CAIR Launches Website Exposing America's 'Islamophobia Network'

[Unkotare]

Truth telling is not hate. .

You got that backwards.

 

[Picaro]

Apparently there are still people out there who think neo-Nazis, and the ultra-rightists who post at Stormfront, are 'anti-Muslim'; they aren't, many of them admire Islamists for the same reasons Hitler did, and they are big fans of Islamist terrorism against Jews. They very much resemble the faux 'Peace Left' and their rabid antisemitism, and cheer on vermin like Hamas, whose money and followers started up CAIR.

More on it here:

Federal Judge Agrees CAIR Tied to Hamas The Investigative Project on Terrorism

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been connected to the terrorist organization Hamas, a federal judge said in a July 2009 ruling unsealed last week.
"The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas," U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009, ruling.

CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) had protested to Solis that they were incorrectly named as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Among the allegations, HLF was accused of having provided more than $12 million to Hamas. After a 2007 mistrial, five former HLF officials convicted on 108 counts, ranging from money laundering to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Following the trial, CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT have argued that their inclusion on the list injured their standing in the community, and their image. They wanted their ties to Hamas removed from the trial records and the list sealed.

Solis agreed the list should not have been made public, saying that doing so violated the Fifth Amendment rights of the listed individuals and organizations. Criticizing the decision to publish the list, the judge explained that CAIR has been subjected to "annoyance, ridicule, scorn, and a loss of reputation in the community." (see the IPTs earlier coverage of the decision to publish the list here).

However, Solis refused to remove references to CAIR and the other groups from the trial record. That's because the government introduced extensive evidence tying CAIR to Hamas. "The public," he wrote, "may make its own judgment from evidence presented at trial."

 

[Mojo2]

Don't suppose the Muslim bashers have stopped a second and considered how their bashing Islam and Muslims is eerily similar to how another government and people bashed another religion ~80 years ago?

That is what is so frightening about the level of hate and the complete rationalization of it. Once you start scapegoating minorities, what is the next step? What can you justify?

We can prevent the scapegoating of Muslims by keeping their numbers in America as small as possible and not enacting special laws just for them.

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

Jihad Watch's Spencer: US Muslims Seek, Get Special Status
Thursday, 04 Sep 2014 04:36 PM

By Sean Piccoli

Muslims in the United States who want to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims have succeeded in getting the federal government to back their demands for special rights and accomodations not available to people of other faiths, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

But saying so gets any critic of attempts to establish Muslim exceptionalism labeled a hater, bigot or racist, Spencer told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.

Story continues below video.


Jihad Watch s Spencer US Muslims Seek Get Special Status

And yet more questionable sources. Jihadwatch? Spencer? Hell - why not use Stormfront?

Ok..let's look at this article against a backdrop of "Muslims get special priveledges".

Spencer pointed to cases across the country in which federal agencies sided with Muslims seeking special privileges at the expense of other Americans' customs, beliefs and employment practices, and he connected those efforts to a larger scheme for Islamist dominance of America.​

Ok...so we're claiming these cases a part of a Islamist domination of America...quite a conspiracy theory stretch no? But this IS Spencer after all.

"The Department of Justice forced the Berkeley school district, right outside Chicago, to pay $75,000 to a Muslim teacher, Safoorah Khan, because she had demanded — as a first-year public school teacher — three weeks off to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca," said Spencer.​

No source was given so I found this article: Suburban School District To Pay Back Safoorah Khan Muslim Teacher Denied Hajj Leave

The following points are made:

IKhan applied for an unpaid leave of absence of 15 days from the McArthur Middle School, where she taught, in order to go on a Hajj to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.​

The district made the argument that she could have gone in the summer - however, the article notes the following:
Islamic scholars said, in response, that delaying her Hajj for a summer trip would have meant a wait of at least a decade, as the date of the annual pilgrimage is guided by the lunar year and changes annually. Further, Sayyid Syeed, who directs interfaith and community affairs for the Islamic Society of North America, explained to Religion News Service that asking a Muslim person to take their pilgrimage in the summer is akin to asking a Christian to celebrate Christmas in July.​

US sues school over denial of Muslim pilgrimage

The government claimed that the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices.​

Lawsuits on behalf of reasonable accommodations for religion are not uncommon, for example:
Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination by the City of Birmingham Ala. Police Department OPA Department of Justice
Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise Pays 40 000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Given the above - what special priveledges are being granted? None. Just reasonable religious accommodation - the same as would be granted to any other religion. What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims as is being claimed?


Spencer also cited other cases, some involving the U.S. government:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Somali Muslims who walked off the job at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska — and were later fired — because they weren't allowed to take prayer breaks on company time.
• A Muslim woman sued Disney in 2012, saying the company wouldn't permit her to wear a hijab, or head scarf, in keeping with her religion, while she worked as a hostess at an Americana-themed Disney restaurant in California.

Again - cases involving "reasonable religious accommodation"
How is that different from:
Biometric Hand Scanner Causes Mark of the Beast Lawsuit Constangy Brooks Smith LLP
Dunkin Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination
Workers May Be Entitled to Time Off for Holidays - Lawyers.com
What special privledges are being granted? What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

Look I don't think you've got enough citations to make this go away. Loyal Americans know that anyone who loves America would not behave as you do. This is the kind of bullshit that tied up Mark Steyn in Canada. They have a name for it, someone please help me here...it's using our laws against us in pursuit of their goal of conquering America right before our very eyes.

History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

by Clare M. Lopez
April 15, 2013 at 5:00 am
History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration."

-- Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called "Arab Spring" is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa'eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region's Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21st century Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da'wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood's international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).​

 

[Mojo2]

You can indulge in all the insincere self-aggrandizing posturing you want, Coyote, but the truth of the matter is that by supporting the agenda of CAIR, you provide the proof that none of these words are true.

CAIR's purpose is to destroy our constitution and turn America into a totalitarian Islamic state. I realize you people try to use the very values we hold dear to try to undermine us, but there are people here who are intelligent enough to see through your game. You use free speech to try to destroy it. You exploit the constitution in order to replace it. You cry "discrimination" awaiting your opportunity to impose it. It's all one gigantic shell game.

Again - who are "you people"?

Please find me a reputable source that indicates this is CAIR's purpose.

I am still waiting for some sort of link to what you claim are my "totalitarian views".

You make a lot of claims about me rather than discussing the topic - which is not me I might add. Yet you never seem to support them other than by providing yet more conjecture about me, my supposed views, my religious views and my totalitarian desires.

CAIR's purpose is to destroy our constitution and turn America into a totalitarian Islamic state. I realize you people try to use the very values we hold dear to try to undermine us, but there are people here who are intelligent enough to see through your game. You use free speech to try to destroy it. You exploit the constitution in order to replace it. You cry "discrimination" awaiting your opportunity to impose it. It's all one gigantic shell game.

Please find me a reputable source that indicates this is CAIR's purpose.

Is there a government cover-up at play?

A 2001 raid in Switzerland unearthed a chilling manifesto now dubbed “The Project,” a detailed Islamic blueprint for infiltrating, subverting and ultimately defeating the U.S. and the West. Today, 80 file boxes worth of evidence submitted during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history to date — including “The Project” documents, are being withheld from the American public by the Department of Justice.

On Wednesday, September 26, TheBlaze documentary unit released the first installment of this chilling two-part series outlining how the current administration has stonewalled repeated requests by Congress to release the disturbing documents and for allowing the Muslim Brotherhood greater entree into American government. Further, the documentary reveals just how close American-Islamic operatives from groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been to subverting the U.S. and Israel.


8216 The Project 8217 Part I 8212 All Totalitarian Ideologies Are Threat to U.S. Video TheBlaze.com​

Glenn Beck? How about a reputable source - not Conspiracy Theory? I can't find any sort of independent confirmation of this from a reputable source.

Where do you get off trying to discredit Glenn Beck?

Pfft.

That's like the only one who we can trust these days.

Certainly more credible and forthcoming with truthful info we need to know about the threat of Islam and Muslims than YOU.

Whatever floats your boat I prefer truth and accuracy over hysteria.

Well you can prefer whatever you wish because loyal Americans will not stand for this.

No, and I think we have been pretty calm until now. Too calm in the face of Muslim Brotherhood's efforts at infiltrating our highest levels of government.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They say Islam is a religion of peace?

Well, it is ONLY true in the sense that when their goal of global conquest is accomplished, and all the world is under Allah's laws rather than man's laws, there will finally be peace.

Brutal religious oppression where killing Gays is expected and stoning adulterers. And honor killings. And female mutilation. And the repression of Women.

And that's just a thumbnail.

What I have always found amazing is how it is so often people who describe themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" who act as chief apologists for this knuckle dragging backwardness. Yes, these attitudes represent such "progress" in civilization, now, don't they? These useful idiots fall for the sort of crap Coyote spews so intentionally only because she and her fellow Islamist propagandists frame any resistance to their agenda as "right wing" If resisting Islamism and all it stands for is "right wing":, then by golly, as right proper left wingers, they will support them. The thinking (if you can call it that) goes no farther than that. Nobody seems to ever get around to asking the question "is what I am supporting really liberal here?" as their knees are jerking so damned automatically, and their political correctness so complete that they allow themselves to become little more than programmable automatons.

Sometimes I think we need some new words to describe political positions. The United States, Canada, Anzac, western Europe and other societies are already liberal. Women are not just brood mares, we have separation of church and state, we have achieved levels of personal freedoms beyond those of ancient societies, and we have embraced actual liberal values. Maybe it is a paradox here, but in order to sustain our way of life we need to CONSERVE these values. These values are under attack from Medieval thugs who seek to undermine all these values and replace them with an anti-humanist creed that seeks to wrench all of humanity back to the dark ages. Why we have lost the ability to say "our way is better than that" is beyond me.


.

 

[Picaro]

Some either can't, or are just too intellectually lazy to make a distinction between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in their heads. They rely on fashion and confirmation bias to tell them what they should believe. Identity politics and simplistic PCness requires little effort, and lets people pretend they're so very very outre, without really trying.

 

[Coyote]

seeking protection under the label of free speech.

and, of course, we all know what you people think of free speech, what with your blasphemy laws and whatnot.

Here you go with "you people" agaiin.

I don't support blasphemy laws. In fact - I don't support the intrusion of religion into government at all. Religion is an individual matter not a governmental matter. It's called separation of church and state.

Free speech. I support your right to spew hate. It's free speech. See how that works?

 

[Coyote]

That is what is so frightening about the level of hate and the complete rationalization of it. Once you start scapegoating minorities, what is the next step? What can you justify?

We can prevent the scapegoating of Muslims by keeping their numbers in America as small as possible and not enacting special laws just for them.

