SonnabendGuest09-26-2013, 01:52 AMBesides, not allowing more mosques without a legal reason only encourages more extremism because we'll be seen as "at war with Islam."
The entire civilised world is at war with these homicidal maniacs.
SonnabendGuest09-26-2013, 01:54 AMStar Member gopiscrap (5,769 posts)
1. then Christian need to do the same when one of them
shoots up a place...
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
09-26-2013, 09:33 AM
Muslims Need to Confront Muslim Evil
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
With this weekend's massacre by Muslim terrorists at a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Muslim terrorists killing about 80 Christians at a Christian church in Pakistan, most people wonder what, if anything in addition to a continuing war on terror, can be done to minimize the scourge of Islamic terror.
The answer lies with Muslims themselves. Specifically, it means that Muslim religious leaders around the world must announce that any Muslim who deliberately targets non-combatants for death goes to hell.
I arrive at this answer based on something that I have long believed about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.
I readily acknowledge that the situations are not the same. The Jews of Europe were not annihilated by Catholics in the name of Catholicism; whereas the Christians, Muslims and Jews who are massacred by Islamic terrorists are murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam.
I also readily acknowledge that many of the attacks on Pope Pius XII for his alleged inaction and even collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust are animated by individuals who hate Western religion generally or hate the Catholic Church specifically. Pius XII was not "Hitler's Pope," as one best-selling book on Pius XII is titled.
Moreover, Pius XII lived in Italy during World War II, in a fascist dictatorship that began as Hitler's ally and ended up being the target of Nazi atrocities. This was not the case with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, who lived in the safety of a free country six-thousand miles away from Germany, did nothing to save the Jews of Europe, and even sent a boatload of Jewish refugees from Hitler back to Europe. Yet the critics of Pius are silent about Roosevelt.
Nevertheless, Pius could have done more to at least slow down the Holocaust. And I say this recognizing that Italy's Catholic clergy saved many Jews, and that Pius, to his credit, had to be aware of this. What he could have and should have done was to announce that any Catholic -- and any Christian for that matter -- who in any way helps in the murder of innocent Jews is committing a mortal sin and will not attain salvation. In other words, he or she will go to hell.
This would have had no impact on the many Germans and other Europeans who had no belief in God or religion; but it would have had an impact on many who did.
I believe the same thing regarding Muslim terror. Muslim leaders -- specifically, every imam in the world who is not a supporter of terror, the leaders of the most important Sunni institutions, such as the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo, and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and the in Gulf states -- must announce that any Muslim who participates in any deliberate attack on civilians goes to hell.
This must be announced as clearly and as repeatedly as, for example, Muslim condemnations of Israel.
Just as the promise of immediate entrance into paradise animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of immediate hell would dissuade many Muslims from committing acts of terrorism. Just as the promise of 72 virgins animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of hell would dissuade many Muslims from terrorism.
Whenever non-Muslims ask Muslim organizations about Muslim terrorism, these organizations trot out the various anti-terrorism statements they have issued. But these are largely useless because: a) they are usually issued by Western Muslim organizations; b) even when they are issued by Middle Eastern Muslims, they almost always include condemnation of "state terrorism," which is Muslim-speak for condemnation of any use of force by Israel; and c) these statements usually also condemn non-Muslim terror, as if Christian or Jewish or Buddhist terrorism is as great a threat to humanity as is Muslim terrorism.
Therefore the statements that need to be made by every Muslim teacher, school, mosque and organization that does not support Muslim terror must be unequivocal. They need to state that any Muslim who targets any civilian for death -- whether that civilian is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or of no religion -- goes to hell.
In addition, there need to be large Muslim demonstrations against Muslim terrorism. I understand that Muslim clerics who would organize such demonstrations in the Muslim world might be risking their lives. But what about Muslims in America and Europe?
There have been huge Muslim demonstrations against cartoons depicting Muhammad and any other perceived "insult" against Islam. But I am unaware of a single demonstration of Muslims against Muslim terror directed at non-Muslims.
And if morality doesn't persuade Muslim leaders to issue such a statement and organize such demonstrations, perhaps self-interest will. To just about everyone in the world outside of academia and the media, Islam is not looking good. Muslim leaders should be aware that with Muslims burning Christian churches and Christian bodies in Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere, and the regular massacring of innocents by Muslim terror groups, the protestations by Muslim spokesmen that "Islam is religion of peace" are beginning to wear thin. For a religion that seeks converts, this is not a positive development.
On the other hand, perhaps not that many Muslim religious leaders do believe that Muslim terrorists are going to hell.
Prager nails it: Muslims have to ackowledge that those who murder in the name of Islam will not go to heaven, but will be consigned to hell. My problem is that that I don't believe that the majority of them believe that. I think that they know their scriptures and they know that Mohammed demanded murder in the name of Allah. I think that there is no fear of damnation for these atrocities because these are part and parcel of Islam, not as it was practiced in the Seventh Century, but as it has been practiced every day since Mohammed took up the sword. It is how Islam is practiced today, in every place where Muslims feel secure enough to get away with it. Perhaps there are those who oppose this, but until they demonstrate that they are more than a fringe minority among the faithful, we are going to have to assume that this is the Islamic norm, and deal with it accordingly.
Last edited by Odysseus; 09-26-2013 at 09:59 AM.
09-26-2013, 09:52 AM
One of the most critical documents found at the FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 entered into evidence during the HLF trial was the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan for North America entitled, An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group.” It was written by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brother in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. This document was approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference in 1987, and it establishes the mission of the Muslim Brother in North America in this following passage:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
This is from their own documents. This is their intent in expanding Islam in America. This is why NAIT holds the deeds to the majority of mosques in America, from which it spreads its doctrine of civilizational jihad. One of its basic functions is to use our guarantees of freedom of religion to shield itself from scrutiny and undermine effective defenses, but Islam isn't like other religions. Even at its worst, Christianity barely approached the totalitarian mindset of Islam, and when it did, it took centuries of conflict to defeat it. Islam has never had a reformation or renaissance. It's schisms are not doctrinal, but simply about power structures, as we would expect to see in a tribal culture. It is incapable of reforming unless it is forced to do so by the kinds of reversals that Medievel Europe suffered at the hands of the Muslims in Spain and Eastern Europe. They will not change unless we force them to confront failure, and we can only do that by defeating them.
This is where you will introduce a snarky comment about my fear of Sharia, but before you go there, let's look at your arguments. When you are confronted with Islamic atrocities in the third world, you say that I'm being paranoid and that we don't have to worry about how they act in Muslim countries. When you are shown that the same actions are occurring in western democracies in Europe, you say that it can't happen here. When you are shown examples of Islamic atrocities here, you thump your chest and dare them to try it in Texas, and when I have shown you examples of honor killings in Texas, you claim that it's a drop in the bucket. What you fail to see is the continuum of Islamic expansion, where they are gaining beachheads in America, demonstrating their tactics in Europe, and showing what life will be like when they are ascendant, as they are in most of the Middle East.
We're in an existential conflict with a totalitarian cult that has been focused on global conquest for 1400 years. Snark isn't going to change that.
09-26-2013, 10:24 AMMuslim leaders -- specifically, every imam in the world who is not a supporter of terror, the leaders of the most important Sunni institutions, such as the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo, and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and the in Gulf states -- must announce that any Muslim who participates in any deliberate attack on civilians goes to hell.
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
09-26-2013, 11:29 AM
FBI Reaffirms CAIR’s Terrorist Ties
By: Jeff Dunetz (Diary) | March 13th, 2010 at 08:30 PM
Sixteen months ago, the word GUILTY was read in a Dallas court room a total of 108 times, as a jury convicted the Holy Land foundation, and each of the associated defendants of raising money to fund Hamas terrorism. Implicated along with those convicted was supposed Civil Rights organization CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations which lobbies the government from its headquarters in Washington DC. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Its leaders are frequent guests Network News Programs, where they are usually called upon to white wash some terrorist act.
One key piece of evidence in the case was the Wiretap evidence heard in the case put CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to deceive Americans and disguise payments to Hamas as it launched a campaign of terror attacks. CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad joined Hamas big shots at the summit.
Despite this and other pieces of evidence implicating CAIR, the Hamas splinter group has constantly objected to the unindicted co-conspirator label. Today the IPT is reporting that the FBI issued a letter to congress reaffirming CAIR’s terrorist ties.
There’s another letter circulating on Capitol Hill affirming federal law enforcement’s belief that the Council on American-Islamic Relation (CAIR) is the product of a Hamas-support network in the United States.There is some good news for CAIR they might be losing that “unindicted” co-conspirator designation pretty soon, reports that a federal grand jury investigation is looking at the organization’s ties to Hamas. The group may see itself become a full-fledged, incited co-conspirator. Yassir would be so proud.
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent the letter (embedded below) last month to four members of Congress who asked for details last fall on how CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials.
He included trial transcripts and exhibits “which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.”
Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and trial exhibits show the Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee. CAIR officials adamantly deny any involvement with either Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. The Weich letter, however, shows that the Department of Justice has not wavered in its conclusion that the internal records it possesses prove a connection.
It echoes a letter last spring from an FBI congressional liaison explaining why that letter, Richard C. Powers, an assistant director in the FBI’s office of Congressional Affairs, said evidence “demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee.” Bureau policy bars communication with CAIR outside of a criminal investigation. In Other exhibits showed that the Palestine Committee was a fundraising and propaganda arm in the United States for Hamas, which has been a designated terrorist organization since 1995. “[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS,” Powers wrote, “the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
Weich’s letter to U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick and her colleagues points to two excerpts of trial testimony from FBI Special Agent Lara Burns. Both deal with conversations leading up to CAIR’s original formation.
In one, she reads from transcripts from a secret 1993 gathering of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia where the group talks of creating a new organization with a fairly innocuous sounding name. She read comments from Holy Land Foundation President Shukri Abu Baker explain the new entity should present a benign face compared to existing Islamist groups:
“And let’s not hoist a large Islamic flag, and let’s not be barbaric-talking. We will remain a front so that if the thing happens, we will benefit from the new happenings instead of having all of our organizations classified and exposed.”
In the other, Burns describes an exhibit which shows CAIR listed on a Palestine Committee agenda within weeks of its 1994 creation. In response to a question from federal prosecutor Barry Jonas, Burns said it was the first time CAIR’s name appeared in internal Palestine Committee records seized by the FBI:
A. It did not exist prior to the Philadelphia meeting.
Q. So it came into being after Philadelphia?
A. That is correct.
After a 2007 trial ended with a deadlocked jury, a 2008 retrial resulted in guilty verdicts on 108 counts. CAIR petitioned the Dallas court presiding over the Holy Land trial to be removed from the co-conspirator list. Their complaint emphasized the unusual nature of making public the names of the unindicted co-conspirators and claimed the move unfairly tarnished CAIR’s reputation. That request was denied last summer.
Weich’s letter concludes by noting U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick requested “an investigation into the possible illegalities of CAIR,” saying it was passed along to “appropriate FBI entities.”
CAIR is a terrorist front group. We should treat them as such.
09-26-2013, 11:34 AM
Deliberate ignorance, on the other hand .....
No, it wouldn't. As I pointed out above, the majority of mosques in America are owned by one entity, the North American Islamic Trust. NAIT is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a terrorist group, whose stated goal is the destruction of the United States.
Regardless of your antipathy for Islam, the United States has religious freedom and people are free to worship as they see fit. I understand the concept of zoning laws (I have participated in zoning debates at the city level) but you cannot single out one religion for zoning restrictions. You can zone to prevent houses of worship from being built in a given area but you can't say big charismatic bible churches are fine but no Synagogues or Baha'i temples.
This is a straight forward issue. And you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You agree that the 1st protects religious freedom but try to get around that to feed you hatred of a specific religion by claiming it isn't one. Even though it has been around longer than even Protestant Christianity; if you aren't a complete mindless bigot, you acknowledge it is even older than that since its roots are the same as Judaism and Christianity. Claiming it isn't a religion is absurd.
I will now let you have a the last word on this. Be sure to link to some anti-Islam sites talking about how the 18th caliphate is coming to take our stamp collections.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|