Four ways to counter ISIS propaganda more effectively

[RandomGuy]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/11/16-countering-isis-propaganda-fernandez

Click above for full text



We need to view the problem of the Islamic State as a political problem with a media dimension, not the other way around. All too often we think that these are public relations or messaging issues. But they're related to the real world: there is a real war in Syria and Iraq, there's real violence, there are real people being killed. Mosul did fall to the Islamic State, it wasn't imaginary. So we need to realize that when we talk about messaging, it is intrinsically linked to a political reality. We cannot divorce propaganda from the political reality on the ground.
It takes a network to fight a network. Despite some steps to ramp up the volume of our counter-propaganda efforts, we still lack the volume necessary to be able to compete in this space. Volume has value. And the Islamic State—either itself or with its networks—still has the advantage in numbers, and it’s managed to create an echo chamber that gives its messages a life of their own.
There is a wealth of credible voices of people who have firsthand knowledge of ISIS violence that have not been fully tapped. In August 2014, for instance, the Islamic State killed almost 1,000 male members of the Sheitaat Tribe, a Sunni-Arab-Muslim Tribe in Syria. We know that there are Sheitaat Tribesmen now in refugee camps—they (along with Iraqis from Anbar province and Syrian refugees) have their own firsthand stories to tell. It would be a good investment for a Western or Middle Eastern government to hire some of those people and empower them to challenge extremists on social media. That's an easy and inexpensive step.
On content, there is too much emphasis on the search for the magic bullet. What counter-propagandists really need is multifaceted content similar to the multifaceted content that the Islamic State produces. This could include sarcasm, fact-based approaches, ideological approaches, and others. Governments—especially the U.S. government—aren’t always the best-equipped to engage in ideological struggles; since there is an ideological dimension to the ISIS battle, governments should include the relevant actors in the design and implementation of its counter-propaganda strategy.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How about just countering ISIS effectively and killing the ever living shit out of them.

From the glorious bastard that called Obama a pussy on air
http://nypost.com/2015/12/20/how-to-crush-isis/

An American president with no military experience, little grasp of history and an outdated mental map of the Middle East.
Obama today? Yes, but potentially a Republican next year.

Ideology isn’t a strategy, and sound bites don’t win wars. The Islamic State caliphate (ISIS) and its rivals can be annihilated, but only if we have a clear objective, a realistic assessment of the means needed to achieve it and — above all — a president with the vision, courage and fortitude to lead.

ADVERTISING






What will it take? Here are the requirements for a serious military effort (only a military approach will stop ISIS):
Congress must declare war.
Congress needs to face up to its constitutional responsibilities with a declaration of war against “the Islamic State, al Qaeda, their affiliates and imitators and their supporters, wherever they are found.” War is no longer restricted to state-on-state violence, nor should its conduct depend on a president’s whimsy.
Define the mission.
The goal should be the uncompromising destruction of violent jihadi organizations. It shouldn’t include the reconstruction of artificial borders imposed on the Middle East by long-dead Europeans. Don’t cling to doomed governments.
Say less, do more and keep secrets.
Don’t announce operations or troop deployments for domestic political advantage. In the jihadi World Series, our team has to show up unexpectedly. Crack down on Pentagon leaks.
Stop pretending that war can be waged gently.
Kill the enemy. Accept that there will be civilian casualties and collateral damage. Get the lawyers out of the targeting process and off the battlefield. Rules of engagement should empower our troops, not shield our enemies.
The morbid “humanitarianism” of the left ignores the proven principle that winning fast spares lives. As a result of our reluctance to fight promptly, powerfully and ruthlessly, there are now 300,000 dead in Syria, untold numbers dead in Iraq and rising body counts elsewhere, with millions of refugees. And because our enemies know that we don’t strike populated areas, they base themselves in crowded neighborhoods, guaranteeing more civilian deaths.

Concentrate on effects, not numbers.
Our obsession with troop numbers is political, not practical. In a global war against Islamist fanatics, the troop strength required for missions will fluctuate. A vital operation in one country might require a few dozen special operators for one night, while an operation in another might demand 30,000 troops for three months. Anyway, the resolve with which force is applied is far more important than numbers.

Accomplish the mission and leave.
No nation-building. No occupations-by-another-name. Go in, do the job, get out. If you have to go back and do the job again later on, that’s still cheaper in blood and treasure than hanging around. What are called for are old-fashioned punitive expeditions, not nation-building where there are no nations. Surprise them; slaughter them; leave.
Conventional forces must think unconventionally.
Our forces must become more agile and operate under more-austere conditions. More bullets, fewer bases, no Baskin-Robbins. Mobility, speed and firepower are crucial. Think cavalry, not constabulary; saddle bags, not shipping containers.
Hyperexpensive weapons can be the enemy within.

At present, we’ll use a million-dollar precision-guided munition to take out two low-level terrorists at a checkpoint. As a result, we’ve drained our arsenal. While this is good news for the defense industry, it exposes the fallacy of a weapons-procurement process that assumes a short, decisive war against a compliant enemy.
Don’t make fun of the Russians for using cheap bombs on easy targets. We should be doing it, too. And inexpensive, old-fashioned napalm would be poetic justice for apocalyptic jihadis who burn captives to death.
Choose allies for their utility, not from habit.
In the broken territories formerly known as Syria and Iraq, we need to support those whose interests converge with ours, while cutting our losses where our largesse only helps other enemies. That means tacitly backing a Kurdish state; accepting a new Sunni-Arab (but non-Islamist-extremist) state straddling the old border; and cutting all support for the Iranian-dominated Baghdad government President Obama’s incompetence facilitated.
From Libya to Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must not let ill-drawn lines on old maps tyrannize our foreign policy.
Presidential support of our military.
This is the most important factor of all. Our troops and their leaders need to know that their commander-in-chief won’t betray them based on spurious claims from the media or anti-war activist groups; that he won’t lose his courage and resolve when things get ugly; and that he’ll be our military’s advocate, not its adversary.
Of course, there are myriad practical details to be addressed, from basing rights and overflight issues to the conflicting goals of third parties, such as Iran or Russia. Even in lean operations, logistics rule. And our military must relearn how to fight and win, escaping the thrall of political correctness.
We can defeat ISIS, but first we have to stop defeating ourselves.
Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer and the author, most recently, of “Valley of the Shadow.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w

I think 5 should be all the people that think there should provide infantry support to take advantage of the US policy of allowing citizens to become foreign fighters if not against US interests, embed themselves with the Kurds or FSA like other brave americans.

[velik_m]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/11/16-countering-isis-propaganda-fernandez

Click above for full text

What we need is for mainstream media to stop spreading ISIS message, but they just can't help themselves.

Alternatively we could teach people to not believe everything they see on TV or read on internet and view every PR with cynicism.

[mingus]

How about just countering ISIS effectively and killing the ever living shit out of them.

From the glorious bastard that called Obama a pussy on air
http://nypost.com/2015/12/20/how-to-crush-isis/

An American president with no military experience, little grasp of history and an outdated mental map of the Middle East.
Obama today? Yes, but potentially a Republican next year.

Ideology isn’t a strategy, and sound bites don’t win wars. The Islamic State caliphate (ISIS) and its rivals can be annihilated, but only if we have a clear objective, a realistic assessment of the means needed to achieve it and — above all — a president with the vision, courage and fortitude to lead.

ADVERTISING






What will it take? Here are the requirements for a serious military effort (only a military approach will stop ISIS):
Congress must declare war.
Congress needs to face up to its constitutional responsibilities with a declaration of war against “the Islamic State, al Qaeda, their affiliates and imitators and their supporters, wherever they are found.” War is no longer restricted to state-on-state violence, nor should its conduct depend on a president’s whimsy.
Define the mission.
The goal should be the uncompromising destruction of violent jihadi organizations. It shouldn’t include the reconstruction of artificial borders imposed on the Middle East by long-dead Europeans. Don’t cling to doomed governments.
Say less, do more and keep secrets.
Don’t announce operations or troop deployments for domestic political advantage. In the jihadi World Series, our team has to show up unexpectedly. Crack down on Pentagon leaks.
Stop pretending that war can be waged gently.
Kill the enemy. Accept that there will be civilian casualties and collateral damage. Get the lawyers out of the targeting process and off the battlefield. Rules of engagement should empower our troops, not shield our enemies.
The morbid “humanitarianism” of the left ignores the proven principle that winning fast spares lives. As a result of our reluctance to fight promptly, powerfully and ruthlessly, there are now 300,000 dead in Syria, untold numbers dead in Iraq and rising body counts elsewhere, with millions of refugees. And because our enemies know that we don’t strike populated areas, they base themselves in crowded neighborhoods, guaranteeing more civilian deaths.

