Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

Again, there is no single "sharia law". There are various ideas about what "sharia law" means. The problem is not American citizens who believe that Muslim traditions should govern their marriage, but rather an entire country to which we sell weapons that spreads its ideology around the world. Most American Muslims won't agree that Sharia has anything to do with most of the things you think are included in Sharia.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

Again, there is no single "sharia law". There are various ideas about what "sharia law" means. The problem is not American citizens who believe that Muslim traditions should govern their marriage, but rather an entire country to which we sell weapons that spreads its ideology around the world. Most American Muslims won't agree that Sharia has anything to do with most of the things you think are included in Sharia.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

Here is what Gingich said:

"We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported."

With your extensive studies of Islam, I'm sure you can explain why this is not derogatory or anti-American. Do you believe that support for "thought crimes" has a place in America?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

Again, there is no single "sharia law". There are various ideas about what "sharia law" means. The problem is not American citizens who believe that Muslim traditions should govern their marriage, but rather an entire country to which we sell weapons that spreads its ideology around the world. Most American Muslims won't agree that Sharia has anything to do with most of the things you think are included in Sharia.

Thank you. I've studied Islamic history extensively. What Newt is calling out sounds a lot like the Shariah interpretation exported by SA and also Iran (Bahai persecution).. I dont see anything derogatory about saying there's no place for this in the United States .

"But, if you believe in sharia, and genuinely believe in it, if you think that gays and lesbians ought to be killed, if you think that Christians and Jews and Baha’i and others ought to either submit or be killed, we have a lot of disagreement,” Gingrich said. “If you want to support terrorist movements with money, with recruitment, with propaganda, then you’re our enemy. .”

jsteele wrote:Here is some pure speculation on my part. I've noticed that in several recent attacks, the perpetrators were fairly important members of the terrorist cells. I believe one of the Brussels bombers was described as an important bomb maker and one of the Istanbul attackers was a high-level recruiter. I could be mistake because I'm going by memory and I haven't memorized all the details of these attacks, but I think this is correct. The truck today is said to contain bomb-making material and weapons. Maybe that was a sort of headquarters/weapons cache and, instead of using an apartment, the cell was working out of a truck? In that scenario, the bomb-making material and weapons were not intended to be used in today's attack. Rather, for whatever reason, the attacker decided it was no longer useful to maintain the weapons cache.

If I am correct about all of this -- and I admit I am likely wrong -- it would mean that ISIS is running out of cannon fodder and is being forced to rely on more valuable assets for attacks. If that is the case, I suspect the organization has almost depleted its resources. You don't have your bomb-maker blow himself up if you are hoping for him to make more bombs. Similarly, you don't destroy your weapons cache unless that cache is no longer needed.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward to 2016, and the main players have transformed because of time and oil wealth. The royal family has grown from a group of scrappy desert dwellers into a sprawling clan awash in palaces and private jets. The Wahhabi establishment has evolved from a puritan reform movement into a bloated state bureaucracy.

It consists of universities that churn out graduates trained in religious disciplines; a legal system in which judges apply Shariah law; a council of top clerics who advise the king; a network of offices that dispense fatwas, or religious opinions; a force of religious police who monitor public behavior; and tens of thousands of mosque imams who can be tapped to deliver the government’s message from the pulpit.

I've been like a broken record trying to point out this is a problem -- maybe not "the" problem, but a serious problem. It is not Islam that is the problem, but what these folks have done to it. And they are our treasured allies.

This would be the shariah law newt is saying is incompatible with American values and citizenship. Is that not a step to addressing the problem?

Again, there is no single "sharia law". There are various ideas about what "sharia law" means. The problem is not American citizens who believe that Muslim traditions should govern their marriage, but rather an entire country to which we sell weapons that spreads its ideology around the world. Most American Muslims won't agree that Sharia has anything to do with most of the things you think are included in Sharia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what's your short game? I have zero issue with energy independence ans getting out of bed with the Saudis . I have less of an issue with Egypt - the Muslim brotherhood is another headache. But what's your plan for the next twenty years while all of that is underway?

I already suggested on short term effort: try to drive a wedge between the terrorists and other Muslims. Clearly recognize that most Muslims are valued neighbors and that the terrorists, regardless of how they describe themselves, are not representative of Islam. Try to demonstrate that the US is a land of opportunity for Muslims who are welcome to pursue the American dream. Also, since refugees are a concern, rethink our policies that are helping to create refugees.

