Obama administration let anti-gay Muslim leader into U.S.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PapaG

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
It's OK if the guy is a Muslim, I guess.

http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/

Even as the Obama administration denounced what it called anti-gay legislation in Arizona and the president sat out the Sochi Olympics because of Russia’s crackdown on same-sex couples, the State Department allowed an Islamic preacher who called for the death penalty for homosexuals into the country for a tour of hate.

Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi was issued a visa for a 17-city tour of US mosques to raise money and support for the Syrian uprising. He arrived New Year’s Day.

The radical Syrian cleric has made no secret of his virulent anti-gay views. Appearing April 28, 2011, on al Aqsa TV, the official network of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza, al-Nabulsi said: “Homosexuality involves a filthy place and does not generate offspring. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of the homosexual. That is why, brothers, homosexuality carries the death penalty.”

The radical’s remarks were translated into English and widely distributed in the diplomatic and intelligence communities. The independent Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, translated a 2¹/₂-minute segment from the speech, in which al-Nabulsi explained with clear contempt the spread of homosexual practices in Western countries.

In addition to his anti-gay pronouncements, Sheikh al-Nabulsi has publicly endorsed holy war against Westerners and Jews as well as suicide bombings against Israel, America’s democratic ally in the region.
Click to expand...
 
OK, I know PapaG is not interested in rational discussion but in case someone else is:

What exactly is the point? Is he maintaining antigay bigots of other faiths have been barred? Not true, David Bihati, the Christian who introduced the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda (when it called for the death penalty for homosexuality, later changed to life in prison) was allowed into this country where he did media interviews, including one where Rachel Maddow expressed a wish to see him at The Hague charged with crimes against humanity. He met with evangelical Christians, who had helped write the bill. He raised funds. No one stopped him. Nor should they have.

Is Papa G saying that some unnamed party says it's OK to say kill the gays when a Muslim does it but not, presumably, a Christian? Who holds this position? Name someone.

Is Papa G saying that people with repugnant views should be barred from the U.S.? I disagree. Open engagement, not censorship, is what breaks down the influence of bigotry. Making bigots defend themselves.

If an antigay bigot who claimed a basis in faith was barred from this country, well, if it was Christian faith, wouldn't Papa G be OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, OUTRAGED over the latest infamy of Obama? The 90 lb weakling that Putin can push around who is also a tyrranical dictator imposing his will without restraint on the greatest strongest country in the world?
 
crandc said:
OK, I know PapaG is not interested in rational discussion but in case someone else is:

What exactly is the point? Is he maintaining antigay bigots of other faiths have been barred? Not true, David Bihati, the Christian who introduced the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda (when it called for the death penalty for homosexuality, later changed to life in prison) was allowed into this country where he did media interviews, including one where Rachel Maddow expressed a wish to see him at The Hague charged with crimes against humanity. He met with evangelical Christians, who had helped write the bill. He raised funds. No one stopped him. Nor should they have.

Is Papa G saying that some unnamed party says it's OK to say kill the gays when a Muslim does it but not, presumably, a Christian? Who holds this position? Name someone.

Is Papa G saying that people with repugnant views should be barred from the U.S.? I disagree. Open engagement, not censorship, is what breaks down the influence of bigotry. Making bigots defend themselves.

If an antigay bigot who claimed a basis in faith was barred from this country, well, if it was Christian faith, wouldn't Papa G be OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, OUTRAGED over the latest infamy of Obama? The 90 lb weakling that Putin can push around who is also a tyrranical dictator imposing his will without restraint on the greatest strongest country in the world?
Click to expand...

outrage.jpg
 
crandc said:
OK, I know PapaG is not interested in rational discussion but in case someone else is:

What exactly is the point? Is he maintaining antigay bigots of other faiths have been barred? Not true, David Bihati, the Christian who introduced the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda (when it called for the death penalty for homosexuality, later changed to life in prison) was allowed into this country where he did media interviews, including one where Rachel Maddow expressed a wish to see him at The Hague charged with crimes against humanity. He met with evangelical Christians, who had helped write the bill. He raised funds. No one stopped him. Nor should they have.

Is Papa G saying that some unnamed party says it's OK to say kill the gays when a Muslim does it but not, presumably, a Christian? Who holds this position? Name someone.

Is Papa G saying that people with repugnant views should be barred from the U.S.? I disagree. Open engagement, not censorship, is what breaks down the influence of bigotry. Making bigots defend themselves.

If an antigay bigot who claimed a basis in faith was barred from this country, well, if it was Christian faith, wouldn't Papa G be OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, OUTRAGED over the latest infamy of Obama? The 90 lb weakling that Putin can push around who is also a tyrranical dictator imposing his will without restraint on the greatest strongest country in the world?
Click to expand...

Good post. Republican hypocrites politicize everything. When you show them that they do what they criticize Democrats for, but much more, they suddenly get neutral, claiming that both parties do it equally. The next day, they drop the neutral disguise.
 
Outraged? Is that when a homosexual is really mad at someone for telling his parents before he was ready?

Get it? Out? Raged?

You know, outraged...

(ahem)

(uncomfortable silence)

Yeah, so...
 
Ahem indeed, Wookie.

My sister outed me to our parents when I was particularly vultnerable (going to college out of town but underage, so legally they could have yanked me back any time). I was not pleased. In fact I was raged.

Ahem.
 
crandc said:
Ahem indeed, Wookie.

My sister outed me to our parents when I was particularly vultnerable (going to college out of town but underage, so legally they could have yanked me back any time). I was not pleased. In fact I was raged.

