Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 23, 2017, 05:40:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102256 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] Print
Author Topic: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)  (Read 259760 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1000 on: February 08, 2017, 03:31:53 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/03/dhs-had-been-warned-about-radicalized-muslim-who-allegedly-murdered-denver-officer/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1001 on: February 10, 2017, 01:37:41 PM »

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5775/raheel-raza-hopes-to-be-the-muslim-extremists
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6994


« Reply #1002 on: February 11, 2017, 05:40:08 PM »

Turning down tax payer money to fight the concept of murder under the guise of Jihad.  Why aren't they doing that anyway?
We hear far more Jews complaining of some housing being built in the West Bank then we hear American Muslims standing up to murder:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article132146279.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1003 on: February 11, 2017, 08:16:55 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktqdYXd1qJQ
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1004 on: February 18, 2017, 12:17:24 AM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-man-convicted-of-planning-to-attack-new-york-mosque/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1005 on: February 18, 2017, 10:15:02 PM »

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/10/asra-nomani-i-feel-safer-us-i-do-any-muslim-country
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1006 on: February 21, 2017, 09:02:33 PM »

"Moderate" Muslim Brotherhood Mourns Terrorist's Death
by John Rossomando
IPT News
February 21, 2017
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5802/moderate-muslim-brotherhood-mourns-terrorist-death
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14616


« Reply #1007 on: February 21, 2017, 10:12:48 PM »

"Moderate" Muslim Brotherhood Mourns Terrorist's Death
by John Rossomando
IPT News
February 21, 2017
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5802/moderate-muslim-brotherhood-mourns-terrorist-death


"Mostly secular" is what I've been told.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6994


« Reply #1008 on: February 22, 2017, 10:17:02 AM »

https://www.launchgood.com/project/muslims_unite_to_repair_jewish_cemetery#/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1009 on: February 22, 2017, 01:12:23 PM »

 cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1010 on: February 26, 2017, 09:07:29 AM »

CAIRO — In Morocco, it would tip a delicate political balance. In Jordan, it could prevent American diplomats from meeting with opposition leaders. In Tunisia, it could make criminals of a political party seen as a model of democracy after the Arab Spring.

Of all the initiatives of the Trump administration that have set the Arab world on edge, none has as much potential to disrupt the internal politics of American partners in the region as the proposal to criminalize the Muslim Brotherhood, the pre-eminent Islamist movement with millions of followers.

“The impact would be great,” said Issandr El Amrani, an analyst with the International Crisis Group based in Morocco, where a Brotherhood-linked party won the last election in October. “It could destabilize countries where anti-Islamist forces would be encouraged to double down. It would increase polarization.”

At issue is a proposal floated by Trump aides that the 89-year-old Brotherhood be designated as a foreign terrorist entity. The scope of any designation remains unclear, but its potential reach is vast: Founded in Egypt, the Brotherhood has evolved into a loose network that spans about two dozen countries. It has officially forsworn violence.

For President Trump, the designation debate is an election promise made good. He has made no bones about taking an approach to the Middle East that is narrowly focused on counterterrorism, and that plays to domestic supporters who view all Islamist movements — or even all Muslims — as potentially hostile.

In much of the Middle East, though, the rapid pace and embattled rollouts of Mr. Trump’s early orders have induced anxiety. Now many are following the potential indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood as a harbinger of things to come.

“The Obama administration moved us away from the ‘clash of civilizations’ narrative,” said Emad Shahin, a dissident Egyptian academic who lectures at Georgetown University. “Trump is taking us deeper into it.”

Not all are unhappy about the move to list the Brotherhood.

One leader the designation would surely delight is President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, the former general who has led a harsh crackdown on the Brotherhood since the military ousted a Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Morsi, as president in 2013. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also would support it.

But in countries where Brotherhood-linked parties are prominent in Parliament or are in power, experts say a sweeping indictment could have serious implications for domestic politics, American diplomacy and the broader fight against Islamist extremism.

In Jordan, a crucial ally in the fight against jihadist groups, Islamists constitute a small but significant bloc in the Parliament. Tunisia’s Ennahda party, which has won wide praise for its democratic engagement and moderate stance since 2011, might be shunned. The prime minister of Morocco, technically, could be considered a criminal.

“You would throw many babies out with the bath water,” said Gerald M. Feierstein, a former United States ambassador to Yemen, now at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

The initial momentum toward such a designation appears to have slowed. A leaked assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency said isolating the Brotherhood would serve only to empower jihadist groups; some experts doubt that a broad designation would pass legal muster.

But the very fact that the ban is under consideration by Mr. Trump’s aides is being taken as an ominous sign in a region where religion and politics are carefully, and often precariously, balanced.

The proposed designation has also reaffirmed Mr. Trump’s apparent embrace of Mr. Sisi, who has weathered a barrage of international criticism for his country’s dismal human rights record in recent years. Mr. Trump has hailed him as a “fantastic guy” with whom he shares “good chemistry.”

Since an initial meeting at the United Nations in September, the two leaders have spoken several times by phone — Mr. Sisi was the first foreign leader to congratulate Mr. Trump on his victory in November — and now a visit to Washington by Mr. Sisi is under preparation.

