hmm, does Rep Goode have balls ? We shall see
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
This guy spoke of "jihadists" who promote that the only end result is the conversion of the world. They won't get there.....
Name one international jihaddist group, who's leaders have declared a desire or intention to invade the united states, and forcibly convert us to islam.
You can't. Because Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, MEK -- none of them -- have ever stated a desire or intent to do this.
With 1 billion muslims on the planet, are there some whacked out individual muslims who dream of invading the united states and hoisting the flag of islam over the capitol dome? Probably. 1 billion people is a lot of folks.
Virgil Goode is a fool. He's invoking a paranoid Hollywood movie plot, to generate fear.
As for me, I prefer my goverment leaders to talk to me like I'm an adult.
Name one international jihaddist group, who's leaders have declared a desire or intention to invade the united states, and forcibly convert us to islam.
You can't. Because Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, MEK -- none of them -- have ever stated a desire or intent to do this.
With 1 billion muslims on the planet, are there some whacked out individual muslims who dream of invading the united states and hoisting the flag of islam over the capitol dome? Probably. 1 billion people is a lot of folks.
Virgil Goode is a fool. He's invoking a paranoid Hollywood movie plot, to generate fear.
As for me, I prefer my goverment leaders to talk to me like I'm an adult.
I'd like either Damo or LR to give me a quantitative guesstimate -- between 0% and 100% -- of the odds that islamic radicals could ever invade this country, hoist the cresent flag over the capitol dome, print "In allah we trust" on our money, and forcibly convert us to islam.
Here's my guesstimate: 0% chance.
We only have like a 2% muslim population in this country (few of whom are violent), we're protected on all sides by oceans, and we have the most powerful navy and military the world has ever seen.
Your guess?
If your guess is ANYWHERE close to mine (zero percent chance), then you have to admit Virgil Goode is being a goofball and a hack.
Here's my guesstimate: 0% chance.
We only have like a 2% muslim population in this country (few of whom are violent), we're protected on all sides by oceans, and we have the most powerful navy and military the world has ever seen.
Your guess?
If your guess is ANYWHERE close to mine (zero percent chance), then you have to admit Virgil Goode is being a goofball and a hack.
I will say this one more time, nowhere in any statement you can produce has this Virgil Goode ever said it was likely that they would invade. You have yet to produce even one quote to "prove" your point that he said what he did not. It is because he did not say it.
Once again, you pretend that they don't want to. Want is the active word, not promote, not plan, not intend on, want to. You wish to make him state something he did not, you've been caught and now you try to spin out of it. Yet we can still go back and read the actual statement of "Want" as opposed to every other thing you have asked me to "prove".
I have already proved my point, he said "want" you mean for him to say, "Who plan, intend, promote." none of which were in his statement.
So, you can keep asking me to "prove" what he didn't say, this is simply more of the attempt to assign a meaning he didn't actually say and pretend that it is the real meaning. Once again, this is a tactic better used in oral conversation, say a radio program, and not where you can go back and actually read the remarks at any time during the conversation. This tactic isn't going to work here. I will keep pointing it out every time you do it and you will keep pretending that you were right, but you aren't.
This man didn't say what you attempt to make others believe he said. As long as I am willing to argue that, you would be successful. However he did not say what you attempt to say he did, and therefore your whole point of "fearmongering" is rendered moot on its face.
Many people can "want" things that they do not plan or promote, that they do not intend on actually succeeding in, even in this lifetime. Yet you intend to make me argue that he said those things...
It isn't working. You've been caught. Admit it, the man didn't say what you just assume he meant.
And what is worse, every time I point out this tactic you simply do it again. It isn't working. You won't draw me out to argue some point that this man didn't make.
I prefer when arguing about what somebody actually stated, to actually argue what they stated.
Once again, can you provide even one quote where Virgil Goode stated that those he was speaking of WILL invade? I've been waiting since the first time I asked for it.
My guesstimate would be somewhere close to that, but I never rule anything out completely. I also like to note and keep track of those who have ties with or would like to appease those who would be our enemies.
