About that Muslim Brotherhood...

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

He was only a terrorist, not a Nazi.

A reformer!




Yemen is under assault by al Qaeda and we bomb MOMAR!

Their fault for not having located a pool of light, sweet crude...

 

[koalabear]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/loftus101106.htm


At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them.

 

[Mike_Yates]

The terrorists have won!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Democracy is not the only pernicious evil to Liberty...

Greece is associated with democracy today because of Athens, a democratic experiment which reached an ironic climax with the trial of Socrates. The formal charges against Socrates were impiety and pedagogic corruption. Socrates drank the hemlock to score one last debating point; suggesting that democracy might be its own worst enemy. A jury of Athenian citizens helped Socrates stage his last teaching moment.

The trial was not about freedom of speech; it was about opposition to democracy. Socrates opposed the Athenian brand of polis and several hundred free men voted to silence his voice of dissent. Wisdom of crowds, indeed!

Neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Aristotle was great friends of democracy. Aristotle became tutor to Alexander, the boy general who ended the Athenian experiment with government "of the people and by the people."

The Roman culture that superseded that of Greece was symbiotic. An educated Roman was one that spoke Greek. The irredentism which became the Dark Ages did not start with the fall of Rome; it began with fall of Athens. The Roman Empire may have lasted for two millennia, but it was always an avatar of an earlier civilization. And when that empire fell, first on the Tiber, then on the Bosporus, the vacuum was filled by lower forms still; rodents, fleas, disease, and ignorance -- a civic and ideological night that lasted for a thousand years.

All of the world's great waters are surrounded today by noisy frogs; and the political hubris that subverted early democracy is with us still. Emboldened by the fall of National Socialism and Communism, America and Europe celebrate a universal democratic norm; a mythic idiom, a political silver bullet that utopians believe to be the closet aspiration of all rational men. Never mind that the world's most populous nation, China, is still warmed by the fires of Marxism. And never mind that another fourth of the world's population, dar al Islam, is energized by the Hira of a 7th Century religious zealot.

Three fatal flaws, or toxic assumptions, are usually associated with democracy; universality, determinism, and vendibility.

Idealists assume that democracy is a model with universal application. Little historical evidence supports this view. Beginning with the Greek experience, most examples of egalitarian political forms failed or devolved to republics; and the republican exemplar flourished only briefly during the Roman era. Indeed, the declaratory and constitutional boilerplate associated with the American experiment does not mention "democracy." And constitutional provisions, like the separation of powers, are daily reminders that the founding fathers did not believe in the wisdom of crowds. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" might make for a memorable speech, but such sentiments have little to do with political reality -- especially in Lincoln's day.

A second flawed predicate is one that assumes that democratic institutions represent an evolved political consciousness. Such political Darwinism confuses history, or the passage of time, with progress. History is a two-way street; irredentism is as likely as improvement. Historical phenomena like the Dark Ages, National Socialism, and contemporary Islamism are all cautionary tales about the twin vectors of human history.

History is not wishful thinking; it is not deterministic; it does not move only from right to left; and if evidence and science matter, human politics is as likely to regress as advance. Irredentism and stasis are not simply options; they may be the preferred historic choices. Apathy is often the loudest voice in the public square.

The agent of regression is ignorance. And ignorance, now the science of Agnotology, is at the heart of the vendibility problem. Celebrated facilitators like the internet and social networks are as likely to spread falsehoods as truth. And like history, communication, no matter the technology, is a two-way street. The internet makes it possible, as Mark Twain forecast, to get "a lie halfway round the world before truth gets its pants on." Demagogues, like the Muslim Brotherhood's Yusuf al-Qaradawi, with the assistance of al Jazeera, reach an audience of 60 million Muslims a week -- in Arabia alone. Repetition is the mother of convention.

Expectations about the internet and democracy are misguided, if not implausible. Republicanism is a fragile commodity, a bottom-up phenomenon. Even in America, the republic gained its sea legs in fits and starts, as much a product of imperial neglect and religious reform as premeditated design. Democracy is not always fungible. It's just one unlikely branch of political evolution; and surely not the most persuasive.

Democracy and theocracy seem to represent the poles of modern political possibilities. The two camps are similar, like frogs trapped in different wells, to the extent that each is afflicted with tunnel vision. Neo-conservatives and liberals see only the blue skies of democracy; and Muslim theocrats see only the dark clouds of jihad. The neo-conservative right believes that democracy is a kind of shotgun wedding; the progressive left thinks democracy is a logical consequence of bloody revolution. More pragmatic Islamists believe they can exploit the naiveté of both.

This binary world is reinforced by amoral communications. If numbers matter, pornography, not politics, is the more likely utility for cyberspace; although, as time goes by, the two may become indistinguishable. Clerical demagogues and asabiyya (clan loyalty) are unlikely to be replaced by elected or appointed Muslim parliaments -- or BlackBerry-toting, English-speaking nerds now posturing on al Jazeera.

When European and American politicians agitate for regime change, giving Arab autocrats, like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Syria's Bashar al Assad, the bum's rush; the busybodies do not facilitate political freedom so much as open the door to religious tyranny -- a pathology that has stalked humanity since the 7th Century.
Radical religious and cultural reform is the prerequisite of modern democracy. Such change is hardly inevitable and unlikely to be imposed. No Western ideology or political institution is liable to save Islam from itself. The major targets of internal Islamic politics are rapidly shifting from infidels to apostates. Secular Muslim government is the enemy, not the goal of Islamic insurrections.

G. Murphy Donovan
The American Thinker

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Court documents filed last month by the Department of Justice in a federal civil rights lawsuit shows that Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Robert Grant of the FBI Chicago field office had warned the Illinois State Police: newly appointed Muslim chaplain Kifah Mustapha would never pass an FBI background check.

Mustapha’s long association with terrorist group Hamas occurred at virtually the same time that Mustapha was admitted into the FBI Citizens’ Academy sponsored by SAC Grant’s Chicago office. The Academy program required a background check and included a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the FBI Academy at Quantico.

The statements made by SAC Grant were noted in a motion for a protective order filed with the court and noted in a report published by the Investigative Project. The DOJ’s motion states:

In each conversation, SAC Grant stated that Mustapha would not pass an FBI background check if he applied for an FBI chaplain position and then proceeded to explain the bases for his opinion.

The DOJ motion is in response to the lawsuit filed by Mustapha after his state police appointment as Muslim chaplain was revoked. Mustapha had initially been accepted as state police chaplain, but after a news story aired reporting Mustapha’s terrorist connections and terror support, the state police conducted another background check. During this check was apparently when the conversations with SAC Grant took place, which resulted in the state police revoking Mustapha’s appointment. Mustapha then sued, claiming ethnic and religious discrimination, with his case being supported by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has also been identified by the FBI as a terrorist front for Hamas.

...

There’s not much mystery as to why SAC Grant would tell the Illinois State Police that Kifah Mustapha couldn’t pass an FBI background check. Mustapha is a known Hamas operative, including his prior employment with the Holy Land Foundation, which was listed as a specially designated terrorist group by the U.S. government in December 2001, and whose executives were convicted of terrorism support for Hamas in 2008 and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Mustapha was personally named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator (#31) in the case, and employment records submitted during the trial showed that he received more than $154,000 for his work with the Holy Land Foundation between 1996 and 2000.

...

So how exactly did Kifah Mustapha with his extensive terror ties get cleared to participate in the six-week FBI program? That’s precisely the question I asked when I first broke the story last September about Mustapha being given a guided tour of the top-secret NCTC and the FBI Academy. After my initial story was published, one Homeland Security official contacted me informing me not only that “the plugs had to be pulled” in order for Mustapha to be admitted to the FBI program, but that “the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have.”

Mustapha’s terrorist ties are hardly a secret since much of the information available publicly is from FBI agents testifying in court, court and deposition transcripts, and exhibits entered into evidence by federal prosecutors during the largest terrorism financing trial in American history.

But as soon as my report was published, the FBI began to double-down and defend Mustapha’s inclusion in the program. FBI Chicago spokesman Ross Rice told the Washington Times: “If we thought he was a security risk, we wouldn’t have included him.” But we now know from the DOJ’s filing in the lawsuit that SAC Grant thought Mustapha enough of a security threat to repeatedly mention it to his Illinois State Police colleagues.

...

Kifah Mustapha’s lawsuit and the admission by the DOJ about SAC Grant’s statements about Mustapha to the Illinois State Police, along with the FBI’s inclusion of Mustapha in their Citizens’ Academy program, expose the pure schizophrenia that characterizes the U.S. government’s “Muslim outreach” efforts. Time and again we see government agencies knowingly and willingly reaching out to terrorist operatives as official representatives of or interlocutors with the Muslim community (eg., Abdurahman Alamoudi, Anwar al-Awlaki, Louay Safi, et al).

But what we see in this most recent court filing is that what law enforcement and Homeland Security officials are willing to say in private to their colleagues about their “outreach partners” is the exact opposite of what they say when they repeatedly get caught in their own “outreach” traps and begin publicly defending terrorist operatives when asked about it by the media.

It is clearly time for Congress to get to the bottom of the U.S. government’s hopelessly failed and utterly counter-productive Muslim outreach programs that empower and legitimize terrorist operatives like Kifah Mustapha and expose other law enforcement agencies that are unwilling to participate in such duplicity to lawsuits by terrorist fronts masquerading as “civil rights organizations” such as CAIR. The FBI has established mutually exclusive positions on their outreach partner Kifah Mustapha and it is long past time that these agencies are held to account.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/once-a...ach-welcomes-terror-tied-man/?singlepage=true

Can anyone say "Fort Hood Shooter?"

 

[Ishmael]

And why do we need an outreach to begin with?

Has anyone noticed the the majority of those domestic Muslims that were outreached to, the noteworthy, the influential, already had ties to the other side.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Outreach in Pakistan is overshadowed by drone attacks.

 

[eyer]

Confessions of a trained Islamic terrorist
Onetime jihad mercenary describes goals, strategies of Muslim Brotherhood

"He was trained in terror starting at age 7 at a PLO assault camp, learning to know and hate his enemies, was indoctrinated in radical Islam on his mother's knee and studied with his father how to despise Christians and Jews.

"He later dined with Moammar Gadhafi, his website says he served under Yasser Arafat and has Arab royalty in his family tree and he worked as a career mercenary, taking his terror activities worldwide. Ultimately, he was recruited by the Saudi royal family to infiltrate the United States with a campaign of radical Islam."

"Saleem described the process in forming the mind of someone who is willing to do anything for the cause of Islam. One of the details he says most Westerners overlook is that the indoctrination begins at a very early age.

"He has to be willing to give some of his blood. As he is taught from his childhood by his family, and from his family he is indoctrinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the most radical organization on earth as we know it," Saleem said.

"The Muslim Brotherhood indoctrination works our purpose and how we will infiltrate in the future. Then you are unlike any other student that goes to school to learn the ABCs," Saleem said."

~ eyer: So...what put the kink in this pedigreed terrorists' plans? He says some Jew named Jesus...

He also says:

"Saleem explained that the Muslim objectives are more geopolitical than spiritual.

"Our commission was to subdue the world and to bring the whole world under submission of Shariah law, which is the Islamic Constitution," Saleem said.

"Over 64 percent of Shariah law is dedicated to bringing non-Muslims under subjugation to Islam."

~ Yet, elitists here on Lit still choose to mislead by pontificating that there's nothing secular about Islam...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305941

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Juts right-wing fear-mongering because they hate diversity and tolerance...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What is it that radicalizes Muslims, including American Muslims? Is it American foreign policy? Israeli “occupation” of the ancient Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria? Cartoons depicting the warrior-prophet as a warrior? Korans torched by obscure Florida pastors? The life of Osama bin Laden, or, perhaps, his death? Any of a thousand claimed slights, real or imagined, that purportedly provoke young Muslims to “conflagrate” — if we may borrow from the forgiving rationalizations of Faisal Rauf, would-be imam of the would-be Ground Zero mosque?

Here is the unsettling but sedulously avoided truth: What radicalizes Muslims is Islam.

Political correctness requires that we becloud this simple truth with a few caveats that, in most any other context, would be regarded as distractions by sensible people. So it is necessary to say that there is more than one interpretation of Islam. We must further note that the fact that Islam itself is the radicalizing catalyst does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims will become radicals. But here is another disquieting truth: Even the terms “radicalization” and “radical Islam” get things exactly backwards. The reality is that the radicals in Islam are the reformers — the Muslims who embrace Western civilization, its veneration of reason in matters of faith, and the pluralistic space it makes for civil society. What we wishfully call “radicalism” is in fact the Islamic mainstream.

These are the principal takeaways from an important study just competed by Israeli academic Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. As detailed in a just-published Middle East Quarterly essay, “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques” (available here), the authors’ “Mapping Sharia” project surveyed 100 randomly selected mosques across the United States. Onsite, fully 81 percent of the mosques featured Islamic texts that advocate violence. In nearly 85 percent of the mosques, the leadership (usually an imam or prayer leader) favorably recommended this literature for study by congregants. Moreover, 58 percent of the mosques invited guest lecturers known for promoting violent jihad.

Kedar and Yerushalmi sought to study two intimately related sets of correlations. The first focused on sharia, the Islamic system of law that is based primarily on the Koran and the Sunnah (i.e., the words, deeds, and traditions of Mohammed). The authors homed in on observable sharia-compliant behaviors. These are not actions unique to terrorist groups but conduct reflective of the broad consensus of sharia jurisprudence that cuts across the Sunni/Shiite divide — for example, women wearing the hijab or niqab (respectively, the head covering or full-length covering of the entire female form), the segregation of men from women during communal prayer, and the enforcement by imams of the requirement that male worshippers form up in tight, straight lines during mosque prayer.

The survey probed whether there was a statistically significant correlation between these sharia behaviors and the availability at the mosque of “violence-positive” literature. Significantly, although violence pervades Muslim scripture, the authors did not include scripture (the Koran and the Sunnah) in this violence-positive category. Instead, they confined it to “normative and instructive tracts,” because “a believer is free to understand scripture literally, figuratively, or merely poetically,” unless it has become an Islamic norm or a legal obligation through incorporation in sharia.

Thus the focus on violent-positive tracts, which are interpretive of scripture. They were ranked in accordance with their promotion of violence as “severe,” “moderate,” or “nonexistent.” The “severe” is easy enough to spot: It includes tracts that affirmatively call for brutality against non-Muslims (and deviant Muslims) by such 20th-century ideologues as Muslim Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb and his fellow polemicist Abul Awa Mawdudi. Similarly straightforward is literature that does not approve of, much less incite, violence. Most disheartening is the “moderate” category. These are tracts written by widely respected sharia authorities that, though predominantly concerned with “the more mundane aspects of religious worship and ritual,” express “positive attitudes toward violence” — implicitly endorsing it even if they have not incited it in the manner of Qutb and Mawdudi.

The authors found that 51 percent of the mosques featured severely violence-positive literature; an additional 30 percent distributed moderately violent tracts; and 19 percent offered nonviolent materials. What’s more, there was a strong correlation between sharia-compliant behavior and the presence of severely violent (as well as moderately violent) tracts. And while the mosques that were not as sharia-compliant (e.g., mosques that did not segregate the sexes during prayer or enforce straight prayer lines) featured less in the way of violent materials, the percentages of even these mosques that had violence-positive literature on site was disturbingly high. (See Table 2 of the MEQ essay.)

The second, related correlation the study examines is between the presence of violence-positive materials at a given mosque and the recommendation of these materials to worshippers by the mosque’s imam — a direct promotion of violent jihadism. To cut to the chase, if these materials are on site, the imam is nearly always found endorsing them. The more observably sharia-adherent the imam, the more certain this conclusion. For example, 93 percent of imams who sported the traditional full beard were found to recommend violence-positive literature. Nonetheless, more than three-quarters of imams who did not manifest similar indicia of sharia-compliance were still found to endorse the pro-violence literature if it was on site.

Perhaps the most jarring finding in the study involved mosque attendance. As the authors observe, “mosques that contained written materials in the severe category were the best attended, followed by those with only moderate-rated materials, trailed in turn by those lacking such texts.” We are not talking small divergence here: Severe-material mosques were found to have a mean attendance of 118 worshippers at services, while no-violence mosques had 15. The moderate-violence mosques came in around the middle, at 60.

Andrew McCarthy
NRO

 

[off2bed]

Juts right-wing fear-mongering because they hate diversity and tolerance...

No one has yet to answer the question of why liberals, who want to use the police power of government to force everyone to be tolerant and diverse, continually defend and promote the most intolerant group on earth.

 

[eyer]

Warning issued that Islam is coming

Goal is 'grand jihad eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within'

"The Muslim Brotherhood is here specifically to destroy the house of the United States of America and bring about the Islamic House and that's done by the Muslim's hand," Saleem explained.'

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=306853

Dozens of 'incubators' for jihad found in U.S.

'More than 80% of mosques advocate or promote violence'

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308857

Muslim says chopping off hands is 'compassionate'

Advocates Shariah law as standard for all Egyptians

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308793

In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood becomes legitimate party

Group becomes an official political party for the first time since they were outlawed in 1954; can run in September's elections.

The Egyptian official news agency on Tuesday recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate party for the first time since it was outlawed in 1954.

The party was recognized as the Freedom and Justice Party and will be allowed to run in the parliamentary elections scheduled for September, The Associated Press reported.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=224063

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No one has yet to answer the question of why liberals, who want to use the police power of government to force everyone to be tolerant and diverse, continually defend and promote the most intolerant group on earth.

Because where they live, it's a minority and they live to elevate minorities into mainstream status, overlooking the fact that once this particular minority hits critical mass (turning the libs into the minority, which they really are already, they're just vocal and motivated little busybodies...), it tends to eliminate all minorities.
__________________
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis

 

[Ishmael]

Or one can just read up on Black Liberation Theology to see how the proponents of that flavor of religion are lock-stepped with the Muslims, including their view of the US.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, until we defeat my enemy; then we fight it out at Stalingrad...

 

[mercury14]

Wow. You guys are terrified.

 

[Powertone]

Wow. You guys are terrified.

oh no...it's you again

 

[off2bed]

Wow. You guys are terrified.

Yes. Yes, we are.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

 

[Liar]

Yes. Yes, we are.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

A hug and a cookie?

 

[off2bed]

A hug and a cookie?

Awww, gee thanks.

 

[mercury14]

Yes. Yes, we are.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

I'm going to watch you live your life in morbid fear and paranoia while I have a great time.

 

[miles]

No one has yet to answer the question of why liberals, who want to use the police power of government to force everyone to be tolerant and diverse, continually defend and promote the most intolerant group on earth.

Simple: Bizarro World.

 

[mercury14]

Simple: Bizarro World.

Yes good point. The Constitution allows Barney Frank to arrest you unless you love some nice gay ass. I wish it wasn't that way but until they amend that sucker you guys have a point.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Wow. You guys are terrified.

Just like ya'll are...

__________________
Oikophobia

Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' "

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
Roger Scruton, British philosopher