doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 9/11

Glad you see all of it so clearly, keith

What policy would be involved in creating little fish who donate money to support terrorism (knowingly or otherwise)? As for your computer generated letter to all donors who have been identified, here's what I'm guessing would happen: They'd likely all lawyer up (and probably succeed in obtaining pro bono legal support from the ACLU. Or maybe via CAIR.) The lawyer's response (in defense of Fatima in Detroit who donated to the Palestinian Widow and Orphans Charitable Fund) would likely read something like this:

"In response to your form letter of the (insert date): My client believed that her $20 donation was being used to assist Palestinian widows and orphans, as the name of the charity indicates. She is shocked to learn that the government is accusing the charity in question of financing terrorism. If the government has been aware for some time that the charity in question is indeed financing terrorism, then it would seem that the appropriate action on the part of the government would be to notify the public in general, and donors in particular, of the connection between the charity and terrorism. Our client--and we are assuming other clients who similarly made donations believing that the charity in question was genuine--had no way of knowing of the link to terrorism until she received your letter. We are fully prepared to defend our client's actions and are confident that the government will be unable to produce any evidence proving that she knew her money was being used for any purpose other than to assist Palestinian widows and orphans."

And you're suggesting that you want to allocate a swarm of FBI counterterrorism agents and a gaggle of federal prosecutors in an attempt to prove that Fatima and other donors knew--before the government informed them--that the charity was a front for terrorist funding? All in an attempt to catch a bunch of very small fish? Seems to me they'd be better targeted on little fish--like the girl who bragged about planning to shoot up her school--when it looks like they want to make the jump to becoming much bigger fish. By killing Americans, like the late Bin Laden told them was their duty.

Naw Larry, I don't think I've been suggesting any of that. I've been suggesting that you protest too much. Hey, resources aren't worth wasting, I understand. But, you are suggesting fix and forget. You are hung up on binladens marching orders, but you haven't acknowledged the speed and efficiency in which big fish are replaced with the infrastructure untouched.

Some muslim knucklehead was just charged with sabatoging a commercial airliner. Go figure, he didn't mean it, he just wanted the over time pay to repair it. Sounds like he has the same lawyer you do, and should get a pass, because he didn't know it could bring harm to anyone. God forbid his friends and family get a knock on the door, because they had no idea he was a small fish jihadi, eh?

Well gosh . . . why in the world would I be "hung up" on Bin Laden's marching order? How about because the topic we're discussing is 9/11--the anniversary of which we all just noted.

In this case, the Big Fish IS the infrastructure. You can't even go after the little fish until you catch the Big Fish . . . because he's the one who's collecting the bucks for the bad guys. And once more, you have decided to ASS-U-ME "infrastructure". You have decided to ASS-U-ME that those donating through Big Fish actually KNEW that they were supporting terrorism. You're starting off with a whole bunch of weak assumptions.

If small fish are at all smart (and fortunately, many of them are not--which is why they get caught before they become Big Fish), then they're not going to let friends and families know what they're doing. If they do, there's a good chance they'll get caught . . . and never get to the point of the Muslim who sabotaged the plane.

But once more--just to reemphasize: How can anyone dispute the fact that American Muslims simply aren't much of a threat when it comes to doing their Muslim duty--straight from the mouth of the man who proceeded to kill 3,0000+ Americans, just to make the point that he was serious about what he said was the duty of every Muslim everywhere? Since 9/11, only a miniscule number of American Muslims have made the decision--and followed through--to go from being a spectator small fish to a killer Big Fish.
Impossible to dispute that point. The evidence is clear.

Which is why you deflect and choose to make all sorts of unsupported assumptions about how maybe lots of American Muslims are little fish. Maybe most of them aren't fish at all . . . barring evidence that they're actually doing anything fishy.

Larry, you make valid points, but why can't I call you an a$$youmer and deflector?

You know I asked and you deflected, does significant funding for foreign soil terrorism, that has resulted in death and injury of US military soldiers, originate from the US. If you think no, fine.

You may continue to assyou anything you want, I am going to assume that the policy of pc, as demonstrated by your profiling tip toeing, clearly excuses selective ignorance of the law. Does it matter how many letters come from lawyers, isn't that their job?

Yes, in my mind, the 'infrastructure' of the culture that looks the other way when donating to the boys club of the plo does not vanish if a big fish gets arrested. We know that don't we, because the big fish are smart enough to go elsewhere if business isn't profitable enough. Hey, I'm going to be in MN soon, should I hang out in the mall of A. with a MAGA hat?

You're still avoiding the point I made. Pop quiz, Craig: What did the former Terrorist in Chief tell Muslims their duty in the war on America was? Choose one of the following:

a) Sit on the sidelines and be a cheerleader.
b) Just send a check.
c) Kill Americans, whenever and however you can.
d) None of the above.

The difference between my point and yours, Craig: We can count dead bodies on the streets of this country. And because the Islamist terrorists are always quick to take credit, we know who's responsible.

But while there's no question that funding for terrorism does come from this country, how do we know just how "significant" it is? We only know about the funding we succeed in interrupting. Or, if we happen to catch a terrorist accountant overseas and he happens to keep really accurate books . . . But since we stop it when we know about it, obviously we can't know how much we don't stop. Which puts us back in the assumption business, doesn't it?

And for some reason, the difference between "ignorance of the law" and "no way for the donor to know" (since the Big Fish doesn't name his charity "Dollars for Death to Americans") just plain does not seem to penetrate that rock hard cranium of yours.
The FBI won't take a case to court if they can't prove it. And if they can't come up with proof that Fatima in Detroit knew that the Palestinian Widows and Orphans Charitable Fund was a cover for money to support terrorism, then they have no case. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with ignorance of the law. Which is why it'd be a piece of cake for a lawyer to defend her . . . and why the FBI isn't ever going to get many of the little fish. And we're only assuming--again--that there are a lot of those little fish in the lake. But we only KNOW who they are when we catch the Big Fish who's collecting the Dollars for Death to Americans. And we still don't know whether they're guilty of anything. (See the above explanation, for the umpteenth time.)

Me, I prefer to stick with what we can prove. And whenever you feel like discussing something that's not based on assumptions--like how many people American Muslims kill in this country, which is rock solid--then we can talk about facts.

Hey- I picked C. Correct answer? Or did I follow the military mantra re: multiple choice ??sss-- "When In Doubt, Charlie Out!"RWTF

When ever I am approached by a "pan-handler" claiming to be a brother Vet "down on his luck"- I ask him a few questions re: 'Nam period in our history: (1) What was MACV?-- (2) How many doors on a Huey? (3 )What is a rubber Mama? and the finale-- (4) What position do you use when taking a piss at night "in country?" If they get any or all correct, I'll buy them a meal and coffee- but will Not give them any pocket cash, even brother Marines-- I can't tell you how many times I get approached, and I do not wear any Military or MAGA baseball caps- happened yesterday 19 Sept when Mae and I were over on the American side of the Niagara Falls- just left our vehicle and headed for the Maid of the Mist ramp, dude comes up, fairly well dressed for a tourist, clean shaven, asks me for some help- financially-- of course- I passed and we walked away. Life is full of surprises, best to always be prepared. RWTF

All Muslims are potential terrorist cell members--never ever forget that-- their belief in Allah and the Jihad is rock-solid, we are Infidels in their eyes, and their goal is world domination, same as Hitler sought in his years of terror. They will kill Christian and Jew with equal zeal-- and will sacrifice everything to achieve their goal of a entire world worshiping Allah. No exceptions-- RWTF

Well RWTF . . . you get the prize for the correct answer. But then you start to wander just a bit. Guess I ought to try another pop quiz:

In all the conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved, most of those being killed are members of which religion:

a)Christianity
b)Judaism
c)Buddhism
d)Islam

Hint to help you: Most of those conflicts are taking place in Muslim countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc.