Are we at war with Islam? [Archive] - Page 4

Peregrino

03-08-2007, 19:30

More voices saying "The Emperor Has No Clothes". Peregrino

We Cannot or We Have Forgotten How to Fight - by Col. David Hunt

February 16, 2007 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252480,00.html

This has to be said, written about, yelled about, cried about and fixed, or we can all start learning to pray on rugs.

We cannot fight. Specifically, we cannot fight a global war - against anything really - but we especially don't seem to be able to fight one against terrorism.

We, that is, the United States of America, are the greatest country with the smartest, bravest, most compassionate people on the planet. The problem is we have forgotten how to fight. We have elected presidents simply because they are not someone else, and we have elections in which we argue about a war that happened 40 years ago, but hardly touched the one we are in right now. We send soldiers into war without the right gear and claim it's OK, even as they die.

We cannot even figure out why we go to war. Was it WMD that weren't even there? Was it a noble act to get Saddam out of power, which we did (but probably would not have gone to war just to do that)?

We promote generals and admirals with no combat experience and absolute zero leadership skills, who only knew how to use PowerPoint slides, and required those slides from combat soldiers before they were allowed to go into combat. We allow some of the deadliest, most competent warriors on the planet - United States Navy SEALS - to sit on their ultra-conditioned butts in a war zone without using them for even one damn day.

We allow a country we completely control (Afghanistan) to become the single largest provider of raw heroin, while the country we live in (USA) continues to be the largest users of that same heroin.

We allow victories achieved by our great soldiers to turn into Civil War at best - and complete chaos at worst. We lose $12 billion, because we don't know how to distribute money - so we put it on trucks, and give to people without checking on them and what they are doing with it. We deny for years that a country (Iran) is actively killing our soldiers. We prosecute our soldiers and Marines for shooting a bad guy too many times. We create rules that stop our soldiers from not just protecting themselves, which would be bad enough, but even worse, prevent them from fighting - or maybe that's not worse, but equally criminal.

We have not captured the men directly responsible for 9/11. We have not captured these murderers because we allow others to create safe havens where terrorists can hide and make their videotapes.

Now, some will counter my argument with patriotic remarks or with examples of how we really are doing well because . wait for it . because we have not been attacked again. Yeah, these are the same politically-blinded nutjobs who have allowed up to 20 million illegal aliens to not only get into our country and get drivers' licenses and complete medical care, but also created states that will not even question the status of these illegals, and therefore grant their children college educations. We cannot fight. Hell, we not only cannot fight, we work against ourselves while we are trying to fight.

The things I am pointing to are happening every day in this government of non-fighters. Wake up, kick them out of office, protest, yell, demand they protect your sons and daughters in uniform, demand we fight and fight to win - not just fight not to lose. We need a nation at war, not just a military fighting in one.

Right now, the State Department cannot even fill the posts they have in Iraq, because they cannot order their people to go. Unbelievable! Right now in Iraq, there is no legal system, no banking system and close to no government - yet we the greatest nation in the world, with thousands of government workers in D.C., and we cannot afford, or worse, aren't willing, to send some of them to Iraq? We not only cannot fight, we won't. You see, fighting is not just soldiers dying in Mosul - it is also FBI agents doing their jobs, (by the way, they can't, because only 33 of them speak Arabic). Fighting is also the Department of the Treasury cracking banks with links to terrorists.

Fighting this war can happen in our homes, where we should sacrifice to help the cause. In World War II, it happened with war bonds, moms working in factories, with blackouts, and tin drives. In this war, our leaders not only tell us not to fight, they also tell us to go about our business as if nothing is wrong. We cannot fight if we are lying to ourselves while we're doing it.

"So what?" you might ask, "We have not been attacked, and well, we like this president - or we don't, but there is global warming or there is that blonde who died with at least four guys claiming to be the father of her baby, while her own body is getting ripe in a morgue - or some diaper-wearing astronaut running around - or my flat screen TV works really well." Did I mention that we cannot fight?

Team Sergeant

03-21-2007, 08:47

I'm sure they're "tens of thousands" of muslims (all over the world) taking to the streets right now in protest of this new "islamic" terror tactic. islam putting the "B" brutality.

Team Sergeant
Proud Infidel

Pentagon: Children Used in Iraqi Homicide Bombing
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — Iraqi insurgents appear to have adopted a new tactic since the start of a security crackdown in Baghdad, using children in a suicide attack on Sunday, a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, told reporters that a vehicle was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260060,00.html

x SF med

03-21-2007, 10:18

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, told reporters that a vehicle was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat.

Cowards, and animals.

JGarcia

03-21-2007, 12:04

The link is to an OP-Ed that Steven Pressfield wrote. He is the author of several popular novels, one you are probably most familiar with is "Gates of Fire."

The essay describes middle eastern tribalism and how it pertains to the current war. Other essays he's written are also available on his website. This essay is in line with the essay Peregrino posted by Col. Hunt.

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed1.asp

x-factor

04-08-2007, 14:41

Wow. I just finished skimming all 51 pages...an excellent exchange. My post is going to be mostly a recombination of what others have said, but maybe it will be useful as a summary/synthesis.

Are we at war with Islam?

Islam writ large? No...but we are in a zero-sum fight to the death with the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi faction of Sunni Islam. (Incidentaly, I don't like the term Islamofascism. Its trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just because its a pre-existing easily understood hole.)

There are three factors that put us necessarily in a state of war with this faction:
1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy
2) they reject compromise out of hand as a metaphysical sin
3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

If they were not all of these, we could find a way to coexist. (Incidentally, I would not put Iranian fundamentalism in the same category, as I do not believe they are all of these things.)

The issue of course is that there is no Salifistan. Salafism is as much a part of Islam as Baptists are of Christianity. The crux of our strategy has to run along counter-insurgency lines:
1) distinguish friend from neutral from sympathetic from enemy
2) respect all, aid the friend, woo the neutral, watch the sympathetic, and kill the enemy
3) employ all capabilities (diplomatic, economic, cultural, military, etc) in concert against the problem

For my money, the best historical example of this type of strategy is the Brits in Northern Ireland...in that its the best example of hard and soft power being used in tandem towards an identifiable end.

sg1987

04-18-2007, 09:12

Fox News

Report: 3 Killed in Attack on Bible Publishing House in Turkey
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
ISTANBUL, Turkey —
Attackers killed three people Wednesday at a publishing house that had been the subject of protests for distributing Bibles in Turkey, the government-run Anatolia news agency reported.
One person who had his throat cut inside the publishing house and another who jumped from the third floor to escape were taken to local hospitals for treatment, the private Dogan news agency said. Anatolia said one of those taken to the hospital later died.
Nationalists previously had protested outside the Zirve publishing house in the city of Malatya, accusing it of proselytizing, Dogan reported.
Video footage broadcast on private NTV news channel showed one man being tackled by police outside of the building, and another in a neck brace being loaded into a stretcher.
Malatya is known as a hotbed of nationalists and is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish man who shot Pope John Paul II in 1981.

dennisw

04-18-2007, 10:33

There are three factors that put us necessarily in a state of war with this faction:
1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy
2) they reject compromise out of hand as a metaphysical sin
3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

I'm not sure why you would not put the Iranian fundamentalism in this category. Look at how they are attempting to influence events in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. They are definitely trying to expand their influence, if not their territory . I'm not sure whether or not they view compromise as a metaphysical sin, but what does it matter if you cannot negotiate with them?

Secondly, if someone is violent towards us, does it matter whether or not it is motivated by temporary necessity or philosophy? I fail to see the importance of the above distinction. Additionally, if Iran was not supplying weapons and training to the Shiite factions or providing a safe haven to radical Islamist of all ilk, I believe our course in Iraq or Afghanistan would not be as difficult.

In the overall scope of things, Iran's determination in obtaining nuclear weapons may have a more adverse effect then all the activities of the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi faction.

I believe we are faced with a Herculean task in trying to install a secretarian government in Iraq or Afghanistan, namely democracy. How can you have a democracy without freedom of speech? How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of religion? The answer is you cannot. As long as proselytizing is illegal which is what SG1987 points out in the previous post it seems it's a monumental task.

So are we at war with Islam? Practically speaking, I believe the answer is yes.

tk27

04-18-2007, 15:20

I'm not sure whether or not they view compromise as a metaphysical sin, but what does it matter if you cannot negotiate with them?
I am anxious to hear X-Factors reply, and will comment over this part only.
Iran can be negotiated with.
Timeline: U.S.-Iran Contacts, Council of Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10326/)

In 2003 Iran was scared, it offered to:
- Help stabilize Iraq after the American invasion
- Cut ties with Hezbollah and Hamas
- Show greater transparency in it’s nuclear program
In return for:
- Ending hostilities between the two countries
- Lifting of sanctions
- Disbanding of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq

This is according to then Secretary Colin Powell’s chief or staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm) (US Army, retired), and career CIA analyst Flynt Leverett (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html), then working as a senior director on the National Security Council for Condi Rice.

The White House turned it down.

TENGU

04-18-2007, 15:26

How true. Like always, we have to fight with an arm tied behind our backs
and ridiculous ROE. Until we take out Iran and/or Syria this will continue.
Unfortunately it's not our call who we fight and when to stop.
Our guys are swallowing sand and bleeding while politicos in DC are
having coktails and criticizing our methods
More concerned about the Guantanamo detainees and an Al-Queda "Bill of Rights" than our maimed soldiers.

x-factor

04-18-2007, 16:52

Should Iran be treated as an enemy? Yes. Certainly their national aims and ours are in conflict.

Should this conflict with Iran be treated as a zero-sum game? No.

I don't think Iran meets any of my criteria fully.

1) Are they violent? Yes, but not as a matter of philosophy. By that I mean, that mass violence isn't a goal in and of itself for them. If that were the case the world would look even worse than it already does.
2) Even the hardliners don't reject compromise completely out of hand.
3) Aggressively expansionist? Right now? Yes, because they have an excellent geopolitical opportunity. As a matter of philosopy? No.

Adversarial though they may be, they are not exceedingly violent and, as tk27 noted, they are not beyond reason and negotiation. Furthermore, the Iranian government (much less the Iranian nation) is not at all a monolith. Ahmadinejad and the hardline faction talk like maniacs, but they're constrained by other factors, the populace chief among them.

Persians are an educated, cosmopolitan people. They've got garage bands and blue jeans, and the women are smoking hot under the veils they're forced to wear. A little time and a little pressure and Iran I think Iran will come around of its own.

Thats not to say they're not a threat. Iran should be aggressively contained and their government undermined through all sensible means. We should view it as basically a regional cold war. Iran needs to be slowly and methodically strangled...throwing haymakers is just going to cause more and bigger problems.

Razor

04-18-2007, 18:04

In 2003 Iran was scared, it offered to:
- Help stabilize Iraq after the American invasion
- Cut ties with Hezbollah and Hamas
- Show greater transparency in it’s nuclear program
In return for:
- Ending hostilities between the two countries
- Lifting of sanctions
- Disbanding of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq

And after Muhammad broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyya (after having his ass handed to him by the Quraysh and agreeing to almost everything asked of him in negotiations), it became accepted practice for muslims to make treaties that allowed them to 'consolidate and reorganize' to regain an advantageous position, and then break the treaties when they were ready to strike.

1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy...3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle

Isn't this confirmed in the hadith by Muhammad that there are only three choices when a Muslim encounters an infidel:
Allow them to accept Islam as the only religion and become Muslim
Pay the Jizya (a money-making scam for Muhammad that allowed non-Muslims to keep their religion if they paid a 'tax'; not unlike the tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates)
Kill them

Seems to me to meet the criteria of both conditions.

Team Sergeant

04-18-2007, 19:29

Adversarial though they may be, they are not exceedingly violent and, as tk27 noted, they are not beyond reason and negotiation.

So I take it you're raising your hand to go and begin talks with the iranians?

Persians are an educated, cosmopolitan people
Maybe a thousand years ago. You forget they stormed our embassy and held Americans for 444 days?

I'm going to get tired of you real quick.

I spoke persian and was taught by two female iranians, they both hated the religious government. Care to guess why?

TS

x-factor

04-18-2007, 20:28

So I take it you're raising your hand to go and begin talks with the iranians?

Negotiation is fine as long as you know what you're trying to get and what you're not willing to give up. It is one aspect of a full containment strategy.

Maybe a thousand years ago. You forget they stormed our embassy and held Americans for 444 days?

No, I didn't forget and I'm all for a hardline. I'm just saying it needs to be well-considered because you don't want to solve one problem and cause three more. Especially if the problem you solved was more manageable than the problems you create.

I spoke persian and was taught by two female iranians, they both hated the religious government. Care to guess why?

TS

I'm sure they did and I'm sure I don't blame them a lick. A friend of mine is a brilliant astrophysicist who was chased out by those fools. But thats part of my point (one I probably didn't make in enough detail the first time)...the fact that a significant amount (if not a majority) of the population (especially the urban population) is cosmopolitan and does not like the theocracy is a source of leverage to be used as part of a comprehensive containment policy.

I'm not defending the Iranian government. I'm talking about how best to handle them.

The original point I was making was to contrast the Iranian hardline government with the jihadists. Its not that one is our enemy and one isn't. They're both our enemies. But, I believe, the jihadis are an existential threat and as such require faster harsher measures than the Iranians who (at present) aren't much different than any other despotic nation-state throughout history.

As for getting tired of me...I don't know what to say really. I'm a guest and will leave without question if you want, but wouldn't you rather have a good exchange than chase me off?

x-factor

04-18-2007, 20:39

Isn't this confirmed in the hadith by Muhammad that there are only three choices when a Muslim encounters an infidel:
Allow them to accept Islam as the only religion and become Muslim
Pay the Jizya (a money-making scam for Muhammad that allowed non-Muslims to keep their religion if they paid a 'tax'; not unlike the tributes demanded by the Barbary pirates)
Kill them

Seems to me to meet the criteria of both conditions.

Thats my point on why Jihadists/Salafists/extremists are different from the Iranian government. One acts on that hadith in every case possible, the other takes it as just one factor of many in the course of statecraft.

Razor

04-18-2007, 21:51

x-factor

04-18-2007, 22:07

I would say those that act in a predictable manner each and every time (the jihadis) are much easier to deal with than an unpredictable entity, such as you've described the Iranian government. Is it your opinion that both the Iranian people and their government selectively adhere to the edicts in the Qur'an, and ignore others to best suit their needs?

I'd say jihadis are easier to deal with, in a sense. They're a simpler problem at the strategic level. The only real solution is to destroy them. Thats what I meant by us being in a zero-sum game with the jihadis.

As for Iran...I'd would say they "interpret" it differently (or at least not as stringently) from jihadis like Al Qaeda. Put it this way, for all Ahmadinejad's trash talk...if the Iranians were the same type of jihadi enemy as Al Qaeda, the would have executed the Brit sailors, UNIFIL in Lebanon would be fighting for its life, etc.

Team Sergeant

04-20-2007, 10:01

for all Ahmadinejad's trash talk...if the Iranians were the same type of jihadi enemy as Al Qaeda, the would have executed the Brit sailors, UNIFIL in Lebanon would be fighting for its life, etc.

Make no mistake, the iranians are just like the jihadist, in fact IMO they are one in the same.

But unlike the "free range jihadist" or "free range insurgent" that are hard to find and kill we know where the command and control of iran is, most of the time. Hence their display of compassion and "playing" of the brinkmanship game. They are not going to execute anyone on the public stage, not yet.

Wait until they have developed a fully functional nuclear weapon and we will see how their tone/attitude changes. Right now they are buying time, lots of time. There is a method to their madness.

TS

SOCOM8721

04-20-2007, 10:10

Right now they are buying time, lots of time. There is a method to their madness.
TS

I am in Sierra Leone for 90 days and the Iranians are here signing a MOU for technology sharing with SL.

Now this is a country that has no technology, but TONS of Rutile...(Diamonds)

Just what kind of technology could be passing back and forth? And why, why I ask would the Iranians want to make friends on the West Coast of Africa?

Could it be range of weapon limitations from Iran?

SOCOM8721

04-20-2007, 10:15

Today: Friday April 20, 2007
Iranian National Library, Sierra Leonean Culture Ministry ink MoU
Tehran,

Iran-Sierra Leone-Library

Head of Document Organization and National Library of Iran and Sierra Leonean Culture and Tourism Minister signed a memorandum of understanding on Thursday.

According to the public relations office of Iran National Library, Okere Adams called for Iran's support for expanding Islamic and oriental culture in Sierra Leone.

Ali-Akbar Ash'ari, Cultural Advisor to President and Head of Document Organization and National Library, on his part, referred to creating joint Islamic front against western cultural invasion as one of aspects of the Islamic solidarity.

Ash'ari added that signing such MoU will expand cultural exchanges among Islamic countries.

The MoU, signed by Ash'ari and Adams, underlined the need to preserve written and digital national heritage of the two friendly countries.

The two sides also have agreed to exchange experts and develop cooperation on sharing information and experiences in different written heritage.

And now this today...

A METHOD TO THE MADNESS... YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!

x-factor

04-20-2007, 15:54

TS - I suspect our positions aren't as far apart as maybe it seems at first. Keeping them from acquiring a nuke, by whatever means, I would consider to be the cornerstone of an Iran containment policy.

dennisw

04-20-2007, 20:20

Thats my point on why Jihadists/Salafists/extremists are different from the Iranian government. One acts on that hadith in every case possible, the other takes it as just one factor of many in the course of statecraft.

I don't believe anyone will argue that there are differences in form between the two. It's the substance that is not different. I believe these similarities extend to their goals.

I get the impression that you are suggesting that there are different methods which can be used in addressing both. The Iranians are constantly talking about negotiations, yet they have not seemingly altered there progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons or expansion in the the middle east. I believe the appearance of the Iranians being open to negotiation is an allusion, a carefully crafted one at that.

The four US military men who were recently abducted and executed were most likely the victims of Iranians. Yes, the Iranians did not execute the British sailors, but that was because it did not suit their goals. However, they can be ruthless if they believe it is required or if it cannot be publicly verified. I believe the Al Queda types don't always execute their hostages either if receiving a ransom better meets their short term goals. Why?

But unlike the "free range jihadist" or "free range insurgent" that are hard to find and kill we know where the command and control of iran is, most of the time. Hence their display of compassion and "playing" of the brinkmanship game. They are not going to execute anyone on the public stage, not yet.

TR hits the nail on the head here. You attribute their seemly restraint to compassion or what? Wanting to be a good nation in standing? Tell that to the families whose sons have been killed by Iranian supplied IED's or by Iranian trained snipers.

Instead of focusing on methodology, let's focus on the goals of both the Iranians and the radical sunni insurgents: They both want to control the middle east and ultimately the World. They methods use are just different because they occupy different strategic and tactical positions.

The threshold question is still: Are we at war with islam?

x-factor

04-20-2007, 20:44

I believe the appearance of the Iranians being open to negotiation is an allusion, a carefully crafted one at that.

Without a doubt it is. The Iranians are proceeding with a multifaceted (military, political, diplomatic, cultural) strategy to expand their power until they become the regional leader and, by extension, a world power. This is similar, but not the same as Al Qaeda's goal to reestablish the Caliphate followed by neverending jihad. The key difference is Iran is trying to expand its power within the existing world system and through generally traditional methods. Al Qaeda is trying to flip the switch on the whole system using revolutionary methods (to include nuclear terrorism). Thats why, in my mind, Al Qaeda requires a more rapid, harsher approach, while Iran can be contained (and rolled back) through traditional statecraft.

The threshold question is still: Are we at war with islam?

Jihadist Islam, yes. General Islam, no.

lksteve

04-20-2007, 21:22

INow this is a country that has no technology, but TONS of Rutile...(Diamonds)rutile is titanium oxide...diamonds are comprised of covalently bonded carbon atoms...in terms of strategically important materials, titanium is more coveted than diamonds...BTW, rutile is not a principle ore of titanium, saving that titanium used to coat welding rods or used as a pigment in paint...

sg1987

04-20-2007, 21:59

Man,
The hottest place in hell has got to be reserved for folks that teach children to do such things!!!!

How can you reach a kid after they've been brainwashed to this extent?

Jihadist video shows boy beheading man By ABDUL SATTAR, Associated Press Writer
52 minutes ago

The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive's head to cries of "God is great!" and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

Story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_child_executioner;_ylt=Avr71V2pwrQB5sfXRQ kQqKnMWM0F

pegasus

05-16-2007, 09:41

If this is the wrong thread for the this, admins please move.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm

Springtime in Islamberg
Radical Muslim paramilitary compound flourishes in upper New York state

By Paul L. Williams Ph.D., (author of THE DAY OF ISLAM)

Friday, May 11, 2007

Situated within a dense forest at the foothills of the Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York, Islamberg is not an ideal place for a summer vacation unless, of course, you are an exponent of the Jihad or a fan of Osama bin Laden.

The 70 acre complex is surrounded with "No trespassing" signs; the rocky terrain is infested with rattlesnakes; and the woods are home to black bears, coyotes, wolves, and a few bobcats.

The entrance to the community is at the bottom of a very steep hill that is difficult to navigate even on a bright sunny day in May. The road, dubbed Muslim Lane, is unpaved and marred by deep crevices that have been created by torrential downpours. On a wintry day, few, save those with all terrain vehicles, could venture forth from the remote encampment.

A sentry post has been established at the base of the hill.

The sentry, at the time of this visit, is an African American dressed in Islamic garb - - a skull cap, a prayer shawl, and a loose fitting shalwat kameez. He instructs us to turn around and leave. "Our community is not open to visitors," he says.

Behind the sentry and across a small stream stand dozens of inhabitants of the compound - - the men wearing skull caps and loose fitting tunics, the women in full burqa. They appear ready to deal with any unauthorized intruders.

The hillside is blighted by rusty trailers that appear to be without power or running water and a number of outhouses. The scent of raw sewage is in the air.

The place is even off limits to the local undertaker who says that he has delivered bodies to the complex but has never been granted entrance. "They come and take the bodies from my hearse. They won't allow me to get past the sentry post. They say that they want to prepare the bodies for burial. But I never get the bodies back. I don't know what's going on there but I don't think it's legal."

On the other side of the hill where few dare to go is a tiny village replete with a make-shift learning center (dubbed the "International Quranic Open University"); a trailer converted into a Laundromat; a small, green community center; a small and rather squalid grocery store; a newly constructed majid; over forty clapboard homes; and scores of additional trailers.

It is home to hundreds - - all in Islamic attire, and all African-Americans. Most drive late model SUVs with license plates from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The locals say that some work as tollbooth operators for the New York State Thruway, while others are employed at a credit card processing center that maintains confidential financial records.

While buzzing with activity during the week, the place becomes a virtual hive on weekends. The guest includes arrivals from the inner cities of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and, occasionally, white-robed dignitaries in Ray-Bans from the Middle East.

Venturing into the complex last summer, Douglas Hagmann, an intrepid investigator and director of the Northeast Intelligence Service, came upon a military training area at the eastern perimeter of the property. The area was equipped with ropes hanging from tall trees, wooden fences for scaling, a make-shift obstacle course, and a firing range. Hagmann said that the range appeared to have been in regular use.

Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the neighbors wished to be identified for fear of "retaliation." "We don't even dare to slow down when we drive by," one resident said. "They own the mountain and they know it and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can't even do that. Who wants to buy a property near that?"

The complex serves to scare the bejeesus out of the local residents. "If you go there, you better wear body armor," a customer at the Circle E Diner in Hancock said. "They have armed guards and if they shoot you, nobody will find your body."

At Cousins, a watering hole in nearby Deposit, a barfly, who didn't wish to be identified, said: "The place is dangerous. You can hear gunfire up there. I can't understand why the FBI won't shut it down."

Islamberg is a branch of Muslims of the Americas Inc., a tax-exempt organization formed in 1980 by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who refers to himself as "the sixth Sultan Ul Faqr," Gilani, has been directly linked by court documents to Jamaat ul-Fuqra or "community of the impoverished," an organization that seeks to "purify" Islam through violence.Ý

Though primarily based in Lahore, Pakistan, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has operational headquarters in New York and openly recruits through various social service organizations in the U.S., including the prison system. Members live in hamaats or compounds, such as Islamberg, where they agree to abide by the laws of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, which are considered to be above local, state and federal authority. Additional hamaats have been established in Hyattsville, Maryland; Red House, Virginia; Falls Church, Virginia; Macon, Georgia; York, South Carolina; Dover, Tennessee; Buena Vista, Colorado; Talihina, Oklahoma; Tulare Country, California; Commerce, California; and Onalaska, Washington. Others are being built, including an expansive facility in Sherman, Pennsylvania.

Before becoming a citizen of Islamberg or any of the other Fuqra compounds, the recruits - - primarily inner city black men who became converts in prison - - are compelled to sign an oath that reads: "I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah's sake."

In the past, thousands of members of the U.S. branches of Jamaat ul-Fuqra traveled to Pakistan for paramilitary training, but encampments, such as Islamberg, are now capable of providing boot-camp training so raw recruits are no longer required to travel abroad amidst the increased scrutiny of post 9/11.

Over the years, numerous members of Jamaat ul-Fuqra have been convicted in US courts of such crimes as conspiracy to commit murder, firebombing, gun smuggling, and workers' compensation fraud. Others remain leading suspects in criminal cases throughout the country, including ten unsolved assassinations and seventeen fire-bombings between 1979 and 1990.

The criminal charges against the group and the criminal convictions are not things of the past. In 2001, a resident of a California compound was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting of a sheriff's deputy; another was charged with gun-smuggling' and twenty-four members of the Red House community were convicted of firearms violations.

By 2004 federal investigators uncovered evidence that linked both the DC "sniper killer" John Allen Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid to the group and reports surfaced that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was captured and beheaded in the process of attempting to obtain an interview with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan.

Even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in terror attacks and sundry criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant Muslims, it remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List. On the contrary, it continues to operate, flourish, and expand as a legitimate nonprofit, tax-deductible charity.

The Reaper

05-17-2007, 17:11

Now see, I always thought the biggest threat was Islamic terrorists trying to kill the rest of us.:rolleyes:

TR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism, Islamic Foreign Ministers Say
Thursday , May 17, 2007

The gravest terrorist threat in the world today is Islamophobia, foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference said this week.

“It is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions,” they said.

The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. They accused Western media of misrepresenting Islam and Muslims worldwide, according to a report in Arab News.

“The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable," the ministers said.

"The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult," the foreign ministers said, according to the report.

“This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,” the ministers said.

The ministers said the Islamophobic terror threat predates this decade, but worsened on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other," they said.

“It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims."

Ret10Echo

05-17-2007, 19:42

Now see, I always thought the biggest threat was Islamic terrorists trying to kill the rest of us.:rolleyes:

TR

"The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult," the foreign ministers said, according to the report.

More difficult for what? For fundamentalists to kill innocents in Western nations?

The Reaper

05-17-2007, 20:01

The really scary thing is that Van Gogh, the cartoonists, the Pope, etc. are all justifications for terrorism; but murder, assassinations, arson, rape, racist characterizations, cartoons, calling them pigs, etc. is fine for Muslims to do to Israelis and the US.

If we treated the Muslims like they treat us and the Israelis, we would have killed most of them off already.

TR

x-factor

05-17-2007, 20:29

Morality defined not by action but by membership in a group is one of the hallmarks of facism.

The Reaper

05-17-2007, 20:43

Morality defined not by action but by membership in a group is one of the hallmarks of facism.

Good one.

TR

sg1987

05-23-2007, 05:21

Morality defined not by action but by membership in a group is one of the hallmarks of facism.

It would appear that membership in this group has done serious damage to their definition of morality….

POLL: ONE IN FOUR U.S. MUSLIMS OK WITH HOMICIDE BOMBINGS AGAINST INNOCENT CIVILIANS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html

3SoldierDad

05-24-2007, 19:19

POLL: ONE IN FOUR U.S. MUSLIMS OK WITH HOMICIDE BOMBINGS AGAINST INNOCENT CIVILIANS

That's a very serious stat...

afchic

05-25-2007, 12:56

That's a very serious stat...

I heard someone on the news yesterday saying that we were looking at the data in the wrong way. Instead of seeing it as 25% of American Muslims agreeing with this tactic, we should instead be focused on the 75% that don't approve.

I agree that 75% is a great number, but when you look at the number of Muslims in the US, 25% comes out to almost 200,000. That is a scary number. What if those 200K decide they are going to walk into the local shopping mall and make themselves a martyr?

The Reaper

05-25-2007, 13:19

Hey, I thought torture was keeping people up late, taking embarrassing pictures of them, not letting them wear scented deodorant, that sort of thing.

What do we call this, and the people who condone it? Is this something that your friends and neighbors do for you?

TR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275341,00.html

Al Qaeda 'Torture Handbook'
Thursday , May 24, 2007

Al Qaeda terrorists use blow torches, electric drills and meat cleavers to torture and force information out of their victims, according to a "how-to" book discovered in a terrorist safe house in Iraq.

The Defense Department recently released disturbing images and cartoons showing how to torture a captive found by American forces during a raid on a Al Qaeda safe house a few weeks ago. They also found photos of tortured Iraqi victims.

The book guides followers of Al Qaeda how to interrogate and torture captives.

The drawings and cartoons depict ways to use electric drills and irons, meat cleavers and other devices to force victims to talk or harm them.

Some of the drawings show how to drill hands, sever limbs, drag victims behind cars, remove eyes, put a blowtorch or iron to someone’s skin, suspend a person from a ceiling and electrocute them, break limbs and restrict breath and put someone’s head in a vice.

Items found at the safe house include electric drills, hammers, blow torches, meat cleavers, pliers and wire cutters, chains, screw drivers, whips and handcuffs.

Earlier this week U.S. troops found the information near Baghdad, along with five Iraqis being held.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that Al Qaeda poses a dangerous threat to the United States for years to come.

"Clearly, whatever military advice we give, both in Iraq and regionally, must take into account that this group — of Al Qaeda — has targeted free nations, to include the United States, and how our long-term plan and our long-term recommendations must deal with that very real threat to the United States," Pace said at a Pentagon briefing.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States continues to direct most efforts to defeating Al Qaeda, but he predicted insurgents in Iraq will ramp up attacks this summer

"I think the worry that we have is clearly what we have seen over the past year: that whatever progress is made — and particularly in the last few months — often is overshadowed when Al Qaeda will launch a major attack that kills a lot of innocent civilian Iraqis," Gates said.

afchic

05-25-2007, 13:23

smp52

05-25-2007, 16:07

I believe the following link is the study what all the news agencies have been citing with regards to Muslim Americans:

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

The study is approximately 100 pages long.

EDIT: My apologies. It is referenced in the article. If admins feel this link is not needed, please delete my post.

The Reaper

05-25-2007, 16:12

I believe the following link is the study what all the news agencies have been citing with regards to Muslim Americans:

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

The study is approximately 100 pages long.

Here is the Cliff Note version that seems a lot more realistic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/peering_through_a_glass_halffu.html

IMHO, if there are more than a dozen Muslim-American kids who believe that suicide bombings of civilian targets is legit, at any time, we are only a few blasting caps, an imam, and a coordinator away from a serious series of terrorist attacks that could cripple the US economy.

Turns out that there are hundreds of thousands living here among us.

TR

abc_123

05-25-2007, 18:25

TR,

i couldn't agree with you more. i've been doing a lot of thinking about this stuff lately and the more thinking I do the more scared I get.

3SoldierDad

05-26-2007, 16:28

IMHO, if there are more than a dozen Muslim-American kids who believe that suicide bombings of civilian targets is legit, at any time, we are only a few blasting caps, an imam, and a coordinator away from a serious series of terrorist attacks that could cripple the US economy.

Turns out that there are hundreds of thousands living here among us.

TR

Yeah, exactly...However, what does that mean? And, where do we go from here?

I don't know what you all are thinking? But, in my experience as an entrepreneur if we can think it or imagine it - it is only a matter of time before you start seeing it - I have ideas in my head that I'm afraid to utter lest I give anyone ideas. I can imagine a lot of horrific scenarios...We need to consider the ramifications of what this reality means for our future. The rules of war and the resolutions of hate are changing in the abstract right now - whether we realize it or not - And, whistling in the dark is not the solution.

What sobers me just as much as the high number of terrorist sympathizers in the U.S. is that the 75% of Muslims who lean against supporting suicide bombers and terrorists - nevertheless, are still quite reluctant to speak up and voice their opposition to Muslim terrorism and its methods. If that doesn't change - I have little hope that a disaster can be averted - A disaster for both America and for America's Moslem community. In other words, there seems to be as many enablers (probably many more) in the Muslim community as there are folks sympathetic to terrorists. This passivity I find even more unnerving.

We need to seriously rethink our approach to America's Muslim community.

Some thoughts...

Outlawing certain Moslem practices and teachings
Regulation / Outlawing of inciteful speech and communication
Registration and wiretapping of all Moslem Mosques and Schools
Active racial and religious profiling
Active system of deporations of Political Islamists
Creation of a system of loyalty tests
Creation of large and active means of human monitoring and informing
Monitoring Moslem schools' and Mosques' interpretation of Koran as relating to jihad, infidels, Jews, and Christians
A massive revision of domestic law for treating terrorism revised toward military law and the laws of treason.

The above list is meant for starters...

Bad things will happen...We shouldn't be caught flat-footed. In better times none of this would be necessary or even considered.

We're not in better times...

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

x-factor

05-26-2007, 17:05

We need to seriously rethink our approach to America's Muslim community.

Some thoughts...

Outlawing certain Moslem practices and teachings
Regulation / Outlawing of inciteful speech and communication
Registration and wiretapping of all Moslem Mosques and Schools
Active racial and religious profiling
Active system of deporations of Political Islamists
Creation of a system of loyalty tests
Creation of large and active means of human monitoring and informing
Monitoring Moslem schools' and Mosques' interpretation of Koran as relating to jihad, infidels, Jews, and Christians
A massive revision of domestic law for treating terrorism revised toward military law and the laws of treason.

I respect that you're advocating facing down a serious threat and your sense of vigilance, but on several of these proposals I'm worried that you're talking about killing democracy to save it. Loyalty tests? Martial law? Monitoring religious opinions?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin

I'm not saying we don't need to be more vigilant. Certainly we need to improve our capability for domestic surveillance (both technical and human) in terms of making it more responsive and just generally larger. I think we need to seriously consider breaking off the counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism sections of the FBI into a domestic intelligence agency like Britain's MI5 (the stand up of DHS has been a debacle). Certainly there also needs to be better immigration and naturalization scrutiny.

In the 1960s and 70s we had problems with the Klan and neo-Nazi organizations. In the 1980s parts of the country (I grew up in Miami) faced a Wild West of drug running organized crime. In the 1990s we faced a problem with radical militia and white supremacist type groups. In all these cases (though to be fair they were smaller, less serious threats) we were able to beat them back without fundamentally compromising our core values.

With the utmost respect, we need to be smart and vigilant. We don't need to tear our society apart in a panic.

3SoldierDad

05-26-2007, 20:26

I respect that you're advocating facing down a serious threat and your sense of vigilance, but on several of these proposals I'm worried that you're talking about killing democracy to save it. Loyalty tests? Martial law? Monitoring religious opinions?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin

I'm not saying we don't need to be more vigilant. Certainly we need to improve our capability for domestic surveillance (both technical and human) in terms of making it more responsive and just generally larger. I think we need to seriously consider breaking off the counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism sections of the FBI into a domestic intelligence agency like Britain's MI5 (the stand up of DHS has been a debacle). Certainly there also needs to be better immigration and naturalization scrutiny.

In the 1960s and 70s we had problems with the Klan and neo-Nazi organizations. In the 1980s parts of the country (I grew up in Miami) faced a Wild West of drug running organized crime. In the 1990s we faced a problem with radical militia and white supremacist type groups. In all these cases (though to be fair they were smaller, less serious threats) we were able to beat them back without fundamentally compromising our core values.

With the utmost respect, we need to be smart and vigilant. We don't need to tear our society apart in a panic.

Agreed...We don't want to hurt ourselves while trying to help ourselves...

Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with some of my own recommendations as well - but, I think they represent reality...I think in the end, unfortunately, we will lose many of our liberties. This is tragic. I think we will look back on our current time as the apex of the golden years...Nevertheless, society won't endure chaos. I'm a realist. So, I'm with you in spirit - I hope it doesn't have to get to where the recommendations like the ones I list become the staus quo. The point is - We'll probably get there whether we like it or not. I'm just laying it out. I'm not saying it's nice or the best world...right now I think we have the best world, but the world is changing fast.

I would be thrilled to be wrong. Sometimes I don't share things cause I don't like the fact that I'm actually saying it.

Franklin's quote is fine for a secure society - However, if is not secure, we will have lost liberty already - so, we will be in a battle to preserve the liberties that remain and/or trying to gain them back - and that's tricky. Less perilous times have seen martial law. With terror we've already lost tons of liberty - liberty to realistically dream about a secure world for our children and grandchildren - Were our fathers telling us we'd be at war for the rest of our lives as we are now telling our kids? The world is different for us than it was for our fathers, our grandparents, and for Benjamin Franklin. Things have been introduced that change the rules - and we are evidently a bit slow on the uptake.

Couple thoughts...

Relgious liberties are fine as long as they don't include conspiring to kill people - Jews, Christians, Hindus, Shia, non-Moslems, etc...Or, enabling millions to protect a killer culture. As you note the threat we're facing now is not from some splinter group - this is freak'n serious. We are dealing with a religion who's "holy book" advocates forcing conversion upon others and killing folks - killing men women and children - for resisting the application of the religion's injunctions.

A good starter for everyone is to read the Koran if you haven't already - It will open your eyes. In my reading of the Koran (it's not a long book - shorter than the Christian New Testament), one would have to misinterpret the book not to understand that obedience to it includes applying violence to people who refuse to come under the submission of Allah and the faith. Islamists are simply being obedient to their book's specific verses and commands. I'm not deluded enough to believe that many of Islam's 1.2 billion Muslims won't follow the very black and white tenets of their faith. If you don't have the time to read the Koran, I'd encourage the readers to visit the sites of Robert Spencer's http://jihadwatch.org/or Daniel Pipe's site http://www.danielpipes.org/

X-Factor, I hope you're right, and I'm over-reacting.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

Jack Moroney (RIP)

05-27-2007, 05:21

I am just a simple, frayed, and tired warrior so my observation probably does not resonate with most, but democracy works best were people are assimilated into a society and view themselves as being a contributing part and where society views them as being card carrying particpants loyal to the ideals, values and mores of the society from which it sprang. I do not see Islam as a binding force for anything but Islam which does not fit into the western culture or concept of democracy and sees that concept as a threat to its own existence. From my simple perspective I see those that are serious Islamic practioners in this country as members of their fundamentalist Auxillary feeding and supporting their underground movement from which will spring active and overt guerrilla actions against us. They have not matured to that level, are still building and testing their infrastructure and need either to be assimilated into western culture or isolated and eliminated like plucking out that bay leaf from the stew in the melting pot over which we have spilled blood to build. Make no mistake, radical Islam is at war with us.

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 07:39

Make no mistake, radical Islam is at war with us.

Islam creates radical Islam. Read the Koran.

Quran 9:123 "O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous." (Fakhry’s translation)

The book wars against all who are opposed to the reign of their God - Allah.

It looks to me like we are at war with Islam.

We are not at war with Moslems who don't follow their book. Just like Moslems that don't take multiple wives can assimilate into the United States - their infidelity to a Muslim practice makes assimilation possible. We are not at war with bad Muslims - Fortunately most today are still unfaithful Muslims - loving their families, their wives, and their communities more than the dictates of their faith. That's changing, however.

Since the Koran breaths violence toward all who are not under its umbrella. We're at war with Islam.

Make no mistake, radical Islam is at war with us.

I also agree with how Mr. Moroney put this - Radical Islam is at war with us. However, we are not yet at war with radical Islam. We are trying to manage the face of this war and say that we have a War on Terror - Terror is merely a concept. You fight a concept in the the abstract - and we should defintely do that. However, we have lots of abstract fights - poverty, illiteracy, racism, disease, crime, drunk driving, drug abuse, high taxes, etc. Many of which if you remove Moslems from terrorism are a lot more dangerous than the terror war - and more relevant, too.

Islam is at war with us...How long will it be before we enjoin the battle by calling a spade a spade and go to war with radical Islam?

It does appear to me like we are at war with Islam....since that's where radical Islam comes from. Radical Islam could be called - Islam applied. You won't find any radical Moslems who aren't Moslems. Radical Islamists are simply the soldiers of Islam.

In 100 years people won't be calling this the Global War on Terror; I predict folks will refer to this era as the era of the Islamic-Western wars.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

Peregrino

05-27-2007, 10:35

3SD - Conspiracy to commit murder is already illegal. We don't need to "set aside" the Constitution or adopt Nationalsozialisten ideals to combat radical Islam. To borrow from the 2nd Ammendment fight - " we already have sufficient laws; we simply lack the will to enforce them." Fighting terrorism is attacking a tactic. Defeating an ideology requires providing a clear (and vastly superior) alternative, neutralizing its core, and subverting its base. The important things are pretty simple; simple doesn't mean easy. Becoming the enemy in an attempt to defeat him is a sure route to failure - even if we win. My .02 - Peregrino

x-factor

05-27-2007, 10:45

Well said.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

05-27-2007, 10:53

.

It looks to me like we are at war with Islam.

Chuck[/QUOTE]

Yes, but my short note was also an oversimplification. Islam is also at war with itself.

The Reaper

05-27-2007, 11:14

In 1942, we abrogated the Constitutional rights of a large group of American citizens who had done nothing wrong on the suspicion that they might at some point in the future, opt to favor their ethnicity over their nationality.

Given that we now have another ethnic group that threatens the very survival of this nation, and has already killed thousands of Americans, who show that their first loyalty (by a large majority) is to their religion over their nationality, and who freely admit that killing innocent civilians (even their own) is acceptable, does anyone envision a time when we could round up all Muslims living in the US and either deport them or intern them?

If not, how many US dead would be adequate to implement such a plan? A million? Ten million?

Finally, I would submit that it is entirely possible to have this country reduced back to a Depression-era subsistence lifestyle fairly easily. In fact, it may be possible to destroy American society completely. If this is the price of liberty, do the ends ever justify the means, or are we better off being destroyed and enslaved while maintaining the moral high ground?

TR

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 11:44

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 12:18

Yes. I can certainly envision it.
I can imagine 80% of Arabia's and Iran's 400 million citizens being wiped out

To be clear, I agree with Mr. Moroney that Islam is "at war with itself" ...For every one Moslem terrorist that an American soldier manages to kill in Iraq - Moslems themselves are killing 100 Moslems (mostly civilians). The greatest enemy of the Moslem is the Moslem - The Koran incites an equal opportunity of death, destruction and terrorism upon its own citizens and adherents.

On the 80% figure I cite above - I see the overwhelming majority of those deaths in Arabia and among the Persians as coming at the hands of other Moslems.

Sadly, that 1 to a 100 stat will probably hold true. We'll get 2 million to 3 million guilty terrorists over the next 10 to 30 years and then the 400 million folks in the region will basically be turning on each other - As they will in mass if the Democrats ever succeed in getting us out of Iraq.

The only way to prevent this is via a brutal enforcement of a kind of Pax Romana - which is no longer in the West's DNA. IMO, all possible overt applications of brutal justice were wrung out of the West during the 300 years since the enlightenment. I'm not saying this as a complaint, just as an observation.

Three Soldier Dad

All the best, Chuck

aricbcool

05-27-2007, 12:38

The only way to prevent this is via a brutal enforcement of a kind of Pax Romana ...

I'm familiar with the term and its historical origins. However, I don't see how it applies here. Could you elaborate?

Regards,
Aric

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 12:54

The only way to prevent this is via a brutal enforcement of a kind of Pax Romana - which is no longer in the West's DNA. IMO, all possible overt applications of brutal justice were wrung out of the West during the 300 years since the enlightenment. I'm not saying this as a complaint, just as an observation.

There is an interesting proverb of Solomon's in the book of Ecclesiastes that says...

"Because of the sentence against an evil work is not executed quickly, therefore the heart of the sons of men are given fully to do evil."

Eccl. 8:11

.

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 13:27

I'm familiar with the term and its historical origins. However, I don't see how it applies here. Could you elaborate?

Regards,
Aric

Rome kept the peace for centuries because folks were afraid of Rome. They didn't obey Rome due to Rome's good-natured philanthropy and kindness... Bad guys didn't want to mess with them. - Rome was a hardcore nasty iron monster. Who is Rome in the world today? Perhaps, America - but, we're way too deeply in touch with our feminine side.

A modern version of an applied Pax Romana policy would be rapid summary executions of guilty insurgents - fast trials and public hangings. Dresden-like carpet bombing of high density terrorist areas, a significant revision or our soldiers ROE - For example - civilians become human shields for terrorists - shoot them, too...The shutting down of Al Jazeera and other enemy propoganda...If the enemy hides in a Mosque - Raze it with them inside, maybe even the explosion of a Nuke in the desert - as a warning shot...etc, etc, etc.

Basically quick and swift justice - running the risk that indeed the innocent will at times be hurt - no doubt, life is messy - But, skipping the mea culpas and switching the war bias to ensure that the guilty are NEVER returned to the general population. Wipe their silly smiles off their faces...

Here's a thought - if the media is totally against America when we don't bring justice to the guilty because we want to ensure that the innocent are not hurt - then what is the down side if we flip the equation? If they are against us either way, then let's at least apply force in such a way that inspires fear among the terrorists. We may also want to put some of the media on trial for aiding and abetting the enemy.

IMO, the Arab and Persian understand only one thing. One thing - force. Nasty force. Where they are seeing their buddies dying - lots of their brethren going to Allah.

As noted, right now the resolution in the West does not exist. Someday I think that may change - when we are fighting for our survival.

To put down a rabid dog or a pack of rabid dogs is actually a mercy killing. Mercy for the community and mercy for the dogs. As a good neighbor, the best way for me to care for the terrorist or the insurgent is to allow my military to put him down...As brutal as is necessary to get the job done.

I don't think we threaten - we simply and quietly execute. Shock and awe shouldn't just be fireworks and a lot of sound and fury. It needs to be bloody and really frightening.

We're a ways from that kind of resolve.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

antonanton

05-27-2007, 14:02

Hi Folks,

I am an Indonesian and migrate to the US. I am a catholic and chinese decent. I am a living witness of mass genocide toward indonesian chinese and christian. Over 1,000, Indonesian chinese were burnt alive, killed and raped. I saw many churches burnt down and many priests killed.

In Indonesia, it's true war between christian and islam. Indonesia is a breeding ground for jihad people. Many of the leaders are from arab and became indonesian citizen. As Indonesian Govt said they fought terrorism but I doubt that. Because 95% of Govts milliary and employees are islam. Heck, even they sent / supplied Jihad people to war with Christian people in Ambon. It was very big tragedy.

Also, All Jemaah Islamiah should be prosecuted and hang dead.

--anton
PS: Islam that I refer here is Radical Islam.

HOLLiS

05-27-2007, 16:09

x-factor

05-27-2007, 17:51

Given that we now have another ethnic group that threatens the very survival of this nation, and has already killed thousands of Americans, who show that their first loyalty (by a large majority) is to their religion over their nationality, and who freely admit that killing innocent civilians (even their own) is acceptable, does anyone envision a time when we could round up all Muslims living in the US and either deport them or intern them?

Lets put morality aside for a sec and look at capability first...could we intern this large number (hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people) even if we wanted to? I doubt it. And even if you could it doesn't solve your problem it just makes it worse. Refugee camps are the biggest terrorist recruting grounds and havens in the world. Its like cutting yourself open to dig out a cancer...you're more likely to just aggrevate the condition and even if you get the cancer you'll likely die from the infection.

What about mass deportation? I think thats more feasable, but even worse in terms of long term consequences. You'd eradicate whatever moderation exists in Islam and completely confirm the radical position that the US is at war with the whole of Islam. Every fence-sitting Muslim in the world would become an enemy and then you're off to the genocidal races. To say nothing of the fact that you'd be driving the most skilled and by extension dangerous Muslims in the world (those with knowledge of America, with technical training and degrees, with English language experience, etc) into the cause of jihad.

What about if we just interned or deported the recent immigrants from certain large Islamic communities (Detroit, Brooklyn, LA, etc)? I don't think that works either for the same reasons stated above (destroying the Muslim center, providing new potent recruits to the jihad), plus you'd be unlikely to get the real terrorists anyway. The 9/11 bombers lived in Palm Beach, not the Islamic neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

So, maybe I'm dodging the ethical question, but I'd oppose those policies on practical grounds. Certainly they could happen though.

Finally, I would submit that it is entirely possible to have this country reduced back to a Depression-era subsistence lifestyle fairly easily. In fact, it may be possible to destroy American society completely. If this is the price of liberty, do the ends ever justify the means, or are we better off being destroyed and enslaved while maintaining the moral high ground?

I would agree with your statement on what is possible. UBL is a smart dude and his grand strategy to collapse the global economy (which is in direct symbosis with the American economy) is a good one. I'm not so sure I'd phrase it as "Depression-era subsistence" but certainly we're talking about a catastrophic drop in standard of living.

Ya know, I tell my fellow liberals all the time: jihadism can't defeat America, but it can kill liberalism. It can create such chaos and insecurity that we will recoil into a security state and it will take human civilization decades or centuries, if ever, before the beauty of a culture fundamentally based on individual freedoms ever graces the earth again. (Incidentally, Eisenhower had the same fears about a Nazi victory in WWII.) If you don't want to live in some kind of new dark ages with authoritarian/corporate feudalism tomorrow, you need to get on board with aggressive worldwide counterterrorism today because we are in a life-and-death race to stop the jihadists from getting a nuclear weapon.

I'm musing now. Probably because I've been watching too much Battlestar Galactica (great show, gets at alot of these same issues)...let me get back on point.

To sum up, I think we're going to risk things (and adjust tactics to compensate for those risks) in order to win the war and preserve American culture as we know it, but if we're not willing to take that risk then America isn't worth saving anyway. Speaking for my own person and without disrespect to anyone who thinks different (God knows these are hard questions), I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread. Maybe I'm a foolish Jeffersonian idealist, but I think its worth the risk to try and preserve the flower of our society.

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 18:47

To sum up, I think we're going to risk things (and adjust tactics to compensate for those risks) in order to win the war and preserve American culture as we know it, but if we're not willing to take that risk then America isn't worth saving anyway. Speaking for my own person and without disrespect to anyone who thinks different (God knows these are hard questions), I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread.

Couple thoughts...

In my opinion, the primary error of a liberal worldview is that it errs with respect to the nature of man - IMO, man is not naturally good - Man is fallen. We commence with goodwill, but the State must learn quickly from a worthy foe to prepare for violence. Islam is a society that is totally ruled by fear - If I may say so, it is the quintessential opponent of darkenss - If it is possible to fight the darkness, we are. We are even now in a fight for our lives against this ominous foe. I am voicing perhaps an old notion from the West's chivalrous past. X-Factor, you seem to express the West's 18th century enlightenment voice - Man can be reformed with enough TLC. I am more closely aligned with the 15th century - Man at times must be taught by others to recognize his own best interests - by the rod.
Freedom is for men who can restrain themselves from evil...Our future to a large extent depends on what we decide - we need to do good in the world - What we need today is a Jonathan Edwards like character - We have a moral and spiritual issue to resolve among ourselves. We need a kind of great awakening. We need to do some deep soul searching.
The solution that some have thrown out, including myself - has to do with looking at our situation the way it is...not the way we hope it will be.

X-Factor, I do admire your hope against hope attitude - It's very Don Quijote-like. That worked for me during my 20s and 30s - I'm getting old and perhaps dark in my views of man's nature. I see things today without the rose colored glasses. I see the innocent suffering under the increasingly dominant arm of Islam. Pacifying this force seems increasingly futile and dangerous.

As I've said several times, I hope I'm wrong. This is one argument I'd love to lose.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

smp52

05-27-2007, 19:32

What about if we just interned or deported the recent immigrants from certain large Islamic communities (Detroit, Brooklyn, LA, etc)? I don't think that works either for the same reasons stated above (destroying the Muslim center, providing new potent recruits to the jihad), plus you'd be unlikely to get the real terrorists anyway. The 9/11 bombers lived in Palm Beach, not the Islamic neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

While an immigrant can be deported, what about local citizens that are converts? The radical salafist/jihadist ideology is the root of the problem. Even if we managed to make the United States completely free of any muslims, there is no way to completely secure the country. Our borders and vast and all it takes is one successful infiltration and violent act. Internally a few disillusioned citizens can do the same too. The ideology is out there and there is no way to shield anyone from that information.

I think we need to focus on what we do well and improve upon that. Unlike the socialist setup of Europe that has failed miserably to integrate people, we've done an admirable job. The muslim population in the world is not homogeneous racially, ethnically, linguistically, and socio-economically. While the discussions eventually zero in on Arabs and Persians, they're not even the largest muslim population in the world. South and South East Asia has the largest.

There is no shotgun approach IMHO. Plus, I do not trust government or people to the point where I would be willing to live in a police state. The more expectations and responsibilities we heap upon government, the more inefficient it gets, especially with the unrealistic expectations of absolute security. We have the economic muscle, military muscle, and resources on our side. If fear drives us to the point of virtual isolation from the world with loss of domestic civil liberties, we will not have the same reach or power in the world. There is no way to completely protect anyone and just like driving (oversimplified analogy) we need to factor in the risks of living in a free society. Should we pursue and kill/convince/isolate those who seek to hurt us? Absolutely. Not at the cost of the very identity of the United States of America, though.

3SD - Conspiracy to commit murder is already illegal. We don't need to "set aside" the Constitution or adopt Nationalsozialisten ideals to combat radical Islam. To borrow from the 2nd Ammendment fight - " we already have sufficient laws; we simply lack the will to enforce them." Fighting terrorism is attacking a tactic. Defeating an ideology requires providing a clear (and vastly superior) alternative, neutralizing its core, and subverting its base. The important things are pretty simple; simple doesn't mean easy. Becoming the enemy in an attempt to defeat him is a sure route to failure - even if we win. My .02 - Peregrino

Ditto.

3SoldierDad

05-27-2007, 20:07

While an immigrant can be deported, what about local citizens that are converts? The radical salafist/jihadist ideology is the root of the problem. Even if we managed to make the United States completely free of any muslims, there is no way to completely secure the country. Our borders and vast and all it takes is one successful infiltration and violent act. Internally a few disillusioned citizens can do the same too. The ideology is out there and there is no way to shield anyone from that information.

I think we need to focus on what we do well and improve upon that. Unlike the socialist setup of Europe that has failed miserably to integrate people, we've done an admirable job. The muslim population in the world is not homogeneous racially, ethnically, linguistically, and socio-economically. While the discussions eventually zero in on Arabs and Persians, they're not even the largest muslim population in the world. South and South East Asia has the largest.

There is no shotgun approach IMHO. Plus, I do not trust government or people to the point where I would be willing to live in a police state. The more expectations and responsibilities we heap upon government, the more inefficient it gets, especially with the unrealistic expectations of absolute security. We have the economic muscle, military muscle, and resources on our side. If fear drives us to the point of virtual isolation from the world with loss of domestic civil liberties, we will not have the same reach or power in the world. There is no way to completely protect anyone and just like driving (oversimplified analogy) we need to factor in the risks of living in a free society. Should we pursue and kill/convince/isolate those who seek to hurt us? Absolutely. Not at the cost of the very identity of the United States of America, though.
Ditto.

These are good points...I hope you're right. Of course, hope is not a strategy. When I see bad things coming and someone says (1) the bad things aren't coming or (2) the bad things are coming but we can handle it.

I hope you're right.

Three Soldier Dad...

P.S. I wasn't recommending trashing the constitution or the adoption of an American version of National Socialism - This is a distortion. What made the Nazi's so evil was their penchant for (1) war at others expense, (2) racism and the (3) libeling and (4) liquidation of an innocent race. Actually, the point I endeavored to make was we may need to dramatically step up our vigor in employing every creative means possible to preclude a Trojan Horse in our midst; which - unless we do something - seems all but inevitable. We need to be absolutely vigilant and yes we need to enforce all the laws currently on the books. We may need to do all the things we've done in other times during our history to protect ourselves - and, because the threat is so great - maybe we will need to do more. I also agree that government is not good at delivering any of these things...Not very comforting.

The Reaper

05-27-2007, 21:34

I'd rather fight the harder fight with honor than have my kids grow up with the moral stain of some of the more expedient solutions suggested in this thread. Maybe I'm a foolish Jeffersonian idealist, but I think its worth the risk to try and preserve the flower of our society.

I have not suggested that we do anything of the sort.

On the other hand, I think that it would be prudent to do some worst case planning. As noted, with age comes pragmatism and reality, except for the most diehard of libs.

I also think that most of the American Muslims, even the more radical ones, would be ripe for recruitment as anti-radical insurgents, if they saw the dichotomy of the Muslim states as practiced, rather than as preached.

If you want to look at historical examples, I further recommend examining treatment of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and Unionists in the Confederacy (or Confederate sympthizers in the North).

I would rather fight those who have no honor without it myself, rather than see my children not grow up at all. Sometimes, you have to amputate a limb to save the patient. Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

TR

Roguish Lawyer

05-27-2007, 21:44

Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

TR

Glad to see you've changed your mind about our greatest President! :D

The Reaper

05-27-2007, 21:51

Glad to see you've changed your mind about our greatest President! :D

I did not say that.

I will grant you that I believe he was better than Jimmy Carter.

TR

x-factor

05-27-2007, 23:20

I have not suggested that we do anything of the sort.

To be clear, I wasn't implying that you had. I was responding to the general issue your rhetorical question raised, not to you in particular.

On the other hand, I think that it would be prudent to do some worst case planning. As noted, with age comes pragmatism and reality, except for the most diehard of libs.

I don't want to give the impression that a) I believe anyone here has anything but good intentions or b) I don't think anything needs to be done. I already mentioned a couple of pragmatic policies I think would be appropriate (domestic CT agency ala MI5, beefed up surveillance capability to include more judges to speed up the warrant process, etc) and your notion on recruiting American Muslims is another one. I think its important to distinguish, as Peregrino said, between policies that enforce our existing laws and ones that rewrite them.

As for worst case planning, certainly I'm all for that too, but even in the worst case there's still lines we shouldn't cross and creative tactics that we can use to avoid having to cross them.

My concern is that we don't seriously damage half a millenium (at a minimum) of evolution towards a better world (from the Protestant Reformation to the Enlightenment to present day America) out of panic.

I would rather fight those who have no honor without it myself, rather than see my children not grow up at all. Sometimes, you have to amputate a limb to save the patient. Did Lincoln destroy the Union when he suspended Constitutional rights and freedoms?

I know we made amends for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the Japanese internment after the threats had abated, but still we need to be very careful its a slippery slope.

We amputate one limb for this enemy and what about the next one? Or the enemy after that? Again, like Peregrino said, we can win and still fail.

Nevermind that I think some of the harsher methods won't work anyway. The more overtly draconian in dealing with our own Muslim citizenry we get the more we'll just be playing to the jihadists' hand and helping radicalize the fence-sitters both at home and abroad. I'm going to paraphrase Peregrino one more time since his last post was so good: the key to the fight is proving our way of life is better, not confirming the enemies' lies about it.

3SoldierDad

05-28-2007, 07:29

My concern is that we don't seriously damage half a millenium (at a minimum) of evolution towards a better world (from the Protestant Reformation to the Enlightenment to present day America) out of panic....

I know we made amends for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the Japanese internment after the threats had abated, but still we need to be very careful its a slippery slope....

We amputate one limb for this enemy and what about the next one? Or the enemy after that? Again, like Peregrino said, we can win and still fail...

Well written. I agree ...I'm almost persuaded to take back some of my harsh exhortations. I love our country, my family and my fellow citizens....

I'm deathly concerned, however. I dare say I don't think we have had or will ever have an enemy like this one again in our history.

Couple thoughts...

America is special - We need to take care not to damage our freedom and liberties
We do need to think through our contigencies - Once hell breaks loose - Hell is upon us.
We need to work with the American Islamic community to recognize how to preserve their best interests in America.
We need to be infinitely vigilant to preserve our freedoms and way of life - to enforce the laws we have and reorganize our capabilities to protect ourselves.

Everything is in God's hands.

Three Soldier Dad...

All the best, Chuck

3SoldierDad

05-30-2007, 05:28

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to "wipe Israel off the map"--a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

See the rest of the ariticle...It's quite insightful.

http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

The Reaper

05-30-2007, 08:10

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/unending_war.html

May 30, 2007
Unending War
By Cal Thomas

Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq."

She got it partly right. It is an unending war, at least until one side vanquishes the other side. There will be no truce in this war; no "38th Parallel" as with the two Koreas. This war will be unending, not because of the "Bush policy," but because of the Islamofascists whose jihad they believe is a direct order from their "compassionate and merciful" God. Some compassion; some mercy.

Were the dominant surrender wing of the Democratic Party to have its way, American troops would immediately come home, causing all of Iraq to devolve into murderous chaos. There would be religious retribution against those who not only worship differently from the majority, but also the murder of "collaborators," meaning those who voted, assisted in the writing of Iraq's constitution and helped the U.S. while trying to help themselves.

As the Pentagon reportedly drafts scenarios related to U.S. troop withdrawal, the enemy plans for victory. Al-Qaida's number two (an appropriate designation for those who can remember junior high humor), Ayman al-Zawahiri, has urged his supporters to extend the "holy war" to other Middle Eastern countries. Zawahiri sent a letter to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, claiming al-Qaida is defeating U.S. forces and urging followers to expand their campaign of terror. Clearly, Zawahiri sees this as an unending war. He is not planning a pullback of his forces, but urging them on.

In Lebanon, a country that until last summer's disastrous war between Israel and Hezbollah had enjoyed a level of peace and prosperity, Islamic forces in the siege at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp reportedly have spent months digging underground bunkers in advance of an anticipated battle they promise will last "two years or more." The Sunday Telegraph reports Shihab al-Qaddour, the deputy leader of the Fatah al Islam group (another number two), said his band of several hundred "battle-hardened" fighters had built extensive subterranean fortifications. Fatah's military commander is quoted as saying his group is "ready to blow up every place in Lebanon."

Unending.

The SITE Institute, which monitors jihadist Web sites from its base in the U.S., reports a flood of support for Fatah al Islam from members of Internet forums affiliated with al-Qaida since fighting broke out a little more than a week ago. Democrats repeatedly say we should only be fighting al-Qaida, so does that mean we should invade Lebanon? Since al-Qaida is in Iraq, shouldn't we continue the fight there until we and the Iraqis prevail?

This political battle in America isn't about al-Qaida and it isn't about victory, otherwise Democrats would be trying to help their country win in Iraq, not just for the sake of Iraq, but for their country's sake. Instead, the liberal and controlling wing of their party cares more about political victory here than ending this war with victory for Iraq, establishing a second democracy in the region and teaching the jihadists a lesson they will not soon forget.

Wars are frustrating. People die. Mistakes are made. The United States has made many mistakes in previous wars, but the nonstop media weren't broadcasting them in real time, as they are in this one. And where is the media balance depicting honor and heroism?

The Iraq war is not like Vietnam. We can't pull out until stability is achieved and the terrorists lose. Vietnamese communists didn't come after us when that war ended, but Islamic terrorists will and are coming after us. They will be emboldened to kill more than the 3,000 who died on September 11 if we don't demonstrate resolve at least equal to theirs.

Among America's past enemies, only Japan had a religious motivation for fighting us. Douglas MacArthur rightly separated religion from state when he was in charge of Japan's reconstruction. That is a worthy objective in this war, but first we have to win it, or it will truly be unending until they win it.

CalThomas@tribune.com

The Reaper

05-30-2007, 08:11

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_hard_truth_about_leaving_i.html

May 30, 2007
The Hard Truth About Leaving Iraq
By Ed Koch

To those who believe that when America leaves Iraq, Islamic terrorists will be satisfied and stop fighting, I say this: wake up. The hard truth is that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will continue their attacks on Americans everywhere, including our homeland. And they will use Iraq as the new base of their terrorist regime.

In a May 28th New York Times article, reporters Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet provided a chilling report on what the future holds. The article begins, "When Muhammad al-Darsi got out of prison in Libya last year after serving time for militant activities, he had one goal: killing Americans in Iraq. A recruiter...told him he was not needed in Iraq. Instead, he was drafted into the war that is seeping out of Iraq. A team of militants from Iraq had traveled to Jordan, where they were preparing attacks on Americans and Jews..."

In other words, the terrorist jihad will continue and many of the terrorists will be those who are now fighting in Iraq. It cannot be stated often enough that the goal of the Islamic terrorists is the destruction of Western civilization and the restoration of the caliphate. The caliphate would unite all Muslims in one theocratic state, running from and including Spain to Indonesia, encompassing nearly 1.4 billion Muslims.

In a Times article on May 27th by Michael Gordon and Alissa Rubin, they report, "'Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,' said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the parliament." The article continues, "A bare majority of Iraq's 275-member parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job...[A Shiite tribal sheik said] 'But leaving, withdrawing completely from Iraq, that means erasing Iraq from the map.'"

The article reported on a poll taken by ABC News in Baghdad which showed, "About 64 percent of Baghdad residents [polled in February and March] said American forces should remain until security was restored...or until Iraqi forces could operate independently."

Everyone, including the president and his advisers, and of course, his Democratic opponents, recognize that the heretofore efforts and tactics of the U.S. have not prevailed and must change. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said recently, "I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it." The "surge," an increase of 30,000 American soldiers on the ground, will be over by then. If it works, we can all admit our doubts that it would.

What will the "different direction" that McConnell referred to be? The radical Democratic left inside the Congress led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid and their supporters believe that the U.S. should get out now and certainly no later than early next year. From the administration come vague comments that there may be a reduction of 100,000 troops in the wind sometime in 2008. The Times reports in a May 26th article by David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, "The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate."

In my judgment, were it possible to remain in Iraq and accomplish the obvious goals of bringing a true peace among the warring parties -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurd -- with a stable central government accepted by all, that would, of course, be ideal. But the Shiite majority does not want to forgive the Sunnis who oppressed them for so many years, and will not share government power or oil revenues with them. The Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the population, appear to be militarily more capable than the Shia and are primarily responsible for the car bombs and the improvised explosive devices that have killed American soldiers and Iraqis, both military personnel and civilians. It is devastating for American soldiers to learn that those serving in the Iraqi army, being trained by and fighting alongside American soldiers, cannot be trusted.

A May 28th Times article by Michael Kamber reported on an incident in February "When [American] soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a Sergeant in the Iraqi army." Kamber quotes an American soldier, "I thought 'what are we doing here? Why are we still here?...We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

My own view is that the administration should demand the Iraqi government pass the power and oil sharing changes immediately, and if it doesn't, we should get out immediately. Further, and I have stated it many times, we should give our regional Arab and NATO allies an ultimatum that if they don't come in now with troops, we will leave immediately.

Waiting for the Iraqi army to be battle ready is like waiting for Godot. They seem to know how to kill U.S. soldiers and terrorize each other and innocent civilians, but are unable to keep the peace.

Many Americans refuse to believe the Islamic terrorists are a threat to the free world and those who talk of the danger are thought of as war mongers. They simply refuse to take them at their word as many refused to take Hitler's warnings in Mein Kampf seriously. In the Times article of May 29th, written by Michael Powell, he quotes a woman in Atlanta asking candidate Giuliani, "Why does so much of the world hate us? Haven't we failed to understand Arab grievances? We misinterpret their word 'jihad' which is not necessarily a hostile word." Truly an Alice In Wonderland view.

A terrorist recently convicted in Great Britain was deported to Jamaica after trial. The Times reports in an article of May 26th by Alan Cowell, "Mr. Faisal had been convicted in February 2003 of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred...urging his followers to kill Hindus, Christians, Jews and American citizens...During Mr. Faisal's trial, prosecutors played a videotape showing him telling 150 young followers after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States that the Koran justified attacks on non-Muslims. He was also heard to promise teenage Muslim boys that their reward in paradise would be 72 virgins if they died as religious martyrs."

You can't make this stuff up. Will we and the rest of the Western world wake up in time so that we can survive the 30-year war that will take place after we leave Iraq? They want to kill us, and apparently, many Americans don't believe it.

One more thought. If we stay, we should tell the Iraqi people in each province that if a significant number of them support the insurgents and terrorists against our soldiers, or if a significant number of them do not step forward and assist us by providing information to protect us from the insurgents and terrorists, we will leave that province and not protect them from those who want to kill them in a religious civil war. Perhaps the recognition that U.S. soldiers will no longer be considered expendable may raise thoughts of cooperation, if only for their own self-protection.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

pegasus

05-30-2007, 22:39

3SoldierDad

05-31-2007, 07:13

I don't know if this is true; Iran negotiations?

Beautiful shots of the US Navy.
Thanks to all those on board, where ever you may be.

(add the http://)

patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration’s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world’s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

The administration is almost freakishly confident, in marked contrast to media reports like the one featuring Newt Gingrich’s attack on the President below. The U.S. is in the midst of another dipolomatic surge through the region to bolster allies for the final showdown with Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr has sent signals he may be ready to break with Iran. And, frankly, the military turnaround in Al Anbar province is of greater strategic significance than the increase in U.S. casualties this month. In addition, the surge is still not entirely deployed, and whole key neighborhoods of Baghdad have yet to be entered. While John McCain was being mocked for having to wear a flak jacket in a Baghdad market, the bigger story was that his son, a Marine newly deployed to the Al Anbar province, and a frontline grunt at that, was more likely than not to never see a shot fired in an area that until just weeks ago was called “the most dangerous place on earth”.

Oh, and preparations are under way for the construction of new U.S. airbases in Kurdistan, so we are not, under any circumstances, giving up a firmbase posture throughout Iraq.

And special props to VP Cheney who had nearly been ordered by his doctors to not even make the first trip. A compromise was had and he flew with a physician. He is preparing for a trip to Iran’s various northern neighbors like Uzbekistan and Khazekstan to shore up our position for offensives from the north.
We want to have them entirely surrounded.

Pegasus, great little overview of what's going on...

I love this quote...

George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability.

Thank you...Thank you - I needed to hear that. I really did...Lest I lose my mind as our planet careens toward insanity.

As I and others have noted before, President Bush has made numerous mistakes in the GWOT - mostly in Iraq (that's not to say we shouldn't be there) - However, the best news in the GWOT is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FIGHTING THE WAR....Needless to say, our CIC has made more errors than precinct moves in this cosmic struggle...If this war were a game, we've had a bad first half...Since this will be The Long War - A bad first five minutes.

Yet, if he (a) Gets Iran to back down or (b) bombs their nuclear capability back into the middle ages - He will have redeemed himself totally in my book...

We have only cursorily engaged the real enemy in this war.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

3SoldierDad

05-31-2007, 07:59

We have only cursorily engaged the real enemy in this war.

Our enemy is a trinity of sorts - a trinity of darkness... And, each needs to be confronted in several dimensions.

The enemy lives in three forms...

1. the enemy state - Iran (The Shia religious leadership)
2. the residence of enemy doctrine - Sunni fundamentalist mosques and madrasas; primarily in Egypt, The Gaza/West Bank, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
3. the enemy reality - The Arab street (not the Persian street).

IMO, the reality on the Arab street is historical humiliation - primarily ancient familial jeolousy against the Jew and material jeolousy against the West. This sense of humiliation has metastasized into a sociopathic bitter loathing against the West - America imparticularly - and Israel.

Aside from a bitter hatred against the West and Israel - Arabs once activated by Koranic Islam are profoundly self-loathing - Arabs bitterly hate and distrust themselves. They loathe themselves for historic, religious and familial reasons.

This is why the greatest victims of Islamic violence and murder have been Arabs, are Arabs, and will be Arabs.

The most horrific victims of Jihad since Islam's first century until now are Arabs.

Three Soldier Dad...

.

The Reaper

05-31-2007, 08:28

I think that you have to consider conflict across the full spectrum and shape events in the non-combat arena as well.

Conflict is multi-dimensional, with diplomatic/political, informational, economic, as well as military facets.

We need to press foreign governments politically, build allies up, and undermine opponents, while building domestic popular support, as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us. We need to work the UN better, or at least, as best we can. Tactically, we need to respect and utilize the tribal and religious systems to our advantage.

We have done a terrible job of getting our message out, and the enemy has done a great job of it. The US plays games with and humiliates prisoners and it incites global backlash and two years of media coverage. The enemy saws off civilians' and POWs' heads, drills kneecaps, mutilates bodies, etc., prints and distributes a manual on how to do it, and it gets ten seconds of coverage. The Arab (and Iranian) street needs to get a real news source geared towards them, their culture, and in their language. An anti- al-Jazeera if you will.

We need to find a way to help the HN governments provide economic opportunity and create a middle class in Muslim societies. Their own governments tend to be corrupt and to see graft as a way of life. Look at Yassir Arafat's fortune. How do you think he earned it? While his people lived in abject poverty. And the fat bastard was hailed as a hero when he died. Sanctions need to be imposed on our opponents. How did Sadaam and how do the Iranians continue to receive arms shipments and nuclear processing equipment? I would board, inspect, and sink any ship destined for those countries carrying war or WMD materials.

On the military side, in addition to everything that we are currently doing, we need to be actively supporting Iranian resistance movements and fomenting revolt in Iran. If they have to expend resources on internal security and further alienate the populace, it takes focus away from WMD programs.

Finally, it occurs to me that if we developed a real alternative energy solution, and exploited our own resources in the interim, the region would be a lot less of a concern to us.

Just a few thoughts that our planners may have missed somewhere along the way.

TR

HOLLiS

05-31-2007, 08:56

3SoldierDad

05-31-2007, 09:11

TR,

On the home front, it seems to me, that partisan political fighting is our worse enemy.

Before I continue, allow me to expand that. I was reading a article on the cost of the war at home. Not many people felt the war or it's impact at home. Life just goes on as usual. The American people are pretty isolated with the day to day aspects of the war. That allows politicians to play political football with the war. That in a way aids the enemy. The media also wanting to shape "public opinion" does the same.

I don't think our current political system is capable of running a effective war which is carried on for any duration. Regardless of the planning, the implementation, the achievements or events as they unfold will not be shown in a positive light. The political value for those who seek re-election or political control will out weigh the need for national unity during the time of war.

We have a great system, it is just not for fighting a war.

If we REALLY get hurt - I mean WMD hits us or where tens of thousands die and everyone feels threatened for their welfare....

Our system is perfect for fighting a war... A war of, for, and by the people can be fought brilliantly. Indeed, I think the day will come when it will be.

Our system is perfect for fighting a REAL war... Problem is folks don't recognize that they are in a war - a real war, yet.

YET!

HOLLiS

05-31-2007, 09:50

If we REALLY get hurt - I mean WMD hits us or where tens of thousands die and everyone feels threatened for their welfare....

Our system is perfect for fighting a war... A war of, for, and by the people can be fought brilliantly. Indeed, I think the day will come when it will be.

Our system is perfect for fighting a REAL war... Problem is folks don't recognize that they are in a war - a real war, yet.

YET!

I am pragmatist, regardless of what we call it, Your last sentence defines the problem. We can discuss the meaning of which word correctly describes the conflict but we are ultimately faced with the grim reality of our political system. As TR stated, "......as the will of the American people is always the Center of Gravity for us."

Which means regardless of how we define it, it is our collective view as American People that will define the situation. The "Culture of Defeat" which effectively cause the US to give South Viet-Nam to the communist is a prime example of this. In 1969, we lost over 16,000 Americans to that war. That cost did not motivate our political system to unity but rather seeing the Military victory in RVN as a loss. We are facing the same mechanism here at home today, that was employed in during the Viet-Nam war.

Even at the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln had to deal with McClellan and the copper heads in the North to keep up the fight and maintaining the Union. I can not think of a more sober time in our history when unity was paramount.

x-factor

05-31-2007, 15:16

TR hit the nail on the head in his last post. I could not agree more.

magician

06-03-2007, 01:19

TR, superb post, my friend.

I bow in your general direction.

I read the following article today in the ostensible "newspaper of record."

I consider it one of the better pieces to appear there recently.

June 3, 2007
The World
Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03wong.html?ei=5088&en=5080a0e907bc5d99&ex=1338523200&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1180858712-2R9oye2gdM5U3TTXaPK6Tg&pagewanted=print)

By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.

“Other Arabs say, ‘You are the country of sahel,’ ” Razzaq said. “It has always been that way in Iraq.”

But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive. No faction — not the Shiite Arabs or Sunni Arabs or Kurds — has been able to secure absolute power, and that has only sharpened the hunger for it.

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country’s helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

“We’ve changed nothing,” said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a Sunni Arab dentist turned hard-line politician who has three bullets lodged in his torso from a recent assassination attempt. “It’s dark. There will be more blood.”

I first met Mr. Qaisi in 2003 at a Salafi mosque in western Baghdad, when the Sunni Arab insurgency was gaining momentum. He articulated the Sunnis’ simmering anger at being ousted from power. That fury has blossomed and is likely only to grow, as religious Shiite leaders and their militias become more entrenched in the government and as Kurds in the north push to expand their region and secede in all but name.

Caught in the middle of the civil war are the Americans. To Iraq’s factions, they are the weakest of all the armed groups in one crucial respect: their will is ebbing and their time here is limited. That leaves Iraqis more motivated than ever to cling to their weapons, preparing for what many see as an inevitable plunge into the abyss.

“Everyone — the Sunni, the Shia — is playing the waiting game,” an Iraqi leader told me over dinner at his home in the Green Zone. “They’re waiting out the Americans. Everyone is using time against you.”

Much seemed different in April 2003, when the Americans pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square and allowed Iraqis to drag it through the streets. It looked like an act of sahel at the time, but the Americans failed to establish total control, as Iraqi history says a conqueror must.

Four years on, Sunni and Shiite attacks against the Americans are expanding. There is little love among Iraqi civilians for the troops, though many fear the anarchy that could follow an American withdrawal.

“I’m still sticking by my principle, which is against the occupation,” Mr. Qaisi said in an interview here while visiting from his new home in Tikrit. “I’m Iraqi, and I think the Iraqi people should have this principle. We have the right to defend our country as George Washington did.”

As long as I have known him, Mr. Qaisi has rejected the idea that the Sunni Arabs are the minority in this country. To him and many other Sunni Arabs, the borders of Iraq do not delineate the boundaries of the war. The conflict is set, instead, against the backdrop of the entire Islamic world, in which demography and history have always favored the Sunnis. That sense of entitlement is fed by the notion that Iraq’s Shiite Arabs are just proxies for Iran’s Persian rulers.

For the Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraqis, the unalloyed hostility of the Sunni Arabs only reinforces a centuries-old sense of victimhood. So the Shiite militias grow, stoking vengeance. Through force of arms, and backed by the Americans and Iran, the religious Shiites intend to dominate the country entirely, taking what they believe was stripped from them when their revered leader Hussein was murdered in the desert of seventh-century Mesopotamia.

It was at the site of that ancient bloodletting, Karbala, that I twice witnessed the intense Shiite ache for righteousness and triumph. In early 2004, thousands of young fighters in the Mahdi Army, the militia of the nationalist Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, fought and died in a fevered uprising against the Americans. Last March, the same zealotry showed in a different way, as millions of Shiite pilgrims marched to Karbala’s shrines to commemorate the death of Hussein. They went despite relentless attacks by Sunni Arab suicide bombers. To them, it was all part of the unending war.

“No country in the world is fighting such terrorism,” said Adel Abdul Mehdi, an Iraqi vice president and leader in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a powerful Shiite party, on the day he made his pilgrimage. “Every time we give more martyrs, we are more determined. This is a big battle, there is no such battle in the world.”

The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. “The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal,” he said.

The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans. Though the Americans have helped institute the representative system of government that the Shiites now dominate, they have failed to eliminate memories of how the first President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein to slaughter rebelling Shiites in 1991. Shiite leaders are all too aware, as well, of America’s hostility toward Iran, the seat of Shiite power, and of its close alliances with Sunni Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia.

“One day we’ll find that we’ve returned back to 1917,” said Sheik Muhammad Bakr Khamis al-Suhail, a respected Shiite neighborhood leader in Baghdad, referring to the installation here of a Sunni Arab monarchy by the British after World War I. “The pressure of the Arab countries on the American administration might push the Americans to choose the Sunni Arabs.”

Sitting in the cool recesses of his home, the white-robed sheik said he was a moderate, a supporter of democracy. It is for people like him that the Americans have fought this war. But the solution he proposes is not one the Americans would easily embrace.

“In the history of Iraq, more than 7,000 years, there have always been strong leaders,” he said. “We need strong rulers or dictators like Franco, Hitler, even Mubarak. We need a strong dictator, and a fair one at the same time, to kill all extremists, Sunni and Shiite.”

I was surprised to hear those words. But perhaps I was being naïve. Looking back on all I have seen of this war, it now seems that the Iraqis have been driving all along for the decisive victory, the act of sahel, the day the bodies will be dragged through the streets.

===

sg1987

06-04-2007, 12:40

Didn’t know if this should be under reading lists or here. I posted here in light of the topic.

I’m currently reading “Unholy War – America, Israel, and Radical Islam” by Randall Price. Anyone here read it and have a critique of it?

txzen

09-02-2007, 16:38

I think a war on extremism is going on. There are maoists in asia and muslims rebels and seperatists that want to break off parts of the eastern bloc and even parts of China, the Xiang or Jiang province in south west China. There have been christian extremists killing the name of, and anti government extremists blowing up government buildings. Islam has of course been used to justify or rally people to do some of the worst things in modern history. I still believe that the fanactics that really want to create an Islamic Super State world wide that is ruled under Sharia Law is small. I believe it exists and such grand plans are enough to attract followers from all over and to convince some of these to even kill themselves in the pursuit of this global take over. The most fanatical don't think there is a single Muslim run country in the world, none are Islamic enough none are under sharia law strictly enough so to them the entire world is fair game. I am still pretty sure that out of the 1 billion muslims such a small amount want this that it isn't war on Islam.

Team Sergeant

09-02-2007, 18:45

Team Sergeant

11-02-2007, 11:07

islam, such a beautiful religion. I'll be converting tomorrow.:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.

He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

Click here to view the segment at MEMRITV.org

He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

His final words of wisdom?

"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.

"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html

HOLLiS

11-02-2007, 11:13

He is echoing Al Nesa ayat 34, such love. He is also nice enough to demonstrate that a man's live stock is more important that his wife (and daughters).

Penn

11-02-2007, 13:12

I don’t think there is another unit in our military that has this caliber of individuals, who can carry such a difficult and thoughtful discussion on this subject. It is not much different from my master seminar class at University of Pennsylvania. I am humbled to be in your company.

x-factor

11-02-2007, 15:20

I saw the tape of this show at work. The juxtaposition of the modern TV set with plush off-white upholestry and blue carpet just like you'd see on any talk show from the late 1980s and a guy spouting views that haven't changed since the pre-Islamic Bedouins is completely bizarre.

Razor

11-28-2007, 15:12

Another shining example of the tolerance of mainstream practitioners (vice extremists) of the "religion of peace"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22007049/?GT1=10547

Sudan charges Briton with insulting religion
Teacher reportedly allowed class to pick ‘Muhammad’ as teddy bear's name

KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British teacher has been charged with inciting hatred, insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs after her class named a teddy bear Muhammad, state media said on Wednesday.

"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," SUNA said quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.

It added the file would go before court on Thursday.

In London, a British Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that Gibbons had been charged and officials said Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling in the Sudanese ambassador over the affair.

"We are surprised and disappointed by this development and the foreign secretary will summon as a matter of urgency the Sudanese ambassador to discuss this matter further," Prime Minister Gordon Brown's official spokesman said.

Earlier on Wednesday, three British embassy officials and a teaching colleague from the Unity High School where Gibbons worked were allowed to visit her for 90 minutes.

"I can confirm that we have met Ms. Gibbons and she said she is being treated well," said British consul Russell Phillips. "We remain in close contact with the Sudanese authorities on this case," he said, declining to give further details.

Gibbons was arrested Sunday and, if found guilty of insulting religion, could be punished with a whipping of up to 40 lashes, a fine or six months in prison.

On Tuesday, a Sudanese embassy spokesman in London had indicated Gibbons might soon be freed.

"The police is bound to investigate," embassy spokesman Khalid al-Mubarak told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "I am pretty certain that this minute incident will be clarified very quickly and this teacher who has been helping us with the teaching of children will be safe and will be cleared."

Gibbons was arrested after one of her pupils' parents complained, accusing her of naming the bear after Islam's prophet and founder. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal would be seen as insulting by many Muslims.

