Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 03:57:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83455 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam in America
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: Islam in America  (Read 149194 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #450 on: June 21, 2012, 01:48:16 PM »

Daniel Greenfield, on his excellent blog "Sultan Knish," makes my earlier point that Islam itself is in fact the problem eloquently below:

"A Dark and Vengeful God"

Daniel Greenfield - Wednesday, June 20, 2012

At the beginning of Sweeney Todd, the chorus of his murdered victims sings, "He served a dark and a vengeful god." In Egypt, an Islamic Sweeney butchered his wife after an argument, cut her up and sold her mutilated body as lamb chops.


Around the same time as Mohammed Sweeney was selling pieces of his wife to customers stocking up on meat before Ramadan, Egyptian voters made their own offering to the dark and vengeful god by voting for Mohammed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoots such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda have a murder toll that beggars anything the real or fictional Sweeney could have aspired to.

Morsi's election platform was ending the last light of freedom in Egypt by implementing full Islamic law and in a country where 84 percent believe that heretics should be killed, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned and 77 percent believe that thieves should have their hands cut off, the candidate of Allah, the dark and vengeful god of Islam, was bound to win any democratic election.

As a god, Allah does not appear to be much of a lifegiver. Egypt has six times the infant mortality rate of the "Zionist Entity", five times that of the "Great Satan" and ten times that of the Japanese infidels. Indeed the country with the world's highest infant mortality rate is the devout home of the Taliban, Afghanistan, which has an infant mortality rate that is 50 percent higher than Rwanda.

Is Sharia law going to bring Egypt's infant mortality rate closer to that of Japan or Afghanistan? It isn't any good at that, but it will be good for beheading all sorts of people that the followers of the dark and vengeful god disprove of. Beginning with heretics.

Indonesia just sentenced a man to 2 years in jail for writing, "Allah doesn't exist" on Facebook. Thanks to Western innovation, Indonesia has Facebook. But it also has blasphemy laws, because if people started doubting the dark god, they might start asking why Indonesia has an infant mortality rate that is 13 times that of neighboring Singapore.

It's not that the Muslim world doesn't have doctors. They just tend to be doing other things, like Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a surgeon and the leader of Al-Qaeda; Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a surgeon and co-founder of Hamas; Dr. Fathi Shaqaqi, the co-founder of Islamic Jihad; and Dr. Abdel Rantissi, a pediatrician and co-founder of Hamas, who boasted, "We will kill Jews everywhere."

Who has the time to waste on pediatrics when you worship a dark and vengeful god who gave you a mission to kill as many infidels as possible? The only infant mortality rates they care about are the ones that they inflict.

The Taliban in North Waziristan, Pakistan have offered to allow polio vaccinations for their children only if the drone campaign against terrorists ends. This isn't the first time that Muslim terrorists have used children as human shields, though perhaps it's the first time that they used 161,000 children as human shields. The human shield principle depends on the Muslim knowledge that we care more about their children than they do. 

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and an infant mortality rate that is higher than that of Haiti, the Congo, Papua and some of the poorest and most desperate places in the world, as does Egypt.

The Egyptians could have gone into this election asking themselves why an Israeli child across the border is six times more likely to survive his birth than one of their children is. Instead they went into the election asking themselves how they could see more people beheaded for questioning their dark god. If they gave any thought to evening up the difference in infant mortality rates in the 264-mile distance between Cairo and Jerusalem, it was only by invading Israel or by supporting Hamas terrorists.

That is how followers of a dark and vengeful god think. They don't wonder how they can save the lives of their children, but how they can even the cosmic score by taking the lives of someone else's children. They don't think in terms of making their lives better, but their minds are fixed on the dark goal of making other people's lives worse.

Sweeney Todd was his own dark and vengeful god. So is Islam. Todd killed in his own name and Islam kills in its own name. Draw a mocking cartoon of Mohammed or burn a Koran and in a few hours there will be blood spilled in the streets of Muslim cities. Most of it will be their own blood, but that is what happens when you worship the dark and vengeful god inside you. When you bow before the rage churning in your own heart, then your sacrifice yourself to the hatred within.


Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, presented a slideshow explaining Jihad with the words, "We love death more than you love life." "The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them," Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah proclaimed. "We are going to win, because they love life and we love death." “We love death,” Adis Medunjanin, convicted of plotting to bomb the New York City subway, screeched at a 911 operator. "You love your life! There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger!”

When you worship death, then loving life becomes a sin, a blasphemy against the god of death whose worship is death.

"The Jihad is our way and death for Allah is our most exalted wish" are the words of the Muslim Brotherhood, the movement at the top of the Egyptian power pyramid, which is as obsessed with death as the ancient Pharaohs were. But the pyramids that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim groups construct are not tombs, but pyramids of corpses-- giant funerary chambers of bodies, those of their own Muslim martyrs and those of their non-Muslim victims, to transport themselves to paradise.

"Sweeney wishes the world away, Sweeney's weeping for yesterday," the chorus sings, "Hugging the blade, waiting the years, hearing the music that nobody hears." But these days everyone can hear the music and feel the blade. The Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for years to cut away the world and bring back the golden oldies of yesteryear. The greatest hits collection of albums from the invasions and subjugations, the genocides and exterminations of non-Muslims around the world.

Cults of death don't look to the present or the future, they look to the past, to the realm of the dead. They worship it and plot to bring it back. They despise the vitality of the living and the future, choosing instead the dirt and ash of the grave, the poisonous hatreds that never die, living on long after Mohammed rasped his last breath after telling his followers to drive out Christians and Jews from the Arabian Peninsula.   

Why bother lowering infant mortality rates when you can bring back the glorious past? Why care about the infants at all if their only purpose is to die in the way of Jihad? So what if they die when they're a few days old, instead of twenty years old. It saves time and their martyrdom can be blamed on the West, which is the source of all ills.

"The Prophet said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allah's Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.'" And that includes the children. It includes skyscrapers, paintings and books. It includes life itself. And then what's left except death?

By voting for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian people proclaimed that they love death more than life, that they love death more than the lives of their children. The ancient worshipers of Moloch passed their children between the flames, and the modern worshipers of Allah pass their children between the flames of Jihad.

The Egyptians have joined the Tunisians in the democracy of death, at the dark altar of the ballot box into which they drop their offerings that say, "We love death. More than life. More than our children. More than thoughts, books, freedom and civilization." And the world still does not understand what it is witnessing behind the outpourings of propaganda, the jubilant mobs and the analysts spluttering on behind the plastic desks and glowing logos of cable news shows.

It is easy to analyze politics but difficult to analyze evil. Talk about a cult of death has no place in the modern world, where it is a firm article of faith that everyone wants two turkeys in every pot and a car in every Cairo garage. Every intelligent person knows that all religions are the same. That democracy is good because all people are good. Leaders like Mubarak may be bad, but an entire people can't be bad. All religions celebrate life, and no matter how often they say, "We love death while you love life", they can't possibly mean it.


But what if they do? What if the dark and vengeful god that the vast majority of Egyptians want to see executing blasphemers and mutilating thieves has been set loose by the ballot box? What if Allah is the dark half that civilized people and governments keep locked away. The part that tells butchers to chop up their wives and sell them to their customers, that tells merchants to turn into bandits, that tells Meccans to rape the wives of their neighbors and that commands a thousand other atrocities?

What if all our democracy promotion efforts unlocked that dark side, let the beast out of its cage and set it loose to kill? What if Islam's dark and vengeful god is a chimera made out of the worst parts of his followers, their murderous instincts, their self-despite, their hatreds, lusts and obsessions? What does it say about a people that proclaim their darkest selves to be their god?

"We love death" is the anthem of Jihad. It was the anthem of a butcher who chopped up his wife and served her corpse to his customers. It is the song of millions of Egyptians who chose death over life once they were given the freedom to do it. The death of life for the worship of the dark god who dwells in the darkest places of the human heart.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #451 on: June 25, 2012, 10:50:22 AM »

Congressman Calls for Hearings on ‘Radicalization’ of White Christian Women

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 25, 2012

During a Homeland Security committee hearing last week on the “Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Texas Congressman Al Green (D) criticized the hearings as biased and unfair to Muslims, suggesting that the only way to justify such hearings is if Congress would also conduct a “hearing on the radicalization of Christians.”

Though his position may seem plausible and balanced, in fact, it reveals a dangerous mix of irrationality, moral relativism, and emotionalism—all disastrous traits in a U.S. Congressman.  Consider some of Green’s assertions:

I don’t think that most people oppose hearings on radicalization.  I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization….  [W]hy not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?… People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, “Why is this missing?”

Fair question—“Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”  Before responding, we must acknowledge that the word “radicalization” simply means “to go to the root or origin of something,” in this case, religion: a Muslim radical goes to the root teachings of Islam; a Christian radical goes to the root teachings of Christianity.  Accordingly, there are certainly “Christian radicals” in America.  The question is, do they pose the same risks to America as Muslim radicals?

Green and all moral relativists naturally do not want to pursue such a question, pretending that any form of “radicalization”—regardless of the “root teachings”—is evil.  They are certainly not interested in determining the root teachings of Christianity and Islam, and whether they are equally prone to violence, terrorism, conquest, etc.  While this is not the place to contrast modern Christianity’s apolitical and largely passive nature with modern Islam’s political and largely aggressive nature—a theme elaboratedhere—suffice it to say that, while thousands of modern-day Muslim leaders are on record quoting Islamic scriptures to justify violence and hate, one is hard pressed to find examples of Christian leaders preaching violence and hate—and justifying it through scripture.

The Saudi Grand Mufti, the highest religious official of Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holiest nation, called on the destruction of all regional churches, quoting Islamic texts. Can Green find an example of an equally authoritative Christian leader calling for the destruction of mosques—and supporting it through the Bible?

Green went on to ask “Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”

Thus, not only does the Congressman irrationally conflate the teachings of all religions together, he also conflates religion with race and gender, implying that the only reason there are hearings on Muslim radicalization is because Muslims are not white, whereas those “equally-dangerous” blue-eyed, blond-haired female Christian “radicals” apparently get a free pass to terrorize America.

This logic is flawed on many levels.  Islam is not a race; there are Muslims of all colors, just like there are Christians of all colors.  Moreover, there are indeed “blue-eyed, blond-haired” terrorists in the world, including females—yet these, too, are overwhelmingly Muslim.  It is dishonest for Green to try to take the focus off of Islamic radicalization and pin it on that all-purpose bogeyman, “racism.”

Regardless, this argument that Islam is a race is popular and was, for example, used by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who also called these hearings “racist.” Likewise, a former American soldier discussing the Fort Hood shootings lamented that “When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a Muslim [namely, Nidal Hasan] does it, they call it jihad.”

Notice the confusion; as if a “white guy” and a “Muslim” represent different races.  Of course, if a person of any color goes on a random shooting spree, it would be racist to pin it on his race. But if a person of any color goes on a shooting spree—while waving the Koran, screaming the jihadi paean “Allahu Akbar!” or otherwise rationalizing his actions in Islamic terms, as did Nidal Hasan—then we are talking about a shooting spree motivated by a learned ideology or worldview that has nothing to do with the murderer’s race.

Finally, from beginning to end, Green—like his congressman colleague Keith Ellison, whose objection to these hearings culminated in ateary-eyed breakdown—relied on emotionalism to make his point: he opened  his statement by offering the Islamic greeting assalama alikum to Muslims present, dreamily observing: “Isn’t it wonderful that the grandson of a Christian minister can sit on the Homeland Security Committee and say assalama alikum?”—a meaningless point that does not change the fact that in Islam, Muslims are only allowed to say “Peace upon you” to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslim infidels.

Likewise, he concluded his sanctimonious attack by saying “I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue….  I look forward to the day that we’ll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America”—again, all meaningless race-related rhetoric and moral relativism, the sole value of which is to obfuscate the issue at hand: the “radicalization of Muslim-Americans.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #452 on: June 25, 2012, 12:48:23 PM »

Investigate Radical Christianity!

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 25, 2012

During last week’s House Homeland Security Committee hearing on “The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Congressman Al Green (D-TX) took issue [1] with the hearing’s focus on Islam and Muslims, asking the witnesses testifying before the Committee: “If you agree that radicalization exists within all religions to some extent, would you kindly extend a hand into the air.” Noting triumphantly that “all the hands are raised,” Green then asked: “Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

The immediate answer is obvious. On the one hand we have recent jihad plotters in the U.S., including Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.

All of them and many others invoked the Qur’an and Sunnah to explain and justify their deeds.

And on the other hand, we have recent “radical Christian” acts of violence committed by people who invoked the Bible and Church teaching to explain and justify their deeds, including — no one at all. Not one. Even the much-vaunted abortion clinic bombers number only a handful, versus nearly 19,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, and have been repudiated by all Christian sects and leaders — as opposed to the many Islamic authorities that teach jihad warfare against unbelievers and exhort their faithful to commit acts of violent jihad.

Rosie O’Donnell enunciated the idea memorably a few years ago: “radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.” Since then, this has become a commonplace of mainstream media political discourse — remarkably enough, since it has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Emblematic of how hard it is to find a “radical Christian” — that is, someone driven to violence by the teachings of Christianity, as opposed to genuinely radical Christians like Mother Teresa and the Amish — is that when Green spoke about “the radicalization of Christianity,” he was actually referring to Islamic jihadists, not to Christians at all.

This became clear when he said: “I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization. And if you agree that we have Christians, as has been mentioned by more than one member, Christians who become radicalized, they become part of Islam and they become radicalized as is being said, why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

Green’s statement is fundamentally incoherent. “Christians who become radicalized” and “become part of Islam” are not Christians at all, but converts to Islam. Thus a hearing on the radicalization of Muslims, and possibly of converts to Islam, would be needed, not a hearing on the radicalization of Christians. Green himself made this clear, after a fashion, as he continued, digging himself an ever-deeper hole: “I do think that it is a problem of perception. People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, ‘Why is this missing?’ Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”

Green was apparently referring to Colleen LaRose, aka “Jihad Jane [2],” a convert to Islam from Pennsylvania who plotted to murder a Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks, for drawing a cartoon of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. If LaRose had remained a Christian, of course, she never would have been moved to kill by a cartoon of Muhammad; her crime has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with Islam. And so here again, the moral equivalence that Rosie O’Donnell stated baldly and that Green was apparently reaching for founders on the facts.

Yet Green soldiered on, concluding: “I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue. I look forward to the day that we’ll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America.”

So do I, in fact. Investigate radical Christianity! If such a hearing were held with any degree of honesty, it couldn’t help but shed light on the fact that Islam has a unique capacity to incite its adherents to violence today, in a way that neither Christianity nor any other religion shares. And that realization, contrary as it is to official government and media assumptions, could go a long way toward focusing law enforcement upon the real problem the nation faces today, instead of upon politically correct fictions. Much as that prospect may infuriate Congressman Al Green.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #453 on: June 25, 2012, 05:23:48 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/california-filmmaker-switches-positions-on-controversial-tenn-mega-mosque/
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #454 on: June 26, 2012, 11:12:14 PM »

This is vital information that Americans need to pay attention to.  It is
not being covered by the major news media:

www.globalinfidel.tv/page/abdou-kattih

As always - for pertinent news regarding Islamic activity in the U.S. and
around the world, consult these two excellent web sites:

www.jihadwatch.org  (Robert Spencer)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/  (Pamela Geller)
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #455 on: June 27, 2012, 08:06:23 AM »

Objectivist1 - really, do you believe that garbage on those sites?   shocked  I hope not....

Islam is a religion; or at least a billion a so people seem to think so.  Most by far are peace loving.

Who cares who is paying for the Mosque?  If some rich donor from Saudi Arabia wants to pay, so what? 
There is no rule churches must be built with local money.  Lot's of churches have been built with money from out of town.

Using the same stupid analogy, that's like saying the Wisconsin elections weren't fair because most of the Republican money came from out of state.

As for the size, again so what; 25 years ago they built a 15 acre huge Buddhist temple (Hsi Lai Temple) in Hacienda Heights a small, mostly Christian (at that time) community near Los Angeles.
http://www.hsilai.org/en/index.html

Note, it was built only a few years after we had our butt kicked by Vietnam, a predominately Buddhist nation.  Maybe there was some sinister relevancy like your silly sites try to draw?   huh

People were opposed then like there are to this Muslim house of worship. Traffic, etc. but probably racial and religious hatred too.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-28/news/hl-9819_1_hsi-lai-temple

Now everyone seems rather happy.  Hopefully, this Mosque will also be center for people to learn about Islam.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #456 on: June 27, 2012, 09:19:19 AM »

JDN:

Evidently it's YOU who need to learn about Islam, as I have already stated.  The information on the sites I cited in my previous post are backed by solid evidence and are 100% reliable sources of information.  You choose to ignore and/or dismiss them as "silly" at your peril.  Again I stand in amazement as someone who admits he has not read, and has no interest in investigating the holy books of Islam wants to argue with me out of his admitted ignorance.  Until you can specifically address the factual statements I have made about Islam with facts and evidence, I have no interest in continuing this dialogue with you.  If you're not interested, that is your choice - but then keep your mouth shut and don't attempt to argue with someone who IS interested and has done his research.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #457 on: June 27, 2012, 09:37:22 AM »

Please don't tell me to "keep my mouth shut".   rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

You don't address the questions or the facts; rather you regurgitate nonsense.  For example, "Islam is not a religion".   huh
I think a billion+ people disagree with you.  And those are just the ones practicing Islam.  Most Christians and Jews I know acknowledge Islam
as a religion. 

I haven't read the Hindu or Buddhist holy books either yet I respect their right to practice their faith.  Our Constitution guarantees them, all religions,
the right to practice their faith.

Your web sites that you posted "are 100% reliable sources of information."  Surely you joke?   rolleyes
Most consider these blogger's quacks.  As your own web page quoted,


At the Huffington Post, Linda Milazzo wrote that as a Jew she was one who opposed Geller’s speech.

She wrote that, “While there is a small, non-majority percent of American Jews who may agree with Geller on certain issues, her presentation is so hate-filled and vulgar, she diminishes her opportunity for coalition and allegiance.”

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #458 on: June 27, 2012, 09:44:03 AM »

I would state the matter as "Islam is both a religion and a theocratic political theory".  The latter is contrary to the American Creed.

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #459 on: June 27, 2012, 09:49:05 AM »

Marc is correct.  NOWHERE did I state that Islam is not a religion.  I said it is not SIMPLY a religion.  JDN misquotes me and then attacks a straw man.  Clearly JDN has not read many of the posts on this thread which amply demonstrate the points I have made.  He isn't interested in facts, nor in any information that might contradict his predetermined idea of what Islam is.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #460 on: June 27, 2012, 09:54:45 AM »

I would state the matter as "Islam is both a religion and a theocratic political theory".  The latter is contrary to the American Creed.

I too agree, "Islam is both a religion and a theocratic political theory" but then that can be said about a lot of RELIGIONS to varying degrees.  Yet all are protected
by our Constitution. 

Objectivist1; you don't post "facts" you post gibberish that few believe and has no basis for fact. I've never misquoted you or your absurd, ridiculous "sources". 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #461 on: June 27, 2012, 10:30:51 AM »

"that can be said about a lot of RELIGIONS to varying degrees.  Yet all are protected
by our Constitution."

Ummm , , , NO.   To seek to replace our Constitutional order with a theocratic state is seditious.  It is NOT protected. 

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #462 on: June 27, 2012, 10:53:53 AM »

Their right to worship is protected.

And their desire to change the laws in accordance with their faith, if done legally, is also protected.
 
Many religions have political views.  Catholics for example have recently had strong opinions on birth control.

I may not entirely agree, but I respect their right to express their opinion and dictate to their members.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #463 on: June 27, 2012, 11:38:40 AM »

C'mon JDN, you're evading the point.  No one's talking about political positions e.g. pro-life.  There's no problem there.   The problem comes when death fatwas and so forth are issued for drawing cartoons or mobs running other religious groups out of the neighborhood (while the police stand by) such as was shown by Obj.

Not related to this conversation is this:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/philadelphia-and-the-burqa-bandits/

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #464 on: June 27, 2012, 01:49:51 PM »

If Muslims disobey our laws, arrest them!  I still contend that the vast majority of one billion plus Muslims are law abiding good citizens and deserve the same respect as any other religion.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #465 on: June 27, 2012, 08:21:38 PM »

So then, why were you so negative with the clip from Obj. of the Dearborn mob running off the Christians with threats and the throwing of various objects while the police stood by?

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #466 on: June 28, 2012, 09:45:46 AM »

So then, why were you so negative with the clip from Obj. of the Dearborn mob running off the Christians with threats and the throwing of various objects while the police stood by?

I'm sorry, I did search various ways and I could not find where I was negative towards a specific clip from Obj. regarding the Dearborn mob running off Christians while police stood by.
Could you give me a reference or link?  Thank you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #467 on: June 28, 2012, 10:00:59 AM »

I was thinking of your comment the other day calling the clip and the sites that posted it "garbage" , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #468 on: June 28, 2012, 01:02:48 PM »

Yes, in general I did say the site was "garbage".  It's terribly biased, filed with innuendo and not good reporting. 

I never did address the issue if Dearborn Muslims Christians and the Police.  Nor did I even watch the specific video.

However, while I don't know the truth, and I do believe in free speech, yet it should be recognized that he Christians were much at fault.
A few were even arrested.  The Police blamed the Christians for the problem; if I remember 4 Christians were arrested.  How you present
a story is important.  It seems other than a few right wing blogs, few if any news reporters actually blamed the Muslims.

There is two two sides to the story.  The largest newspaper in Detroit reported as follows.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120616/NEWS05/120616015/1001/rss01

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #469 on: June 28, 2012, 01:57:24 PM »


"I never did address the issue if Dearborn Muslims Christians and the Police."

Why not?  It was the question presented.

"Nor did I even watch the specific video."

Why not?  And not having watched, how is it that you have an opinion?

« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 01:59:08 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #470 on: June 28, 2012, 04:03:37 PM »


"I never did address the issue if Dearborn Muslims Christians and the Police."

It was the question presented.

It was?  Objectivist! referred to "vital information" on these websites and their being "two excellent web sites".  There was lots of "information".  No specific mention by him of Dearborn.  The sites themselves had lots of information; much, the majority is terribly biased and frankly "garbage".  I provided a quote by a respected Jewish woman criticizing Ms. Geller.

"Nor did I even watch the specific video."

Why not?  And not having watched, how is it that you have an opinion?

I often don't often watch "news" videos.  I prefer the written word.  Videos often only provide a snippet of information; it's too easy to slant the perspective.  I did go at and watch the video after you referred me.  I also did research on the subject and found the Chief of Police blames the Christians in this instance for the problem.  Four Christians were arrested; obviously they did something wrong.    But my main point is that these two sites were "garbage" with nothing specific asked nor responded to by me regarding Dearborn.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #471 on: June 28, 2012, 04:41:38 PM »

I stand corrected. I misremembered that post as having a clip about 20 minutes long of the Dearborn interaction.  Obj, do you have it handy?
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #472 on: June 29, 2012, 01:44:10 PM »

Here is a story from The Blaze on this incident:

www.theblaze.com/stories/allahu-akbar-shock-video-shows-muslims-allegedly-stoning-christian-protesters-in-michigan/

I will add that JDN's characterization of www.jihadwatch.org and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ as "garbage" is laughable.  He cites no "evidence" for this other than a quote by a Jewish woman criticizing Pamela Geller.  Well now, it hardly needs pointing out - though I will for JDN's benefit - that anyone can characterize anyone else as "bigoted," "racist," "a hatemonger" or use any other ad hominem attack one wishes to cite.  Stating it doesn't make it so. Both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer deal in truth.  That many apologists for Islam hate them both and regularly attack them using such epithets has no relevance regarding the truth or accuracy of what either of them report on their respective sites.  As Pamela Geller has rightly stated on many occasions: "Truth has become the new hate speech when it comes to Islam."
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #473 on: June 30, 2012, 08:26:28 AM »

Actually Geller is a Wacko.

"Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Center on Extremism, said in an interview on June 22 that while his group and others have concerns about radical Muslim individuals and groups, Geller goes further, to the point of xenophobia.

“The difference between [Geller and] legitimate criticism about the very serious threat of radical Islam,” Segal said, “is that she vilifies the entire Islamic faith by making assertions that there are conspiracies against American values inherent in Islam.”

Source: Jewish Journal

Those two sites posted by objectivist1remind me of UFO or Loch Ness Monster sightings sites; "garbage", albeit entertaining.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #474 on: June 30, 2012, 10:12:33 AM »

I'm not sure that I would take the very progressive ADL as the definitive word on this , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #475 on: June 30, 2012, 10:19:54 AM »

I'm not an expert on the ADL, but I've heard good things overall.  No group is perfect all the time.  But....

"The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all."

Not a bad goal....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #476 on: June 30, 2012, 10:24:38 AM »

No argument from me there!  But my sense is the ADL not infrequently wanders rather far afield from what you cite there on a progressive mission.   

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #477 on: July 01, 2012, 10:30:08 AM »

Both are reporters of truth and of the highest character.  Their web sites - far from being "garbage" or "UFO-type sites" as JDN describes them, are among the most informative and accurate sources of information regarding Islam available anywhere.
I urge readers to investigate and judge for yourselves - JDN clearly doesn't know what he is talking about and has preconceived ideas about Islam which he is unwilling to examine.  Further - quoting Abraham Foxman, Oren Segal or anyone else at the Anti-Defamation League with regard to the accuracy of information about Islam is almost as bad as consulting an Arab Mufti.  This organization, led by Abe Foxman, actually defended the liars and thugs involved with the Ground Zero Mosque, joining with NYC Mayor Bloomberg, for God's sake!  That they despise Geller and Spencer is no secret.  Crafty is correct that the ADL has become laughably "progressive" to the point of working with those who seek to eradicate Israel (though the ADL and its lackeys are so stupid as to not realize this.)

Here again are the URLs for these two SUPERB web sites:

www.jihadwatch.org

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #478 on: July 01, 2012, 11:33:16 AM »

I read a good joke


How to get people to buy/believe your product.

Two places, ADL and Geller, have competing restaurants next door to each other downtown.

Naturally, they both advertise quality.

ADL's establishment is highly successful with long queues of customers who can't get enough of the quality.

On the other hand, Geller's business is struggling badly. On the rare occasion a customer ventures in for food he never comes back a second time.

Geller is despairing that she can't make a living. But she has a bright idea.

She arranges for her cousin to take a job in the restaurant of the ADL, his mission - to find out the ingredients that go into these highly popular dishes.

After a week, the cousin returns declaring triumphantly that he has the information.

"Well, out with it already, what do they put in those dishes?" asks Geller.

"I'll tell you", "it's 50% camel dung and 50% meat!"

"Aha!" shrieks Geller, "so that's his secret,....ADL adds meat!"

Geller's product is all camel dung!   grin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #479 on: July 05, 2012, 07:11:47 PM »

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/louisiana-republican-when-i-voted-for-state-funds-to-go-to-religious-schools-i-didnt-mean-muslim-ones/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #480 on: July 13, 2012, 08:38:02 PM »

Exclusive: ADC's Misleading Sob Story on Elashi Brothers
IPT News
July 13, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3677/exclusive-adc-misleading-sob-story-on-elashi
.
 
The news release from the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) depicts a family torn apart by a heartless bureaucracy. Two brothers, stateless Palestinians, were "taken by ICE and the U.S. Air Marshalls (sic) from their children in Texas and sent to Egypt," where they are not welcome.

The release conveyed the ADC's "extreme disappointment" over the move. "The actions of DHS and ICE are alarming, troubling, and intolerable. ADC has demanded, and will continue to demand, a clear explanation as to why these brothers were deported," said ADC Legal Director Abed Ayoub.

The brothers are never named. If they were, the explanation would be quite clear.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has confirmed that the men deported last week are Bayan and Basman Elashi. Both are convicted felons tied to a terror-financing network based out of Dallas. And both had final orders of deportation issued against them in 2008 and 2009 that were never appealed, immigration records show.

Yet another brother, Ghassan Elashi, was a founder and chairman of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an American fundraising arm for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. HLF was part of the "Palestine Committee," an umbrella organization created by the Muslim Brotherhood in America to help Hamas politically and financially. Basman Elashi, along with brothers Ghassan and Hazim, also appears on a telephone list of Palestine Committee members. Basman's entry is just above Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The Elashi brothers also worked for Infocom, a webhosting company in Richardson Tex. Prosecutors say the company received $250,000 from Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who was indicted in the case.

Bayan Elashi was Infocom's chief executive officer. Basman was its logistics and credit manager. In 2004, each was convicted of money laundering, export violations to Libya and Syria involving computer shipments and making false statements to federal officials. In a separate trial a year later, Bayan Elashi was convicted on 10 counts of dealing in the property of a Specially Designated Terrorist for transactions with Marzook, while Basman was convicted on one count.

Bayan Elashi was sentenced to 84 months in prison, while Bayan was sentenced to 80 months. Brother Hazim Elashi, Infocom's manager of personal computer systems, was sentenced to 66 months after being convicted in the case, and was deported from the United States in April 2008.

Ghassan Elashi is serving a 65-year sentence after being convicted in the HLF case.

The ADC did not find any of this information significant enough to mention. Rather, it claimed that the deportation was done clumsily, with the Elashis essentially dumped on a tarmac with no place to go.