Ahem.
Click to expand...
That's rough, crandc, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Couldn't have been easy.

I know it's not not even close to being on the same scale, but I was pretty upset when a family member told my Dad I wasn't going to stay in the Army before I was ready to break the news to him. I've long since forgiven them, but it took a little while for us to work through. I sincerely hope you and your family have worked through whatever issues there were...
 
Yeah, well, it was a long time ago - what pissed me off was my sister, who came up to Berkeley to visit, told our parents that all the man-haters (her term) in Berkeley Female Liberation, of which I was a founding member, had talked me into being a lesbian. Like all lesbians do is talk? Crock. Then my mother sends me this letter all about stay away from gay people before it was too late (it was pretty late!) and I should also keep my relationships with men platonic (I wasn't doing that either back then, a bit girl gone wild). You understand, this was a LOT of years ago, back in 1971, and I was 16 and off in the wilds of Berkeley on my own. They got better on issues later on.

Not sure what this has to do with the point of the thread but I have no idea what the point of the thread is anyway!
 
The fake outrage stories are the best.
 
crandc said:
Yeah, well, it was a long time ago - what pissed me off was my sister, who came up to Berkeley to visit, told our parents that all the man-haters (her term) in Berkeley Female Liberation, of which I was a founding member, had talked me into being a lesbian. Like all lesbians do is talk? Crock. Then my mother sends me this letter all about stay away from gay people before it was too late (it was pretty late!) and I should also keep my relationships with men platonic (I wasn't doing that either back then, a bit girl gone wild). You understand, this was a LOT of years ago, back in 1971, and I was 16 and off in the wilds of Berkeley on my own. They got better on issues later on.

Not sure what this has to do with the point of the thread but I have no idea what the point of the thread is anyway!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either, lol, but I think it might have had something to do with bashing the President...
 
jlprk said:
Good post. Republican hypocrites politicize everything. When you show them that they do what they criticize Democrats for, but much more, they suddenly get neutral, claiming that both parties do it equally. The next day, they drop the neutral disguise.
Click to expand...

Says the guy bringing up Republican v. Democratic...... :MARIS61:
 
crandc said:
Yeah, well, it was a long time ago - what pissed me off was my sister, who came up to Berkeley to visit, told our parents that all the man-haters (her term) in Berkeley Female Liberation, of which I was a founding member, had talked me into being a lesbian. Like all lesbians do is talk? Crock. Then my mother sends me this letter all about stay away from gay people before it was too late (it was pretty late!) and I should also keep my relationships with men platonic (I wasn't doing that either back then, a bit girl gone wild). You understand, this was a LOT of years ago, back in 1971, and I was 16 and off in the wilds of Berkeley on my own. They got better on issues later on.

Not sure what this has to do with the point of the thread but I have no idea what the point of the thread is anyway!
Click to expand...

Must..... resist....... temptation....... humor.....

But, yeah, anyway. Sounds like a good experience, aside from being outed by your sister. I love the Bay Area, but Berkeley is just so much fun. I have no doubts it was different back then, but the history there has always intrigued me.
 
Blazing Giants, that sentence was supposed to be humor.

And I still don't think people (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist or what have you) should be barred from visiting the U.S because of views, however repugnant. (Violent ACTS are a different matter.) And I don't know of anyone who says it's OK for a Muslim to be a homophobe but not a Christian.
 
crandc said:
Blazing Giants, that sentence was supposed to be humor.

And I still don't think people (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist or what have you) should be barred from visiting the U.S because of views, however repugnant. (Violent ACTS are a different matter.) And I don't know of anyone who says it's OK for a Muslim to be a homophobe but not a Christian.
Click to expand...

I know, but I could have taken it so many directions I just decided to filter myself for once.

I'm assuming Papa was trying to make some connection that it's a bit odd that the Obama Admin acted one way in the name of protesting anti-gay behavior and then allowed a homophobic Muslim into the US to preach his hate. I mean, I don't totally get the correlation between the two, as I haven't seen anyone from the Admin say anything in favor of the dude, but they allowed him into the US to practice free speech (not that the guy should be protected, as he's not an American Citizen, but let's be honest - everyone should have the same rights that we do). So, while I don't understand the purpose of this thread, if I cared enough to do any additional research, perhaps we'd find some real irony or contradictory behavior by the Admin, rather than being left make the connections and assumptions ourselves.
 
crandc said:
OK, I know PapaG is not interested in rational discussion but in case someone else is:

What exactly is the point? Is he maintaining antigay bigots of other faiths have been barred? Not true, David Bihati, the Christian who introduced the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda (when it called for the death penalty for homosexuality, later changed to life in prison) was allowed into this country where he did media interviews, including one where Rachel Maddow expressed a wish to see him at The Hague charged with crimes against humanity. He met with evangelical Christians, who had helped write the bill. He raised funds. No one stopped him. Nor should they have.

Is Papa G saying that some unnamed party says it's OK to say kill the gays when a Muslim does it but not, presumably, a Christian? Who holds this position? Name someone.

Is Papa G saying that people with repugnant views should be barred from the U.S.? I disagree. Open engagement, not censorship, is what breaks down the influence of bigotry. Making bigots defend themselves.

If an antigay bigot who claimed a basis in faith was barred from this country, well, if it was Christian faith, wouldn't Papa G be OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, OUTRAGED over the latest infamy of Obama? The 90 lb weakling that Putin can push around who is also a tyrranical dictator imposing his will without restraint on the greatest strongest country in the world?
Click to expand...



Definitely couldn't have said it any better myself.
 
We just can't ban people from exercising free speech, can't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top