School apologizes
Several Sudanese newspapers ran a statement Tuesday reportedly from Unity High School saying the administration "offers an official apology to the students and their families and all Muslims for what came from an individual initiative." It said Gibbons had been "removed from her work at the school."

In the first official comment on the case, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday played down the significance of the case, calling it "isolated despite our condemnation and rejection of it."

Ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadeq said it was an incidence of a "teacher's misconduct against the Islamic faith" but noted the school's apology.

The statement from the school in newspapers called it a "misunderstanding." It underlined the school's "deep respect for the heavenly religions" and for the "beliefs of Muslims and their rituals," adding that "the misunderstanding that has been raised over this issue leads to divisions that are disadvantageous to the reputation of the tolerant Sudanese people."

The school has closed for at least the next week until the controversy eases. The Unity High School, a private English-language school with elementary to high school levels, was founded by Christian groups, but 90 percent of its students are Muslim, mostly from upper-class Sudanese families.

The school's director, Robert Boulos, told the BBC that the incident was "a completely innocent mistake. Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Children reportedly chose name
Gibbons, 54, was teaching her pupils, who are around age 7, about animals and asked one of them to bring in her teddy bear, Boulos said. She asked the students to pick names for it and they proposed Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad, and in the end the pupils voted to name it Muhammad, he said.

Each child was allowed to take the bear home on weekends and write a diary about what they did with it. The diary entries were collected in a book with the bear's picture on the cover, labeled, "My Name is Muhammad," he said. The bear itself was never labeled with the name, he added.

former colleague of Gibbons, Jill Langworthy, told The Associated Press the diary lesson is a common one in Britain.

"She's a wonderful and inspirational teacher, and if she offended or insulted anybody she'd be dreadfully sorry," said Langworthy, who taught with Gibbons in Liverpool.

There were widespread calls in Britain for Gibbons' release. The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene.

"This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms. Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council's secretary-general.

British opposition Conservative party lawmaker William Hague called on the British government to "make it clear to the Sudanese authorities that she should be released immediately."

"To condemn Gillian Gibbons to such brutal and barbaric punishment for what appears to be an innocent mistake is clearly unacceptable," he said.

Follows cartoon incident
The case recalled the outrage that was sparked in the Islamic world when European newspapers ran cartoons deriding the Prophet Muhammad, prompting sometimes violent protests in many Muslim countries. The prophet is highly revered by Muslims, and most interpretations of the religion bar even favorable depictions of him, for fear of encouraging idolatry or misrepresenting him.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir earlier this month suggested he would ban Denmark, Sweden and Norway — where newspapers ran the cartoons — from contributing engineering personnel to a planned U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force in the Sudanese region of Darfur.

Al-Bashir's government already has tense relations with the West, which has widely condemned his regime for alleged abuses in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have died in a conflict that began in early 2003.

CIHuntR1

11-28-2007, 16:22

War with Islam? Maybe the defensive stance is understanding its war with "us."

I would recommend a guide- Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik. It's all there. But readers be warned...according to Islamic law those trying to understand this Sacred Knowledge for less than holy use are subject to the consequences.

The Reaper

11-28-2007, 17:34

Okay, naming your teddy bear Mohammed is worth 40 lashes.

But if you have sex with your camel, naming the offspring Mohammed is okay.

Wow. What a great culture.

I am sure that the libs and femi-Nazis will love it when it comes here.

TR

Pete

11-28-2007, 17:44

..I am sure that the libs and femi-Nazis will love it when it comes here....

TR

Well at least one bright spot - Rosey will be under a burka.

Pete

Books

11-28-2007, 18:17

I want to vomit. Just a little bit. This type of sh-t disgusts me. The willful ignorance of so many people. . . AAAAAHHHH!!! I'm having a hard time bending my head around this one.

I think it ironic that:
"The Unity High School, a private English-language school with elementary to high school levels, was founded by Christian groups, but 90 percent of its students are Muslim, mostly from upper-class Sudanese families."

In all worlds, the side with the butter on it is always recognized.

Books

Ret10Echo

11-29-2007, 13:59

I was going through and reading some of the quotes from the Republican debate. I thought this one from McCain was interesting.

JOHN McCAIN

"We never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict. I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for al-Qaida to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Ariz."

R10

sg1987

11-29-2007, 14:52

JOHN McCAIN

"We never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict. I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for al-Qaida to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Ariz."

R10

Great qoute. Are you aware of a video clip of this one posted anywhere?

echoes

11-29-2007, 15:39

The Reaper

11-29-2007, 15:49

Close the school and leave the country.

Let the Sudanese upper class educate their kids elsewhere, if that is their idea of freedom and tolerance.

Good riddance.

TR

bandycpa

11-29-2007, 16:54

Close the school and leave the country.

Let the Sudanese upper class educate their kids elsewhere, if that is their idea of freedom and tolerance.

Good riddance.

TR

I agree. If they want it, they can have it.

I also believe that our government should take a stance against the treatment of Ms. Gibbons as well. The feeling I got from the whole thing is that Ms. Gibbons was, in some of the Sudanese words anyway, an infidel; and it was obvious that they were looking for any excuse to punish the infidel. I imagine an American in that position would be seen the same way (probably even worse). Okay, "if'n that's the way they want it. Well, they gets it."

According to www.usaid.gov, the U.S. has supplied the Sudanese with $2.6 billion for humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects since 2005. Needless to say, we are the largest donor to the Sudan (although not the only ones...European Commission support of 54.3 million Euros for reconstruction is in the works as we speak or has already happened. My Google translator was not very clear on this). I believe we should withhold part or all of that money (especially the amount going to reconstruction...i.e. focusing on governance, health, economic growth, and education) as a statement to them that we will not support a country that supports that kind of treatment against its residents. It won't help Ms. Gibbons now, but it may have an influence on future cases such as this (money and words do make a difference sometimes).

I don't want to hear about Darfur anymore. The next person that mentions this to me (or that Islam is a peaceful religion) will probably not get a sympathetic ear from me. It is apparent that the Sudanese government can take better care of them than we can...one way or another.

Bandy

x-factor

11-29-2007, 19:35

I don't want to hear about Darfur anymore. The next person that mentions this to me (or that Islam is a peaceful religion) will probably not get a sympathetic ear from me. It is apparent that the Sudanese government can take better care of them than we can...one way or another.

The problem with Darfur is the government is sponsoring (or at least allowing) the genocide. The issue with Darfur has always been with protecting helpless people from their own government.

This is compounded by the fact that the southern Sudanese who are dying are black Christians while the northern Sudanese who run the government and do the killing are Arab Muslims.

Thats a bit of a simplistic take on the situation, but the point is that the issue of Darfur has never been about helping the Sudanese government, so its not at all just to say "well forget Darfur then!" over this.

bandycpa

11-29-2007, 21:50

The problem with Darfur is the government is sponsoring (or at least allowing) the genocide. The issue with Darfur has always been with protecting helpless people from their own government.

This is compounded by the fact that the southern Sudanese who are dying are black Christians while the northern Sudanese who run the government and do the killing are Arab Muslims.

Thats a bit of a simplistic take on the situation, but the point is that the issue of Darfur has never been about helping the Sudanese government, so its not at all just to say "well forget Darfur then!" over this.

I hear you, but $2.6 billion of aid? Also, remember I said we should curtail the reconstruction part of it, not necessarily the humanitarian aid part of it.

Here is where my simplistic "forget Darfur" stance came from. My frustration over the Darfur issue is that, earlier this year, we had people in this country wondering why we weren't doing anything and demanding that our government do something to help the situation in Darfur. Earlier this year, I had people asking me why we weren't doing something in Darfur instead of being the "world police" in Iraq. Today, I realized that "not doing anything" in Darfur equals $2.6 billion. What more do you want?

I thought about it some more this evening, and thought about this scenario. Suppose an abusive husband/father has a wife and two children that he abuses regularly. Say that this person is also a sorry excuse of a worker as well, and won't hold down a job. So, because of his lack of character, his family suffers not only at his hand, but at his lack of work as well. They live in a hovel, little food, probably without adequate heat or plumbing. Further, the wife wants to get away, to have a better life, but just can't find the courage to do so just yet. She stays in the relationship, hoping for someone to help her and the kids somehow. So, do you sneak money to the wife & kids? Do you take them food? Or do you give the sorry excuse of a husband money to rebuild his house, educate him, and keep him healthy (analogous to the reconstruction aid we're talking about); and hope that this makes him a better person so that the effects of his change in character will filter down and help the wife & kids. I should reemphasize my stance that we should curtail the reconstruction aid, while continuing the humanitarian efforts that are going on.

Also, and I mean this from a discussion standpoint and not in a sarcastic way (I'm hear to learn, too), what would you suggest? If we stick with what we're doing now, will the situation at some point turn the corner because of the effort we're giving now? Is there another way (other than withholding or revising our aid to Sudan) that we could effectively show our position against the atrocities purported by the Sudanese government (and have it actually show some teeth as well)?

Bandy

bandycpa

11-30-2007, 08:08

Yep, they're real tolerant people over there, those hard-line Muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314111,00.html

Thousands in Sudan Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher's Execution

Friday , November 30, 2007

AP

KHARTOUM, Sudan —
Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, protested Friday outside the presidential palace in Khartoum, demanding the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pick-up trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation.

They massed in central Martyrs Square, outside the palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed, though they did not attempt to disrupt the rally. "Shame, shame on the U.K.," protesters chanted, and they called for Gibbons' execution, saying, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

The women's prison where Gibbons is being held is far from the site. Unity High School, which is closer by in central Khartoum, is under heavy security protection.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons' trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Some of the protesters, who an Associated Press reporter at the scene said numbered as many as 10,000, carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have carried at past government-condoned demonstrations, suggesting Friday's rally was not organized by the government.

During Friday sermons, the Muslim cleric at Khartoum's main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons, saying she intentionally insulted Islam but he did not call for protests.

"Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion," the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

"This is an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad," he said.

Hard-line clerics who hold considerable influence with Sudan's Islamic government, have sought to whip up public anger over the Gibbons' case, calling her actions part of a Western plot to damage Islam. (now we're getting to the point - Bandy)

The conviction of Gibbons was seen as an attempt by the government to appease hard-liners, while trying to avert British anger by giving a relatively light sentence. Gibbons could have received up to 40 lashes, six months in prison and a fine if convicted on the heavier charge of inciting religious hatred.

Still, Britons expressed shock over the conviction. The Foreign Office said it was "extremely disappointed" and Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke with a member of Gibbons' family to convey his regret, his spokeswoman said.

"He set out his concern and the fact that we were doing all we could to secure her release," spokeswoman Emily Hands told reporters.

The case began with a classroom project on animals in September at the private school, which has 750 students from elementary to high school levels, most from wealthy Sudanese Muslim families.

Gibbons had one of her 7-year-old students bring in a teddy bear, then asked the class to name it and they chose the name Muhammad.

Each student then took the teddy bear home to write a diary entry about it, and the entries were compiled into a book with the bear's picture on the cover, titled "My Name is Muhammad," Boulos said.

But an office assistant at the school complained to the Ministry of Education that Gibbons had insulted the prophet by comparing him to an animal or toy.

Most Britons expressed shock at the verdict, alongside hope it would not raise tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain.

"One of the good things is the U.K. Muslims who've condemned the charge as completely out of proportion," said Paul Wishart, 37, a student in London.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the Sudanese authorities of "gross overreaction."

"This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities," he said.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a political advocacy group, said the prosecution was "abominable and defies common sense."

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, said Gibbons' prosecution and conviction was "an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband summoned the Sudanese ambassador late Thursday to express Britain's disappointment with the verdict. The Foreign Office said Britain would continue diplomatic efforts to achieve "a swift resolution" to the crisis.

Britain's response — applying diplomatic pressure while extolling ties with Sudan and affirming respect for Islam — had produced mixed results, British commentators concluded.

In an editorial, The Daily Telegraph said Miliband "has tiptoed around the case, avoiding a threat to cut aid and asserting that respect for Islam runs deep in Britain. Given that much of the government's financial support goes to the wretched refugees in Darfur and neighboring Chad, Mr. Miliband's caution is understandable."

Now, however, the newspaper said, Britain should recall its ambassador in Khartoum and impose sanctions on the Sudanese regime.

End Story

Looks to me like the Sudanese Muslims were looking for any excuse they could to make an example of the "infidel" who was only over there to "teach hatred for the Prophet Mohammed".

But, x-factor, I have to admit I was wrong about some of our reconstruction funding (that's what happens when you have knee-jerk reactions). Additional research showed me that the reconstruction money supports Sudan's Peoples Liberation Movement (an organization supporting democracy in Sudan). To withdraw funding would be to take the support away from the people that are fighting against the intolerance of the Khartoum-based government. I still think that sanctions against the Khartoum-based government are appropriate, however.

Reading and learning more.

Bandy

x-factor

11-30-2007, 08:32

bandycpa

11-30-2007, 08:52

What do I think we should do about Darfur?

Initial Steps
- Sanctions on the Sudanese government
- Increased pressure on Chinese for supporting the Sudanese government
- Continued humanitarian aid to the south of the country
- Support to the African Union force to protect the refugee areas

If those don't garner results...
- Special operations to hunt down any janjaweed found within X miles of effected areas
- Embargo non-humanitarian commerce to and from Sudan (ie seizing Sudanese oil shipments to China)

Last resort...
- Support to partition the country (along the East Timor model)

x-factor,

I'm with you, but we have already imposed sanctions against the Sudanese Government. The problem is that we aren't following it. I think it's important to note that all of the things described below happened in 1997 & 1998, and that a relationship between Bin Laden & Sudan was suspected even then. In spite of that, lobbyists managed to stop the sanction's effect by exempting the most profitable Sudanes export: gum arabic.

http://www.american.edu/TED/gumarab.htm

U.S. Sanctions Against the Sudan

1. The Issue
In late 1997, the US Congress passed into law a bill that placed economic sanctions on the country of Sudan. The United States decided to punish the Sudanese government, which the State Department declared is a "sponsor of terrorism and a relentless oppressor of its minority Christian population." The original bill was meant to terminate all commercial activities between the two countries, however, this did not come to fruition. Though the Sudanese government has no active lobby in this country, while the bill made its way through committee, several lobbying groups made a sudden appearance and opposed outright passage of the bill. They did not oppose the sanctions as a whole, they took issue on the possible sanction of only one product, gum arabic.

2. Description
A substance that very few are aware of, but one that almost all Americans have come in contact with. Gum arabic, a derivative of the acacia tree, is an important ingredient in various products ranging from soda and candy to pharmaceuticals. Gum arabic's applications are wide spread, some typical applications are acting as an emulsifier, flavoring agent, and thickener in both food and pharmaceuticals. Gum arabic is also used in the newspaper and magazine printing process, allowing ink to better stick to the paper while keeping it from smearing, as well as protecting the printing plates from oxidation.

Gum arabic is used by a number of industries. When the companies that rely on it heavily realized that their primary source of gum arabic was about to be cut off, the lobbying groups that represent those US companies sprung into action – Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Mexico also export gum arabic, but Sudan is by far the largest exporter. The result of the lobbying efforts was an exemption placed on gum arabic allowing companies to apply for a license which permits them to import gum arabic from Sudan.

In August 1998, the attention of Congress was again drawn to the economic sanctions placed on Sudan, due to an alleged relation of suspected terrorist financier, Osama bin Laden, to many Sudanese companies - including the Gum Arabic Company, one of the leading exporters of gum in Sudan. However, most US companies claim that if there is indeed a relationship between Sudanese gum arabic exporters and Mr. bin Laden, they will cease all trade relations with those companies.

The reason why there is such a flap over gum arabic is because it is plentiful in Sudan; in fact gum arabic exports from Sudan compose 70 to 90 percent of the world's supply. The US alone imports 4,000 to 5,000 tons of gum arabic from Sudan, approximately US$9 million a year. In 1995, Sudan exported about US$54 million of gum arabic – about 11 percent of its total exports that year.

End Link Text

It sounds like we'll need to move on to Step 2 through Step 4 right off the bat.

Bandy

Team Sergeant

11-30-2007, 09:38

I propose a different approach to dafar and the sudanese people;

-Immediately cut off all aid and inform the world we’re doing so.

-Demand the middle eastern predominately muslim countries to get off their islamic asses and stop the islamic violence/killing.

-If that does not get quick results send in Special Operations to kill every member of the Sudanese government and anyone caught consulting/consorting with them. One should not attempt to negotiate with rabid dogs.

Notice I didn’t say capture/kill. I’m sick and f***ing tired of “us” being used to hunt the friggin henchmen, lets just kill those giving the orders and stop playing games with any government that advocates/supports/encourages genocide. Yes, I know it will never happen, American politics, left wing liberals, MSM will ensure we send a kinder more gentle message is sent to those wonderful islamic Nazis bent on killing everything non-muslim.

jimmy carter and jesse jackson, you’re needed in sudan immediately!

8944

11-30-2007, 10:06

Al Sharpton!...you forgot Al Sharpton!:D

echoes

11-30-2007, 10:48

I propose a different approach to dafar and the sudanese people;

-Immediately cut off all aid and inform the world we’re doing so.

-Demand the middle eastern predominately muslim countries to get off their islamic asses and stop the islamic violence/killing.

-If that does not get quick results send in Special Operations to kill every member of the Sudanese government and anyone caught consulting/consorting with them. One should not attempt to negotiate with rabid dogs.

TS,

Sir, Well said!

Someone far smarter than me could debate the pro's cand con's of this idea, but it sounds like it would work, no holds barred.

Also, could You run for President?...if there's still time to file?:lifter

Holly

CIHuntR1

12-03-2007, 10:10

-If that does not get quick results send in Special Operations to kill every member of the Sudanese government and anyone caught consulting/consorting with them. One should not attempt to negotiate with rabid dogs.

...And I'd be happy to point them out for anyone looking for a pfffft.

The real power within the GoS isn't President Bashir, but rather a private interest section of security officers. China is also a contributing plague. China buys roughly 60 percent of the oil produced in Sudan, and supplies arms to the government to protect Chinese oil interests (And guess who has been sitting on the oil pipeline routes and drilling areas--until it is time to kill them and burn the village).

Then your militias are somewhat flavor of the week. Arab militias in the South often have had a tactical relationship with the government, whereas those of the North have a more ideological Muslim drive and belief that land is ordained to believers of Islam. GoS uses it as a constant mobilizer. Militia fighters come from a wide variety of backgrounds with no centralized motivation.

Then there are the over 60 armed rebel groups, in South Sudan alone, with the majority constituting splinter groups. Similar to the Janjaweed militias, operational autonomy creates rogue actions of personal interest over the interests and ideology of a greater cause.

A huge difficulty with addressing the situation is that reports have stated an increase of rebel committed human rights infringements over the last 2 years. This seriously blends the landscape and masks targeting. Rebel and militia groups, alike, are loosely organized in small mobile groups and typically do not hold territory. Janjaweed militias continue to operate with full impunity. All are becoming more difficult to control and disarm.

Rebel group, JEM, has a stronger and well honed ideology but lacks the military prowess of their “peer” rebel groups. The flip side is SPLM/A and SLA with greater military capabilities but lack an ideological basis to direct current struggles and to maintain functional and accountable systems of leadership. Militarist ideology and racism has overwhelmed the sight of their prior social grievances and political struggle against government controls. For all involved, initial causes of conflict have diminished being replaced by abstract ideological ethnicity becoming the active material and social force. Identity and ideology have been used to mobilize support for government, militia, and rebel interests.

So the whole damn place is whackamole FUBAR and largely out of control of GoS. But I'm not opposed to starting there for kicks and giggles.

Patriot007

12-03-2007, 10:38

hoot72

12-04-2007, 00:53

Malaysia's muslims are having huge problems with the ethnic indians (tamils and hindu's) by tearing down temples (98 at last count) and a major riot two weeks ago in the center of Kuala Lumpur with 40,000 people protesting the way they were being treated..

Its all going south in this path of the world...

Gladan!

12-07-2007, 05:37

...

Patriot007

12-11-2007, 17:53

A few years back TS had posted regarding the murder of Dutch film maker van Gogh by Islamic extremists. A Dutch lawmaker, Geert Wilders, who is already under the protection of the government looks to continue van Gogh's mission of exposing the intolerance of Islam with release of a new short film next month. :munchin

Here's the article from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313741,00.html

Team Sergeant

01-04-2008, 20:23

More beautiful teachings from islam and the islamic way of life;

$10,000 Reward Offered for Father Suspected of Killing Teen Girls
Friday, January 04, 2008

Foxnews.com

Authorities announced a $10,000 reward Friday for information leading to the arrest and indictment of a father accused of shooting his teen daughters and leaving them to die in a taxi.

An ongoing manhunt is under way for Yaser Abdel Said, 50, of Lewisville, Texas, wanted for shooting Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, in his taxi Tuesday night. Police say they don't have a motive for the shootings, but believe a domestic issue may have led to the deaths.

A public viewing for Sarah and Amina Said was planned for 6 to 9 p.m. CST Friday in Dallas. Their funeral will be at 11 a.m. CST Saturday, also in Dallas.

Friends and Lewisville High School classmates of the Said girls posted photos and comments in a tribute to the sisters set up on the social networking site Facebook.com called "Rest in Peace, Sarah & Amina."

The page's creator, friend Jenny Lee, encouraged people to document their memories of Amina and Sarah Said.

"We love you so much, and miss you already," she wrote.

Amina and Sarah Said Information about memorial services and developments in the case are also included on the Facebook page dedicated to the teens.

"How could anyone do this to two beautiful, bright young ladies?" wondered one visitor to the site.

A local Austin imam condemned the murders on the tribute page, and in another note, a girl identifying herself as a former classmate of Sarah's wrote that Yaser Said abruptly moved his family to Lewisville a few years ago because he was unhappy about a boy his older daughter, Amina, was dating.

Loved ones gathered Thursday night for a vigil to remember the sisters. The girls' mother, who has been in hiding since the shootings, attended.

The victims' brother made a statement at the vigil that the deaths have nothing to do with religion.

David Tull, a spokesman for the Irving Police Department, told FOX News that there's not a specific motive but police are aware of domestic issues within the family.

Tull wouldn't comment directly on shootings being tied to reports about the girls wearing Western clothes and disobeying their father's wishes.

Click here to watch a video report by MyFOXdfw.com.

Brigitte Gabriel, author of "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," said the shootings point to an "honor killing."

"This crime has honor killing written all over it," Gabriel said. "The father was insulted and ashamed of how his daughters were behaving."

The daughters were bringing shame to Islam and the father took it upon himself to respond, Gabriel said.
"The father probably was seeing that this is going to bring shame on the family and he needed to eliminate that shame," Gabriel said.

One of the teens called 911 on a cell phone about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday and said she was shot, but she couldn't tell police where she was, police said.

Officers were dispatched to the area, which turned out to be about half a mile from the taxi, but didn't find anyone, according to reports. Police found the taxi with the bodies inside an hour later after a witness called and reported a suspicious vehicle in a hotel parking lot, police said.

Yaser Abdel Said is about 6-foot-2, weighing about 180 pounds with black hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing a black turtleneck shirt or sweater, a brown coat and tan pants. He is believed to be armed with a handgun, police said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320325,00.html

Razor

01-04-2008, 21:51

Parents killing their own children make me yearn for the punishment of "drawing" to make a comeback (hint: see the end of "Braveheart").

CoLawman

01-04-2008, 23:04

Parents killing their own children make me yearn for the punishment of "drawing" to make a comeback (hint: see the end of "Braveheart").

You mean like this scum sucking gang member who was on parole for stabbing a guy 15 times.........I have investigated alot of gang related homicides but this one is the most horrific and evil act I have ever been witness to.

http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20071208/NEWS/112070130

Police arrest known gang member on investigation of child abuse resulting in death

Erica Grundin
December 8, 2007

By the time 13-week-old Johnnyce Hernandez was taken to the hospital, she was already dead.

Her skull was fractured, and she had at least four bruises, bruised eyeballs and rib fractures, some of which were in the healing stages, according to a police report released Friday.

North Colorado Medical Center staff in Greeley called the police on Wednesday afternoon after seeing her injuries.

Police say the injuries were not consistent with accidental injuries.

Greeley police arrested the girl's father, John Louis Hernandez of Greeley, on Thursday on investigation of child abuse resulting in death. He is being held at the Weld County Jail without bond.

A known gang member, Hernandez has a criminal record that includes two arrests for assault, three arrests for theft and two arrests for burglary, according court records. Police say he also was known as John Elworthy.

Hernandez was the last person to see his daughter alive, the police report states. He also was the first person to find her dead, according to the report. Hernandez told police that he does not know how his daughter's injuries occurred.

Team Sergeant

01-14-2008, 09:34

islam's code of ethics, the end justifies the means.:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

3 Convicted in Islamic Charity Trial

By MARK JEWELL
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Three former leaders of an Islamic charity were convicted Friday of duping the U.S. government into awarding their organization tax-exempt status by hiding the group's pro-jihad activities.

Care International Inc., which is now defunct, described its mission as helping war orphans, widows and refugees in Muslim nations. But prosecutors said the organization also distributed a newsletter promoting jihad and supported Muslim militants involved in armed conflicts around the world.

Emadeddin Muntasser, the founder of Care International; Muhammed Mubayyid, the group's former treasurer; and Samir Al-Monla, the president of Care from 1996 to 1998, were charged with tax code violations, making false statements and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

After a two-month trial and more than two weeks of deliberations, a federal jury found them guilty on all counts, except a false-statements count on which Al-Monla was acquitted. The fraud and false-statement charges each carry maximum sentences of five years in prison and fines of $250,000, while the tax charges carry a maximum three years in prison and a $100,000 fine.

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV scheduled sentencing hearings in early April.

"Today's verdict is a milestone in our efforts against those who conceal their support for extremist causes behind the veil of humanitarianism. For years, these defendants used an allegedly charitable organization as a front for the collection of donations that they converted for the purpose of supporting violent jihadists," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein in Washington said in a statement.

continued:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MUSLIM_CHARITY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Retired W4

01-14-2008, 09:51

Great! I hope Judge Saylor gives these guys the maximum allowed by law.

Razor

01-14-2008, 23:16

In Massachusetts, does the max sentence mean they have to wait 6 months before running for office?

Retired W4

01-15-2008, 09:15

That would be Washington, DC, but only if you are running for Mayor.

Ret10Echo

01-15-2008, 09:28

That would be Washington, DC, but only if you are running for Mayor.

In Mass they would be able to campaign during their incarceration....;)

Team Sergeant

01-17-2008, 10:20

Brilliant! Does anyone that actually practices the islamic religion possess an IQ over 70?

Team Sergeant

Malaysian Islamic party still wants stonings
Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:25am EST

By Liau Y-Sing

KAMPUNG PULAU MELAKA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Malaysia's Islamist opposition party called on non-Muslims on Thursday to back its election campaign to apply strict sharia law, including amputations and stonings, for the country's Muslims.

Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) is trying to broaden its appeal beyond the predominantly Muslim heartland at the next election, which is expected by political experts to be called by end-March and to be fought partly on the issue of rising street crime.

"The people want the best and there is nothing better than Islam," Nik Aziz Nik Mat, 77, told Reuters after morning prayers at his home in the largely rural northeast state of Kelantan, ruled by PAS since 1990.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKLR11217620080117

Team Sergeant

01-19-2008, 10:38

If cartoons got a a hundred or so killed then the movie should cause an all out war.........:munchin TS

Dutch government ready for fallout over planned anti-Islam film
19 hours ago

THE HAGUE (AFP) — The Dutch government is ready for any possible fallout of a planned film by far-right MP Geert Wilders that attacks Islam as an "inspiration for murder," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Friday.

"We are ready to react quickly, it is our role to be prepared for calamities," Balkenende told journalists at his weekly press briefing.

Earlier on Friday Dutch media had reported that the government had compiled a secret document on how best to deal with reactions to the film.

Wilders, the head of the far-right Freedom Party, announced in November that he planned to release a 10-minute film this month that will show that Islam's holy book, the Koran, "is an inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror".

Observers say Wilders might burn or tear up the Koran in the movie. In February last year the MP called on Muslims to "tear out half the pages of the Koran and throw them away".

The Hague fears a repeat of riots when thousands took to the streets in Muslim countries to protest cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

The protests left some hundred people dead, Danish embassies were attacked and Danish goods were boycotted.

continued:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGKrjDg9E1ysvy0E13_yHoKNRnSQ

The Reaper

01-19-2008, 11:01

Does anyone else think European immigration policies might have been a bad idea?

Any parallels here?

TR

Ret10Echo

01-19-2008, 13:11

At the risk of being politically incorrect....

This is just me thinking out loud and putting some observations down.

My understanding was that the large influx of immigrants to Europe was initially back in the 70's (?)....primarily from Turkey. It suppose it seemed like the right answer. Booming economy, a need for workers in the low-end jobs and service industry. These folks came in and were willing to do the work.

Assimilation into the general society seemed to be avoided in spite of government programs that emphasized learning the local language, etc. Initially the immigrants populated the larger industrial areas because that was where the work was. As time went on the immigrant population was more commmon in less-urban areas.

The connection to the home country was maintained, either through family ties or the fact that the groups tended to live in communities together. Whether this was intentional or not is probably open for debate. My impression was that the immigrants tend to form their own enclaves for mutual support. This creates a situation where they do not really ever blend into the rest of the population. The host nation population was quite fine with this idea since they figured that if they left the immigrants alone that their would be reciprocity.

As the economy slowed there was some pushback on the part of the native population. Competition for jobs, housing etc became an issue. This is aggravated by the fact that those coming into the country were willing to work for less than what a native-born citizen would. This applied to immigrants coming from outside of Europe or from eastern Europe in more recent history.

Then look at the birth rate amongst the native population and the immigrant population. (other threads discuss this in particular) The immigrant population outpaces the native. The immigrants continue to maintain a close tie to their native culture so the idea that the children will bring the family into the new culture gets dilluted since their exposure outside of their community can be limited.

Multiply these issues with those of the Islamic faith and you get closer. Much more dedicated parents (to their religion and culture). Children are raised within the faith (madras) through their school years so the attitudes and mindset remains much closer to the home country of their parents than it does to the host nation.

A parallell to the situation here in the U.S. is debatable.

Not having specific statistics, but I believe here in the US the Hispanic immigrant population is the major contributor. Social values tend to be closer to the U.S. and the children attend the local schools (even if their is a strong ESL population within the school). I don't believe there is a parallel with the Muslim faith since their faith is the basis for not only their religion, but their social values, education, form of government and rule of law.

IMHO the slippery slope is when the things that should be sending off alarms are suppressed due to the "political correctness" issue. If I say you should integrate into society, learn the language and be a participant through citizenship I am insensitive or a bigot. If I say that our laws supercede your customs, then I am out of line....

I start to mix the words "illegal" and "rights" into the same sentence then there is issue. You have to work on the first part before you are a beneficiary of the latter.

smp52

01-19-2008, 15:00

Does anyone else think European immigration policies might have been a bad idea?

Any parallels here?

TR

With the socialized economic structure where 'big brother' takes care of you, it sets new immigrants off on the wrong foot IMHO.

Considering the numbers that have immigrated to the United States in its long history, we've done a very good job of letting the natural course of time assimilate foreign populations into society. It takes a few generations for complete assimilation, but it's done the right way, where people have to work hard to earn their spot and for the most part they're also allowed to do so.

When socialist structures give handouts to new immigrants on one hand, then make rules for earning citizenship very strict, you get situations that affect countries like Germany and France. Effectively you're a second class citizen, but you still get government hand me downs, which gives zero incentive to move and integrate with mainstream society.

Bottom line is one should be free to work and earn a living and if one is a lawful person abiding by the rules and regulation of the state, they should eventually have the ability to earn citizenship. Europeans like to cut the cake and eat it too, but that leaves them without either.

The danger to our immigration system is pushing away those trying to get here legally by inefficient bureaucracy, yet letting others in through the back door without much enforcement. Add in government hand me downs, and we create a similar situation where new people don't have incentive (or are scared) to integrate.

x-factor

01-20-2008, 09:56

That Dutch movie story may be a very bad omen. You've got a far right party about to butt heads with radical Islam. Radical Islam needs to be careful what they wish for. They're going to mess around and push Europe too far and wake up/strengthen some of the old European fascist ideas in the popular discourse.

On the immigration thing, the beginnings of Europe's immigration problems started during the post WWII reconstruction when they brought in huge amounts of cheap labor from their colonies (or from Turkey in Germany's case) to rebuild. Those workers stayed brought their families, etc. While that might sound alot like our issues with Mexican and Latin American immigration, I don't think it is.

The problem (at least in terms of the concerns TR brings up) really isn't immigration, its integration and in this respect, I don't see alot of parallels between the US and Europe. One of the US' greatest strengths is the way we integrate immigrants. Alot of that has to do with the fact that our country is based on an idea rather than an ethnicity. Lately you're seeing alot of countres (Canada, France, Britain, etc) trying to redefine their national identities as culture-based rather than ethnicity-based. For example, defining "being British" as loving "Shakespeare, cricket, and a proper sense of decorum" rather than having Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, or Scots blood.) This is something we do naturally because we're a nation of immigrants.

As an aside, its interesting to note that the 9-11 terrorists didn't become radicalized until they moved to Europe (Hamburg, Germany specifically) for school where they were isolated and ostracized from mainstream German culture and consequently backed into a kind of psychological corner where the only thing that provided a sense of identity or pride was radical Islam. That's central to the reason that Europe's homegrown terror threat is so much higher than the US'.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

01-20-2008, 10:39

The problem (at least in terms of the concerns TR brings up) really isn't immigration, its integration and in this respect, I don't see alot of parallels between the US and Europe. One of the US' greatest strengths is the way we integrate immigrants. .

Those that wish to be integrated do so and those that don't, don't. Chinatown, little (whatever country of ethnic group-you fill in the country or ethnicity of choice), Russian mafia is not integrated, Chinese Tongs are not integrated, gangs of ethnic youth are a fertile ground for manipulation by non-integrated hostiles, etc, etc. No, integration is no longer a fact, it is a wish and until you have folks that stand up and place their hand over their heart when the colors pass, until you get rid of all those who would teach English as a second language rather than the primary language, until you take down the bi-linqual road signs, issue instruction manuals only in English, and have a huge banner attached to Lady Liberty's upraised arm that says English Only is Spoken here, then intergration will be a pipe dream. I have said this before and I will say it again, this nation is supposed to be a melting pot and not a friggin' stew. You want to immigrate here, then embrace our values or stay the hell home and fight to embrace the values you want in your country. If you do not have the guts to fight for what you believe in then you are not welcome to come here and set up your own new world to practice your old world beliefs at the expense of those who willing embrace our values. Cowards are not welcome!

Razor

01-20-2008, 12:04

This is just me thinking out loud and putting some observations down.

I'm by no means a professional historian, but your observations sound rather familiar to ancient Roman problems as well.

Ret10Echo

01-20-2008, 19:29

As an aside, its interesting to note that the 9-11 terrorists didn't become radicalized until they moved to Europe (Hamburg, Germany specifically) for school where they were isolated and ostracized from mainstream German culture and consequently backed into a kind of psychological corner where the only thing that provided a sense of identity or pride was radical Islam. That's central to the reason that Europe's homegrown terror threat is so much higher than the US'.

Isolated and ostacized as a matter of choice?
I know it's hard for a male caucasian to be objective, but in many instances I get the impression that the desire is to transplant the native country into the new one (reference the good colonel's post). There are probably places in the United States that I would bet you would find that most of the flags flying are not the Stars and Stripes. That to me does not represent a desire to integrate into the society.

x-factor

01-21-2008, 20:08

Ret10Echo - The way they reacted to European society was of course a matter of choice, but the fact that Continental Europe treats its minorities very poorly wasn't.

echoes

01-22-2008, 15:04

No, integration is no longer a fact, it is a wish and until you have folks that stand up and place their hand over their heart when the colors pass, until you get rid of all those who would teach English as a second language rather than the primary language, until you take down the bi-linqual road signs, issue instruction manuals only in English, and have a huge banner attached to Lady Liberty's upraised arm that says English Only is Spoken here, then intergration will be a pipe dream.

I have said this before and I will say it again, this nation is supposed to be a melting pot and not a friggin' stew. You want to immigrate here, then embrace our values or stay the hell home and fight to embrace the values you want in your country. If you do not have the guts to fight for what you believe in then you are not welcome to come here and set up your own new world to practice your old world beliefs at the expense of those who willing embrace our values. Cowards are not welcome!

Col. Sir,

Very well said!:lifter

If only this were adopted into our MSM. It would let other Americans know that there are those out there with the same ideology, and all is not lost.;)

Thank You Sir, for posting this...inspirational, IMHO.

Holly

Ret10Echo

01-30-2008, 06:08

Afghan MPs back blasphemy death

The upper house of the Afghan parliament has supported a death sentence issued against a journalist for blasphemy in northern Afghanistan.
Pervez Kambaksh, 23, was convicted last week of downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam. He has denied the charge.

The UN has criticised the sentence and said the journalist did not have legal representation during the case.

The Afghan government has said that the sentence was not final.

A government spokesman said recently that the case would be handled "very carefully".

Now the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case - it was not voted on but was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai.

It said the upper house approved the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif.

Concerns

It also strongly criticised what it called those institutions and foreign sources which, it said, had tried to pressurise the country's government and judiciary as they pursued people like Mr Kambaksh.

Some governments and international organisations have called for the sentence to be overturned.

A legal expert, Wadeer Safi, told the BBC that parliament was not constitutionally allowed to intervene in a case in the way the Senate had done, and he was concerned the new statement might prejudice the independence of the judges.

Mr Kambaksh's brother, Yacoub Kambaksh, told the BBC that the journalist was very concerned about his future and said he had not had a fair trial or any lawyer to defend him.

But the provincial governor in Mazar has said the case is being handled with due process.

Mr Kambaksh has at least two more courts in which to appeal and the sentence would have to be approved by President Karzai to be carried out.

He is a student at Balkh University and a journalist for Jahan-e Naw (New World).

He was arrested in 2007 after downloading material relating to the role of women in Islamic societies.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7216976.stm

Team Sergeant

02-14-2008, 10:04

I ask again, is there anyone that practices islam with an IQ over 65?

Team Sergeant

Human Rights Group Attempts to Stop Execution of Woman for Witchcraft
Thursday, February 14, 2008

BEIRUT, Lebanon — A leading human rights group appealed to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah on Thursday to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement that the kingdom's religious police who arrested and interrogated Fawza Falih, and the judges who tried her in the northern town of Quraiyat never gave her the opportunity to prove her innocence in the face of "absurd charges that have no basis in law."

Falih's case underscores shortcomings in Saudi Arabia's Islamic legal system in which rules of evidence are shaky, lawyers are not always present and sentences often depend on the whim of judges.

The most frequent victims are women, who already suffer severe restrictions on daily life in Saudi Arabia: They cannot drive, appear before a judge without a male representative, or travel abroad without a male guardian's permission.

Witchcraft is considered an offense against Islam in the conservative kingdom.

In Falih's case, the judges relied on a coerced confession and on the statements of witnesses who said she had "bewitched" them to convict her in April 2006, according to the group.

Falih later retracted her confession in court, claiming it was extracted under duress, and said that as an illiterate woman, she did not understand the document she was forced to fingerprint.

"The fact that Saudi judges still conduct trials for unprovable crimes like 'witchcraft' underscores their inability to carry out objective criminal investigations," said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

continued:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330680,00.html

Team Sergeant

02-16-2008, 09:01

islam at work....

"Militants" or murderous psychopaths?"

This footage is all a year or more old, as lately these punks have been too busy runnin', hidin' and gettin' blowed up to stage many current atrocities, much less film them.

(WARNING: Extremely graphic and disturbing video DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE WEAK OF HEART. HUMANS IN THIS VIDEO ARE BEING MURDERED, BE-HEADED, AND BURNED ALIVE ALL IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE VIDEO SHOWS A KID OF ABOUT 11-12 BE-HEADING AN INDIVIDUAL WHILE OTHER CHILDREN WATCH.)

Cindy's heroes at work:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9089532722810348478

Google has removed th video if someone esle finds it please link it here.

GratefulCitizen

02-16-2008, 09:44

Team Sergeant

02-16-2008, 09:49

I haven't watched them.

The links may or may not work.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191234.php

That works but it's only a part of the islamic psychopaths video.

TS

Moving Target

02-16-2008, 18:16

I ask again, is there anyone that practices islam with an IQ over 65?

Remember this (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16712720&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=muslim-fury-hits-pastries--name_page.html) incident?

I wonder if they outlawed Great Danes as well.

Team Sergeant

02-19-2008, 10:08

Prior generations tolerated nazism until it was too late.

We will tolerate the islamic ideology, an ideology that has zero tolerance for non-believers, until it's too late.

TS

Freedom Remains Elusive for Journalist in Belarus Jailed For Printing Islamic Cartoons
Tuesday, February 19, 2008

By Peter Byrne

MINSK, Belarus — Freedom could be years away for Aleksandr Sdvizhkov, the Belarusian journalist sentenced to three years of hard labor for republishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that sparked mass demonstrations and anti-Western violence across the Muslim world.

Sdvizhkov is currently being held with no means of communication at the Belarusian Interior Ministry’s transfer prison in Minsk, said Olexei Korol, co-founder of Zgoda (Consensus) newspaper, which published the cartoons.

“No one is allowed to visit him,” Korol said.

Belarusian strongman President Aleksandr Lukashenko shut down Zgoda in March 2006 after Sdvizhkov decided to re-print the cartoons that portrayed the founder of Islam, including one showing the prophet, with a bomb in his turban.

The 12 cartoons first appeared in the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005 and outraged Muslims who saw them as blasphemous. Last week Danish media republished the controversial images to show solidarity with the cartoonist, a day after police revealed an alleged plot to kill him. Islamic tradition prohibits images of Muhammad and other prophets.

In January a Minsk court sentenced Sdvizhkov to three years of hard labor in a penal colony for his decision to reprint the cartoons. No one knows when the Belarusian Supreme Court will get around to hearing Sdvizhkov’s appeal.

Vitaly Taras, a member of the Union of Belarusian Writers, said in an interview that Sdvizhkov's punishment was excessive. "The case demonstrates to the whole world that European values, including the freedom of speech, have little value in Belarus," Taras said.

continued:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331188,00.html

Guy

02-28-2008, 16:03

The majority of people (politicians) that embrace Islam is for personal gain....:munchin

swpa19

03-01-2008, 10:34

Little by Little:

http://caosblog.com/7218

/8/2008
Sharia courts in America!
By: Cao, Filed under: Terrorism and Islam @ 5:30 pm
Yes, in Texas. Via Robert Spencer and the Jawa Report.

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within “Seven Days” from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In regards to Col Moroney's comments: Im a first generation American. My family immigrated here from Bardejov, CZ. I never learned to speak Czech, because my family wanted me to be an American.

The only time when Czech was spoken was when aunts and uncles got together. Father was a half track driver/gunner in WWII. Uncle was in Bataan, DM.

The Cols statements are fact: If you cant assimilate-evacuate.

x-factor

03-01-2008, 21:48

The Reaper

03-01-2008, 22:24

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it. Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

So you see women consenting to sharia courts, where they are chattel and are disposable property, when they could go to state courts and be entitled to an equal share?

And you think they will consent to do this freely?

TR

x-factor

03-01-2008, 22:35

I think more often than not they won't consent. In which case the case goes to the civil court system like anyone else.

I think if they're being coerced by their families to consent to arbitration that they do not believe is fair, then there are any number of women's support groups (to include legal support) they can go to to overcome the coercion.

Failing that, the woman can call on agents of the government (police, family services, etc.) to uphold her rights.

If they're being coerced and cannot summon the courage to break the cycle of abuse through any of the means I've mentioned (or the numerous others that I haven't) then my deepest sympathy goes out to them, but I don't think its a legal issue at that point.

x-factor

03-01-2008, 23:03

Also, on a more theological note.

If the Sharia court is worth its salt, the woman should get a pretty good divorce settlement as the Koran proscribes alimony, child support, shared custody, etc. The thing is that as practiced in the Arab world all the tribal misogyny gets in the way.

Thats not to say that I'm going to sign up for Sharia arbitration. Just that its possible for it to work in a perfectly equitable manner, just like religious court arbitration does for Orthodox Jews, the Amish, etc.

065.001 - 065.002
O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah: and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.

Thus when they fulfil their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah. Such is the admonition given to him who believes in Allah and the Last Day. And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out,

065.006
Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.

dennisw

03-01-2008, 23:26

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it.

Although I have heard of many folks solving their differences or avoiding litigation through arbitration, I've never knew it was tied to religious groups. What is your research source on this?

I think if they're being coerced by their families to consent to arbitration that they do not believe is fair, then there are any number of women's support groups (to include legal support) they can go to to overcome the coercion.

It will mean very little if the coercion comes in the form of an honor killing. It seems another barrier to their becoming truly Americanized, and if they're not interested in becoming Americanized, they should go back to the third World S*** hole they came from and they can help themselves to big hunk of Islamic BS.

Your quoting of the Koran is rich. I love an optimist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Koran prohibit Muslims from killing each other? What about the woman who was raped and then stoned to death in Pakistan? What's the Koran have to say about that? I don't remember the Imans jumping in the stop them from killing her. This is the U.S. Unless it's a dispute about camels, we don't need a Sharia Court to solve anything.

x-factor

03-01-2008, 23:39

Although I have heard of many folks solving their differences or avoiding litigation through arbitration, I've never knew it was tied to religious groups. What is your research source on this?

Excerpted from an article in the Columbia Law Review:
Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed.

Like I said, Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and other groups do it all the time.

It will mean very little if the coercion comes in the form of an honor killing.

Death threats as coercion is not unique to Islamic divorces. Besides, thats a criminal issue and out of bounds for the policy we're discussing.

Your quoting of the Koran is rich. I love an optimist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Koran prohibit Muslims from killing each other? What about the woman who was raped and then stoned to death in Pakistan? What's the Koran have to say about that? I don't remember the Imans jumping in the stop them from killing her. This is the U.S. Unless it's a dispute about camels, we don't need a Sharia Court to solve anything.

That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.

swpa19

03-02-2008, 05:58

Like I said in my initial post: "Little by Little".....It starts with a Sharia court to settle disputes unique to Muslims. Then how far does it go. Should there be seperate courts set up to arbitrate each individual religion and ethnic group? Who pays the bills. I believe there is a court system in place in this country. AGAIN. If a person coming into this country cannot accept the rules and regulations in place they should perhaps go where their lifestyles and laws are accepted. Like their country of origin. Just an ole guys .02 worth

Jack Moroney (RIP)

03-02-2008, 06:35

Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

Un-huh! So when is the law of the land not the law? Gang initiations and drive bys are legitimate in the eyes of those who are fighting for their turf? Duels are legitimate among believers? Satanic rituals with sacrifices are legitimate? The killing of a female because she has shamed the family is legitimate in some cultures residing in this country. Mutual consent between two people within the same sub-culture or within the bounds of tribal law are all okay regardless of the recognized law of the land? The law of the land is also there to protect those of us who become part of the unintended consequences of the actions of others. Where do the rest of us, who adhere to the law of the land, figure into your equation when the burden of sub-cultures decide not to be part of the system but an irritating boil on the backside of society needing to be lanced?

The Reaper

03-02-2008, 09:41

Excerpted from an article in the Columbia Law Review:
Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed.

Like I said, Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and other groups do it all the time.

Death threats as coercion is not unique to Islamic divorces. Besides, thats a criminal issue and out of bounds for the policy we're discussing.

That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.

Hey, how did that work out for the Branch Davidians, or Warren Jeffs?

TR

Razor

03-02-2008, 12:24

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it. Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

Finally! Since this is all ok now, I'm going to challenge my annoying neighbor to a pistol duel. If I stop posting after tomorrow, I lost.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 12:49

This is not a slippery slope case where we're giving in to an invading culture. This is not a means of legitimating criminal acts. Arbitration is already the law of the land and has been for a long time. There is a track record of citizens that employ that option, in special cases under the law, perfectly responsibly. Is Orthodox Jewish culture destroying America? No. Are the Amish? No.

There's no reason to believe that Muslims won't be the same way. As with the Jewish community, probably only a very small percentage will choose the arbitration option anyway because, as in any religion, there's only a small percentage who in a free environment will choose to be that devout. You're making a slippery slope argument without any precedent.

We're talking about giving two consenting adults the ability to take responsibility for and solve their own civil disputes in away that is mutually agreeable and all under the law. How is any of that un-American? Personal responsibility. Government non-interference. Religious freedom. Neighborhood policing. The rule of law exists to protect all these things.

A couple people have brought up honor killings. How many women are going to consent to an honor killing? None. And even if they did, the arbitration wouldn't be ratified by the court because its outside the scope of US civil law (not to mention criminal). Allowing arbitration doesn't cede any supremacy to a separate law and it does not in anyway provide cover for criminal activity.

Take the religion out of it for a sec. Lets say my neighbor and I have a dispute over a business deal. I'm not satisfied with a service, he claims to have fulfilled his part of the contract. We're at an impasse. We decide that we're more comfortable having a mutual friend that we both consider wise and fair work out the problem between us rather than go through the impersonal and expensive civil court system. The friend decides under court oversight and ratifies his decision as legally binding. What is wrong with this? No one objects when the Orthodox Jews or the Amish do it. Why does it become wrong just because the two consenting parties are using Islam as their criteria for "wise and fair"?

Its actually the same as all the judge shows on TV (the People's Court, etc). In those cases, people agree to drop their civil suits and submit to binding arbitration by the TV show. Is the People's Court tearing down the American legal structure?

TR - The Branch Davidians weren't using the consensual arbitration of a civil dispute under the law. They were engaged in multiple serious criminal acts and trying to hide them by living in a compound outside the law. Thats completely past what we're talking about. Koresh didn't file for arbitration so that he could rape kids. If a Muslim sub-community should start to act in such a manner, then they're outside the boundaries of the law and the government will act accordingly.

swpa19

03-02-2008, 13:04

OH ! where we're giving in to an invading culture

Giving in? Facilitating foot washing stations at airports. Granting preferential treatment at Grocery Stores and to Cab Drivers. Allocating special times for prayers in schools. Naw were not giving in.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 13:31

How do any of those things harm another citizen?

Don't we push China to show the same kind of deference to its Christian minority?

sg1987

03-02-2008, 13:54

There's no reason to believe that Muslims won't be the same way. As with the Jewish community, probably only a very small percentage will choose the arbitration option anyway because, as in any religion, there's only a small percentage who in a free environment will choose to be that devout. You're making a slippery slope argument without any precedent.

.

Forgive my ignorance, but just where are all those Jewish and Amish terrorists hitting us?

I say they can take they culture and shove it!!! (From a non-multicultural point of view!!)

The Reaper

03-02-2008, 18:17

TR - The Branch Davidians weren't using the consensual arbitration of a civil dispute under the law. They were engaged in multiple serious criminal acts and trying to hide them by living in a compound outside the law. Thats completely past what we're talking about. Koresh didn't file for arbitration so that he could rape kids. If a Muslim sub-community should start to act in such a manner, then they're outside the boundaries of the law and the government will act accordingly.

Where did you get your facts?

TR

x-factor

03-02-2008, 18:30

The Reaper

03-02-2008, 19:04

The ATF tried to execute a search warrant. Things went bad. This is a criminal issue, not connected to the arbitration that we're talking about. Past that Koresh's sect was into all kinds of sexual misconduct and wierdness that again would fall under criminal law. I don't see what kind of connection you're trying to make to the arbitration question.

Well let me break it down for you.

Muslims are, IMHO, not entitled to their own system of laws in this country. Are bestiality, stoning, or honor killings legal because their religion permits it? If no one complains, because under sharia law, acts are allowed which are repugnant to us as Americans, is it illegal? Who will decide what is legal and what is not? Is sharia law subject to review as to whether it is constitutional or not?

The Mormon church once supported polygamy. Some fringe members still do (as does Islam). If their religion allows for it, and none of the participants object, or harm anyone else, where is the beef? Is it legal, or not? Can an arbitrator judge the complaint, or will we assault their homes to enforce the laws of this nation?

Those allegations against David Koresh were made after the fact and have never been proven, but an armed assault on American citizens was made when they were operating according to the tenets of their religion. Will we be doing this to Muslim compounds (which already exist in this country).

Incidentally, WRT Waco, the ATF tried to get SF involvement in the training and initial assault (from JTF-6) by alleging that the Davidians were involved in drug trafficing. When they were asked why the ATF was conducting a drug raid, the story changed to illegal weapons, and they went in without SF training. I do not believe that the child abuse charges were even mentioned till very late in the siege, and they were never proven. Did we burn the children alive in order to save them? BTW, some types of CS are known incendiaries, and you do not use them in a wooden structure if you are concerned about the health of the occupants. You may be too young to remember some of this.

TR

x-factor

03-02-2008, 19:41

Muslims are, IMHO, not entitled to their own system of laws in this country. Are bestiality, stoning, or honor killings legal because their religion permits it? If no one complains, because under sharia law, acts are allowed which are repugnant to us as Americans, is it illegal? Who will decide what is legal and what is not? Is sharia law subject to review as to whether it is constitutional or not?

None of that is at issue. Thats my point. All the things you just mentioned are not under the umbrella of arbitration that we're talking about. We're talking about division of property in relatively minor civil cases, like divorce. Not a separate criminal code. Not a separate court system. We can extend to devout Muslims, the same niche considerations we extend to devout Jews, certain sects of Christianity, etc. without compromising any American legal precedents or traditions and without encumbering any other citizens.

The Mormon church once supported polygamy. Some fringe members still do (as does Islam). If their religion allows for it, and none of the participants object, or harm anyone else, where is the beef? Is it legal, or not? Can an arbitrator judge the complaint, or will we assault their homes to enforce the laws of this nation?

Again, polygamy is criminal issue. Furthermore, we already have plenty of non-Muslim people practicing day-to-day polygamy at any of the various "free love" communes around the world. A man can live and mate with as many women as he can find willing, but he can only claim one as his wife under the law. Anything else is illegal.

Lets look at how this applies to our discussion though.

Lets say a Muslim guy has two women living with him in a consensual state of Islamic polygamy. He loves them both. He has children by them both. He cares for them both. Also, he's a law-abiding American and is only legally married to one of them.

The woman who is married to him both in the eyes of Islam and the eyes of the law, can sue for divorce and, if they both consent, accept arbitration by her local mosque. The mosque decides how to divide their property, any child custody issues, and what alimony she's entitled too. They take that settlement to the civil court and its ratified.

Any "divorce" between him and the other woman is in spirit only. It has the same legal status as breaking up with your live-in girlfriend. The woman can ask the local mosque to "arbitrate" and may get some compensation, through moral/social pressure, but whatever property or alimony agreements they reach is not eligible for ratification because they were never married in the eyes of the law.

It sucks to be the woman in that case, but she ostensibly entered into the relationship knowingly, so them's the breaks. Maybe she'll reconsider certain aspects of her faith. But whatever she does no other citizen is in any direct way inconvenienced or harmed.

Where's the problem with any of this?

Those allegations against David Koresh were made after the fact and have never been proven, but an armed assault on American citizens was made when they were operating according to the tenets of their religion. Will we be doing this to Muslim compounds (which already exist in this country).

If they're breaking the law, yes. If they resist a search warrant, yes. None of that is at issue.

Incidentally, WRT Waco, the ATF tried to get SF involvement in the training and initial assault (from JTF-6) by alleging that the Davidians were involved in drug trafficing. When they were asked why the ATF was conducting a drug raid, the story changed to illegal weapons, and they went in without SF training. I do not believe that the child abuse charges were even mentioned till very late in the siege, and they were never proven. Did we burn the children alive in order to save them? BTW, some types of CS are known incendiaries, and you do not use them in a wooden structure if you are concerned about the health of the occupants. You may be too young to remember some of this.

You certainly no more about the incident than I do. And I know, generally speaking, that the raid was a tactical disaster. My point though, is that it was a criminal issue, not a civil one and so not really relevant to this issue.

Peregrino

03-02-2008, 20:33

X-factor - Sharia law is about far more than civil arbitration. Your contention that this isn't a "slippery slope" doesn't wash. Accepting part of it adds legitimacy to having all of it forced on us. (On the same order as compromising with liberals.) The Arabs are the ones who gave us the "camel's nose under the tent". NTM none of the other religious groups you've cited have "Convert, Enslave, or Kill" as a tenet of their faith.

dennisw

03-02-2008, 20:57

"Convert, Enslave, or Kill" as a tenet of their faith.

I believe that is the trump card. There can be no compromise with it. Being American is more important then Islam. Selah.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 21:02

If you're operating from the assumption that there's no such thing as moderate Islam, that a devout Muslim citizen can't be treated the same as a devout Jew (or any of the harmless cults out there that we leave to their own affairs on petty matters) then there's nowhere else to go with this question.

It does raise another question though.

If there's no such thing as moderate Islam and all Muslims are committed to the "convert, enslave, or die" philosphy, then why don't we just start burning down mosques and driving Muslims into the sea? What are we waiting for?

Peregrino

03-02-2008, 21:36

X-Factor - It's not about the moderates. They don't count. They're not the ones controlling the terror (though they are the ones tolerating those who do). Appended is an e-mail that's been circulating for a while. It makes good food for thought. Wish I knew who to credit it to. And yes - I have a problem with ANYONE of ANY religion who seeks to force their beliefs on others. I like freedom of religion - I also like freedom from coersion. I don't care what religion you profess - keep it to yourself. Islam doesn't do that. America is an amazingly tollerant society. I welcome anyone who is willing to embrace the ideals that America stands for, that wants to assimilate. Islamic radicals do not meet that criterion. FWIW - I don't believe in driving threats "into the sea". I believe in burying them. That way they don't come back. BTW - Islamists are not good citizens - their only loyalty is to Islam. That is also a tenet of their faith. And it's not die - it's kill.

Subject: Unfortunately This Is True -- History Repeats

If we don't wake up and stand up.... Where's the line in the sand?

German's View on Islam

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis ' he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. I t is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the e nd of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 21:51

Peregrino

03-02-2008, 22:04

I refer you back to my post #904. Arbitration is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at the Archbishop of Cantebury's recent remarks about the "inevitability" of Sharia Law in England. Then look at every other place where Sharia has become the law of the land. (Africa is a good place to start.) I'm not happy about any of the religious courts, I'm vehemently opposed to Sharia. Melting pot - not a fricking stew (thanks COL M.).

Practical question - when the time comes to enforce the decision of the Sharia arbitrator - who does it? The civil authorities they've spurned with their religious court? Or do they get their own enforcers too? Who guarantees justice/equity/etc. in a Sharia court? The civil authorities they've spurned? (Yes, I like spurned - it fits perfectly.) The practical application of Sharia is not a system noted for equality. Pretty quotes from the Koran aside, the Imams tend to interpret and pass judgement however they want.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 22:41

And I refer you back to #896.

Arbitration is a voluntary act, under the law, that doesn't effect anyone but the two parties involved. As Oliver Wendell Holmes sad, "your right to swing ends where my nose begins." In this case, no one else is involved. We allow other religious minorities these considerations and their beliefs have not overrun the country and so long as Islam remains a tiny fraction of the American population (with devout Islam even less and radical Islam even less than that) the comparison to Africa (or even to London) is not really applicable.

Furthermore, besides the fact that law-abiding Muslim citizens are entitled to the same rights as their fellow Americans (Orthodox Jews, etc), there's another upside to doing right by them. Thats the fact that it shoots a nice big hole in the extremist's case against America and democracy. Moderation grows and killing the really bad folks gets easier.

x-factor

03-02-2008, 22:47

Practical question - when the time comes to enforce the decision of the Sharia arbitrator - who does it? The civil authorities they've spurned with their religious court? Or do they get their own enforcers too? Who guarantees justice/equity/etc. in a Sharia court? The civil authorities they've spurned? (Yes, I like spurned - it fits perfectly.) The practical application of Sharia is not a system noted for equality. Pretty quotes from the Koran aside, the Imams tend to interpret and pass judgement however they want.

First, a judge has to ratify the arbitration to make sure that nothing that contradicts US law has been done (fraud, coercion, etc). Then the civil authorities enforce it like any other contract between two parties. The same way they'll enforce the recent arbitration between Ryan Howard and the Philadelphia Phillies. Again, this is not some new radical idea. This is an established practice within the law and with all proper checks.

GratefulCitizen

03-05-2008, 00:08

Again, polygamy is criminal issue. Furthermore, we already have plenty of non-Muslim people practicing day-to-day polygamy at any of the various "free love" communes around the world. A man can live and mate with as many women as he can find willing, but he can only claim one as his wife under the law. Anything else is illegal.

Lets look at how this applies to our discussion though.

Lets say a Muslim guy has two women living with him in a consensual state of Islamic polygamy. He loves them both. He has children by them both. He cares for them both. Also, he's a law-abiding American and is only legally married to one of them.

The woman who is married to him both in the eyes of Islam and the eyes of the law, can sue for divorce and, if they both consent, accept arbitration by her local mosque. The mosque decides how to divide their property, any child custody issues, and what alimony she's entitled too. They take that settlement to the civil court and its ratified.

Any "divorce" between him and the other woman is in spirit only. It has the same legal status as breaking up with your live-in girlfriend. The woman can ask the local mosque to "arbitrate" and may get some compensation, through moral/social pressure, but whatever property or alimony agreements they reach is not eligible for ratification because they were never married in the eyes of the law.

It sucks to be the woman in that case, but she ostensibly entered into the relationship knowingly, so them's the breaks. Maybe she'll reconsider certain aspects of her faith. But whatever she does no other citizen is in any direct way inconvenienced or harmed.

Where's the problem with any of this?

Well, here's the problem:

People game the system, and neglect or abuse those over whom they gain power.

On the Arizona-Utah border, there are the twin polygamist cities of Colorado City and Hildale (there's also the "suburb" Centennial Park).

The men there legally marry their first wife, and then are "spiritually" married to the other 2-14 wives.
The wives are expected to bear 1 child per year.
They are often married by age 16.

Most of these women and children have no income.
They are largely supported by the state.

As of about 3 years ago, the communities took in a combined $8.1 million in social benefits.
They payed a combined $100,000 in taxes.
The FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint) Church calls this "Bleeding the Beast".

The local police force enforced the wishes of their church.
I have never heard of a domestic violence case being brought by the locals.

Many of the boys are driven off (often literally) when they become teenagers.
Many of the girls are married off (pimped) in their teens.
There are MANY disabled children (very likely due to inbreeding).

If you think it's just a "civil legal matter", come on out and take a look.

-Look into the red-rimmed, sorrow-filled eyes of women who knows she is trapped and has to bear this burden to protect her own children.
-Look at the despair on the faces of a half-dozen (or more) young children gathered aimlessly outside their home.
-Look at the neglect, when a severely disabled 16 year old, left alone to roll around in the dirt next to a horse stable, struggles to regain her feet.

I would expect much the same from anti-US Muslim groups setting up shop in this country...except they might divert some the money they get to other groups which, in turn, would use that money to directly wage war against us.

It may be politically incorrect to say this, but not all cultures are equal.

This nation was successful because of the principles and culture upon which it was founded.
If others want to enjoy the benefits, they need to assimilate.

x-factor

03-05-2008, 03:50

GC - My point to TR was not that all polygamy is harmless. We were talking about the legality of polygamy and the legal protections afforded a woman in polygamous relations. Everything you cite is a problem, but none of it is or would be caused or effected by the civil arbitration we're talking about.

1) If these communities are gaming the social welfare system, thats a problem with the design of social welfare system and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Write your Congressman.

2) If these communities are engaged in some form of child abuse or neglect, thats a criminal issue and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Call the police.

3) If these people are inbreeding, thats a public health issue (and possibly a criminal one too) and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Call the police or the Department of Public Health.

4) If these people are just bad (ie not abusive) parents...well thats terrible but its the price you pay for living in a society where child-rearing is not closely regulated by the government. The alternative seems worse to me though. Thank God that you (and most Americans) were blessed to be born into a better family.

5) If groups are setting up communities inside the US as bases to support terrorism, thats a counterterrorism issue. Whether or not they're able to seek civil arbitration for divorces and small claims issues inside their community has no effect on their ability to support terrorism. (Nevermind the fact that they're probably not apt to seek any kind of legal approval for any of their actions.) Call the FBI.

Also...

This nation was successful because of the principles and culture upon which it was founded.

And chief among those principles was the idea that it was both smart and right that government allow people the personal freedom to make their own way, provided no other party was harmed in the process.

Ret10Echo

03-05-2008, 05:46

And chief among those principles was the idea that it was both smart and right that government allow people the personal freedom to make their own way, provided no other party was harmed in the process.

X,
This is the part that is most difficult to resolve. At what point is there "harm". Much like the term "reasonable" what exactly is reasonable?

IMO the harm does not come in a single act or event but takes place in a measure of degrees over time.

The Constitution allows for protection of religios belefs, but also provides for equal protection under the law....well now what law will that be? And at what point is it established that someone is eligible to waive that equal protection?

Again, this makes for the variation by degrees. Immigrants coming to the United States bring their culture, but what if that culture includes specific laws such as Sharia? I believe there is a difference between a cultural moral code and what is perceived as a rule of law that would supercede the U.S. Code.

I believe that entry into this country would mean you abide by the established law of the land. I would venture to guess if you tried to apply American laws in most of the Middle East, that there would be very little consideration of that opinion.

-R10-

x-factor

03-05-2008, 16:35

This is the part that is most difficult to resolve. At what point is there "harm". Much like the term "reasonable" what exactly is reasonable?

An excellent and extremely valid point. If anyone can show how this policy will cause demonstrable harm, I'd reconsider my support.

However, with the legal restrictions in place and the precedents set by other religious communities who avail themselves of this option, I truly don't see it. A couple of issues have been rightly raised (oppression of women chief among them) and I've explained how I believe controls exist to protect against those concerns.

The Constitution allows for protection of religios belefs, but also provides for equal protection under the law....well now what law will that be? And at what point is it established that someone is eligible to waive that equal protection?

The law will be the same law thats been in effect for a long while now. The only difference is that devout Muslims will take advantage of it in the same fashion that other religious communities have.

People waive their rights to certain protections all the time when its to their personal benefit. Voluntary drug testing and background checks to become eligible for certain jobs, for example.

Again, this makes for the variation by degrees. Immigrants coming to the United States bring their culture, but what if that culture includes specific laws such as Sharia? I believe there is a difference between a cultural moral code and what is perceived as a rule of law that would supercede the U.S. Code.

Ok, several have talked about Sharia superceding US law. I think we can all agree thats a nightmare and will happen over all of our dead bodies...but, in terms of the policy we're discussing here, its simply not what we're talking about.

I believe that entry into this country would mean you abide by the established law of the land.

The civil arbitration option we're discussing is already the law of the land and has been for a while now. We're not talking about immigrants overrunning American culture. We're talking about Muslims (whether immigrants or not) availing themselves of the same legal options as other religious communities.

I would venture to guess if you tried to apply American laws in most of the Middle East, that there would be very little consideration of that opinion.

Thats not in dispute either, but as my mom used to say "I don't judge against the other kids, I judge you against what you should be." The fact that the Middle East has little regard for the rule of law is irrelevant.

Ret10Echo

03-06-2008, 07:13

X,
The way I understand the process is that people in disagreement with the established laws here in the U.S. have a means by which to make change through the political process (this is based in doctrine as opposed to statement of fact. Your State may vary ).

If Sharia is not to supecede US law, then I suppose it would be reduced to somthing more of a moral code for those who "sign up" for it much like the Amish, Menonites, LDS or other groups (religious or non) that have established rules for conduct and lifestyle. Provided those rules/beliefs do not lead to conduct that violates established laws.

That being said, they (muslims) have that freedom now.....so why the debate on an official recognition?

x-factor

03-06-2008, 17:17

The way I understand the process is that people in disagreement with the established laws here in the U.S. have a means by which to make change through the political process (this is based in doctrine as opposed to statement of fact. Your State may vary ).

But no one is in disagreement with established law. We're talking about Muslims asking for their rights under established law.

If Sharia is not to supecede US law, then I suppose it would be reduced to somthing more of a moral code for those who "sign up" for it much like the Amish, Menonites, LDS or other groups (religious or non) that have established rules for conduct and lifestyle. Provided those rules/beliefs do not lead to conduct that violates established laws.

That being said, they (muslims) have that freedom now.....so why the debate on an official recognition?

The issue is not whether they have the right to live their lives to a certain moral code, which of course they do. The issue is whether they have the right under the law to use that code to settle petty civil disputes as the other groups do with their codes. The issue is equal treatment under the law.

The Reaper

03-06-2008, 18:29

But no one is in disagreement with established law. We're talking about Muslims asking for their rights under established law.

The issue is not whether they have the right to live their lives to a certain moral code, which of course they do. The issue is whether they have the right under the law to use that code to settle petty civil disputes as the other groups do with their codes. The issue is equal treatment under the law.

Most of the really bad ideas in history started with a few "modest proposals".

I believe that this is a BAD idea, if you do not like US law, or to become an American, DO NOT COME HERE.

If sharia law is so great, why are no other successful democracies practicing it as their primary legal code?

Are the horror stories of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., and the religious police that those Islamic societies seem to spawn in our future?

Can telling a customer that you will not serve them pork, or alcohol, etc., because of your beliefs tolerable as freedom of religion?

Where does it go from there? Lashings for failure to follow the dress code? Stonings for being in the presence of an unrelated male?

Is sawing off the head of someone of a different faith a reasonable expression of free speech? Is it a hate crime to defend yourself, or your loved ones?

You are defending a religion mired in the Dark Ages and with no reformation since then. One which is incompatible with a free democratic society, and one which has declared holy war on all non-believers.

Will we sell them the rope they will hang us with, or will we resist?

TR

x-factor

03-06-2008, 19:42

Most of the really bad ideas in history started with a few "modest proposals".

I believe that this is a BAD idea, if you do not like US law, or to become an American, DO NOT COME HERE.

First, its entirely possible that they were born here. Second, they do like US law. The civil arbitration option is part of existing US law. The Orthodox Jews, Amish, etc are all operating under US law when they partake of that option.

Can telling a customer that you will not serve them pork, or alcohol, etc., because of your beliefs tolerable as freedom of religion?

If the owner of the establishment doesn't want to sell pork, the store isn't going to sell pork and will pay the economic consequences in the market. The same way other restaurants with restrictions (vegan, organic, kosher, etc) do.

If the owner of the establishment wants to sell pork, he's going to sell pork. He can either compromise with you by moving you to a job not involved in such sales (such as the produce department) or he can fire you for not performing the job. No one has a right to a job they refuse perform: Hindu butchers, Christian fundamentalist pharmacists, Nazi social workers, etc.

In anycase, this has nothing to do with the civil arbitration issue which effects no one but the parties involved by mutual consent.

Where does it go from there? Lashings for failure to follow the dress code? Stonings for being in the presence of an unrelated male?

Now you're talking about fundamentally changing the criminal code and the Constitution. Do you really think giving the tiny tiny tiny number of devout US Muslims access to the same legal options as the other groups will set off this chain reaction?

Is sawing off the head of someone of a different faith a reasonable expression of free speech?

You are defending a religion mired in the Dark Ages and with no reformation since then. One which is incompatible with a free democratic society, and one which has declared holy war on all non-believers.

Will we sell them the rope they will hang us with, or will we resist?

TR

TR, respectfully, this a lot of fiery rhetoric and hyperbole with little basis in reality.

We let American Nazis rally in this country in much larger numbers and in a much more aggressive and organized fashion. Have they ever scratched the surface of effecting a change in the US government or even a state or local government? No.

Besides, we're not even talking about jihadists. Yes, it is quite possible to be a devout Muslim and not a jihadist. Its quite possible to be a devout Muslim and a good American citizen. The Muslims we're talking about with regard to the civil arbitration issue are not trying to effect any change in American society. They just want the same rights as other citizens. Rights over their own petty affairs that effect no one else.

Also, if the whole of Islam had declared war on us, we'd be in a very different situation. I'm not saying the jihadist threat isn't huge. I know how serious the problem is as well as any man here. Its not the whole billion-person religion.

Finally, I'm not defending sharia. My wife is a feminist literature critic with two masters degrees at the age of 26. The idea that there are thousands of brilliant little girls in the world that will never scratch that opportunity makes me sick. To say nothing of all the little boys that will be told that Shakespeare is an abomination. Line up all the wahhabists in the world and I'd pull the switch myself and then go have a ice cream cone.

What I'm defending is the principles of individual freedom and equality under the law that make America, in my open, the pinnacle of human political development. Its those principles that keep domestic extremism to a relative minimum in America. Your boy William Buckley would agree with me.

Peregrino

03-06-2008, 21:11

X-factor - I applaud your idealism. You make an impassioned argument that is technically perfect. It also (within the limits you state for the issue, e.g. arbitration of petty personal disputes by religious courts) fits the intent of the oath we swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately that selfsame idealism also gives us travesties like the 9th Circuit Court and "Greens" or other loonies of all stripes (COL M's woodchucks anybody?). Not putting words in anyone's mouth but the common thread in opposition to Sharia law - in any guise - is the slippery slope. It's already happening in Europe and where Europe goes there the Liberals would have us follow in short order. We already have a complacent (sheeple) populace and a government that has failed to motivate it in a time of war. How do you preserve that which you are not willing to defend? If you won't fight for it, is it even worth preserving? Attached is another piece of internet drivel - more food for thought. (Amazing how the internet is the last bastion of free thought - and a fair amount of stupidity just to be fair! :p)

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not
speaking out about any atrocities.....

Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names. - - - Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish..it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . . .

Ambush Master

03-06-2008, 21:37

X-factor -The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . . .

And I may add, are willing to ADMIT!!!

I think that this country needs to add an Amendment to our Constitution!!! One that would DENY all of the Rights set forth in it, to those that can/will not accept all of them!!

Why should we grant Rights and Priveledges to those that refuse to acknowledge these rights?!?!?!

Just a question, but one that needs/must be raised in this country!!!!!

sg1987

03-07-2008, 08:59

Team Sergeant

03-07-2008, 10:43

This is not a religion ...it’s a disease. Why would you do anything to foster folks like this here???
If they act like this over this murder I can just imagine the celebration one day at the defeat of both the little and the great Satan!!!!

Palestinian Militants Hail Massacre at Jerusalem Seminary

About 7,000 Gazans marched in the streets of Jebaliya, firing in the air in celebration, and visited homes of those killed and wounded in the last Israeli incursion. In the southern town of Rafah, residents distributed sweets to moving cars, and militants fired mortars in celebration ]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335730,00.html

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

Dad

03-07-2008, 10:57

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

Some who cheered were right here in the USA, not 30 miles from the Pentagon. The old story of the camel getting his nose under the tent flap comes to mind.

Ret10Echo

03-07-2008, 11:25

Just as an observation based upon discussions with various people from both sides of the aisle.

There seems to be a few different takes on the whole subject.

The idealist looks at the rules and will make the assumption that the rules will be followed, so given the rules and rational thought, things make sense. (They will do x and y because that is what the rules state.)

The ignorant/deluded who make the assumption that the thought process is the same in everyone's mind regardless of their point of origin, background, religion etc. (Muslims wouldn't do that because it doesn't make sense.)

Americans in general continue to try to use the western template that does not fit.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the "slippery slope".

If there are people who want change there is an established process in place for change to happen. It may not be perfect, or immediate but I firmly believe that it is the best option.

GratefulCitizen

03-07-2008, 14:27

And chief among those principles was the idea that it was both smart and right that government allow people the personal freedom to make their own way, provided no other party was harmed in the process.

I beg to differ with this.

Freedom only works when people act responsibly.

Some of the people who were actually there when the Constitution was written left us some of their wisdom.

Benjamin Franklin said:

I . . · believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Corruption from within is the only way this country will fall.
That is the goal of our enemy.

x-factor

03-07-2008, 19:03

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

Is every soldier a pervert like the one at Abu Ghraib or the one that killed that puppy on film? Of course not.

They're not all like that. To say that they are is just wrong. Period.

x-factor

03-07-2008, 19:08

The idealist looks at the rules and will make the assumption that the rules will be followed, so given the rules and rational thought, things make sense. (They will do x and y because that is what the rules state.)

The ignorant/deluded who make the assumption that the thought process is the same in everyone's mind regardless of their point of origin, background, religion etc. (Muslims wouldn't do that because it doesn't make sense.)

Well, thanks for calling me ignorant and deluded, but...

The practical idealist looks at the system in total and sees that such checks are in place to protect against those who would attempt to use those individual freedoms as a "nose under the tent." As I've spelled out, I think those proper checks are in place.

GC - If you don't see how that Ben Franklin quote supports my case more than yours, then you need to read more of Ben Franklin's work.

Ret10Echo

03-07-2008, 19:21

Well, thanks for calling me ignorant and deluded, but...

The practical idealist looks at the system in total and sees that such checks are in place to protect against those who would attempt to use those individual freedoms as a "nose under the tent." As I've spelled out, I think those proper checks are in place.

GC - If you don't see how that Ben Franklin quote supports my case more than yours, then you need to read more of Ben Franklin's work.

I would venture to say that you are neither based on previous conversations. I do not agree with your position, but I believe you to be anything but ignorant on the topic.

Team Sergeant

03-07-2008, 20:10

Is every soldier a pervert like the one at Abu Ghraib or the one that killed that puppy on film? Of course not.

They're not all like that. To say that they are is just wrong. Period.

So if I read this right you believe not all nazis were bad guys either and the ideology they believed in was OK.

Your puppy pervert analogy is unintelligent, period.

You also failed to answer my question, so I'll ask you again,
is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

Team Sergeant

Chris

03-07-2008, 20:58

You also failed to answer my question, so I'll ask you again,
is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

Team Sergeant

How recent a time?

sg1987

03-07-2008, 21:49

That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.

I keep thinking of this statement. I don’t wish to be argumentative (especially with some much more educated than I:D); however I must make this observation.

We all know of the peaceful and loving teachings of Jesus in the Scriptures.
We all know of the violent and murderous treatment proscribed for infidels in the Koran.

It seems obvious to me that a Christian who is peaceful, loving, and tolerant of others is being obedient to his faith. A hate filled murderous Christian has departed from the teachings of Christ.

It also seems obvious to me to me that a Muslim that is zealous in the slaughter of infidels, who will not convert, is being obedient to his faith. A moderate Muslim who is tolerant of others has departed from his faith. (And often is punished by the “true believers”)

That being said, I think of this concept of equal treatment under the law and I applied it to my own family. I have four children. Each is a member with equal rights. They are treated differently however, based upon their actions. Each must earn the privileges of the good life. If not, the deviants are not treated as the model members.

Would not the same be true for groups such as Christians and Muslims? If one group consistently demonstrates good qualities while the other is well known for acts of violence, murder, and much evil; why treat each group the same? So my answer to the original post is YES we are at war with adherents of true Islam! Why allow this virulent disease to infect our culture? If we do, it will spread. I may be just a hick from Georgia but I say we shouldn’t give it a foothold here!

Shar

03-07-2008, 22:24

The ignorant/deluded who make the assumption that the thought process is the same in everyone's mind regardless of their point of origin, background, religion etc. (Muslims wouldn't do that because it doesn't make sense.)

Americans in general continue to try to use the western template that does not fit.

EXACTLY!
It kills me that there are people (it seems like most people these days) figure that if we just go and play nice, the jihadists, etc. will just play nice back.

Ummm ok. Let me know how that works for you.

They HATE you. They want to see you dead in the worst way possible - no matter how much you love them.

x-factor

03-08-2008, 09:27

So if I read this right you believe not all nazis were bad guys either and the ideology they believed in was OK.

No. All Nazis are bad...but not all Germans were Nazis.

Nazis : Germans :: Wahabbists : Muslims

Your puppy pervert analogy is unintelligent, period.

The point is that every group has a subset of scumbags.

You also failed to answer my question, so I'll ask you again,
is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals.

By recent, I'll just take a whack at the 20th Century...

There's plenty of history of certain groups in America cheering lynchings.
There were of course Nazis who cheered the Holocaust.
The Japanese were pretty happy about the Rape of Nanking.
The Italians thought gassing the Somalis and Ethiopians was a real victory for the good guys.
The apartheid South Africans were quite happy to do terrible things to their black population.

There's more than enough nastiness to go around in human history. None of which is the point.

I'm not saying there aren't horrible enemies out there that need whacking and plenty of them wave the banner of Islam. My point is that there are even more self-proclaimed Muslims who don't celebrate that stuff. I know one serving in the FBI. A couple own this really great kabob place down the street. Another is a brilliant physicist, diehard Raiders fan, and a friend of mine. My wife taught one very sweet and devout young Afghan immigrant to write.

You're taking about 3000 whackos in Gaza (one of the most radicalized areas in the Muslim world) to represent over one billion Muslims in the world. Thats like taking a Klan meeting as representative of American public opinion.

Do you really think the war on terror would be going as well as it is if we were fighting the entire Muslim population of the world were jihadist?

x-factor

03-08-2008, 09:52

I would venture to say that you are neither based on previous conversations. I do not agree with your position, but I believe you to be anything but ignorant on the topic.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

We all know of the peaceful and loving teachings of Jesus in the Scriptures.
We all know of the violent and murderous treatment proscribed for infidels in the Koran.

It seems obvious to me that a Christian who is peaceful, loving, and tolerant of others is being obedient to his faith. A hate filled murderous Christian has departed from the teachings of Christ.

There are other schools of Islamic thought that interpret the Koran more peacefully and they believe the jihadists have departed from the teachings of the Prophet.

For example, the "sword verse" about "kill infidels wherever you find them." There are schools of Muslim thought that interpret that not as a general command, but as specific to that historical period when the Muslims where locked in a life-or-death struggle with the pagans of Arabia. Its viewed the same way Christians and Jews think of some of the wars in the Old Testament: it was an unforgiving time in history, where no quarter was asked or given, and "God's people" did what they had to do.

It also seems obvious to me to me that a Muslim that is zealous in the slaughter of infidels, who will not convert, is being obedient to his faith. A moderate Muslim who is tolerant of others has departed from his faith. (And often is punished by the “true believers”)

Islam is a very legalistic religion. Its all about what verse overrides what other verse. Jihadists have something called "nasikh" where they believe the later verses in the Koran override the earlier verses. This is a problem for us because the later versus come from a time when Muhammed was fighting a war of survival against the Arab pagans. Naturally, these verses are a lot more militant.

Most Muslims believe in applying verses contextually. Meaning this: they look at their situation, they look at the Koran. They study the circumstances in their life, they study the circumstances of the figures in the Koran. And then they try to draw comparisons and wisdom. This is how most of us read the Bible. We don't just say "Well Revelations came last, thats the book to follow! War, Pestilence, Famine, Death!"

(Incidentally, this is why alot of learned Islamic scholars regard the jihadists as simpletons.)

That being said, I think of this concept of equal treatment under the law and I applied it to my own family. I have four children. Each is a member with equal rights. They are treated differently however, based upon their actions. Each must earn the privileges of the good life. If not, the deviants are not treated as the model members.

Would not the same be true for groups such as Christians and Muslims? If one group consistently demonstrates good qualities while the other is well known for acts of violence, murder, and much evil; why treat each group the same? So my answer to the original post is YES we are at war with adherents of true Islam! Why allow this virulent disease to infect our culture? If we do, it will spread. I may be just a hick from Georgia but I say we shouldn’t give it a foothold here!

No.

In America we judge people as individuals according to their individual actions. This is the cornerstone of our legal system and our entire political identity. What you're suggesting borders on fascism.

Like I said, I'm all for punishing Wahhabists. By prosecution, by deportation, or by two in the head...whatever is appropriate. But there is such thing as a law-abiding Muslim and that Muslim deserves his rights just like you or me.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

03-08-2008, 09:58

Do you really think the war on terror would be going as well as it is if we were fighting the entire Muslim population of the world were jihadist?

Is it? I take a little more simplistic view of all of this being just a simple soldier. The jihadists are the overt arm of this movement, those not visible fit nicely into the covert status of auxillary and underground. Even those "uncommitted to the cause" have a boot on their necks for witting or unwitting support. Those that are truly uncommitted are not happy about their brethern getting whacked and when it gets too personal will cross over in a heart beat. I am absolutely sure that their is not a Muslim anywhere that might have some value to the cause that is not in some data base to be tweked at the right time in the name of the cause.

swpa19

03-08-2008, 10:11

Ive been reading Xfactors comments and subsequent rebuttals, and have come to one conclusion. X you should have the shiniest clock in the neighborhood. Now admittedly, I AM NOT the brightest light in the sign, just an ole guy that lives back here in the hollers next to the crick. But Ill have to agree with shar:

They HATE you. They want to see you dead in the worst way possible

What the Islamists would like to do to us is much like Goldfinger to James Bond, as the latter lay spreadeagled and laser beam was making its way to his nether regions. His comments were: "Do you expect me to talk" GF reply: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die".

