Osama bin Laden is DEAD

[TheMercenary]

Nearly flawlessly executing the operation in Pakistan to raid the compound where Osama bin Laden was living – among the military and police leadership of Pakistan by the way – the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six along with elements of other U.S. government assets killed America’s most wanted man. This is a victory for all of us – no doubt. A tremendous Bravo Zulu to the men and women who made it possible and gave the operation the best chance of success. Bin Laden is dead. What I am hearing from the media, the government, and our President, however, is making me queezy...

http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/0...f/#more-112676

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/0...f/#more-112676

From the same article, the Muslim Brotherhood is insidiously infiltrating American society and the federal government through some nefarious connections to every major Islamic organization in the country as well as a Muslim appointee to a DHS advisory committee:

From the overwhelming evidence (link?) entered at the US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development trial (HLF) it was revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the United States has significant infrastructure here and that the most prominent Islamic Organizations in the U.S. are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Fiqh Council of North America, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas entity.

We know from the MB itself and from a large amount of evidence (link?), to include the US v Sabri Benkhala case, that the Muslim American Society (MAS) is a significant MB organization founded by three key MB leaders.

They cite evidence in lawsuits, documents, etc, but never provide links. Mostly they just link to each other as evidence or expect readers to take them at their word.

Mercenary, maybe you have links to the source documents?

As I said in another discussion, it is reminiscent of the McCarthy red-baiting era of the past.

The extremists making the allegations dont have to prove it, but rather those they charge with ties to terrorist organization must prove they do not have such ties.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

..... but rather those they charge with ties to terrorist organization must prove they do not have such ties.

The burden is on the Muslim Brotherhood, they have a long history of support and birth as a terrorist organization.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The burden is on the Muslim Brotherhood, they have a long history of support and birth as a terrorist organization.

Thats how it works in an oppressive state. The person/organization charged has to prove innocence.

In America, we do things differently. If one makes allegations against another person/organization, the burden of proof rests with the one making the charge.

Gafney/Geller/Breitbart have the obligation to offer more than the undocumented court "evidence" or innuendo.

CAIR or other Islamic organizations or Kareem Shora (appointed to the DHS advisory committee) do not have to prove their innocence.

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Thats how it works in an oppressive state. The person/organization charged has to prove innocence.

In America, we do things differently. If one makes allegations against another person/organization, the burden of proof rests with the one making the charge.

Gafney/Geller/Breitbart have the obligation to offer more than the undocumented court "evidence" or innuendo.

Your opinion. I say an organization that has a long and well documented history of the support of terrorism has the burden of proof that they have changed their ways, not the other way around.

Nice try in an attempt to label those who disagree with you as supporting McCarthyism. "That dog won't hunt", Willie "Cigar" Clinton.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Your opinion. I say an organization that has a long and well documented history of the support of terrorism has the burden of proof that they have changed their ways, not the other way around.

Nice try in an attempt to label those who disagree with you as supporting McCarthyism. "That dog won't hunt", Willie "Cigar" Clinton.

It is not a matter of disagreeing with me.

It is a matter of how we do things in this country.

Your guys and gal smear organizations and citizens in this country with alleged evidence and innuendos about their "affiliations" and refuse to document it with facts.

That my friend is McCarthyism at its worst.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It is not a matter of disagreeing with me.

It is a matter of how we do things in this country.

Your guys and gal smear organizations and citizens in this country with alleged evidence and innuendos about their "affiliations" and refuse to document it with facts.

No it has to do with the organization you are trying to legitimize. You don't get to define, "how we do things in this country". You don't get to set the bar as a faceless nameless poster on a web forum. What are your credentials that allow you to do that?

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is well documented. Prove me wrong.