Why Doesn't Obama Talk About This?

[bassin_bug]

CNN News reported that Obama delivered a passionate speech last night in which he showed emotions for the first time. He is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan but seems oblivious to this TRUE story which has NOT been talked about in the mainstream media.

There were very heated discussions on this board when the Muslim terrorist murdered a group of American troops at Ft. Hood who were returning home from the war. Some even said that Muslims in America were "peaceful" people and posed no threat to The United States of America.

Read this and watch the video; pay attention to the map. There is also a place for you to read the transcript of the interview.

http://truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hannity-camps.htm

Why is Obama not showing any concern for our safety WITHIN America but claims to be fighting wars in two foreign countries "for our freedom?"

[DJD]

That is shocking and I can't believe that we as a country have to allow this. Looks like a great story for someone to bust wide open...of course other than Fox since they are such terrible people (sarcasim).
Post 911 and we are allowing this? I guess it will take another attack for the politicians to come together once again and protect us. Absurd!

[apb]

Report was from February 16, 2009, so one might also ask what was the last administration doing to stop this? The camps were obviously in operation while they were in office.

And yes, I agree, we should be doing something serious about any kind of terrorist camps here in the US. A big part of the reason that we are in Afghanistan is to defeat Al Qaeda there so that they cannot plan additional attacks on the US homeland. I believe that is one reason that Bush authorized our involvement there, and Obama is continuing that commitment.

I also do not recall seeing a final report on the Fort Hood murders. There are certainly indications that Hasan was not sane at the time of the attack. Is it a case of someone completely loosing it and taking it out on co-workers (e.g., Columbine, VA tech), a single terrorist planning a specific attack, a terrorist carrying out an attack with aid from others, or a combination of these? I heard one report suggest that it was a combination on an insane person carrying out a terrorist attack. It may well turn out that it was a terrorist attack; however, I would like to see all the evidence in before we jump to conclusions.

While there are obviously some radical, violent, Muslims in the world, I think you'll find the majority of Muslims are peaceful. The same could be said for Jews, Christians, and most other religions. The vast majority of the followers of those religions are peaceful, though there are a few radicals within any religion. I don't think judging an entire religion based on the actions of a minority of the followers serves any good.

I also think if you read through Obama's speech you'll find that he is also interested in doing something about home grown terrorism. His claim of fighting a war for our freedom was in reference to Afghanistan, just like Bush before him. I agree with both of them on this point. Afghanistan is where the radicals that orchestrated the 9-11 attacks were holding up and plotting additional attacks on America. We had to go in after them and any who supplied support for them or we would be seeing additional attacks on American soil.

Andrew

[Grumpy]

Islam is the only religion, that I know of, whose main Prophet dictated to his people to: Convert the Infidels or kill them!! From the get go, that doesno't sound very peaceful to me.

Grumpy

[mhall]

Islam is the only religion, that I know of, whose main Prophet dictated to his people to: Convert the Infidels or kill them!! From the get go, that doesno't sound very peaceful to me.

Grumpy

Amen Grumpy. I have never not been able to warm up to or accept any part of that religion for this very reason, it says and sums it all up in a nutshell for me.

[bassin_bug]

Andrew, maybe I missed something but I don't recall that the Columbine shooters were either "nut jobs" or associated with an organized religious terrorist organization. Same with VA Tech. In almost all murder cases the defense will try to play the "insanity" card; very few are found to be criminally insane.

It doesn't matter when the report was released nor under whose administration. If Obama is NOW the president, isn't he the one responsible for eradicating all 35 terrorist training camps? What is he waiting for, a synchronized attack INSIDE the United States? George Bush knew about plans for the 9-11 attack and didn't take it seriously; I believe he didn't take reports of terrorist camps seriously either, so he continued to stargaze and ignored the reports.

On the map that is in the video, there is at least one camp in my state. I can't help wondering if it is strategically place there because my state contains a number of nuclear power plants, chemical plants, dams, and a DOD Ordnance Plant that makes bombs for the military. There is also a plant that makes nuclear fuel; all are hot spots for terrorist attacks. Multiply that by thirty-five and a synchronized attack would virtually wipe out this country as we know it.

[RoadToad]

The map shows a number of camps right around my home state of Delaware, probably because it sits right in the middle of Megalopolis, where about 16% of the US population lives.

I agree, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceable people, but the Muslims in these camps obviously AREN'T, so isn't that kind of irrelevant?

The problem is, the First Amendment guarantees them the right to say what they want, and the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to bear arms, so until they give law enforcement probably cause to suspect a crime, there isn't a lot they can do. We can't just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient. But, even though this is the first I've heard of these camps, I'm thinking the FBI and CIA have probably known about them for a while, and (hopefully) have plants in them already. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this.

[bassin_bug]

The map shows a number of camps right around my home state of Delaware, probably because it sits right in the middle of Megalopolis, where about 16% of the US population lives.

I agree, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceable people, but the Muslims in these camps obviously AREN'T, so isn't that kind of irrelevant?

The problem is, the First Amendment guarantees them the right to say what they want, and the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to bear arms, so until they give law enforcement probably cause to suspect a crime, there isn't a lot they can do. We can't just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient. But, even though this is the first I've heard of these camps, I'm thinking the FBI and CIA have probably known about them for a while, and (hopefully) have plants in them already. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this.

