[roberto]

Rollback the Muslim Brotherhood
Center for Security Policy | Aug 30, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

In recent weeks, we have been put on notice repeatedly: Absent a fundamental course correction, America will go the way of Europe and others before it, succumbing to an insidious totalitarian doctrine known as shariah whose purpose, in the words of its prime practitioners - the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) - is to "destroy Western civilization from within."

Hurricanes, earthquakes and fiscal crises are preoccupations of the moment. Unless we heed the warnings being issued by three of our most brilliant strategic thinkers, Mark Steyn, Bat Ye'or and Andrew McCarthy, however, we risk an irreversible national calamity.

Each of these authors has published in the past month powerful alarums about the steady erosion of the West's societies, governing institutions and freedoms at the hands of shariah's adherents and their enablers on the left.

Mark Steyn released After America: Get Ready for Armaggedon, a much-awaited sequel to his best-seller, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. Bat Ye'or - who popularized the terms "Eurabia" and "dhimmitude" to describe what is befalling the Europeans at the hands of those seeking, in accordance with shariah, tosubjugate all non-believers as enslaved "dhimmis" - published Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate. And just last week, Andy McCarthy, author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, wrote a brilliant column for National Review Online, "Losing Malmo, and Brussels and Rome and Amsterdam."

A consistent theme of these three important works is that we run grave risks in taking for granted the permanence of a world order dominated by liberal democracies and led by the United States. Yet, we are doing so even as evidence accumulates that Islamists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood and the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), are making steady strides towards their goal of establishing a new, transnational order. They would have it take the form of a global "Caliphate," in which the world will be ruled in accordance with shariah.

Sounds crazy? It may be. But if history teaches us anything, it is that determined, disciplined and ruthless people can do incalculable harm to others in the pursuit of crazy, supremacist goals.

What is truly crazy, though, is the role being played today by "progressive" elites that doing today what they have done in the face of totalitarians of the past: facilitating the latters' frightening ambitions. I have had the privilege of interviewing each of these three authors over the past few weeks on Secure Freedom Radio and the message could not be more clear: We persist in such behavior at our extreme peril.

Of particular concern is the corrosive effect of the phenomenon known by such names as "transnationalism," "multiculturalism" and "globalization." For many in Europe, it has become effectively a new religion, contributing to the precipitous decline of Christianity. To paraphrase Karl Marx, this post-modern, post-national program provides a kind of opiate that numbs the masses to the dangers of acquiescing to the Muslim Brotherhood's "civilization jihad."

European nations are now increasingly reaping the whirlwind thus sown. Of particular concern are what are known as "no-go zones" - areas where the authorities dare not enter. These are becoming increasingly common across the continent and in the U.K. as Muslim-populated enclaves apply shariah law and drive out those who do not conform. These zones are the direct result of accommodations made in the name of "diversity" and "sensitivity" to Islamic religio-cultural norms, read the supremacist doctrine of shariah. European leaders are beginning publicly to renounce such practices but their governments have yet to act accordingly.

Make no mistake. If we fail to heed the warnings of Mark Steyn, Bat Ye'or and Andy McCarthy, a similar fate awaits us. Already, the U.S. government has been engaged in serial acts of appeasement of Muslim Brotherhood fronts and other shariah-adherents. These include: a Director of National Intelligence who admits to relying on such groups to provide "advice, counsel and wisdom" about "extremists" in their midst; White House direction that all government-funded counter-terrorism training will be conducted in accordance with direction of a Department of Homeland Security deeply compromised by the Brotherhood; a new Obama "strategy" for local law enforcement that requires "partnering" with what amount to enemy front organizations; and a Hillary Clinton-engineered initiative with the OIC aimed at curbing expression that can have negative "consequences" for Muslims.

In the face of such folly, Members of Congress and private citizens are striving not merely to halt these and other examples of reckless official "engagement" with the Muslim Brotherhood; they are beginning to roll back the MB. With the leadership of two freshmen congressmen, Reps. John Duncan (R-SC) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the House of Representatives has adopted amendments aimed at denying any taxpayer funding to the Brotherhood. These and similar initiatives by citizens across the nation are being profiled at a new website sponsored by the Center for Security Policy: TheRollback.org. Their stories serve as a powerful inspiration and as impetuses for similar efforts by others.

It is past time for Americans to awaken to the danger posed by shariah and its adherents. We can no longer ignore the inroads made by these forces into Western civilization's European flank. And we certainly cannot delude ourselves into believing that our homeland will remain immune from their predations as long as we persist in the same sorts of appeasement that havebrought our friends and allies across the Atlantic to their present, parlous state.



Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
http://www.centerfor....org/p18806.xml

[Kamasatti]

The lack of any evidence to support any of Bat Ye'or's conspiracy theories that Gaffney promotes, is typical, as the theories he peddles, are more about promoting an agenda, than they are about accurately presenting all the related facts.

Bat Ye’or: Anti-Muslim Loon with a Crazy Conspiracy Theory Named “Eurabia”

[roberto]

Kamasatti, on 01 September 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

The lack of any evidence to support any of Bat Ye'or's conspiracy theories that Gaffney promotes, is typical, as the theories he peddles, are more about promoting an agenda, than they are about accurately presenting all the related facts.

Bat Ye’or: Anti-Muslim Loon with a Crazy Conspiracy Theory Named “Eurabia”

Don’t waste your time looking up this reference, the site is Loonwatch, in other words Loony, which is what he long tedious article is

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 02 September 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Don’t waste your time looking up this reference, the site is Loonwatch, in other words Loony, which is what he long tedious article is

The only "long, tedious article" that is "loony" is the one written by Frank Gaffney Jr. that you posted, since it promotes "loony" conspiracy theories such as "Eurabia" and other related nonsense. It has no regard for the facts, nor for substantiating any of it. The only meaning it has, is to the dopes who have already believed in that nonsense beforehand, and since they've already believed in it, the article is therefore completely redundant, and ultimately meaningless.

So congratulations, Mr. Roboto, on posting another worthless, redundant, Islamophobic piece of factually bankrupt propaganda. I wonder if you can top this one with your next one.

[roberto]

Kamasatti, on 02 September 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

The only "long, tedious article" that is "loony" is the one written by Frank Gaffney Jr. that you posted, since it promotes "loony" conspiracy theories such as "Eurabia" and other related nonsense. It has no regard for the facts, nor for substantiating any of it. The only meaning it has, is to the dopes who have already believed in that nonsense beforehand, and since they've already believed in it, the article is therefore completely redundant, and ultimately meaningless.

So congratulations, Mr. Roboto, on posting another worthless, redundant, Islamophobic piece of factually bankrupt propaganda. I wonder if you can top this one with your next one.

You have used approximately 100 words to say, you consider the article I posted was loony, yours was not:how boring can one be

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 03 September 2011 - 07:25 AM, said:

You have used approximately 100 words to say, you consider the article I posted was loony, yours was not:how boring can one be

Correction, I've used approximately 100 words to demonstrate how the article is Islamophobic propaganda. You, however, have used more than 20 words to say that I'm "boring". One of these responses (mine) is on topic, while the other (yours) is not.

[roberto]

Kamasatti, on 04 September 2011 - 02:22 AM, said:

Correction, I've used approximately 100 words to demonstrate how the article is Islamophobic propaganda. You, however, have used more than 20 words to say that I'm "boring". One of these responses (mine) is on topic, while the other (yours) is not.

you have not demostrated that the article is Islamophobic propaganda

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 05 September 2011 - 05:00 AM, said:

you have not demostrated that the article is Islamophobic propaganda

But I have, as I've pointed out the obvious fact that it promotes paranoid, Islamophobic conspiracy theories, such as "Eurabia", and the idea that Muslims are working secretly to take over the world and impose Islamic law on everyone. Since the article promotes such Islamophobia, that therefore makes it "Islamophobic propaganda".

[roberto]

Kamasatti, on 05 September 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

But I have, as I've pointed out the obvious fact that it promotes paranoid, Islamophobic conspiracy theories, such as "Eurabia", and the idea that Muslims are working secretly to take over the world and impose Islamic law on everyone. Since the article promotes such Islamophobia, that therefore makes it "Islamophobic propaganda".

Islamophobic is the fear of Islam , undoubably there are many people in the West who have this fear, now you have to prove that they don't or it is not just propaganda


As to Islamic law there are unofficial shariah courts operate in the UK and it’s a fact that many Muslims would like to see this introduce.

The article is an exaggeration but some of the points made are real.

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 06 September 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:

Islamophobic is the fear of Islam , undoubably there are many people in the West who have this fear, now you have to prove that they don't or it is not just propaganda

Because the article promotes this irrational fear of Islam (Islamophobia), it is therefore Islamophobic propaganda.

Quote

As to Islamic law there are unofficial shariah courts operate in the UK and it’s a fact that many Muslims would like to see this introduce.

There are Jewish courts as well that operate in the UK, that deal with civil issues, and are quite legal when all the parties involved agree to it, and it isn't really any different with any Islamic courts. The only thing Muslims would want is the same kind of official recognition that is afforded to the Jewish courts.

Quote

The article is an exaggeration but some of the points made are real.

I'm glad that you are able to recognize that it is an exaggeration. The points about the Muslim Brotherhood might have some basis in reality, but that's it.

[roberto]

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1315333716' post='448450']

Quote

Because the article promotes this irrational fear of Islam (Islamophobia), it is therefore Islamophobic propaganda.

You now condition the fear as irrational, prove it

Quote

There are Jewish courts as well that operate in the UK, that deal with civil issues, and are quite legal when all the parties involved agree to it, and it isn't really any different with any Islamic courts. The only thing Muslims would want is the same kind of official recognition that is afforded to the Jewish courts.

The existence of the Beth Din dose not reassure people that shariah courts should be allowed

Quote

I'm glad that you are able to recognize that it is an exaggeration. The points about the Muslim Brotherhood might have some basis in reality, but that's it.

Yes, since unlike you i can view article objectively

I note you dismiss all bar those relating to the Muslim Brotherhood, but you have not justified that.

I suggest you read the my post "How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?" it will help you understand the situation providing you can be objective, this i very much doubt

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 06 September 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

You now condition the fear as irrational, prove it

It is irrational, because it's based on the unjustified paranoia of "Eurabia" and "Islamic Shariah".

Quote

The existence of the Beth Din dose not reassure people that shariah courts should be allowed

The existence of the Beth Din justifies the existence of Shariah courts, because both would basically function in the same way for the same purpose. It is therefore, only personal bias that would cause the acceptance of one but not the other.

Quote

Yes, since unlike you i can view article objectively

You can view them objectively when you want to, and you don't always do so. Furthermore, your idea of "objectivity" is whatever agrees with your views, and is therefore subjective.

Quote

I note you dismiss all bar those relating to the Muslim Brotherhood, but you have not justified that.

I have justified it by pointing out its obvious lack of evidence to support what it says.

Quote

I suggest you read the my post "How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?" it will help you understand the situation providing you can be objective, this i very much doubt

I've already read it. It is nothing more than a poorly-attempted "rationalization" of a "witch-hunt" against Muslims, and I am in the process of replying to it.

[roberto]

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1315346948' post='448480']

Quote

It is irrational, because it's based on the unjustified paranoia of "Eurabia" and "Islamic Shariah".

Now you have to justfy "unjustified paranoia"

Quote

The existence of the Beth Din justifies the existence of Shariah courts, because both would basically function in the same way for the same purpose. It is therefore, only personal bias that would cause the acceptance of one but not the other.

Not so there should only one law, allowing Beth Din was mistake and should not be repeated

Further more the aim for those advocating sharia law go far beyond the practises carried out by the Beth Din

Quote

You can view them objectively when you want to, and you don't always do so. Furthermore, your idea of "objectivity" is whatever agrees with your views, and is therefore subjective.

Well even that exceeds your capability

Quote

I have justified it by pointing out its obvious lack of evidence to support what it says.

pathetic

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 07 September 2011 - 05:41 AM, said:

Now you have to justfy "unjustified paranoia"

I already have.

Quote

Not so there should only one law, allowing Beth Din was mistake and should not be repeated

That is a matter of opinion, and is besides the point, since "Beth Din" and Sharia court would still function the same way. It should ultimately be up to the individuals involved whether they want to settle an issue privately, or in a civil court.

Quote

Further more the aim for those advocating sharia law go far beyond the practises carried out by the Beth Din

No it doesn't, as the goal is simply to allow the option of Islamic sharia in certain civil issues (ex: marriage).

Quote

Well even that exceeds your capability

No it doesn't, since my capabilities are beyond yours.

Quote

pathetic

Not really, since evidence is fairly important in terms of justification. I would expect you to at least know that much.

[roberto]

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1315409950' post='448533']

Quote

I already have.

show me where

Quote

]That is a matter of opinion, and is besides the point, since "Beth Din" and Sharia court would still function the same way. It should ultimately be up to the individuals involved whether they want to settle an issue privately, or in a civil court


No it doesn't, as the goal is simply to allow the option of Islamic sharia in certain civil issues (ex: marriage

).

There are laws relating to domestics dispute and courts to deal with dispute, other laws and certainly the sort of backward laws likely to be applied by sharia courts should not be allowed, for instance Sunni practice requires no witnesses, and allows a husband to end a relationship by saying the triple talaq.

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 07 September 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

show me where

The lack of evidence justifies it.

Quote

There are laws relating to domestics dispute and courts to deal with dispute, other laws and certainly the sort of backward laws likely to be applied by sharia courts should not be allowed, for instance Sunni practice requires no witnesses, and allows a husband to end a relationship by saying the triple talaq.

There are also "out-of-court" settlements with regards to disputes, and if both parties voluntarily choose this method (regardless of what it is), they can do so.

[roberto]

Kamasatti, on 07 September 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Quote

The lack of evidence justifies it.

A pathetic and stupid reply to "Now you have to justfy "unjustified paranoia"

Quote

There are also "out-of-court" settlements with regards to disputes, and if both parties voluntarily choose this method (regardless of what it is), they can do so.

since that does not use any law , it has no bearing on the discussion

Kamasatti your post leads me to wonder if you are okay?

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 10 September 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

A pathetic and stupid reply to "Now you have to justfy "unjustified paranoia"

On the contrary, it is a very appropriate reply to "Now you have to justify 'unjustified paranoia'", since the lack of evidence justifies it being labeled as "unjustified paranoia"

Quote

since that does not use any law , it has no bearing on the discussion

It has bearing, if those involved agreed to use a law in an "out-of-court" settlement.

Quote

Kamasatti your post leads me to wonder if you are okay?

You seem to have been wondering about that for quite some time, Mr. Roboto, and it hardly seems appropriate, given your position.

[roberto]

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1315758391' post='449043']

Quote

On the contrary, it is a very appropriate reply to "Now you have to justify 'unjustified paranoia'", since the lack of evidence justifies it being labeled as "unjustified paranoia"

How silly you claim 'unjustified paranoia' and then you tell me I have to jiustify it

Quote

It has bearing, if those involved agreed to use a law in an "out-of-court" settlement.

An "out of court settlement" does not require any law to be invoked

[Kamasatti]

roberto, on 12 September 2011 - 09:49 AM, said:

How silly you claim 'unjustified paranoia' and then you tell me I have to jiustify it

How strange it is that you claim that I'm telling you to justify my claim when clearly, I am not. Do you have reading comprehension problems or are you trying to avoid addressing my actual response?

Quote

An "out of court settlement" does not require any law to be invoked

That's besides the point, since even if it doesn't require it, any law can still be invoked in it, if all of those involved agree to it.