The sooner we all realize this and stop the PC BS the better off we all will be.

Shar

03-08-2008, 10:30

Islam is a very legalistic religion. Its all about what verse overrides what other verse. Jihadists have something called "nasikh" where they believe the later verses in the Koran override the earlier verses. This is a problem for us because the later versus come from a time when Muhammed was fighting a war of survival against the Arab pagans. Naturally, these verses are a lot more militant.

Most Muslims believe in applying verses contextually. Meaning this: they look at their situation, they look at the Koran. They study the circumstances in their life, they study the circumstances of the figures in the Koran. And then they try to draw comparisons and wisdom. This is how most of us read the Bible. We don't just say "Well Revelations came last, thats the book to follow! War, Pestilence, Famine, Death!"

(Incidentally, this is why alot of learned Islamic scholars regard the jihadists as simpletons.)

While I don't doubt this is true for the majority of the WESTERN Islamic scholars and people/friends you know here in the US, I really don't think this applies globally to the religion. I really believe that those of whom you speak could be considered the "radical" arm or the unorthodox part of the religion. They are the splinter group who have gone off the mark trying to make nice with us infidels.

There may be those who aren't actively trying to hunt us down and kill us right now, but like the good Colonel said, if push came to shove I'm not sure it's even debatable where their allegiances would lay. You said it yourself, it's all contextual and circumstantial and I really can't see many circumstances where they'd stand with the infidel over the good Muslim.

Team Sergeant

03-08-2008, 10:40

No. All Nazis are bad...but not all Germans were Nazis.

Nazis : Germans :: Wahabbists : Muslims

So we agree all nazis are bad, now lets clear up a few things for our readers:

Again your analogy is not only misleading it lacks substance. I never said all Iraqis are all bad as I've little doubt not all are not muslims, just as all Germans were NOT all nazies. I clearly stated that problem is with the muslim/islamic ideology and unlike the nazi situation the islamic concern is global.

Have you ever thought for one second why most of the population residing in predominately islamic countries do not openly profess other religious beliefs?

Have you ever contemplated that if these same individuals were actually allowed to worship the god/religion/ ideology of their choice more might leave islam instead of living in mortal fear of islamic retribution?

Have you ever wondered why the Wahabbists are so intent on not allowing any Western Influence sway the thoughts of their people/followers ?

Let me tell you, honor killings, stoning, beheading, public whippings, religious Police and little-no rights for women send a pretty clear message to those living in these areas. Here in America we can still call islam an oppressive, stupid and sham religion and not leave in fear of islamic retribution, well some don’t.

They’re not all Wahabbists you say? OK, here’s a little islamic tolerance test, YOU go into ten countries I choose and write a news/internet column denouncing islam as a sham religion, now I’m sure the governments of those countries are not Wahabbists and they will protect you, just as those same governments will NOT allow thousands marching in the streets cheering the slaughter of peaceful and innocent civilians.

By recent, I'll just take a whack at the 20th Century...

There's plenty of history of certain groups in America cheering lynchings.
There were of course Nazis who cheered the Holocaust.
The Japanese were pretty happy about the Rape of Nanking.
The Italians thought gassing the Somalis and Ethiopians was a real victory for the good guys.
The apartheid South Africans were quite happy to do terrible things to their black population.

There's more than enough nastiness to go around in human history. None of which is the point.

Don’t patronize me as I am also a student of history. islam and history is very much the point especially as humans
evolve, most become more intelligent and not stagnant and more violent.

Let me narrow your focus, lets try the last 25 years.
Make your case based on recent history or shut up.

Spare me your academic understanding of islam.

Team Sergeant

sg1987

03-08-2008, 10:44

I
No.

In America we judge people as individuals according to their individual actions. This is the cornerstone of our legal system and our entire political identity. What you're suggesting borders on fascism.

Like I said, I'm all for punishing Wahhabists. By prosecution, by deportation, or by two in the head...whatever is appropriate. But there is such thing as a law-abiding Muslim and that Muslim deserves his rights just like you or me.

Great. Then Let the individual live by and assimilate into our system here in America. Don’t bring your jacked up system with its WONDERFUL traditions here to us! The county was founded by and upon Christian principles and ways. Why forfeit what our forefathers gave to us?

x-factor

03-08-2008, 19:14

So we agree all nazis are bad, now lets clear up a few things for our readers:

Again your analogy is not only misleading it lacks substance. I never said all Iraqis are all bad as I've little doubt not all are not muslims, just as all Germans were NOT all nazies. I clearly stated that problem is with the muslim/islamic ideology and unlike the nazi situation the islamic concern is global.

You know, I thought about this while I was in the shower before I read your post. You're right it is an incongruous analogy. It should have been:

Nazis : Socialists :: Wahabbists : Muslims

I've got no interest in being a socialist of any kind, much less a Nazi. I don't think socialism is particularly wise, but not all breeds of socialism are malignant. Some are just dumb. Thats my point about Islam. Some followers of Islam you just don't agree with and you go on with your life, some you have to kill.

Let me tell you, honor killings, stoning, beheading, public whippings, religious Police and little-no rights for women send a pretty clear message to those living in these areas. Here in America we can still call islam an oppressive, stupid and sham religion and not leave in fear of islamic retribution, well some don’t.

Thats fine if you're describing Saudi Arabia, or parts of Pakistan and Somalia, etc, but its just not a fair description for large parts of the Islamic world...much less Muslim-American communities.

There are plenty of Muslims that don't live under the yoke of a Wahhabist government, including right here in America, that do choose Islam of their own free will and lead happy, productive, and peaceful lives.

They’re not all Wahabbists you say? OK, here’s a little islamic tolerance test, YOU go into ten countries I choose and write a news/internet column denouncing islam as a sham religion, now I’m sure the governments of those countries are not Wahabbists and they will protect you, just as those same governments will NOT allow thousands marching in the streets cheering the slaughter of peaceful and innocent civilians.

The NY Times had a great article tangentially supporting your position:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Nevertheless...

First, as you say, the moderates have plenty of reason to be afraid of the Wahabbists and for that reason to cater to their agendas.

Second, I'm not arguing that Islam is a perfect religion. If I thought it was I'd be a Muslim, but I'm decidedly not. There is an insular and xenophobic streak in Islam, but it doesn't necessarily translate to aggressive, violent, and expansionism.

Don’t patronize me as I am also a student of history.

You asked for examples, I gave them.

Let me narrow your focus, lets try the last 25 years.
Make your case based on recent history or shut up.

Not the last 25 minutes? Suit yourself. Do we need to talk about the Serbs or Rwanda? Lots of happy slaughter in both places. Both by nominally Christian populations.

Spare me your academic understanding of islam.

Spare me your characiture of Islam.

x-factor

03-08-2008, 19:16

Great. Then Let the individual live by and assimilate into our system here in America. Don’t bring your jacked up system with its WONDERFUL traditions here to us! The county was founded by and upon Christian principles and ways. Why forfeit what our forefathers gave to us?

When those traditions of their's break American law, we'll deal with it accordingly.

When they don't, the system our forefathers gave us quite rightly protects them.

x-factor

03-08-2008, 19:17

Ive been reading Xfactors comments and subsequent rebuttals, and have come to one conclusion. X you should have the shiniest clock in the neighborhood.

What now?

I'm afraid this saying never made it down to Florida.

GratefulCitizen

03-08-2008, 19:32

GC - If you don't see how that Ben Franklin quote supports my case more than yours, then you need to read more of Ben Franklin's work.

Fair enough.

I'll clarify my thesis:
I propose that protecting individual liberties (corruption of the government) and protecting the culture at large from internal corruption are necessary for this nation to stand.

Admittedly, this is a difficult tightrope to walk and I do not claim to have the wisdom to know exactly how to do it.
I will argue that it is necessary to consider future unintended consequences when discerning the limits of individual liberty (the right-to-contract being among those liberties).

You have argued that reining in certain aspects of right-to-contract with respect to Sharia law is starting down a slippery slope.

I am arguing that the institution of Sharia law under the guise of right-to-contract is merely an attempt to gain a beachhead.
Once they have concentrated enough power, they will attempt to corrupt the culture from within, destroying the very freedoms they once exploited.

This is not so much an issue of legal technicalities as it is an issue of political will.
Our country has the political will to fight the enemy on all fronts, or it does not.

Razor

03-08-2008, 19:33

The jihadists are the overt arm of this movement, those not visible fit nicely into the covert status of auxillary and underground.

IRA/PIRA/Sinn Fein anyone?

abc_123

03-08-2008, 20:00

Is it? I take a little more simplistic view of all of this being just a simple soldier. The jihadists are the overt arm of this movement, those not visible fit nicely into the covert status of auxillary and underground. Even those "uncommitted to the cause" have a boot on their necks for witting or unwitting support. Those that are truly uncommitted are not happy about their brethern getting whacked and when it gets too personal will cross over in a heart beat. I am absolutely sure that their is not a Muslim anywhere that might have some value to the cause that is not in some data base to be tweked at the right time in the name of the cause.

Even I can follow this!

I guess that makes me a VERY simple soldier!

GratefulCitizen

03-10-2008, 21:54

Interesting rant germane to the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

Ret10Echo

03-11-2008, 04:47

Interesting rant germane to the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

Rant or reality?

(How did he get my notes:confused:)

3SoldierDad

03-11-2008, 05:22

It seems obvious to me that a Christian who is peaceful, loving, and tolerant of others is being obedient to his faith. A hate filled murderous Christian has departed from the teachings of Christ.

It also seems obvious to me to me that a Muslim that is zealous in the slaughter of infidels, who will not convert, is being obedient to his faith. A moderate Muslim who is tolerant of others has departed from his faith.

I generally agree with this statement and the reality troubles me.

Question - Why is our country compelling Israel to negotiate with an entire people that are committed to their destruction? Is Israel not a metaphor for our future? Would we negotiate with people who regularly fired rockets at us and celebrated with abandon over the slaughter of our innocents? The USA dealing with Fattah is a sham. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. The entire Palestinian people either overtly or covertly seek the destruction of Israel. This people has chosen their fate. They love death and so they shall have it.

The problem isn't the settlements, either - Those are silly half measures. The Palestinian people should all be pushed into Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Forced out. The entire area used to be Trans Jordan - Jordan is Palestine. Pushing the Palestinians beyond the general reach of Greater Israel should have happened in 1967 if not sooner. Condi and Bush were wrong to compell Israel to surrender the Gaza to the Hamas thugs. Forced out - Any other nation on the planet would do the same. We did so with the Indians and they were mere distractions and pests in comparison to the Palestinians.

As I observe and from what I read, Islam - when it is practiced - converts people into animals - the more thorough their commitment the more hateful the animal. The religion controls its adherents with threats and fear - It herds them like goats - cowers them into silence. They say nothing, they do nothing against the thugs. The Koran is written in this manner and that is how Muhammad lived his life and practiced his religion. He ruled with the sword. The religion was embraced as a brutish means of intimidation and political survival among the various Arabian communities of the 7th century – It was Embrace Islam or die. It was also a flattering racism for the Arab people - Islam said they were chosen; they were special. Read any of Robert Spencer's material or visit http://jihadwatch.org/ Better yet, read the Koran – It’s a relatively short book. One won't get too far before the global manifesto becomes clear.

Where does this proposition lead? It may indeed lead to outlawing the religion entirely and to massive deportations. Outrageous you say? Will you think so when the riots arrive here in the U.S.? Or, will you think so when a "practicing Muslim" fulfills his or her duty with a WMD strike in one of our major cities? The only acceptable Islam that I feel comfortable having as my neighbor is an Islam that isn't practicied faithfully. And, how satisfactory is that?

To be frank, I'm not entirely comfortable with even a passive Islam when one considers the possibility that at any time my neighbors' children may decide to start practicing their religion...as we see it starting to be practiced in Europe; and as it has been practiced in and around Israel since the 1940s.

And, as it was practiced yesterday on our five soldiers in Baghdad.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

jbour13

03-11-2008, 05:58

....... Forced out - Any other nation on the planet would do the same. We did so with the Indians and they were mere distractions and pests in comparison to the Palestinians. .........

.

Drawing comparisons to American Indians and Palestinians is an Apples vs. Horse Apples comparison.

Yes the "history" of Palestine is one that isn't well understood, even by the people that claim association with it and the motherland.

This is my biggest heartache and hurdle to overcome....How do you educate a person on their religion, history and culture when you yourself are seen as an outsider. It's the mentality of I can call my family names but you can't.

3SoldierDad

03-11-2008, 06:14

Drawing comparisons to American Indians and Palestinians is an Apples vs. Horse Apples comparison.

Yep, it's awkward, I agree...But, the analogy is better than apples to oranges - At least we're dealing with apples.

Yes the "history" of Palestine is one that isn't well understood, even by the people that claim association with it and the motherland.

Hey, whose history is REALLY understood. We all have eyes that see and we can all see what we see when we see those folks dancing over the slaughter of a few young religious students. The Palestinians are victims of themselves. It all depends on what the result of our deeds gets us. The Palestinians have sown to the wind and they are reaping a whirlwind. And, you know what? We all reap what we sow. We're all victims - victims of ourselves - both good and bad. We are what we be.

This is my biggest heartache and hurdle to overcome....How do you educate a person on their religion, history and culture when you yourself are seen as an outsider. It's the mentality of I can call my family names but you can't.

Life is not without heartaches and hurdles - Sorry. Life is trouble...period. We all need to get educated. If you saw my family name, I know you couldn't pronounce it - no one can. But, I don't demand that you know or understand me or my history in order for us to get along. Why are the Palestinians afforded more excuses than anyone else?

In my opinion, they are a perfect example of a failed people.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

Penn

03-12-2008, 15:54

We may not be at war with Islam but they certainly are engaged in a war of attrition on all values be they Judeo-Christian or basic human interactions.

Islamic states seek world freedom curbs: humanists
By Robert Evans
GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous," it said.
The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.'s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.
Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism."
MOUNTING SUCCESS
But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.
The IHEU statement and Ligabo's report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions."
Although several such resolutions have been adopted by the two-year-old Council and its predecessor since 1999, in December the U.N.'s General Assembly easily passed a similar one for the first time over mainly Western and Latin American opposition.
The OIC -- backed by allies in Africa and by Russia and Cuba -- has been pushing for stronger resolutions on "defamation" since a global controversy arose two years ago over cartoons in a Danish newspaper which Muslims say insult their religion.
The "defamation" issue has become especially sensitive this year as the U.N. prepares to celebrate in the autumn the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration, long seen as the bedrock of international human rights law and practice.
The OIC has been actively promoting its own 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which it argues is complementary to the Universal Declaration but which critics like the IHEU say negate it in many areas.
Humanists, who include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics, say the "defamation" drive is part of an effort to extend the Cairo declaration to the international sphere.
The IHEU statement argued the December General Assembly resolution means states "may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define 'disrespect'."

Team Sergeant

03-13-2008, 13:31

Hard to believe another islamic religious murder, kidnapping and killing a "Catholic Archbishop" sure sends a clear message.

hey x-factor I sure hope you were not the consultant the Catholic Archbishop utilized concerning his trip to Iraq.....

Iraq: Body of Kidnapped Catholic Archbishop Found

BAGHDAD — The body of a Chaldean Catholic archbishop kidnapped in Iraq last month was found just outside the northern city where he was abducted, Iraqi police and a morgue official said Thursday.

Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho was seized in Mosul and three of his companions were killed Feb. 29 when gunmen attacked them soon after he left mass. It was the latest violence in what church members call a series of attacks against Iraq's small Christian community.

A Mosul police officer and morgue official confirmed Thursday that the body of the dead archbishop was found. Both men spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

The news agency of the Italian bishops' conference also reported that Rahho's body was found. The SIR news agency quoted the auxiliary bishop of Baghdad, Monsignor Shlemon Warduni, as saying the kidnappers had buried him.

No one has claimed responsibility for the archbishop's killing.

Last year's International Religious Freedom Report from the U.S. State Department noted that Chaldean Catholics comprise a tiny minority of the Iraqi population, but are the largest group among the less than 1 million Christians in mostly Muslim Iraq.

Continued:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337427,00.html

The Reaper

03-13-2008, 13:40

Is it just me, or does it occur to anyone else that Islam may not be the "religion of peace" it claims to be?

I do not want to hear about my lack of cultural sensitivity or intolerance till they address their hate, misogyny, racism, and violence. In case they missed the bulletin, there is a big difference between expressing an opposing viewpoint, and sawing off a bound victim's head.

It would appear that few Muslims wish to address this, or have the courage to, and the vast majority are content to be enablers or tacit supporters. Frankly, I would view the vast majority of Muslims as support infrastructure for the terrorists, as members of the auxillary or the underground. Their opinions clearly reflect that.

If the Gaza strip was occupied by the Israelis, it would be developed and quickly have a booming regional economy. Oh wait, they already proved that, and then they gave it back to the Palestinians. What is happening there now?

TR

Jack Moroney (RIP)

03-13-2008, 14:22

Is it just me, or does it occur to anyone else that Islam may not be the "religion of peace" it claims to be?ITR

A head here, a finger there, truly a religion of pieces:rolleyes:

echoes

03-13-2008, 17:27

Hard to believe another islamic religious murder, kidnapping and killing a "Catholic Archbishop" sure sends a clear message.
Iraq: Body of Kidnapped Catholic Archbishop Found

TS Sir, this one just sticks with me. Though I read this earlier, it still sticks with a person.
All this Bishop did was try and better the lives of those souls...spiritually.

May those who had a hand in His death burn in Hell! :mad:

Holly

x-factor

03-13-2008, 19:07

hey x-factor I sure hope you were not the consultant the Catholic Archbishop utilized concerning his trip to Iraq.....

Your concern for my well-being is touching.

This is further proof that AQI is a cancer that needs to be destroyed. Like we needed any.

The fact that the Church exists in a Muslim country at all is evidence for my point that there is a moderate part of Islam capable of living in peace. What about the Muslims that helped reopen and protect a Christian Church in Doura (written about by Michael Yon)?

Team Sergeant

03-19-2008, 12:18

This professor must be a quack and the Freedom House think tank must be on drugs. We already know that predominantly muslim/islamic countries don’t subscribe to those sorts of extreme islamic indoctrination methods, right x-factor????:rolleyes:

These must be the moderates muslims I keep hearing about, they're not attacking the western nations, just twisting young minds to do their work for them.

TS

Iranian Textbooks Teach Islamic Supremacy, Inequality for Women and Non-Muslims, Study Finds

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Iran's schools are teaching children to abide by Islamic supremacy and discriminate against non-Muslims and women, according to a study of Iranian textbooks by the think tank Freedom House.

The study, "Discrimination and Intolerance in Iran's Textbooks," examined about 95 different school textbooks that are mandatory for first- through 11th-grade students in Iran. Authored by Paris-8 University sociologist Saeed Paivandi, it is the most comprehensive look to date at the books being used in Iranian schools, according to The New York Sun.

"The discourse of the textbooks has not been written with the concept of equality of all human beings, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," the study concludes. "In the textbooks' reasoning, human beings cannot be equal with one another on this earth, in the same way that, on the day of reckoning, they will be subject to divine judgment for their identity and actions."

Based on the analysis of the Iranian textbooks, Paivandi surmises that different people have different places in society; those who aren't high on the status ladder will be victimized by prejudice.

"Some individuals are born first-class citizens, due to their identity, gender and way of thinking, while others become second- and third-class citizens," the study states. "Those who are excluded from the inside are victims of this discriminatory system."

Numerous laws passed by the Islamic Republic of Iran reflect the lack of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, dictating that those who don't embrace Islam should be barred from top government and military jobs, admission to universities and so on, according to the Sun. Such principles are reinforced in the textbooks for schoolchildren which Paivandi examined.

"By taking note of the guidance and instructions provided by Islam, every Muslim youth must strike fear in the hearts of the enemies of God and their people through combat-readiness and skillful target shooting," one seventh-grade textbook says.

The books also dictate that women should not join the workforce, but instead must stay at home to raise children.

"A mother whose husband earns sufficient income cannot say, 'My job demands that I leave my child at the day care center every day,' and, in this way deprive her child from her constant love and attention," reads a passage in a 10th-grade book.

The school textbooks recognize other affiliations, including Judaism, the study found. But others, like the Bahai tradition, are characterized as cults.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339452,00.html

x-factor

03-20-2008, 09:19

Nothing about this article contradicts anything I've said. Iranian textbooks are written by the Iranian government. The Iranian government is dominated by the religious extremists. It should shock no one that the Iranian textbooks are full of awful garbage. You can cite examples of Muslim extremism until your blue in the face. My argument has never been that it doesn't exist.

sg1987

03-22-2008, 23:27

A little dated but I think he makes some good points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF9ns7p-PYY&feature=related

sg1987

03-23-2008, 20:17

Well….. let’s be careful not to offend anyone....:rolleyes:

U.S. Web Host Pulls Dutch Lawmaker's Site Promoting Anti-Islam Film

A northern Virginia-based Internet host provider has suspended the Web site set up by a Dutch politician to promote his new film critical of Islam, after a spate of complaints and fears of a possible backlash, the French news service Agence France Presse reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340771,00.html

Ret10Echo

03-25-2008, 07:42

Speech row rocks multi-ethnic Canada
By Henri Astier
BBC News

Canada is often thought of as a land of bland consensus and multicultural harmony - the last place where you would expect to see a religious minority up in arms, and journalists accusing the state of gagging freedom of speech.
Yet in recent months, these have become fixtures of the country's public debate.

The Canadian equivalent of Denmark's cartoonists, or the Netherlands' Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the outspoken conservative columnist Mark Steyn.

In a 2006 article he used demographics to suggest that the West would succumb to Muslim domination.

The piece, entitled "The future belongs to Islam" and published by the Toronto magazine Maclean's, argued that Europe was "too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia".

Mr Steyn summarised the presumed global advantage of militant Islam with a stark equation: "Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way."

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory", says Toronto law student Khurrum Awan.

Short shrift

Mr Awan and fellow students marched on Maclean's a year ago to demand a chance to issue a full-length rebuttal in Canada's only nationwide news magazine.

"What we said is that we want an opportunity to participate in the debate when you are talking about the issues that relate directly to us," Mr Awan told the BBC News website.
Maclean's editor gave the students short shrift. He said he had published 27 letters in response to the Steyn article, and would "rather go bankrupt" than let outsiders dictate the content of his magazine.

Late last year the students, supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress, took their demand to the federal Human Rights Commission and similar bodies in British Columbia and Ontario.

The move both publicised the dispute and highlighted a previously little-known aspect of the commissions' remit - the possibility of suppressing speech.

Defiance

The human rights commissions were set up in the 1960s and early 1970s to investigate claims of discrimination in housing and employment.

But section 13 of the 1977 Human Rights Act authorised them to hear complaints about material "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" by reason of race, age, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

To some groups, this provides a useful remedy. "When people feel insulted they should have recourse," says Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, who argues that the Maclean's article promoted hate against Muslims.
But others are alarmed.

Leading the charge against the commissions is Ezra Levant, an Alberta-based publisher who was targeted by a complaint after reprinting the Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in his (now-defunct) newspaper in early 2006.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

In January Mr Levant appeared before an Alberta Human Rights official charged with deciding whether to refer the matter to a special tribunal.

In a videotaped statement later posted on his website, Mr Levant called the commission a "sick joke" and defiantly pleaded guilty.

"I'm not going to try to minimise what I've done and beg for mercy," he told the BBC News website. "I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

Rights, old and new

But by focusing on the legal process, Mr Levant and others added an important new dimension to the dispute. It no longer centred on the familiar "Islam v West" question.

Canada's Human Rights Act is not an Islamic creation; Jewish and other groups have supported complaints under its speech provisions.

The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words
Alan Borovoy, Human Rights lawyer

And the complainants against both Maclean's and Mr Levant, in BBC interviews, professed their attachment to free speech and abhorrence of radical Islam.
The core of the dispute is best understood not as a clash of civilisations, but as a conflict within the West itself.

It pits old liberal values that sanctify individuals against a new emphasis on the rights of groups.

Mr Levant regards commission officers as "new-fangled, political crusaders" bent on overturning centuries-old Common Law.

Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, he points out, are quasi-judicial bodies, not regular courts bound by strict standards of procedure to protect defendants.

Every single "section 13" complaint referred to the federal Human Rights Tribunal has been upheld.

And those targeted often incur heavy costs even if a complaint is dropped - as was the case for Mr Levant, who says his legal bills amount to C$100,000 (£49,000).

'Flawed approach'

The commission officials who vet complaints deny acting like rogue inquisitors, and insist they strictly follow the law.

"We have a legal obligation to consider every complaint we receive if it fits one of the grounds for which discrimination cases can be heard," says Carmen Gregoire, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But according to critics, the fact that commissions are acting within the law offers little comfort.

Alan Borovoy, a veteran lawyer who campaigned to set up the commissions, says their willingness to hear complaints about speech rests on flawed legislation.

He regards the provisions on "hatred or contempt" as departures from the original purpose of the Human Rights Act, and wants them scrapped.

"The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words," he says.

Mr Borovoy believes that minorities' push for equality, which he supports, has led to a neglect of traditional freedoms.

"Other interests have for the time being trumped the free-speech values and I'm hoping that with some of these cases we might be able to turn the tide," he says.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7273870.stm

dennisw

03-25-2008, 08:32

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory",

I guess if something is true, but inflammatory it's a bad thing.

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

Additonally, to be phobic about anything is also apparently wrong.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

When did the Koran become the arbiter of what is right?

I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

This is the point exactly, and it's a scary and sad commentary on our times when the legal system in Canada censors it's own citizens for what is effectively free speech. Can the Islamic situation be addressed without imflamantory comments? Probably not.

The main issue of this thread is "are we at war with Islam" and the question can be expanded to ask,"can a free society provide a haven to a religion which by it's own tenents would call for the society to become dramatically altered or changed".

Here in lies the resistance to any move which would give the Islamic movement any leeway in form or substance to changing our way of life, culture or government. If other religions use this arbritration process, then to prevent Islamic abritration, we should prevent all religions from using it.

Finally, if Islamic groups cannot coexist in America without trying to change the very fabric of our culture, then we are indeed are at war with Islam.

I guess the question then becomes, if a religion or popular segments of a religion calls for the dramatic change in our form of government, should it be tolerated. Is it legal or is it by it's nature seditious?

3SoldierDad

03-25-2008, 08:54

Finally, if Islamic groups cannot coexist in America without trying to change the very fabric of our culture, then we are indeed are at war with Islam.

Yes, we are.

We are actually in a global war with Islam - America is, the West is, the World is. It is a war in many dimensions. It's a physical war like World War II; it's a cold war like Vietnam and the many proxy wars around the world from 1950 to 1990.

And, finally, it's a psychological war and even a spiritual war - The world and especially the West has been at war with Islam for 1400 years. We're entering a phase that might be considered the final battle. Like a virus it has infected the West.

Sometimes hatred gets a bum rap. Hating evil is good.

I'm against Islam. I'll fight it.

I love good. I hate evil. I hate Islam.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

Guy

03-25-2008, 11:27

I've read every last one of these books on my shelf yet; I'm still confused about religion especially Islam....

Stay safe.

JustinW20

03-26-2008, 11:04

I've read every last one of these books on my shelf yet; I'm still confused about religion especially Islam....

Stay safe.

The books are all good. It's when nutjobs start interpreting them to meet their own political ends that things get screwy...

Guy

03-26-2008, 11:33

The books are all good. It's when nutjobs start interpreting them to meet their own political ends that things get screwy...Someone would quote something and I'll go look it up...

"HEY! I got same damn book...WTF am I reading wrong?"

x-factor

03-26-2008, 12:02

The books are all good. It's when nutjobs start interpreting them to meet their own political ends that things get screwy...

This I don't agree with. Are there some who use the Quran cynically to bolster their own desires for power? Sure. But I think there are a lot of jihadists who don't have a political agenda, but sincerely believe that God is real, He is watching them, He is going to judge them one day, and He demands that they enforce Sharia at all costs, including violence. There are such things as true believers. Men who would have been perfectly happy to stay at home and live a normal life except they are compelled by their faith.