"But democracy can defend itself from within only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy." Jean Francois Revel
So, my guesstimate that this could ever happen being close to yours does not mean that I come to the same conclusion that you do. The words posted in this thread attributed to Virgil Goode:
"...radical Muslims who want to destroy our country." He also said Islamic jihadists want U.S. currency to say "In Muhammad We Trust," with an Islamic flag flying over the White House and U.S. Capitol."
are an accurate representation of what "radical Muslims" and "Jihadists" would want/like to do regardless of what they are "able" to do.
Like I said, I never rule anything out. I saw some planes fly into some buildings one day that took care of that passive attitude of mine. No matter how a person tries to slice it, it all boils down to a radical religious attitude that was behind what went on. This Goode fellow pointing out that that same radical religious line of thinking still exists does not make him a "goofball" or a "hack" IMO.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Oh for heaven's sake, Damo: are you really going to go the "he didn't literally say 'invade'" route? Like Bush never used the exact phrase "imminent threat," say? Give us a break.
The intent and thrust of his diatribes are all too evident. He's deliberately trying to stir up hatred and fear of Muslims.
Well Damo, you beat me to it and said more. Oh well, so I'm a slow thinker and a slow typer. 
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
If either one of you actually believe that then I'm both stunned and a little disappointed.Well Damo, you beat me to it and said more. Oh well, so I'm a slow thinker and a slow typer.
representation of what "radical Muslims" and "Jihadists" would want/like to do regardless of what they are "able" to do.
You've tried to wordsmith this before. But, you've never provided evidence that any international muslim jihadist groups has EVER said they "wanted" or desired to invade the united states, and take over our government and capitol hil.
Neither has virgil goode. He was being a goofball.
I have to take issue with that last sentence. It is a blanket statement about what the man said. Specifics are important. He said, "radical Muslims" and "Islamic Jihadists." There is a big difference between those and regular "Muslims." The "intent and thrust" ..... He's "deliberately trying...." That's the language of someone who doesn't like the man's politics in general and would try to discredit what he says about anything.
Rubbish, if he meant all Muslims he would have said Muslims. Instead all we have is your interpretation of what he supposedly "meant" rather than an actual reading of what he actually said.
You must admit that your view of his intention is clouded by your political view. Had he not stated exactly which specific groups he was speaking of, and he didn't even use that word that y'all hate so much "islamofascist", I would be all agreeing with you. Had he actually meant all Muslims and stated so I would be equally up in arms. He did not, and nowhere did he make any attempt to say it was likely the nation would be taken over by Muslims. Provide the quote if he did and, as I said before, I'll happily apologize, and even put it in my sig.
anyhow, LR, I appreciate the fact that you agree with me, that the odds of radical muslims ever taking over the country, hoisting a muslim flag over the cpapitol, and taking over our governmnet is pretty much close to Zero Percent chance
That was my point all along. Virgil Goode is being a goofball by even bring it up. I don't care if he said the "want" to. That's just wordsmithing. No jihaddist group has ever said they "want" to do this.
That was my point all along. Virgil Goode is being a goofball by even bring it up. I don't care if he said the "want" to. That's just wordsmithing. No jihaddist group has ever said they "want" to do this.
You are now changing your own meaning. Before you stated that he said that Muslims were actually going to take it over, at least you asked for proof and how "likely" it would be for it to happen, thus your thrust was at that.
Anyway, you keep reading only what you want to.
I already stated that the point of jihadist groups is to convert, by force if necessary, the entire world. It is what they do. To say that they do not "want" this is simply disingenuous. That they do not intend or plan on invading the US doesn't change the accuracy of the statement.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014808.php
Read about it, then pretend again that they do not "want" it. They preach it in the Mosques. These are the jihadists.
"jihadwatch.org" = not credible experts. Rightwing ideologues with little real expertise in middleastern affairs.
I promise not to use moveon.org as a source for middleast expertise, if you promise not to use "jihadwatch.org".
There are plenty of credible, non-partisan experts on islam and the middle east out there.
I promise not to use moveon.org as a source for middleast expertise, if you promise not to use "jihadwatch.org".
There are plenty of credible, non-partisan experts on islam and the middle east out there.
Jihadwatch = actual quotes from Muslim preachers at mosques.
Regardless of the people giving it, their quotes pretty much tell you what the people have actually said. You asked for a quote from a group. And I supplied one. You have given no evidence that Goode ever said it was likely to happen or even that they plan on doing it, in this lifetime. Therefore the idea that he was "fearmongering to make us hate all Muslims" has been refuted by several points.