The Second Amendment gives Muslims the right to bear arms but not explosives, military weapons, missiles, etc. If they are training for terroristic activity against the United States, would that not be probable cause? They are using illegal weapons in the training exercises.

I recall the arrest of White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, and Anti-Abortionists so why not Muslim Terrorists? Why is Obama protecting a group of people in the United States who are being trained by terrorists in Packistan? It makes no sense to send our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan to kill them but protect their cell groups in America.

[RoadToad]

The Second Amendment gives Muslims the right to bear arms but not explosives, military weapons, missiles, etc. If they are training for terroristic activity against the United States, would that not be probable cause?

No, that would not be probable cause, it would be a crime in and of itself. And while it seems perfectly obvious that that's what they're doing, "it's obvious" doesn't constitute probable cause.

They are using illegal weapons in the training exercises.

I believe that, too. How do we know this? From the videos. If you go to CAN's web site http://www.christianaction.org/ some of the clips there are even more disturbing than those that aired on Hannity's show. Unfortunately, given the way those videos were obtained, any lawyer worth his salt would get them thrown out of court in a heartbeat.

I recall the arrest of White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, and Anti-Abortionists so why not Muslim Terrorists? Why is Obama protecting a group of people in the United States who are being trained by terrorists in Packistan? It makes no sense to send our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan to kill them but protect their cell groups in America.

Those people were arrested because there was hard evidence, admissible in a court of law, that proved they had committed crimes. And in many cases, that evidence took years to develop. If there is such evidence against these people, and it's being suppressed, then I share your outrage. But, and you may call me naive for this, I think it's more likely that the FBI/CIA are in the process of developing such evidence, but are being careful not to act too soon, because to do so would not only fail to prevent future attacks, it might actually do just the opposite, and serve to empower the terrorists. They have a fine line to walk. If they don't act soon enough, they'll be blamed for allowing attacks to occur; if they act too soon and the charges don't stick, they'll get blamed for that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing these camps exist, and I'd love to see all those creeps locked away for life. But unless you have inside knowledge of what investigations are or are not being conducted, I don't think it's fair to say that "Obama's protecting them."

[apb]

Grumpy, No offense, but I can also pull out many quotes from the Old Testiment that are similar. Everything from someone being stoned to death because he was collecting firewood on a Sunday to whole towns being wiped out (men, women, and childern) because God told the Isralites to do so. One can look at how Christians lead peaceful lives and do not agree with the killing of others. I think you'll find the same for the majority of Muslims.

"Andrew, maybe I missed something but I don't recall that the Columbine shooters were either "nut jobs" or associated with an organized religious terrorist organization. Same with VA Tech."

You are correct Bug. A bad choice of words on my part. My point was that we do not know for sure yet if the Fort Hood attack was solely a terrorist attack or that of a loaner with a grudge acting out violently like other such attacks. It may also be the case that in the Fort Hood case it is a mix of both. I would like to see all of the evidence on this before making a comment.

I also agree with you that it is most definitely a responsibility of any administration to keep Americans safe from attacks both from abroad and home. Like RoadToad, I gotta believe the FBI and CIA are taking a good look at these camps and keeping quiet until they find some actionable intelligence. RoadToad makes some good points concerning the camps and says it better than I could.

Andrew

[Grumpy]

Andrew, in my opinion, there is a very big difference between THOU SHALT NOT KILL (and the other biblical prohibitions and admonishments) then being punished because someone violated the prohibition and directing/dicatating that NON-BELIEVERS be put to death simply because they won't convert to a religion. Whether the majority of the people WANT to be peaceful or not doesn't mean a thing after the extremist are in control--RE Nazi German, Communisit Russia, ad nausium.

And, if you think that biblical punishments (and even some modern ones) were extreme, wait until the Muslims take over the world (or our country) and we have to abide by Shria. I don't want to get into a whole disertation on Shria, but just think back to when the Talaban had control of Afganistan and all the reports that came out about the severity of their punishments for such simple things as a man cutting his hair or a woman trying to go to school.

Grumpy

[apb]

Grumpy,

Just so there is no confusion, I have absolutely no desire for shia law and such. Likewise, I recognize the problems that occur when extremists take over. This is dangerous no matter whether religion, nationalism, or whatever is driving the extremists.

Book of Numbers, man was found collecting firewood in the desert on a Sunday, stoned to death because he violated the prohibition of work on the sabbath even though he was not of their tribe. Book of Joshua (and some of Judges, if I remember right) there are a number of cases of the Isralites totally destroying cities (killing every man, woman, and child) because they did not believe as the Isralites did. Same thing as you are talking about. Ancient texts talking about people being killed for not accepting others religions. I would not condem Christians as violent, like you seem to want to do with Muslims, due to what is written in old texts. The vast majority of Christians today would not follow those ancient beliefs and are peaceful. Likewise for Muslims. Yes, there are certainly some Muslims, a vocal minority, who do believe that all should convert to Islam or be killed. Like you, I have a problem with that vocal minority. I just don't see condeming an entire religion due to the actions of a few.

Andrew