Suspects Are CHECHEN Brothers With ISLAMIST TIES. What a Shocker!

“1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries”

We do not have a policy of extending rule or authority over anyone. We have a policy, weakened by your ilk, of responding to and removing threats to the peace in accordance with respect for enfranchisement of peoples according to the UN Charter such as in response to illegal invasions of countries and continuing violations of international law:

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

August, 1996: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.
The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) once Quraysh had assisted Bani Bakr against Khusa'ah, the allies of the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him). The prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) fought Quraysh and concurred Makka. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa' void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market." (Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.)

March 1997: "Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly 'invited' Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.73
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74" (The 9/11 commission report, page 65-66)

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

February 23, 1998: “Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: ‘But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)’; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.”
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

September 2001: "Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General...David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/call1004.php

Monsters from the id or saying he had something to do with the 9/11/2001 attack:

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

 

OK, we'll accept your definition instead of his.

The first referred to older British, French and Spanish imperialism which 19th Century America rejected.

But there was also the idea of Pax Americana which replaced the British empire.

Since WWII America has been the stabilizing force in the world and was and is often called on to act as the 911 for the world.

Libs seem to like American imperialism when it serves their interests.

Such as sending American special forces to Africa or attacking Kadaffi in Libya.

Or in your case America as Officer Friendly fighting injustices against people and crimes against humanity.

Libs are imperialists too but they just clothe themselves differently.

 

This is true of ALL religions and any nation established based upon religion, race, ethnic background, or other nefarious criteria that segregates the "People" into classifications as opposed to uniting them where all people are equal is inherently tyrannical. It cannot be otherwise as the division of the "People" into categories of "Us" and "Them" always results in the tyranny of the "Us" over the "Them" in society.

Saudi Arabia = Tyrannical
Iran = Tyrannical
Afghanistan = Tyrannical
Iraq = Tyrannical
Israel = Tyrannical
Future nation of Palestine = Tyrannical

This is a problem I've noted elsewhere related to the evangelical Christians wanting the United States to be a "Christian nation" as it would automatically turn the United States into a tyrannical nation. Good intentions don't mean diddly when it comes to the tyranny of government and only secular nations dedicated to the Inalienable Rights of the Person have any chance of someday eliminating government tyranny.

This is something that every religious believer needs to come to understand. It is just as important for Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any religious believer to come to grips with. That's why I consider evangelical Christians to be the greatest threat to the United States because there's so many of them. They are promoting turning the United States into a "Christian nation" as opposed to a "secular nation" which is how the United States was established. That is a serious threat to the United States and because of their numbers, and their fundamental control of the Republican Party, it represents a very serious threat to our nation. I'm not opposed to evangelical Christians but I am very much opposed to their too often successful attempt to legislate Biblical teachings into the law of the land.

 

People also need to understand religion before they establish what rights a Nation/State has.

Whereas this is NOT a Christian nation, the basic core is “consent of the governed,” and Golden Rule, which does not prevent a polytheistic Egypt or monotheism in Israel or Black Stone Idolatry in Palestine, just that each though the Golden Rule has a right to exist. When they threaten the right of the godless Libertarian Nation to exist, that is tyranny.

If the majority of States were not “liberal,” such as to effect Article III, and Social programs were State compacts with the consent of Congress, an almost pure Libertarian State here could exist here. When the godless Libertarian incense of unregulated industry causes global warming or a Godzilla Class Nuclear sub to surface in San Francisco Harbor demanding reparations from president flacal for the 3 billion killed by Moonsack corporation’s genetically engineered grains, and your State does not have insurance, the FEDS have the right to get involved in regulating commerce.

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.” (Leviticus 19:34)

Taken out of context of the laws preventing worship of idols in Israel the message is one of States Rights to exist even when worshiping false gods.

 

yes there are plenty of rich people right now but the thing is when taxes become so high it becomes not worth it to work. for instance if I work 100 grand a year then is taxed 75% of my income i am only getting 25 grand putting the work in for 100 grand and then people on welfare make 10 to 15 thousand a year it there is no motivation to work and they stop working. Socialism stops working when you spend of everyone else's money. Somebody has to work and be motivated to work to keep the system running

I hate that argument that the rich isn't paying their share why are they not entitled to keep the money they worked for and do you undertand how selfcentered you sound? Why should poor people not have to work? How is it make us more free if the government is making decisions for us.

