(07-20-2012 01:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:17 PM)maximus Wrote:  It doesn't matter anyway, Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House.

Oh...are they the ones telling him which civilians to kill by drone in Pakistan?

nope

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=578...pid8083101

(07-20-2012 01:44 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:17 PM)maximus Wrote:  It doesn't matter anyway, Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House.

Oh...are they the ones telling him which civilians to kill by drone in Pakistan?

nope

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=578...pid8083101

Yes, it appears an elected Egyptian parliament official with former terrorist ties was mistakenly admitted into the US due to a mix-up between the State Department and the Wilson Center. However, you seem to be implying that he met with Obama at the White House which is not the case.

It hardly means Obama is personally inviting terrorists into the US for White House meetings.

(07-20-2012 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:44 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 01:17 PM)maximus Wrote:  It doesn't matter anyway, Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House.

Oh...are they the ones telling him which civilians to kill by drone in Pakistan?

nope

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=578...pid8083101

Yes, it appears an elected Egyptian parliament official with former terrorist ties was mistakenly admitted into the US due to a mix-up between the State Department and the Wilson Center. However, you seem to be implying that he met with Obama at the White House which is not the case.

It hardly means Obama is personally inviting terrorists into the US for White House meetings.

can you ******* read?


"Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization."


"In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya."

"In his meetings with senior Obama administration officials, Eldin says, he asked Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough about transferring Abdel-Rahman to an Egyptian prison. He said his request was declined. “When I raised this issue in the White House I was told it was not in their authority and all judicial issues relating to sentences must be discussed with the Department of Justice,” he says. Transferring Abdel-Rahman, says Eldin, “would be a gift to the revolution.” McDonough didn’t reply to requests for comment made Thursday afternoon."

Eldin is a member of parliament for the Building and Development party in Egypt, which some Egypt watchers say is an arm of Gamaa Islamiya.
While in Washington, Eldin also visited the Wilson Center, a think tank that specializes in foreign policy issues. A State Department spokesman said the delegation was “invited to Washington by the Wilson Center. I refer you to the Wilson Center for any additional information on their visit.”

A spokesman for the Wilson Center, however, said the delegation was selected by the State Department. “We can’t speak to the background of Eldin,” said Drew Sample the media relations coordinator for the Wilson Center. “The Wilson Center was one of the places on the delegation’s Washington visit. We did not invite these people, the State Department arranged the visit.”





now what part of that do you not understand?


1) he is still a member of a designated terrorist group

2) he was in the White House

3) he asked for the "transfer" of the blind terrorist prick who is in jail

4) the state dept invited him to the US

5) he shouldnt have received a visa

6) TSA? **** the TSA.... my terrorist ass gets a visa from the state dept.

Can you?

Quote:Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House

Obama never met the guy. And I clearly said the guy should not have been allowed in.

(07-20-2012 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you?

Quote:Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House

Obama never met the guy. And I clearly said the guy should not have been allowed in.

semantics. the guy was in the White House!!!!!

is Obama responsible for anything that happens in his admin?

(07-20-2012 10:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If tongue in cheek, then good. Still though.. Are you accusing HSBC of supporting terrorism? If so, you'd better notify the FBI. That IS a federal offense. In other words, your example is at least 2 degrees of separation as well

If you were just giving someone crap, then my apologies

Pretty sure the Feds are on it

LA Times: HSBC linked to drug lords and terrorists, Senate report alleges

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la...1182.story

Quote:The bank is accused by the Senate report of helping slip billions in Iranian funds past American regulators. HBUS also offered services to Saudi Arabian and Bangladeshi banks known to have ties to terrorist financing, according to the report.

Max... You find a person whose mother has ties to a group who has ties to terrorists to be far fetched... 3 steps

This is a politician who took a donation from an American Subsidiary (likely a board member and not actually the company) whose Saudi subsidiary financed another bank who had ties to terrorism

at LEAST three steps... and I think it fair to assume that a mother is closer to a person than a donor... or that a child knows more about their mother than a politician knows about their donors.

As I said. It's AT LEAST as far fetched as something you find crazy.

You brought up the comparison. Tongue in cheek or not... you STILL keep trying to act as if theirs is worse.

(07-20-2012 03:36 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you?

Quote:Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House

Obama never met the guy. And I clearly said the guy should not have been allowed in.

semantics. the guy was in the White House!!!!!

is Obama responsible for anything that happens in his admin?

Dude, my only objection here is to your comment insinuating that his guy met with Obama.

I never implied that Obama was not untimately responsible for the actions of his state department.

(07-18-2012 04:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2012 01:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It's ridiculous how unhinged some of these Tea Party caucusmembers are. McCarthyite members like Allen West and Bachmann have made a mockery of the US House and the prestige formerly associated with it.

They are a fun group. I dare say the Left has an equal number of the "unhinged" in it's ranks.

Not true...nobody on our side has ever openly entertained the idea of a 'Second Amendment solution'.

We don't believe in it, remember?

(07-23-2012 08:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 03:36 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you?

Quote:Obama and his state dept are letting members of terrorist groups into the country so he can meet with them at the White House

Obama never met the guy. And I clearly said the guy should not have been allowed in.

semantics. the guy was in the White House!!!!!

is Obama responsible for anything that happens in his admin?

Dude, my only objection here is to your comment insinuating that his guy met with Obama.

I never implied that Obama was not untimately responsible for the actions of his state department.

seems to me to be part of the same argument... You think the fact that he didn't actually MEET Obama, though he visited the White House at the invitation of the State department which you agree he is responsible for... and he IS a member of a terrorist organization, and that is okay, yet you think that some blind donor who knows someone who knows someone who is a member is damning??
Seems you're arguing about arguing rather than admitting that the guy is culpable

Back to Bachmann and her letter.

When vetting for security clearance, the State Department's own published guidelines say that the following are potential security concerns;

Quote:- “contact with a foreign family member… if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion.”

- “connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.

- “performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization or government in conflict with the national security interest.”

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/hum...st-journal

(my emphasis below)

Quote:The main criticism of Bachmann and her colleagues is that this is, in the words of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), “a six degrees of separation drinking game.” That’s a perception that the Brotherhood’s modus operandi creates.

For example, imagine you want to write about a mosque run by the Muslim Brotherhood through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust. You must prove that the mosque is owned by the Trust. You must then explain that the Trust is part of the Islamic Society of North America and that group is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. To someone unfamiliar with the Brotherhood, it can easily appear like an argument based on faulty guilt-by-association and multiple degrees of separation.

Seems to me to be the sort of argument Max is making, along with deflecting and misdirecting the discussion.

There is a lot of info detailed on the connections of Huma, her mother, her late father and her brother to the MB. They are documented and linked in the article. It seems that all Bachmann was asking is what was done in terms of vetting her. In fact, the letter may have spotlighted Huma as an example, but McCain and others zeroed in on Huma in order to criticize Bachmann. Silly (or senile?) John says that there is no evidence. DOH! Isn't evidence what an investigation is supposed to uncover? How can you have the answers without asking the questions? Or is asking pertinent questions now illegal or an attack, like senile John seems to think?

Bachmann was asking for an investigation into radical Islam (MB) penetration into our government, something their internal documents have said is their goal, with the intention of influencing policy.

She isn't as batty on this one as so many want to believe. Shame on the GOP and Boehner for piling on. This administration and its enablers seem bound and determined to produce those "moderate Muslim Brotherhood" friends and push them into our government under the radar, away from scrutiny.

If Huma has renounced violent radical Islam, all she has to do is speak up and make that claim. Her associations seem to point elsewhere.

(07-25-2012 12:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Back to Bachmann and her letter.

When vetting for security clearance, the State Department's own published guidelines say that the following are potential security concerns;

Quote:- “contact with a foreign family member… if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion.”

- “connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.

- “performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization or government in conflict with the national security interest.”

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/hum...st-journal

(my emphasis below)

Quote:The main criticism of Bachmann and her colleagues is that this is, in the words of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), “a six degrees of separation drinking game.” That’s a perception that the Brotherhood’s modus operandi creates.

For example, imagine you want to write about a mosque run by the Muslim Brotherhood through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust. You must prove that the mosque is owned by the Trust. You must then explain that the Trust is part of the Islamic Society of North America and that group is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. To someone unfamiliar with the Brotherhood, it can easily appear like an argument based on faulty guilt-by-association and multiple degrees of separation.

Seems to me to be the sort of argument Max is making, along with deflecting and misdirecting the discussion.

There is a lot of info detailed on the connections of Huma, her mother, her late father and her brother to the MB. They are documented and linked in the article. It seems that all Bachmann was asking is what was done in terms of vetting her. In fact, the letter may have spotlighted Huma as an example, but McCain and others zeroed in on Huma in order to criticize Bachmann. Silly (or senile?) John says that there is no evidence. DOH! Isn't evidence what an investigation is supposed to uncover? How can you have the answers without asking the questions? Or is asking pertinent questions now illegal or an attack, like senile John seems to think?

Bachmann was asking for an investigation into radical Islam (MB) penetration into our government, something their internal documents have said is their goal, with the intention of influencing policy.

She isn't as batty on this one as so many want to believe. Shame on the GOP and Boehner for piling on. This administration and its enablers seem bound and determined to produce those "moderate Muslim Brotherhood" friends and push them into our government under the radar, away from scrutiny.

If Huma has renounced violent radical Islam, all she has to do is speak up and make that claim. Her associations seem to point elsewhere.

In 2010, Huma arranged for Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside her mother, Saleha at Dar Al-Hikma. In fact, the "Saudi newspaper Al-Watan mentions that Abedin's relationship with Huma was key to bringing Clinton to Dar Al-Hikma. Most revealing is that in 2010, and from 2006-2008, evidence shows that the Abedin membership in IMMA was as a family. According to Arab sources, IMMA or the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, and the Abedins were entrusted with leading IMMA. Saleha, Huma, and Hassan Abedin all appeared as members together. Although Huma's name seems to have been scrubbed, Shoebat has a screen shot that clearly shows that Huma worked and partnered together with her family at IMMA.