blind_html Re: Traped

  • From: Nimer Jaber <nimerjaber1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:27:04 -0600

First, i am not a lady. I repeat, I am not a lady. Second, you can
unsub. I repeat, you _can unsubscribe. Did you send your
unsubscription to the right address? Did you put unsubscribe in the
subject line? If you have done so, I would be interested in knowing
this, as this would mean that there is a major bug with freelists and
should be reported to the managers of freelists. Also, if you haven't
read my recent posts, I am pondering a switch over to google groups.
Possibly, if we make the switch over to google groups, we would not
have these issues?

nimer J

On 8/13/09, Betteye <the_boldens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This lady is crazy. She has the nerve to call her list blind html. To make
> maters worse you can't unsub from her list. I've tried to unsub but continue
> to get her crazy posts.  I wish she would allow me to use the name of blind
> html? I would really post about html allow person to unsub from the list. I
> want off the list.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Nimer Jaber
>   To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:48 PM
>   Subject: blind_html [Nimer's Political Blog] [Fwd: Understanding Islam's
> Threat to U.S. Vital]
>   Here's another idiot that knows nothing about religion trying to tell us
>   who Islam is at war with. Beautiful!!
>   -------- Original Message --------
>   Subject: Understanding Islam's Threat to U.S. Vital
>   Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:33:55 -0500
>   From: Travis <baconlard@xxxxxxxxx>
>   Reply-To: politics-current-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   To: baconlard@xxxxxxxxx
>   References: <018801ca1a80$7f1db5b0$7d592110$@com>
>   <aef954850908111248x507d900dk6b17f5ad93e614e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   **
>   *Understanding Islams Threat to U.S. Vital*
>   Monday, August 10, 2009 1:29 PM
>   *By:* Frank Gaffney Jr.
>   John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and
>   counterterrorism, last week approvingly recalled a key point in the
>   speech Barack Obama delivered in Cairo in June: "America is not and
>   never will be at war with Islam." Unfortunately, that statement ignores
>   the fact that the decision as to whether the United States is at war
>   with anybody is not entirely up to our leadership or people. The real
>   question is: Is Islam' at war with us?
>   It is certainly true that hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over
>   are not seeking to wage war against the U.S. or other non-Muslim states.
>   America has, as Brennan noted in his remarks before the Center for
>   Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Aug. 6, a powerful
>   interest in not making all those who practice Islam into our enemies.
>   Yet, it would be a grave mistake to construe the problem we face as
>   Brennan proceeded to do in his speech at CSIS: "We are at war with
>   al-Qaida which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at
>   war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida's
>   murderous agenda." He described that agenda as seeking "to replace
>   sovereign nations with a global caliphate."
>   Unfortunately, that is the stated goal of all those who adhere to what
>   authoritative Islam calls Shariah a number that includes many millions
>   of people the world over. Brennan's speech made no reference to this
>   wellspring of jihadism.
>   Of course, not all those who embrace Shariah are prepared to use terror
>   against us. Shariah requires though that if its adherents do not
>   actually engage in violent jihad, they must support it through financial
>   or other means. After all, according to Shariah, the purpose of jihad is
>   to bring about the triumph of Islam over the entire world. Shariah
>   commands that the faithful must use violence where possible to advance
>   that objective, and non-violent means where not.
>   By failing to recognize this justification and catalyst for the threat
>   we face, Obama and his administration effectively foreclose the
>   possibility of countering it effectively. Worse yet, in their
>   understandable desire not to give gratuitous offense to Muslims, the
>   U.S. government has repeatedly deferred to those who are most easily and
>   most vocally offended.
>   Specifically, the latter notably, the putatively non-violent, but
>   virulently Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and its myriad front
>   organizations have come to dictate what our officials can and cannot say
>   about the danger posed not just by al-Qaida and its "violent extremist
>   allies," but by all those who embrace the teachings, traditions,
>   institutions, and dictates of what authoritative Islam defines as
>   "mainstream": Shariah.
>   This practice effectively disenfranchises American Muslims who reject
>   this Shariah program precisely the sorts of people we should most want
>   to empower. Last week, I discussed this problem on our talk radio
>   program with someone who is trying to do something about it: Rep. Sue
>   Myrick of North Carolina.
>   *To hear Gaffneys interviews with Myrick and Sen. John Cornyn **go here
>   now* <>*.*
>   As it happens, Myrick's district is not far from where Daniel Patrick
>   Boyd and other alleged "homegrown" jihadists were reportedly plotting
>   attacks abroad, and possibly here. What is more, the financial sector so
>   prominent in the Charlotte community she represents is also a prime
>   target of one of the most insidious forms of what author Robert Spencer
>   calls "stealth" jihad: Shariah-compliant finance.
>   Myrick, a co-founder of the House anti-terror caucus, recently convened
>   a meeting to afford "moderate" Muslims an opportunity to interact with
>   representatives of various federal law enforcement and other agencies
>   responsible for securing this country. According to Myrick, some of the
>   officials seemed to be discovering for the first time that there are
>   practitioners of Islam who do not embrace the seditious tenets of
>   Shariah and who were extremely concerned about the government's almost
>   exclusive reliance on those who do.
>   Fortunately, decisions in federal court in recent weeks may produce some
>   urgently needed policy course-corrections. Judge Laurence Zatkoff in the
>   Eastern District of Michigan recently cleared the way for accelerated
>   and wide-ranging discovery in connection with a suit brought by a
>   Michigan Iraq war veteran, Kevin Murray, against the Treasury Department
>   and Federal Reserve. Murray is challenging on constitutional separation
>   of church-and-state grounds the practice of a U.S. government-owned
>   company, the insurance conglomerate AIG, promoting Shariah-compliant
>   products.
>   It seems likely that the depositions that will now be taken by Murray's
>   legal team securities litigator and Shariah expert David Yerushalmi and
>   attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, led by its director Richard
>   Thompson will shed important light on the federal government's
>   understanding of authoritative Islam's seditious program. It may also
>   reveal the extent to which U.S. officials have, with their failure to
>   comprehend the true nature of the threat we face, acted, either
>   wittingly or unwittingly, in ways that have enabled it to metastasize
>   further.
>   Whether through the revelations of this law suit or through the work of
>   influential legislators like Myrick, the time has come to recognize that
>   even if we insist we are not at war with Islam, the authorities of Islam
>   /are/ at war with us. Only by so doing can we connect with and empower
>   our natural allies in this war Muslims who want to enjoy liberty in a
>   Shariah-free America. And only by so doing, do we have a chance of
>   prevailing.
>   *Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a
>   columnist for the Washington Times, and the host of the nationally
>   syndicated Secure Freedom Radio.*
>   *2009*
>   *Copyright 2009 ** All Rights Reserved*
>   __,_._,___
>   --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>   Groups "Politics & Current Events" group.
>   To post to this group, send email to
>   politics-current-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>   politics-current-events+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   For more options, visit this group at
>   -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>   --
>   Posted By Nimer Jaber to Nimer's Political Blog at 8/12/2009 02:48:00 PM
To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:


Other related posts: