Peace activist and singer/songwriter Cat Stevens is being deported from the US after being denied entry because his name appeared on a security "watch list".A transatlantic flight he was travelling on to Washington DC was diverted under FBI orders and the former pop star was escorted from the plane.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said the singer was denied access to the US "on national security grounds" and would be returned to Britain later today.
But authorities have given no indication why the Muslim convert - now known as Yusaf Islam - has been barred from the country.
Flight 919 from London to Washington diverted 600 miles to Bangor International Airport in Maine yesterday, landing at around 7.30pm British time, after US security officials were told Stevens was aboard.
United Airlines officials in London initially failed to spot his name on the watch list, the TSA said.
Passengers, including British pop veterans Marillion, were at first told the diversion was due to refuelling. It eventually arrived in Washington six hours late.
Steve Hogarth, 45, of Marillion, said: "I (then) met a security guard who said the two people escorted off the plane were Cat Stevens and his daughter."
Mr Hogarth added: "I was really stunned. Everybody knows he converted to the Muslim faith. He is a pacifist and a songwriter."
Stevens, who was denied access to Israel four years ago, was detained and questioned, the TSA said. His 21-year-old daughter was allowed into the US.
A spokesman for United Airlines said the flight was diverted "to keep the aircraft from entering the north east corridor airspace".
Cat Stevens had a string of hits in the 1960s and 1970s, including Wild World and Morning Has Broken.
He abandoned his music career in the late 1970s and changed his name after being persuaded by Muslim teachers that his lifestyle was forbidden by Islamic law.
Peace activist Cat Stevens has been barred from entering the US after being placed on a security "watch list".
Authorities have not revealed why Stevens, now a Muslim and renamed Yusaf Islam, was placed on the list.
The singer, who had hits in the 1960s, has been outspoken in his stance against terrorism.
So has the US gone over the top? What impact will the move have on race and East/West relations?
It wasn't until the plane was over the Atlantic that it was discovered Cat Stevens had been barred from the US. What does this say about security on airlines?
Good to see the US making good headlines around the world again.... ;-)
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1152503,00.html)
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13227858,00.html)
Originally posted by toms
Good to see the US making good headlines around the world again.... ;-) Let's see - he was arrested for directly funding Hamas activities, and he also fund-raises for many muslim 'charities' which end up being these schools where fundamentalist muslims teach the evils of the west and breed hatred ... his appearance on this list is not a new thing, nor a Bush thing. He is not the hippie folk singer of yore ...
Mike
well of course anyone with a song named "peace train" is evil. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by InsaneSith
well of course anyone with a song named "peace train" is evil. :rolleyes:
If Hitler made a song called "Peace Train", would that mean he's not evil?
Originally posted by ZBomber
If Hitler made a song called "Peace Train", would that mean he's not evil? well I doubt he would, seeing as he was anything but a peace advocate, but meh. and thanks for ruining a perfectly good joke.
Eh...Sure he must be evil. I mean Muhammed Ali converted and he must be fighting the US...
Bah, whatever he did, I don't see why they deported him.
What harm could he do? He's a public personality(well was, is still a bit). I don't think he'll commit anything stupid while in the US.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Eh...Sure he must be evil. I mean Muhammed Ali converted and he must be fighting the US... I don't think he is evil. I don't even think he is intentionally funding groups that either directly or indirectly support violence and terrorism. I don't believe most muslins support the policy of genocide against the west. I think he is trying to do good things, but opportunists are out there, and may be twisting his good intentions for their own purposes.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Bah, whatever he did, I don't see why they deported him. He was on the no-fly list, he is not a US citizen, and past affiliations and activities (real or circumstantial) have made him persona non grata in the US. That is policy, which should *not* be subjective - flexible rules is a great way to breach security, and it isn't worth it. If he needed to be in the US, he could go through a normal diplomatic appeals process.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
What harm could he do? He's a public personality(well was, is still a bit). I don't think he'll commit anything stupid while in the US. Well, if he were actually a supporter of terrorist activities, he could be meeting - albeit peacefully - with others sympathetic and drumming up financing and support. It is already clear that much of what is happening in Iraq has nothing to do with 'Iraqi Insurgency' and everything to do with 'Muslin Holy War' against the US. They need support and funding from everywhere.
