Ted Cruz: “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized”
[guest post by Dana]
In response to today’s terrorist attack in Brussels, Ted Cruz posted the following on his Facebook page (emphasis mine):
Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of co-ordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport.
For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy.
For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either.
Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.
We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here.
We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence.
We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.
We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration.And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS.
The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake.
It is the bolded portion that is causing a stir. This comes just days after Ted Cruz announced his national security team members, and CAIR immediately requested that Cruz drop “designated hate group leader Frank Gaffney Jr., retired Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin and other Islamophobes as a foreign policy advisers”.
Today, Andrew McCarthy, who is a member of Cruz’s newly formed team, laid out his argument supporting Cruz’s call for law enforcement to “secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” He argues that this administration has moved away from a post-9/11 prevention-first counterterrorism where law enforcement would pro-actively work to prevent attacks by gathering intelligence from inside Muslim communities sympathetic to “Islamic supremacy” to a practice where law enforcement now primarily engages after an attack occurs, or after a threat has been verified. The latter method is part of an effort by the Obama administration to keep Muslims from being lumped in with radical Islamists as well as messaging that the U.S. does not believe that we, as a nation, are “at war with Islam.” This revised method now includes an effort to “empower” approved Muslim groups, in lieu of law enforcement, to regulate and monitor their communities as well as gather intelligence for law enforcement.
Here is the heart of McCarthy’s defense of Cruz’s statement:
[W]e have to recognize the reality of what the threat is and where it comes from, and we have to stick with prevention-oriented, intelligence-based counterterrorism methods that work.
We have had some domestic terrorist attacks in the U.S. as the threat has intensified during Obama’s presidency. Yet, we have not suffered the spate of attacks they have had (and will continue having) in Europe. The main reasons for the difference are that (a) we have not had as much mass immigration of an assimilation-resistant population, and (b) our police and local governments have not ceded de facto jurisdiction over communities to Muslim activists who would turn them into anti-American enclaves.
Obama policies have put us on the trajectory to repeat Europe’s self-destruction. Cruz is saying we have to defend ourselves — and that we are worth defending.
Pro-American Muslims can be a real asset in effective counterterrorism by joining us in helping us ostracize and marginalize radical elements – both the violent jihadists and their ideological sympathizers. But we have to prosecute the war against Islamic supremacists and protect our homeland regardless of how much or how little help we get.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone buys that the implementation of the bolded portion of Cruz’s plan (as briefly outlined by Cruz, without knowing the particulars) would result in a positive outcome. I apologize for the choppiness of the tweets below, but for the sake of brevity, I wanted to focus on the bottom-line:
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 4:47 pmIf you’re either with us or against us I know where Popehat stands.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 4:59 pmit’s the broken window approach to salafism.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:00 pm“If you’re either with us or against us I know where Popehat stands.”
– Hoagie
On the Constitutional side of things?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:07 pmFear of this kind of backlash allowed the last domestic terrorist incident to occur.
JD (2af3bd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:07 pmFirst of all the most radicalized moslem neighborhood is under the complete control of the police 24/7: prisons.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:19 pmSo you think police patrolling and keeping a neighborhood secure poses a Constitutional dilemma?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:23 pmthis is a laboratory of democracy thing
best left to the states
you’d think a True Conservative would know that
happyfeet (831175) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:23 pmWe need to get away from the idea that anybody has a right not to be kept an eye on, not to be suspected of potential wrongdoing without prior evidence. It takes surveillance to develop such evidence, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to watch those it suspects might be up to no good.
We also need to get away from the idea that it’s wrong to take race, religion, or any other factor into account in forming such suspicion. Every shop assistant knows that certain people are more likely than others to steal, and need to be watched. Discreetly, if possible, so as not to give needless offense, but that must be of secondary priority. Nobody is entitled to be viewed as pure and innocent without having established such credentials first. At trial the rule is innocent until proven guilty, but in police work it has to be trust but verify.
On the other hand, the people doing this surveillance need to keep in mind that the vast majority of the people they are watching are indeed innocent and good people who don’t deserve to be bothered or offended. They need to obey my mother’s dictum, “look with your eyes, not with your hands”; watch all you like, but don’t detain anyone without a good reason.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:33 pm“So you think police patrolling and keeping a neighborhood secure poses a Constitutional dilemma?”
– Hoagie
Based on the religious composition of the neighborhood? Yes.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:34 pm“Empower”, not “order”. Local authorities can only decide whether to do this sort of thing if the feds allow it. NYPD used to keep an eye on mosques, until they got hit with a federal lawsuit. (Then a communist was elected mayor and settled the suit with a consent decree that they wouldn’t do it again.)
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:35 pmPlease explain why. Where in the constitution does it say anything like this?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:36 pmPrecise words matter to those who are people of their word. Ted Cruz is very careful with his words, unlike his remaining competitor.
Some people impute bad motives to Ted Cruz that aren’t supported directly by anything he’s said. They want to take his words to mean something more than, and frequently different from, what he’s actually said.
As an example, on another thread recently, someone took Cruz’ public statements today as evidence that Cruz wants to “reinvade the middle east again[,] and again.” That commenter — a notorious Trumpkin — is a bald-faced liar, nothing more or less.
Pretending that Cruz has said he wants to cops to hassle and arrest more innocent people is, unfortunately, as ridiculously false as what the Trumpkin I quoted above said.
When challenged, both of these critics fell back into a variation on, “Well, it’s obvious to anyone as smart as me, anyway, and you must just be naive.” That’s just pathetic, and convinces no one.
The words remain; they say what the candidate wished to say; and they matter more than what people fantasize that the candidate might have wanted to say.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:36 pmChurchill and Roosevelt made the correct decision on the way to end WWI – which was not only to defeat Germany and Japan but to destroy the culture the bred the war mentality. As a result of that decision, we now have both a peaceful and productive cultures have emerged and existed for the last 70 odd years.
The same needs to be done – I agree with Cruz.
Joe - From Texas (debac0) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:37 pmHi, guys! We’re the government and we’re here to patrol and secure your Jewish neighborhood – because it’s a Jewish neighborhood! Do you guys have your papers on you, by any chance? No?
Gee – that’s too bad.”
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:38 pmPopehat believes that whenever the police patrol a neighborhood they hassle and arrest innocent people. His answer is that they shouldn’t patrol the neighborhood in the first place. My answer is “don’t do that”. “Look with your eyes.” If reasonable suspicion develops against someone, then hassle them, but not too much, because most of the time the person is still innocent.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:39 pmYo: the comment wasn’t about “neighborhoods.” The comment was about “Muslim neighborhoods.”
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:40 pm@Leviticus: In a country where Jews bomb non-Jews and then are hidden and aided by other Jews living in Jewish neighborhoods, yes it would be reasonable to increase the law enforcement presence in Jewish neighborhoods.
We do this by race and ethnicity too.
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:43 pmif homeland security trash started goose-stepping around my neighborhood I’d move
i really would
happyfeet (831175) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:44 pmUm, that’s what most Jewish neighborhoods want. Around here the chief complaint is that the police don’t patrol enough, and don’t respond well enough to crime reports, for fear of seeming to favor the Jews over their black neighbors (from whom the criminals almost always come).
In the USA there is no requirement to carry papers, so it’s not too bad if one is not carrying any, so long as one has not committed an arrestable offense.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:46 pm“We do this by race and ethnicity too.”
– Gabriel Hanna
Yeah – because “we” lie about “our” motives (to avoid strict scrutiny) and judges take “our” word for it.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:46 pmYes, that’s where the threat is. Why would you look for it where it isn’t?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:46 pmIf they needed to, then moving would be a good idea.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:47 pmok then
happyfeet (831175) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:49 pm@Leviticus:Yeah – because “we” lie about “our” motives
So we should have the same arrest and citation rates per thousand in all neighborhoods whatever?
Or should we direct our crime-fighting efforts to the places with the highest crime rates?
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:50 pm“Um, that’s what most Jewish neighborhoods want.”
– Milhouse
Nice dodge, Milhouse. Is it what most Jews wanted in Warsaw?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:51 pm@Levitivus:Is it what most Jews wanted in Warsaw?
So are you saying that the Jews under Hitler were terrorists, or are you saying that Muslims today are as little connected to terrorism as Jews were in the 1940s?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:53 pm“So we should have the same arrest and citation rates per thousand in all neighborhoods whatever?”
– Gabriel Hanna
Nice straw man, Gabe.
Try this: under the 1st and 14th amendments to the US constitution, we should not allow for the disparate treatment of religious groups, on the basis of their religious affiliation, unless we can justify that disparate treatment under strict scrutiny.
Go ahead and argue that Ted Cruz’s (possibly poorly worded) proposal meets strict scrutiny if you want. But at least acknowledge that that’s the standard he would have to meet.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:55 pmWere the Jews in Warsaw likely to be criminals, or likely to be victims of crime?
Do you also object to an increased firefighting presence in a neighborhood of flammable wooden houses rather than in one of stone houses?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:56 pm@Leviticus:unless we can justify that disparate treatment under strict scrutiny.
No problem. Preventing terrorism is a legitimate government interest–do you contest that? Muslims are disproportionately involved in terror just as some neighborhoods are disproportionately involved in drug crime or violent crime, do you contest that?
Provided no illegal searches and seizures are carried out, people are not detained without being charged and such, what’s the objection exactly?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:58 pmNeither amendment says anything about groups, let alone about neighborhoods. They speak only about individuals.
And suspicion is not treatment. Certain people are objectively more likely than other people to commit crimes, and therefore deserve greater scrutiny. And yes, race, religion, and ethnicity play a huge role in that.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:59 pm@Leviticus: Going to answer this one?
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:59 pm“So are you saying that the Jews under Hitler were terrorists, or are you saying that Muslims today are as little connected to terrorism as Jews were in the 1940s?”
– Gabriel Hanna
I’m saying what I’m, you know, saying. With my own words. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, like you do in every other argument in which you participate.
We have a Constitution. It prohibits unjustified religious discrimination. This isn’t rocket science.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:59 pmIt would be far better if the Muslim neighborhoods policed and secured themselves, just as it would be better if some other ethnic neighborhoods did the same. But when it doesn’t happen and violence becomes endemic, and worse, overflows to other areas, it is crazy to expect there to be no reaction.
I guarantee that there is a number, less than 1, of jihadist attacks/week that will lead to a military presence in Muslim communities in the US.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:59 pmBottom line: There is no right not to be looked at.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 5:59 pm@Leviticus: Okay, Leviticus, let’s try again:
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:01 pmNo, it doesn’t. It prohibits restricting a person’s rights on the basis of his religion. Since there is no right not to be looked at, there’s no reason the state can’t look at someone because of his religion.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:01 pm“Provided no illegal searches and seizures are carried out, people are not detained without being charged and such, what’s the objection exactly?”
– Gabriel Hanna
Uhhh, a non-laughable least restrictive means argument, for starters. What the hell is a “Muslim neighborhood,” anyway? Somebody call the zoning board (oh wait – dammit).
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:03 pmThe lack of a non-laughable least restrictive means argument, that is.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:04 pmWe currently have increased police presence in certain areas, and different policing styles among populations. I guarantee you that policing is done differently in Compton than in Newport Beach. There is a clear racial statistic involved in those two places. And yet no one would assert that the PRIMARY reason for the differences in policing and police tactics are race. Those who do believe that are invited to walk through each neighborhood at 3AM with a Rolex on the wrist.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:05 pm@Leviticus: You keep saying unlawful discrimination, I keep asking you about an example, you keep refusing to answer:
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:05 pmLet’s put it another way. Jews are known for a higher propensity to certain crimes. A Jewish mugger or housebreaker is a very rare thing indeed, but nobody’s eyes were raised when Bernie Madoff was arrested. Nor is it exactly a surprise when a Jewish business catches fire. The term “Jewish lightning” didn’t come out of nowhere. Leviticus, do you think the SEC, insurance adjustors, and other financial watchdogs, don’t keep a tighter eye on Jews than on others? Do you think they shouldn’t?
PS: “So tell me, how do you make a hurricane”?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:05 pmThis alone demonstrates your lack of seriousness.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:06 pmI don’t agree that people have an immunity or privilege from being scrutinized for possible criminal misconduct based upon their race, or their religion.
I don’t agree that government must blind itself to realities of access and opportunity and association just because some of those realities reflect the participants’ race or religion. It’s not a violation of anyone’s right to the free exercise of his or her religion to station an observation van outside one’s coven, church, synagogue, mosque, or feminist support center.
There’s nothing in what Sen. Cruz proposed that violates the Constitution or laws of the United States. And you would much rather have to debate that with me than with Cruz. 😉
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:07 pmI would assert exactly that, and that that’s how it should be.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:07 pmDoesn’t sound like government getting smaller.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:11 pmGetting the feds out of the police’s way and allowing them to do their job is not smaller government?!
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:15 pm@papertiger:Doesn’t sound like government getting smaller.
A lot smaller than required for getting rid of all of them and then readmitting them selectively.
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:15 pm“I don’t agree that people have an immunity or privilege from being scrutinized for possible criminal misconduct based upon their race, or their religion.”
– Beldar
How about the “secured” part of Cruz’s statement? Setting aside the fact that I completely disagree with your statement quoted above, what to do you make of the “secured” part of Cruz’s statement (since everyone seems to be begging the question that of course we’re not talking about any searches or seizures here)?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:16 pmLet me elaborate. More government (jpg)
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:17 pmI interpret “secured” to mean “having more security than it did before.” What do you think it means?
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:18 pm@Leviticus: Nothing to say, Leviticus, about whether a specific examples constitutes unlawful discrimination?
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:18 pmWhy jump from “we need more policing” to “we need more illegal policing”? What in Ted Cruz’ history or words supports the idea that he means “illegal policing”?
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:19 pm“Leviticus, do you think the SEC, insurance adjustors, and other financial watchdogs, don’t keep a tighter eye on Jews than on others?”
– Milhouse
Do you think any of them would ever admit it, even if what you were saying was true? Do you think it would be remotely constitutional for them to admit something like that?
“Yeah, we at the SEC keep a tighter eye on Jews than others? Why? Well, because they’re Jews of course! Don’t you know [X] about Jews?”
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:19 pmI would assert exactly that, and that that’s how it should be.
No, it correlates strongly to race, but the whites who live in Compton or the blacks who live in Newport Beach are far more likely to behave much as the other nearby residents than their fellows in the other place.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:22 pm@Leviticus: You are so sure about what’s clearly unlawful discrimination, can’t you pass judgement on a specific example?
For every Muslim put on a watch or no fly list, there should be one Mennonite or Jew? Or should counter-terrorism efforts be directed to the communities where terrorists are most likely to recruit, most likely to be aided, most likely to live?
Gabriel Hanna (54dfae) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:23 pmThere is a specific factual context for the kind of law enforcement efforts Cruz was referring to: He confirmed tonight in his interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, and elsewhere in the press, that he very much had in mind the kind of community policing that was done in New York under the Bloomberg mayorship, which De Blasio has since abandoned after criticism to the effect that it’s politically incorrect to look for radical Islamic terrorists in places where there are lots of Muslims. It’s fair to criticize the actual performance of the NY effort under Bloomberg — it doesn’t seem to have actually proceeded in accordance with its original purpose, nor to have been very well administered (big surprises) — but that’s part of the general concept Cruz has in mind. He’s not thinking of the Gestapo.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:26 pmPopehat is still a lefty first. Never forget that.
njrob (bed0b6) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:28 pmLeviticus, the First Amendment doesn’t require that the government pretend there’s no such thing as religion, and that supposed “wall between Church & State” is a metaphor, not a constitutional immunity in and of itself. If a cop sees a pickpocket run into a mosque, the cop isn’t thereby prohibited from following him into the mosque, and the cop also doesn’t have to conduct a chase through the adjoining Baptist church just to even things up.
People who live in a “Muslim neighborhood” aren’t having their free exercise of religion compromised in any of the ways protected by the SCOTUS caselaw on the First Amendment just because law enforcement people are looking in their direction rather than in some other. Now, if they’re subjected to an illegal search and seizure, that’s another story entirely, regardless of whether the scrutiny which led to that led to the search & seizure was or wasn’t based on it being in a “Muslim neighborhood.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:36 pmBeldar @ 57,
Which is why I qualified my comment: …of the bolded portion of Cruz’s plan (as briefly outlined by Cruz, without knowing the particulars)
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:37 pm“He’s not thinking of the Gestapo.”
– Beldar
Probably not. But he was talking of it (which is why his clarification should be well received).
Leviticus (dca74f) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:52 pmLeviticus,
Here: “We know what is happening with these isolated Muslim neighborhoods in Europe. If we want to prevent it from happening here, it is going to require an empowered, visible law enforcement presence that will both identify problem spots and partner with non-radical Americans who want to protect their homes,” campaign Press Secretary Catherine Frazier said in a statement.
She went on to cite the example of New York City pulling back on law enforcement efforts with Muslim communities, and said: “Ted Cruz will never allow political correctness to drive decisions about our security. … The police should have every tool available to follow leads and take action against those who would do us harm.”
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:57 pmYou know that Islamic extremists first victims are their fellow Muslims who don’t support their extremism.
Personally, I interpreted Cruz’ comment as ensuring that the US does not allow creation of no-go zones as Europe has.
SPQR (a3a747) — 3/22/2016 @ 6:59 pmIt’s beneath Cruz. Or should be. It’s something Trump would say. But I’ll just ask “How?” “How will you identify Muslim neighborhoods and how will you want them ‘secured and patroled?” “How will you ’empower’ law enforcement?” “Aren’t you the guy who cross-examined Holder in the Senate about drone strikes against suspected terrorists having a coffee at a Starbucks in the United States?”
nk (dbc370) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:00 pmI think it would be very simple for the Cruz WH to invite these folks to discuss Islam:
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (80d77c) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:03 pmhttp://aifdemocracy.org/
instead of CAIR.
Look, we’re not gonna be targeting Muslims – just Muslim neighborhoods! Luckily, those are totally a thing.
Leviticus (dca74f) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:03 pmit’s the nypd’s demographic unit, writ large, so it’s a good first step, i’m sure the athenian constabulary had elements like that during the civil war,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:04 pmGee, I don’t know nk, how do you identify black neighborhoods and how are they secured and patrolled? How do they manage to identify moslem neighborhoods in Europe? You know as well as I do that “empower law enforcement” is liberal speak for get funding. Or suddenly have you forgotten leftist lingo? And why should it be “beneath Cruz” to identify a domestic problem which is also a security problem and consider ways to fix it?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:13 pmThere is such a thing as a community organizing a town watch and working with the police to rid a neighborhood of drugs and crime
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (80d77c) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:20 pmit doesn’t happen as often as it can and should, but it does,
I have first hand seen with my very own eyes sections of neighborhoods in the worst part of Philly free of drugs, a 2 or 3 block stretch where there is nothing, then a block down all hell
but it primarily depends on the attitude of the locals
find a mosque with people who like Jasser and you get help
Well, Hoagie, it’s because I was wrong when I said “It’s something Trump would say”. Trump actually has a definite, easily implemented, and Constitutional (if applied only to non-U.S. citizens) plan. He will not allow Muslims to enter the United States. Cruz said something that Beldar can say means “this”, and Leviticus can say means “that”, and you can say “it means both”, and I say “What?” It’s just nebulous polispeak.
nk (dbc370) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:20 pmFind a mosque with people who like Dr. Jasser and you found a church.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:23 pmGotcha, nk. Sorry. It is polispeak.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:24 pmYes, I know it seems to be like looking for unicorns.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (80d77c) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:25 pmI have never seen Dr. Jasser with another Muslim nodding yes…
But it would be refreshing for Jasser to meet with the POTUS instead of CAIR.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (80d77c) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:27 pmEven if it was to call a bluff and find that all 3 who agree with Jasser have gone into hiding.
village idiots have to deride what they can’t understand or accept,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/muslim-group-leader-nypd-thanks-spying-us-zuhdi-jasser
and mother jones has more then your share of journolist spawn
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:30 pmAll those heathens in Europe and America don’t realize this is the Holiest week of the Christian calendar. That too, may have a part in any attacks. They are after all a moslem theocratic dictatorship without borders and are aware of the holy days of their enemies.
It’s funny. Islam is a theocratic dictatorship but if you go after them for wanting to impose sharia on us they claim they’re a religion and can’t be treated like a theocratic dictatorship. But if you say “welcome religious moslems” they immediately want to set up a government that’s a theocratic dictatorship. Under religious freedom. To kill Christians, Jews and everyone. Because First Amendment. Allahu Akbar, the Heil Hitler of the 21st century but nobody sees it!
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:36 pmas I pointed they don’t go by our calendar, but their own, as you will recall with tet, it has it’s own timetable,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:38 pmThere is a reason it’s called Dearbornistan. It’s not because of the sizeable Hasidic community. And Mohammedan communities exist, except in the land of make-believe where someone could claim “those are totally a thing” in a mocking manner.
John Hitchcock (02f299) — 3/22/2016 @ 7:41 pmI live in a majority-minority neighborhood in Houston: working class Hispanics comprise the largest plurality, followed by whites, blacks, and then a mish-mash of other immigrants from pretty much everywhere. Within three miles of my house, I can find places of worship for Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Church of Christers, Episcopalians, Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims.
My homeowners’ association obliges us all to contribute to private security patrols to augment the minimal patrolling and securing of the neighborhood that’s done by the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff, Texas Department of Public Safety, FBI, etc., that all assert their jurisdictions here from time to time. We think having our neighborhood patrolled and secured is a good thing.
I assume that since there’s a mosque in the neighborhood, and some Muslims (observant and otherwise) who live here, my neighborhood might also fall within the parameters of what Sen. Cruz was discussing today. At least, I sure hope it will.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:05 pmOh — also two synagogues, which vigorously compete with one another; an adjoining neighborhood has the highest concentration of Jews in Houston, in fact.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:06 pmwell GQ, yes them, just did a profile of irving tx, following their shake and bake template,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:11 pmbut left out the clock boy affair, curious that
There are untold numbers of Neighborhood Watches operating throughout the United States. Members are neighborhood volunteers who are the collective eyes and ears of the neighborhood with regard to crime and suspicious behavior. Crimes or suspicious behavior are reported to the police, block captains disseminate any reports to all of the members so they, too, can be alerted to what is happening next door or around the corner. I think they are a very good thing indeed.
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:18 pmthis is much more proactive then the neighborhood watch, although it incorporates elements fron them,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:22 pmGood for Ted.
Jersey City
Dearborn
Minneapolis
So.FL
Start there …..
Rodney King's Spirit (a089dc) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:24 pmMy next door neighbor is a career senior sergeant with the HPD, actually — he runs a bicycle patrol group downtown. In general it’s a very good thing — something that improves property values — to have a cop live on your block.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:29 pmMuch more than just one location in NJ for starters.
njrob (bed0b6) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:29 pmI get that, narcisco. Just piggybacking on Beldar’s comment: some of us think patrols, whether it be private security or just neighbors being vigilant, are a good thing.
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:30 pmBeldar,
Nothing about your anecdote justifies the targeting of religious adherents for increased police scrutiny (simply because of their religious adherence).
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:37 pmCommon sense does Leviticus. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it doesn’t change reality.
Broken windows policing works.
njrob (bed0b6) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:38 pmYour neighborhood might fall into the category of “Muslim neighborhoods,” and you might hope that it does, but someone (read: an agent of the State) will actually decide one way or the other. And they will not care about your preference. And the thought of that turns my stomach.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:39 pmso how would you do it, frisk 90 year grandmothers, and world war 2 vets, because that has been a spectacular success, you need to develop a matrix that includes certain variables,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:42 pmLeviticus,
Please quit knee jerking for a moment
You have a group in town called “x”,
They could be a religion, a fraternal order, a motorcycle gang, a book reading club.
It is well known that some groups of “x” include members who are prone to violence, often related to what kind of philosophy the local leadership espouses.
Would one not be an idiot to say they didn’t care what went on in that group?
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:49 pmJust forget it, Leviticus. We’re not the audience Cruz was aiming at.
nk (dbc370) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:52 pmMD,
In this town, we have groups called “protected classes.” Singling those groups out for discriminatory treatment based on their protected characteristic requires the strict scrutiny of the courts.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:53 pmMore likely, this was a contingency plan that was triggered when their network leader, Salah Abdeslam, was captured last Friday. Either that or the attacks were already planned, and they just expedited their timetable.
The moment Abdeslam was arrested, his terrorist network knew that it was a race against time. Either they launch with what they have before an interrogation of Abdeslam could yield results for law enforcement, or Abdeslam breaks and LE shuts them down before they can attack; they lose all their time, money, planning and resources.
They launched.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:58 pmSingling out Muslim communities for special security and protection is allowed, isn’t it?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/22/2016 @ 8:59 pmSo,
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:00 pmIf you had a group of a so-called Christian fringe group that was known to be sympathetic to the KKK and other white supremacy groups known for lynching of African Americans you would call them a protected class and prohibit any kind of information gathering? I would demand it.
#94 which is why the Civil Rights act needs some fixin
Rodney King's Spirit (a089dc) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:00 pm@ Leviticus:
Nothing about your anecdote justifies the targeting of religious adherents for increased police scrutiny…
Does the fact that terrorist attacks are almost always the result of radicalized Muslims who live in Muslim communities justify the extra police scrutiny?
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:03 pmThere are things called bills of attainder which are by and large illegal; there are certain levels of probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment; and there is due process and equal protection. So, no, even for non-protected groups you cannot enact a law that “There’s lots of them there doctors around here so let’s keep an extra eye out in case they become radicalized”.
nk (dbc370) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:10 pmDana,
Possibly. That would be the type of argument you would have to make to a judge, and you would have to make the argument very convincingly. You would also have to show that there was no less restrictive means of accomplishing the same end – namely, the prevention or minimization of terrorist attacks.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:20 pmAre you trying to say that under the broad umbrella of “community policing” the police can not build relationships with members of a mosque and visit public functions of a mosque in the neighborhood?
It is almost like saying just because some bars serve alcohol to minors they don’t all do, and it is harassment to stop in on a a Friday night and look around.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:21 pmAgain: what the heck are “Muslim communities”? What this would inevitably involve is the surveillance and “securing” of Muslims, simply because they were Muslims. How is that not antithetical to the First Amendment?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:23 pmWho is talking about increased scrutiny? Community policing means showing up throughout the community.
I’m just talking about not acting contrary to the facts.
Heck, that Houston mayor tried to do a lot worse with churches in the city than what I am talking about.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:25 pmOur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:27 pmTo suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:29 pmWhat are you talking about “securing”.
Look, in a neighborhood known for drug dealing, it would be expected to interact with businesses and others in the neighborhood that the police appreciate people reporting suspicious things and promise to follow up on the communities concerns.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:31 pmWe know for a fact that there have not been synagogues and churches advocating violence against the community and the government, but there are some mosques where that happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_States
nk (dbc370) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:32 pm“What are you talking about “securing”.?”
– MD in Philly
Ask Ted Cruz, man. It’s his word, not mine. I don’t know exactly what he means by it either.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:34 pmIt was legal to have public protests against the war in Vietnam,
It was not legal to blow up buildings and kill people in protesting the war.
If you knew there was an SDS group in town, would it not be legitimate to ask and try to discern whether it was a group interested in only legal protest or a group with weather underground ties??
I’m not talking about taking people in for interrogation.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:36 pmWe don’t have — any of us — a constitutional right, in the abstract, to be free from law enforcement scrutiny. We have, instead, very specific rights that are legally protectable.
We have the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures made without probable cause or warrant. That’s a very big deal. Most of the advocacy to-and-fro at the state criminal courthouses every day have to do with that specific right to privacy that we can clearly trace to the Fourth Amendment (as fairly & interpreted, in a Scalia or Rehnquist-like fashion).
We likewise have rights against self-incrimination; against cruel & unusual punishment; and affirmative rights, regarding provision of counsel, the right to jury trial, and so forth. We have the right to all these processes that are due to us under law, and we have the right to enjoy them all equally with every other person, regardless of any of our races or religions or national origins or previous conditions of enslavement.
If you can demonstrate to me that what Sen. Cruz has proposed actually violates any of the constitutional rights, to privacy or otherwise, that we do indeed share, I’ll join you in trying to bring that to his attention, because he really does pay attention to matters constitutional. It’s his wheelhouse.
Otherwise, though, we’re not talking about constitutional rights, we’re talking about notions of propriety that aren’t at all clear, nor ever reliably enforceable. I believe that does indeed fall into the “political correctness” category.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:37 pmBeldar,
Are you really arguing that between the protections of the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Americans don’t have a right to be free from disparate treatment by the State based solely on their religious affiliation?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:42 pmWe don’t even need to get into the Fourth Amendment problems that this raises. We can stop at the First Amendment.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:44 pmIf you don’t know what Cruz meant by “securing,” my friend Leviticus (#109), then why presume that he meant something nefarious — something that is accomplished through the violation of someone’s constitutional rights?
The point of my anecdote, as you called it, was actually to illustrate how “securing” something can be — and in a good-faith interpretation, reasonably should be — interpreted as a feature, not a bug. Without enhanced attention to a broader community, one cannot hope to develop the trust and cooperation that might actually begin to address some of our domestic radicalization problems at their domestic radicalization sources.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:46 pmDisparate treatment as to what? As to their rights to practice their religions? Of course not. As to their rights not to be scrutinized by law enforcement authorities who are complying with the law? They have no such right.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:47 pmI don’t know what Cruz meant.
But it seems to me there is a big difference between:
1) Acting as if all Muslims are terrorists who should have their phones tapped, their mosques bugged, and their bank accounts monitored
2) Acting as if all Muslims are pacifists
And
3) Acting as if a small but real number of Muslims plan terrorist attacks and it would be nice for law enforcement to have contacts within the Muslim community to know where there are groups who appear to be promoting violence.
Fer cryin out loud, there appears to be no complaint about investigating Christian bakers to see who is going to commit the terrible crime of refraining from baking a wedding cake.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:47 pm(And neither do you nor I.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:47 pmThere is no proposal for disparate treatment based on “religion”, but rather with regard to those who encourage and carry out acts o terrorism.
No disparate treatment of students with regard to whether they protest against or for a war, only in regard to planning to blow things up.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:52 pm“Disparate treatment as to what?”
– Beldar
Are you serious?! As to the “patrolling and securing” of a single (religiously based) category of neighborhoods.
If Ted Cruz had advocated that we “patrol and secure our country’s neighborhoods,” he wouldn’t have drawn the ire that he has drawn. He also wouldn’t have dog-whistled so effectively to waffling Trump supporters.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:54 pmForget a judicial or law-enforcement type of response to Islamic terrorism. Forget the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the NSA, the Defense Department’s budget, etc. The first thing that has to be done is to squeeze out the ethos of political correctness. The dishonesty and idiocy behind that have to be put up to harsh, bright scrutiny and ridiculed for what it is.
Nidal Hasan got away with what he did in 2009 not because of a lack of anti-terrorism legislation or a lack of policing (uh, he was in the US military, after all). He got away with what he did because of the lunacy of political correctness. Similarly, the bloodletting in Paris and now Brussels can be laid at the feet of not just so much merely the jihadist-Islamist crowd, but at the feet of the feckless and willfully stupid politically-correct crowd.
Mark (293713) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:56 pmi’m out for the evening. I’m tired and frustrated by this conversation, and I don’t want to lapse into acting disrespectfully toward people that I respect.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:58 pmPatrolling and securing isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights.
You’re pretending that this is “dog-whistling,” and I think that’s unjustified and unjustifiable. At least you’ve done nothing to justify it so far except insist upon the degree to which you’re outraged.
Again: Specify the constitutional right that is being abridged. Let’s be factually specific. Are we talking about a law enforcement officer making it a point to develop a friendship with my leaders in my neighborhood mosque? ‘Cause I think that’s a dandy idea. Are we instead talking about no-knock raids without warrants to seize cellphones and laptops because the people who live across the street from me are native Arabic speakers? That’s something else entirely.
You’re presuming that Cruz intends the latter, exclusively. And that’s a bum rap.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:00 pmtypo there, “my leaders in my neighborhood mosque” should have read “the leaders in my neighborhood mosque.” I’m a polite passerby, but haven’t attended.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:02 pmFrom another angle that Beldar alluded to.
We know that there are people who advocate a violent jihad version of Islam,
And they kill other Muslims who disagree with them.
In fact, it is thought that one reason more Muslims don’t speak out against terrorist attacks is that they are scared for their own well being.
A community police presence in the right way could facilitate the free expression of those who are against violence.
In fact, if you look at Jasser’s stuff, he welcomes a bigger police presence that is protective of the anti jihadists and suppressing violence.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:06 pmLibtards believe their ideologically driven nonsense, more than they LOVE THEIR OWN FAMILIES.
GUS (30b6bd) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:08 pmLiberalism is dishonest, it is illogical, and people die. Liberalism, is the loss of moral values, and the lack of logic. This mental illness is predicated on believing NONSENSE so as to cleanse a guilty conscience.
MD, the LIBTARD is interested in winning some retarded emotional argument as an extension of their guilty conscience and morally bankrupt ideology. As opposed to protecting our nation and/or solving an OBVIOUS PROBLEM.
GUS (30b6bd) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:10 pmIf we’re looking for radical Islamic terrorists, it makes sense to patrol and secure neighborhoods in which Muslims live. As I said above, that includes my neighborhood. That doesn’t assume or presume that all Muslims are radical, or that all Muslims are terrorists, or that any particular Muslim or Muslims in this neighborhood are radical terrorists.
And yes, of course, there are certainly going to be radical Islamic terrorists who avoid living in neighborhoods with large Muslim populations, or going to mosques, and who instead do their best to assimilate into the public broadly — precisely to avoid the higher scrutiny that simple logic compels be accorded to places with higher concentrations of Muslims. So law enforcement certainly can’t make stupid assumptions that they’ve completed all their due inquiries when they’ve looked in logically predictable places.
But again: You’re imputing an intention to Sen. Cruz to violate constitutional rights that, first, can’t be established from his words, and second, that you’re being awfully vague about. You’re reading the Free Exercise Clause as some sort of super-shackle that binds law enforcement from rational investigation that takes into any account whatsoever where people live, work, worship, and associate, then I don’t agree that the Free Exercise Clause does that. Persuade me otherwise if you have cases to cite, or something important that I’ve missed. I believe your distress and frustration to be genuine!
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:14 pmWhy is there the assumption that patrolling and securing is by default, a negative? Wouldn’t a law-abiding citizenry, fearful of those who seek to harm and possibly hiding in their neighborhood, welcome the help? It seems like there is a picture being conjured up of guns and dogs and batterign rams and the like. That seems very disingenuous.
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:22 pmTL/DR: The Constitution doesn’t prohibit “profiling.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/22/2016 @ 10:22 pmI don’t know why Leviticus has decided to profile Senator Cruz, but he sure has decided to do so …
I would almost suspect that Leviticus has to be projecting what Leviticus means when he talks about securing a Muslim neighbourhood, rather than the reasonable interpretation of many of us here, which is that there should be a visible presence of law enforcement officers policing their local beat whether in a Muslim neighbourhood or in any other neighbourhood …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:19 pmThey won’t admit it because the ADL would be howling for their blood, and they don’t need tzoress like that. But it is absolutely constitutional. There is not a court in the land that would say otherwise, so long as the additional scrutiny remains hands off. There is no right not to be looked at and there is no right not to be suspected.
Well, don’t you?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:32 pmI’m not sure that’s the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me, since whites who choose to live in Compton and blacks who choose to live in Newport Beach do so for a reason, and are by definition outliers. But it’s not an accident that the two neighborhoods’ demographics are what they are. If the composition of each neighborhood were to change significantly, so would their crime rates.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:36 pmLet’s just put a fence around the Muslim communities and require them to wear a crescent on their outerwear shall we. Comparing the communities in the u.s. to those in France and Belgiumis silly. Tighten up the borders and immigration steps is sensible. Treating legal citizens and immigrants as automatically deserving scrutiny based on their religion is far more than simply profiling.
spokanebob (014160) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:39 pmCome on, you’re not even trying. Identifying Moslem neighborhoods is a trivial exercise. Every policeman with Moslem areas in his precinct knows exactly where they are.
Exactly the way it sounds.
By informing them that they are authorized to do what they know needs to be done, and that the DOJ will no longer prevent them.
That’s a reasonable thing to want to know about. Collateral damage in the USA is not generally acceptable, if there’s any other choice. If New Jersey were under German occupation we wouldn’t have shelled it the way we did Normandy, though our allies might have.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:42 pmYes, they are, and you surely know it. Stop pretending they’re not.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:43 pmThe only way to implement it would be to require every person entering the USA to declare either (1) that Mohammed was not a prophet or (2) that Mohammed was not the last prophet (to rule out Baha’is).
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:46 pmBulldust. So long as this treatment does not violate any of their rights, it is 100% legal.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:47 pmNot by and large. Bills of attainder are absolutely illegal. They’re also irrelevant here.
Only for unreasonable searches and seizures. So long as no reasonable expectation of privacy is violated the fourth amedment is irrelevant.
Neither of which are relevant to mere heightened scrutiny.
You absolutely can. And if such a risk is real then it is negligent not to.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:52 pmAgain: you know very well what they are, and so does everyone else. Identifying them is not a problem.
Because the first amendment says nothing at all about it.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:53 pmOf course they don’t. But there is no civil right not to be looked at.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:54 pmDeveloping police relationships didn’t do much to cause Italians to turn in Mafioso did it? Probably because they knew all too well that the “friendly beat cop” would go to a different place when the shift was over. What magic beans would change that in today’s environment.
spokanebob (014160) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:54 pmThere has been no suggestion that the civil magistrate do any such thing. That would be unconstitutional.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:55 pmYes. As Beldar put it, if you mean disparate treatment as to their rights not to be scrutinized by law enforcement authorities who are complying with the law, then the answer is that they have no such right.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/22/2016 @ 11:57 pmNo, that would be both unconstitutional and unAmerican.
Really? What is the difference between them?
No, it is exactly simply profiling. That’s what “profiling” means. What on earth do you think it means if not that?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:00 amNo, it didn’t. So what did enable the police to crack down on the mafia? Extra scrutiny.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:02 amWhat facts support your desires to treat one community differently? Specifically what supports your assertion that US Muslim communities pose more risk of violence? As for the mafia it was informants from the mafia not extra scrutiny of itslian americans as a whole
spokanebob (014160) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:10 amTwo can play this game: We need more defense lawyers coddling criminals and helping them beat the rap.
What a remarkably superficial and sanctimonious observation by White. Is that the best he’d got?
The great irony of White’s comment is that his connection to this blog revolves around a criminal who is not a victim of the law, but is, in fact, manipulating the law to hassle and victimize innocent people.
And, of course, there is also the Ferguson Effect – when the cops back off on patrolling and securing a neighborhood, innocent people wind up dead. Fewer arrested = More dead. He’s got his side of the equation; I’ve got mine. It does beg the question about whether he thinks Black lives really matter.
ThOR (a52560) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:11 amThe facts that (1) they teach and follow Islam, which is where the risk comes from; (2) they are indistinguishable in any significant way from the similar communities in Europe which are the source fo violence; and (3) they have already been the source of violence.
Oh, Americans; you didn’t say, and I assumed you meant the actual Mafia, in Italy.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:20 am147. Answer with facts not opinions. Try that instead of emotion. What are the odds a muslim will kill you as opposed to a white or black person?
spokanebob (014160) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:38 amWho in heck do these muzzles think they are? Time to eradicate the religion.
mg (31009b) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:41 amOr do we start training our pre teens to hate and kill all muzzles?
mg (31009b) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:42 amA neighborhood is not a religious organization. I don’t see the constitutional issue here.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/23/2016 @ 3:09 amNYC has recently ended its stop and frisk program in high crime areas with the result that high crime areas have higher crime. This seems to be one of those experiments in which the only variable that varies is the variable that is at issue. And we have the result.
Police presence makes a difference.
But, just for grins, let’s say we have a version of Mollenbeck in, say, Minneapolis. And a Muzz terr bombing kills a lot of people at the airport. And the perp is found, a month later, hiding amongst his homies in the Minneapolis Mollenbeck. And nobody dropped the dime on his sorry butt and, in fact, a lot of the locals rioted when he was arrested.
Would this justify increased police presence?
Yeah, yeah, I know. We’d never allow a Mollenbeck in this country. What that means is we’d never allow any effort to prevent it until too late.
So, what fraction of the above scenario justfies police presence? One rape gang? Two? Three people shot?
Someplace in there, right?
But not never, nohow noway.
Right?
After reading your articles i became very keen follower you..
froutakia (f23340) — 3/23/2016 @ 5:44 amTed Cruz is just trying to be a more intelligent, moderate, demagogue than Donald Trump. It’s not actually a way to win a general election. He has to know that “patrolling” Muslim neighborhoods is a ridiculous proposal. It’s as ridiculous as if someone had proposed to patrol Iralian neighborhoods in Chicago in the 1920s looking for well dressed people carrying violin cases. What exactly would you expect to see and stop?
Now sending agents into Mosques to listen and try to zero in on networks, might make something that makes sense. Watching any person getting money from abroad may make sense. All this ignores our biggest advantage: The terrorist actually have a much tougher security problem than we do.
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:16 amSorry spokanebob, you are so wrong. What got the mafia was the RICO Act. The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act which , as even you can glean by its name, was specifically created and instituted to beat the Mafia. IOW, law enforcement made a special law to deal with a special problem. Now it’s time to do the same for moslems.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:18 amI gotta say I enjoyed the discussion here, both Leviticus’s side and the other. You don’t see intelligent discussion of rights and our laws and our police on most blogs because, unfortunately, it’s just too controversial.
I’m not surprised Ken has his opinion and I know there are some examples that bear that out, but I think he’s wrong. And I think the solution even if he’s right is to police better rather than to refuse to police. We must not make the mistakes that many in Europe have made. We also must not neuter policing to the point where Ferguson type eggshell walking and community-police separation become severe.
Ideally, there would be more melting pot, whether we’re talking about where police work and live, or religious extremism. Something about political correctness has cooled the melting pot far too much. I enjoy different cultures, but we need to be one people.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:19 amIt’s also been used by convicted Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin to sue Patterico for writing truthful things about Kimberlin’s crimes. RICO is a joke, enacted for publicity value, and more often abused than used for its touted purpose. The FBI’s principal weapon against the mob is the informant.
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:25 amOr were you thing of the Patriot Act? Because under the Patriot Act the government can pick a U.S. citizen off the streets, accuse him of being an “unlawful combatant”, keep him incommunicado off-shore in a Navy brig for three and half years, and “interrogate” him with “enhancements”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29 (Two birds with one stone, a Muslim Hispanic.)
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:35 amAbdullah muhajir, who has ties to two salafi, one at gitmo, another later involved in the zazi subway plot.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:44 amBarack may be on to the right strategy. If we all attend more baseball games, it could go a long way toward degrading and defeating ISIS. Or is it ISIL? Or maybe by attending more baseball games, Barack will just end up degrading himself.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:54 amnk, the RICO Act was instituted to go after the mob whether you like it or not, it was application of the RICO Act that turned a lot of mafia into informants. The problem is what it always is with laws and government. After the mob was busted the law remained so what good is a law if they can’t use it so they applied it to people and crimes it was never meant to be applied to. That’s legal abuse but tell it to a lawyer. If they don’t make laws sunset that’s what happens.
nk, you and Levidicus have spent this thread telling everyone how we can’t defend against the murderous cult of islam. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can or are we to sit back and be bombed and shot while we watch our wives and daughters raped like they do in Europe?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 6:59 amIn other news, the Hialeah Police Department announced today that it would be increasing its efforts to patrol and secure “Santeria neighborhoods.” When asked whether the increased presence and scrutiny of the police in “Santeria neighborhoods” (because they were “Santeria neighborhoods”) would constitute a substantial burden on the free exercise rights of Santeria practitioners, supporters of the proposal made vague reference to the protections offered to Santeria practitioners by the Fourth Amendment.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:20 amThe Patriot Act is more than adequate (way, way, more than adequate, read the Jose Padilla story I linked) to fight false-front organizations that provide material assistance to terrorists.
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:23 amThis is Cruz a year ago. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240383-cruz-stakes-out-spot-in-2016-patriot-act-fight He was talking about reining in the NSA then, as a condition to re-authorizing the Patriot Act, and it’s one of the reasons why small-government libertarians support him.
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:29 am“Do you have any suggestions as to how we can or are we to sit back and be bombed and shot while we watch our wives and daughters raped like they do in Europe?”
– Hoagie
We can defend ourselves within the confines of the Constitution – which does not allow us to single out religious groups for disparate state treatment without the strict scrutiny of the Courts.
Maybe Trump can fix that part of the Constitution for you, though.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:33 amAlso, in my state, and a whole bunch of others, we have a couple of laws that are called (for short) “shall issue” and “stand your ground”.
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:38 amOr we could update the criminal syndicalism statutes, if they are still on the books.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:43 amThey call them something else(s), but they all provide that if persons engage in a criminal enterprise all participants are responsible for the acts of any other participant in that enterprise. That’s how getaway car drivers get the death penalty because an accomplice killed a bank guard.
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 7:48 am“Defend ourselves…..” is not answering my question. Exactly how do we defend ourselves when every suggestion you say is unconstitutional? Do you believe the Constitution means for Americans to be murdered and raped so a cult can practice genocide for their “prophet”? You insist upon calling a murderous cult a “religion” therefore bestowing Constitutional protection on a theocratic cult. The cult of islam is no more a “religion” than one which uses virgin sacrifice.
So RICO. If one moslem terrorist bombs your mother or rapes your sister we hold them all as accessories? Because there are only two kinds of moslems: 1) terrorists and 2)terrorist enablers. Because if they aren’t a terrorist they are providing food, clothing, shelter, funding, weapons, hide-outs and moral support by not turning them in and therefore are enablers. Oh, and get-away drivers.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:06 amWe can defend ourselves within the confines of the Constitution
And liberals like you can do your fair share by finally — finally — at least truly smirking at and denouncing the ethos of political correctness and all those people who adhere to it.
The first step in a 12-step recovery program is to at least admit there’s a problem.
No need at this time to even alter your votes at the polling booth or write your mayor, governor, Congressional representatives or president. Just simply start feeling truly disgusted by the PC brigade, start seeing how idiotic they really are (one label given to them recently is “precious snowflakes”), and then start denouncing such people on a regular basis.
Mark (293713) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:08 am167. It is sad how little that you recognize that your intolerance of other religions mirrors the mullahs intolerance of your religion. Your proposals drive us toward a similar theocratic state over the long term.
spokanebob (1aaf2a) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:23 amHoagie, I understand that you live in the Philly area? True or false:
nk (dbc370) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:26 amFor every woman raped by a Muslim, 1,000 will be raped by nominal Southern Baptists (yes, that’s a dog whistle).
“The cult of islam is no more a “religion” than one which uses virgin sacrifice.”
– Hoagie
Says some guy on the Internet. Luckily, we have a Constitution that protects free exercise.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:46 amNeighborhoods in Dallas pay extra for enhanced police patrols and security.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:53 amIsn’t this what New York City did after 9/11?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:57 amBefore Brussels:
Trump – block new entrants and deport those already here.
Cruz – block SOME new entrants, based on religion.
After Brussels:
Trump – block new entrants and deport those already here.
Cruz – block SOME new entrants, based on religion; and hassle and spy on those already here, based on religion.
Seems Ted changes his position based on the headline of the NYT. Explain to me again how Ted Cruz is the Constitutional answer to our nation’s woes.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:58 amHere are your moslems boys….
Yeah, that’s a “religion”.
There is nothing in the Constitution giving a cult the right to murder Christians, Jews and others according to their prophet. If there is you need to quote it for me. But if true I’m sure you would defend my new “religion” which calls for murdering moslems.
Ya know Levidicus there is only one cure for stupid. And it is stupid to sit there and say a cult which has sworn to kill us has a Constitutional right to do so. And unless you can show how to stop them that is precisely what you’re saying.
I gotta go to lunch.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:11 amAny chance your guy is going to abolish the Department of Homeland Securities?
NO.
I’m seeing a trend. Cruz promises he is going to do something, end ethanol subsides, empower the “Islam Squad”, when in reality he’s going to continue subsides until they expire well after the end of his term, and police action targeted by religion is unconstitutional, beyond the scope of the President’s power.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:14 amHere’s a thought, Rev. Why not simply not let anyone not already a citizen who hails from regions where radical jihad groups are widespread or hold power into the country, and deport those who are already here? No religious test, simply based on geographic source.
There is no constitutional right to receive a visa or to enter the country without one.
However, when you target one religion for increased scutiny, you will be targeting US citizens as well as recent immigrants. I’m not sure how you round peg into the square hole of the Constitution. Based on what you have said, your solution is declaring Islam not to be a religion. Sorry, but you’re going to have to get a court ruling before you can start your pogrom.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:19 amCruz’s proposals are targeted against a terrorist organization, which means as President he would have a duty to attack.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:23 amReligious activities can be subject to law. Santeria’s sacrifice of animals went to court due to cruelty issues. Mormons are not allowed to be polygamous–but I expect Muslims will–and Native Americans may use hallucinogenics, but only after a court ruled that the law preventing it was unconstitutional.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:25 amThe Texans took down a real child-molesting operation–FLDS–without killing anybody–and religious claims that it was a Good Thing didn’t fly.
I suppose a question would be if a bunch of Muslim guys are hanging at the mall harassing women, does rousting them fall under religious persecution? Would we hear about discrimination? Would we, hell?
If people were informed they’d know Islam isn’t a religion. It’s a totalitarian ideology that is so complete it includes a religion. Even many Muslims know it is a threat as long as it maintains its political and military aspects. That’s why Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate after WWI.
This is also why Sunni Muslim leaders will never take strong action against ISIS. Because while Imams Obama, Kerry, and Cameron would have you believe ISIS has hijacked a religion of peace, they know better. If King Abdullah tried he’d be deposed in five minutes. Because a large percentage of Muslims look at ISIS and they see authentic Islam.
I know you’re the expert on this, Leviticus, as you played soccer with some apparently secular Muslims. So tell me, how is sedition protected by the Constitution? Peyote isn’t even protected by the Constitution, much to the disappointment of many would-be practitioners of native American religions.
And when Muslims advocate for Sharia, that is precisely what they are doing. You tell me, Leviticus. How is proclaiming the inferiority of women compatible with the Constitution? Or imposing special taxes on non-Muslims? Or a death sentence on Muslim apostates? Or approving of rape of captive/slave women.
Surah 4:24 An-Nisa (The Women)
I’m not a big fan of the “yes means yes” craze, but I think we can at least agree that sex with a slave is always rape. When one of Muhammad’s wives, Hafsa, walked in on Muhammad raping his slave girl Miriam the Copt she went ballistic. Muhammad promised he would stop raping the slave girls if Hafsa would promise to keep it to herself what she walked in on. Hafsa didn’t; she told the other wives, making a special point to mention it to his favorite wife Aisha. So Muhamammad promised all of them that he’d stop raping the slave girls.
Allah rebuked him in a new “revelation.”
Surah 66:1-2 At-Tahrim (The Prohibtiion)
can
How dare anybody gainsay Allah! If Allah has blessed the raping of slave girls, no Muslim can say it’s a bad thing. Like child marriage it’s a good thing; Allah says so. Any Muslim who is against raping the slave girls is a blasphemer, an apostate. And we all know the sentence for that.
You tell me which madhab of fiqh doesn’t do all that and more. There are three extant Shia schools, and five Sunni schools if you include the Zahiri. Which one do you imagine is compatible with the Constitution?
If there’s a law against a cop walking into a synagogue, a church, or a mosque fill us all in. I don’t know of a parish priest who’d have a problem with it. Muslim imams and other religious leaders do. Want to know why? Because their religion commands them to overthrow the government. A good Muslim must want no other judge but Allah. That means Shariah; Allah’s law.
Surah 33:36 Al-Ahzab (The Combined Forces)
So, how does a cop violate anybody’s civil rights simply by walking into a mosque, sitting down, and listening to a sermon?
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:27 am“If people were informed they’d know Islam isn’t a religion.”
– Steve57
Go tell it to the courts. The judges might – might – be polite enough not to laugh in your face.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:29 amSurah 2:216 Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
Allah knows best in all things. Islam is the religion of complete submission. A Muslim submits to Allah and his messenger completely. As it says in verse 33:16 when Allah and his messenger have decided a matter a Muslim has no option but to obey that decision.
This is why no Muslim majority country can ban child marriage. Every once in a while some “bad” Muslim gets a wild hair to raise the age of marriage for women from nine to something a bit more decent. I thought it may be illegal in some countries like a Malaysia, a relic of colonialism. But no. Not yet.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/malaysia/
Child marriage is lethal for girls. And I’m being quite literal. Often they don’t survive the wedding night as some girls apparently require the use of the jambiya to “loosen” them up. If they survive the wedding night they usually don’t survive child birth. Nine year old girls are still children, they’re not built to deliver other children. If they can get to a hospital and a cesarean section they might live but in case it’s slipped past you places where child marriage is a thing aren’t big on hospitals.
At least Iran has a minimum age for girls to marry. Which is of course nine. Under the Shah it was fifteen, but one of the first things the Ayatollah Khomeni did was lower it to something more Islamic. Yemen and Saudi Arabia have no minimum legal age.
So, you can either have the Constitution or you can have Shariah. You can’t have both. I’m still curious how you can possibly violate the constitutional rights of people who advocate doing away with everyone’s constitutional rights.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:06 am@181, yes they’re among the uninformed ignoramuses I’m talking about. Just because you dress a lawyer in a black robe doesn’t mean they know squat about Islam. Nor does it mean they’re capable of learning.
And I suppose that’s about all the substance I can expect from you. Not like I could expect you to address something like, dunno, Islam’s divinely ordained inferiority of women and all non-Muslims. Which is compatible with constitutional principles, how, Leviticus?
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:11 amNote to Ted: Islam is here and they do not need to be radicalized. Most Muslims are fully informed about the global jihad through the Koran, Sira and Hadith. They come to America to gather their strength, continue the war of wills, awaiting the go-ahead with the “war of muscles” that will (so they think) put Islam on top of America with shariah law in place of the Constitution.
Ted, consult with Mr. Gaffney before you start popping off about strategy and tactics for containing Islam.
whirlwinder (b31399) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:13 amIn the context of Brussels, the capital of EU (and Western) liberalism gone berserk, or all the places similar to it (eg, here in the US), I find myself dealing with the Islamic jihadists the same way I’d respond to well-known thieves being invited into the home of very gullible, almost purposefully foolish people. People who serve the thieves tea and cookies, give them a tour of the residence, and even hand them the keys to the back door. And then those homeowners reacting with surprise and shock when their property has been ransacked.
The stupidity of such people is, in a way, more galling and contemptible than the ruthlessness of the thieves.
When the willful idiocy of the left — of the politically-correct crowd — is weighed against the bloody terrorism of the Islamo-fascists, the degree of either sympathy or disgust that’s triggered by such a situation is definitely altered due to that willful idiocy.
Mark (6c93d5) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:28 amMuslims are the best of people.
Surah 3:110 Ali ‘Imran (Family of Imran)
And what does the Quran say about non-Muslims?
Surah 98:6 Al-Bayyinah (The Clear Proof)
Islam has a low opinion of some creatures. Such as pigs and dogs. And non-Muslims are worse.
And what are Muslims supposed to do to us?
Surah 9:14 At-Tawbah (The Repentance)
Surah 9:74 At-Tawbah (The Repentance)
I wouldn’t be surprised, and I’m not impressed, by your appeal to authority, Leviticus. The fact remains that Muslims aren’t simply allowed to punish non-Muslims. They are are required to. Like waging jihad to establish Shariah rule it’s a religious obligation.
Fortunately most Muslims in the US have no idea what Allah has commanded them to do. Unfortunately, neither do most idiot judges.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:28 amLeviticus,
If Muslims (and a lot of non-Muslims) are concerned with being maligned and lumped in with radicalized Muslims, wouldn’t extra patrolling by law enforcement be a welcome act in order to weed out those who were not part of their peace-loving community? Wouldn’t they want to see the extra eyes to help prevent them from being lumped into the mix? A continual complaint that we hear from inner-city neighborhoods is that the law enforcement doesn’t respond to them, that there is no law enforcement presence, and that they have no protection from gang warfare escalating, etc. Wouldn’t this be similar?
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:30 amAnyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged. Deuteronomy17:12
I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am God. Ezekiel 35:7-9
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:34-35
Make ready to slaughter [the infidel’s] sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. Isaiah 14:21
Then I heard God say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.” Ezekiel 9:5
and finally, since child brides are a problem
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18
So, by the rules set forth by Steve57, all sects of Christianity and Judaism are no longer to be considered religions. There’s plenty more if you need them. And don’t dare argue “context” since you gave none in your selective quoting of the Quran.
And just in case you want to say “that’s mostly Old Testament stuff. Jesus changed all that bad stuff”, I’d prefer to take Jesus’ word on that subject
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:44 amThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
Dana
Take your response to Leviticus and substitute the word “blacks” or “homosexuals” or “women” or “Republican” for “muslim”. Would you still stand by those statements? Would you sanction surveillance, increased arrests, and stop-and-frisk based on those outward characteristics? Or based on where they lived? The Nazis used a similar system in Warsaw, I think.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:49 amnothing to see here, except why general hafter is justifiably paranoid
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12092
narciso (732bc0) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:54 amSo Jesus did all those things in the verses you quoted from?
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:56 amThis confusing. Isn’t prowlerguy a Trumper?
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:58 amI beg to differ. Most Muslims I know have no idea what’s in their holy books, and they think I’m lying when I tell them. I usually have to show them. Then they think I’m taking things out of context. I am more than happy to put things into more context then they wanted to know, as the context makes it clear things really are at least just as bad as first impressions would have you believe.
Usually that conversation ends with me being called a racist, bigot, and “Islamophobe.”
Just to make clear, I never bring the topic up first, as I know all the names I’ll be called if I do. But I just can’t let some things slide, such as if a Muslima says Muhammad was the world’s first feminist. Oh, really, you want to go there? Fine, I’ll go there.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/52
Of course, Allah doesn’t have a high opinion of women, either.
Surah 4:34 An-Nisa (The Women)
It’s important to note that the words in parens were placed there by the author of these English transliterations of the Quran. They don’t appear in the Arabic.
In the Arabic there is no progression of punishment for a woman who her husband fears might become disobedient. Again, not a woman who has been disobedient (as if that would make this verse better) but just a woman whose husband suspects might become disobedient in the future.
Also the Quran doesn’t say anything about the beating being useful or light. Even if the beating does no good it’s still authorized by Allah. And it can be a brutal thrashing. But western Muslims are embarrassed by the Arabic text so they water it down for western audiences.
You’ll see this throughout English transliterations of the Quran. So I dispute the notion that American Muslims are fully informed. Even if they have read English versions of the Quran, and that’s a big if as the vast majority have not (and the number of American or Western Muslims who have read the books of the Sunnah or the Shia equivalent is vanishingly small) they still aren’t necessarily getting pure, undiluted Islam. Informed Muslims are rare, and they know better than to talk about what Islam really preaches.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/05/25/an-explanatory-memorandum-from-the-archives-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
Jihad is waged in stages. The first stage is really stage zero. It’s the clueless stage. Informed Muslims are afraid that 1) the clueless Muslims will, if they they are filled in, will spill the beans and 2) they’ll be horrified and leave Islam.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:02 amI see you took a lot of time and did a lot of research to show the moral equality you believe exists between islam and Christianity. Why is that? Have the Christians in your neighborhood blown up an airport or shot up a mall?
It is a shame that after all your effort you equate two things which are incompatible: a religion of love and respect an a cult of rape and murder. Somehow you equate things from the Bible that you do take out of their context from 3000 years ago and try to make them equal to the bloody practices of islam in the 21st century and say we take the Koran out of context, which we do not. The context is spread in blood and body parts all over the airport in Brussels. There is your Islam, prowlerguy. Look at the blood and the guts and tell me differently. And this Easter Sunday Christians will decorate with lily’s and eggs to signify new life and they will give of themselves money to help the poor and food to feed the hungry and clothing drives to warm the cold. The moslems will bomb men, women and children. They will take life in some of the cruelest of ways, they will rape and murder little girls all over the world. But we take them out of context?
So what does all that mean, prowlerguy? Are you saying the cult of murder is morally equal to Christianity?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:07 amprowlerguy,
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:17 amNobody’s talking about persecuting Muslims for merely practicing their religion. What people are talking about is targeting people who advocate acts of violence and the overthrow of the government. There just happens to be a lot of such advocacy taking place in mosques.
MD not exactly in Philly (521954) — 3/22/2016 @ 9:25 pm
Exactly, Doc. Imagine if Anise parker had subpoenaed the “sermons” of the Muslim “preachers.’
felipe (b5e0f4) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:18 am@mg #150 Liberal teens are already being trained to kill their own children, because girlpower!
felipe (b5e0f4) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:20 amAmong other things prowlerguy doesn’t know, we can include the Bible.
We’re talking ignorance on a mammoth scale. Yes, the Old Testament commanded Israelis to kill a lot of people. Within the borders of Israel, because Yahweh said Israelis must punish the inhabitants of the Holy Land for their sins. Specific people, certain people. And despite idiomatic language common in the M.E. at the time they didn’t kill every single person of those groups they were commanded to kill. They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
So, what is Uriah the Hittite doing in David’s army?
The Bible does not command Jews in all times and in all places to kill, conquer, subjugate, and punish non-Jews. Islam does.
And good luck perverting the New Testament into a command for Christians to punish non-Christians on this earth. Christ’s kingdom is not of this earth. You may have caught wind of that at some point in your life.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:24 amSo, you hallucinate that this verse means the Bible advocates child marriage. Not even the Old Testament says that Israelis are allowed to take captive women as sex slaves. Israelis were allowed to marry women of conquered people, but not enslave them and they weren’t permitted to rape them. They had to marry them, and not against their will.
The above verse did not authorize child marriage, sex slavery, or forced marriage. It simply meant that the pagan women who were no longer virgins, who had “known a man,” had enticed or would entice Israelis to sin against Lord by using sex to persuade them to worship false gods. And that sex, i.e. religious orgies, where part of pagan worship. But the younger girls, the virgins, had not committed that sin and were still salvageable. So the Israelis were not to kill them, and as far as keeping them “alive for yourselves” that simply meant that after killing their families the Israelis were to take the girls in and care for them.
Funny that no one ever who believes in the Bible got the message about child marriage. Please inform me of the non-Islamic country that encourages adult men to marry nine year old girls.
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/AfghanChildBride.jpg
If you know the name of a Catholic priest who would perform this wedding let us in on the secret.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:41 am“If you know the name of a Catholic priest who would perform this wedding let us in on the secret.”
– Steve57
I know the names of plenty of Catholic priests who would just f*ck the kids themselves. You have chosen a laughably terrible comparison.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 11:51 amIf one wishes to compare Islam and Christianity,
perhaps the best way is to compare the two in their “purest” forms, as practiced by their founders;
Jesus was willing to die to save others,
Muhammad was willing to kill to enforce his will over others.
Enough.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (cb5e81) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:01 pmNo, actually I chose that comparison for a reason. Thanks for taking the bait.
If it were simply a matter of individual Muslims engaging in pedophilia you might have a point. But in Christianity having sex with children is a sin. In Islam, it is divinely ordained.
There are plenty of people who claim to be Christians who are anything but Christian. Some of them are priests. But the Muslim in that picture I linked to @199 is not hypocrite. He’s doing not only what his religion allows but actively encourages as a positive good. The Ayatollah Khomeini, when he lowered Iran’s legal age for girls to marry to nine wasn’t operating on theory alone. When he was 27 he married a nine year old girl, and he recommended it as a blessing from Allah and a benefit and pleasure for Muslims.
While we’re on the subject, you know what else is a benefit and a pleasure for Muslims and has the blessing of Allah? Prostitution. Nikāḥ al-mutʿah, which means temporary marriage. But of course that’s just a euphemism for paying for sex. A man can give a woman something of value and “marry” her for a fixed period of time. It could be an hour for even a few days, and then when the agreed-upon period of time is over he divorces her.
The Sunnis say that one of the rightly guided Caliphs abolished the practice. The Shia consider the first three caliphs to be usurpers, and only Ali was a legitimate caliph, so they don’t recognize any of the decrees or teachings of the first three to be valid. And even the Sunni sources conflict on this. So if you’re a Shia nikah al-mut’ah is still a correct Islamic practice, and if you’re Sunni you can find plenty of sources that justify it. It used to be Egypt and Palestinian refugee camps that were hotbeds of nikah al-mut’ah but now prime destination for rich Saudis and Gulf Arabs are the Syrian refugee camps.
Curious, Leviticus; is the US infringing on a Muslim’s free exercise of religion because our laws make sex tourism illegal?
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:10 pmWow. You’re a real piece of work.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:33 pm“is the US infringing on a Muslim’s free exercise of religion because our laws make sex tourism illegal?”
– Steve57
You mean with its facially neutral laws of general applicability? Of course not.
We’re talking about targeting religious adherents, not requiring religious adherents to adhere to generally applicable laws.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:36 pmhttp://www.amazon.com/Am-Nujood-Age-10-Divorced/dp/0307589676
From what I read I’d never call mom passive. Nujood says that for her “first time” mom held her down for her new husband.
Apparently mom wanted her new son-in-law to get his money’s worth, and not suffer buyer’s remorse.
The publisher bought Nujood’s father a new house and agreed to pay him $1K/mo for her upkeep and education.
Dad kicked her out as soon as the ink was dry on that contract, then spent all the money he got from the publisher on new wives for himself. He also forced Nujood’s younger sister into marriage.
The story is so awful, why, you’d think it could only happen in a devoutly religious Christian country. Right, prowlerguy?
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:38 pmHoagie,
Why’s that? Do you not believe that Catholic priests engaged in widespread pedophilia over the decades? Is this better or worse (or no different whatsoever) than presiding over the “marriage” of a child bride? And (importantly) how do this affect the constitutionality of targeting Muslim imams (but not Catholic priests) for heightened police scrutiny?
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:39 pmThe story is so awful, why, you’d think it could only happen in a devoutly religious Muslim country. Right, Steve?
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:41 pmLeviticus, I thought this law was generally applicable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
And, again, what is the MB’s grand scheme for the US?
See #193 for the citation. And when I speak of the Muslim Brotherhood, I’m talking about CAIR and all the other MB front organizations that were revealed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial.
You know what the Arabic word for “seditious conspiracy” is, Leviticus? Masjid, usually rendered in English as mosque.
Well, maybe not all of them. The Ahmadis don’t fall into this category. But pretty much all the rest of them do. Especially if they include the words “Islamic Society” in their title. The Islamic Society of North America is another of those MB front groups, and a lot of of incitement and radical recruitment takes place in their mosques.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:54 pmCruz supporter @195
It’s worse than that. You anointed one (should that be capitalized) wants to surveil people based on their proximity to a mosque, or based on the demographics of the neighborhood they live in.
Note how he says “before they become radicalized”. That means that they don’t have to advocate anything or perform any overt acts that could be seen as supporting terror. If they were already radicalized, then maybe, just maybe, you could squeak out some probable cause. But Ted, by his own words, wants to “secure Muslim neighbourhoods” because they have Muslims in them.
That’s a weird kind of reverence for the Constitution.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 12:56 pm“You know what the Arabic word for “seditious conspiracy” is, Leviticus? Masjid, usually rendered in English as mosque.”
– Steve57
Like I said, tell it to the judges. If you thought your argument had any merit, you’d be making it to people outside the Internet’s peanut gallery.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:00 pmReally Steve57? You got any citations or reference on that? So you claim that they are to kill all the males (of any age, even newborn or elderly), and any woman who was not a virgin, and they keep the virgin girls alive “for themselves” means to care for them? He’s telling the warriors/soldiers to keep the virgins for themselves, and that is some sort of compassionate act? And why kill young males? What sins had they committed?
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/14/bible-does-numbers-3118-sanction-pre-pubescent-marriages-child-marriage-2/
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:08 pmGerald A.
No, but then, neither did he take a wife. Not sure what your point is. My point is that He explicitly said that HE was not overturning the law, nor the words of the prophets. His life and teaching in no way modified God’s word.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:10 pmLeviticus @207, no that could never happen in a devoutly religious Muslim country. Because it’s not a crime in Islam to rape children as long as they’re girls. And anyone advocating on behalf of the victimized girls risks death, so Muslims largely don’t talk about it. That book could never be published in Tehran or Jedda. If an author tried to write such a book about religious auhtorities in those countries, or really any Muslim majority countries, he’d no doubt risk long years in prison and severe lashings at the very least, and possibly execution for insulting Islam.
We don’t have blasphemy laws here. At least, not outside of college campuses where it’s illegal to insult leftism.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:10 pmRev @194
IF you can’t argue with what I actually say, then how about you refrain from making things up, attributing them to me, and then calling me names. Steve57 has made multiple posts, with many more out-of-context scriptures than mine single post. Why didn’t you call him out on spending so much time to remove constitutional protections from US citizens? Or is that OK with you?
I never said they were equal. I never said Christians blew anything up in my neighborhood. But then again, neither has a Muslim. But if you want to see Christians blowing people up for their faith, I hear Belfast is wonderful this time of year. And the Branch Davidians were lovely people, the Westboro Baptist Church is all love, and the KKK is such a civic-minded group. All profess their Christian faith and provide(d) scriptural support for their actions. Hmm. Seems that crazy splinter groups are not limited to one faith.
What I illustrated was that, if one was willing to be dishonest and had a viewpoint they wanted to push, it is fairly easy to comb through the text of most religious documents and find things that sound shocking to the modern ear. In order to make it stick, you have to strip all context and reality and present it as if THOSE were the only things in the text, and they were still in force. So, if you want to say that Islam is not a religion, based on cherry-picked quotes, you must accept that Christianity and Judaism are not religions, because cherry-picked quotes can be show for those religions that are shocking and violent, too.
Neither position is true. Anyone who argues with such facile arguments should be laughed out of the room. Yet you seem to embrace Steve57’s position,
I can’t help but be amused that on the heels of Cruz’s overwhelming margin among Mormons, a group that still practices polygamy and child marriages TODAY, in the US, some of his supporters would be rushing to strip Muslims of their constitutional rights by decreeing that Islam is not a religion because it has old guidance on child brides (which were the norm BCE. Mary was 14 when she gave birth, after all). I will grant you that in some backwards countries this is still practiced, but isn’t there some biblical thing about motes and specks?
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:40 pmprowlerguy, what is going on in Belfast? Wut??
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
The issues in Northern Ireland—they’ve been issues of nationalism, not religion. Ireland VS Great Britain.
The Branch Davidians were nuts. Although that does not justify the horrendous way in which Democrat Janet Reno authorized such a crazy raid. Westboro Baptist Church was a congregation of 75 people. And they were Democrats. The KKK was largely a Democrat ‘get out the vote’ operation.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:50 pmPoint is, some groups are more equal than others. See the issue of disparate impact on discipline in schools, and the various attempts to “fix” it.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:57 pmMy earlier point about guys hanging out in malls harassing women is still the question. Not only in court where one or another PC judge or prosecutor–or jury containing a couple of Muslims–might decide the guys are being persecuted because of their faith only. IOW, the local Baptists might not get away with it.
In Europe the media and the government and law enforcement collude in keeping the issue hidden as much as possible.
Will we see that here?
Funny thing about the people sneering at the very concept of a slippery slope. They’re always trying to edge around behind you.
Oh, yeah. Would the courts and the chattering classes allow the government to give a Muslim organization the Little Sisters of The Poor treatment?
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/23/2016 @ 1:59 pmSomehow as usual this became a Christian vs. moslem discussion. It is a political discussion not religious although too many try and make it religious. The moslems are a state without borders. You know like, ISIS: Islamic State In Syria. They are and “Islamic State” and they even admit it. All true moslems want an islamic state it’s part of their teachings. They aren’t radicals they’re the normal moslems.
Terrorists are the ones who blow crap up and shoot people but they don’t exist in a vacuum. They have the support of family, friends and mosques all around them. No moslem is a non-participant even if all they do is nothing because by doing nothing they help the terrorists.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:27 pm“No moslem is a non-participant even if all they do is nothing because by doing nothing they help the terrorists.”
– Hoagie
Go on. Take the next step then.
You know you want to.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:47 pmI am taking nothing out of context. I’m willing to give as much context as anyone could possibly want. And unlike you, prowlerguy, I’m not resorting to some anti-Muslim screed. I’m taking everything from Muslim sources. Texts written by Muslims for Muslims.
The Quran comes with an operator’s manual. The ahadith, the sirah, the tafsir (exegesis written by Muslim religious authorities) and for the Shia the histories and teachings of the “rightly guided” Imams.
Imams are nothing more than prayer leaders in Sunni Islam, for the Shia they’re a lot more than that.
An abridged version of the Tafsir of ibn Kathir is available on-line. If a Muslim scholar wants to write an English transliteration of the Quran and wants it to be approved by Al Azhar university that scholar must reference the Tafsir of ibn Kathir.
Context doesn’t help make Islam better. These are commandments I’m citing. Here’s one, in context:
Surah 3:28 Ali ‘Imran (Family of Imran)
And the context:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=46
Tuqyah, or taqqiyah, is lying to protect Islam and/or Muslims and the ummah. Muslims are commanded to practice it when Muslims are in danger from non-Muslims. It’s obligatory; it would be an act of betrayal, an act of apostasy, if a Muslim were to tell an inconvenient truth to a non-Muslim and expose that Muslim to some sort of danger or negative consequences.
This is why CAIR advises Muslims to never talk to the police. This is why at most Muslim religious leaders will do against an Islamic radical, at most, is to ask them to leave leave the mosque and not to come back.
Which isn’t too much of a hardship as they can easily find another mosque where they are welcomed.
They will not mention him to the police. Other Muslims might mention him, but not the leadership. Betraying Muslims to the kuffar harbi cops is an act of apostasy. Many Muslims don’t even know the authority to lie to protect themselves or other Muslims from non-Muslims is written into the Quran. They certainly don’t know that ahadith that elaborate on the subject are sahih; genuine, authoritative. They will even deny that any such doctrine even exists in Islam, or if you ask a Sunni they might say it only exists in Shia Islam. Both Shia and Sunni believe the other is not a Muslim but a heretic, but Shia being most often in the minority had a larger need to lie to protect themselves and other Shia from the “disbelieving” Sunni majority. A lot of Sunnis have no idea that taqqiyah is authorized for all Muslims until the day of resurrection.
Then there are the well-informed Muslims who are practicing taqqiyah when they deny it exists. And taqqiyah is just one form of lying that Islam condones. They can all be lumped together under the heading of “outwittings.” If Muslims succeed in lying to a non-Muslim and throws them off the trail of the very horrendous teachings of Islam, they are proud that they successfully “outwitted” the non-Muslim.
So what context do you imagine I’m not giving you, prowlerguy?
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:52 pm“Then there are the well-informed Muslims who are practicing taqqiyah when they deny it exists. And taqqiyah is just one form of lying that Islam condones. They can all be lumped together under the heading of “outwittings.” If Muslims succeed in lying to a non-Muslim and throws them off the trail of the very horrendous teachings of Islam, they are proud that they successfully “outwitted” the non-Muslim.”
– Steve57
Go look up the “doctrine of mental reservation,” before you make another ill-conceived Catholic comparison.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/23/2016 @ 2:57 pmI should add that Muhammad commanded Muslims to follow not only his Sunnah (well trodden path; in other words, his example) but also those of the Caliphs of his generation that followed him. The Shia don’t accept this hadith as valid, and they don’t include it in their hadith collections. Which is why they don’t accept the authority of the examples of Abu Bakr, Ummar, and Uthman but only Ali’s.
But approximately 85% of Muslims do accept this hadith, and are commanded to pattern themselves on Muhammad and those four Caliphs.
Which brings us to ISIS. Where does ISIS get the idea they can burn people alive? If you guessed they got it from Muhammad and the four rightly guided Caliphs you guessed correctly. The first Caliph after Muhammad died was Abu Bakr. A lot of people tried to break away from Islam after the “prophet of Allah” went to his reward because they only became Muslims to avoid getting killed. Others simply refused to accept Abu Bakr’s authority
.
So Abu Bakr sent an army out to the breakaways, and he gave his general a letter to read them. If they returned to the fold and continued to pay him the zakat he wouldn’t punish them. But if they insisted on breaking away his general was to burn them alive.
And Ali, as the fourth and last rightly guided caliph, was still burning people alive.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88
Somehow the fourth rightly guided caliph didn’t get the word that it was wrong to kill people with fire. This is the only place I can find that says Muhammad forbade it as a mode of punishment. But you’ll find other ahadith that said Muhammad wanted to execute heretics by burning their houses down around them and did use fire as a form of torture. When he captured Khaibar, a jewish village, he discovered that one of the leaders of the Jews had hidden to village’s treasure to prevent Muhammad from getting his hands on it.
Muhammad asked him where it was and the man, Kinana, refused to tell him. So Muhammad had him tied down and ordered one of his companions to build a fire on his chest. When Kinana finally broke under the torture Muhammad had another of his companions, a man whose brother had been killed fighting the Jews of Khaibar, behead him in revenge. But Kinana was already near death from the fire.
And who does al Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, model himself upon? Abu Bakr, the first rightly guided caliph who threatened apostates with burning them to death. And he kept his word. Abu Bakr was the father of Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha and one of Muhammad’s closest companions. If anyone would have known Muhammad forbade burning people to death it would have been Abu Bakr. Yet Abu Bakr did burn apostates, heretics and “disbelievers” alive. So did Ali.
And what did ibn Abbas have to say about Ali’s use of fire to kill the atheists? Just that if it had been up to him he wouldn’t have done what Ali did. Ibn Abbas would have killed them differently. But basically ibn Abbas just shrugs. It’s not as if he condemns Ali or anything. He just offered up the mildest of rebukes. It doesn’t even qualify as a rebuke; it’s just a very mild criticism. There’s no mention of any punishment in this world or from Allah in the afterlife.
So if Abu Bakr al Baghdadi wants to execute people by burning them alive he’s plenty of scriptural support.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 3:51 pmPrecisely.
Deuteronomy 21:
The Israelites could keep war captives as slaves, and foreign slaves were treated more harshly under Jewish law than Jewish slaves. But Jewish slave owners could not abuse or mistreat their slaves. That included no raping them. The First Commandment reminds Jews that they were once slaves in a foreign land. And Jewish law prohibits the total domination of one human being by another, as slavery was practiced in Egypt.
We are talking about God here. By very definition God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. And the Bible says God is not fooled by outward appearances, he looks to the heart. So when He looks at a boy He doesn’t see an innocent child. He sees every sin that boy will commit in his life.
Genesis 15
For centuries God put up with the sins of those people who inhabited the Holy Land. He was willing to wait four more centuries, but there’s only so much sin God will put up with. When their sins had reached their full measure he would eliminate them from the Holy Land. What were these sins? Bestiality, incest, all sorts of indecent sexual practices, as well as sacrificing their own children to Moloch. Perhaps most importantly God knew they would entice the Israelites to worship idols. The God of both the Old and New Testaments does not rejoice in the deaths of sinners. Which is why God was willing to wait and see if they repented. But of course God being God He knew they never would repent. For centuries He had watched new generations to grow up to wallow in the same sin as their parents and He had had enough. So he promised the land to Abraham and He then instructed Moses to kill all the inhabitants.
This was an object lesson to the Israelites. Because when Moses was on top of the mountain receiving the what were the children of Israel doing? They were forging the golden calf and worshiping it. They had just witnessed God’s power and all the miracles that forced Pharaoh to set them free and Moses hardly turned his back on them and they forgot God. That’s how easily led astray. So God had to wipe out all the bad influences from the land he was giving to the Israelites, or they would be tempted to worship false gods.
So along with the command to kill drive out the inhabitants of the Holy Land was a warning. The same thing would happen to the Israelites if they also forgot God and became idolators.
The violence in the Old Testament is different than the violence in the Quran. Old Testament violence is descriptive; Quranic violence is prescriptive. Nowhere does the the Bible tell anyone of follow Joshua’s example when waging war. Joshua was commanded to kill everything that breathed in Jerciho but that command was given to a specific individual, Johsua, at a specific time and place and it specified a certain people. But Joshua was not to attack all people everywhere for the crime of not being Jews nor was he commanded to keep fighting until Mosaic law reigned supreme on the earth.
Muslims are commanded to keep fighting until non-Muslims are killed, say the Shahada and become Muslims, or they submit to Muslim rule over them, pay the jizya, and accept their degrading and humiliating third class status.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/23/2016 @ 8:09 pmNeighborhoods benefit from more armed patrols.
After I was SWATted, I asked for more patrols in my neighborhood.
Ken from Popehat is my friend. But he is a defense attorney and seems to dislike cops. To him, more armed patrols = more harassment. To me, more armed patrols = safety.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 3/23/2016 @ 9:31 pmEverybody continues to ignore the clear Constitutional problems with Cruz’s proposal as stated, I see.
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:16 pmGo on. Take the next step then. You know you want to.
And what about you? Be honest. Admit it. You’re more indignant about fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Christianity (or maybe Christianity in general) than you are about their counterparts in the world of Islam.
But if you aren’t, and you truly resent Americans/Westerners or Middle Easterners saying mean things about Christianity as much as you resent those same groups saying mean things about Islamism, then — in light of Paris, Brussels, 9-11, etc — you can turn to the alternative of repudiating those people who pray at the altar of political correctness.
Personally, I find myself more disgusted by the PC-liberal crowd than I am by all the Islamic enablers to jihadist Islam. Or, not much better, the docile, passive followers of pro-assassination Mohammad who shrug off the grotesque aspects of the Koran—and, sorry, fans of moral equivalency, but there’s a lot more grotesque, cruel things in the Koran than there are in the Bible. Moreover, unlike Mohammad, I don’t believe Jesus Christ had those who merely mocked him killed out of revenge.
Mark (0a1d10) — 3/23/2016 @ 10:25 pmIt is utterly ridiculous to think police patrols will make any difference to the situation. Muslims are already radicalized by being members of islam. Their religious instruction teaches them that they are the rightful rulers of the earth and we are to be enslaved or killed. For every killer, there are 10,000 who privately cheer them on and help maintain the wall of silence and quiet support. Muslims are the enemy. All muslims. The fact that a few good apples might turn up from time to time doesn’t change that. The barrel they come from is rotten.
Mr Black (3efb66) — 3/24/2016 @ 12:38 amWith two billion Chinamen of all stripes from Vietnam to Korea to Japan to Communist China with technology that’s overtaking ours and manufacturing capacity that has outpaced us, I think that the Yellow Peril is our real threat. People discount the danger because they’re petite and polite and rid the neighborhood of stray dogs, cats and snakes. Just like in the early 1900s. But when they do their new Pearl Harbor this time, it will not leave us in any condition to respond, because it will be with nukes delivered by ICBMS launched from magnetic-propulsion undetectable submarines. I’d like to hear a Presidential candidate talk not about trade pacts with the Pacific Rim but, instead, about preemptive nuclear attacks on certain parts of the Pacific Rim. (Biological weapons would be very effective on their civilian population dense as it is, but we need to destroy their military hardware and ability to rearm as a first priority.)
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 4:41 amAs Insty noted, the IRS already monitors churches for political content, but that’s okay because they’re REPUBLICANS.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/24/2016 @ 4:50 amIt all depends.
we never shoulda gotten neighborhoods so fulled up with unassimilated foreign muslims that they need special patrollings in the first place
happyfeet (831175) — 3/24/2016 @ 4:58 amthis is what europe is teaching us
happyfeet (831175) — 3/24/2016 @ 4:59 am“Words” by the Gee Dees
Dance an Argentinian dance
Colonel Haiku (0666ef) — 3/24/2016 @ 5:00 amA dance could put Teh Fear in them
Don’t ever let them see you quake
‘Cause that would bring a laugh to them
This world has got so gory
Each day a brand new story
Now Brussels right now there’ll be
No other time and you will show us
How my ass
Talk in ever wasted words
And dedicate them all to we
now dance and show them all how brave
a guy like you could ever be
We think that you don’t even mean
A single word you say
It’s only words, and words are all
You have to wish it all away
We think that you don’t even mean
A single word you say
It’s only words, and words are all
You have to wish it all away
It’s only words, and words are all
You have to wish it all away
looks like google play gives you 48 hours which is way more better than amazon’s 24 hours for the same price
advantage: Mr. The Donald
happyfeet (831175) — 3/24/2016 @ 5:08 am“You have communities, for example, in Minnesota, you have communities in Michigan with heavy concentration” of Muslims, Cruz said, mentioning “radical imams preaching jihadism, preaching Islamism.”
Chicken Little coming home… to roost ! Death by Irony.
Colonel Haiku (0666ef) — 3/24/2016 @ 5:10 amWhen was the last time any of those two billion “Chinamen of all stripes” murdered 16 people and wounded another 24 at a San Bernardino Regional Center while shouting “Allahu Akbar”?
Try not to ignorantly deny the problem, try and fix it.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/24/2016 @ 6:46 amThen put up what you would consider a Constitutionally approved way to deal with moslems. I’m still not convinced a cult of murder has any Constitutional protection any more than Murder, Inc. did.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/24/2016 @ 6:50 amYou know, that kind of blindness was prevalent in the politically-correct ’30s. Fu Manchu stories were derided and Hollywood was pushing Charlie Chan and Mr. Moto. Then, boom!, December 7, 1941.
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 6:54 amIt is part of basic police work to patrol targeted neighborhoods with community policing:
Cruz said he wants the police to help prevent radicalization in Muslim communities. This is how the police would try to do that.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:06 amThe police can allocate officers and resources depending on where they are needed, and that isn’t unconstitutional.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:09 amChicago has saturation cars, marked and unmarked, with four officers, who can use their cars for a broader range, and can also park for two-man foot patrols. But the flatfoot on the beat is really for commercial areas these days, sorting out parking violations. They’re not even allowed to carry nightsticks, let alone a slapjack in their hip pocket to teach manners to a mouthy teenager.
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:22 amChicago has also paid out $642 million in police brutality claims since 2004. NYPD is under federal supervision for its stop-and-frisk policy in “high crime areas”.
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:27 amCharles Krauthammer had some interesting comments about the Cruz idea last night that are worth considering.
spokanebob (e86321) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:33 amhttp://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/23/foxs-krauthammer-calls-cruzs-proposal-to-patrol/209503
“The police can allocate officers and resources depending on where they are needed, and that isn’t unconstitutional.”
– DRJ
It is when they make their allocations on racial or religious grounds.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:33 amStill waiting Levidicus.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:45 amPatrolling targeted areas is not the same as Muslim surveillance the way NYPD did it, and there is a basis for increased patrols in areas with radicalized residents. Thus, I think it would meet the reasonable basis test and also the strict scrutiny test if the focus is patrols that benefit the community and the targeted areas have had residents who became or were solicited to become jihadis.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:01 amStill waiting for what? A Constitutional amendment that allows you to target religious minorities that you don’t like for disparate police scrutiny? Maybe you should restrict the ability of Muslims to purchase firearms, while you’re at it.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:02 amDRJ,
While I disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate someone finally acknowledging the possibility of strict scrutiny implications for Cruz’s proposal.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:05 amThis is not about targeting religious people for their religioin. This is about targeting people who advocate violence and overthrow. The people advocating violence and overthrow just happen to be Muslim.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:08 amThe NYPD program targeted radicalized Muslims across the city. I frankly don’t have a problem with that but what I hear Cruz saying is something different. He is talking about targeted police patrols that focus on communities that have radicalized Muslims. It is not surprising that this happens in Muslim communities, just as some Irish-American communities once harbored IRA supporters and participants.
Community policing is an accepted, effective police tactic. The goal is to target areas that harbor criminals, whether they are drug dealers, car thieves, whatever. What I get from Cruz’s statements are that he support having police target areas that harbor, solicit or create radicalized Muslim jihadis.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:10 amWhen was the last time any of those two billion “Chinamen of all stripes” murdered 16 people and wounded another 24 at a San Bernardino Regional Center while shouting “Allahu Akbar”?
The very fact you have to make a point like that — which should be obvious to anyone with more than an ounce of common sense — illustrates the way that political correctness is often wrapped around a lot of moral equivalency, moral relativism, or situational ethics. The inability to define or judge things properly is one of the trademarks of the idiocy of political correctness.
The US and Europe will remain in more of a bind — and vulnerable to what was witnessed in Paris, Brussels or on 9-11 — as long as so many of its people are PC-spouting fools, quite a few of them of the liberal persuasion—-although this thread does show pathetic variations thereof (btw, no, much of Africa probably wouldn’t be in any better shape today even if, for example, white Europeans had never entered its boundaries from long ago, etc. And citing the city of Detroit as the poster child of liberalism run amok — where over 90-plus percent of the populace is pro-Democrat-Party, pro-leftism — shouldn’t arouse indignation as much as a sense of 2+2=4).
Mark (0a1d10) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:13 am“This is not about targeting religious people for their religioin. This is about targeting people who advocate violence and overthrow. The people advocating violence and overthrow just happen to be Muslim.”
– Cruz Supporter
Huh. I could’ve sworn Cruz said “Muslim neighborhoods.” Thanks for clarifying.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:14 amLet’s assume the strict scrutiny test applies. That means there are times when patrols and surveillance can be authorized on religious groups. What would you require to make that happen — evidence of plots to commit criminal acts and/or murders? Wouldn’t that be more than enough to pass strict scrutiny, and don’t we have that in areas that have produced jihadis?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:19 amCruz said he would call for greater police patrols of neighborhoods with a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism. I agree, and I don’t think it is unconstitutional.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:22 amI don’t think the disparate targeting of “Muslim neighbors,” even for community policing, would survive strict scrutiny because a least restrictive means analysis would reveal far less restrictive (and more effective) means of preventing terrorist attacks.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:25 amWhat is that more effective means? Wait until they kill and then catch them?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:30 amAgain: you can target a “gang neighborhood” for increased police presence, because gang affiliation is not protected by the Constitution. You cannot target a “Muslim neighborhood” for increased police presence (without surviving strict scrutiny), because religion is protected by the Constitution.
Cruz knows this perfectly well. His false equivalence between gangs and Muslims is an attempt to dupe people that don’t know how the Constitution works. Most of the people on this thread do know how the Constitution works, which makes the defense of Cruz’s statement a little frustrating for me.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:31 amLeviticus, you’re absolutely right, Cruz did say “Muslim neighborhoods” when he ought to have said something more artful such as “Islamic terrorist support which can be found among neighborhood mosques and Islamic civic organizations.”
You’ve raised good points in the conversation. I’m just saying that there’s not going to be a round-up of Muslims per se, as there was of Jews in Warsaw. To do so would be un-American. But we do have to face that there are imams in America who advocate violence and overthrow, and they’ll be targeted, along with others in Muslim circles who publicly advocate terrorism.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:31 amI think the combination of enhanced police patrols (which are good things for a neighborhood, so good that people actually pay extra to get them) and evidence of Islamic terrorism in the neighborhood would survive strict scrutiny.
Increased police patrols is a legitimate response to evidence of significant criminal activity. It is the least invasive response to a significant problem that threatens not just that community but the entire town, state and nation.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:42 amRead Cruz’s statement. That is what Cruz said, Cruz supporter.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:45 amGang neighborhoods are things people understand. It is not a false equivalence.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:46 amYour attitude is frustrating to me, too. Just because this involves a religion doesn’t mean the police can only react to terrorism and can never be proactive. The whole point of strict scrutiny or any other analysis implies there is a balancing, not a blanket prohibition, and that balancing can be affected if the threat becomes more significant.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:50 amAs they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:52 am“The whole point of strict scrutiny or any other analysis implies there is a balancing, not a blanket prohibition, and that balancing can be affected if the threat becomes more significant.”
– DRJ
I acknowledge that, and I’ve gone out of my way to acknowledge that over the course of this thread. How many times have I qualified my statements by saying “unless it passed strict scrutiny”? But strict scrutiny is a demanding standard, and involves least restrictive means analysis, and we can disagree as to whether expressly targeting Muslim neighborhoods would ever meet that demanding standard.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:53 amThen it is a blanket prohibition to you?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:05 amTry to think of a fact pattern that would pass strict scrutiny. If you can’t, then you see this as a blanket prohibition. If you can’t, then what is it?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:06 amCorrection: If you can, then what is it?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:07 amWhat our host said,
What I am talking about, unclear if Cruz means the same thing,
Is a community police presence that encourages and assists the non-jihadists (assuming they exist) to take a stand against the jihadists in their midst.
The focus of attention is not followers of a religion, but people who enable and commit acts of violence.
MD not exactly in Philly (c92d72) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:08 amI assume the effort was not against Catholics in Northern Ireland, but people who blew up things and killed people.
In my opinion some of the justification for Cruz’s position are probably similar to what was discussed prior to the internment of the American citizens of Japanese descent in WW2. Well intentioned to be sure but hard to roll back the clock when it gets underway. The damage to innocent people impacted cannot be undone. Then it was bloodline and now it is religious affiliation.
spokanebob (e86321) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:18 amIt is important to note that many of the Cruz supporters openly believe that Christianity is the only true religion and are very devout. Not a stretch to imagine that enough “well meaning Christians” would get caught up in hysteria to round up or contain a group of people affiliated with Islam.
The freedoms we enjoy are part of the reason that our Islamic communities are not hotbeds of radicalism as found in Brussels and France.
It is worrisome that the one binding issue between trumpers and cruzers is the readiness to target Muslim communities out of fear.
We’received talking sbout police patrols, spokanebob. Not internment or even surveillance.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:21 am“Try to think of a fact pattern that would pass strict scrutiny.”
– DRJ
Okay. A neighborhood comprised largely of Muslim families declares themselves to be a “jihadi neighborhood,” and declared that their religion required them to remove non-Muslim families from the neighborhood by any means necessary. I think a police effort to “secure and patrol” that “Muslim neighborhood” would pass strict scrutiny.
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:24 am267 – slippery slopes often start that way. Increased police patrols in low crime areas seems like increased surveillance in my view. Yes, we can split hairs on semantics…
spokanebob (6797b5) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:26 amI get it that many people are scared of the unknown but Cruz’s idea is not a good one except to draw in his supporters and some of Trump’s.
Apparently it is DRJ, if the enemy is considered a religion. I am amused that our Constitution is “flexible” and “interpretable” enough to take 10,000 years of human history where men married women and suddenly find that not to be so, or where out of thin air the right to practically unfettered abortion appears, or where it specifically states that the free exercise of religion “shall not be infringed” yet prayer is prohibited in school but for some reason all these great Constitutional minds are incapable of protecting the American people from 7th century barbarian cultists.
If they can’t find a way to have the Constitution protect the American people our Republic will be in peril. Not from moslems, but from those among us who will just throw out the Constitution in the name of protecting the people. All it’s going to take is one more big incident like a bomb or a gas or viral attack and we’ve got problems.
I’m sure Levidicus and prowelerguy and nk don’t want to see Americans or any other innocent people blown apart all over the world but rather than telling us what we can’t do to stop it they need to concentrate on things we can do. We can start by not allowing any more moslems into America.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/24/2016 @ 9:59 amIs there some reason that you can’t spell my handle correctly? Here’s a hint: the correct spelling is appended to the end of every comment I post. Or did you catch “dyslexia” from ropelight?
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:06 amRadovan Karadjic jailed for forty years for genocide and other crimes against humanity, the stupid court finding Muslims are human. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35893804
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:17 amI saw that, too. I think Karadjic was probably just taking the logical next step from “No moslem is a non-participant even if all they do is nothing because by doing nothing they help the terrorists.”
Leviticus (efada1) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:19 amOkay, so the imam running the largest mosque in the area declares a certain sector a Sharia Law Zone.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:24 amWould that justify somebody paying attention?
Monkey thinking. See the stranger, fear the stranger, hate the stranger, kill the stranger.
nk (dbc370) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:24 amHahaha, c’mon Leviticus. You have to do way better than that.
What if a bunch of jihadists decided not to declare themselves a “jihadi neighborhood,” and instead of removing non-Muslim families from the neighborhood, leave them alone and in place for reasons of deception (call it “strategery”.) Does that mean, law enforcement cannot assign extra patrols in that neighborhood because it is predominately Muslim?
We really have to wait until Islamic terrorists say, “here we are!!”
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/24/2016 @ 10:56 amIt is important to note that many of the Cruz supporters openly believe that Christianity is the only true religion and are very devout.
I heartily believe that. “There is no other name under heaven by which we are saved”, and “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but through Me” seem pretty clear, no matter what many would say.
That said, my approach to a Muslim is that he/she is a person who does not know the Truth, as I once did not know the truth, and befriending them and sharing the Truth if possible is what one does, same as with a secularist.
Slippery slopes are both to be cautioned against and real. Not every vandal turns into a felon, but letting vandals get away with stuff and never learn consequences for their actions helps create felons. That is why every parent disciplines their children.
A Muslim (or communist) in a country run by Christians of my stripe will never have reason to fear, even though we think their eternal destiny is in doubt. On the other hand, a person simply reading a Bible for curiosity is in trouble if caught in Saudi Arabia or N. Korea.
if you want to criticize Christian behavior, measure it by what the Guidebook says and you do not need to worry (except if you are worried about being offended when someone says that there actually is right and wrong).
That is why I think a believer in the apostolic historic Christian faith is most consistent supporting Cruz, rule by common agreement of the law irrespective of the individual,
as opposed to Trump, who seems to be more the style of Obama, authoritarian and capricious rule by whose one’s friends are, just a different group of friends (supposedly).
The historic Judeo-Christian faith said to treat the stranger among you justly and with mercy, remembering that we too were once strangers.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (768aed) — 3/24/2016 @ 11:01 amBut justice and mercy does not mean letting people plot and carry out mass murder.
It really ought to be quite simple in principle, a little more dicey in practical application.
A family member, friend, or co-attendee of a mosque who knows who is making bombs ought to be charged with conspiracy and treated accordingly,
but one can’t assume the whole neighborhood knew.
277 – I like your comment.
spokanebob (6797b5) — 3/24/2016 @ 11:21 amThank you, spokanebob.
Unfortunately, with all of the information flung into the universe in various forms by humans these days, the distinctions between a “Westboro Baptist” and many different other “baptists”, for example, is lost these days.
hey, when I was a youth I thought a “Christian Scientist” was a Christian interested in science. Kind of simple-minded at times, I am.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (768aed) — 3/24/2016 @ 11:29 amNo, spokanebob, I want to target mosques because I know what I’m talking about.
Mosques in the US are hotbeds of radicalism. Particularly two particular flavors of mosque.
Those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, usually via the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which is one of their US front groups. There are many such front groups such as CAIR which is linked to Hamas and is in fact banned in several countries that designate CAIR a terrorist organization.
Then there are those who are Saudi-funded and influenced. The Salafists are a direct product of Saudi petro dollars funding wahhabist proselytizing all over the world, including the US.
That would cover approximately 80% of the mosques in the US.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:13 pmwell if the devil could conjure up a denomination it would be westboro baptists,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:16 pmDRJ (15874d) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:22 am
I think that’s idiotic, and an appeal to ignorance, but you’re right, it’s constitutional and Rand Paul would find it constitutional. However, it is idiotic.
Everything important takes place indoors. Doing anything about anything like that requires detective work, not street patrols, and infiltration and spying. But there could be some questions about its constitutionality, at least if you’re not careful how you go about it, and there have been lawsuits, so Ted Cruz doesn’t say do that.
He proposes something that makes no sense, instead, but which will rile up liberals.
Sammy Finkelman (cf6d93) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:33 pmhttp://media.clarionproject.org/misc/pdf/List+of+Unindicted+HLF+Co-conspirators.pdf
spokanebob, if you don’t know what they preach in the mosques I’m talking about then you really shouldn’t pronounce about my motivations for wanting to monitor them.
It isn’t like clerics in MB/Saudi-backed mosques in the US preach a different Islam than they do in Belgium or France.
The freedoms we have in the US have nothing to do with any lower rate of radicalism than in Belgium or France. It has to do entirely with how large the Muslim population is in a particular country. If the Muslim population reaches a “critical mass” the Muslim community will wage violent jihad.
You can’t get more free than Muslims in Brussels. Because the authorities will simply not enforce the laws. They have more free speech rights and more right to freely exercise their religion then we do in this country.
What’s the difference between Brussels and Dallas? Muslims make up an estimated 25% in Brussels.
Muslims have been using the same playbook for 1400 years. Sorry you don’t know about it, but I happen to. It isn’t like it’s a secret. When Muslims are hopelessly outnumbered they preach peace and tolerance. For Muslims. During his Meccan period Muhammad had acquired only a few dozen followers in 10 years of proselytizing. So that’s where you’ll find the peaceful verses such as “there’s no compulsion in religion” and “I do no serve that which you serve, and you do not serve that which I serve. You shall have your religion and I shall have mine.”
But while Muhammad was preaching peace and tolerance, he was also plotting to subjugate non-Muslims such as the pagan Meccans who vastly outnumbered him. This is the first stage of jihad, the stealth phase.
When Muhammad immigrated to Yathrib, later Medina, or the hijra in Arabic, that marks the beginning of the Islamic era. Why not when he first began getting “revelations?” Because Islam is not Islam without the political an military aspects. When he was in Mecca he had no power, but when he moved to Medina he found a city that was divided into tribes and clans. Since it was divided, it was easy to conquer. He acquired sufficient political and military power to move on to the second stage of jihad; defensive jihad. But don’t imagine that I mean self-defense. It means that, too, but if means far more than that. It also means killing people who insult Allah, Islam, and the “prophet.”
It also means provoking an attack, and then pretending to be a victim so you can fight the people you deliberately antagonize. Muslims have been acting in this passive-aggressive way for 1400 years. The fiction of “Islamophobia” suits them perfectly; Muhammad didn’t think up the word but he developed the concept.
Essentially, defensive jihad picking a fight so that Muslims can pretend to be the injured parties and “defend” themselves.
Finally when Muslims have sufficient military power they must wage offensive jihad, which is fighting to kill non-Muslims, or subjugate non-Muslims if they have a recognized scripture such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. This is to bring the world under Islamic rule; establish Sharia.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:57 pmWhy because they shoot and bomb innocent people all around the world for their westboro prophet?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:03 pmmarK greaney’s latest court gentry tale, posits a scenario, where an elusive spymaster, who thinks he recruited his saudi counterpart, has in fact been stringing him along for the better part of a decade, providing the intelligence that has led to his meteoric rise, the character suggests brennan, how else have the drone strikes had so little impact,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:03 pmparody thy name is the peacock:
https://twitter.com/ad_holland/status/713019572778098688
narciso (732bc0) — 3/24/2016 @ 8:11 pm#282 – my only question for you is why not go ahead and start the summary executions? All Muslim = all intent on our destruction the way you describe it.
Your posting is a good example of why the GOP at large is painted as intolerant and biased. Most don’t concur with your view but those views get the most ink and coverage.
Most people are scared/worried/afraid and wonder what should be done.
Suggesting increased police presence is one example but an understandable one even if it is not something everyone agrees with. They are not intolerant for looking for some sort of solution to restore some sense of safety. It is a good discussion to have.
In your case. your words beg for violence and unfortunately you will get your wish and never even realize what role you played in bringing it on. Instead you will use it to justify more extreme measures such as indiscriminate carpet bombing, torching mosques and vaporizing Mecca.
Shame on you.
spokanebob (6797b5) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:32 amSteve57 (08b8c6) — 3/24/2016 @ 7:57 pm <blockquote. also means provoking an attack, and then pretending to be a victim so you can fight the people you deliberately antagonize. This is exactly right. This is what Islamist groups do. But it is not becaused Islam tells them to it. It is because that is one way they can fight without a caliph. The people who are doing this are lying about the facts
Now, it canot be part of a religion to pretend something is happening. This cannot justify it to Moslems
It can be a part of a religion or an ideology to fight when attacked, but they must really be attacked.
And there are two problems: Not just waging a jihad, but the tactic of murdering random civilians in enemy territory. This, I don’t think, can be raced back any further than the fatwas distributed by Imperial Germany in 1914.
Sammy Finkelman (cf6d93) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:01 amspokanebob, you can say “shame on you” all you want. Your ignorance on the subject of Islam, and your evident determination to remain ignorant on the subject, makes your notion that somehow you’re a moral authority is laughable.
How dense are you? This is not how I describe it. It’s the way MB/Saudi backed clerics in the vast majority of US mosques (perhaps as many as 80%) describe it. It’s how literature distributed by the Saudi government to those mosques and placed in publication racks, mosque libraries, and bookstores describe it. And they have scriptural support for their position, and that people who claim to be Muslims but reject the verses of the Quran and the ahadith commanding them to hate all non-Muslims, wage war aginst them, kill them until they pay the jizya and accept a humiliating and degrading subjugated status, and establish sharia rule are nothing more than hypocrites and apostates. This is where people like Imam Obama show their ignorance, or deliberately stick to what they consider a noble lie, and claim IS can’t be Islamic because they kill Muslims. Not as far as IS is concerned, they’re not Muslims. And that is actually the mainstream position of Islam.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php
See, here you go. I’m not describing anything. A’ll let the law library of Congress describe Islam.
Well, I’ll describe one thing. A non-Muslim becoming Muslim in any Muslim majority country will never be tried for apostasy because Sharia considers them “reverts” and not converts. The Islamic sources teach that Islam is the original religion of the entire world, and Judaism and Christianity are false religions. In fact, they’re not really religions at all but heresies. So when these laws mention “religions” or “religious sects” they are talking about Islam and only Islam. That’s why these laws only exist in Muslim majority countries.
Meanwhile to get back on track, there is no scriptural authority for any so-called “moderate” Muslim position.
And you don’t even have to take my word. You could go into a mosque, or ask a friend to go, and you could pick up this stuff and read it for yourself. But you won’t because apparently you think there is something noble about your ignorance, and your determination to remain ignorant, and that somehow, laughably, gives you the moral authority to say that people like me who are intellectually honest should somehow be ashamed of ourselves.
There is nothing noble about it. In fact, it’s despicable. You’re intent on getting a lot of people killed. Ignorance is the Islamic terrorists best ally. They can’t function in the West if people shine the light on the theological aspects of Islam that support their violent jihad.
Somehow you care more about signalling what passes for virtue in your uninformed mind then actually learning something. All you can do in your ignorance is create and attack straw man arguments and attack them as if those are my arguments. Such as:
When did I suggest summary executions? That’s very dishonest of you. But you can’t make an honest argument because your entire position is not intellectually honest.
You know, if your thinking prevailed during WWII in the best case a lot more troops would have died and the war would have lasted longer, and worst case we could have lost the Pacific war. Because Shinto taught that Hirohito wasn’t just an emperor. He was a god and consequently the spiritual father of the Japanese race (even today a large portion of books published in Japan are on the subject of proving that the Japanese are an entirely separate race and not just an ethnicity). As such the Japanese race owed the emperor unquestioned loyalty and that dying for the emperor was a guarantee of going to heaven. Hence the kamikaze.
In other words, it’s very similar to what Islam preaches.
You can’t defeat an enemy unless you know your enemy’s ideology. You, spokanebob, would have condemned me and by extension those people studying the psychology of the Japanese (the few POWs we captured were very helpful in this regard) so they could develop what is now known as PSYOPs against the Japanese enemy.
Moreover, I wouldn’t have advocated interring the Japanese. We didn’t in Hawaii despite the Niihau incident when a downed Zero pilot who crash landed after the attack on Pearl Harbor was able to enlist the only three residents of Japanese extraction (including two who were natural born American citizens) and turn them against their neighbors and their country by playing on their ancestral loyalty to the emperor with remarkable speed, and if anywhere was under threat by the Japanese it was Hawaii. So if we didn’t inter them there we didn’t need to inter them anywhere. But you can be damn sure I would have advocated monitoring Shinto temples in the US during WWII. Because if they were preaching that because the emperor was their god and spiritual father they owed their loyalty to Hirohito because they were still Japanese, and not to the US regardless of their citizenship status, I would have advocated taking action against those temples and any priests advocating sedition.
I’m just amazed how you can’t or won’t connect the dots, spokanebob. Anybody can read up on how Islam is practiced in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/meast/saudi-blogger-death-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
And this is what they preach in mosques funded by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s not accident that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. There is nothing admirable about you wanting to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that the same Islam that radicalized those terrorists is taught in the vast majority of mosques in the US (and Europe). And it is a fact, not merely my opinion. You can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion because you are clueless on the subject of Islam and you intend to remain clueless doesn’t recommend you.
It certainly doesn’t make you any sort of moral authority; in fact it makes you quite the opposite of a moral authority.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 12:20 pmNo, Islam does teach this; it faking an attack so that Muslims are justified in waging war is exactly what Islam teaches.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56
I’m constantly amazed that people like prowlerguy, Leviticus, spokanebob, Bernie Sanders, and you, Sammy, who are atheists and/or simply can’t take religion seriously think all religions teach the same thing. They do not remotely teach the same things. But that doesn’t stop Bernie Sanders from thinking that all the “world’s great religions” have something equivalent to Christianity’s Golden Rule. That isn’t the case. You can read the Islamic sources until your eyes bleed and you won’t find anything remotely like the Golden Rule.
I didn’t invent the fact that Islam divides the world into two parts. The Dar al Islam, the house of Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the house of war. Muslims are at war or are at war with the Dar al Harb. Now, many Muslims don’t know this. It isn’t as if Islamic religious authorities encourage rank-and-file Muslims to do any self-study and read their own sources. As a matter of fact they teach that unless they are firmly grounded in Islamic scholarship they must not do self-study because they will form the wrong opinion.
Islam divides the world into those two parts because Muslims are required to war against the Dar al Harb. The Dar al Harb are those parts of the world where Muslims do not reign supreme, and Muslims have a religious duty to correct that in the name of Allah.
Which means they can lie, are required to lie, to us Kuffar Harbis.
Page 150 of 378 of a transcript of an FBI phone tapped conversation between American Muslims and Hamas reps. Entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf
By the way, the speaker in that quote above is Shukri Abu Bakr, a Hamas fundraiser and one of five men convicted at the HLF trial for setting up a fake charity designed to funnel money terrorist under the guise of humanitarian charity. That’s what they mean by deceit. Set up false fronts that are designed to advance Hamas/MB objectives while claiming to be something else. Such as CAIR, which was established after these teleconferences, which masquerades as a civil rights organization but in reality exist to mask the true nature of Hamas and the MB partly by shutting down people who see through their smokescreen by calling them names such as bigot, racist, or Islamophobe.
The weak minded won’t listen to the truth from people who are well-informed if they’re successfully smeared as bigots, racists, and Islamophobes. The Islamists, like the communists before them, consider such weak-minded people useful idiots.
The bottom line is they’re the ones, the Muslim Brotherhood (and Hamas is the MB in the Gaza strip) and others who share the same jihadist ideology, who decided they’re at war with us. And that they need to deceive us, lie to us, to succeed. They’re the ones who designated us as part of the Dar al Harb and declared permanent enmity and hatred with us.
I had nothing to do with it.
But, oh yes, the Islamic scriptures justify precisely what you, Sammy, think they can not.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:15 pm* …Muslims are at war or
areshould be at war with the Dar al Harb.Most Western Muslims simply have no idea what their religion commands them to do. This is on purpose, and it’s for reasons of security. Much the same way a military OPLAN is only shared with people, usually senior, on a strict need to know basis, it isn’t as if the Muslim leadership trusts rank and file Muslims to keep the plan secret.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:20 pmMaybe an increased police presence would have helped this Muslim:
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (1b400a) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:24 pmhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/religion-of-peace-update-4.php
Most Western Muslims simply have no idea what their religion commands them to do. This is on purpose, and it’s for reasons of security. Much the same way a military OPLAN is only shared with people, usually senior, on a strict need to know basis, it isn’t as if the Muslim leadership trusts rank and file Muslims to keep the plan secret.
Just like the Trilateral Catholic-Zionist-Masonic conspiracy.
nk (dbc370) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:32 pmhttp://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1199.pdf
Here’s an FBI agent testifying about what’s known as the Philadelphia meeting, the teleconference that led to the creation of CAIR. Beginning at line 12, page 99 of 152 of the trial transcript.
CAIR is a front group for Hamas. It’s public facade is that it’s a civil rights and human rights organization. It isn’t.
If any of you think that CAIR is a legitimate civil rights and human rights organization that simply means you have well and truly deceived. I suppose no one likes to confront that reality. Hence, I ought to be “ashamed of myself” for exposing you all to the truth of the Islamic program, specifically the MB/Saudi program, in America.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 4:47 pmNot quite. The links between CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators and their links to terrorist organizations is no figment of my imagination. It’s well documented.
The court ruled that the DoJ should not have made the list of unindicted con-conspirators public. That was improper. But the court refused to go as far as CAIR et al desired and strike the names of organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, etc., from all public documents because the case against them is overwhelming.
http://media.clarionproject.org/misc/pdf/43380629-2009-order-on-Holy-Land-Foundation-unindicted-coconspirator-list.pdf
It is suicidal and monumentally stupid to pretend that Islamic organizations and individuals plotting to sabotage and destroy the Constitutional government of the United States are protected by the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion simply because these sworn enemies of non-Muslims make their plans to do so inside mosques.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 5:50 pmhttp://sunnah.com/bukhari/56
When Muslims commit acts of terrorism they are simply emulating their prophet, as they are commanded to do.
Surah 2:216 Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
Surah 3:151 Ali ‘Imran (Family of Imran)
Surah 4:65 An-Nisa (The Women)
Surah 4:115 An-Nisa (The Women)
Surah 8:12 Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War)
Surah 33:21 Al-Ahzab (The Combined Forces)
The Arabic makes it clear that when Allah tells Muslims that his messenger Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” that means Muslims are to emulate Muhammad if they wish to go to paradise instead of h3ll on the “Last Day,” the day of judgement. Muslims must fight and kill and subjugate “unbelievers” as Muhammad did.
But most Western Muslims don’t know that. When they claim Islam is a religion of peace mos of them really believe that.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:25 pmnk, why do folks like you read, see, hear and get presented with the evidence over and over and still refuse to recognize exactly what the state sponsored cult of islam is? It’s all there nk, just read it for yourself. Nobody is trying to lie to you except the moslems who you blindly trust and follow and certainly not Steve57 nor myself. But you need to understand they are not now and never will be your friend or ally.
The ignorant politically correct fools that run our government treat islam like a legitimate religion and terrorism like a law enforcement problem. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Islam is a cult disguised as a religion used to control the people of a theocratic dictatorship. And terrorism is a tactic of war against civilians and has been since wars began. The single objective of islam is to install a world-wide caliphate and convert everyone to submit and those who won’t will die. Those Christians on their knees along the shore in the Middle East were not exceptions, they are the rule. They are you, me, our families. Islam is incompatible with democracy and freedom of religion. It is not up for discussion, it is an historical fact.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:49 pmDoc @296, the only thing that is “extremist” about that murder is the perps carried it out extrajudicially. The command to kill apostates is very mainstream, but that doesn’t mean all schools of Sharia allow Muslims to take the laws into their own hands. Nor does it mean that apostates can be killed before being given a chance to repent. I believe the Maliki school even says that only the Caliph can authorize the death penalty for apostates. And since there is no recognized Caliph, that means no death penalty under Sharia. If you’re an adherent of the Maliki madhab of fiqh. Other madhabs permit the authorities to execute apostates.
And make no mistake; that poor guy committed apostasy. I’m sure he didn’t know it. He probably imagined that only renouncing his religion and becoming an atheist or an adherent of another religion constitutes apostasy. Nope. Not in Islam. The Tafsir of ibn Kathir makes that clear in his exegesis (tafsir in Arabic) of Surah 9:29. The discussion is intertwined with that of 9:28 which commands the Muslims of Mecca not to allow the pagans to come near the Masjid or Mosque. Since that’s how the Meccans made their living they wondered how they would survive without selling items, food, lodging, etc., to all those pilgrims. I’ll try to confine this just to how the Muslims are to treat “the People of the Scripure” (Muslims are commanded to kill pagans or make them convert).
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2569&Itemid=64#1
This guy who just got murdered honored Christians with his Easter greeting. This is an act of apostasy. In order to avoid apostasy a Muslim must keep all the commandments.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:55 pmHiagie, I think lawyers are more likely to be concerned about changing the rules or denying rights to groups of people. Once you let government do something to one group, it’s hard to justify laws that protect the rest of us.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:57 pmHoagie, I’m so sorry I garbled your name.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:57 pmLawyer has nothing to do with it. All my life there’s always been somebody out there whom I’ve been told I’m supposed to hate. Well, f*** you! I’ll decide whom I hate. And I don’t give a s*** how many Muslims walk on your newly-mowed lawn.
nk (dbc370) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:07 pmHeh. Being a lawyer has nothing to do with standing up for what you think?
DRJ (15874d) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:11 pmI should hope that it does not need saying that the profanity was not directed at you, DRJ, but I’m saying it anyway.
Today is Greek Independence Day. My ancestors fought against the Turks and drove them out of Greece (and I mean my literal ancestors because the deed to our property in Greece is dated 1832). My great-grandfather fought the Turks again in Crete fifty years later. My grandfather, who helped raise me, fought them one more time from 1912 to 1922. I don’t need no steenkin’ lectures about Muslims. It’s almost a hundred years later. My daughter flies Turkish Airlines, with a stopover at Istanbul, when she goes to Greece to see her grandmother.
nk (dbc370) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:25 pmSteve’s hatred knows no bounds. If you love Jesus you must vote for Cruz so he can appoint Steve as the public executioner because he has the secret constitutional mandate in his heart../sarc you are an internet brown shirt no more no less.
spokanebob (c5547a) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:30 pmRev. Hoagie @301, ever notice that nobody ever cites any sources to prove me wrong before declaring I’m some sort of bigot or racist for actually knowing what Islam commands?
I can and do back up everything I say by going to the Islamic sources written by Muslim scholars (or Allah himself in the case of the Quran) that explain to Muslims how to be Muslims.
It’s sort of stupid to discuss the five pillars of Islam, for a couple of reasons. First, there are more commandments Muslims must keep than saying the Shahada, tithing or zakat, prayer or salat, fasting during Ramadan, and going on the Hajj once in their lives if they have the means. For instance, the Allah makes clear that those who claim to be Muslims are actually disbelievers,i.e. hypocrites or apostates, if they don’t submit completely and totally to the judgements and decrees of Muhammad.
So there are actually more than five pillars, since to be a believing Muslim one must totally submit to Muhammad and must emulate Muhammad.
Which leads to what Allah doesn’t make clear in the Quran. That would be those so-called five pillars. I defy anybody to show me in the Quran where it explicitly states the Shahada or profession of faith. Some goes for tithing; where does the Quran tell Muslims how much they’re supposed to tithe, when, and to whom do they pay it to? Or prayer; how many times is a Muslim supposed to pray, how many rakats are obligatory each time, and how does a Muslim perform wudu or the ritual ablutions so they are in a state of ritual purity before they pray?
None of that stuff is in the Quran. It’s all in the hadith collections.
You know what is discussed at length in the Quran? Violent jihad against non-Muslims.
To imply I have some sort of wacky, insane, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory about Muslims’ religious obligation to wage holy war to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims is nonsensical unless these people are also going to say Muslims are part of a “conspiracy” to pray five times a day or travel to Mecca once in their lives.
All in all I can see why these people would rather talk about the violence in the Old Testament, which unlike the Islamic sources contain no commandments from God for Christians or Jews to emulate the violent acts of the prophets.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:33 pmI think cooler heads would help with a mutual understanding instead of talking past each other, if mutual understanding is what people want.
Steve57, you, and none other, said this:
…Muslims must fight and kill and subjugate “unbelievers” as Muhammad did.
But most Western Muslims don’t know that. When they claim Islam is a religion of peace mos of them really believe that.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 6:25 pm
Steve and Hoagie, when nk tells you he doesn’t want to be told who to hate, it is because he knows exactly that. He knows Muslims who are peaceful, not because they are practicing deceit, but because they don’t know that they are “bad” Muslims. They believe the apostasy and think those who are Theocratic Islamists (I think Jasser’s terminology) are not the norm.
Steve57, the guy who got murdered sure thought his killing was extreme, didn’t he?
I imagine nk, like myself, disagrees being told that all people who profess to be Muslims are the enemy. I will agree that Islam is the enemy, Islam was also the enemy of that fellow who was killed while thinking he was a good (moderate) Muslim.
Rather than lumping this poor murdered guy in with those who murdered him, I would engage the fellow in dialogue and help educate him as to what Islam teaches, and whether he wants to believe that or question it. There are people of Muslim background who are questioning Islam, because while some are being radicalized, others are saying, “Wait, this doesn’t make sense. I don’t think I like Allah if this is what he is like.”
Now, the fact that there are many Muslims who are more likely to be killed by radical Islamists than kill us infidels does not minimize the serious problem of allowing Islamists to spread their hate under the protections of our laws. Freedom of religion does not include the allowing of murder and treason by fomenting a separate form of government in our midst.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (1b400a) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:45 pmOnce again spokanebob demonstrates that if I don’t share his obstinate dedication to monumental ignorance “hate” can be my only motivation.
Which when you get right down to it is despicable but a widely shared instinct of people who belong to the same bovine herd as spokanebob. As I said earlier your massive ignorance doesn’t make you a moral authority, or an authority of any sort. It makes you a fool.
But I understand, bob. I really do. If you lack the courage or capacity to be intellectually honest all you have left is dishonesty. As demonstrated by these straw men you keep piling up one on top of the other. What else are you going to do, since you can’t address the facts? Since you have no facts, and don’t ever intend to know any facts.
Because cowards like you are afraid of being called a name.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:48 pmthe problem is the salafi apologist, most of the groups listed above by steve, insist on protecting the varsity and jayvees, so what happens when there is some atrocity, what happened this week occurred in algeria in 1992 and 2007, in Russia in 2004 and 2011,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:49 pmthat was first awareness of cair, when they criticized the reality of the first wtc attack, the next year they showed up at my school,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:52 pmI have never said, Steve57, that you are wrong in your description of what Islam teaches.
I object to your conflating what Islam teaches with what millions of people believe.
To some degree, there is an analogous difference between what apostolic historic Christianity teaches and what many people who consider themselves Christians believe, but the consequences of that is an individual’s eternal destiny, not violence against others.
If you want to make the point that W. was wrong when he said “Islam is a religion of peace”, I agree with you. But I think he would have also been wrong to try to say that our enemies are all 1 billion+ people in the world who call themselves Muslims.
Yes, it is a huge problem to know when a person calls themselves a Muslim and is actually an apostate, and when a person calls themselves a Muslim, says they are a person of peace, but in reality are a jihadist.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (1b400a) — 3/25/2016 @ 7:58 pmIn a general sense, I think it is up to the Muslim community to define itself, do they want to live “watered down Islam”, call themselves Muslim, and have a common desire to expose and segregate the jihadists? If so, let them show it by their actions, like this poor fellow now murdered. they are the people who would welcome an increased police presence, if knowledgeable and fair.
nk, why do folks like you read, see, hear and get presented with the evidence over and over and still refuse to recognize exactly what the state sponsored cult of islam is?
Such people in general are a perfect example of the mindset that leads to the foolishness of political correctness. It’s the flip side of those people whose instincts will cause exclusionary cliques at country clubs or college fraternities. The latter dynamic was far more pervasive decades ago (eg, the 1950s) when traditional conformity was at its peak. The opposite extreme has now reared its ugly head.
I fear and feel disgust towards the nonsensical emotions (and people) that resulted in the absurd leniency from no less than the US military towards Nidal Hasan until his bloody rampage in 2009 far more than I fear and feel disgust towards Islamism. The lunacy of jihadism currently crops up on only certain occasions like Brussels a few days ago or on 9-11, whereas the lunacy of political correctness confronts Americans on a far more frequent basis and — most crucially — is the reason we’re way more vulnerable to bloody Islamic jihad.
The jihadists and the politically-correct nitwits throughout the Western World need to be put in a big room together and leave the rest of us out of it.
Mark (23b32d) — 3/25/2016 @ 8:55 pm.
No doubt he would. I’m sure it came as a big shock.
I’m not telling anyone to to hate Muslims. I don’t hate Muslims. Most Muslims are very nice people who lead far better lives than their prophet who is supposed to be the perfect moral example on which they’re supposed to model their lives upon, and better lives than their Allah commands them to lead. But like many people who claim to adhere to a religion they’re simply not very knowledgeable or devout. I’m sorry this guy got murdered. But since there are Muslims who hate you and me it would be reasonable, indeed a basic function of a government, to learn who those Muslims are, keep an eye on them if they’re already here, and not allow them in if they’re subversive Sharia supremacists.
Again, I can’t understand why people refuse to connect the dots. Imam Obama insists there’s nothing Islamic about ISIS yet he has no problem speaking of the Supreme leader or calling Iran Islamic. Unless, for instance, you believe that hanging gays from cranes is a huge step up from throwing them off of tall buildings there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the terrorist organization the Islamic State and the leading state sponsor of terrorism the Islamic Republic.
Same goes for Saudi Arabia; they’re threatening to sue people who point out that the Saudi “justice system” is the same as the Islamic State’s. Why do they have to sue? Because they can’t make the case their legal system is different from IS’s. Because it isn’t, not in any remotely significant way. So SLAPP lawsuits to shut people up is the only option they have.
Please point out where I said everyone who professes to be Muslim is the enemy. I said clerics and many adherents of MB/Saudi-funded and influenced mosques are the enemy. How do I know? Because their sermons and the literature they distribute will tell you that in no uncertain terms. But that’s not at all the same thing as saying everyone who is a professing Muslim is the enemy.
I’m not lumping this poor guy in with those who murdered him. I don’t lump all Muslims together, but the fact remains that the jihadists are more knowledgeable about their religion and more obedient to its commands than the less radical Muslims. I’m sure the murdered guy considered himself a good Muslim, but you’ll find no scriptural support for his Easter greeting or for declaring his love for his Christian country.
Good Muslims aren’t supposed to do that. It is not an extremist view but the mainstream orthodox Islamic view that by declaring his love for the infidel Christian state he joined the infidels in their infidelity. Consequently those who murdered him considered him an apostate. Here’s the problem; despite Imams Obama, Kerry, Cameron, Merkel, et al, denouncing certain Muslims as non-Islamic and “hijacking a great religion” there is not Islamic authority that can say what is and what is not Islamic. Salafists have plenty of religious authorities to fall back on, such as Yusef al-Qaradawi. I wish Zuhdi Jasser well but he has essentially no scriptural support for his view of Islam.
Which is why I’ve concluded it’s not possible to have reasonable dialogue for the most part. At least not with non-Muslims like those who comment here who have to engage in value signalling by proudly flaunting their ignorance as if it’s a sign of tolerance. I’ve actually had more reasonable discussions with professng Muslims than with the commenters here. Too many people have been duped by David Said, even if they don’t know his name. He’s the professor of Islamic studies who advanced and established the idea that any criticism of Islam is by definition racist. The reason for this is simple; Islam is impossible to defend if you’re pointing out the theological basis for its brutality and religious bigotry and and sexism. That’s a rich vein to mine, as all the scriptural evidence supports the conclusion that Islam is in fact brutal, sexist, and bigoted. Hence it’s easier to call anyone who brings up that evidence a racist. Really it’s the only option if you refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. This is now orthodoxy. Hence the emotional reaction when I cite chapter and verse. I must be a bigot and a racist since I don’t engage in mindless and uninformed praise of Islam as a religion of peace. I don’t mindlessly praise it for anything that it isn’t.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 8:55 pmI’ve never conflated the two. Not on this thread. Not ever. I would think the accurate analogy I drew @293 between the similar doctrines Islam preaches and those of interwar Shinto would have made that clear.
It was stupid to lock up the Japanese in internment camps. The fact that apart from the Niihau incident (which only involved three individuals of Japanese descent) there were no issues with the large Japanese in Hawaii who were never interred proves there was no reason to mistreat Japanese citizens anywhere. Again, if there was anyplace in the US that was threatened by a Japanese invasion or raids it was Hawaii, not the west coast of the continental US.
The vast majority of Japanese proved themselves loyal Americans, as did Americans of German and Italian descent. No one argued that Nimitz or Eisenhower shouldn’t have been generals because of their last names. No one ever said “Manila John” Basilone should have been under a cloud of suspicion because of his last name. And the nisei of the 442nd Regimental Combat team, including the late Senator Daniel Inouye, performed heroically in Europe. Other nisei served honorably in other capacities including as linguists in the Pacific.
But if it were up to me I wouldn’t have allowed Shinto priests to preach sedition and the violent overthrow of the United States government. Nor should it be allowed now in mosques.
It’s illegal, and its not protected by the First Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
Pace Leviticus, this is just as illegal as gang activity. If it is copacetic legal to target gang neighborhoods because gang activity isn’t protected by the Constitution, then by the same token it is copacetic to monitor what goes on in MB/Saudi-backed mosques and respond to that which isn’t protected by the Constitution.
We really have to stop pretending the Saudis are our friends. When they fund a mosque, they generally install their own clerics. And they distribute literature provided by the Saudi Ministry of Religious affairs. It’s nothing but anti-American hate. Same goes for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudis and MB often cooperate.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 9:39 pmMy bad. @316 I meant to say Edward Said, not David Said.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 9:46 pmI’ll quit for the night after this. But the AoSHQ Overnight Open Thread asks a timely question.
Why do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and a host of many, many others that show up on the tube after an attack) believe they know more about Islam than Muslim clerics?
If you follow the chain of links you eventually get to this article.
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/
I can tell you why it’s not persuasive. Because when/if you study the Islamic scriptures they themselves contain a great deal of the rules for its own interpretation. And those rules basically state that Islamic scripture is not open to interpretation. It hasn’t been for 14 centuries. Unlike Christian scripture which is human as well as divine, “God breathed,” the Quran is the eternal, pure, perfect word of Allah dictated to Muhammad by Jibril. Better known in Western circles as the angel Gabriel.
The Quran is purported to be an exact copy of the Umm Ul Kitab, the “mother of the book” which is inscribed on a tablet in heaven and has existed and will exist for all eternity. There is no portion of the language in the Quran that has any human input. Which is not the same, from a Christian perspective, for the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired it, but didn’t dictate it. Which is why, for instance, the Bible doesn’t have to be taken literally, but the Quran must be. So when the Old Testament talks about annihilating people down to the last woman and child, killing “everything that breaths,” it doesn’t have to be taken literally. Indeed, it can’t be, considering survivors of those peoples who were supposed to have been entirely destroyed such as the Hittites or Canaanites turn up later in the chapter or subsequent chapters. This is simply human idiomatic language common to the M.E. at the time of the Old Testament. It is inspired, but again not dictated.
If there’s any ambiguity in the Quran, Muhammad is the ultimate authority. If in the ahadith he gives his interpretation that settles the matter forever.
Surah 4:65 An-Nisa (The Women)
Muhammad’s decision stands for all times in all places for all Muslims. It is an act of apostasy for a Muslim to dare to have a different interpretation of the Quran than what Muhammad has decreed. The eternal word of Allah tells Muslims that they must not reinterpret anything that Muhammad has interpreted for them. If Muslims do so, they’re no longer Muslims.
See my comment @300 where I cite much but not all of this scriptural support for Islamic terrorism.
As they say, read the whole thing. The bottom line is I may not have the perfect understanding of Islam. But I’m a lot closer to the truth than anyone who has convinced themselves that Islam is a just a conventional religion as opposed to an all-encompassing ideology that along with its political, legal, and military aspects oh, by the way, includes a religion as well. If you believe Islam is just a religion, you believe in a fiction that no conventional Muslim believes in.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/25/2016 @ 11:13 pmAmerican’s, especially you who constantly make excuses for islam as some sort of religion need to expand your horizons beyond the propaganda of CAIR and their made-up word “islamophobia” designed to shut down any talk about the true intent of this vast extreme cult.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/26/2016 @ 6:52 amSteve57-
Whenever I make the point about the difference between Islam and “Muslims” we do always agree, you make the distinction as well and directly say not all “Muslims” are the enemy.
My point is in many, if not most, of your comments that fine point is not made clear enough for many people,
and so many people don’t see how you can say those things about people they know,
which is why I pointed out the story,
to make the point that there are people who consider themselves “Muslim” that are not of the jihadist/”theocratic Islam” stripe
and they are considered apostate by others
In one way I don’t care if “moderate” Islam can’t be justified by the writings of Islam,
MD not exactly in Philly (c92d72) — 3/26/2016 @ 7:27 amthere are people who are,
and those people, if they are really committed to that, are the kind of Muslims that would welcome an increased police presence to protect themselves from “apostacide”.
And that is true while at the same time I agree that “Islam” is not a religion of peace, as you do.
MD not exactly in Philly (c92d72) — 3/26/2016 @ 7:28 amNo major religion is non-militant. Not even Buddhism. A religion of peace would be one like the Quakers, the Menonites, the Jains(?). Even the ones which are not militant in their proselytizing — conversion by the sword — are militant in the way they treat “infidels” considering them lesser in the eyes of God than themselves. It’s not necessarily a criticism. Sincerely held religious belief is by definition intolerant and exclusive of other beliefs to a lesser or greater degree. Otherwise it is empty ritual or just a mechanism of social control.
nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2016 @ 7:42 amComparing religions: Muslim vs Hindu at a Houston Dairy Queen.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/26/2016 @ 8:00 amA problem with its own solution, DRJ. He won’t stay in business for long.
nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2016 @ 8:06 amHow’d that research into the doctrine of mental reservation go, Steve?
Leviticus (a6edbd) — 3/26/2016 @ 8:17 amWhat? What major religion has followers that go around murdering non members because they’re non members?
Your doctrine is as interesting as anything from the Middle Ages but how is it relevant to moslems killing Americans in San Bernardino in 2016, Levidicus? And once again, how does that help us defeat them?
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:05 am“Them”? Who “them” are is what we’re disagreeing about. Not how.
nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:22 amDoc, all I can say in my defense is that I try to use words precisely. Islam is one thing. Individual Muslims are another. I honestly don’t know how often or how strenuously I can make the distinction for some people who seem determined not to get the distinction.
I think it speaks well of most Muslims, in the West particularly but not exclusively, that they can’t or won’t believe the more extreme doctrines of Islam. And when I say more extreme doctrines, I mean orthodox and mainstream. They’re supposed to hate and fight non-Muslims. But they just can’t. Thank God, and good for them.
For instance, I’m fully aware of occasions during and immediately after the Morsi period in Egypt when extremists (and by extremist I mean Muslims who while I don’t think are representative but who did embrace the more extreme and yet still mainstream and orthodox doctrines of Islam) were attacking the Copts. And the local Muslims would form a human shield around, say, a Coptic nunnery where the sick and the destitute and the dying could always turn to for food and care. They simply refused to believe they were supposed to hate those nuns, and they were willing to put their lives on the line for them.
http://www.austindiocese.org/article/13355/muslims-help-defend-christian-churches-egypt
What I think you see is my frustration in knowing for an absolute fact that I’m better informed about Islam than people like spokanebob or Leviticus, and it does no good. Because they insist on luxuriating in their ignorance as if it makes them morally superior not to know.
I have nothing against Muslims. I do know that we as a nation can’t allow, it is a dereliction and a betrayal to allow, anti-American Islamic institutions to operate freely in this country.
Video included at the below link.
I realized I was casting pearls before swine, doc. It isn’t me who can’t tell the difference between individual Muslims and Islamic doctrine. Understand that the Hanbali school of Islamic law is dominant on the Arabian peninsula. And that the other major schools of Sunni and Shia of fiqh recognize the Hanbali as a legitimate source of authority.
So why don’t you ask spokanebob how he finds it impossible to draw a distinction between his Muslim neighbors and the agents of a hostile foreign power, the Saudis in this instance. This causes me no trouble, but it seems to cause my critics lots of trouble.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:26 amResearch? I realize you kid yourself you had hit on a profound point, but the the Catholic church condemns lying as a sin. It has for centuries, ever since advocates of the doctrine of mental reservation edged to closely to the threshold of lying. No Catholic theologian defends lying as part of the doctrine of mental reservation.
Islam promotes lying as a positive good.
Therein lies the difference.
I realize as an immoral/amoral secularist it’s impossible for you to tell the difference between being vague to save a life and telling a verifiable lie to advance a political/ideological agenda. It is getting awfully tiresome correcting your ignorance. But since there is no end to your ignorance, it is my Christian duty not to tire of the task.
Keep up the ridiculously bad work.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:35 amReally nk? You’re going to keep running around in circles because you refuse to read, see and hear the truth? “Them” is that so-called major religion has followers that go around murdering non members because they’re non members? That “them”. Moslems. You’re like Obama you can’t even say the word. How can we disagree about “them” when almost daily you, me and the rest of the world read about their latest atrocities? You really can’t handle the truth. I thought only leftists acted like that. La-la-la-la, I can’t hear you. “Them” are islamists all around the world engaged in a great jihad to either convert or kill non moslems in order to establish a world-wide caliphate. They are composed of active killers who use terror against mostly civilians and their “moderate” supporters who supply food, clothing, shelter, weapons, bomb making equipment, ammunition, communications, intelligence, safe-houses, transportation, money and other infrastructure to these killers who, because they are busy killing, cannot supply these things to themselves. If you think we’re at war only with the “trigger men” guess gain.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:44 amYes, we are talking in circles. I’m stopping.
nk (dbc370) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:45 amLeviticus, per the Law of Armed Conflict a ruse is entirely legal. Perfidy is a war crime.
A legal ruse would be when I rig lighting on my warship to make it appear at a distance to be a merchant ship. Perfidy is using red cross/red crescent ambulances as troop transports.
So, apparently like Hamas you can’t or won’t acknowledge the difference.
This does not speak well of you.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/26/2016 @ 9:46 amA ruse is camouflaging an artillery position placed away from the civilian population. Perfidy is converting a hospital or a church in the middle of a city into an artillery position.
The first is entirely legal, the second will in any civilized society get you stood up against a wall to shot.
Still not ringing any bells, Leviticus? Please continue to claim there is some sort of moral equivalency between the doctrine of mental reservation, which says you are not required to give a truthful answer to prevent a greater evil (simply not answering is best) but you cannot lie, to taqqiya, which says go ahead and outright lie.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/26/2016 @ 10:02 amHere, let me help the fanbois of Islam out. I’ll provide you with ammunition to use against me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html
Wow! Your familiarity with the texts involves several minutes of Googling certain keywords. That’s dedication. And, really, I don’t know what can be more irrefutable than that.
My gift to you, spokeanebob and Leviticus. Please, use this treasure trove of word search programming against me.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/26/2016 @ 10:24 amSteve57-
I did not mean my comment to be a criticism of you, more a point of general explanation/observation, and that one of thinking out loud rather than trying to explain anything to anyone in particular.
I think there is actually a lot of common understanding among many folks that somehow comes out as more disagreement.
For example:
1) Everyone believes that many individual self-identified Muslims are not violent, and some are not even passively accepting of others doing violence and are against jihadism.
2) The texts of Islam do indeed directly justify violence, unlike what some critics would point out in the Bible.
3) Nations run under Islamic law, like Saudi Arabia, are intolerant places where not only is there no religious freedom, but practicing other faiths can lead to a death sentence, and much of their legal code is cruel and barbaric by western standards.
4) The number of Muslims who actively participate in violence is relatively small, but a small percentage of hundreds of thousands and more is not an insignificant number.
5) Even (much) more problematic is the fact that the percentage of Muslims that approve of violent jihad is significant, allowing for protection, not identification of those given to violence.
Now I know there are some who don’t agree with all of that, but I think all of that is quite defensible, and you have helped present the evidence.
I think the differences start when people start estimating the percentages involved and suggest what our response should be. Some think it is hard enough to sort out who is dangerous and who isn’t that we should ban all Muslims. Some think the percentages of the violent prone is so little that too many are overestimating the problem.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (a8334e) — 3/26/2016 @ 8:44 pmI think it is a very serious problem, that Islam as a system of belief is a problem, but I would want to give support to the people like those protecting the Copts in Egypt and this fellow who was murdered. I would like self-identified Muslims who are against jihad to be rewarded for their stand when it is obviously demonstrated by actions. Yes, the CAIR people and all sorts are practicing deceit. I want to reward people who denounce CAIR, who publicly denounce jihadism, who essentially do things that make them as much a target as “any other infidel”.
Practically this is very difficult and will be fraught with error, but often the best course of action is difficult and requires considerable courage.
Doc, first of all, Happy Easter. He is risen!
Then on to the substance of your comment. It is all well concieved and accuratae. Let me address and elaborate on your concerns this way.
Could we not have stood up for our values in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have any values to stand up for as a nation? I do, but my nation argues otherwise.
We, not they, WE wrote constitutions for those countries that established Sharia as the basis for their legal system. Consequently we wrote out basid freedoms, such as freedom of conscience from their legal system. Leading to situations such as this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25715736
I’m sorry. Can somebody please remind me who was in control of Afghanistan in 2007.
This madness started under Bush and has Increased exponentially under Obama.
I didn’t approach Islam with any preconceived ideas. I started dtudying Islam at the University of California. Why? I was a poli sci major specializing in the Soviet Union’s southern tier. The “stans.” Islamic studies was to me just a cheap and easy way to get elective credits. Often I could use the same term papers in two different courses. I was just gaming the system. It was a beautiful beach town and I wanted to maximize my fun time while still beating the curve.
It was only much later, after Operation Preying Mantis, after the Gulf of Sidra, after I joined the Navy, did it occur to me, “Those people aren’t lying about Islam.” When those people, be they Sunni or Shia, cite their holy texts to authorize murder and mayhem they’re not distorting or hijacking anything.
Back then it wasn’t a career-ending death sentence to say so, and I managed to retire from the Navy before PC got really bad, but even then there was a definite wave of willfull blindness building. If you operate from a position that the US specifically, and Western Civilization in general, is the cause of all the world’s troubles then Islam must be blameless.
Hence spokanebob. Hence Leviticus. Islam can’t be resonsible for what the the plain reading of its commandments to its adherents tell them to do. Nidal Hasan can give a PowerPoint presentation giving chapter and verse why his religion commands him to kill his fellow soldiers next month and they’ll say sagely, “No, that can’t be it” when he does indeed kill his fellow soldiers next month. Besides let’s look at the God of the Old Testament. And the Crusades.
I’m getting sick and tired of being one of the few people in the world who take killers like Nidal Hasan, Michael Adebelago, and Adam Gadahn seriously. When the lay out in detail why they are killing or are furthering and funding others who are doing he actual killing Westerners close their eyes and say that can’t possibly be it. It must be because they haven’t forced Mickey D to pay a “living wage.” And of course because Anericans drive SUVs which cause Global Warming.
The latter group of people have clearly won the policy debate. Deserve has nothing to do with it. On the merits they shoulld have lost. They would have lost in the aftermath of WWII, when the price of Hirohito’s continued emperorship and indeed his very existence was renouncing his godhood. But now PC dictates that your Allah is just fine with us. So, now we’ve created tow countries wherep people who come to believe Allah is not fine with them have to flee and seek asylum in Britain.
Aren’t you so effin’ proud? spokanebob? Leviticus? This is your doing, not mine. Congrats on the big win.
As for me I side with the British imperialist governor of India who told the Hindus who insisted on abiding by their cultural tradition of suttee, hurling the wives of the deceased on funeral pyres if they didn’t voluntarily jump into the fire themselses, that he would follow his own cultural tradition of hanging any man who paricipated in such an act. So go ahead, he said, follow your cultural tradition and see what happens.
We have lost that cultural confidence. Indeed we have elected a boy-man who regrets the very existence of the United States, and isn’t shy about apologizing for it. My stomach turns. We should be a beacon of hope for the peoples of countries, Islamic countries included, who want a better life than they are allowed because fo their sex, their monority religion, or because of their desire for freedom of conscience. Alas, we are not. Fascism has won.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/27/2016 @ 1:06 pmI’ll continue me rant just a little bit further.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/meast/saudi-blogger-death-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
WTF, Leviticua? WTF, spokanebob? WTF, prowlerguy? This guy and his family should be in the US, not Lebanon. If he freakin’ landed at DFW I’d be there to shake his hand. I have no idea what his politics are since his blog was suppressed before I heard of him. I’d do my best to set him up with a job and an apartment knowing full well HE IS A MUSLIM. Not ISIS’s kind of Muslim, my kind of Muslim.
Go ahead and try to make the case I’m a hateful “anti-Muslim” because I don’t think that Raif Badawi along with Bibi Asia should be in prison at all, let alone under the threat of death (and make no mistake if the Saudis carry out the new-and-improved sentence of 1000 lashes on Badawi that is a slow death sentence).
I’m against their persucutors. But go ahead and keep trying. Keep saying I’m an anti-Muslim bigot.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/27/2016 @ 2:32 pm