26
   

San Bernardino shooting: At least 14 people killed

 
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 04:16 pm
This conspiracy against CAIR and it's organizational brethren is so bad that they are even using bribed "uncle tom" muslims as stooges, eh?

Quote:
In the days following the Dec. 2 attack in San Bernardino, Council for American-Islamic Relations representatives partially blamed U.S. policy for terrorist attacks, accused gunman Syed Rizwan Farook’s co-workers of making fun of his beard and sought to downplay comments by Farook’s father linking him to ISIS.

"CAIR has a strategy of delegitimizing U.S. government counter-terrorism operations, often distributing articles that make it sound as if the War on Terror is manufactured by the FBI and a Zionist/anti-Muslim conspiracy machine," said Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, a New York-based nonprofit that monitors Islamic terrorism. "They reflexively cast doubt on the agency, rather than the terrorism suspect, almost every single time that an arrest is announced."

“CAIR’s information is marketed and packaged so it seems that they speak for all of us, but they don’t speak for me and my group,” said Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. “CAIR does not and has never represented the majority Muslim voices which are as diverse as Muslims in America.”

The Muslim Reform Movement rebukes violent jihad, advocates for a separation of “mosque and state," and celebrates individual freedom, human rights and gender equality, and secular democracy, according to its founders, who also reject the idea of an Islamic State and its Sharia Law.

“We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism,” read a statement from the group.

“We want to wake up the 85 to 90 percent of Muslims in the U.S. who are sitting at home, who don’t go to mosques, but love their religion,” Jasser said.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/20/dont-speak-for-me-new-muslim-groups-reject-cair-representation.html
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 07:34 pm
See what I'm sayin? They could only round up a total four, that's right, a measly four, muslims to commit this blasphemy. I'm sure they will soon get the punishment they deserve for their traitorous acts. NO self-respecting muslim would EVER renounce jihad. Don't be fooled by the four stooges, eh?


Quote:
Muslims in the West must step up and admit terrorism is rooted in extremist Islam, said four Muslim panelists.

They criticized major U.S. Muslim groups that lament such tragedies but say their religion is not responsible. They insisted the violence has roots in Islam, and that Islamist political terror is nurtured in Saudi Arabia’s strict Wahhabi branch of the faith.

“Terror is a Muslim issue, an Islamic issue within the house of Islam,” said M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, “and we must own it” to fight it. He moderated the event held at the Heritage Foundation, which had been planned after the Paris attacks.

Thursday, the finger of blame was pointed directly at Saudi Arabia, which the panelists said stands on strict Quranic literalism. This takes a seventh-century view of unbelievers, women and minorities that allows for terror, murder and deprivation of human rights, they agreed.

President Obama decried the deaths and pledged a thorough investigation of the attack but cautioned against setting blame based on the killers’ Muslim names.

She mocked the way that the administration responds to attacks. Rather than calling in progressive Muslim leaders in U.S civil society, she said: “They call in imams and they hold an interfaith event and they are all happy."


http://gazette.com/own-it-terrorism-is-an-islamic-issue-say-some-muslims/article/1564981

Now here's a true muslim, eh:?

Quote:
The Muslim deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan says she has "no reason to say sorry" for Islamic terrorism.

"As an American Muslim, I am consistently and aggressively asked — by media figures, religious leaders, politicians and Internet trolls — to condemn terrorism to prove my patriotism. I emphatically refuse."

I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated by psychopaths who misrepresent and distort Islam for their deranged purposes.

Calls for condemnation serve only zealots who will never be satisfied. They thrive and profit off of the fear-mongering, hate and violence generated by othering and silencing an entire community who has lived and contributed to our nation since its founding. The first Muslims in the United States were brought over bound as slaves...

Asking us to apologize for violence that has orphaned generations of Muslims has the perverse effect of re-victimizing us by erasing our humanity and experiences. There is no other acceptable scenario in which the media, politicians and even our president would urge and expect victims to apologize publicly and rout out the ideology that contributed to their own persecution."


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/muslim-aclu-director-i-emphatically-refuse-condemn-terrorism

VICTIMIZED, sho nuff.

You're reap what you sow, suckers.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 10:38 pm
What did I tell ya? One big-ass conspiracy, sho nuff:

Quote:
CAIR's Great FBI Scare Lecture

A recent "Know Your Rights" presentation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) New York chapter set a new standard of fomenting fear and distrust among Muslim Americans toward law enforcement.

The FBI out to get Muslims - and its agents are willing to lie and break the law to do it - an attorney and CAIR-New York board member told the audience.

Muslims should never talk to FBI agents who might approach them, she said. "And if they come to your home," she advised, "sneak out." That's because law enforcement officials will threaten, lie and even break the law to set up Muslims, she said.

"It's very important to not speak to law enforcement of any type, not just FBI agents. We're talking about New York Police Department, we're talking about tax agents, we're talking about everybody."

"They will do anything, anything within their power and oftentimes beyond their power to get you to talk," Deek said. "They will threaten you. OK? I've had one case where they tried to blackmail my client, I mean blackmail, seriously blackmail; that's illegal. But they'll do it."

CAIR officials insist they support the FBI and have been helpful in investigations. The "Know Your Rights" seminars merely seek to reinforce every American's right to "constitutionally informed cooperation with law enforcement."

That was their argument in January, after the group's San Francisco chapter posted a flyer on its website of a skulking agent roaming a neighborhood as doors slammed shut. "Build a Wall of Resistance," the flier said. "Don't Talk to the FBI."

Zahra Billoo, director of the San Francisco chapter that published the "wall of resistance" flier said the FBI "is creating these huge terror plots where they don't exist."


http://www.investigativeproject.org/2845/cair-great-fbi-scare-lecture

See, these plots don't even exist! There's the proof right there. But I don't think they need to waste their time telling muslims to stonewall the authorities. All good muslims already know that, don't they?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2015 11:05 pm
Quote:
“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

“Islam has always been part of America”

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

“I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

"we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"

“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer."


All quotes from Barack Hussein Obama. Times are changing, chumps. Get used to it, eh?


farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2015 11:12 pm
@layman,
I can recall when they wanted to run all Italians and Japanese to ground.(That followed the time hen we wanted to kill the Irish)
We never seem to evolve into anything more "Christian" an yet we tout what Christians stand for.
See any contradictions?
Wanna drive my trucks through em?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2015 11:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
We never seem to evolve into anything more "Christian" an yet we tout what Christians stand for.


Well, all that's gunna change, Farmer, not to worry. We will have a theocracy which strictly enforces the laws set down by the Prophet.

Quote:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 11:18 am
APPLE DEFIES COURT ORDER, REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH FBI DEMAND
http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/apple-refuses-fbi/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_81da9685d44d458c86b851d670c3108f
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 11:23 am
@edgarblythe,
This is going to be a landmark case on privacy. The outcome might affect us all.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 02:52 pm
@snood,
Yeah, this is, to me anyway, a big deal. At this point I see both sides.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 02:54 pm
@ossobuco,
I'm kinda leaning toward those that are saying that federal law enforcement just wants to use this very high profile case to give them a backdoor to access widespread surveillance. On everybody.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 03:01 pm
One viewpoint:


Robert Reich
2 hrs ·
Today Apple announced it will oppose an order from a U.S. federal judge requiring the company to create a new version of iOS that would give the FBI access to encrypted iPhone data in order to assist its investigation of the San Bernardino shootings. Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company believes such a "backdoor" for law enforcement is an “overreach by the U.S. government” that “would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”
I don't know whether Cook is right, but I do know it’s not for him or for Apple to make this call. Cook has no special insight into how this nation should balance its need for security with our protected freedoms (in fact, Apple has been quite loose with the privacy rights of Americans when it’s stood to make a commercial gain.) A federal judge has already struck that balance and decided Apple should comply with the FBI’s request.
If Apple wants to appeal that decision, that’s its right. But I wish it would hold the grandstanding. (And that goes for Donald Trump, too, who's criticizing Apple for not complying -- an interesting twist on the usual conservative position that the private sector always knows best.)
What do you think?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 03:02 pm
@snood,
I see your point, for sure. I'm inclined for no too, wondering re consequences over time, re both the feds and hackers from afar or near... but also worry re missing out on various malefactors the San Bernardino people talked with. Still seems quite a precedent if it flies.

I guess I don't know the mechanics of encryption, not having been interested myself, and I haven't really followed what websites need to provide to the Feds, etc.
So, I'll be reading.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 03:06 pm
@edgarblythe,
That was my first reaction, and may still be my view in the end. Presently my views are skittering along, arguing with each other.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 03:11 pm
@ossobuco,
Me too Spanky :-)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 03:20 pm
@snood,
I'm with Apple on this (but given what the forensic auditors tell me, the info can be accessed if people/companies/governments are willing to put the time and money into it).
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 04:02 pm
@ossobuco,
My "Me Too" was in response to you saying you'd be reading.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 04:09 pm
@snood,
Gotcha.
Do we have a gang yet?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 05:02 pm
This comes down to whether or not you are willing to accept the harm that is associated with a specific case in order to protect a broader right.

It's not a simple question, and anyone who thinks it is can't imagine a situation where they might be clamoring for the suspension of a right, because it serves their interests.

Unfortunately many of the people arguing for Apples position will be the very first ones to criticize the government if there is a terrorist attack that in some way hits home for them.

I don't trust the government to use power it seizes only for our good. I'm with Apple.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 05:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Me too. I don't trust that dang gubmint. Well, I don't in this case, for sure.
Jamie B
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2016 06:43 pm
Its really bad when I hear things like this on the news I am not even suprised anymore.. and that is scary.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Was an Assault gun used? - Question by PUNKEY
Guns are your friend - Discussion by dyslexia
CJHSA Surfaces! - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 09:41:31