wife really is, LOL!

I think I remember hearing about the islamic court of divorce; when an islamic man finds his wife cheating, it's called the court of beheadings or something like that.

Soviet European Union courts

WTF?

Lol.

cwyatt:

Muslims due not assimilate into the societies that they settle in.

This isn't true.

I'm guessing that you have no idea that most of the Muslims around you are Muslims ... Because they HAVE assmiliated, where appropriate.

And because many of them do not need to assimilate, because they are already native Americans living on THEIR native soil.

(Where you gonna send those Muslims back to? Cleveland?)

Upswing... there may be examples of assimilation.. no doubt you could provide one...

But generally... ?

What do you call "assimilation"?

String Being:

What do you call "assimilation"?

Seeking to work within the cultural and legal framework of the society into which one is being assimilated.

Why do you ask?

Well I've gotten the idea that blaring the call to prayer out of loudspeakers is not assimilation.

And Koran 3:27 is taken very seriously by many Muslims.

The scenes coming out of Minnesota and Michigan look like Pakistan these days... once you cross that line... it's obvious you're not in Kansas anymore... if you get the metaphor.

It's a very well defined heavy line.

Muslims due not assimilate into the societies that they settle in. They have their own set of rules and consider the laws of the countries that they occupy as inconsequential.

Utter bull@!$%#. Educate yourself cwyatt...free Muslims have been living peacefully in the US since the 1880s.

Where do we send them back to? Their third world country is where and I don't give a hoot even if they are second or third generation living on US soil. Muslims are a troublesome element that I'd prefer didn't spread their malicious disease to other cultures.

I say round them up and put them into interment camps and then send them back to where their grandpappies made them.

Santino42,

Prove your statement that muslims have been here since the 1880's - I call the crap you're spewing utter bull$hit. I can tell you that until recently, they haven't lived in my state. And if they pull that terrorist crap in my local neck of the woods I can promise you the muslims will be paid back ten fold.

Prove your statement that muslims have been here since the 1880's - I call the crap you're spewing utter bull$hit.

Here you go

From the 1880s to 1914, several thousand Muslims immigrated to the United States from the Ottoman Empire, and from parts of South Asia; they did not form distinctive settlements, and probably most assimilated into the wider society.^[1]

Do you know any Muslims personally?

And if they pull that terrorist crap in my local neck of the woods I can promise you the muslims will be paid back ten fold.

Ooooo...so scary. I love reading NV online-cyber tough guys ;).

Well the Islam sites are saying the first Muslim violence in the US was 1783. That fits.

oh.. no, that wasn't in the US... it was piracy out of Tripoli.

I wonder when the first terror attack was in the US.

I wonder when the first terror attack was in the US.

Probably the late 1700s - the genocide of the Native American Indians.

String Being:

Well I've gotten the idea that blaring the call to prayer out of loudspeakers is not assimilation.

So your argument is that people must abandon their religions before they can become assimilated into the US?

If the speakers are too loud, then there are noise abatement laws to deal with that.

And Koran 3:27 is taken very seriously by many Muslims.

Fortunately, many people in the United States take the Constitution very seriously, too.

The scenes coming out of Minnesota and Michigan look like Pakistan these days... once you cross that line... it's obvious you're not in Kansas anymore... if you get the metaphor.

So, not only do people need to abandon their religion, they also must wear approved clothing before they can become assimilated?

Good ole jeans and Tee Shirts, maybe?

LOL! :-"P

Your "argument" is getting a little surreal, isn't it?

cwyatt:

Muslims are a troublesome element that I'd prefer didn't spread their malicious disease to other cultures.

I say round them up and put them into interment camps and then send them back to where their grandpappies made them.

And yet, you're the one spewing bigotry, hate and ignorance -- and, no doubt you're a second or third generation spewer.

These ugly traits aren't acquired naturally. They need to be taught.

Socrates:

You ask if one needs to abandon one's religion to assimilate. Certainly in some cases the answer is "yes".

For example?

Socrates:

Polygamy, at present, for Mormans, Muslims, etc.

Your argument is that obeying a soveriegn national law on polygamy is "abandoning a religion."

This is not supported by the facts.

i.e. The fact that Muslims live in the US without practicing polygamy while still practicing their religion is proof that:

1. They have not abandoned their religion

2. They have assimilated.

Also, it is not mandatory for any member of the religions that you mention to engage in polygamy. It is simply something that is available to them.

Socrates:

1. And, as you suggest, they will be required to forgo that portion of the religion that conflicts with law.

Yes. As opposed to "abandoning" their religion, as you claim.

BTW: There is no such thing as a "Sharia Court" under US law.

You just made that up.

2. To keep it topical, a Sharia Court ruling may be in conflict with a "legal" ruling, regardless of whether both parties agree. All parties, ie. one husband with two wives, could agree to accept a ruling of the Sharia Court and it should still not be considered a legal ruling.

In this case, then, the ruling would have nothing to do with arbitration, since both parties' agreement to acquiesce to an illegal remedy is, by definition, outside any legal process, such as arbitration.

This makes your claim #2 moot in a "topical" context.

Socrates:

I'm not sure if you read the article.....

I read the linked article, but not the reports linked to in that article.

I quickly identified it as appearing on an anti-Muslim site.

we are discussing Sharia Courts in Great Britain, and now that experience might provide some lessons for the United States.

As I stated earlier, there is no such thing, under US law (or UK law, come to that) as a Sharia Court, so the premise of your "discussion" is fatally unsupportable.

You are making that up. (No doubt based on the same fabrication in the Islamophobic lies presented in the article you link to.)

If you had read the article you would find that rights are given up by those who are forced into the Sharia Courts System.

This is illogical.

You can not both "give up" you rights and be forced into a system that, you claim, abuses those rights.

What you are saying is that the victims the of abuse of the arbitration system remain victims because they are not afforded their legal rights.

And, again, you are being dishonest by deliberately referring to a non-existent "Sharia Courts System."

The truth is that a certain group of people -- in this case Muslims -- are legally taking advantage of a recourse to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that many other groups take advantage of on a regular basis, and have done so for years and, in some cases, (shipping, for instance) centuries.

Of course, some people within the arbitration system will seek to abuse it.

But, that abuse does not constitute a desire to promulgate Sharia Law, nor is it a threat to either the people of the UK or the US.

If it were, then, according to your logic and dishonest claim that there exists a Sharia Court System, there also exists a Credit Card court system, and a Cell phone court system, and a building and contracting court system, since these groups also rely heavily on arbitration as their first dispute resolution option.

So, do you think that credit card companies are determined to change US law to a system that honors and advocates credit card law just because they use the arbitration option a lot?

Indeed, you probably have already agreed to arbitration in the event that you have a dispute with any of those groups -- and a thousand more -- even though you may not know it.

You'll note I didn't bring up "abandoning" religion.

Irrelevant.

You said:

You ask if one needs to abandon one's religion to assimilate. Certainly in some cases the answer is "yes".

Yet you have failed to provide a single instance in which this is true.

Or are you now retracting that claim?

Thanks.

BTW: I have just posted an article that debunks the ignorance and lies flying around this site regarding the role and application of arbirtation among the Muslim community. If you give me permission, I will link to it. If not. That's fine, too. I will take your silence as a withholding of permission.

There is an easy way to cut through the excessive rhetoric and apologist viewpoints surrounding Islam.

Attack the creed (Islam) on the basis of hypocrisy, contradiction and historical fabrication via historical facts and academic methodology.

Don't hate the Muslim, refute the creed.

It is not the believers fault that they are victims of childhood indoctrination that stunted development of rational and critical thinking skills. But it is the Muslims (and followers of other religious faiths) fault in ignoring the mass of academic material in regards to the unsupportable tenant and dogma of one (or any) particular belief system.

The reward of a closed mind is ignorance. And Islam thrives upon ignorance as proven by the fact that over 55% of Muslims are functionally illiterate and an estimated 80% have never read the Koran completely.