Mike
txa1265:
Let's see - he was arrested for directly funding Hamas activitiesNo he wasn't. He was merely denied entry into Israel because they said he'd donated money to a Hamas-associated muslim fund... a claim which he denied.
and he also fund-raises for many muslim 'charities' which end up being these schools where fundamentalist muslims teach the evils of the west and breed hatred ... I personally don't agree with the idea of religious schools at all, I think schooling should be firmly secular, but I have to say that implying the generalisation that muslim schools are all breeding grounds for militants is just nonsensical.
his appearance on this list is not a new thing, nor a Bush thing.You're right, it's an Israel thing. Forgive me for being blunt but Cat Stevens being included on a US-watchlist leading to an entire plane being rerouted and the man himself being deported?.. It's ludicrous and fanatical. It would seem that Bushie's lot get their lists of "dangerous people" direct from Israel, a not-entirely-unbiased nation in these matters.
Well, if he were actually a supporter of terrorist activities, he could be meeting - albeit peacefully - with others sympathetic and drumming up financing and support.Okay, do you want to stamp out all muslim charities in the US for fear of some of that cash going to fund some fanatics in Iraq? That's pretty heavy-handed.
Originally posted by Spider AL
No he wasn't. He was merely denied entry into Israel because they said he'd donated money to a Hamas-associated muslim fund... a claim which he denied.. I don't think he is a threat, as I said - but he hasn't done any favors for himself - mainly the whole Ayatollah - Salmon Rushdie must die thing ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
I personally don't agree with the idea of religious schools at all, I think schooling should be firmly secular, but I have to say that implying the generalisation that muslim schools are all breeding grounds for militants is just nonsensical. I typed badly - I meant that there *are* some of these schools which are being used as breeding grounds for terrorists or at least extremists ... which is too bad, really ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
Forgive me for being blunt but Cat Stevens being included on a US-watchlist leading to an entire plane being rerouted and the man himself being deported?.. It's ludicrous and fanatical. This is one thing on which I disagree with you - whether or not he belongs on the list, the fact that he was should send up an immediate red flag - which it did - and uniform procedures carried out - which they were. Security is about rules and enforcement - not special exceptions.
Originally posted by Spider AL
You're right, it's an Israel thing. ... Israel, a not-entirely-unbiased nation in these matters. Someone pointed out how media bias used to have them saying 'Arab terrorists vs. Isreali freedom fighters' or something .... but yeah, they are not unbiased ... personally I have always thought that we would be much better off if we were truly working for peace in the middle east, not just peace on Isreal's terms. But at the same time I do see the point that the peace I suggest would likely end up a year later with a massive Arab invasion of Isreal ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
Okay, do you want to stamp out all muslim charities in the US for fear of some of that cash going to fund some fanatics in Iraq? That's pretty heavy-handed. No - I was asked about 'what he could do' that some might consider 'dangerous' ... I merely strung together the suppositions from the other items and put out a hypothesis of what we might fear from him.
Mike
I must admit to not knowing all the background on his activities, but almost every news report sated that he has, on numerous occasions, denounced terrorism. So you would think he was jsut the sort of "non-radical" muslim that the US would WANT to be coming and hopefully influencing people.
It does appear likely that the US is basing its list on intelligence from israel, which seems foolish. Maybe there are some facts i don't know, but a muslim who preaches peace, denounces terrorism and gives money to charity doesn't seem like a terrible threat to me....
The religous schools things seems a bit of a red-herring, as (as far as i know) almost all schools in the muslim world are based in some way on religion... it is much more central to their education system than in the west (which highlights how smart those founding fathers were in trying to keep religion out of schools imho).
But the fact remains that most muslim charities will give to fund education, and most education will be related to religion (some more hardline than others)... so giving to charity can hardly be considered to be funding terrorism.
Much as people like to charecterise HAMAS as this big, evil entity, as far as i am aware they also provide a lot of the education and healthcare for palestinians. (you could maybe argue this is to "indoctrinate people, but that is beside the point). So it wouldn't be surprising that a fair bit of humanitarian donations to palestinians goes to hamas related projects... but he apparently denies that claim anyway.
forgot my point....:D
I don't think he is a threat, as I said - but he hasn't done any favors for himself - mainly the whole Ayatollah - Salmon Rushdie must die thing ...For your information, Cat Stevens was never quoted as supporting the death-order on Rushdie. At the time he was quoted as saying that on that score, "muslims should obey the laws of the country that they live in."