"The brothers do not have permission to stay in Egypt. Further, due to the blockade of Gaza and Israeli polices they cannot enter Palestine. The brothers are currently detained at the airport in Cairo, and appear likely to be detained indefinitely."
Standard procedure in any deportation case is for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to work with the host country before the person is sent back. It isn't clear whether the claims about the Elashis being detained at the airport are true.
However, the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza is open five days each week, and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh expressed confidence Thursday that the new Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt soon will open it permanently, allowing them to cross into Palestinian territory.

In addition, Ayoub decried "the deplorable living conditions in Gaza resulting from an illegal blockade," and questioned why the Elashis would be sent there. Israel's blockade of Gaza, stemming from Hamas's takeover of the territory and subsequent campaign of rocket fire at Israeli civilian communities, was declared legal by a United Nations review because "Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza." In addition, while Gaza is economically in turmoil, the Red Cross has said there is no humanitarian crisis there. In fact, some aspects of life appear relatively comfortable.

The ADC is considered a respectable organization. President Obama took the time to deliver a recorded message for the group's recent convention.

In this case, however, it has issued an alert that seems deliberately misleading in order to take a shot at the Department of Homeland Security and cast the plight of the Elashis in a sympathetic tone that doesn't match their records.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #481 on: July 13, 2012, 08:41:51 PM »

Contrast that with this:

Guest Column: Muslims Combating Islamism
Exercising the Bare Minimum of Faith in an Age of Political Correctness
by Qanta Ahmed
Special to IPT News
July 11, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3671/guest-column-muslims-combating-islamism
 
There were many reasons why, when called to do so, I testified in the investigative hearings held by the House Committee on Homeland Security examining radicalization within the Muslim American community.

I testified because, as an anti-Islamist Muslim, I believe exposing a wrong is the bare minimum of my faith. I testified because I have seen the full spectrum of radicalization: from silent approval, to overt sympathies for Islamist ideologies, to the end point of suicidal violence among Pakistani child militants. But most of all, I testified because of my patients here in New York.
At Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, I am part of a team that attends the World Trade Center First Responder patient population of Nassau County. Long Island is home to 6,000 of the nation's 40,000 first responders, many of whom feel long forgotten by America. Each year, Winthrop cares for 2,500 of these Americans, relieved of the financial burden of their health costs by the James Zadroga bill, spearheaded by Congressman Peter King, R-N.Y., who is also chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Rescuers by profession, my patients are members of the NYPD, the FBI, the FDNY, the New York Federal Crime Bureau and other law enforcement agencies. Some are retired, others still work, and many are now disabled because of their service to our nation. Sadly, these Americans have granted me painful insights into the indiscriminate burden of radical Islamist acts, insights to which few will ever be privy.

I thought often about these men and women when I visited Pakistan this spring to see "Sabaoon," a school in the Northwest Frontier town of Malakand. There, working with a highly skilled mental health team, Dr. Feriha Peracha deprograms Pakistani child Taliban operatives by rebuilding their psyches.
 
One boy stands out in my memory in particular. Dressed in a brand new cricket strip, sporting Pakistan's bottle-green 'Boom Boom' jersey popular nationwide and glowing from the match he had just played with other Sabaoon students, he looked much as my own brothers did at his age – active, animated and well looked after.

Later, I learned he was hoping to join a cricket academy to pursue his passion. But within moments, the illusion of confidence fell away as this 18-year-old boy described to me his seduction into, and near annihilation by the Pakistani Taliban. Speaking to me in Urdu, the account was unnervingly intimate.

He was 15 when it began, the eldest of five, and the son of a father who supported the family with his meager earnings at a small government post. He lived in a four-roomed mud-walled house with his siblings and parents. Gradually lured by an older Pakistani boy with tales of a purer, "more noble" Islam during his long walks to his village school, the boy soon ran away to join the Taliban, dreaming of a higher divine mission.

A Taliban scout told him that the group had purified Pakistan of drugs and alcohol and was leading the country toward a "purer" and "true" Islam. That message appealed to him. Convinced he was serving Islam, the boy found himself immediately relocated from concealed site to concealed site, sometimes spending nights in the open air in Pakistan's harsh but beautiful Swat valley, other times being sequestered in squalid hostels and other such 'markaz' (centers). He never spent more than one night in each locale. This situation made it nearly impossible for his family to find him, and stopped him from making new friends who might influence him away from the Taliban.

He participated in minor missions at first, and then major ones. But it wasn't until he expressed homesickness one Eid holiday and a desire to see his mother that his career as a leader among Taliban was redirected into becoming a suicide operative. The boy was too much of a risk should he break away and become an informer.

He talked about his "tarbiyyat," or religious training, in detail. I imagined rote memorization of the Quran. Instead, he learned the correct use of a handgun, the deployment of a grenade and the successful detonation of a suicide jacket. He even had training in rocket launchers, AK47s and LMGs (light machine guns). As I sat opposite him, he carefully demonstrated this knowledge to me, miming the relevant gestures to me, a novice when it comes to weapons. He explained the strategy behind his training: that when approaching his final target, he may be confronted by a police officer and would have to fend him off with his pistol. Law enforcement thus dispatched, he knew to throw the grenade, kept at arm's length in his shalwar (trouser) pocket, into a packed crowd, and, as he watched the crowd flee from the grenade, he would then run into the same panicked masses as he detonated his suicide jacket, achieving maximum carnage.

Finally, he described his ultimate surrender moments from detonation in a local Shia mosque. As he entered and assessed the surroundings of Muslim men in prayer, he recognized these people. His targets "were Muslim too," he said. He suddenly feared for his own spiritual salvation. His voice lowered as he explained the relief he felt when he turned himself in to the lone, unwary police officer nearby and revealed his weapons. He endured a vicious beating to the heart with the butt of the policeman's rifle and then months of detention by Pakistan's secret police, the ISI.

Though he had given himself up some years earlier, seduced by the Islamist narrative at the age of 15, I discovered he had already wrought extraordinary destruction.

He had participated in a previous attack that killed five Pakistani Frontier Corpsmen and had helped kidnap 11 others in a raid on a military camp. The Taliban took the hostages. He had been part of a separate raid in which more than 100 people from a local tribal court were executed.

Americans susceptible

The King investigative hearings on radical Islam showed how the same narratives that drove the young Pakistani to violence are alive in the United States today, thriving amid similarly vulnerable, disconnected and indoctrinated youth. Such Islamist radicalization is ongoing in our civilian, military and prison community, as repeated findings from the investigative hearings have uncovered.

Unfortunately, where there should be uproar and carefully targeted actions in response to these critically important findings, we remain mired in political correctness by refusing to identify our enemies' driving ideology.
Islamists distract the discussion from the root of the problem by focusing our attention on what they call "Islamophobia," arguing that the world is using a broad brush to describe Muslims.

Attorney General Eric Holder demonstrated this pandering in his May 2010 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, when he attempted to discuss failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad's potential motives, while avoiding the term "radical Islam." Holder's agonizing dance around the issue demonstrates just how difficult it has become to talk about the ideology fueling so many terror plots, now that the highest levels of government have banned any discussion of the role of radical religious interpretation. While political correctness may be cloyingly comfortable, reassuring even, it can prove all too deadly, as testimonies in these investigative hearings on radical Islam have shown.

In one of the House radicalization hearings, retired Marine Corps veteran Daris Long testified how political correctness masked Islamist extremism. His son, Army Pvt. William Long, was killed in an Islamist terrorist attack on his recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark. – yet the military refused to name it as such, and the shooter was tried in state court rather than on federal terrorism charges.

"The blatant masking and disregard of the facts not only endanger American citizens of non-Muslim faith but also those of Muslim heritage who do not adhere to the extremist beliefs demonstrated by a militant and political form of jihad," Long said.
Melvin Bledsoe testified to the 'brainwashing' of his son – a Muslim convert – who murdered Pvt. Long and injured another in what I, as a Muslim, call an act of terror.

"This was a Jihadi attack on infidel forces," Carlos Bledsoe, the shooter, wrote in a letter to the judge in his case.
As the politically correct rail against the sound intelligence identifying plots in evolution, (and the necessary counter-measures also deemed politically incorrect), they collude with the violent and non-violent Islamists in their foil as Muslims. Masquerading as the 'peaceful' translators and 'owners' of Islam, Islamists exploit political correctness and, by brandishing the charge of Islamophobia, deter vital scrutiny.

Most recently, pseudo-advocacy groups purportedly representing mainstream American Muslims lobbied the Obama administration to 'sanitize' intelligence language used within the FBI to purge references to Islam. This approach only limits debate, scrutiny and examination of Islamist ideologies, both violent and nonviolent.

Our leadership has bowed to such pressures. The 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review never mentions "Islamist" or "Islamic terrorism" in 108 pages. This is in keeping with President Obama's vision which, according to then Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman, "made it clear as we are looking at counterterrorism that our principal focus is al Qaeda and global violent extremism, and that is the terminology and language that has been articulated" by President Obama and his advisers.

In contrast, Pakistan, a nation fighting the highest prevalence of Islamist radicalization, has no such qualms. In fact, the deprogramming at Sabaoon specifically addresses religious scholarship as an area of counter extremism – identifying and dismantling disordered beliefs and replacing them with healthy, nonviolent Islamic ideals.

This goal cannot be accomplished by shying away from religiously charged language.

Political correctness is a serious obstacle in articulating the Islamist threat here in the United States. Refusing to accurately name it will not make the threat go away. Simplifying complex ideas distilling political Islamism and Islam into one sensitive taboo, rather than building clarity, inflames sentiments and drives polarity.

In this climate, Muslims like me – those who accept Islam yet revile Islamists – are rendered voiceless. I am not alone in my practice of Islam, an Islam which values and cherishes other faiths as equally legitimate, and indeed, reminds the Muslim that to each believer is sent his own Law and his own Way, whether a follower of Jesus, Moses, Siddartha, or others. As a Muslim, my Islam reminds me, that according to our Maker we cannot place judgment on the belief systems of fellow People of the Book. They must only judge themselves by their own laws and ways and not by the Quran.

My Islam particularly condemns the rampant exercise of violence on the non combatant civilians which includes all nonmilitary personnel, all children, women, elderly and disabled and further identifies no war as ever Holy, only just or unjust. We also understand that jihad has far greater meaning as an internal struggle for self improvement and relief of personal and community suffering than frank warfare for political or military gain. By these standards which Islam gives me, I as a Muslim can repudiate radical Islamism (which relies on the condemnation of all non Muslim elements and all Muslims who dare to balk at their extreme ideology) without wavering in my belief in Islam or failing in my duty as a Muslim.

The government's adherence to political correctness doesn't make room for this distinction because it avoids any reference to radical Islamism.

By avoiding nuance, we fuel simplification. By banning U.S. law enforcement agencies from using the word 'Islamist' and other charged language which correctly identifies a manufactured fictional Islam as the origins for Islamist ideology, we have compelled our agencies to kowtow to political correctness. Even their Saudi counterterrorism colleagues, in the cradle of Islam, refer to Islamist terrorists as "Jihadists." This term implicitly identifies their ideological roots within Islam, albeit a distortion of the faith. While discourse in America is hampered by such "propriety," the Saudis, calling a spade a spade, don't stand on such futile ceremony.

Blindfolded by political correctness, we remain vulnerable. Counter warfare on ideological battlefields begins with widening the debate, both on Capitol Hill in congressional committee hearing rooms and on the nation's opinion pages which are increasingly reluctant to host this debate. Without doubt, these investigative hearings are the first public foray examining the divide between Islam and Islamism in contemporary America and as Muslims naming this divide we embrace an Islamic duty. As the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) once said:

"Whoever sees a wrong and is able to put it right with his hand, let him do so; if he can't, then with his tongue, if he can't, then with his heart. That is the bare minimum of faith."

It's that simple for a Muslim. Because I see a wrong, and because I am Muslim, combating Islamism asks me for the bare minimum of my faith, as it does for all Muslims in America if their actions are to match their words as believers in Islam.

Qanta Ahmed is a physician and author of In the Land of Invisible Women; Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow in Science and Religion; @MissDiagnosis; www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #482 on: July 14, 2012, 12:17:21 AM »

Canadian journalist Michael Coren masterfully rips the mask from Imam Faisal Rauf and exposes his deception.  Be sure to watch Coren's discussion with Robert Spencer afterward:

www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/michael-coren-exposes-ground-zero-mosque-imam-rauf-robert-spencer-gives-postgame-analysis.html
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #483 on: July 14, 2012, 01:01:07 AM »

That was quite good.  cool
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #484 on: July 15, 2012, 10:55:05 PM »



http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/13/quebec-woman-who-fought-against-muslim-stereotypes-charged-with-terrorism-in-alleged-hezbollah-weapons-smuggling-plot/
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #485 on: July 17, 2012, 01:44:17 PM »

Pamela Geller: Confronting the Huffington Post

Robert Spencer - Jihadwatch.org - July 16, 2012

In PJ Media today I wrote about the mainstream media's eagerness to carry water for Islamic supremacists, and have noted several times recently the tendency of Ahmadi spokesmen in the U.S. to defend those who are persecuting and killing their people in Pakistan and Indonesia. This story combines both: a clearly unscrupulous and dishonest Ahmadi, Harris Zafar, attacking not the persecutors of the Ahmadis, but Pamela Geller and me in the Huffington Post, which of course eagerly gave him space, but when Geller sent in a rebuttal piece, the HuffPo, true to form, dragged its feet about publishing it and finally put it up today only as an addendum to Zafar's dishonest screed, and only after receiving an avalanche of tweets and emails from Atlas Shrugs readers.

The whole incident is typical of the Leftist media's and the Ahmadiyya's odd and ultimately suicidal willingness to front for Islamic supremacists and jihadists.

"Confronting Harris Zafar," by Pamela Geller, Huffington Post (via Atlas Shrugs), July 16:

The Huffington Post received a response to Harris Zafar from Pamela Geller, which was published below in full on July 16, 2012.
Confronting Harris Zafar

By Pamela Geller

Typical of the dishonesty and disingenuousness of Harris Zafar's attack piece on me in the Huffington Post is his opening claim that "Geller takes exception with Islam's acceptance of the prophethood of Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ." He complains that "paradoxically, her ignorance has no problem granting Christians the right to invoke Moses and Abraham without delegitimizing Judaism." He does not mention that while Christianity acknowledges the Jewishness of Moses, Abraham, and the other Jewish prophets, Islam denies it: "No; Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one pure of faith; certainly he was never of the idolaters." (Quran 3:67).

Zafar never explains that Islam doesn't just "accept the prophethood of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ," but completely recasts them as Muslim prophets who decisively rejected the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity: the Quran even depicts Jesus rejecting the core Christian belief of the divinity of Christ (5:116). Islam thereby completely delegitimizes Judaism and Christianity and presents itself as the true religion of the Biblical prophets -- but instead of admitting this, Harris Zafar blames me for noting it.

And in the rest of his piece, he doesn't get any more honest. While affecting a posture of wounded sanctimony, he levies vicious attacks against my work ("mostly outrageous and irrational") and claims to know my motives: "Geller searched for reasons to loathe the Islamic faith." He is no more objective regarding others he identifies as my influences, particularly the world-renowned historian Bat Ye'or, whom he characterizes as "a Jewish-Egyptian French writer who imputes Christian and Jewish suffering to the theological beliefs of Islam," without mentioning that the Muslims who cause Christian and Jewish suffering invoked the theological beliefs of Islam to explain and justify their actions.

Zafar then offers a list of what he calls my "outlandish statements," which he makes outlandish by misrepresenting, distorting, and outright lying about.
"She has falsely claimed that President Obama is a Muslim with the aim of fostering America's submission to Islam": actually, I have never claimed Obama was a Muslim, and just recently published an article in which I pointed out that "the reason why people think Obama is a Muslim is because of how he acts" -- in other words, because of his policies, which have been consistently pro-Islam, not because of his personal faith.
Zafar says I claimed that "Arabic is not a language but 'the spearhead of an ideological project that is deeply opposed to the United States.'" In reality, I have never said that "Arabic is not a language"; Zafar has to resort to outright lies to make his case that my work is "outrageous and irrational." Here is the actual quote: "Arabic is not just another language like French or Italian, it is the spearhead of an ideological project that is deeply opposed to the United States." And who said it? Not I, but Mark Steyn. That's right: so desperate is Zafar to smear me that he is attributing statements by other people to me.
Zafar claims that I say that "Hitler and Nazism were inspired by Islam (therefore 'devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service')." In reality, that quote comes from an article I wrote that touched on the Fort Hood jihad murderer and the devout Muslim faith of jihadists worldwide. Never do I say that devout Muslims should be excluded from the military because of Hitler, but because so many devout Muslims commit violent attacks against infidels without any warning.
And were Hitler and the Nazis inspired by Islam? Don't believe me, believe Eichmann's assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, who testified at Nuremberg that the Mufti of Jerusalem was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews: "The Grand Mufti has repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities -- including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler -- the extermination of European Jewry. ... The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan."
Zafar says that I say that "Islam is the most anti-Semitic, genocidal ideology in the world." Maybe Zafar can name another ideology whose founder, leader and guide said something as anti-Semitic and genocidal as this, but I can't top this from Muhammad, Zafar's beloved prophet: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." (Sahih Muslim 6985).
Zafar says I "called for the removal of the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem," and I stand by that. But once again he doesn't give you all the information: I never said it should be removed by violence, and I said this in response to repeated jihadi attacks on Muslims at the Temple Mount. Zafar never bothers to condemn those attacks or even mention them.
Zafar says I "bought bus ads offering Muslims an opportunity to leave Islam." In reality, my bus ads offered help to ex-Muslims threatened with death for leaving Islam -- help Zafar's group has never offered, despite his claim to reject Islam's death penalty for apostasy.
Zafar says I "called for boycotts of both Campbell's soup and Butterball turkeys for offering a certified halaal food line." In reality, I called for the Campbell's boycott not because of that halal line as such but because Campbell's was using a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to certify its halal line. Regarding Butterball, my complaint was that all its turkeys are halal, but aren't labelled as such, so consumers can't make informed choices.

After all those distortions, fabrications, and lies about my writings and activities, it's no wonder that Zafar says that my "claims are so bizarre that one struggles to understand whether they are worthy of a response." But only by dishonesty can Zafar get there.

Zafar then goes on to claim that "one common allegation the two [Robert Spencer and I] have advanced together is that Islam prescribes a death penalty for apostasy" -- as if we made this up. Then he claims that "there is nothing contained within the Holy Quran -- the highest authoritative source in Islam -- that sanctions any punishment for apostasy," and that "the Quran contains at least 10 verses about those who leave Islam, none of which sanction death in response." He never mentions that all the schools of Islamic law mandate death for apostasy, and that many Muslims base this on Quran 4:89, which tells Muslims to kill those who "emigrate in the way of God" -- that is, become Muslim and move to a Muslim land -- "if they turn their backs," i.e., leave Islam.

Then Zafar claims that "Muhammad never ordered any person to be killed for apostasy," but ignores that Muhammad said "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9.84.57). Nor does Zafar mention that in one tradition, a Muslim leader, Muadh Jabal, refused to sit down until an apostate brought before him had been killed "in accordance with the decision of Allah and of His Apostle." He doesn't mention the Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Quran, which says:

Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent.
Zafar claims that "no punishment exists for apostasy" -- in other words, he thinks that all the schools of Islamic law and all the sects of Islam other than Zafar's own Ahmadi sect, which is violently persecuted as heretical by Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia, got Islamic teaching on apostasy wrong, and only his group has gotten it right. He claims that the death penalty for apostasy is an example of "radical interpretations of Islam" and implies it originated with the twentieth century Islamic leader Maududi -- but he must know about these traditions of Muhammad and understandings of the Quran, even if he rejects them. Thus this is more evidence of his dishonesty.

By now it is clear that Zafar's words on taqiyya, Islamic religious deception, can't be trusted any more than the rest of what he claims. He again acts as if I have originated the idea that it is "the practice of lying to non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam" and claims that "no verse from the Quran is provided" in my writings or Spencer's "as a clear instruction for this practice." In reality, Spencer has written this:

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the familiar term taqiyya.

The renowned Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Quran 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.
After that, Zafar's hit piece gets really bizarre: he likens Robert Spencer and me to Abu Lahab and his wife, early foes of Muhammad "driven by their fiery hatred of Islam and its Prophet." Zafar says that "fittingly, Chapter 111 of the Quran (entitled al-Lahab) predicts that the plotting of such nefarious enemies of Islam would appear but ultimately fail miserably, and their wealth will not avail them." Once again, he whitewashes Islam: Zafar doesn't mention that that chapter says that Abu Lahab and his wife are burning in hellfire.

Zafar ends his crudely deceptive and dishonest screed by claiming that I am "practicing deception" and saying he wants to debate me. The worst part about his piece is that Zafar's Ahmadi brethren are being viciously persecuted by Muslims who deem them heretics. I have spoken out in their defense, and instead of thanking me, Zafar sides with his persecutors. He should be debating the mainstream Muslims whom he claims have misunderstood Islam, not me. But clearly he is suffering from a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by Robert on July 16, 2012
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #486 on: July 17, 2012, 04:16:49 PM »

Ahhh Ms. Geller again.

"Her claims are so bizarre that one struggles to understand whether they are worthy of a response. Indeed, one can understand why Charles Johnson, who runs the blog Little Green Footballs, where Geller used to write, said about her: "That would be Ms. Geller. She has a very long record of absolute lunacy, mixed with bigotry and racism and I am far from the only person to point this out."

Geller's modus operandi is to use head-turning statements to merely draw attention to the message of Robert Spencer. The two of them co-founded an organization (Stop Islamization of America) whose actions the Anti-Defamation League concluded "promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam."

Geller has become hysterical with delusions of grandeur, coupled with paranoia of an imaginary global conspiracy.


I think that pretty well sums Geller up.  Yet Objectivist1, rather than quoting academic scholars or respected individuals, you continue to quote this "lunatic zealot".  Is that the best you can do?

For those who want to read both sides of the story, here is the original post by Harris Zafar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-zafar/confronting-pamela-geller_b_1668089.html
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #487 on: July 17, 2012, 04:45:12 PM »

As JDN snidely suggests below.  It will become quickly evident who is telling the truth, and who is dealing in misrepresentation, distortion, and outright lies.
Pamela Geller defends herself quite effectively against Zafar's dishonest hit piece in the response I originally posted.  Yes, DO read "both sides."  One is truth - the other is falsehood.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #488 on: July 17, 2012, 07:27:28 PM »

I'm in no position to enter a discussion on the merits, but the Little Green Footballs blog is not some whiny pre-emptive dhimmitude operation like the ADL , , ,  That said, my sense of things is that Geller does play hard near the edge, which given the slings and slanders that come the way of those who are willing to take on Islamic Fascism and call a spade a spade, on a human level I find rather understandable.  I'm glad that there are people like Spencer and her willing to tread the lonely path in search of Truth.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #489 on: July 17, 2012, 07:43:14 PM »

The search for truth is always a noble endeavor. That said, if one is seeking truth it would be nice if reliable sources other than Geller and Spencer could be found. Otherwise it seems like the aimless rants of a "lunatic" is the only source available. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #490 on: July 18, 2012, 08:07:18 AM »

Yes it would be nice if so many people discussing this subject were not engaged in denial and other forms of cranial rectal interface and ad hominem attacks.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #491 on: July 19, 2012, 11:23:15 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/lawmaker-new-fort-hood-report-faults-fbi-for-sitting-on-intelligence-about-known-terrorist/2012/07/18/gJQAJDvbuW_story.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #492 on: July 19, 2012, 12:46:13 PM »

Nice to see the painfully obvious officially recognized.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #493 on: July 19, 2012, 03:56:58 PM »

As a  member  of Congress, with a seat on the House Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Bachmann you know better. Shame on you, Michele! You should stand on the floor of the House and apologize to Huma Abedin and to Secretary Clinton and to the millions of hard working,loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges. As a devoted Christian, you need to ask forgiveness for this grievous lack of judgment and reckless behavior.

"These allegations about Huma, and the report from which they are drawn, are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant," McCain said.

"When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it," he added.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/bachmann-former-campaign-chief-shame-on-michele/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31697


« Reply #494 on: July 19, 2012, 04:33:07 PM »

Well certainly Ed Rolling has solid credentials as a good pro-American Republican so by the criteria of compurgation, he carries weight.  (OTOH a hack lack Boener WHO HASN'T EVEN READ THE LETTER IN QUESTION carries little to no weight)

That said, if it is true that she has four close family members with Islamo Fascist connections in a world dedicated to the search for Truth, that is worth noting.  This woman sits at the right hand of the Secretary of State for the United States for America as she deals with challenges created by people such as this woman's family.

I dunno if Michele is playing fair here or not (and certainly I did not respect everything she did in her presidential bid) but the day after a report faulting the FBI for pre-emptive dhimmitude viz an obvious Islamo Fascist whackocame out, well I'm reserving judgment for now.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #495 on: July 20, 2012, 08:52:38 AM »

Note that the full text of Bachman's letter in the form of a pdf file can be found here.  Bachmann is spot-on with her analysis here.  Again I urge all readers to read the letter, check her references, and draw your own conclusions:  

www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR192062714.PDF


GOP Blasts Bachmann for Attack on Abedin

House Speaker John Boehner defended a senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after five members of his caucus claimed her relatives had ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington today that while he doesn’t know Huma Abedin personally, his impression is that she has a “sterling character.” The accusations made against her in a June 13 letter to the State Department were “pretty dangerous,” the speaker said.


A day earlier Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., criticized five House Republicans, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who sent the letter alleging Abedin’s family had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and questioning whether she promoted the organization’s cause within the U.S. government.

McCain, in a Senate floor speech yesterday, called the allegations “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”

“When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it,” McCain said, adding that he has known Abedin for more than a decade.

In the letter, Bachmann and the other House Republicans cited a report from the Center for Security Policy, a Washington policy group, claiming that Abedin’s mother, brother and late father had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is Egypt’s largest Islamist organization, from whose ranks the country’s new president, Mohamed Mursi, was selected.

The letter said Abedin’s position “affords her routine access to the secretary and to policymaking” and that the State Department has “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”

Bachmann yesterday said she stood by her inquiries, which she said “are unfortunately being distorted.”

“The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups’ access to top Obama administration officials,” she said in a statement.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said today in an interview with National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm that he didn’t “share the feelings that are in that letter.”

“I am very, very careful and cautious about ever making accusations like that about anybody,” said Rubio, a Tea Party- backed member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Abedin, the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D.-NY, has been an aide to Clinton since 1996.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters yesterday, “The secretary very much values her wise counsel and support, and we think that these allegations are preposterous.”

Weiner resigned from Congress in June 2011 after a lewd picture of himself that he had sent to another woman was posted on the Internet.

Weiner, Abedin and their six-month-old son were featured in a July 18 People Magazine article in which the former congressman said he was “very happy” and “not doing anything to plan a campaign” for future public office.

© 2012 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 08:55:33 AM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #496 on: July 22, 2012, 09:51:32 AM »

Robert Spencer is interviewed by the superb Mark Levin on his national radio show this past Friday:

www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/robert-spencer-on-mark-levin-speaks-about-bachmann-mccain-and-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6099


« Reply #497 on: July 22, 2012, 03:19:44 PM »

Andy McCarthy of National Review defends Bachmann's line of inquiry:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310198/questions-about-huma-abedin-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1
-----------------
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline has a pretty good take on this, it is liberal infiltration more than Muslim Brotherhood infiltration that has led to the slant of State Dept. policy decisions in favor of Islamic extremist groups.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-problem-with-michele-bachmanns-letter-to-the-state-department.php

"I would speculate that the State Department’s tilt towards the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with Abedin. The State Department is prone to want to hitch U.S. policy to anti-Western extremists, claiming they aren’t as bad as they look (and talk). This tendency predates the Obama administration. Once Mubarak fell in Egypt, it was probably inevitable that an Obama State Department would follow this tradition in dealing with the Brotherhood. The policy, then, appears to be the product of the liberal imagination, not Brotherhood infiltration.

Of course, this is just speculation. But so is the thrust of the opening portion of Bachmann’s letter. To that extent, the language of the letter is unfortunate, and has tended to undermine its worthy goal of raising legitimate and serious concerns about the substance of State Department policy."

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #498 on: July 27, 2012, 11:08:05 AM »

This is the type of threat Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller routinely deal with from these savages.  They are both to be commended for their courage:
 
www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/if-you-ever-disrespect-islam-ever-again-im-going-to-personally-find-you-all-okyoull-fucking-die.html
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 601


« Reply #499 on: July 27, 2012, 12:45:23 PM »

ALL DEATH THREATS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

The Huffington Post has written an entire article on Ground Zero mosque imam Rauf's claim that he got a threat during the mega-mosque controversy at Ground Zero (which we soundly defeated).

"Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Public Face Of 'Ground Zero Mosque,' Says Life Was Threatened"

Really, puff hos?

I have a file of death threats two inches thick. My peers like Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, et al have death threats that could fill a library. Just ask Salman Rushdie and Asia Bibi.

Is the Puffington Ho kidding?

The Puff Hos suffer from extreme bigotry and islamophobia, since they obviously expect Muslims to be violent and make death threats; therefore, it's not news. But radical Rauf gets one (and honestly, who believes this serial liar?) and they are all over it like maggots on dead flesh.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!