http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1310206,00.html

I wonder if they would let the Manic Street Preachers in, generation terrorist and all :D

Jokes apart, there is no reasonable explanation for this, it is plain ludicrous.

If he actually knowingly funded that terrorist group (and who knows what else), that's enough explanation for me.

I don't know the particulars of this, beyond the information that he has been very active in supporting and running islamic charities. I understand the Israelis claim he donates cash to Hamas, and given the tarnished reputation of islamic charities these days it is possible the authorities feel he is linked to support for Al Qaeda. If so, that would explain his lack of welcome in the US.

Well, under the logic of
"an ememy of my enemy is my friend..."
...
"a friend of my enemy is my enemy..."

makes sense to me.

Cat Stevens isn't a suicide bomber. He gave money to a charity that was supposed to be helping the children of (Islamic countries) *edit* Pakistan (that are war-torn or something) right? I seriously doubt, based on his pacifistic nature and the fact that he is American on top of that, that he gave money to a group saying ''Here, use this to buy a plane ticket for the plane that you're going to hijack.''

Ever hear "Wild World" or "Moon Shadows"? yea he's a fucking terrorist....HAHAHA

Therein lies the problem with Hamas. It is a government funded charity whos mission statment says they help palestinian refugees and such. It is also a well known terrorist organization that claims responsibility for many violent acts in Israel. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It reminds me of teenage gangsters in LA that wear Raiders jersies and red bandanas and then complain they get harassed by police and labeled gangsters. If the shoe fits, wear it. Anyone that has any contact whatsoever with Hamas, be it the charity hand or the terrorist hand, deserves all the stereotyping and profiling they get. It's just that simple.

PHelonius

He is also not as pacifistic as you might imagine. He quite publicly supported the call for Salmon Rushdie's murder for writing a freakin book. Now there's your "pacifist".

Suicide bomber or not, if he was on the list, shouldn't he have been prevented from getting on the damn plane?

He is even a pretty public figure, how would they screen an unknown that is on that list?

"Aiding and Abating" doesn't require you to actually strap on a bomb and blow yourself to Kingdom Come. It just takes lending your name and money to a dubious cause. Does that make the guy a terrorist? Nope. It does make him simpathetic to an organization linked to terrorism, with a possible vested interest. In today's world, thats all it takes for you to wear out your welcome. In yesterdays world, thats all it took as well. Things have not changed much. Those interpreting the events, well, thats another story.

the fact that he is American
Ummm, I thought Cat Stevens was born and raised in the UK. At least, that is what I got from the VH1 special on him. Maybe I missed something , tho.

I'm fairly certain he was(is) an american citizen. Applied or born I do not know

http://www.vh1.com/thewire/content/news/1449391.jhtml

THOSE MOTHERFUCKING TERRORISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN

This brings up a question that I've tucked away ever since 1989.

What exactly was "The Satanic Verses" about other than...uh....satanic verses :p I've never read it and probably wouldn't unless strongly recommended.

Can anyone elaborate? (Maybe a new thread?)

The Satanic verses are a portion of the Koran that didn't make the cut. As I recall, Mohammed tries to form an alliance with another people by appealing to their deities as "daughters of Allah." So in a single stroke God has children (proclaimed against in another portion of the Koran) and Islam is polytheistic. These verses were then removed with the explanation that Satan gave Mohammed these verses and fooled the prophet into accepting them. Mohammed realized his error (by Allah's grace) and so removed the offending passages. According to Muslims, Satan did not succeed in placing any ungodly passages into the Koran.

Never read the book itself. I seem to recall it centering around a guy falling out of an airplane and the thoughts he has while enroute to the ground or something. But I could be well off.

Never read the book itself. I seem to recall it centering around a guy falling out of an airplane and the thoughts he has while enroute to the ground or something. But I could be well off.
No, wasn't it about a coke bottle that fell out of a plan and the adventure to return it? Wait. . .nm.

Suicide bomber or not, if he was on the list, shouldn't he have been prevented from getting on the damn plane? The first line of defense are the airline companies. They missed him with their (probably) outdated back info. The second, and last line of defense is the Dept. of Homeland Security as it was in route to the US. They were the ones that caught him.

Currently airlines rely on updates and downloads and what not to keep up to date background checks. Obviously, with foreign airlines and far away places, we're going to see lapses like this happen.

From what I've heard, all airlines are integrating into one single database of background info to solve this problem.

No, wasn't it about a coke bottle that fell out of a plan and the adventure to return it? Wait. . .nm.
I love that movie.

Back on topic, if he gave money to a terrorist organisation, knowing or not, and the gov't thought he is a risk, he was put on the list.

Simple as that.

he reason why he was stopped was a misstake, as you know Cat Stevens changed name to Yusuf Islam, the guy on "the list" is named Youssef Islam or something similar, they realised this on the Brittish side but the Americans couldnt see how this wasnt the same guy

he reason why he was stopped was a misstake, as you know Cat Stevens changed name to Yusuf Islam, the guy on "the list" is named Youssef Islam or something similar, they realised this on the Brittish side but the Americans couldnt see how this wasnt the same guy

Same guy. DHS admitted it misspelled the name on the original list, but Cat is the one they were looking at and, indeed nabbed.

So it's not ok for someone to fund Hamas because they commit terrorist acts towards Israelies, but it is ok for the US to essentially bankroll Israel's aggression towards Palestinians on the west bank?

Hello Hartmut, Taino, Ytrok or whichever one you are. 8(

So it's not ok for someone to fund Hamas because they commit terrorist acts towards Israelies, but it is ok for the US to essentially bankroll Israel's aggression towards Palestinians on the west bank?
Hate to use your own words against you but..

"Hamas because they commit terrorist acts" and "Israel's aggression towards Palestinians"

See a difference. There's a subtle, but distinct, difference between targeting civillians and colateral damage to civillians when targeting terrorists.

Am I saying either is good, no....bit if the Palestinians would cease blowing up buses full of Isaeli civilians, their civilians wouldn't get killed when the Isreali's try to retaliate against the terrorists.

Personally I wish both sides would relize their current paths lead nowhere.

For me the biggest difference is at least the Israelis are willing to enter into peace negotiations with the Palestinians, while Hamas purposely tries to derail any talks and completely rejects any peace talks whatsoever, holding out for the complete destruction of Israel. Who do you think is the problem?

Yep, Gulor has the kicker there. Israel faces an implacable foe: organizations that have vowed its destruction in lieu of any opportunities for peace.