Islam, like all other religions cannot withstand the harsh light of academic and scientific scrutiny. The challenge of Western nations is to educate the uneducated, delusional and fanatical.

Well, yes, refute... but also defy.

Everywhere Islam is, Islam is the authority. I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen of this society to stand against Islam and to defy its authority.

Just above upswing gives us a look at the problem. The man seemingly cannot comprehend some basic things. "

"This is illogical. You can not both "give up" you rights and be forced into a system that, you claim, abuses those rights"

Exactly how does one refute that? uh...upswing... I imagine you're parsing your sentences really well... oh never mind...

Bluearcher... except for the threat of Jihad attacks... Islam is not destructive socially if it has no authority.

If Islam says "respect our prophet" I think it is vital and necessary to draw the prophet in a cartoon...even if they riot.

The threat of violence concerning desecrating Korans makes it absolutely important to publicly desecrate Korans.

And if there is violence...which I believe there will be... to fight.

These guys and their religion have made a mess out of Europe. They did it a little at a time... bribing politicians and threatening violence.

Our politicians aren't going to help. Our friends the SCOTUS have opened the floodgates of foreign money..and Saudi Arabia is now funding our elections. It will be illegal to desecrate a Koran soon.

It's up to citizens to stand up to general Jane, and the Nation of Islam.

In my rather astute and well considered opinion, of course.

...except for the threat of Jihad attacks... Islam is not destructive socially if it has no authority.

Arguable.

The state of Islamic countries is the best evidence for the regressive nature of Islam.

Less than 1% of all scientific papers come from Muslim countries. Harvard University has a larger scientific footprint than all Muslim nations combined.

Over 55% of all Muslims are functionally illiterate and @ 80% have never read the Koran completely. Thousands of Muslims can recite the entire Koran through memorization but cannot do simple math.

Islam thrives because of ignorance inside and outside the Muslim world. Not in spite of it.

These guys and their religion have made a mess out of Europe.

And too many pandering liberals want to label politicians with a concern for the "Islamification of Europe" into Nazis, bigots, etc...

But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe. Sam Harris

Well yeah... Muslim countries are unanimously repressive by Western standards...but only because they have civil authority.

Here, it is starting with the request to have civil authority... but only against other Muslims... and blasphemers, and Koran desecrators.

If you don't have to obey Islam, sure, there will likely be the occasional bombing... but the erosion of freedom is over.

What's to kid?

Violence from Islam is fairly well contained... we're down to a couple of dozen arrests a year...well this year we're up, but that's because of the guys from Minnesota and Michigan trying to get to Afghanistan and Somalia.. They weren't trying an attack here...

The other thing to be concerned about is one more racist, bigoted institution becoming an American staple. I feel the same about Islam as I do the Ku Klux Klan, and for the same reasons.

I grudgingly accept that the KKK has a right to exist, but I'll do whatever I can to limit their influence. I'll protest their public parades and rallies, and on Newsvine, I'll call them animals.

If the KKK says they will get angry and become violent if I burn a Confederate flag, I will feel it is very important to burn a confederate flag.

If the KKK wants their own private arbitrations, I will fear for freedom.

Though to be fair, the KKK has not been violent in several decades, where with Islam it has been several minutes.

But no... not kidding.

How might my ideas change if I "got out of the house more"?

I mean, what is my error?

cwyatt-989470 @
#5.6

Wow.. tell us how you REALLY feel....

What's funny is how vehemently small timers like Jerry Fallwell are detested by (the people who self identify as) the left.

You know guys, Islam is much more conservative and authoritarian than even Christians.

No Christian here, but I know that Christianity does not allow wife beating.

Islam doesn't allow you to force your wife to have sex if you have beaten her recently.

You folks may not like the Islam version of the 700 club...at all.

String Being:

Sharia arbitration is how Islam sets itself up as an authority in Muslim communities. As authority, they can tell you that it's against the law to mistreat their idols. They can say mocking Mohamed incites violence ... therefore it's not protected speech...

And they absolutely will say that... threat intended.

