How to keep young people from turning to ISIS?

[LiNK666]

Have your read the subject title??? If you start a subject white people can't dance and smell like baloney I will be there too

The reason why we have anti-hate speech laws

More good news.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-kidnaps-70-christians-syria-reports-article-1.2127048

The reason why we need Superman.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Bump for some more controversy.......

Jen Psaki on Islamic State abduction of 150 Christians: It’s ‘evil,’ but it’s not Islamic


Obama’s State Department called the kidnapping of 150 Christian women and children an act of “evil,” but pointed out that most terror victims have been Muslims.

They. just. can’t. stop.

Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it. (Ayn Rand)

The Islamic State has been slaughtering Christians because they are Christians. Whether it is on a beach in Libya or a town in Nigeria or the CAR, Chad, Niger, Iraq, the Philippines, Thailand — they are following the religious imperative to “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Quran 2:191).

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki is either clueless or complicit, but in any case, she is utterly wrong. According to the Islamic State and Islamic law, ISIS are not killing “Muslims.” The Sunni group does not consider Shia Muslims to be true Muslims — they are heretics, much the same way that secular Muslims or Ahmadiyya Muslims are. Under the sharia (Islamic law), the crimes of heresy and apostasy are punishable by death. ISIS is purifying the Islamic State in these bloody purges.

All of this blood and carnage is in the cause of Islam.

In fact, the idea that the Sunni-Shi’ite divide, which is 1,400 years old and goes all the way back to the murky origins of Islam, is something that can without undue difficulty be “overcome” is a sterling manifestation of the general superficiality of Washington’s analysis of the Middle East, during both the Bush and the Obama administrations.

Unbeknownst to the analysts and policymakers who have influenced Washington policy for decades now, the Sunni-Shi’ite divide cannot be bridged by negotiations, or by bribes (“aid”), or by anything but the full surrender of one group to the other — which is not going to happen. This is because the divide has enough roots in each side’s differing understandings of Islam for hardliners in both camps to label the other “unbelievers,” and thus people who can lawfully be killed.

Islamic tradition holds that after Muhammad died (which is supposed to have happened in 632 AD), the Muslim community chose his companion Abu Bakr to succeed him as caliph, or successor of Muhammad as the military, political and spiritual leader of the Muslims. But one group among them thought that the leadership belonged by right to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of his first followers, and after him to a member of the prophet’s household.

Ali finally did become caliph after Abu Bakr had been succeeded by two other companions of Muhammad, Umar and Uthman, but was assassinated only a few years later. Then in the year 680, his son Hussein was killed in battle with the caliph Yazid I at Karbala in Iraq, and the split between those who believed that the caliph should be the best man in the community (the Sunnis) and those who believed the Muslims should be led by a relative of Muhammad (the Shi’ites) became formal, bitter and everlasting.

There is not much doctrinal difference between the two camps, but since each believes that the other has departed from the truth of Islam, and each (particularly the Shi’ites) nurses centuries-old grudges over ancient wrongs done to them, this split is not going to be “overcome.”

But the Obama administration refuses reality and continues to churn out its own version of what it wants Americans to believe. Why one reporter doesn’t challenge them on the facts is astonishing. Not one reporter has not pointed to the Sunni vs. Shia war in the Muslim world — that’s what Psaki is erroneously referring to here.


Jen Psaki on Islamic State abduction of 150 Christians: It’s ‘evil,’ but most terror victims Muslims

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times – Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The U.S. Department of State slammed the reported Islamic State siege of several Syrian villages and subsequent abduction of 150 Christian men, women and children, calling it an act of “evil” and insisting such violence needs to stop — but that most terror victims have been Muslims.

The department also fell shy of labeling the terror attack and kidnapping as rooted in anti-Christian sentiment, suggesting it was simply one of several that the Islamic State had conducted against those of all faiths — especially Muslims.

“ISIL’s latest targeting of a religious minority is only further testament to its brutal and inhumane treatment of all those who disagree with its divisive goals and toxic beliefs,” said U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, Agence France-Presse reported. “ISIL continues to exact its evil upon innocents of all faiths and the majority of its victims have been Muslims.”

Ms. Psaki also said that the United States was fully committed “to leading the international coalition to degrade and defeat ISIL and to working towards a negotiated political solution that stops the bloodshed and secures a future of freedom, justice and dignity for all Syrians,” she said, AFP reported.

The problem is not just the Islamic State but all Islamic groups waging jihad

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/en-p....c9fKyJC5.dpuf

 

[griff2]

Bump for some more controversy.......

"Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958)[5] is an American blogger, author, political activist,[6] and commentator.[1] She is known primarily for her criticism of Islam and opposition to Islamic activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.[7] Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic[8] or Islamophobic.[1] She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country. She is described as a critic of radical Islam[9] and self-described as opposing political Islam.[1]"

 

[Snobike Mike]

"Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958)[5] is an American blogger, author, political activist,[6] and commentator.[1] She is known primarily for her criticism of Islam and opposition to Islamic activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.[7] Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic[8] or Islamophobic.[1] She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country. She is described as a critic of radical Islam[9] and self-described as opposing political Islam.[1]"

Yep, she has a backbone and doesn't just accept everything Islam and their supports want to force-feed the world.

Having said that, She should probably be beheaded for being a critic of Islam..........

 

[CruisnGrrl]

This is a free country. If someone wants to go overseas and join ISIS, I say let 'em. If they've been brainwashed into that mentality then we don't need them in this country anyway. Maybe if social media documents such people being chewed up and spit out over there, the message will get across in this country that this might not be such a good idea.

I agree, they can turn in their passports and be sent (at their expense) to a country that will take them.

 

[mimico_polak]

I agree, they can turn in their passports and be sent (at their expense) to a country that will take them.

Fully agree. What burns me is people that go to these war torn countries, and then beg and complain that Canada won't help them leave when it's not the end all be all that they were expecting.

You went to whatever country of your own free will....why should we bail you out when it doesn't work out?

EDIT:

Curious to see if they actually identified the right person here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...dentified-as-brit-from-well-to-do-family.html

 

[griff2]

Yep, she has a backbone and doesn't just accept everything Islam and their supports want to force-feed the world.

Having said that, She should probably be beheaded for being a critic of Islam..........

Spine? She tends to associate with the most hard right wing and anti-immigration (non-white immigration that is) groups imaginable in the US. She has been banned from Britain for promoting hate groups. It takes some doing to be banned from entry to Britain. I wouldn't be using her as a poster child for rational unbiased commentary.

"In May 2013, the Jewish Defense League of Canada invited Pamela Geller to speak in Toronto, Canada. Initially, Geller was invited by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan to speak at Chabad@Flamingo. Because Kaplan was a chaplain with the York Regional Police, the police's Hate Crimes Unit stated that Kaplan's invitation conflicted with "our long-held position of inclusivity". Kaplan consequently uninvited Geller, and she spoke at the Toronto Zionist Centre.[SUP][24][/SUP]She is a supporter of the English Defence League (EDL) saying: "I share the EDL's goals ... We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west."[SUP][25][/SUP] In June 2013, Geller was scheduled to speak at an EDL rally,[SUP][6][/SUP] but was barred from entering Britain by a Home Office ruling that describes her as having established "anti-Muslim hate groups".[SUP][8][/SUP] Cited as evidence for the ban were statements categorizing al-Qaeda as "a manifestation of devout Islam" and stating that jihad requires Jews as an enemy.[SUP][26][/SUP] "

 

[Snobike Mike]

Spine? She tends to associate with the most hard right wing and anti-immigration (non-white immigration that is) groups imaginable in the US. She has been banned from Britain for promoting hate groups. It takes some doing to be banned from entry to Britain. I wouldn't be using her as a poster child for rational unbiased commentary.