This is one thing on which I disagree with you - whether or not he belongs on the list, the fact that he was should send up an immediate red flag - which it did - and uniform procedures carried out - which they were. Security is about rules and enforcement - not special exceptions.You're scraping the barrel AND trying to change the subject. Nobody I know disputes that genuine terrorists with GENUINE links to terrorist organisations should be deported from our countries. That's not the point.
The point is that CAT STEVENS for god's sake, who is WELL KNOWN for denouncing terrorism, violence of ALL sorts and publically calling for peaceful solutions, is on this list at all. Why? Because Israel doesn't like him... Because he's a prominent Muslim.
I typed badly - I meant that there *are* some of these schools which are being used as breeding grounds for terrorists or at least extremists ... which is too bad, really ...Okay, that's fine.
No - I was asked about 'what he could do' that some might consider 'dangerous' ... I merely strung together the suppositions from the other items and put out a hypothesis of what we might fear from him.Supposition being the operative word. You can't go around banning people from free countries on the basis of their non-violent religious beliefs. This is apparently what the US has done in this case. All the US authorities have done is string together poorly informed and baseless hypotheses of risk associated with this exemplary man. I wish all muslims were like Cat.
Originally posted by Spider AL
For your information, Cat Stevens was never quoted as supporting the death-order on Rushdie. At the time he was quoted as saying that on that score, "muslims should obey the laws of the country that they live in." I was merely saying that his lack of a clear statement of position opposing assassination directives and violence left the *perception* that he was not opposed - this is kind of like how there is the perception that only Kerry has flip-flopped on things ... perceptions do matter, sometimes more than facts ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
You're scraping the barrel AND trying to change the subject. Nobody I know disputes that genuine terrorists with GENUINE links to terrorist organisations should be deported from our countries. That's not the point. I don't think so - there are two issues here: should *everyone* on the 'no fly' list be treated the same (diverted, held, deported), and should Cat Stevens have been on that list. My answers are (1) Yes and (2) No.
Originally posted by Spider AL
The point is that CAT STEVENS for god's sake, who is WELL KNOWN for denouncing terrorism, violence of ALL sorts and publically calling for peaceful solutions, is on this list at all. Why? Because Israel doesn't like him... Because he's a prominent Muslim. Actually - that is why he *shouldn't* be on the list. We don't want security decisions made on the fly based on that type of subjective criteria by junior officers.
Originally posted by Spider AL
You can't go around banning people from free countries on the basis of their non-violent religious beliefs. This is apparently what the US has done in this case. . I agree - I think that this is an over-zealous application of intelligence gathering and usage. I'm sure there are more who don't belong on that list ... and many more who do ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
I wish all muslims were like Cat. Fortunately most of them are, otherwise I think we would be well advised to nuke the area into the stone age ... but since they are mainly just people, with a few tens of thousand extremists, then there is hope for the future ...
Mike
I was merely saying that his lack of a clear statement of position opposing assassination directives and violence left the *perception* that he was not opposed - this is kind of like how there is the perception that only Kerry has flip-flopped on things ... perceptions do matter, sometimes more than facts ...Not to anyone who cares about holding the RIGHT point of view.
Wait a minute... You've never specifically opposed the Rushdie fatwa txa1265... You must be a muslim fanatic! DEPORT! DEPORT!
and (2) No.And that's the only answer that's relevant to this debate.
Actually - that is why he *shouldn't* be on the list.Yes, that was the implication of my statement, as well as the subject of the thread. We agree. Good.
Originally posted by Spider AL
Not to anyone who cares about holding the RIGHT point of view.. Or at least holding a point of view based on knowledge of the *facts* - I don't care if people are right, left or center ... I hate idiots of all stripes ;)
Originally posted by Spider AL
Wait a minute... You've never specifically opposed the Rushdie fatwa txa1265... You must be a muslim fanatic! DEPORT! DEPORT! But my opinion isn't of any import on that issue - neither, likely, is yours. However, often the lack of an answer to a direct question when being put 'on record' in a public forum is either (a)being evasive (b)avoiding lying. Like recently there was something about Kerry meeting with North Vietnamese leaders in Paris during the war. His top advisor was asked the question to refute that claim, but could not ... of course he didn't acknowledge it, either. That substance doesn't matter, but what does is that a non-answer leaves interpretation open. That, unfortunately, was what happened - so we can't blame everyone else and leave Cat out of the loop.
Originally posted by Spider AL
Yes, that was the implication of my statement, as well as the subject of the thread. We agree. Good. *That* was what I was getting at :D
Mike
often the lack of an answer to a direct question when being put 'on record' in a public forum is either (a)being evasive (b)avoiding lying.You miss the third common possibility, C: Not wanting to get involved.
Everyone has the right to keep silence on an issue. When you start to read your own agenda into their silence, you're not only making up fairy-stories to support your own opinion, you're also infringing upon their right to make NO COMMENT. If someone says "no comment" these days, the press seem to think that they have license to fill in the blanks. I'm both fed up of the sections of the media that DO this, and also VERY fed up of the more gullible sections of the populace that actually LISTEN to such amoral reporting. They should be ashamed of their ignorance.
But my opinion isn't of any import on that issue - neither, likely, is yours. FYI public figures have the same right to silence as you do.
we can't blame everyone else and leave Cat out of the loop.We pretty much can, on that basis.
PS: this is all moot anyway, since Stevens DID comment on the fatwa FYI. As stated before, he publically told all muslims that they had to follow the laws of whatever country they were in.
But the US is facing an uphill battle in its war against deadly terrorists, especially in terms of international cooperation. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - hardly anyone's idea of a privacy and civil liberties freak - complained to US Secretary of State Colin Powell that the detention and deportation action against Stevens "should not have been taken."
Yusuf Islam, formerly the singer Cat Stevens, was deported from the United States because of a spelling error, with US officials confusing the former pop star with a man with a similar name who is on a "no-fly" list, Time magazine claims.
He had been travelling from London to Washington last Tuesday when his flight was diverted to Bangor, Maine, where he was detained on "national security grounds" and summarily put on a plane to London, US security officials said. Asa Hutchinson, the US Department of Homeland Security's under-secretary for border and transportation security, refused to specify the allegations against Mr Islam.
Time, in its online edition, quoted aviation sources with access to the "no-fly" list as saying there was no entry on the list under the name Yusuf Islam, but that there was a Youssouf Islam. They said that name was added to the list this northern summer.
Because Mr Islam's name is spelled Yusuf on his passport, the sources said, he was allowed to board a plane in London bound for the US.
The US Transportation Safety Administration alleges Mr Islam has links to terrorist groups, which he has denied.
Mr Islam, back in London, said he had begun legal action against US authorities.
"The amazing thing is I was not given, and have still not been given, any explanation," he said.
Boy, i hope none of these terrorist sympathisers has a name spelled anything like me... still, "if you are innocent you have nothing to fear...." :rolleyes:
If you fund or promote terrorism you belong in the desert in a tent with your donkey.
Not in the united states.
Also if you think that war is not necesary then you are an idealistic fool.
Also if you are on the terrorist watch list, you must have earned it. If you didnt im pretty sure the united states as a whole will get along just fine without you.
Bah! On the one hand you have the fact that he is a religious convert, and on the other hand you have the nagging suspicion that deporting him was political. Messy situation. He sounds like an Islamic version of gee dubya to me though.
CagedCrado, your arguments are nothing but amoral bigotry.
ShadowTemplar, being a religious convert is a bad thing why?
I dont know or care what religion race or creed this person is.
I dont care what race you are, because there is only 1 race and that is the race of human beings.
I dont care if he is muslim, there are many muslims who are not terrorists.
I simply dont care, i didnt say arabs who support terrorism should be banned, i said ANYBODY fairly clearly without any reguards to 'race'.
Secondly, yes we will get along fine without 1 person being in the united states. I mean come on, this guy is not important anyway.
Its obvious he did SOMETHING to get on the watch list, and if he is wrongfully on it then im sure he will eventually be taken off.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Its obvious he did SOMETHING to get on the watch list, and if he is wrongfully on it then im sure he will eventually be taken off.