A) you have repeatedly stated this has nothing to do with Islam so why would the terrorist care if they are told their actions are not representative? Just curious. Or would you have the Muslim community actually tackle this from a young age in some proactive way to teach the kids values that would supercede these nihilistic power mad ones?

b) the US is historically and currently welcoming. Many Muslims have made great lives and communities here. Heard of Deerborne? Seen the mosque on Mass Ave? The only Muslims I worry about are the Somalis etc refugees being relocated to work in chicken factories and do jobs no one wants to. If thats our refugee support program, we aren't doing anyone a favor. Bound to be resentment.

C) there is the largest movement of refugees on the planet. Many are economic. Rethink our policies on most of Africa? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Quite a scope. How about invite them to stay near where they are from and offer support as they work towards the change they want?

Never heard of Deerborne but if you mean Dearborn, Michigan, many of the original middle easterners were engineers who worked for Ford and had no interest in radical Islam. If the mosque on Mass Ave you reference is the one in the former Iranian Embassy, that is a very upper end mosque and not like the one in Falls Church filled with radicals.

You are worried about Somalis working on chicken farms beung radicalized? Seriously

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what's your short game? I have zero issue with energy independence ans getting out of bed with the Saudis . I have less of an issue with Egypt - the Muslim brotherhood is another headache. But what's your plan for the next twenty years while all of that is underway?

I already suggested on short term effort: try to drive a wedge between the terrorists and other Muslims. Clearly recognize that most Muslims are valued neighbors and that the terrorists, regardless of how they describe themselves, are not representative of Islam. Try to demonstrate that the US is a land of opportunity for Muslims who are welcome to pursue the American dream. Also, since refugees are a concern, rethink our policies that are helping to create refugees.

A) you have repeatedly stated this has nothing to do with Islam so why would the terrorist care if they are told their actions are not representative? Just curious. Or would you have the Muslim community actually tackle this from a young age in some proactive way to teach the kids values that would supercede these nihilistic power mad ones?

b) the US is historically and currently welcoming. Many Muslims have made great lives and communities here. Heard of Deerborne? Seen the mosque on Mass Ave? The only Muslims I worry about are the Somalis etc refugees being relocated to work in chicken factories and do jobs no one wants to. If thats our refugee support program, we aren't doing anyone a favor. Bound to be resentment.

C) there is the largest movement of refugees on the planet. Many are economic. Rethink our policies on most of Africa? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Quite a scope. How about invite them to stay near where they are from and offer support as they work towards the change they want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driver drove a mack truck at a very high rate of speed straight into the crowd celebrating Bastille Day. Horrific.

And we keep bringing more and more radical Islamists into Europe and into the US (2 Virginia men arrested laser week for conspiring with Isis) and no matter how nice or welcoming we are we will be doomed.

I know it's not convenient to your narrative about the bad refugees, but one of those guys was born in Brooklyn. And the Paris attackers were born in France and Belgium and had EU passports. They all grew up in the West and then turned into something else. They weren't "brought in." Who knows what this latest monster's story is, but this problem is far deeper and more complex than recent immigrants and refugees.

Yeah, it's often the children or 2nd generation that becomes radicalized. That's why you shouldn't bring more of them in until we have a better solution to radical islam.

I'm Muslim- We, Muslims, have to find the answer to radical Islam. The United States or Europe or the west or whatever cannot solve the problem b/c they have absolutely no authority, the Imams who are in the masjid preaching that we (2nd gen) have to assimilate in the way that the Imams and our parents want are at fault. Xenophobic Muslim communities make these frankensteins. I'm a hijab wearing practicing Muslim and it is the fault of the Muslim community, not the west b/c when they teach that Islam means obedience they forget that it is obedience to the God who is accessible only in the hearts of individuals and that Islam is mostly about social justice and personal responsibility. where is this piece of the puzzle? Its not enough to say "this is not Islam, don't hate us/hurt us" we have to say this is not Islam at our dining tables when the young people mouth off about "Dar ul Haram", we need to speak out in the Masjid that the Holocaust is not a lie- it happened and the media is not controlled by anyone. We need to take responsibility when our kids are online listening to hate speech. This isn't the fault if colonization or western meddling- those are other issues but no these people are evil and there is no excuse for their behavior.

When Zayn Malik is more excoriated as more 'immoral" than Saleh Abdus Salaam- the cancer is in the community not the west.