A bit of history you weren't aware of...

[j2k4]

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in. Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House.

Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves. The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred " booty" of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Bey of Algiers" -- an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed, he believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy. In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Bey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Bey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action. In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy. Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of the Muslim slave trading pirates. Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem.

Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

[GepperRankins]

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in. Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House.

Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves. The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred " booty" of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Bey of Algiers" -- an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors. Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed, he believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy. In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Bey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Bey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action. In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy. Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of the Muslim slave trading pirates. Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem.

Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
your people are genuinely unaware of the hypocrisy aren't they :pinch:

[zapjb]

j2k4 - Did you write all that? Or am I missing that you sourced it.

[vidcc]

Kerry, McCain and now Ellison.

Ole Sampley rides again

[Ava Estelle]

It's bad form to quote someone's work without acknowledgement, even if you do get lambasted for constant copy and pasting!

[Ava Estelle]

It seems to have been a selective copy and paste job too ...


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007



Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United
States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the
Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the
United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity
drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the
U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of
Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of
America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare
Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500
Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in
college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed
that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be
gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing
wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time
Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible
about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the
Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and
Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a
subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but,
which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who
over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of
thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic
"Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the
African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and
seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal
villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim
raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and
women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women
and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as
concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the
sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many
as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their
fortunes allow. And since Muslim men tend to be ugly they needed a wide selection of willing women.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to
create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets
of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch
stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary
surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small
number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the
surgery. This is reminiscent of the butchery committed on infant baby girls where their genitals are mutilated to prevent any sexual pleasure.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776,
American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no
American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and
their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under
the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling
Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being
destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784
to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress
appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the
Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the
Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to
retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved
sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to
get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again.
Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the
demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the
medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force
an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and
Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London
with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador
to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on
Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador
why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with
which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future
presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their
Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who
should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that
it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they
could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as
Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain
in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the
Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom
and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government
annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he
dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in
the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense
but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by
deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to
the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS
Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt
into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the
freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States,
crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and
on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon
slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine
Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores
of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on
the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the
total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to
put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about
Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn
about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.. Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.

[zapjb]

Thanks Ava Estelle. Knew that was plagiarism.

[j2k4]

It seems to have been a selective copy and paste job too ...


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007



Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United
States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the
Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the
United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity
drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the
U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of
Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of
America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare
Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500
Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in
college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed
that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be
gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing
wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time
Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible
about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the
Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and
Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a
subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but,
which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who
over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of
thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic
"Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the
African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and
seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal
villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim
raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and
women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women
and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as
concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the
sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many
as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their
fortunes allow. And since Muslim men tend to be ugly they needed a wide selection of willing women.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to
create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets
of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch
stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary
surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small
number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the
surgery. This is reminiscent of the butchery committed on infant baby girls where their genitals are mutilated to prevent any sexual pleasure.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776,
American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no
American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and
their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under
the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling
Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being
destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784
to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress
appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the
Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the
Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to
retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved
sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to
get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again.
Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the
demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the
medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force
an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and
Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London
with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador
to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on
Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador
why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with
which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future
presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their
Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who
should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that
it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they
could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as
Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain
in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the
Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom
and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government
annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he
dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in
the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense
but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by
deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to
the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS
Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt
into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the
freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States,
crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and
on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon
slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine
Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores
of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on
the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the
total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to
put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about
Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn
about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.. Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply it was my work product, and didn't realize I'd cut Ted Sampley's name off the c & p.

It copyed with picture links, ads and triple-spacing between paragraphs, and I worked from bottom-to-top rather than the other way around.

No intent to plagerize.

So, any commentary on the content of the article, or just snarky stuff about my egregious oversight? :dry:

[MrMurf]

First post here, just joined this morning. Great forum :)

Not sure what the point of the article is really - far as I can see the logic goes something like this.

1) Jefferson owned a Quran.
2) Some Muslims were pirates.
3) ...
4) All Muslims are evil.

I think I lost point 3) somewhere in the mix.

[Ava Estelle]

The bits left out put a different slant on the article, especially this bit ..

Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.


As someone already pointed out, the hypocrisy here is mind-blowing!

Quite what your intentions were in posting it only you know.

[GepperRankins]

It seems to have been a selective copy and paste job too ...


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007



Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United
States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the
Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the
United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity
drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the
U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of
Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of
America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare
Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500
Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in
college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed
that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be
gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing
wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time
Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible
about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the
Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and
Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a
subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but,
which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who
over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of
thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic
"Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the
African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and
seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal
villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim
raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and
women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women
and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as
concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the
sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many
as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their
fortunes allow. And since Muslim men tend to be ugly they needed a wide selection of willing women.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to
create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets
of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch
stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary
surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small
number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the
surgery. This is reminiscent of the butchery committed on infant baby girls where their genitals are mutilated to prevent any sexual pleasure.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776,
American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no
American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and
their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under
the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling
Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being
destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784
to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress
appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the
Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the
Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to
retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved
sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to
get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again.
Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the
demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the
medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force
an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and
Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London
with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador
to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on
Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador
why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with
which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future
presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their
Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who
should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that
it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they
could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as
Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain
in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the
Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom
and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government
annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he
dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in
the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense
but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by
deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to
the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS
Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt
into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the
freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States,
crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and
on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon
slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine
Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores
of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on
the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the
total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to
put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about
Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn
about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.. Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply it was my work product, and didn't realize I'd cut Ted Sampley's name off the c & p.

It copyed with picture links, ads and triple-spacing between paragraphs, and I worked from bottom-to-top rather than the other way around.

No intent to plagerize.

So, any commentary on the content of the article, or just snarky stuff about my egregious oversight? :dry:
yeah, it's hypocritical smear. the mentality of the guy who wrote it and anyone who thinks it means anything is tantamount to racism.

[MagicNakor]

First post here, just joined this morning. Great forum :)

Not sure what the point of the article is really - far as I can see the logic goes something like this.

1) Jefferson owned a Quran.
2) Some Muslims were pirates.
3) ...
4) All Muslims are evil.

I think I lost point 3) somewhere in the mix.

:lol:

Enjoy your stay.

:shuriken:

Edit: Point 3) And since Muslim men tend to be ugly...

[MrMurf]

Edit: Point 3) And since Muslim men tend to be ugly...

Ah of course! The ole ugly-pirate=evil axiom. How could I forget? I knew I should've stayed awake in those logic classes at university.

I thought this article might be about the Nanking Massacre which bubbled up on Digg recently : http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/~zzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/ (http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/%7Ezzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/)

Now there's a sobering bit of history many in the West don't have a clue about.

[Barbarossa]

So we have Thomas Jefferson to thank for global warming? :O

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7418/piratesarecool45f56605ts6.jpg

Source : http://www.venganza.org/

Well that's just peachy, that is. :no:

[Ava Estelle]

It seems Ted Sampley has a bit of history attached to him, here's an example ...

McCain Says Sampley Has a Nose for Publicity and Knack for Making Money From Invented Controversies
"Ted Sampley, whose nose for publicity and knack for making money from invented controversies is colorfully detailed by Mrs. Keating, is the author of my own chapter in the POW conspiracy, in which I am exposed as a KGB-trained Manchurian Candidate. Mrs. Keating puzzles over the perverse pride Mr. Sampley takes in his work, which included torturing the family of an American POW in Iraq with fabricated details of his cruel death at the hands of an Iraqi mob. When the pilot was subsequently freed alive, Mr. Sampley dismissed his fraud as necessary to publicize the plight of POWs. Mr. Sampley excuses all his scams as necessary to advance a noble cause. Mrs. Keating reveals that his likely real motive is more mundane: money. She notes his earnings from his T-shirt concession located near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were nearly $2 million over three years. He keeps his overhead costs down by not paying a dime to his employees." -John McCain [Washington Times, 12/10/94]

Source (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/vvajk.html)

No wonder you wouldn't want people to know who wrote it!

[vidcc]

One can only guess at the reason J2 posted the article but Sampley's intentions are obvious.

A fairly elected lawmaker and patriotic American dared practice freedom of religion and use a holy book other than the bible for the "photo op" after his swearing in. This offended the right wingers. (freedom of religion should be changed to freedom of Christianity).

So Ellison needs to somehow be connected to "the enemy" by any means possible.

To paint all Muslims as evil and find anything from history that can connect Muslims with anything bad. Of course history could paint almost every religious group as bad but why let that get in the way of singling out one group that you hate.

As we all know history shows that ALL Muslims are hate filled killers that wish to destroy all non Muslims.....they must be because we can cherry pick from their holy book to prove it (unlike the bible that has no suspect passages whatsoever). History also shows that not one unsavory thing has occurred at the hands of Christians:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

The bits left out put a different slant on the article, especially this bit ..

Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.


As someone already pointed out, the hypocrisy here is mind-blowing!

Quite what your intentions were in posting it only you know.

I will claim ignorance of the "bits left out" because they were (as you've so graciously pointed out) omitted.

The historical facts as related are true, no matter Sampley's extrapolative "conclusions" vis a vis Islam.

I posted it to get opinions about what Ellison's intent in using it may have been-

Did Ellison choose it because he was browsing the archives and discovered that Jefferson had owned a Quran, and as it was available to be used for the purpose he sought, he chose to be sworn on it because he concluded Jefferson must have been a fan/admirer of Islam, or-

Did he use it with a full understanding of Jefferson's reasons for owning it?

The latter possibility, I think you'd have to agree, makes very little sense, unless he is uber-cynical, which fact he would not likely see as aiding his cause.

That, alongside the fact he himself stated that "visionary" Jefferson's ownership was for purposes of gaining knowledge of a religion and an ideology he knew nothing about, yet fail to acknowledge Islam was at that time acting in brutal opposition to American interests, and the latter was Jefferson's reason for procuring it.

But I'm sure you don't want to talk about that, do you?

[GepperRankins]

The bits left out put a different slant on the article, especially this bit ..

Enemies it seems now to be found in Congress, in the person of Ellison himself who seems not to have known of the actual history of the United States bringing these heinous barbarians to heel. Force is all that Muslims understand, which two Muslim nations have now been accorded.


As someone already pointed out, the hypocrisy here is mind-blowing!

Quite what your intentions were in posting it only you know.

I will claim ignorance of the "bits left out" because they were (as you've so graciously pointed out) omitted.

The historical facts as related are true, no matter Sampley's extrapolative "conclusions" vis a vis Islam.

I posted it to get opinions about what Ellison's intent in using it may have been-

Did Ellison choose it because he was browsing the archives and discovered that Jefferson had owned a Quran, and as it was available to be used for the purpose he sought, he chose to be sworn on it because he concluded Jefferson must have been a fan/admirer of Islam, or-

Did he use it with a full understanding of Jefferson's reasons for owning it?

The latter possibility, I think you'd have to agree, makes very little sense, unless he is uber-cynical, which fact he would not likely see as aiding his cause.

That, alongside the fact he himself stated that "visionary" Jefferson's ownership was for purposes of gaining knowledge of a religion and an ideology he knew nothing about, yet fail to acknowledge Islam was at that time acting in brutal opposition to American interests, and the latter was Jefferson's reason for procuring it.

But I'm sure you don't want to talk about that, do you?
does it really matter? this is 2007. the guy is as american as anyone else in congress

[j2k4]

does it really matter? this is 2007. the guy is as american as anyone else in congress

Does it matter?

It's the type of thing you'd keel-haul a conservative for, The.

By the way, what is it you think you know about being an American?

[GepperRankins]

does it really matter? this is 2007. the guy is as american as anyone else in congress

Does it matter?

It's the type of thing you'd keel-haul a conservative for, The.

By the way, what is it you think you know about being an American?
i would never keel haul* anyone over something that happened to their ancestors.

whatever that means :dabs:*

yeah i compared this particular point to the american-african slave trade because that's how far your ludicrous argument seemed to go back to, so it was a worthy point to say "if you want to chastise muslims for it, your far off ancestors did the same". the history of islam sure is chequered. as far as muslim countries it's been dodgy for several hundred years.

however out of between 1 and 6 million muslims in america about a dozen have allegedly been terrorists, yet your ted sampley tries to draw all muslims as enemies of america and you seem to condone it

[j2k4]

Does it matter?

It's the type of thing you'd keel-haul a conservative for, The.

By the way, what is it you think you know about being an American?
i would never keel haul* anyone over something that happened to their ancestors.

whatever that means :dabs:*

yeah i compared this particular point to the american-african slave trade because that's how far your ludicrous argument seemed to go back to, so it was a worthy point to say "if you want to chastise muslims for it, your far off ancestors did the same". the history of islam sure is chequered. as far as muslim countries it's been dodgy for several hundred years.

however out of between 1 and 6 million muslims in america about a dozen have allegedly been terrorists, yet your ted sampley tries to draw all muslims as enemies of america and you seem to condone it

I thought my question was quite clear; it does not imply Ellison is a terrorist, I would merely like to hear other's opinions as to the depth of Ellison's intent, and also his understanding of why Jefferson owned a Quran, which was inarguably to learn more about a religion and a people he regarded (again, at that time) as enemies.

That is my intent, nothing more, and if the mere fact I would have such a question about a minority in my country compels you to imply I am a racist, I am sorry - the problem is yours, not mine.

Odd that while you are eager to cry foul when you perceive I am racially biased for asking certain questions, you never seek to apply the same standard to others.

You are quite smug in your ignorance.

[GepperRankins]

i would never keel haul* anyone over something that happened to their ancestors.

whatever that means :dabs:*

yeah i compared this particular point to the american-african slave trade because that's how far your ludicrous argument seemed to go back to, so it was a worthy point to say "if you want to chastise muslims for it, your far off ancestors did the same". the history of islam sure is chequered. as far as muslim countries it's been dodgy for several hundred years.

however out of between 1 and 6 million muslims in america about a dozen have allegedly been terrorists, yet your ted sampley tries to draw all muslims as enemies of america and you seem to condone it

I thought my question was quite clear; it does not imply Ellison is a terrorist, I would merely like to hear other's opinions as to the depth of Ellison's intent, and also his understanding of why Jefferson owned a Quran, which was inarguably to learn more about a religion and a people he regarded (again, at that time) as enemies.

That is my intent, nothing more, and if the mere fact I would have such a question about a minority in my country compels you to imply I am a racist, I am sorry - the problem is yours, not mine.

Odd that while you are eager to cry foul when you perceive I am racially biased for asking certain questions, you never seek to apply the same standard to others.

You are quite smug in your ignorance.
i never said you were racist. i said your mentality was similar, as in being intolerant of an entire group of people because of your own ignorance.

now i see you were simply saying does ellison realise that jefferson was at war with some muslims. i say does it matter, the majority of minnesota trust him and they chose him to represent them.

[j2k4]

I thought my question was quite clear; it does not imply Ellison is a terrorist, I would merely like to hear other's opinions as to the depth of Ellison's intent, and also his understanding of why Jefferson owned a Quran, which was inarguably to learn more about a religion and a people he regarded (again, at that time) as enemies.

That is my intent, nothing more, and if the mere fact I would have such a question about a minority in my country compels you to imply I am a racist, I am sorry - the problem is yours, not mine.

Odd that while you are eager to cry foul when you perceive I am racially biased for asking certain questions, you never seek to apply the same standard to others.

You are quite smug in your ignorance.
i never said you were racist. i said your mentality was similar, as in being intolerant of an entire group of people because of your own ignorance.

now i see you were simply saying does ellison realise that jefferson was at war with some muslims. i say does it matter, the majority of minnesota trust him and they chose him to represent them.

Oh, so I'm intolerant and ignorant, eh?

Thinks for clearing that up.

I wonder how many Minnesotans are aware of the history of that particular Quran?

Probably alot of them, I would imagine; after all, Minnesota is mostly Muslim, right? :dry:

[lynx]

I wonder how many Minnesotans are aware of the history of that particular Quran?I doubt many of them are aware of that bit of history, and I doubt whether they care either.

I'm pretty damn certain most of them know that Ellison is a Muslim though, and even more importantly I'm pretty certain that they know he isn't a member of the Republican Party either.

I suspect that last bit in particular sticks in your craw.

[j2k4]

I wonder how many Minnesotans are aware of the history of that particular Quran?I doubt many of them are aware of that bit of history, and I doubt whether they care either.