Assuming that you are not a Muslim and that you have not acquiesced to participate in "Sharia arbitration," whatever that is, and even if all you say here is true, how would it affect or threaten you or the other 347 million people in the US not using "Sharia arbitration"?

Thanks.

...how would it affect or threaten you or the other 347 million people in the US not using "Sharia arbitration"?

So by extension, if one is not part of a specific insular society then there should be no concern for it and its detrimental aspects?

Are you unfamiliar with or intentionally ignoring the historical examples of an authority outside a secular government eroding civil rights?

Not to mention societal pressure, fear and suppression of free thought and dissent within a closed community. Or the loss of identity associated with rejection from a closed\insular society\religion?

Socrates:

Yes, I have now come to the understanding that Upswing is a Muslim.

LOL!

Just when I thought you couldn't be more wrong.

Not that it has anythng to do with your so-called "Sharia arbitration," lies but ...

I was raised a Catholic -- even in a Convent for a while, being a ward of the state -- and now I think religion - all religion, including Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Moonyism etc -- is pretty much pathetic gobbledy gook and hokum.

The question of how it affects the larger population and/or why it is anybody else's business is a favorite of Muslims.

Maybe that is the question.

But it's not one I asked.

Where did I say anything about anything not being anyone's business?

I didn't.

Again, you made that up.

I have asked you a simple question:

...how would it affect or threaten you or the other 347 million people in the US not using "Sharia arbitration"?

Since the point of your seed is that it will eventually negatively affect all of us, I want you to be specific regarding HOW it will affect all of us -- including you.

But you can not answer that, because you don't have a clue, and you don't need to have a clue, since you are certain enough in your unquestioning hate.

Christians take their philosophy to apply to everyone regardless of faith, ie. it is wrong for a Muslim to be stoned regardless of who the victim might be, even if another Muslim. Islam feels the same way, but the approach is different, in that only Muslims should be concerned about Muslims, but everybody should be a Muslim.

Source?

Thanks.

Heh... I was seeing upswing as a Muslim who just didn't know the Koran very well.... or didn't know it was so accessible..

But he seems to be asking for the source of the concept of the Ummah... and I don't know if a Muslim would do that.

String Being:

But he seems to be asking for the source of the concept of the Ummah... and I don't know if a Muslim would do that.

Nope.

Nothing that exotic.

Just a simple question about arbitration.

Got an answer?

Thanks.

Socrates:

In any event, the argument is certainly one that a Muslim would, and does, present.

Possibly.

But you are still 100% wrong in your ssessment of my religious affilliations.

Right?

As an aside, has anybody else noticed that whenever someone suggests they "hate" all religions equally, etc., that it is invariably in the context of attacking Christianity and generally while defending Islam?

LOL!

You're starting to sound like a Seinfeld routine ... Or is it Andy Rooney?

Has anyone noticed how, when you close the fridge door, the light goes out ...?

i.e. What the Heck are you talking about?

So, in this case for example, we have someone who purports to think that all religions are basically baseless (:))

That's me!

and yet defends the rights of one of those religions to impose a separate system of justice aside from the secular legal system of the state.

Oh, dear.

And that's you, making stuff up again. (aka "lying")

There is no system of law -- religious or otherwise --that is separate from the "legal system of the state," and particularly not arbitration, which is perfectly legal and available to anyone.

Come on. Admit it. You are making stuff up, now, aren't you?

Sure, and how does rounding up all the Muslims in America and sending them to Gitmo threaten me?

Not a clue. What do you think?

How does having one system of justice which applies only to Christians, another to Muslims, another to athiests, another to Buddhists, etc. etc. based on each particular communities sense of justice affect me?

Sorry. Don't know the answer to that hypothetical question, either.

What do you think?

That is the function of a nation

You believe that the function of a nation is to make different laws for different religions?

Not in the US it isn't.

Why would you say it is?

That's just weird.

equality of justice based on the legal system, regardless of religious affiliation.

And yet, you want Muslims to be summarily barred from using a legal form of alternative dispute resolution -- arbitration -- and yet you can't even say why.