I dont need SS or medicaid I can manage my own funds like a responsible man and am self reliant.

hey as much a libertarian i never said I was against the background checks proposal I will even take it further where people need to go to a safety class before they can buy one am against infringing on the 2nd amendment and I dont think those two things do that.
History is on my side in the slippery slope argument since the beginning of time men with power want more power want more power and once the people sacrifice their liberties because of fear or dependance there is no turning back without revolution.

I am not talking about anarchy I am talking about protecting the liberties of the people. As I said before the government has its place but the people need to put it in its place and as if the government does its job of protecting our liberties then your fear of the strong overcoming the weak and rich overcoming the poor is unwarranted.

 

It is their mother who radicalise them.

 

1. For US troops to remain in Afghanistan (and probably will be needed in many other places over time (ex, Chechnea and Dagastan)

2. For Islam to be banned in America (http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/220997-shouldnt-islam-banned-usa.html)

3. For taxes on the rich to raised significantly to provide fund$$$$$ for homeland security.

 

What does any of this have to do with the Tsarnaev brothers having Islamist ties ?

 

NONSENSE!! When the US went into Afghanistan, it was not a "country" at all. It was a non-country. The outer borders of Afghanistan shown on a map, were not the outer orders of a country known as Afghanistan. They were the outer borders of all the countries surrounding Afghanistan. And inside the area, then called Afghanistan, were dozens of loose tribal groups, as existed in medieval days, hundreds of years before the rise of nation states. This is why al Qaeda picked this area. Because every country in the world would have nothing to do with them. Even bin Laden's own country (Saudi Arabia) kicked him out. But with Afghanistan, there was nobody to keep al Qaeda out.

KNOWLEDGE of the definition of imperialism IS an argument.

IMPERIALISM - "the policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire in seeking to control raw materials and world markets by the conquest of other countries, the establishment of colonies, etc. (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed.)

You definition of jihad is also cockeyed. For the majority of everyone (including Muslims) jihad means holy war (whether they are waging it or not) This "moral cleansing" notion to describe jihad is nothing more than idiotic propaganda, which only an idiot would fall for. One thing about Muslims. They ARE pretty good con artists (to the weak of mind).

As the Koran, it not only condones terrorism, it advocates it, and it not only advocates it, it commands it, and it does so all through the whole book of hate, as well as Mo the Pedophiles's many Hadiths.

Lastly, Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology masquerading as a religion, while being unconstitutional (Article 6, section 2), and seditious (US Code 2384).

 

America's future might be placed on a more reasonable path if the American Left would read Ibn Warraq's Why I'm not a Muslim with the same degree of enthusiasm as Bertrand Russel's Why I'm not a Christian.

 

Biblical teachings are ALREADY legislated into the law of the land. (laws against murder, theft, libel, obscenity laws, etc)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a link for this ?

 

The fact that the "Bible" may mention that something is wrong does not establish the Bible as the foundation for the law. Murder is the wrongful violation of the Inalienable Right to Life of the Person which as absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. Theft is the violation of the Inalienable Rigtht of Property of the Person which has nothing to do with the Bible. Libel and Slander are acts of aggression violating the Inalienable Right of Self of the person and are not based upon the Bible.

These laws are not based upon the Bible but are based upon the fact that our government was created to Protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

It can be argued that the "obscenity" laws are based upon religious beliefs and I would argue that these laws are wrong because if they are not about protecting the inalienable Rights of the Person, as estabished by the Declaration of Independence, then they are in infringement upon our Inalienable Rights. Fortunately we actually have few :"obscenity" laws that don't address protection of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. We have "obscenity" laws related to child pornography for example that those laws are protecting the Inalienable Rights of the Child that is not mature enough to consent to their image being used in pornographic manner. I would argue that the laws of censorship of the media related to "pornography" is a violation of our Inalienable Rights. If a person doesn't want to watch pornography there is a channel changer and an on/off button on their TV. Of course the broadcaster can choose to not show pornography and that is not an infringement upon the Rights of the Person by government.

Protection of our Inalienable Rights, which is the foundation of our government and the very reason that government can logically exist, is not a Biblical principle. The imposition of religious beliefs under the law violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Freedom Of Religion also requires Freedom From Religion but evangelical Christians can't seem to grasp this fact. We have glaring examples of the imposition of Religion on the People of America that are completely illogical.