I'm pretty damn certain most of them know that Ellison is a Muslim though, and even more importantly I'm pretty certain that they know he isn't a member of the Republican Party either.

I suspect that last bit in particular sticks in your craw.

Then you would be wrong.

Minnesota is a perennially liberal state, almost "owned" by the DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor party).

Republican issues don't even get a hearing, for the most part, a fact that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What does bother me is none of you think there is the slightest significance to a Muslim's having obviously overlooked the irony of his own actions.

I remember the furor over Ellison's insistence of being sworn in over his "own" Holy book, and a thread in here somewhere to note the noses out of joint because of it.

What I do not recall is taking part in that thread, and, in fact, I remember thinking he should be entitled to swear any way he wanted, as the point (to me, anyway) was that he indicate he looked upon performing the duties of his office with proper solemnity and integrity.

Here now, in an attempt to point up his obvious mis-understanding of Jefferson's reason for owning a Quran, my motivations are questioned.

It seems I have once again violated your socialist protocols.

Oh, well.

[Ava Estelle]

There's one thing for sure j2, had Ellison been a Republican you would not have posted this, that says a lot about you.

Who gives a shit why the book was acquired, a holy book is a holy book, the intentions of the buyer don't detratct from that in the least.

Apart from that, where is the source of the story as to why Jefferson purchased it? Or are you relying on Ted Sampley to do your research for you?

How about another slant on the story?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you'll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.


When it comes to running down the Democrats you never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, but never admit to your real intentions, luckily though, we've come to know you only too well over the years.

[zapjb]

I like your style Ava Estelle. Educated & rational.

[GepperRankins]

There's one thing for sure j2, had Ellison been a Republican you would not have posted this, that says a lot about you.

Who gives a shit why the book was acquired, a holy book is a holy book, the intentions of the buyer don't detratct from that in the least.

Apart from that, where is the source of the story as to why Jefferson purchased it? Or are you relying on Ted Sampley to do your research for you?

How about another slant on the story?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you'll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.


When it comes to running down the Democrats you never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, but never admit to your real intentions, luckily though, we've come to know you only too well over the years.
lol. j2 is right, the irony is unfathomable

[j2k4]

There's one thing for sure j2, had Ellison been a Republican you would not have posted this, that says a lot about you.

Who gives a shit why the book was acquired, a holy book is a holy book, the intentions of the buyer don't detratct from that in the least.

Apart from that, where is the source of the story as to why Jefferson purchased it? Or are you relying on Ted Sampley to do your research for you?

How about another slant on the story?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you'll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.


When it comes to running down the Democrats you never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, but never admit to your real intentions, luckily though, we've come to know you only too well over the years.

Hmmm.

I see no attribution, and this is certainly not your own work product.

Would it be possible to question it's providence, or it's author's intent.

Most importantly, it does not give lie to that which Sampley recounts; to imply that it does wouldn't be "sane" or "rational".

Jefferson educated himself about Islam, and the Marines still went to Tripoli.

As to the Democrat/Republican disease, you suffer from a version of it yourself, do you not?

It's that nasty old shoe/foot problem you've suffered from during your tenure here.

BTW-

If you want to wade through the archive to find which of us has blasted more member of his own party, I'll win that one hands down, too, so best leave it alone, I think. :)

[Ava Estelle]

Hmmm.

I see no attribution, and this is certainly not your own work product.

Would it be possible to question it's providence, or it's author's intent.

Most importantly, it does not give lie to that which Sampley recounts; to imply that it does wouldn't be "sane" or "rational".

Jefferson educated himself about Islam, and the Marines still went to Tripoli.

As to the Democrat/Republican disease, you suffer from a version of it yourself, do you not?

It's that nasty old shoe/foot problem you've suffered from during your tenure here.





You just hate being caught out, don't you?

You jumped in with both feet blazing because it was anti-Democrat, you did no research, you didn't check the story, you just took the word of a proven liar.

You say, ".. it does not give lie to that which Sampley recounts ..", yes it does, in Sampley's article Jefferson was president when he acquired the book to study Muslims.

There is no other account of this, only from Sampley. Doesn't that sound fishy to you?

If you want to see other accounts of the Quran in question, study the Jefferson archives, as I did.


BTW-
If you want to wade through the archive to find which of us has blasted more member of his own party, I'll win that one hands down, too, so best leave it alone, I think. :) What party would that be, I don't have a party, I merely point out your one sided posts with regards Democrats.


It's time to step up to the plate j2, and admit you fucked up good, a simple apology and the promise to be more careful in the future will suffice, no-one wants to see you humiliated. :)

[j2k4]

You just hate being caught out, don't you?

You jumped in with both feet blazing because it was anti-Democrat, you did no research, you didn't check the story, you just took the word of a proven liar.

You say, ".. it does not give lie to that which Sampley recounts ..", yes it does, in Sampley's article Jefferson was president when he acquired the book to study Muslims.

There is no other account of this, only from Sampley. Doesn't that sound fishy to you?

If you want to see other accounts of the Quran in question, study the Jefferson archives, as I did.


BTW-
If you want to wade through the archive to find which of us has blasted more member of his own party, I'll win that one hands down, too, so best leave it alone, I think. :) What party would that be, I don't have a party, I merely point out your one sided posts with regards Democrats.


It's time to step up to the plate j2, and admit you fucked up good, a simple apology and the promise to be more careful in the future will suffice, no-one wants to see you humiliated. :)

Fucked up how, precisely?

I asked a question you didn't/couldn't answer.

Sampley used a bit of history for partisan reasons, which purpose was not my own, but served to backstop my question, which had to do with my reckoning that Ellison didn't have, or chose not to stress, all of the relevant facts surrounding Jefferson's ownership of the Quran.

Your nitpicking is an effort to deflect my question by using the tried and true tactic of racist implication in order to avoid a discussion in which your honest and open participation would be discomfitting due to your own political leanings.

That makes you a hijacker, as well as a plagarist, given that you haven't even attributed your cut-and-paste, a mistake I made, but corrected immediately.

[Biggles]

Is that the treaty of 1797 which said

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" I think the rider "except if you steal stuff then without recourse to any religious pretext we shall be sorely aggrieved and kick the crap out of you" is missing.

To be fair, until the inception of Israel the US had quite good relations with the ME. The Barbary pirates hardly count as everyone fought them - including other Muslims.

I doubt Jefferson's Quran was a revered religious text though as Jefferson did not have a lot of time for religion. He was very much part of the 18th century enlightenment and was, I believe, a humanist.

So perhaps both Ellison and Ted Sampley are both missing the point

[j2k4]

Is that the treaty of 1797 which said

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" I think the rider "except if you steal stuff then without recourse to any religious pretext we shall be sorely aggrieved and kick the crap out of you" is missing.

To be fair, until the inception of Israel the US had quite good relations with the ME. The Barbary pirates hardly count as everyone fought them - including other Muslims.

I doubt Jefferson's Quran was a revered religious text though as Jefferson did not have a lot of time for religion. He was very much part of the 18th century enlightenment and was, I believe, a humanist.

So perhaps both Ellison and Ted Sampley are both missing the point

Why, thank you, Les.

I wasn't claiming Sampley's view as my own, it was merely the vehicle by which I chose my own context.

Had I pared Sampley's screed down to the elements strictly applicable to my query, I think I'd have been slightly more vulnerable to Ava's wild supposition, but he isn't given to curiosities, he's hide-bound to criticize first.

It occurs to me that if I were to start a thread about the media's prurient interest in the death of a certain blonde floozy with big mams, it'd be some Republican plot, and I'd be a Bush apologist for bringing it up. :rolleyes:

[Ava Estelle]

Fucked up how, precisely?

By quoting Sampley, who made the story of the Quran up.

I asked a question you didn't/couldn't answer.

I did answer, your story was a load of bullshit, THAT was the answer.

Sampley used a bit of history for partisan reasons,

No he didn't, he made up a story to suit his own agenda.

which purpose was not my own, but served to backstop my question, which had to do with my reckoning that Ellison didn't have, or chose not to stress, all of the relevant facts surrounding Jefferson's ownership of the Quran.

What facts? There were no facts, only lies, Ellison was right, Jefferson bought the Quran as part of his studies into religions, he did so as a student, not as president.

Your nitpicking is an effort to deflect my question by using the tried and true tactic of racist implication in order to avoid a discussion in which your honest and open participation would be discomfitting due to your own political leanings.

Bullshit again, how is pointing out the lies you posted nitpicking?

That makes you a hijacker, as well as a plagarist, given that you haven't even attributed your cut-and-paste, a mistake I made, but corrected immediately.

I have attributed it, it was from the Jefferson Archives.

Here we have a born liar and bullshitter, Ted Sampley, who makes up a story about Jefferson buying the Quran to study Muslims with the intent to wage war against them.

The truth is, he bought the books as a student, many years before becoming president, when he was studying law. He used it as part of his studies into relative religions, and the study of natural law. All this information is available in the Jefferson Archives, with many references from Jefferson, from his student years, to the books in question.

You then take Sampley's lie, and turn it into an accusation against Ellison, saying he misunderstood the reason Jefferson owned the books.

All of this is bullshit, the lies from Sampley, and the continued squirming from you. Once again you prove your total incapacity to admit you were drawn into a lie because of your deep desire to dish dirt on all and any Democrats, with no concern whatsoever for the truth.

Ellison would have known why Jefferson owned the books, he would have done the research, unlike you, and learned beforehand, a lesson you should learn, as your Fox News mentality is getting rather tiresome.

[zapjb]

Well said. I don't have the patience or the eloquence.

[Ava Estelle]

Where's the invisible man gone?

Surely it doesn't take two weeks to back his story up ... does it? :)

[j2k4]

Where's the invisible man gone?

Surely it doesn't take two weeks to back his story up ... does it? :)

Oh, no-

I've been refuted by an anti-semite-racist. :whistling

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ava Estelle]

Really? Care to explain? :)

[j2k4]

Really? Care to explain? :)

No.

Between this and your incredibly egregious and uncalled-for retort to Rafi in the "bomb Iran" thread, you've damaged yourself to such an extent in my eyes I really don't wish to have anything more to do with you.

You are everything they always said about you, Rikk, and I feel regret for ever expressing any belief your original expulsion from this board was in error.

You stand revealed, and it is an ugly and sickening sight.

[Ava Estelle]

Temper, temper, you really don't like being proved wrong, do you.

In this case you were suckered into believing Duke wrote that piece, you were too quick to clutch at your straw to bother looking at the author.

As to the other thread you refer to, I expressed the opinion that if Israel continue it's genocide of the Palestinians, and their neighbours became nuclear powers, Israel would deserve all it got. Just because you don't agree with that makes no difference to me, your views of the world are an absolute disgrace. Watching your ego dissolve over the last few weeks has been a source of delight. :)

[GepperRankins]

Where's the invisible man gone?

Surely it doesn't take two weeks to back his story up ... does it? :)

Oh, no-

I've been refuted by an anti-semite-racist. :whistling

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:dabs: what a stupid argument. a persons political views doesn't have any effect on fact.


but low blow by avy bumping this :(

[Mr JP Fugley]

Oh, no-

I've been refuted by an anti-semite-racist. :whistling

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:dabs: what a stupid argument. a persons political views doesn't have any effect on fact.




It does however have an effect on what he uses as his sources of information and how he decides to interpret that information.

One only has to look at how political parties can look at the same "fact" and how they will then use that to support their own political agenda.

Take that to the extremes where the white supremacists, anti-semites and the like hang out and you have a recipe for propaganda and hate-mongering. The thing is these people actually often believe what they say. Based on the "facts" they have read or listened to.

[GepperRankins]

:dabs: what a stupid argument. a persons political views doesn't have any effect on fact.




It does however have an effect on what he uses as his sources of information and how he decides to interpret that information.

One only has to look at how political parties can look at the same "fact" and how they will then use that to support their own political agenda.

Take that to the extremes where the white supremacists, anti-semites and the like hang out and you have a recipe for propaganda and hate-mongering. The thing is these people actually often believe what they say. Based on the "facts" they have read or listened to.
i was talking about this particular thread.


the fact is this was a smear story made up by a xenophobic opportunistic compulsive liar is still a fact. even if that fact was pointed out by someone who quoted a prominent racist elsewhere.