Theologically speaking, I think the "religion masking a political agenda" thing is kind of a cop out. You can say that about Christian extremism because the Bible makes no statements about government. The Bible addresses personal morality and implicitly assumes that a government of good men will be a good government. This is not the case in Islam. On the contrary, there is no "render unto Caesar" in the Quran. The Quran is, in a lot of ways, an explicitly political blueprint for organizing and operating a community. So there's always going to be a political agenda. The question is what the nature of that agenda is going to be.

Furthermore, the jihadist interpretation of Islam is a perfectly valid and well-reasoned reading of the Quran. Its not the only such interpretation (as I said earlier in the thread, it depends on what verses you believe take priority in what situation), but its not a "perversion" in the sense that its making up something thats not there. The dispute between moderate Islam and jihadist Islam is an honest dispute, thats what makes it so dangerous.

enterfirst

03-26-2008, 13:49

X-Factor,

I admire the fact that you are standing up for the rights of innocent people who are doing no harm. Of course there are Muslims out there who mean no harm. I don't think anyone would agree with a course of action that would purposely hurt innocent people. But to answer the post's question, "Are we at war with Islam?" or maybe "(Should) we be at war with Islam?" I believe the answer is yes (we should).

Religions or beliefs systems of any kind are difficult to judge on the scale of "good" or "bad." Ex. "Christianity is good (or better)" and "Islam is bad (or worse than x/a/b religion)" But I think the question we should ask ourselves when deciding a religions worth in a free society is, "Has belief system
X historically lined up with the basic tenets of our society." I think it's important to note that we should not ask "Can it line up?" Any terrible belief system can be skewed into lining up if you twist it enough. But I think one can make the argument that though belief systems evolve, many stay true to their basic foundational beliefs. We all know what these are in the Quran.

Any belief system historically not lining up with a free society, as in Islam, should definitely be discouraged (at least). Since it's creation, Islam has had little period in history that was peaceful at all. Even taking modern examples. When has there been a time when Islamic societies, or Islamic States, more specifically, been a haven for freedom of speech, individual rights, etc.?

History has taught us that letting small, "unimportant" and "innocent" actions in the name of being "nice and inclusive because many of them are nice people" can lead to extremely dangerous consequences.

GratefulCitizen

03-26-2008, 23:26

Theologically speaking, I think the "religion masking a political agenda" thing is kind of a cop out. You can say that about Christian extremism because the Bible makes no statements about government. The Bible addresses personal morality and implicitly assumes that a government of good men will be a good government.

I don't disagree with your original statement in its entirety.
That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this.
I would tend to disagree with this one part of your statement.

-Concerning the Good Book and government, here's a few places to start:
Romans 13:1-7
Proverbs 8:15-16
Matthew 22:15-22
Judges 17:6; 21:25
Psalm 72
I Peter 2:13-16
I Timothy 2:1-2
Titus 3:1

-For the dispensation-minded, let's not forget the beginning of human government:
Genesis 9:5-6

-Much of English Common Law (and, by extension, law in this nation) is based upon Mosaic Law.
(Bad credit only held against you for 7 years, testimony of two witnesses required for treason conviction, etc.)

The men who forged the laws governing this nation apparently inferred that the Bible said something about government.
This particular tangent has been well explored and discussed in this nation for a few centuries (the revisionist history of the public school and university system notwithstanding).

This does again highlight the core issue:
Several nations (the US among them) have governments rooted in English Common Law (rooted in the Bible).
Many groups/nations have their roots in Sharia Law (the Koran).
Due to inherent incompatibilities, and finite space here on the third rock, conflict seems inevitable.

dennisw

03-27-2008, 01:24

He is going to judge them one day, and He demands that they enforce Sharia at all costs, including violence. There are such things as true believers. Men who would have been perfectly happy to stay at home and live a normal life except they are compelled by their faith.

I guess I'm missing the relevance of this statement. I don't believe it's a question of their sincerity or the honest measure of their belief. Whether or not they are politicians in religious clothing or sincere, it makes no difference as to their motivation. The tenants and doctrines of Wahabism are incompatibilty with our value system. Our values are mutually exclusive. That's the danger. How can we be tolerant of something that at it's face value endangers our way of life?

It makes little sense to fight the Wahabi jihadist in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the same time let the same sect flourish or gain a foothold here. I guess we are at war with intolerance which would also extend to any other religion that seeks to usurp the individual freedom and volition of Americans.

History has taught us that letting small, "unimportant" and "innocent" actions in the name of being "nice and inclusive because many of them are nice people" can lead to extremely dangerous consequences.

I believe this is an important point. Additonally, there's no door keeping folks here. If they desire to be governed by Sharia law, there's a ton of places where they can go. Why would anyone who wants to live under Sharia law want to live in the U.S.? Unless, their purpose is to change our way of life and neutralize us from within.

If that's true, then we truly are at war with Islam, but we just have not as yet defined the rules of engagement.

Ret10Echo

03-27-2008, 05:45

Normally I would sort of ignore stuff like this...big whoop. But seriously, if the movie created had been critical, lampooning, obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive...etc...of Christians do you think the plug would have been pulled on the website?

The Dutch probably don't want to deal with another round of violence from the peace-loving folks of the Ummah....

Dutch Islam film website 'shut'

A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
The US hosting service, Network Solutions, said it was investigating complaints that it may have breached guidelines on hate language.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders says the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom".

The planned release has sparked angry protests in many Muslim countries.

The Dutch government has disassociated itself from Mr Wilders' views, but there are fears the film will spark protests similar to those that followed the publication in Denmark two years ago of cartoons seen as offensive to Muslims.

The film has already been condemned by several Muslim countries, including Iran and Pakistan.

Hate messages

Mr Wilders' film is entitled Fitna, an Arabic word used to describe strife or discord, usually religious.

Mr Wilders wrote a commentary in a Dutch newspaper on Saturday.

"The film is not so much about Muslims as about the Koran and Islam. The Islamic ideology has as its utmost goal the destruction of what is most dear to us, our freedom," he wrote in De Volkskrant.

"Fitna is the last warning for the West. The fight for freedom has only just begun," he said.

He had been using Network Solutions to promote the film.

But on Sunday, Network Solutions said it had received a number of complaints that were under investigation.

It said the site was suspended until it was established whether the content of the site violated Network Solutions' terms of acceptable use.

They include "material that is obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive... hate propaganda" and "profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature".

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7310439.stm

The Reaper

03-27-2008, 06:29

Were we at war with the German people in 1941-45?

Most of them were not Nazis.

Did the country still present a threat?

How can we justify the bombing of civilian targets and the death of hundreds of thousands of German civilians to remove the bad ones?

TR

x-factor

03-27-2008, 10:03

I guess I'm missing the relevance of this statement.

It was a bit of a tangent in response to JustinW20's post, which I took to be promoting the idea that jihadists are really just authoritarian ideologues cynically dressed up in religious terminology. I agree with you that their motivation, religious versus political, is irrelevant if they are committing a crime or an act of war.

How can we justify the bombing of civilian targets and the death of hundreds of thousands of German civilians to remove the bad ones?

First, historically speaking I don't think this argument flies. We bombed factory towns producing war material and we bombed them in the daylight at added risk to ourselves in an effort to get the max possible accuracy out of some very limited technology. We never bombed civilian populations without at least some military rationale, even if that rationale was as broad as displacing the labor population away from key production centers. If we'd had laser-guided bombs, etc. in 1941-1945 the strategic bombing campaign would have been far less bloody for Germany. The obvious point of comparison for that is the air wars in Iraq, both in 1991 and 2003, where civilian casualties were tiny compared to the amount of missions flown, targets hit, ordinance dropped, and damage done.

That said, I agree with your general sentiment that in the GWOT we've been a little overly squeamish. There are things we could do, that I believe we should do. But I don't think less discriminate use of fires is on that list. Or more plainly, I don't think carpet-bombing the Hindu Kush into dust amounts to a military necessity for victory and therefore would not consider those civilian casualties acceptable.

If you're making the analogy that its ok to hold law-abiding American Muslims responsible, to some degree, for the threats and actions of jihadists and to injure (legally, physically, or otherwise) them accordingly, because thats the only way to win the war, then I reluctantly have to agree. American Muslims are going to have to put up with a certain amount of suspicion and with a certain amount of wariness (for example, federal surveillance of certain mosques, international money transactions, etc).

Muslim-Americans need to accept this because there's only so much of a balance that can be realistically struck between liberty and security. In the same way white people who shave their heads, live on ranches, and have large gun collections might need to accept that they're going to get an extra long look from the ATFE or whomever because they share certain identifying attributes with neo-fascist militias.

That said, its incumbent on the government to constantly reassess if what its doing is necessary for the common defense or merely easier for the majority defense.

x-factor

03-27-2008, 10:53

I don't disagree with your original statement in its entirety.
That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this.
I would tend to disagree with this one part of your statement.

I agree that was unclear. My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

Lets look at your passages:
Romans 13:1-7 - This basically just says that government is good and necessary. It doesn't prescribe anything specifically.

Proverbs 8:15-16 - Again, this just says that God is not anti-government. It does not say anything about a specific law code or method of governance.

Matthew 22:15-22 - "Render unto Caesar." This supports a separation of Church and State affairs. Again, you find no passage like this in the Quran.

Judges 17:6, 21:25- This just says "anarchy is bad."

Psalm 72 - This one makes my earlier point beautifully. The Psalm simply asks the Lord to support the government in very general terms. It asks that the Lord make him righteous, merciful, etc. It doesn't say "God says that the King should undertake X, Y, and Z" policies.

I Peter 2:13-16 - Again, this just supports the notion of government in general, not in terms of a specific policy. It also adds a bit about ultimate personal morality in at the end, which goes to my point about the Bible being more a religion of individuals.

I Timothy 2:1-2 - Pray that the government is "good", not "pray that the government does X, Y, Z."

Titus 3:1 - One more time, government is good and necessary.

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

The Quran is different. Its a full-fledged blueprint for a community. It talks about methods of property division, of divorce, of criminal prosecution, of treaty-making, etc. It goes into legal and policy specifics that you don't see anywhere in Christ's teachings.

Much of English Common Law (and, by extension, law in this nation) is based upon Mosaic Law.
(Bad credit only held against you for 7 years, testimony of two witnesses required for treason conviction, etc.)

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God. That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition. Thats why we still eat delicious BBQ ribs and don't stone people to death for planting two kinds of crops side-by-side. We saw no sense in those parts of Mosaic law and since they were ancillary to the faith, we just dropped them.

Thats the point I was making to Justin. You can't say "oh, jihadists are using religion to mask a political agenda." The jihadists don't see any difference between the two. To a jihadist there is nothing in the Quran that is "just tradition" or "ancillary to the faith."

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

The men who forged the laws governing this nation apparently inferred that the Bible said something about government.

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.

JustinW20

03-27-2008, 12:45

It was a bit of a tangent in response to JustinW20's post, which I took to be promoting the idea that jihadists are really just authoritarian ideologues cynically dressed up in religious terminology. I agree with you that their motivation, religious versus political, is irrelevant if they are committing a crime or an act of war.

Actually (I may not have been clear), I meant that the Quaran, the Bible, the Torah, etc. were all noble books, but all had had been perverted throughout history to justify bloody actions against other "non-believers".

It can be argued, and I may be opening myself up here, that all religious books are, in essence political books. But that's a bit far off the topic of the thread...

sg1987

03-27-2008, 13:04

I How can we be tolerant of something that at it's face value endangers our way of life?

It makes little sense to fight the Wahabi jihadist in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the same time let the same sect flourish or gain a foothold here. I guess we are at war with intolerance which would also extend to any other religion that seeks to usurp the individual freedom and volition of Americans.

I believe this is an important point. Additonally, there's no door keeping folks here. If they desire to be governed by Sharia law, there's a ton of places where they can go. Why would anyone who wants to live under Sharia law want to live in the U.S.? Unless, their purpose is to change our way of life and neutralize us from within.

Today's case in point.....

"Jihad USA: Confronting the Threat of Homegrown Terror:

Terror experts say these and other cases since Sept. 11 illustrate an emerging threat from homegrown terrorists, people who have been radicalized by extreme Muslim doctrine within the U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342248,00.html

GratefulCitizen

03-27-2008, 19:10

I agree that was unclear.
My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

I would agree with this, with one caveat: the Bible seems to say that some form of government is better than anarchy.

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.

The first 4 commandments have to do with man's duty to God. (church)
The last 6 commandments have to do with man's duty to one another. (state)

Christ parallels this in His Commandments.

This division of the Ten Commandments is still displayed on the insignia of Jewish chaplains.
The Roman numerals 1-4 show on the right tablet, and 5-10 show on the left. (Hebrew is read right-to-left).

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.

That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition.

Seems like they made a good choice.
I wonder what it is about the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that makes them so attractive to immigrants.

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.

Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.

I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.

Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.

x-factor

03-29-2008, 09:17

Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?

Romans 12:19-21 "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord..."

The Catholic Church and others use this verse, among others, as an argument against capital punishment.

I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.

I'd agree, among other verses.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.

The Torah is both a history book and a sacred text. Mosaic Law is part of the former, the Ten Commandments are part of the latter.

For example, the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments is a sacred thing because life is God's creation and to destroy it wantonly is to spit in His face. This is a fundamental fact of existence, a self-evident truth to borrow the phrase.

On the other hand, the prohibition against eating pork in Mosaic law is a secular thing specific to that group of people at that point in time. God does not hate pigs and not eating them has no metaphysical basis. The Hebrews of Moses' time were prohibited from eating pigs for public health purposes in order to preserve the well-being of the Chosen people in a very harsh and dangerous period. Thats why the New Testament lets Gentiles off the hook on Mosaic law. It was an ancillary tradition, not a God-ordained truth.

There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.

There is. And one of the many reasons I did not convert to Islam while studying it is that I believe much of what Mohammed calls the Word of God was simply him codifying and tweaking the petty tribal practices of 6th century Arabia. This included him borrowing and adapting a fair bit of Judaism, including Mosaic law, which he must have learned about during his merchant voyages and interactions with the Jews of Arabia.

Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.

Spanish law and Roman law are too entirely different things. When I say Roman Law, I'm talking about pre-Christian civilization.

I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.

Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.

The corruptible nature of man is not unique to Biblical philosophy. Far from it. The founding fathers drew inspiration from all sorts of traditions.

Surgicalcric

03-29-2008, 10:16

Lets keep it on topic unless you are trying to make a specific point guys. Its drifting off on a tangent a bit. If you wish to discuss Christianity, Mosaic Law, and how they relate one of us can split this off into another thread so you can continue.

Crip

x-factor

03-29-2008, 10:25

True enough. Sorry for getting too far afield.

Peregrino

03-30-2008, 14:41

x-factor

03-30-2008, 16:13

3SoldierDad

03-30-2008, 16:35

I'm trying not to take that as an insult.

As for me ever living on my knees, I'll thank you to remember that not everyone fighting this war wears a tab on their shoulder and make no mistake about what side I'm on.

If you think my refusal to paint the little Afghan girl who runs the flower shop down the street or the guys who make my kabobs with the same brush I paint the perpetrators of the acts in that video with is some kind of moral cowardice then you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Peregrino's point, I believe, is that the little girl's faith has followers that are determined to come get us and the kabob merchant's religion is forming-up in such a manner that it is intent on destroying us. It won't take a billion Muslims to turn the globe into a pool of blood.... 1% of the Muslims intent on practicing their faith is enough to take us all back to the 7th century. Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced.

The concern folks have is that in places of power the West is full of many terrorist enablers.

Freedom can not be given to people or groups who are intent on destroying our communities and freedoms.

Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced. It is not a peaceful religion. This was a Bush error. This was a Blair error - they misspoke.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck.

.

Pete

03-30-2008, 16:46

Does it really matter if the 99 clap, or cheer, or just stand there, or just go about their business as the one saws your head off?

Islam will not be ready for prime time until it reforms itself.

Since any who try and talk some sense into the religion are declaired apostate and subject to being murdered it don't look like reform is coming anytime soon.

Peregrino

03-30-2008, 16:59

It was intended to be a wake-up call. I've taken that "hard look at yourself" you speak of and personally I'm still trying to reconcile the necessities for survival with the ideals I've dedicated my life to defending. I've studied conflict long enough to accept that this is probably an "eggs to omelet" situation. It doesn't mean I'm happy about it, just that I think I'm being a little more realistic than you in my assessments. When my enemies tell me their plans, I give them due credence. If Islam ever gains the upper hand in America you will be a Moslem, living on your knees, or dead. The idealism you so passionately espouse will also be dead; along with all vestiges of the society that fostered it. The Koran demands it. The Islamists have been telling us what they intend for 1400 YEARS. They've come pretty close to making it stick a couple of times. Unfortunately that happened so long ago that Western Civilization has forgotten it. (Who remembers Tours or the Gates of Vienna - or what losing either one of those battles would have meant for the West?)

Flower girls and kabob sellers are almost completely irrelevant. In terms of the "human terrain" of this conflict my principle interest in them is to co-opt them into assimilating into mainstream America - it's the only way to keep them out of the fight. It might even get them to help against the radicals that rule Islam. You're the analyst - have you forgotten why the phrase "if you're not for us, you're against us" has always applied in culture wars? Or are you denying that this is a war of cultures?

I'm well aware of who is fighting this war. "Tabbers" make up a very small percentage of the combatants. Personally I think moderate Muslims fighting to take control of their religion from the radicals is an even smaller percentage.

Ambush Master

03-30-2008, 17:09

Personally I think moderate Muslims fighting to take control of their religion from the radicals is an even smaller percentage.

I really believe that the "Radical Muslims" are the ones that wish to live peacefully amongst/with US!!! They are fewer than the True Mainstream Variety!!!

Team Sergeant

03-30-2008, 17:32

The UN, Europe, political correctness, tollerance, and multi-culturalism guarantee the eventual ascendance of Islam over every society that fails to resist.

Islam will not be ready for prime time until it reforms itself.

Give it a few more decades and it may not matter anymore. I doubt there will be any reforms.... if it is the peoples desire to be treated as cattle so be it.

TS

Vatican: Islam Surpasses Roman Catholicism as World's Largest Religion
Sunday, March 30, 2008

VATICAN CITY — Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

x-factor

03-30-2008, 17:38

It is a war of cultures, but its not a bilateral war. There's a whole spectrum of religious and political cultures at play. "With us or against us" is simplistic rhetoric that in almost every case is at best useless and at worst counterproductive, not a reasoned assessment of the situation.

Its perfectly possible for a Muslim to be both anti-US and anti-Islamist. In fact, studies suggest that is the majority opinion.

We need to relax and see the problem for what it is. The occasional inflammatory story not withstanding, we're along way from the fall of Western civilization and if we panic at the prospect we hasten the crisis and confuse our own efforts.

abc_123

03-31-2008, 04:22

I really believe that the "Radical Muslims" are the ones that wish to live peacefully amongst/with US!!! They are fewer than the True Mainstream Variety!!!

Sure seems that way.

The scary thing to me is that you don't know which are the "True" radicals from those that are simply using the freedoms that are grated by our society to quietly expand their influence until they can reshape society into one dominated by Islam. That is what made the recent vid by that Dutch filmmaker so disturbing. The Netherlands, ultra liberal and off the scale with respect to individual social freedoms, is acting like a canary in a coal mine. Watch it to see the impact of Islam on that country because the same process is happening elsewhere... even here. It's just a lot slower pace.

Ret10Echo

03-31-2008, 07:18

Pete

03-31-2008, 19:31

Urban yute letting of some steam?

http://jp.dk/uknews/article1307044.ece

Ot maybe, just maybe someone from the Religion of Peace is a little POed at DK.

frostfire

03-31-2008, 20:59

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2949546475561399959&hl=en

The sound of one hand clapping is a severed head hitting the floor. Islam is at war with us. Aggression only requires one participant. The UN, Europe, political correctness, tollerance, and multi-culturalism guarantee the eventual ascendance of Islam over every society that fails to resist. X-factor - if you want to live on your knees in an Islamic society (because that's all you will be allowed to do), I suggest you emmigrate. As long as I live and breathe it won't happen here.

To Geert,

Verily, our religion will stay the same till the Day of Judgment. We are happy that there are people like you to expose themselves to the wrath of Allah. We are also happy because it makes us comfortable knowing that there are true enemies of Islaam as Allah has mentioned in the Qur’aan.

We are not interested in condemning this or condemning that, but we are interested in letting you know that Islaam will dominate all of Europe, including your hometown, and the Jizyah will be established upon your Country, leaving all of the disbelievers in humiliation until they come to Islaam. Let us remind that there are thousands of Muslims living near you; so always expect the unexpected.

Near the end of your film, you wrote,

For it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses in the Qur’an.

This statement of yours proves a verse in the Qur’aan:

And never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their Millah (way of life/form of religion). (2:120)

So by Allah’s grace, He has shown us another practical example of a Kaafir (i.e., that would be you Geert) who will never be pleased with the Muslims until we follow their form of religion.

By Allah, the only thing that we will tear is your heart, the heart of democracy, and the heart of those who fight the Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) promises dominance, and so we too promise dominance. And how will you be O Geert, when Prophet Jesus returns to earth from the heavens and destroys Christianity and wages Jihaad against the world successfully?

That time is coming very soon.

You also said,

The Government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you.

One can write volumes on this, but in short: Islaam doesn’t respect the disbelieving Governments.

You said,

Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our western civilization.

Correct.

Just as your civilization seeks to destroy ours, our civilization seeks to devastate yours. Take a guess as to when we’ll stop.

You wrote,

Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.

As long as this world exists, you can never destroy the Islaamic ideology; and our ideology is meant for expansion.

You wrote,

Stop Islamisization, Defend our Freedom.

We say: stop democracy, and defend your basic human rights.

But we don’t hate you for your freedoms as we don’t consider those freedoms. We hate you for your disbelief and defiance.

So keep warning, and we too will keep warning. Islaam denounces Democracy, Islaam denounces Christians and Jews, Islaam denounces the corruption of the disbelievers upon the earth, and Islaam is coming to crush the armies of disbelief and smash the false governments and religions of the world to bring humanity from darkness into light.

Although we hate you for the sake of Allah and pray for your destruction, we are happy that you made this film because no matter how negative the disbelievers try to portray Islaam, in the end, it is Islaam that spreads far and wide. The media in America did its best to portray Islaam as an evil religion after the 9/11 attacks, but just look to how many thousands of people accepted Islaam after the invasion. So Islaam will spread all over Europe, and we will win in the end and we will humiliate you in the end.

Congratulations Geert. Your movie has created more Mujaahideen amongst the Muslims.

(copy and paste, replace dot with ., admin please remove if this is not 'safe' enough) anonymousedotorg/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://revolution.muslimpad.com/2008/03/27/congratulations-geert-your-%e2%80%9cfitna%e2%80%9d-movie-has-created-more-mujaahideen-amongst-the-muslims/

I guess they really hate us :rolleyes:

3SoldierDad

04-01-2008, 14:06

What they don't understand is that a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons won't ever go away quietly. Their dream of a world-wide caliphate is so illusory that it is both humorous and pathetic. America has taken down two nations and we were barely angry and hardly threatened. If Islam were to genuinely rise up against the West, I can imagine entire culpable Moslem cities disappearing. Islam has no civilians.

What strikes me most in the "Moslem" letter cited above is the cold resolve and callous intent to fulfill and accomplish Islam's malicious ends.

Thank you for posting this letter - It does strengthen my resolve and enmity toward this vile faith of hatred; against this global pathogen.

They love death and so they shall have it.

Indeed, they shall bruise our heal, but we shall crush their head.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

The Reaper

04-01-2008, 14:43

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

dennisw

04-01-2008, 15:44

Originally posted by x-factor: American Muslims are going to have to put up with a certain amount of suspicion and with a certain amount of wariness (for example, federal surveillance of certain mosques, international money transactions, etc).

I believe we have the beginnings of the Rules of Engagement and the first one seems very reasonable and prudent. Any extra degree of suspicion or scrutiny will no doubt incur the wrath of the ACLU and other likeminded groups, but there seems no other way to approach the gathering storm. Activities like the one undertaken by the Trainer and constant vigilance appear to be the order of the day.

Original quote posted by The Reaper: You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

The current situation reminds me of a quote from one of the Marines in Generation Kill, "Never pet a burning dog." How can we coexist in any reasonable manner with someone who must have hatred for everything that is not Muslim? Are we trying to safely pet the perverbial burning dog?

sg1987

04-01-2008, 16:28

Thank you for posting this letter - It does strengthen my resolve and enmity toward this vile faith of hatred; against this global pathogen.

They love death and so they shall have it.

.

HEAR HEAR!

sg1987

04-03-2008, 07:40

Whew....glad to know this:rolleyes:

"Al Qaeda's Zawahiri: Militant Organization Doesn't Kill Innocents; Threatens Egypt "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345370,00.html

3SoldierDad

04-03-2008, 12:51

A movie and a conversion: Europe begins to resist?

By DANIEL PIPES

Some analysts of Islam in Western Europe argue that the continent cannot escape its Eurabian fate; that the trend lines of the past half-century will continue until Muslims become a majority population and Islamic law reigns.
I disagree, arguing that there is another route the continent might take, one of resistance to Islamification and a reassertion of traditional ways.
Indigenous Europeans - who make up 95 percent of the population - can insist on their historic customs and mores. Were they to do so, nothing would be in their way and no one could stop them.

Indeed, Europeans are visibly showing signs of impatience with creeping Shari'a. The legislation in France that prohibits hijabs from public school classrooms signals the reluctance to accept Islamic ways, as are related efforts to ban burkas, mosques and minarets. Throughout Western Europe, anti-immigrant parties are generally increasing in popularity.

That resistance took a new turn last week, with two dramatic events. First, on March 22, Pope Benedict XVI himself baptized, confirmed, and gave the Eucharist to Magdi Allam, 56, a prominent Egyptian-born Muslim long living in Italy, where he is a top editor at the Corriere della Sera newspaper and a well-known author. Allam took the middle name Cristiano. The ceremony converting him to the Catholic religion could not have been higher profile, occurring at a nighttime service at St. Peter's Basilica on the eve of Easter Sunday, with exhaustive coverage from the Vatican and many other TV stations.

Allam followed up his conversion with a stinging statement in which he argued that beyond "the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive."

In other words, the problem is not just Islamism but Islam itself. One commentator, "Spengler" of Asia Times, goes so far as to say that Allam "presents an existential threat to Muslim life" because he "agrees with his former co-religionists in repudiating the degraded culture of the modern West, and offers them something quite different: a religion founded upon love."
Second, on March 27, Geert Wilders, 44, released his long-awaited, 15-minute film, Fitna, which consists of some of the most bellicose verses of the Koran, followed by actions in accord with those verses carried out by Islamists in recent years.

The obvious implication is that Islamists are simply acting in accord with their scriptures. In Allam's words, Wilders also argues that "the root of evil is inherent" in Islam.

UNLIKE ALLAM and Wilders, I do distinguish between Islam and Islamism, but I believe it imperative that their ideas get a fair hearing, without vituperation or punishment. An honest debate over Islam must take place. If Allam's conversion was a surprise and Wilders' film had a three-month run-up, in both cases, the aggressive, violent reactions that met prior criticisms of Islam did not take place.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Dutch police contacted imams to gauge reactions at the city's mosques and found, according to police spokesman Arnold Aben, "it's quieter than usual here today. Sort of like a holiday." In Pakistan, a rally against the film attracted only some dozens of protesters.

This relatively constrained reaction points to the fact that Muslim threats sufficed to enforce censorship. Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende denounced Fitna and, after 3.6 million visitors had viewed it on the British website LiveLeak.com, the company announced that "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature... Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers." (Two days later, however, LiveLeak again posted the film.) Three similarities bear noting: both Allam (author of a book titled Viva Israele) and Wilders (whose film emphasizes Muslim violence against Jews) stand up for Israel and the Jews; Muslim threats against their lives have forced both for years to live under state-provided round-the-clock police protection; and, more profoundly, the two share a passion for European civilization.

Indeed, Allam and Wilders may represent the vanguard of a Christian/liberal reassertion of European values. It is too soon to predict, but these staunch individuals could provide a crucial boost for those intent on maintaining the continent's historic identity.

Posted by Three Soldier Dad...Chuck