Talk:Ali al-Tamimi

message: While he did apparently teach at an Islamic center, what exactly qualifies him to be included in the Muslim scholars category?  I am not that familiar with him but from what I have read here his formal education was in biology, not religion. MezzoMezzo 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamic scholar"

message: How does being found guilty of inciting terrorism with little evidence make one a convicted terrorist?  No terrorist act was committed.  Even the judge felt the federal sentencing guidelines were draconian.  Including "convited terrorist" in the introduction makes this article non neutral.  Why is removing this described as vandalism? Without an explanation, I will have to dispute NPOV.  freestylefrappe, if you disagree with some content, please do not continue to mark it as vandalism.  --Tamil 04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Weird that the article says he was convicted for terrorism and yet again describing him as being against terrorism in private and public. Clearly something is wrong.The Sphinx (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the charges we not trumped up at all. Yes, it's true that a conviction does not mean someone is necessarily guilty -- it only means they're guilty in the eyes of the court. So, now, the question is as follows: is he really guilty or was he wrongly convicted. Well, in this case, there isn't much of a gray area. The evidence against him is OVERWHELMING. Unfortunately, though, the government was too stupid to follow the law through the entirety of its investigation -- the investigators performed an illegal wiretap. And their misjudgement may now foul up everything they've done so far. At the very least, it'll screw up the preceptions of the case in the eyes of the public. But, as far as the man's guilt is concerned, there's little doubt of that -- he promoted terrorism and the evidence supports that. For better or worse, the flawed legal system does not exonerate him. In fact, everything points to the fact that the system did its job correctly -- there is a mountain of reasonable evidence against the man. And, even without that lamentable wiretap, the rest of the evidence points clearly to his guilt. If there was evidence to the contrary, than the situation would be different. Then there would be a chance that he was actually innocent. But, as of now, everything points in the other direction. So it seems that this wasn't a case of wrongful conviction. ask123 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox 

message: We don't know if he is for or against terrorism. All we know is what he has said. So I removed the sentence saying that he "was noted for being against terrorism, both in public and in private." "Noted" by whom? That's a bit of a weasel word. And what does that say about how he really feels? Not much. It's like quoting a politicians speech -- is it what he really feels or what he wants to say? A person will say all kinds of things to shape others perceptions of him/her. Only he can know his true feelings on the matter. ask123 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stance on terrorism 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed