SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (88424)7/31/2010 7:05:57 PM
From: lorne1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
Tim...I pretty much agree with all things you post and read pretty much all of them... however in the post I was responding to I felt that there was a bit of appeasement there, just my perception and may not at all be what you intended. My apology if you were offended. I see islam as a culture more so than a religion, A culture that uses religion as a means to control every aspect of an individuals life.

IMO islam is the greatest threat the free world has ever faced to their way of life.

You said this...
..."Not trying to insult the beliefs of a whole large group (including moderates, and those who aren't moderate but who oppose the violence and force of the Islamo-fascists), both of whoom are subject to attacks from and sometimes oppression by the Islamo-fascists), for the actions of the subset. A tiny perpetrates the violence or is closely affiliated with or orders it, or fairly directly supports it. A modest subgroup provides money or material support less directly without being part of any terrorist group or militia or repressive government. A large subset, but not the whole, endorses at least to a degree the terrorism, opprression and other violence.

What to react with military force, and also police and intelligence operations against the tiny subset? Fine. Police and intel ops against the funders of those groups? Fine. Insults and denunciation of the large group that accepts the ideas and supports the violence of the terrorists and other violent Islamofascists? Well I can see it as justified. But why attack those who are oppressed by such people? Certainly opposing such attacks, or severe insults doesn't even vaguely represent turning the other cheek.
"...

This is somewhat like I was saying should be done in reference to returning insults.

These islamic terrorists do not operate in a vacuum...they have support in every country that they are trying to take over some control. I can only assume they get support from their own kind...this has been proven over and over in USA.

The area I hi-lited above is pretty much what I am talking about...I don't recall any moslum protests in America against islamic terrorism...I do recall many attempts at testing American laws by so called moderates to further islam goals in this part of the free world...The " flying imams " who won their case comes to mind. Little by little the creep continues.

You said this...."
The "Everyone Draw Mohammad Day" idea is a bit better. It doesn't involve destroying anything, and its a direct response to specific threats. Still my thought is "everyone denounce terrorists and Islamo-facists", rather than attacking all members of the faith.
"....

There were a good number of infidels murdered over a few cartoons of mohamed, because of preceived insult to all of islam...." Everyone Draw Mohammad Day " is also an insult to all of islam, maybe even more of an insult than burning a koran.MO islam, all of them MUST understand that they are not better humans than all others who do not believe their barbaric beliefs.

I said this..."IMO. islam, all of them MUST understand that they are not better humans than all others who do not believe their barbaric beliefs."....


Your response..." All of them? All billion to a billion and a half or so? When are you going to get all of any groups that size to share any opinion, other than perhaps "the sun is bright", or "the earth is round", and maybe not even that much."...

I was referring to those in America and the rest of the free world.. Not the billion and a half or so the inhabit part of Planet Earth..perhaps I was not clear on this. In any case I see no humor in your reply...maybe I just got no sense of humor.

What I said..."I think that any means must be used to make islam in the free world understand that if they wish to be accepted as a religion in what is left of the free world they MUST work to stop the killing and terrorism in the name of their religion."....



To: TimF who wrote (88424)7/31/2010 7:09:35 PM
From: lorne  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224729
 
'Indignant' Muslims reject U.S. request to counter extremism

'Indignant' Muslims reject U.S. request to counter violent extremism
Meeting with Napolitano included promise of regular consultations
July 29, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
wnd.com

A series of e-mails from the Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that has warned of a threat from "right-wing extremists" like those worried about national sovereignty, reveals the agency has held a series of meetings with Muslims who apparently rejected the government's request to help counter violent extremism.

The new e-mails were uncovered by Judicial Watch, the government-watchdog organization that hunts down and seeks the prosecution of government corruption.

The e-mails relate to several days of meetings the DHS held Jan. 27-28 between DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and various Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian "community leaders."

What does Islam really have planned for the U.S.? Read "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America"

The e-mails reveal the attendees included Imad Hamad, the Midwest regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who Judicial Watch reported has been documented by investigative reporter Debbie Schlussel as being linked to the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Judicial Watch reported in a 2002 interview on Detroit television Hamad "supported a Palestine Authority TV program that urged children to become suicide bombers, calling the program 'patriotic.'"

Another participant, according to Judicial Watch, was Salam al-Mayarati, who founded the Los-Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. Judicial Watch said al-Mayarati "has long been criticized for his extremist views and statements. In 1999 former House Minority leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., withdrew his nomination of al-Mayarati to the National Commission on Terrorism because of al-Mayarati's extremist politics."

Further, the e-mails show that on Feb. 4 David O'Leary, DHS Office of Legislative Affairs, wrote to David Gersten, acting deputy officer for programs and compliance in the agency's civil-rights division:



"Gordon Lederman of Sen. Lieberman's Staff called me asking about the 2-day HSAC meeting last week with American Muslim and Arab groups. He was called by a reporter who told him (Muslim Public Affairs Council, Islamic Society of North America) and Muslim American Society 'rejected the ideas' of soliciting their help with countering violent extremism and were 'angry and indignant'."

WND calls and e-mails to DHS, asking for an explanation of the e-mail that suggests prominent Muslim groups rejected the government's request for help in minimizing "violent extremism," were not returned.

"Please loop in proper … contacts and call me to discuss," the e-mail from O'Leary said.

Another e-mail in the string noted Napolitano had promised to the various Muslim leaders there would be "community participation" in an antiviolence extremism task force, they would have access to regular, quarterly meetings with her, there would be a seminar on "cultural competency for DHS leadership" and there would be an "honest and full discussion of legitimate grievances from members of these communities about DHS policies that are ineffective and have a deleterious, humiliating impact on Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian American communities. "


Judicial Watch noted one of the groups attending was the Islamic Society of North America, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the federal government in a plot by the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation to fund Hamas.

The report also said an internal DHS "talking points" memo stated, "Communicate that DHS understands the need for enhanced partnership with the Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and Arab groups, including those present at the meeting. … You should note the importance of sharing information from a policy perspective and on threats to specific Muslim, Arab, South Asian and Sikh communities."

"I fail to see how consorting with radicals helps the DHS protect the United States," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Obama administration is bending over backward to cater to radical Muslim organizations in the name of political correctness.

"This is a dangerous political game that could put American citizens at risk. Some of these meeting participants have no business helping Janet Napolitano establish our homeland-security policies," he said.

Among the names of the various lists of attendees were James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, Amardeep Singh of the Sikh Coalition, Deep Iyer of the South Asian Americans, Nawar Shor of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Hamad of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Michigan and Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America.

WND reported earlier when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increased federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. The report singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The April 7, 2009, report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," stated "threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

Earlier in 2009, the Missouri Information Analysis Center issued a report that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. It also warned police to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.

It had listed more than 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials and infrastructure targets.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said police were "instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the North American Union–SPP–North American Community."

The Missouri documents, according to ALIPAC, also said "potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, shortwave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancy novels, and presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin!"

"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by" the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law-enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over-the-top political propaganda distributed by these groups."