Another problem I have is with their condemnation of attacks against “innocent civilians”. They use this wording to cleverly justify terrorist attacks without really seeming to do so since their definition of “innocent civilians” is not the same definition held by most civilized people.

I_am_me on September 11, 2008 at 4:28 pm

While there is much about these moronic islamists to be angry about, the thing that galls me the most and that betrays their deceit (that they “honor” the memory of those they killed) is that they are 100% in league with the palestinians who were dancing in the streets on 9-11 (see the vids on the the DS.com videos posted earlier today).
“regardless of whom the perpetrators may be”–it is maddening.

BB on September 11, 2008 at 7:31 pm

The phrase our country clearly refers to the US. Innocent civilians however refers to people living in both the US and outside the US, unless someone wants to argue that only the US has innocent civilians.
Regardless of whom the perpetrators may be in this case it does not mean they are denying the identity of the 9/11 hijackers. It means they are saying they condemn attacks on innocent people, anywhere around the globe by anyone. Obviously more then just Islamic terrorist can carry out attacks against innocent people. Again innocent civilians has to be global, unless someone wants to seriously argue only the US has innocent civilians.
I also want to note the sentence is in the future tense. Therefore it is plausible to use the express ” regardless of whom the perpetrators may be” because in the future attackers may not be Islamic Terrorist. This logic applies both to attacks on the US and attacks against people around the world.
People need to read things closely before jumping to condemnation.

krkey on September 11, 2008 at 11:24 pm

We all know who did this attack: Muslims. And we know where the majority of them came from: Saudi Arabia.
The ADC’s only concern is furthering the lies and hatred towards Jews. And that is known as anti-Semitism.

Mystical Time Traveler on September 11, 2008 at 11:51 pm

So these pathetic assholes think they can say a few words, and POOF, it’s a done deal.
WRONG. I know they hate pork, but no matter how much lipstick they try to wipe off of Mohammad, it was still Mohammad’s monsters that did it.

Jackson Pearson on September 12, 2008 at 12:38 am

We should not even be letting Muslims into our country. There is no point in fighting them over there and then allowing them to set up shop over here.

Christopher on September 12, 2008 at 4:51 am

krkey posts:
“…Obviously more then just Islamic terrorist can carry out attacks against innocent people….
People need to read things closely before jumping to condemnation. ”
krkey must be for “Krikey!, mate! I have to ask, What ere ye smokin?
Oh yes, we have terror attacks by Jews, Christians, Hindus,Buddhists, atheists etc. Notch! One cannot find jihadi type terror attacks from any of these groups–but on any day of week anyone can find news of multiple attacks of muslims against every one of these other groups on a muslim terror tracking web site such as Jihad Watch or http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/.
Wake up you moron! We know how the muslims are spinning things to say they “abhor all acts of terror.” The thing is, they don’t see what they do as TERROR. It is merely war against the kfirs/infidels–period. Krikey!

BB on September 12, 2008 at 6:29 am

ADC also reiterates its opposition to and condemnation of those who would attack our country or any innocent civilians regardless of whom the perpetrators may be.
Debbie, you missed it on this one.
They aren’t expressing doubt about who was behind 9/11.
Instead, they are drawing moral equivalence between them and US forces who kill “innocent civilians” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As such, their statement is infinitely worse than what you object to.

Rhymes With Right on September 12, 2008 at 7:59 am

BB
Seems like Ms Schussel is not the only one who cannot read here. I am going to add you to the list, BB.
I said nothing denying that Muslims are terrorist or for the fact of the matter that the vast majority of terrorist are Muslims.
I read the website thereligionofpeace quite regularly, be exact it is how I found this article. I am disappointed that they even posted this story, as it clearly does not say what people are wanting it to say. It is unfortunate because it makes them look quite foolish
However, and a huge however you cannot linguistically make this statement make what Ms Schlussel wants this to mean for the reasons I stated earlier. I will observe BB it is very childish to call someone a moron when you haven’t done a thing to demonstrate that they are a moron. It makes you look as juvenile as my High School Students.
Rhymes with Right, would you please explain why this passage just means what you said.
I have no love for Islam, and in particular I have no love for Islamic Terrorism. However, you cannot make this passage say what it doesn’t.

krkey on September 12, 2008 at 8:19 am

Look at the construction of the sentence — and the placement of that dependent clause about “innocent civilians.
It breaks down something like this:
Thought 1: We condemn those who attack our country.
Thought 2: We condemn those who attack innocent civilians anywhere.
Given that Muslim groups (and other anti-Americans against the war on jihadi terrorists), including this one, regularly lament that the US has killed “innocent civilians” in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to draw the conclusion. There is also an implicit attack on Israel, given the contention that Israel regularly kills the “innocent civilians” that HAMAS and FATAH and HEZBOLLAH use as human shields in blatant disregard of the laws of war and basic human decency.