"In May 2013, the Jewish Defense League of Canada invited Pamela Geller to speak in Toronto, Canada. Initially, Geller was invited by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan to speak at Chabad@Flamingo. Because Kaplan was a chaplain with the York Regional Police, the police's Hate Crimes Unit stated that Kaplan's invitation conflicted with "our long-held position of inclusivity". Kaplan consequently uninvited Geller, and she spoke at the Toronto Zionist Centre.[SUP][24][/SUP]She is a supporter of the English Defence League (EDL) saying: "I share the EDL's goals ... We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west."[SUP][25][/SUP] In June 2013, Geller was scheduled to speak at an EDL rally,[SUP][6][/SUP] but was barred from entering Britain by a Home Office ruling that describes her as having established "anti-Muslim hate groups".[SUP][8][/SUP] Cited as evidence for the ban were statements categorizing al-Qaeda as "a manifestation of devout Islam" and stating that jihad requires Jews as an enemy.[SUP][26][/SUP] "

Well then off with her head then right?

And PS, could she be right about Islam?

 

[griff2]

Well then off with her head then right?

And PS, could she be right about Islam?

She can keep her head.

She's known as being an extremist hate-monger. That sort of colours just about everything she says. If you want to reference recognized extremist hate-mongers to validate your personal opinions, that's up to you.

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

She can keep her head.

She's known as being an extremist hate-monger. That sort of colours just about everything she says. If you want to reference recognized extremist hate-mongers to validate your personal opinions, that's up to you.

Whatever happened to challenging the message, not attacking the messenger?

I have no idea who this blogger you guys are referring to is, and I don't care, but the piece that was posted above seemed coherent and made some sense.

Is the piece that Snobike Mike quoted wrong in some way? Or is only wrong because you don't like who said it?

 

[Snobike Mike]

Whatever happened to challenging the message, not attacking the messenger?

I have no idea who this blogger you guys are referring to is, and I don't care, but the piece that was posted above seemed coherent and made some sense.

Is the piece that Snobike Mike quoted wrong in some way? Or is only wrong because you don't like who said it?

Bingo. Standard tactic, attack the messenger and avoid the message.

Let's try this one on for size:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/mus...to-president-obama-from-a-former-muslim.html/

PS, note that death threat response in the video part way down in the comments. Yup, tolerant religion of peace........

 

[griff2]

Whatever happened to challenging the message, not attacking the messenger?

I have no idea who this blogger you guys are referring to is, and I don't care, but the piece that was posted above seemed coherent and made some sense.

Is the piece that Snobike Mike quoted wrong in some way? Or is only wrong because you don't like who said it?

The message is often intrinsically tied to the biases of the messenger.

Would you even begin to consider an opinion on racial relations if it were to be given by good old Adolph or some clown wearing a KKK costume? Would you given any shrift at all to an argument in middle east race relations where it to be given by former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or by thankfully dead Meir Kahane?

Geller is little different in mindset. Her extremism casts huge doubts how even-handed her claims are, and make her an extremely unreliable source of considered opinion.

So yes, this extremist messenger should be attacked or at least isolated, just as her extremist counterparts on the anti-West side should be attacked. They are two sides of the same foul coin.

 

[griff2]

Bingo. Standard tactic, attack the messenger and avoid the message.

Let's try this one on for size:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/mus...to-president-obama-from-a-former-muslim.html/

PS, note that death threat response in the video part way down in the comments. Yup, tolerant religion of peace........

So you equate a death threat from an individual as representing the mindset of all other individuals who happen to share a religion?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that such extrapolation is irrational. You can find similar death threats against any individual or groups of people originating from individuals associated with just about every ethnic and religious group there is.

 

[Snobike Mike]

The message is often intrinsically tied to the biases of the messenger.

Would you even begin to consider an opinion on racial relations if it were to be given by good old Adolph or some clown wearing a KKK costume? Would you given any shrift at all to an argument in middle east race relations where it to be given by former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or by thankfully dead Meir Kahane?

Geller is little different in mindset. Her extremism casts huge doubts how even-handed her claims are, and make her an extremely unreliable source of considered opinion. So yes, this extremist messenger should be attacked, just as her extremist counterparts on the anti-West side should be attacked.

So if it's raining outside and Geller says so. would you leave your umbrella at home because you feel she's a nutter?

Can you only write about topics to which you love and/or support?

Should any critic be silenced then? (or beheaded?)

Is it possible that it's her critics that are actually painting a broad brushed extremist perspective only to justify avoiding her critical message?

Back to her message, is there anything in there at all of value?

How about the video I posted? Should his message flawed/discredited because he's ex-muslim?

 

[Snobike Mike]

So you equate a death threat from an individual as representing the mindset of all other individuals who happen to share a religion?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that such extrapolation is irrational. You can find similar death threats against any individual or groups of people originating from individuals associated with just about every ethnic and religious group there is.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you didn't even watch the original video but are instead deflecting yet again........

 

[griff2]

So if it's raining outside and Geller says so. would you leave your umbrella at home because you feel she's a nutter?

Can you only write about topics to which you love and/or support?

Should any critic be silenced then? (or beheaded?)

Is it possible that it's her critics that are actually painting a broad brushed extremist perspective only to justify avoiding her critical message?

Back to her message, is there anything in there at all of value?

How about the video I posted? Should his message flawed/discredited because he's ex-muslim?

Geller is a recognized nutter when it comes to Muslims, so anything she says on THAT topic is unreliable. She is so much a nutter that even Britain won't allow her into that country, and is so much a nutter that York Region Police would not let their chaplain be associated with an event featuring her.

You seem awfully intent on defending her and relying on her opinions What does that say about you?

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

The message is often intrinsically tied to the biases of the messenger.

Would you even begin to consider an opinion on racial relations if it were to be given by good old Adolph or some clown wearing a KKK costume? Would you given any shrift at all to an argument in middle east race relations where it to be given by former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or by thankfully dead Meir Kahane?

Geller is little different in mindset. Her extremism casts huge doubts how even-handed her claims are, and make her an extremely unreliable source of considered opinion.

So yes, this extremist messenger should be attacked or at least isolated, just as her extremist counterparts on the anti-West side should be attacked. They are two sides of the same foul coin.

Sorry, once again, I don't agree.

I read what is in front of me and judge the piece for what it is... not what the writer might have said or done before.

There are a lot of writers out there that I can agree with pieces they put out even though I know I don't agree with everything they stand for. Two examples that come straight to mind are:

1) Christopher Hitchens -- I like nearly everything the guy wrote on atheism. I am on the same page as him there. I completely disagree with his political leaning. He is a described as a socialist and very left orientated. I am a conservative atheist.

2) David Suzuki -- I can read his biology related stuff and can relate to it. As for the man, I despise Suzuki. I think he is a childish spoiled brat and huge hypocrite, but that doesn't make me discredit everything he has ever written.

 

[griff2]

Sorry, once again, I don't agree.

I read what is in front of me and judge the piece for what it is... not what the writer might have said or done before.

There are a lot of writers out there that I can agree with pieces they put out even though I know I don't agree with everything they stand for. Two examples that come straight to mind are:

1) Christopher Hitchens -- I like nearly everything the guy wrote on atheism. I am on the same page as him there. I completely disagree with his political leaning. He is a described as a socialist and very left orientated. I am a conservative atheist.

2) David Suzuki -- I can read his biology related stuff and can relate to it. As for the man, I despise Suzuki. I think he is a childish spoiled brat and huge hypocrite, but that doesn't make me discredit everything he has ever written.

Hitchens and Suzuki are broadly respected in their respective fields and speak with balanced consideration to a wide range of matters. Geller is known strictly as a single-issue nutbar hate-monger, and that makes anything she produces biased and unreliable.

 

[Zoodles95]

I agree, they can turn in their passports and be sent (at their expense) to a country that will take them.

Careful... Griff2 will lump you in with Geller as an Islamophobe...

 

[griff2]

Careful... Griff2 will lump you in with Geller as an Islamophobe...

I agree with her on that point. If someone wants to go abroad and fight for ISIS, or for the Kurds, or becomes mercenaries of any persuasion for that matter, let them turn in their passports.