Isn't that a just tad hypocritical?

Or, perhaps, the nation you're refering to isn't the US or even the UK?

Socrates.

You are very good at hate, very bad at logic, and atrocious at answering simple questions.

And I'm sure you're perfectly happy to be that way. ;-)

Detracking.

PS. You really should check out my article debunking your hatemongering on this topic. It could be your first step back toward becoming a compassionate and honest human being (again?).

Anyway, happy hating!

Not at all. No "extension" necessary.

I'll take that as a "No" and note the answer as a contradiction to your premise.

Are you unfamiliar with, or ignoring, the rhetorical fallacy of asking random and sweeping questions and pretending that you are making a point?

Random? Sweeping? Nice dodge.

What is your point? Specifically?

The point was made within the question. Are you being intentionally obtuse as a further dodge?

LOL!

Another juvenile attempt at refutation without basis. <facepalm>

The complant is that mythic...

Mythic? So now Sharia courts don't exist? Okay....

Your additional rant aside, you fail to show even cursory knowledge or interest in my original questions. But then doing so would do nothing to further your labeling. I'll ask again:

Are you unfamiliar with or intentionally ignoring the historical examples of an authority outside a secular government eroding civil rights?

Not to mention societal pressure, fear and suppression of free thought and dissent within a closed community. Or the loss of identity associated with rejection from a closed\insular society\religion?

Step off your soapbox of righteousness and participate in the debate or keep dodging.

bluearcher:

I'll take that as a "No" and note the answer as a contradiction to your premise.

Then you are engaging in an internal dialogue (with yourself, obviously) that does not reference my contribution to this nominal "exchange."

But, hey, it's a free country, and I wish you well in that endeavor.

Are you unfamiliar with, or ignoring, the rhetorical fallacy of asking random and sweeping questions and pretending that you are making a point?

Random? Sweeping? Nice dodge..

Okay.

Are you unfamiliar with, or ignoring, the rhetorical fallacy of asking random and sweeping questions and pretending that you are making a point, when really you are dodging the question?

Better?

The point was made within the question. Are you being intentionally obtuse as a further dodge?

Now, help me out here, are you making another point here or are you simply asking a question?

Mythic? So now Sharia courts don't exist? Okay....

That's right. They do not exist in the UK or the US. (They do exist elsewhere, but, obviously, that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.)

Sharia courts do not exist under either US or UK law.

There is no such thing.

There are arbitration hearings in which versions of Sharia law might be applied, but these are not courts, they are arbitration hearings.

Right?

This is easily resolved: Show me the statute/law that permits Sharia courts in either country.

Are you unfamiliar with or intentionally ignoring the historical examples of an authority outside a secular government eroding civil rights?

LOL!

You think repeating a sweeping question is magicaly going to make it more specific?

Well, maybe you're right.

Try it a few more times, just to be sure.

Not to mention societal pressure, fear and suppression of free thought and dissent within a closed community. Or the loss of identity associated with rejection from a closed\insular society\religion?

How is arbitration -- a legally available method of alternative dispute resolution under US and UK law -- in any way relevant to anything in this statement?

I am being perfectly sincere here, when I strongly suggest that you take the time to research the common logical fallacies that unpracticed debaters are prone to engaging in, and that you apply that research to subsequent posts.

The fact that you honestly believe that this:

Are you unfamiliar with or intentionally ignoring the historical examples of an authority outside a secular government eroding civil rights?

is anything but a vague and sweeping question indicates that you are, indeed, unpracticed in the ways of rheoric.

Hey!

Wanna see a trick?

(I'll assume you do ;-) )

Watch this:

Are you unfamiliar with or intentionally ignoring the historical examples of an authority outside a secular government eroding civil rights?

No!

... Okay... Now what...?

Lesson 1: Asking "Yes" or "No" questions tends to curtail, not stimulate conversation.

Learn and remember for next time.

Anyway, I'm heading over to my article debunking your mythic "Sharia arbitration"-based lies.

Feel free to meet me over there if you'd like to continue this exchange.

Shalom. Via con Dios.

Happy hating.

Socrates:

Exactly how much experience do you have with Islam in its natural state?

Ah... Right ... the civilized White Man observes the Muslim beast in its natural state.

Thank you Herbert Spencer!

At least there is now no doubt about where you stand on a Muslim's place and worth in the world.

There you go.

The last of the outstanding posts addressed.

I'm outta here.

Happy hating, guys!

OMG people, do your homework

Sharia courts do not exist under either US or UK law.

They don't exist in the US but they sure do in the UK. I know this because I lived there and because I actually read the press:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23436339-sharia-court-frees-london-knife-youths.do

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/north-warwickshire-news/2008/09/09/first-uk-sharia-court-up-and-running-in-warwickshire-92746-21708478/

Now read.

It seems to me that you are the "hater", as exhibited by your constant defense of Islam while suggesting any other point of view cannot be tolerated. It's a very Muslim view.

What are you talking about? Did you read the articles, or are you just making assumptions?

This is not a matter of being a "hater"....and for that matter a hater of what? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Hindus?

Your question, in the beginning of the article was regarding the UK was that will these courts stand. I gave you the links to make your own opinion ( and upswing, too), not is "Islam in its natural state" I don't even understand what that means.

How much experience do you have living in a Muslim Country and/or an area where Muslims constitute a majority of the population and are free to follow the dictates of their religion...as they see it?

None. Zip Null. Nor did I imply that I did. I like to stay on topic and the topic was the UK.

So, please, enlighten me. How did I as you put it:

exhibited by your constant defense of Islam while suggesting any other point of view cannot be tolerated. It's a very Muslim view.

I just gave you both facts. If you both bothered to read them, you would have seen nothing but facts, without a point of view.

I think you might be getting a bit punchy.

This is what happens when someone makes comments at 3 AM .
I think Soc was referring to upswing when he said :

It seems to me that you are the "hater", as exhibited by your constant defense of Islam while suggesting any other point of view cannot be tolerated. It's a very Muslim view.

Although that is impossible to ascertain from the way it was said .

Could be...still I don't know what I had to do with Upswing, since I made no comment other than to give the material to make their own judgment. The dialog had gone somewhere other than the original question, which I think that these articles clearly answer.

I think only this 1st line was in reply to you . The rest was to upswing .

Perrie, in this case upswing has a problem with the facts, and, perhaps as a result, civil conversation.

I think that you're right. But the reply is not clear.

After reading all of this and Perrie and other clearly providing proof and facts.. I'd love to see if upswing replies to all this... or will we all just be hearing crickets. :D

Upswing claims to have written his own article in response to this one .
When I checked on it , it contained one word typed over and over dozens
of times ; the word "terror" .

Hi Soc, OK all is cleared up.

Hi Simplistic. Long Time no see.

NSZ,

When I checked on it , it contained one word typed over and over dozens
of times ; the word "terror"

Really? This I have got to see. Who is he terrified of?

Hi Simplistic. Long Time no see.

Yeah.. working long hours and odd hours.. has really cut into my Vine time. :-/ Nice to see you as well Perrie!

OK, I just came back from that article....and I don't respond to people who say that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. Next, he'll be saying that FDR asked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Best to let that one go and let it be forgotten.

Perrie ,

This I have got to see. Who is he terrified of?

He is making fun of our perspective .

And from what you just said , he is pulling in all the nutcases .

Too weird. I mean he's agreeing with Imadinnerjacket. Now that's twisted.

Socrates1, what is upswing`s problem? I read all of his comments, and his replies come directly from the Muslim Brotherhood of America(CAIR). I read a lot about the agenda of the brotherhood, long before I ever blogged on line. In my opinion, Upswing is a member of the brotherhood, read his replies, and you can see the bias, hate, so skillfully tucked in between the words. There are members that participate in the stealth attack on our culture, infiltration of our government, and try to influence people into accepting shiria law. But do not believe me, just type in muslim brotherhood, and check out the links.