Rhymes With Right on September 12, 2008 at 8:28 am

Rhymes with Right
Mercifully someone who can read English 🙂
However for your interpretation to be plausible you have to demonstrate that the ADC has very similar views to these terror organizations. Heck I condemn some of the stuff Israel has done over the years, however that does not make me wish to attack them etc.
I am a soldier. ( I am also in the National Guard) I spent a year in Iraq. I condemn our attacks on innocent civilians ( it does happen over there) mostly accidental but sometimes deliberately. Does that make me a terrorist sympathizer now?
But my contention remains. Their is no linguistic reason to make this passage mean what Md Schlussel said it did. And their is no linguistic evidence to support the idea it does not mean it’s apparent meaning, you have to find extra linguistic evidence to support such a contention.

krkey on September 12, 2008 at 8:59 am

Krikey krkey!–you make my point by your rebuttal. “There is no linguistic reason to make this passage mean what Md Schlussel said it did. And their is no linguistic evidence to support the idea it does not mean it’s apparent meaning, you have to find extra linguistic evidence to support such a contention.”
You need to pull your head out of the sand, bro. That’s Debbie’s point–he/they are lying–and they (including Hamad–click through the links to see who this liar actually is, OK?). He/they say things like this in statements–to say 2 things at once. One is for general kfir consumption (for simpletons like you–you hear what you want them to hear) and the other is for what they really mean.
Hamad will go on radio or in the press and condemn “all acts of terror” and then go to the muslim rally the same night and ask for a moment of silence “for the martyrs.”
Get a clue, bro. Hamad, like most muslims, is a liar’s liar. Stop defending the enemy. Read up on Hamad and what he has done and said and then come back here and post an intelligent comment.
Also, tell us what you condemn about what Israel has done too. We’re waiting….There is no moral equivalence whatsoever–wake up.

BB on September 12, 2008 at 9:33 am

It is really quite simple. There was no reason to put that qualifier in the sentence, but for some sinister purpose.
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment. (James 5:12)

Red Ryder on September 12, 2008 at 11:14 am

BB
This is probably my last comment to you. So far I suspect I am debating a High School student, they way you have to insult people to make points. Of course the ” we are weighting comment” is equally childish, as if a points merit is determined by the speed which ones makes it. That notion is juvenile and even more so on the web.
I have showed through properly analyzing the passage that it does not mean what Ms Shlussel said and you nor anyone else has shown why it does . So Ms Schlussel has failed to make her point about this passage because it simply does not say what she claims it says anymore then it discusses Santa Claus.
What I condemn about Israel:
Israel + terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Israel + UN
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese492.html
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
BB, I am not discussing this with you anymore until you stop acting childish and show you have a remote understanding of the issues behind this.

krkey on September 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Krkey –your links open up inclucing this:
“Actually, Palestinians are a gentle people. If you get to know some and hear their side of the story, you will feel sympathy for them, too, unless you have a flint heart.”
Now at least we know where you are coming from. Do you support Hamas and Fatah too? You need an education in reality.

BB on September 12, 2008 at 12:44 pm

BB
This proves it, you are a troll. I have more then made my points and answered your demand for evidence. You have nothing left in you supremely shallow mind but to insult people and articles.

krkey on September 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm

krkey:
Your citing the lie of a so called massacre at Deir Yassin discredits the arguments made here. There was no massacre (and in fact the Irgun went out of their way to get people to evacuate before hand). See (and note their reliance on a study done by that great bastion of Zionism Bir Zeit University):
http://www.deiryassin.org/denierspr-980309-99.html

I_am_me on September 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm

To I am me
Even if Deir Yassin did not happen ( which I am highly skeptical of claims it did not happen being made by a noted Zionist University. How reliable would you consider Brigham Young University to be on Mormonism or a Japanese University on the history of the occupation of China during the 1930s) you still have the expulsion of the Palestinian Population in 1948, the Jews did not have a particularly strong claim on the land to begin with ( or does someone think Indians in North America should be allowed to take over our property now?) and they have ignored UN resolution after UN resolution. This does not justify killing innocent Israelies but it does make Israel lose a tremendous amount legitimacy.
My other key point remains. The passage being cited as saying the ADC denies Arab responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in being completely misread. No one has seriously shown why I am mistaken

krkey on September 12, 2008 at 4:08 pm

krkey–Krikey!!
You are THE troll on this thread and a moron to boot.
You think you proved something with your “evidence”–you are right. — That you are a palestinian terrorist sympathizer. Bravo!! Do you support Al Quaeda and Hezbullah too along with Fatah and Hamas?

BB on September 12, 2008 at 9:39 pm

krkey:
There was a battle at Deir Yassin. There was no massacre. As for Bir Zeit being a “Zionist University” I was being sarcastic. It is a Palestinian University who themselves debunked the so called massacre.
As for the so called “population expulsion of the Palestinian Population in 1948”, you can blame Deir Yassin for that. One of the reasons the Arabs lied about Deir Yassin at the time was to enrage the Arab governments in to attacking Israel. However, this backfired since what happened is that many Palestinians fled because they believed the massacre story and were afraid they would be next.
As fr not having a “particularly strong claim on the land to begin with” since when are sales of private property no a “particularly strong claim”? Since when are transfers of state owned land via International law not a “particularly strong claim”? The fact of the matter is that Israel has a “particularly strong claim” to much land that is not now currently part of Israel.
Israel has every right to ignore UN resolutions (remember only Security Council resolutions are valid under international law) that would result in national suicide. It is the UN that loses legitimacy, not Israel.
Lastly, see my point about “innocent civilians”. They have repeatedly shown that their definition of “innocent civilians” is not the same as most civilized people.

I_am_me on September 14, 2008 at 9:37 am