The national motto of "One Nation Under God" does not apply to the agnostic or the athiest. We're not a "nation under God" but instead we're a nation under the US Constitution. The Constitution applies to all Americans but "God" only applies to religious believers and not to ALL Americans. It is the invidious imposition of religious beliefs that violates our "equality" as Persons in the United States.

We have laws that exist solely to impose "religious" beliefs that violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Where does the government get off in defining what "marriage" is under the law. Marriage is a contractual partnership established by consenting adults and the government should get the hell out of being discriminatory related to partnerships voluntarily entered into the the People in the United States. No one's inalienable Rights are being violated by the partnerships established by consenting adults and discriminatory treatment based upon religious beliefs related to this partnerships violates the Inalienable Right of Equality for all Persons in America.

As I've noted any nation based upon religion, race, ethnic heritage, or other invidious criteria is inherenty tyrannical as it always creates a situation of "Us" (those that meet the criteria) and "Them" (those that don't meet the criteria) and equality of all "Persons" is inherently impossible. That is the problem with the nations I mentiond as all of them were established based upon invidious criteria.

The threat to America today is the imposition of the invidious criteria of "Christianity" upon the American People. The same historical invidious criteria of "White America" being propagated by racists also violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person in America. There is fundamentally no difference between the effects of different types of invidiuos criteria as all are inherently tyrannical as the divide the People of the nation into "Us" and "Them" and the Rights of "Them" are always violated.

 

ban islam in the usa?? lol

 

"America took my kids away from me" - the mother

Not sure what America did to turn these bastards into terrorists. Perhaps she should be directing her ire at Islam instead of the U.S.A.

 

She's the one who brought them here and left them...AFTER LIVING OFF OF TAXPAYERS ASSISTANCE for SEVERAL YEARS, that is....

"allah u pigsqeeze"...

 

Oh. you mean "a situation of "Us" (those that meet the criteria) and "Them" (those that don't meet the criteria)", like job hiring preference in affirmative action programs ? And college admissions using affirmative action ? Sure fits what you're saying.

The same historical invidious criteria of minority preference being propagated by anti-White racists also violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person in America. Yeah, I can see that quite clearly. As I saw it for 50 years, when I was in the racistly anti-White workforce.

PS - for a moderator, you could set a better example of following the thread topic a bit more.

 

By the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, by definition, Islam is already banned in the USA. It, like immigration law, simply isn't being enforced. It's also banned by US Code 2384 and 2385, as well, but lacking the enforcement. lol yourself.

 

bullcrap.

 

Dude I am as anti islamic as one can get but where does it say that?

I just don't see it here.

 

It is not whether you believe them as lies, but do the FBI investigators believe them as lies. They have corroborating evidence that he is telling the truth. That evidence is no chatter on the internet among the various groups, no group claiming responsibility, and the personal finances of the brothers.

The only thing you have is your own self delusion.

 

Article 6, section 2? That isn't even a thing in our Constitution. There is one section in article 6. Seriously, what a showing of ignorance.

 

He is referring to this: "2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"

This is article VI, clause 2, not section 2. Still, it shows ignorance of the Constitution.

 

Seriously what a show of ignorance.. Here are the THREE sections of Article 6 of the Constitution.

1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Note: If you wish to call all three of these all one section, frankly who the hell cares ? You can quibble about form if you like. Only thing that's important is the content of the Supremacy Clause (# 2 of the above).

 

Irrelevant. Only relevance is the CONTENT of the Supremacy Clause. Doesn't it get tiring seeing Political Forum goons trying to disparage PF posters, because they have nothing to say about the content. You've done NOTHING to disprove the point. Please grow up.

 

You may be anti-Islamic, but you're not very knowledgable about Islam if you think it can be constututional. Are you not aware of Islam's supremacism ? Doesn't exactly fit in with the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, now does it ?

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

In case you didn't know, In Islam, only Islamic law is the law of the land. That is unacceptable by virtue of Article 6, section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).

In addition, Islam is defined as illegal by sedition >>> US Code 2384. Seditious conspiracy - "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

In case anyone has been living in a closet for the past 22 years, here is the seditious doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (which consists of dozens, if nor hundreds, of MB front groups) , revealed in the Brotherhood's 1991 Explanatory Memorandum...for North America, discovered by the FBI in 2005, and declassified in the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas terrorist funding trial in 2007 & 2008.

The key words from it are :

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al.

In addition >>> Koranic supremacism is based on Koran 9.33: “(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse.” Suras 2:193 and 61:9 also proclaim supremacism.