First, he did not say what you suppose he meant.
Second, he mentioned specifically the people of whom he was speaking and they do not include all Muslims.
Third, I have pointed this out yet you ask for "proof" that Muslims intend on invading or that it is "likely" each of which he did not say thus showing that it isn't what he said that has you in a boil, it is the fact it came from Goode that does.
And finally, I actually can produce actual quotes from those in Mosques saying what you say they never said.
You have been thouroughly refuted in this thread, yet continue to promote the idea that he said something that he did not.
Nobody here has argued that it is likely that these people would ever be successful in doing this, including Goode, this is a false claim and that has been my point from the beginning.
Regardless of the people giving it, their quotes pretty much tell you what the people have actually said. You asked for a quote from a group. And I supplied one. You have given no evidence that Goode ever said it was likely to happen or even that they plan on doing it, in this lifetime. Therefore the idea that he was "fearmongering to make us hate all Muslims" has been refuted by several points.
First, he did not say what you suppose he meant.
Second, he mentioned specifically the people of whom he was speaking and they do not include all Muslims.
Third, I have pointed this out yet you ask for "proof" that Muslims intend on invading or that it is "likely" each of which he did not say thus showing that it isn't what he said that has you in a boil, it is the fact it came from Goode that does.
And finally, I actually can produce actual quotes from those in Mosques saying what you say they never said.
You have been thouroughly refuted in this thread, yet continue to promote the idea that he said something that he did not.
Nobody here has argued that it is likely that these people would ever be successful in doing this, including Goode, this is a false claim and that has been my point from the beginning.
Great.
You gave me a link from a righwing rag that talks about some whacked out cleric, who wants muslims to follow islamic law, and reject british law.
You must not have seen my multiple posts, that say out of 1 billion muslims worldwide, there are some individuals who dream of taking over british parliament or US congress.
You've provided ZERO evidence, that organized and lethal international jihaddists groups "want" to take over the US capitol, print ALLAH on our currency, and forcibly convert us to islam.
BTW: Robert Spencer, an alleged "expert" on your jihadwatch.org website, used to claim that Saddam had collaborative ties to al qaeda. Which has of course, been shown to be false. So the credibility of your website is dubious at best.
You gave me a link from a righwing rag that talks about some whacked out cleric, who wants muslims to follow islamic law, and reject british law.
You must not have seen my multiple posts, that say out of 1 billion muslims worldwide, there are some individuals who dream of taking over british parliament or US congress.
You've provided ZERO evidence, that organized and lethal international jihaddists groups "want" to take over the US capitol, print ALLAH on our currency, and forcibly convert us to islam.
BTW: Robert Spencer, an alleged "expert" on your jihadwatch.org website, used to claim that Saddam had collaborative ties to al qaeda. Which has of course, been shown to be false. So the credibility of your website is dubious at best.
Yet you asked for a quote from a group of Jihadists that promote that is what they "want".
Amazingly I was able to provide it. Now you attempt to say it is some even "larger mroe international group". Shoot, one can simply listen to "I'm in a Jihad" or the President of Iran if you prefer, and hear some of his quotes to know that they "want" this.
You are now dropping down to silly points of "Prove these points that nobody made in the thread" then when I do you go to "You have yet to".
Anyway,
YOU have yet to give me one quote from Goode that says it is even likely these people will invade. Without that, your whole premise is a false one, built on supposition and guesswork at the meaning of another, wrapped up in your political belief that whatever somebody on the other side says you must display "outrage" over.
I know it is embarrasing to say that you were wrong, but in this case you simply are. He didn't say what you want us to believe he said.
Very simlpy you attempt to "give" him the argument to refute, but nobody at all has stated what you pretend he stated.
Here's what the link says:
UK: Clerics urge Muslims to ignore British law
Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.
A forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam. Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers' activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.
Weak Damo. So what? I know of radical christians who want to replace secular law with biblical law. This dude is whacked out. So what?
UK: Clerics urge Muslims to ignore British law
Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.
A forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam. Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers' activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.
Weak Damo. So what? I know of radical christians who want to replace secular law with biblical law. This dude is whacked out. So what?