No, actually it isn't. The best explanation the U.S. government has been able to provide is "a spokesman for the US Department of Homeland Security, Garrison Courtney, told the AFP news agency that Mr Islam's name "was placed on watch lists because of concerns that the US has about activities that can potentially be related to terrorism (BBC News, 9/22/04 (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678694.stm))")
"Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge accused Islam of having some unspecified relationship with terrorist activity (CNN.com, 9/23/04 (
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/23/stevens.back.britain/)).")
According to his website, the artist formally known as Cat Stevens is involved in charities like Small Kindness for humanitarian relief; Islamia Schools' Trust for education; and Waqf al Birr Educational Trust for educational research and development and scientific and medical research. He also publically condemned the terrorist attack in the Russian town of Beslan. But it's undoubtedly one of the charities he supported that got him into trouble, as one is probably suspected of supporting Hamas. Hamas is hardly Al Qaeda and their interests have been the liberation of their nation, which was taken from them and given to the Jews following WWII.
I think if the government has enough evidence to deport someone for terrorist ties, they should have enough to arrest that person and file charges. Period. Otherwise leave him alone unless they just want to put him under surveilance.
This is yet another example of the fascist tendancies of the current United States regime and a reason to vote them out. They're the same bunch of right-wing, extremist nutters that came up with legislation to restrict and strip citizens of their civil liberties to enable the government to exercise more control. Then they had the nerve to name it the "patriot" act. A more apt name is the "traitorous" act.
In related case, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim professor who was appointed to teach Islamic philosophy (
http://www.campus-watch.org/pf.php?id=1301) and ethics at the University of Notre Dame. He received a visa from the State Department and was scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently the so-called Dept. of Homeland Security used a provision of the Patriot Act, which bars entry to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity."
The kind of xenophobia that Westerners have about Muslims is frightening. To think that people are that ignorant that they look at any one wearing Islamic clothing as terrorists is frightening.
The 'right wing nutters' you are referring to are about as liberal as republicans can get.
Get real, your rights havent been violated, normal people never get accused of anything and we all happily keep on living no freedoms impeded.
If you read my post youd know that i said we arent missing out if this person is not here.
It certainly wasnt right wing people who supposedly took away civil liberties, look at roosevelt and the new deal. Liberals have tried to hide that for years. He obviously wanted communism.
http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/)
Tom ridge didnt say islam as a whole did necesarily had anything to do with it, just particular factions. Dont bend peoples words to fit your liking.
Visas and other passports can be revoked at any time for any reason and it has always been that way.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
your rights havent been violated, normal people never get accused of anything and we all happily keep on living no freedoms impeded.
I beg to differ.
Get real, your rights havent been violated, normal people never get accused of anything and we all happily keep on living no freedoms impeded. I also beg to differ.
Your arguments are automatically nullified due to the utter (and obvious) lack of evidence or simple fact to back them up. You've obviously absorbed your opinions directly from televised propaganda, or, if not, from someone who has.
Patriot act, anyone?
If you read my post youd know that i said we arent missing out if this person is not here.That is not the issue. The issue is whether he had a RIGHT to enter the US, under US and international law, or simply a moral right. If so, his rights were impeded to some degree.
I realise you're either trolling or practically trolling, but I hope to waste little more time on you either way, and I suggest everyone follows a similar path.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Get real, your rights havent been violated, normal people never get accused of anything and we all happily keep on living no freedoms impeded.
I think you're naive or just plain don't want to see it.
The "patriot" act passed only 45 days following 9/11 with no debate in Congress. On the surface, it can be argued that the time wasn't right for debate, it was time for action to secure the nation. I can give you that. But what has to be considered was that this was a document that passed only 45 days after 9/11! In other words, it was written and ready to go. It was already on the agenda for the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration to put this forth. They merely took advantage of the moment.
You say, "normal people never get accused..." You realize that's plain bull don't you? But then, perhaps you define "normal" as good, heterosexual, xian Americans who support the fascist-like regime of Bush & co. All else get what they deserve.
I realize Ted Kennedy isn't "normal" then (SFGate.com, 8/20/04 (
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/20/MNGQ28BM1O1.DTL)).
Brandon Mayfield probably wouldn't be considered "normal" either, since he converted to Islam (MSNBC, 5/25/04 (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/)).
There are many others, I even posted one in this very forum last year about a 10-year old kid who was harrassed by the State Troopers because his mother tried to buy him MS Flight Simulator at Staples (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121408&highlight=patriot).
The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General has cited 34 specific cases of abuse of the Patriot Act to date. That's only what's known so far with a specific method of sampling (investigating the handling of detainees)(JDOIG, 1/27/04 (
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0401a/index.htm)).
I think "never happens" is an assumption we can discard.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
If you read my post youd know that i said we arent missing out if this person is not here.
I read your post and thought it was Bull and barely worth commenting on. I'm amazed that such ignorance even exists and didn't think you were serious. He was to accompany his daughter to Nashville to "look into a music project." That's revenue and commerce that will be lost for Nashville, not only from Cat Stevens, but probably from those that consider themselves his fans. It's another example of poor diplomacy on the behalf of the Bush administration, which is keeping us in a nationalist, xenophobic state. Isolation from the rest of the world seems to be the goal.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
It certainly wasnt right wing people who supposedly took away civil liberties, look at roosevelt and the new deal.
Bleh... I attempt to contemporary politics and you attempt a deflection of blame. Cite your analogies rather than point us to some conspiracy site. Besides, if anything, Flynn's essays make the case that current deficit spending is the wrong path and adds another argument for regime change. If Flynn's analogies are used in this thread, then it could be argued that the Patriot Act is merely window dressing used in a post-Cold War world to provide the impedus as a scare tactic to perpetuate deficit spending.
And by the way, I've always been Republican until the neo-conservatives took over. Their mix of "religious-right" and big-government thinking is wrong for the nation.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Tom ridge didnt say islam as a whole did necesarily had anything to do with it, just particular factions. Dont bend peoples words to fit your liking.
I didn't intend to imply that Ridge said anything. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the majority of American citizens identify "Muslam" and "Islam" with "terror" and "terrorist." I fail to see how you can think I'm "bending" anyone's words.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Visas and other passports can be revoked at any time for any reason and it has always been that way.
Bull. Sure, it may have always been legal, but why present ourselves to the rest of the world as a bunch of *******s. Our nation depends upon foreign relations on all levels and this type of crap only adds to the problem rather than the solution. Even in-country, people are flying less just so they don't have to go through the hassle.
You accuse me of not having facts to back up my claims where as all of your posts are simply bull **** from my point of view as well? The media is entirely on the liberals (your) side in any occasion in which they can.
The patriot act is a step in the right direction for weeding out terrorist, and if somebody told you that the NSA is going around arresting because of you saying or buying something, then you and them have serious problems.
If the NSA wanted to arrest you, they could make up a reason. The only reason there is a patriot act now is to scare terrorists.
Neoconservatives? so you are talking like ronald reagan who reduced social programs and thus reduced the government. Just because george bush is religious does not mean the entire republican party feels the same way. I am not religious and never have been, if you search for some of my older posts you will see i am not. (way older, they might not exist)
Just because you convert to islam doesnt make you a terrorist, that is true, but did the websites that told you that even clearly state why they were arrested besides that? There is always atleast 2 sides to a story.
The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.
Also, neoconservitive is a new word for liberal anyway. I have stated multiple times that george bush is a liberal. Although john kerry is more liberal than the liberal level vomit meter even holds.
but thats a different thread.
Do you truly believe that president bush reads through a description of every single person who is banned from this country? In fact, i garauntee that he had absolutly nothing to do with cat stephens being banned from the united states. He probably heard about it at the same time or after you did, which hardly justifies the statement that its poor diplomacy on his part.
Also on your statement about ted kennedy getting flagged, he probably donated money to a muslim group believed to be funding fundamentalism. There is also the possibility that it was a joke or a prank, politicians are people too
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.
It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Also, neoconservitive is a new word for liberal anyway.
No, it isn't. There are distinct differences between conservatives, neo-conservatives and those with liberal agendas.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
I have stated multiple times that george bush is a liberal.
I don't think you have a grasp of the terminology, therefore you simply toss the term "liberal" out as a form of insult.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Do you truly believe that president bush reads through a description of every single person who is banned from this country? In fact, i garauntee that he had absolutly nothing to do with cat stephens being banned from the united states.
I never suggested that he did.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
He probably heard about it at the same time or after you did, which hardly justifies the statement that its poor diplomacy on his part.
I never suggested that Bush engaged in poor diplomatic practice with regard to Yusef Islam.
My opinion of what a neo conservative is, a liberal, and a conservative are comparitively is whatever i say it is first of all. My view of the world is just as viable as yours, period.
Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist.
Simply because he does not agree with your viewpoint does not mean that he cant be generally the same politcal group as you. Liberal may be too harsh a term for george bush, possibly he is a progressive but none the less a socialist. His no child left behind act that he forced through congress is about as liberal as you get. Republican, but still liberal. There is no truly conservative party in the united states anymore, and the last mostly conservative was ronald reagan.
The patriot act is also liberal, but was mostly lobbied by military/intelligence groups which It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others. these people are apart of and not the political groups that voted on it for fear of their own protection. At this time senator tom daschle and other top democrats had been victims of alleged anthrax attacks, which leaves me to believe that after these attacks they also supported the bill.
Bull. Sure, it may have always been legal, but why present ourselves to the rest of the world as a bunch of *******s. Our nation depends upon foreign relations on all levels and this type of crap only adds to the problem rather than the solution. Even in-country, people are flying less just so they don't have to go through the hassle.
There are many countries in the world that nobody can come into without explicity approval of high ranking officials in the government. Its like if i broke into your house without permission then claimed its wrong you keep me out since i was just dropping off something for you, but you dont know what that something and nor do you know me.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
My opinion of what a neo conservative is, a liberal, and a conservative are comparitively is whatever i say it is first of all. My view of the world is just as viable as yours, period.
Sure it is. But if you create your own definitions rather than rely on those of the rest of the scholarly world, don't expect anyone to understand (or care) what your worldview is. In which case, you would do best to keep it in your own head.
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist.
Only according to you. But I suspect that isn't really the case, since I remember your tendency to incite other posters with bold statements like that. Your "Liberal = socialist" claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Many liberal politicians or those with liberal worldviews also believe in free market and capitalism. Therefore, your false dichotomy doesn't work.
Simply put:
Liberal = one who believes in progress and reform within governmental and societal institutions in order to keep up with the progress of technology. This person usually also believes in maintaining civil liberties.
conservative = one who is resistant to change, reform or liberal ideas. One who wishes to maintain the status quo. (in my opinion, this is the more illogical of the two, since it fails to address advancements in technology and the need to improve how technology is applied to or within society).
neo-conservatives = are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization (taken from WordIQ.com (
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Neoconservatism_(United_States)))
Originally posted by CagedCrado
The patriot act is also liberal,
Which is where you are distinctly wrong. As noted above, liberals generally seek to preserve civil liberties. The "Patriot" Act (better named as the "traitorous act") does the opposite.
Liberal = one who believes in progress and reform within governmental and societal institutions in order to keep up with the progress of technology. This person usually also believes in maintaining civil liberties.
conservative = one who is resistant to change, reform or liberal ideas. One who wishes to maintain the status quo. (in my opinion, this is the more illogical of the two, since it fails to address advancements in technology and the need to improve how technology is applied to or within society).
neo-conservatives = are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization (taken from WordIQ.com)
Important to take the history and actual political personality of the ideologies into account too though.
Liberal = left, therefore characterised by enforced equality for all, regardless of intelligence or skill level, reverse discriminatory policies, the pooling of resources, taxation directly proportionate to income etc. Tends to be more ideology-based than vanilla conservative administrations.
Conservative = right, therefore characterised by mercenary sensibilities, environment made comfortable for those with existing social advantages, environment conducive to the advancement of those with greater intelligence, greater guile, greater capital or greater skill. (Esp. greater capital.) Ostensibly low tolerance for sexual deviancy, support for racial and class-based profiling in law enforcement etc. More effectiveness-based than ideology-based.
Neo-Conservative = far right, recent form of a recurring ideology characterised by the (self-professed) desire to use deception of the populace to inspire greater loyalty to the government and greater xenophobia in order to provide drive and purpose to what they view as a diffuse, selfish and directionless modern society. Very close to Nazi ideology in many respects, not limited to the incredibly large focus on spin and propaganda, and little or no focus on (or interest in) the truth. Represented currently by the bulk of the Bush administration's decision-making team, e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Totally ideology-based.
And as regards technology, conservative ideology leans more towards the development of new weapons systems and innovative items to export, so arguably has a positive effect on scientific advancement from that standpoint.
Since this seems to have become the political factions thread...
Did anyone in the UK (Al?) see the 2nd Power of Nightmares on tv last night. I missed the first few minutes, but the rest was very interesting.
They basically compared the rise of the islamst factions with the rise of the neo-conservative factions.
Both started from a belief that their own society was degraded and needed to be "saved" and made more like they wanted. Both started out using similar tactics of deception, money and so on.
Then, around 96 (can't remember exact dates) both nearly disappeared entirely.
The islamist factions had become deeply unpopular at home for their hardline stances, there were mas demos AGAINST fundamentalism, and they eventually nearly wiped each other out as each thought the others weren't "true believers".
At the same time the neo-conservative's plans to get rid of clinton came to nothing whent hey discovered that the US population didn't really care about his private life that they had worked so hard to expose (confirming their beliefs about the corruption of society).
Both were basically spent forces. Then came the world trade centre attacks.
Suddenly each had an enemy that they could paint as a massive threat and use to scare people onto their side. Both fed off each other.
to be continued next week.... :(
Of course, it is only a tv programme, but it seems quite well researched and fairly balanced... and it gives some interesting and unheard insights into how these group came to be, what they believe, and how scary (or not) they actually are.
It'd be interesting to see but I can't find any streams on their website, just a description and TV schedule. And I don't have a TV anymore. :(
DAMN! Can't believe I missed part 2... Fie! Nice synopsis though, hopefully it'll be repeated on B4.
Originally posted by Spider AL
ShadowTemplar, being a religious convert is a bad thing why?
The answer to this question really belongs in another thread. But the short version is that coverts take an active interest in their religion - in other words they are, on average, a whole lot more zealous than 'ordinary' religious people.
And Mankind has had a few runs of bad luck with overly zealous people.
It certainly wasnt right wing people who supposedly took away civil liberties, look at roosevelt and the new deal. Liberals have tried to hide that for years. He obviously wanted communism.
:rolleyes:
Even in-country, people are flying less just so they don't have to go through the hassle.
Not to mention sailing. Dubya's admin proposed a bill to forbid the docking of foreign vessels in american dockyards unless they came from a harbor that had been terrorist-proofed and subsequently inspected by US government goons.
I don't know what that's called 'over there', but on this side of the Pond we call it protectionism, technical hindrance of trade, and industrial espionage. And we *don't* like it.
This merely serves to confirm my idea that dubya's vaunted 'war on terror' is one third restriction of civil rights, one third religious fanaticism and one third selfish, counterproductive, and hypocritical protectionism.
The media is entirely on the liberals (your) side in any occasion in which they can.
You've never seen liberal media. I made an offer to another guy the other day, but he never seemed to reply to it, so I'll make it to you as well:
Try going to a different church for a few months. Stop watching Fux Newts for a change. Take out a subscription on the New York Times, BBC World, and - if you can read German - Der Spiegel. And if you can prove to me that you're actually reading any of the above two publications, I'll pay for your subscription.
The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.
In all probability no. Since Vietnam the agencies and the generals have generally been the brick wall that warmongering and extremist legislation hit its head against... Only dubya is so thick skulled that even a brick wall wasn't enough.
Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist
:nut:
The patriot act is also liberal, but was mostly lobbied by military/intelligence groups which
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these people are apart of
'Sceuse me, but are we talking about the same people here? These guys have never even seen a live magazine - much less been in a war. They are hardly military lobbyists - they are more like military industry lobbyists. As for their part in the Intelligence lobby... Well you'd think that they lack a certain prerequisite (OK, that was cheap, but very tempting).
Liberal = left, therefore characterised by enforced equality for all, regardless of intelligence or skill level, reverse discriminatory policies, the pooling of resources, taxation directly proportionate to income etc. Tends to be more ideology-based than vanilla conservative administrations.
:drop2:
Would you please back that statement with some sort of historical reference? I kinda figure that you've got it mixed up with 'social democrat'.