Egypt wants the United States to resume a military financing program, frozen by President Barack Obama in 2015, that helps it make billions of dollars in purchases of big-ticket weapons like F-16 warplanes and M1A1 Abrams tanks.

More than anything, though, a handshake in the White House for Mr. Sisi would offer a stamp of legitimacy to a leader who had been kept at arm’s length by Mr. Obama.

Tens of thousands of Mr. Sisi’s opponents languish in Egyptian prisons, human rights workers are routinely harassed, and his security forces have faced accusations of extrajudicial killings.

To some, it suggests Mr. Trump is set to take an approach in the Middle East that will not just tolerate strongmen and monarchs but also actively seek to embrace them — a throwback that evokes American alignment with autocrats like the shah of Iran in decades past.

“It’s easy to say you will stand by your friends,” said Mr. Feierstein at the Middle East Institute. “But authoritarian regimes are always brittle, always fragile. We thought we would stand by the shah of Iran until the day he got on an airplane and left the country. Now what do we have to show for it? We have 40 years of not being able to have a relationship with Iran.”

Brotherhood officials insist that the Trump administration has gotten it wrong. In a letter smuggled from the high-security Egyptian prison where he is being held, the Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad admitted that his party had made serious mistakes during its yearlong stint in power in Egypt from 2012 to 2013. Citing the “hard-learned lessons of the Arab Spring,” he said the Brotherhood had failed to heed loud opposition from millions of Egyptians who disliked Mr. Morsi’s actions.

But, he insisted, the movement renounced bloodshed. “Our flaws are many,” he wrote. “Violence is not one.”

In other places, the reality can be harder to pin down. By nature secretive, the Brotherhood takes different forms around the world. In some places, its members have condoned or committed violent acts. Its Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, carries out suicide bombings; in Egypt, angry young supporters have been accused of attacking Mr. Sisi’s security forces.

But that does not make terrorists of the many millions of people who support the Brotherhood’s political ideology across many countries.

One route for the Trump administration could be to narrowly designate specific Brotherhood branches as terrorists, said Mokhtar Awad, an expert on the group. But it would be better still, he argued, to “engage in a battle of ideas.”

The debate could prove an early lesson for the administration in doing business in the Middle East, which has long resisted broad-brush prescriptions. Unpalatable as its ideas may be to Trump officials, the Brotherhood may become just one of many factors they will be forced to grapple with.

“We engage with the Brotherhood knowing they are problematic actors, but they are also a reality,” said Michael Wahid Hanna of the Century Foundation. “And the alternative — ignoring or repressing them — leads to a very bad place.”
Correction: February 20, 2017

An earlier version of this article misstated the year that President Barack Obama froze Egypt’s military financing program. It was 2015, not 2013.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1011 on: March 01, 2017, 12:44:52 PM »



'Explanatory Memorandum' Detractors Ignore Evidence About MB in America
by John Rossomando
IPT News
March 1, 2017
http://www.investigativeproject.org/5807/explanatory-memorandum-detractors-ignore-evidence
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1012 on: March 12, 2017, 03:07:17 PM »

https://vladtepesblog.com/2017/01/20/canada-14-year-old-girl-sexually-assaulted-by-muslim-migrant-school-asks-her-to-consider-the-situation-from-his-point-of-view/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1013 on: March 21, 2017, 03:44:58 PM »

http://quillette.com/2017/03/16/on-betrayal-by-the-left-talking-with-ex-muslim-sarah-haider/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1014 on: March 24, 2017, 12:55:16 AM »

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/imam-sermon-montreal-mosque-1.4037397
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1015 on: March 26, 2017, 12:33:19 AM »

Very interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/world/canada/syrian-refugees.html?emc=edit_ta_20170325&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1016 on: April 02, 2017, 01:04:03 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/muslim-brotherhood-listing-as-terror-group-delayed/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURZNE5HSTNObVkxTkROaCIsInQiOiI4bWwxM1VSRGhWNFRTWXM5UUYrbmxvdDc1SHN5UHRVSTJLa3g5bVhpMlRDVG5ONWMyMTdyaWt4SUowbEZqdEJLd0cwXC9kbm5oQXh1VnFmOE1Udm1yb1VVaUZJSG1BaTR2ZWQxNjBpY3NGQVBFdVVrSXRwdVc2RkFzdEkyS1IwclkifQ%3D%3D
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1017 on: April 03, 2017, 04:19:03 PM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/02/u-s-mosque-honors-radical-islamist-murdered-liberal-pakistani-governor/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39969


« Reply #1018 on: April 03, 2017, 04:26:27 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/04/02/turkish-govt-opened-100m-mosque-in-washington-dc-as-turkish-intel-spied-from-mosques-all-over-europe/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14616


« Reply #1019 on: April 06, 2017, 11:32:39 AM »

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-americas-polygamy-ban-blocked.html

How America's Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration
Posted by Daniel Greenfield

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8760


« Reply #1020 on: April 19, 2017, 04:00:12 PM »

https://m.townhall.com/columnists/calebparke/2017/04/19/allahu-akbar-vs-god-is-great-ap-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters-n2315288
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!