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

Jihad Watch's Spencer: US Muslims Seek, Get Special Status
Thursday, 04 Sep 2014 04:36 PM

By Sean Piccoli

Muslims in the United States who want to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims have succeeded in getting the federal government to back their demands for special rights and accomodations not available to people of other faiths, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

But saying so gets any critic of attempts to establish Muslim exceptionalism labeled a hater, bigot or racist, Spencer told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.

Story continues below video.


Jihad Watch s Spencer US Muslims Seek Get Special Status

And yet more questionable sources. Jihadwatch? Spencer? Hell - why not use Stormfront?

Ok..let's look at this article against a backdrop of "Muslims get special priveledges".

Spencer pointed to cases across the country in which federal agencies sided with Muslims seeking special privileges at the expense of other Americans' customs, beliefs and employment practices, and he connected those efforts to a larger scheme for Islamist dominance of America.​

Ok...so we're claiming these cases a part of a Islamist domination of America...quite a conspiracy theory stretch no? But this IS Spencer after all.

"The Department of Justice forced the Berkeley school district, right outside Chicago, to pay $75,000 to a Muslim teacher, Safoorah Khan, because she had demanded — as a first-year public school teacher — three weeks off to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca," said Spencer.​

No source was given so I found this article: Suburban School District To Pay Back Safoorah Khan Muslim Teacher Denied Hajj Leave

The following points are made:

IKhan applied for an unpaid leave of absence of 15 days from the McArthur Middle School, where she taught, in order to go on a Hajj to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.​

The district made the argument that she could have gone in the summer - however, the article notes the following:
Islamic scholars said, in response, that delaying her Hajj for a summer trip would have meant a wait of at least a decade, as the date of the annual pilgrimage is guided by the lunar year and changes annually. Further, Sayyid Syeed, who directs interfaith and community affairs for the Islamic Society of North America, explained to Religion News Service that asking a Muslim person to take their pilgrimage in the summer is akin to asking a Christian to celebrate Christmas in July.​

US sues school over denial of Muslim pilgrimage

The government claimed that the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices.​

Lawsuits on behalf of reasonable accommodations for religion are not uncommon, for example:
Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination by the City of Birmingham Ala. Police Department OPA Department of Justice
Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise Pays 40 000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Given the above - what special priveledges are being granted? None. Just reasonable religious accommodation - the same as would be granted to any other religion. What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims as is being claimed?


Spencer also cited other cases, some involving the U.S. government:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Somali Muslims who walked off the job at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska — and were later fired — because they weren't allowed to take prayer breaks on company time.
• A Muslim woman sued Disney in 2012, saying the company wouldn't permit her to wear a hijab, or head scarf, in keeping with her religion, while she worked as a hostess at an Americana-themed Disney restaurant in California.

Again - cases involving "reasonable religious accommodation"
How is that different from:
Biometric Hand Scanner Causes Mark of the Beast Lawsuit Constangy Brooks Smith LLP
Dunkin Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination
Workers May Be Entitled to Time Off for Holidays - Lawyers.com
What special privledges are being granted? What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

Look I don't think you've got enough citations to make this go away. Loyal Americans know that anyone who loves America would not behave as you do. This is the kind of bullshit that tied up Mark Steyn in Canada. They have a name for it, someone please help me here...it's using our laws against us in pursuit of their goal of conquering America right before our very eyes.

History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

by Clare M. Lopez
April 15, 2013 at 5:00 am
History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration."

-- Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called "Arab Spring" is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa'eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region's Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21st century Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da'wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood's international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).​

First off - I don't buy into Conspiracy Theories, let's not waste time on that. Let's talk about what can be verified - namely changes in the legal system or laws passed. That's something that we should be able to discuss factually.


WHAT special laws have been inacted just for Muslims?
What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Free speech. I support your right to spew hate. It's free speech. See how that works?

If resisting totalitarianism, barbarity and primitivism is considered hate, then sign me up, please. .

 

[Coyote]

Just a reminder guys - this thread is in the Clean Debate Zone.

The rules are:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

We crossed the line a bit at the beginning of the thread because we did not realize it was located in the CDZ. We are all aware of it now, so please keep the rules in mind.

As always, the Flame Zone is available for less than civil debate.

 

[Mojo2]

We can prevent the scapegoating of Muslims by keeping their numbers in America as small as possible and not enacting special laws just for them.

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

What special laws are inacted "just for them"?

Jihad Watch's Spencer: US Muslims Seek, Get Special Status
Thursday, 04 Sep 2014 04:36 PM

By Sean Piccoli

Muslims in the United States who want to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims have succeeded in getting the federal government to back their demands for special rights and accomodations not available to people of other faiths, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

But saying so gets any critic of attempts to establish Muslim exceptionalism labeled a hater, bigot or racist, Spencer told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.

Story continues below video.


Jihad Watch s Spencer US Muslims Seek Get Special Status

And yet more questionable sources. Jihadwatch? Spencer? Hell - why not use Stormfront?

Ok..let's look at this article against a backdrop of "Muslims get special priveledges".

Spencer pointed to cases across the country in which federal agencies sided with Muslims seeking special privileges at the expense of other Americans' customs, beliefs and employment practices, and he connected those efforts to a larger scheme for Islamist dominance of America.​

Ok...so we're claiming these cases a part of a Islamist domination of America...quite a conspiracy theory stretch no? But this IS Spencer after all.

"The Department of Justice forced the Berkeley school district, right outside Chicago, to pay $75,000 to a Muslim teacher, Safoorah Khan, because she had demanded — as a first-year public school teacher — three weeks off to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca," said Spencer.​

No source was given so I found this article: Suburban School District To Pay Back Safoorah Khan Muslim Teacher Denied Hajj Leave

The following points are made:

IKhan applied for an unpaid leave of absence of 15 days from the McArthur Middle School, where she taught, in order to go on a Hajj to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.​

The district made the argument that she could have gone in the summer - however, the article notes the following:
Islamic scholars said, in response, that delaying her Hajj for a summer trip would have meant a wait of at least a decade, as the date of the annual pilgrimage is guided by the lunar year and changes annually. Further, Sayyid Syeed, who directs interfaith and community affairs for the Islamic Society of North America, explained to Religion News Service that asking a Muslim person to take their pilgrimage in the summer is akin to asking a Christian to celebrate Christmas in July.​

US sues school over denial of Muslim pilgrimage

The government claimed that the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices.​

Lawsuits on behalf of reasonable accommodations for religion are not uncommon, for example:
Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination by the City of Birmingham Ala. Police Department OPA Department of Justice
Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise Pays 40 000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Given the above - what special priveledges are being granted? None. Just reasonable religious accommodation - the same as would be granted to any other religion. What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims as is being claimed?


Spencer also cited other cases, some involving the U.S. government:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Somali Muslims who walked off the job at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska — and were later fired — because they weren't allowed to take prayer breaks on company time.
• A Muslim woman sued Disney in 2012, saying the company wouldn't permit her to wear a hijab, or head scarf, in keeping with her religion, while she worked as a hostess at an Americana-themed Disney restaurant in California.

Again - cases involving "reasonable religious accommodation"
How is that different from:
Biometric Hand Scanner Causes Mark of the Beast Lawsuit Constangy Brooks Smith LLP
Dunkin Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination
Workers May Be Entitled to Time Off for Holidays - Lawyers.com
What special privledges are being granted? What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

Look I don't think you've got enough citations to make this go away. Loyal Americans know that anyone who loves America would not behave as you do. This is the kind of bullshit that tied up Mark Steyn in Canada. They have a name for it, someone please help me here...it's using our laws against us in pursuit of their goal of conquering America right before our very eyes.

History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

by Clare M. Lopez
April 15, 2013 at 5:00 am
History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration."

-- Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called "Arab Spring" is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa'eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region's Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21st century Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da'wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood's international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).​

First off - I don't buy into Conspiracy Theories, let's not waste time on that. Let's talk about what can be verified - namely changes in the legal system or laws passed. That's something that we should be able to discuss factually.


WHAT special laws have been inacted just for Muslims?
What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

The point is not to get bogged down or caught up in ANYTHING which might act to encourage or make it easier for Muslims to feel comfortable in this country where they would make AMERICA their base of operations for global conquest instead of Afghanistan.

Now parse, dissect or dispute that.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Apparently there are still people out there who think neo-Nazis, and the ultra-rightists who post at Stormfront, are 'anti-Muslim'; they aren't, many of them admire Islamists for the same reasons Hitler did, and they are big fans of Islamist terrorism against Jews. They very much resemble the faux 'Peace Left' and their rabid antisemitism, and cheer on vermin like Hamas, whose money and followers started up CAIR.

I have been on boards where it is almost comical how neo-nazis can arrive and start discussing Middle Eastern issues and the leftists are falling all over each other in agreement until they find out they are agreeing with a Nazi. Only when the Nazi is actually labeled as such do they offer any of their insincere protestations to the contrary. They believe the same things, but only the way they label themselves differ.

Since this thread was designed to promote the interests of Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, though, the one agenda they have above all else is to make criticism of Islam impossible. These charges of "Islamophobia" are but the first step, where they seek to create a conditioned response where valid criticism of their ideology is met with immediate charge of racism. Just looking at how I have been accused of "hatred", have been accused here of being a white supremacist, and other accusations that have the stamp of the Muslim Brotherhood all over it.

Once they can establish that any resistance to their agenda is the stuff of racism, they are then allowed to operate more extensively, and create conditions where any criticism of not just their ideology, but their actions are racist. They have progressed this far in Britain, where the British have been so cowed into submission that they will offer up their children to sexual exploitation rather than face charges that they are "hateful" and a "white supremacist". Once they engineer the host society to that point, they start creating no-go zones for natives, force submission to sharia, and continue the process.

It'a all about going from point A -- liberal, western democracy and ending up at point Z -- Islamist theocracy. Right now, we might only be at point b or c, but if these Muslim Brotherhood's spokespeople can convince us that rejecting Islamism is a "phobia", is "hateful" and makes a person a "white supremacist", then they have succeeded in getting us to point d or e.

 

[Mojo2]

Apparently there are still people out there who think neo-Nazis, and the ultra-rightists who post at Stormfront, are 'anti-Muslim'; they aren't, many of them admire Islamists for the same reasons Hitler did, and they are big fans of Islamist terrorism against Jews. They very much resemble the faux 'Peace Left' and their rabid antisemitism, and cheer on vermin like Hamas, whose money and followers started up CAIR.

I have been on boards where it is almost comical how neo-nazis can arrive and start discussing Middle Eastern issues and the leftists are falling all over each other in agreement until they find out they are agreeing with a Nazi. Only when the Nazi is actually labeled as such do they offer any of their insincere protestations to the contrary. They believe the same things, but only the way they label themselves differ.

Since this thread was designed to promote the interests of Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, though, the one agenda they have above all else is to make criticism of Islam impossible. These charges of "Islamophobia" are but the first step, where they seek to create a conditioned response where valid criticism of their ideology is met with immediate charge of racism. Just looking at how I have been accused of "hatred", have been accused here of being a white supremacist, and other accusations that have the stamp of the Muslim Brotherhood all over it.

Once they can establish that any resistance to their agenda is the stuff of racism, they are then allowed to operate more extensively, and create conditions where any criticism of not just their ideology, but their actions are racist. They have progressed this far in Britain, where the British have been so cowed into submission that they will offer up their children to sexual exploitation rather than face charges that they are "hateful" and a "white supremacist". Once they engineer the host society to that point, they start creating no-go zones for natives, force submission to sharia, and continue the process.

It'a all about going from point A -- liberal, western democracy and ending up at point Z -- Islamist theocracy. Right now, we might only be at point b or c, but if these Muslim Brotherhood's spokespeople can convince us that rejecting Islamism is a "phobia", is "hateful" and makes a person a "white supremacist", then they have succeeded in getting us to point d or e.

Great post!

 

[Coyote]

They say Islam is a religion of peace?

Well, it is ONLY true in the sense that when their goal of global conquest is accomplished, and all the world is under Allah's laws rather than man's laws, there will finally be peace.

Brutal religious oppression where killing Gays is expected and stoning adulterers. And honor killings. And female mutilation. And the repression of Women.

And that's just a thumbnail.

What I have always found amazing is how it is so often people who describe themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" who act as chief apologists for this knuckle dragging backwardness. Yes, these attitudes represent such "progress" in civilization, now, don't they? These useful idiots fall for the sort of crap Coyote spews so intentionally only because she and her fellow Islamist propagandists frame any resistance to their agenda as "right wing" If resisting Islamism and all it stands for is "right wing":, then by golly, as right proper left wingers, they will support them. The thinking (if you can call it that) goes no farther than that. Nobody seems to ever get around to asking the question "is what I am supporting really liberal here?" as their knees are jerking so damned automatically, and their political correctness so complete that they allow themselves to become little more than programmable automatons.

Sometimes I think we need some new words to describe political positions. The United States, Canada, Anzac, western Europe and other societies are already liberal. Women are not just brood mares, we have separation of church and state, we have achieved levels of personal freedoms beyond those of ancient societies, and we have embraced actual liberal values. Maybe it is a paradox here, but in order to sustain our way of life we need to CONSERVE these values. These values are under attack from Medieval thugs who seek to undermine all these values and replace them with an anti-humanist creed that seeks to wrench all of humanity back to the dark ages. Why we have lost the ability to say "our way is better than that" is beyond me.


.

What is really liberal.

One of the best analysis I've read to date is this: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr - it's a long read. The difference between fundamentalists (who are a species of conservatives) and liberals.

Fundamentalism's conservative impulse wants stability in societies. Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances.
​

Most people make no distinction between "Islamism" and Islam. The pretend to, but it comes out in their arguments that they see little distinction. They paint most if not all Muslims as extremists and, if not that, than the inference is that they tacitly approve extremism and just better at hiding their inner beast. This argument really comes into play when discussion comes around to Muslims in western countries and the US where people simply can not conceive that they might indeed VALUE our cultural values because they are of that culture. It's easier (and lazier) to draw the lines of exclusion and suspician around them than given them even a nod of acceptance.

Those who argue from this perspective will also turn on anyone who attempts to argue for inclusion over exclusion by attacking the persons motives or attributing positions that that person has not taken. For example: they support terrorists, they support abusive treatment of women, they support abusive treatment of children, they support the abusive treatment of homosexuals, in other words if you defend against the broad brushing of an entire faith or point out the problems with some of the arguments, you thus condone or support all the negative aspects of some of those cultures.

A person can see a religion and recognize that there are things in that culture that need to change and work to change those things without demonizing the entire religion and it's followers around the world. There are many people within Islam trying to reconcile their religion with a modern view of women, human rights and increased tolerance - yet they haven't renounced their faith. They are still Muslims who see the need to reform their religion and are doing it, regardless of the danger to themselves. That is how reform occurs. That is how it occurred in Christianity. Our own heritage in the treatment of women is nothing to be proud of. We got to where we are through the bravery of women fighting and going to jail or being committed to mental institutions to finally get beyond the status of "property". Yet, are we damning Christianity for this or pushing for progress?

In my opinion, liberals do not broadbrush religions - excluding them from our definition of humanity based on the actions of that groups extremists. Liberals see people as individuals and judge them on their individual actions. They see where change needs to happen and the fight for that change - even at the cost of reputation, livelyhood or lives. Whether it's women's rights, the rights of children to get an education and not be forceably married as young teens, the rights of homosexuals to live openly, hold a job, marry, adopt children; it's those rights and those actions that a fought for - not the putting down of an entire faith because a person is too ignorant to learn.

Islam is a complicated religion, like Christianity or Judaism (I'm sticking to the Abrahamic faiths here). There are things which tie all Muslims together and differences which divide them. It's easy to condemn Muslims for female circumcision or honor killings as whole than it is to realize that there is nothing in the Quran or Hadith's that endorse either of those activities. It's easy to simply lump them into the religion even though honor killings occur among non-Muslim people in certain cultures, and do not occur among Muslims in other cultures. Same with female circumcision which is endemic amongst certain African cultures and pre-dates the incursion of Islam into Africa.

So what do liberals do? They condemn the barbaric practices. They work to change the culture, to educate, to change people's views of this practice - to end it.

Is Islam built upon conquest and violence? No more than any other religion. The Bible, particularly the OT, is full of genocide, murder, killing unbelievers etc. There is no mitigation in the wrath and no rules of war. Like the Bible, the Quran is also full of admonitions to treat people justly, forge peace, and religious tolerance. Both Christianity and Islam share a heritage of conversion through conquest and religious intolerance. If you read it - without just going to anti-Muslim website and cut and pasting selective quotes out of context - you can see that. Followers of a faith take from that faith what they feel is right and intertwine it with their culture. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Not every Christian is a fundamentalist. Not every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Transformation and reformation are always possible and they are begun with individuals within that faith who love that faith and see the need to bring new meaning to it. It is not brought about by Conspiracy Theories, demonizing, or excluding a group from our definition of humanity because that path leads to scapegoating and if a group is sufficiently small it becomes easy to justify removing their civil rights or constitutional protections by redefining them.

So who is the real liberal? Someone who hates the person or someone who hates the act? Someone who seeks to destroy the faith or someone who seeks to change the faith?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is really liberal.

?

I will guarantee you, it isn't a long cut and paste offered to try to fool people into thinking a long established pattern of supporting Islamist behavior is anything but what it is, or that the agenda being promoted in this specific thread is anything but an attempt to create the illusion that resisting an anti-humanist political agenda is the stuff of racism.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

Promoting this organization does not a liberal make, even if the Muslim Brotherhood spokespeople operating on the internet want us to think so.

 

[Mojo2]

They say Islam is a religion of peace?

Well, it is ONLY true in the sense that when their goal of global conquest is accomplished, and all the world is under Allah's laws rather than man's laws, there will finally be peace.

Brutal religious oppression where killing Gays is expected and stoning adulterers. And honor killings. And female mutilation. And the repression of Women.

And that's just a thumbnail.

What I have always found amazing is how it is so often people who describe themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" who act as chief apologists for this knuckle dragging backwardness. Yes, these attitudes represent such "progress" in civilization, now, don't they? These useful idiots fall for the sort of crap Coyote spews so intentionally only because she and her fellow Islamist propagandists frame any resistance to their agenda as "right wing" If resisting Islamism and all it stands for is "right wing":, then by golly, as right proper left wingers, they will support them. The thinking (if you can call it that) goes no farther than that. Nobody seems to ever get around to asking the question "is what I am supporting really liberal here?" as their knees are jerking so damned automatically, and their political correctness so complete that they allow themselves to become little more than programmable automatons.

Sometimes I think we need some new words to describe political positions. The United States, Canada, Anzac, western Europe and other societies are already liberal. Women are not just brood mares, we have separation of church and state, we have achieved levels of personal freedoms beyond those of ancient societies, and we have embraced actual liberal values. Maybe it is a paradox here, but in order to sustain our way of life we need to CONSERVE these values. These values are under attack from Medieval thugs who seek to undermine all these values and replace them with an anti-humanist creed that seeks to wrench all of humanity back to the dark ages. Why we have lost the ability to say "our way is better than that" is beyond me.


.

What is really liberal.

One of the best analysis I've read to date is this: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr - it's a long read. The difference between fundamentalists (who are a species of conservatives) and liberals.

Fundamentalism's conservative impulse wants stability in societies. Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances.
​

Most people make no distinction between "Islamism" and Islam. The pretend to, but it comes out in their arguments that they see little distinction. They paint most if not all Muslims as extremists and, if not that, than the inference is that they tacitly approve extremism and just better at hiding their inner beast. This argument really comes into play when discussion comes around to Muslims in western countries and the US where people simply can not conceive that they might indeed VALUE our cultural values because they are of that culture. It's easier (and lazier) to draw the lines of exclusion and suspician around them than given them even a nod of acceptance.

Those who argue from this perspective will also turn on anyone who attempts to argue for inclusion over exclusion by attacking the persons motives or attributing positions that that person has not taken. For example: they support terrorists, they support abusive treatment of women, they support abusive treatment of children, they support the abusive treatment of homosexuals, in other words if you defend against the broad brushing of an entire faith or point out the problems with some of the arguments, you thus condone or support all the negative aspects of some of those cultures.

A person can see a religion and recognize that there are things in that culture that need to change and work to change those things without demonizing the entire religion and it's followers around the world. There are many people within Islam trying to reconcile their religion with a modern view of women, human rights and increased tolerance - yet they haven't renounced their faith. They are still Muslims who see the need to reform their religion and are doing it, regardless of the danger to themselves. That is how reform occurs. That is how it occurred in Christianity. Our own heritage in the treatment of women is nothing to be proud of. We got to where we are through the bravery of women fighting and going to jail or being committed to mental institutions to finally get beyond the status of "property". Yet, are we damning Christianity for this or pushing for progress?

In my opinion, liberals do not broadbrush religions - excluding them from our definition of humanity based on the actions of that groups extremists. Liberals see people as individuals and judge them on their individual actions. They see where change needs to happen and the fight for that change - even at the cost of reputation, livelyhood or lives. Whether it's women's rights, the rights of children to get an education and not be forceably married as young teens, the rights of homosexuals to live openly, hold a job, marry, adopt children; it's those rights and those actions that a fought for - not the putting down of an entire faith because a person is too ignorant to learn.

Islam is a complicated religion, like Christianity or Judaism (I'm sticking to the Abrahamic faiths here). There are things which tie all Muslims together and differences which divide them. It's easy to condemn Muslims for female circumcision or honor killings as whole than it is to realize that there is nothing in the Quran or Hadith's that endorse either of those activities. It's easy to simply lump them into the religion even though honor killings occur among non-Muslim people in certain cultures, and do not occur among Muslims in other cultures. Same with female circumcision which is endemic amongst certain African cultures and pre-dates the incursion of Islam into Africa.

So what do liberals do? They condemn the barbaric practices. They work to change the culture, to educate, to change people's views of this practice - to end it.

Is Islam built upon conquest and violence? No more than any other religion. The Bible, particularly the OT, is full of genocide, murder, killing unbelievers etc. There is no mitigation in the wrath and no rules of war. Like the Bible, the Quran is also full of admonitions to treat people justly, forge peace, and religious tolerance. Both Christianity and Islam share a heritage of conversion through conquest and religious intolerance. If you read it - without just going to anti-Muslim website and cut and pasting selective quotes out of context - you can see that. Followers of a faith take from that faith what they feel is right and intertwine it with their culture. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Not every Christian is a fundamentalist. Not every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Transformation and reformation are always possible and they are begun with individuals within that faith who love that faith and see the need to bring new meaning to it. It is not brought about by Conspiracy Theories, demonizing, or excluding a group from our definition of humanity because that path leads to scapegoating and if a group is sufficiently small it becomes easy to justify removing their civil rights or constitutional protections by redefining them.

So who is the real liberal? Someone who hates the person or someone who hates the act? Someone who seeks to destroy the faith or someone who seeks to change the faith?

You need to be telling this to YOUR people.

If you love America you would not want it to be subjected to what you know is not a happy future.

You are pushing us to war in the streets of America.

Lots of innocent Muslims will be killed in such a war.

But it would be terrible for the US.

And that's just ONE possible scenario.

Tell us what kind of future you imagine for the USA?

 

[Mojo2]

What is really liberal.

?

I will guarantee you, it isn't a long cut and paste offered to try to fool people into thinking a long established pattern of supporting Islamist behavior is anything but what it is, or that the agenda being promoted in this specific thread is anything but an attempt to create the illusion that resisting an anti-humanist political agenda is the stuff of racism.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

Promoting this organization does not a liberal make, even if the Muslim Brotherhood spokespeople operating on the internet want us to think so.

Go man, GO!

 

[Coyote]

What is really liberal.

?

I will guarantee you, it isn't a long cut and paste offered to try to fool people into thinking a long established pattern of supporting Islamist behavior is anything but what it is, or that the agenda being promoted in this specific thread is anything but an attempt to create the illusion that resisting an anti-humanist political agenda is the stuff of racism.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

Promoting this organization does not a liberal make, even if the Muslim Brotherhood spokespeople operating on the internet want us to think so.

What long cut and paste? Those were my words and beliefs.


Thank you for posting that article.

You are no humanist or you would support the exposing of hate groups over supporting hate groups.

 

[Coyote]

They say Islam is a religion of peace?

Well, it is ONLY true in the sense that when their goal of global conquest is accomplished, and all the world is under Allah's laws rather than man's laws, there will finally be peace.

Brutal religious oppression where killing Gays is expected and stoning adulterers. And honor killings. And female mutilation. And the repression of Women.

And that's just a thumbnail.

What I have always found amazing is how it is so often people who describe themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" who act as chief apologists for this knuckle dragging backwardness. Yes, these attitudes represent such "progress" in civilization, now, don't they? These useful idiots fall for the sort of crap Coyote spews so intentionally only because she and her fellow Islamist propagandists frame any resistance to their agenda as "right wing" If resisting Islamism and all it stands for is "right wing":, then by golly, as right proper left wingers, they will support them. The thinking (if you can call it that) goes no farther than that. Nobody seems to ever get around to asking the question "is what I am supporting really liberal here?" as their knees are jerking so damned automatically, and their political correctness so complete that they allow themselves to become little more than programmable automatons.

Sometimes I think we need some new words to describe political positions. The United States, Canada, Anzac, western Europe and other societies are already liberal. Women are not just brood mares, we have separation of church and state, we have achieved levels of personal freedoms beyond those of ancient societies, and we have embraced actual liberal values. Maybe it is a paradox here, but in order to sustain our way of life we need to CONSERVE these values. These values are under attack from Medieval thugs who seek to undermine all these values and replace them with an anti-humanist creed that seeks to wrench all of humanity back to the dark ages. Why we have lost the ability to say "our way is better than that" is beyond me.


.

What is really liberal.

One of the best analysis I've read to date is this: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr - it's a long read. The difference between fundamentalists (who are a species of conservatives) and liberals.

Fundamentalism's conservative impulse wants stability in societies. Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances.
​

Most people make no distinction between "Islamism" and Islam. The pretend to, but it comes out in their arguments that they see little distinction. They paint most if not all Muslims as extremists and, if not that, than the inference is that they tacitly approve extremism and just better at hiding their inner beast. This argument really comes into play when discussion comes around to Muslims in western countries and the US where people simply can not conceive that they might indeed VALUE our cultural values because they are of that culture. It's easier (and lazier) to draw the lines of exclusion and suspician around them than given them even a nod of acceptance.

Those who argue from this perspective will also turn on anyone who attempts to argue for inclusion over exclusion by attacking the persons motives or attributing positions that that person has not taken. For example: they support terrorists, they support abusive treatment of women, they support abusive treatment of children, they support the abusive treatment of homosexuals, in other words if you defend against the broad brushing of an entire faith or point out the problems with some of the arguments, you thus condone or support all the negative aspects of some of those cultures.

A person can see a religion and recognize that there are things in that culture that need to change and work to change those things without demonizing the entire religion and it's followers around the world. There are many people within Islam trying to reconcile their religion with a modern view of women, human rights and increased tolerance - yet they haven't renounced their faith. They are still Muslims who see the need to reform their religion and are doing it, regardless of the danger to themselves. That is how reform occurs. That is how it occurred in Christianity. Our own heritage in the treatment of women is nothing to be proud of. We got to where we are through the bravery of women fighting and going to jail or being committed to mental institutions to finally get beyond the status of "property". Yet, are we damning Christianity for this or pushing for progress?

In my opinion, liberals do not broadbrush religions - excluding them from our definition of humanity based on the actions of that groups extremists. Liberals see people as individuals and judge them on their individual actions. They see where change needs to happen and the fight for that change - even at the cost of reputation, livelyhood or lives. Whether it's women's rights, the rights of children to get an education and not be forceably married as young teens, the rights of homosexuals to live openly, hold a job, marry, adopt children; it's those rights and those actions that a fought for - not the putting down of an entire faith because a person is too ignorant to learn.

Islam is a complicated religion, like Christianity or Judaism (I'm sticking to the Abrahamic faiths here). There are things which tie all Muslims together and differences which divide them. It's easy to condemn Muslims for female circumcision or honor killings as whole than it is to realize that there is nothing in the Quran or Hadith's that endorse either of those activities. It's easy to simply lump them into the religion even though honor killings occur among non-Muslim people in certain cultures, and do not occur among Muslims in other cultures. Same with female circumcision which is endemic amongst certain African cultures and pre-dates the incursion of Islam into Africa.

So what do liberals do? They condemn the barbaric practices. They work to change the culture, to educate, to change people's views of this practice - to end it.

Is Islam built upon conquest and violence? No more than any other religion. The Bible, particularly the OT, is full of genocide, murder, killing unbelievers etc. There is no mitigation in the wrath and no rules of war. Like the Bible, the Quran is also full of admonitions to treat people justly, forge peace, and religious tolerance. Both Christianity and Islam share a heritage of conversion through conquest and religious intolerance. If you read it - without just going to anti-Muslim website and cut and pasting selective quotes out of context - you can see that. Followers of a faith take from that faith what they feel is right and intertwine it with their culture. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Not every Christian is a fundamentalist. Not every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Transformation and reformation are always possible and they are begun with individuals within that faith who love that faith and see the need to bring new meaning to it. It is not brought about by Conspiracy Theories, demonizing, or excluding a group from our definition of humanity because that path leads to scapegoating and if a group is sufficiently small it becomes easy to justify removing their civil rights or constitutional protections by redefining them.

So who is the real liberal? Someone who hates the person or someone who hates the act? Someone who seeks to destroy the faith or someone who seeks to change the faith?

You need to be telling this to YOUR people.

Who are MY people.

If you love America you would not want it to be subjected to what you know is not a happy future.

Exactly. That's why I argue the positions I do. I love my country and my Constitution. It works, despite the best efforts of some.

You are pushing us to war in the streets of America.

Hyperbole much?

Lots of innocent Muslims will be killed in such a war.

Hence, the need to fight the senseless fearmongering and demonizing that is reminiscent of the anti-semitism of the 1930's.

But it would be terrible for the US.

Indeed.

And that's just ONE possible scenario.

There is never just ONE possible scenario

Tell us what kind of future you imagine for the USA?

A future much like the present with less fear mongering.

Now...back to the questions on your claims, which you keep dodging:

WHAT special laws have been inacted just for Muslims?
What Islamic law is being imposed on non-Muslims?

 

[Mojo2]

What ever you say dude. One thing is quite clear. You have no genuine interest in a real exchange of ideas and that is apparent from your postings across the board. You continuously accuse me of positions and beliefs I do not have and then fail to find anything I've said to support those accusations. You don't address the points made nor do you adhere to the spirit of civil discourse. Instead you engage in cheap shots. I can not change your beliefs, but I can choose to recognize when it is a waste of time and a person is not interested in a free exchange of ideas. Good day.

How do you have a truly free exchange of ideas when one person represents an almost literally unstoppable force determined to disrupt your government, your lifestyle and your life and deprive you the freedoms you were born with?

That precludes any other discussion in my world.

The movers and shakers of Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood, are intent upon bringing harm and chaos to America.

We can't tell who is a loyal Muslim to Islam or who is loyal to America.

We either pretend you are all not a threat and become victims of our folly.

Or we assume we can't tell which ones are dangerous and which ones aren't and so we keep all of you to a minimum number possible in America and save ourselves the riots and deaths we see in the streets of Europe, Great Britain and just yesterday, Canada.

And no more Mosque building.

What else is there to discuss?