Concentrate on effects, not numbers.
Our obsession with troop numbers is political, not practical. In a global war against Islamist fanatics, the troop strength required for missions will fluctuate. A vital operation in one country might require a few dozen special operators for one night, while an operation in another might demand 30,000 troops for three months. Anyway, the resolve with which force is applied is far more important than numbers.

Accomplish the mission and leave.
No nation-building. No occupations-by-another-name. Go in, do the job, get out. If you have to go back and do the job again later on, that’s still cheaper in blood and treasure than hanging around. What are called for are old-fashioned punitive expeditions, not nation-building where there are no nations. Surprise them; slaughter them; leave.
Conventional forces must think unconventionally.
Our forces must become more agile and operate under more-austere conditions. More bullets, fewer bases, no Baskin-Robbins. Mobility, speed and firepower are crucial. Think cavalry, not constabulary; saddle bags, not shipping containers.
Hyperexpensive weapons can be the enemy within.

At present, we’ll use a million-dollar precision-guided munition to take out two low-level terrorists at a checkpoint. As a result, we’ve drained our arsenal. While this is good news for the defense industry, it exposes the fallacy of a weapons-procurement process that assumes a short, decisive war against a compliant enemy.
Don’t make fun of the Russians for using cheap bombs on easy targets. We should be doing it, too. And inexpensive, old-fashioned napalm would be poetic justice for apocalyptic jihadis who burn captives to death.
Choose allies for their utility, not from habit.
In the broken territories formerly known as Syria and Iraq, we need to support those whose interests converge with ours, while cutting our losses where our largesse only helps other enemies. That means tacitly backing a Kurdish state; accepting a new Sunni-Arab (but non-Islamist-extremist) state straddling the old border; and cutting all support for the Iranian-dominated Baghdad government President Obama’s incompetence facilitated.
From Libya to Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must not let ill-drawn lines on old maps tyrannize our foreign policy.
Presidential support of our military.
This is the most important factor of all. Our troops and their leaders need to know that their commander-in-chief won’t betray them based on spurious claims from the media or anti-war activist groups; that he won’t lose his courage and resolve when things get ugly; and that he’ll be our military’s advocate, not its adversary.
Of course, there are myriad practical details to be addressed, from basing rights and overflight issues to the conflicting goals of third parties, such as Iran or Russia. Even in lean operations, logistics rule. And our military must relearn how to fight and win, escaping the thrall of political correctness.
We can defeat ISIS, but first we have to stop defeating ourselves.
Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer and the author, most recently, of “Valley of the Shadow.”



In the last paragraph he mentions a "myraid of practical details", but he should define what exactly is his theoretical basis for conducting ourselves this way and tell us why he thinks it is right by weighing it up against the facts & counter arguments. Then after that we can talk logistics, assuming I think he makes a good case of it. Until he does that I could care less about whst his prescriptions are.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why not just ethnic cleanse that whole region including the arab allies?

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/11/16-countering-isis-propaganda-fernandez

Click above for full text
Best piece of anti-ISIS propaganda I can find :lmao
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=f08_1424123423

[rmt]

Why is it that none of the top people in the muslim communities/mosques don't come out against this violence? Is it that the radicalism is being taught in the mosques? I can't believe that the relatives and friends of radicalized muslims don't know what's going on. Or is it that they are afraid of their own lives?

[Winehole23]

Why is it that none of the top people in the muslim communities/mosques don't come out against this violence?clearly false. might want to check your Google on that.

Muslims worldwide have widely denounced ISIS. check the local response in San Bernardino, you'll see there's not much to the claim that Muslims don't speak out against violence and terror.

[SnakeBoy]

On content, there is too much emphasis on the search for the magic bullet. What counter-propagandists really need is multifaceted content similar to the multifaceted content that the Islamic State produces. This could include sarcasm, fact-based approaches, ideological approaches, and others. Governments—especially the U.S. government—aren’t always the best-equipped to engage in ideological struggles; since there is an ideological dimension to the ISIS battle, governments should include the relevant actors in the design and implementation of its counter-propaganda strategy.

IDK if that's going to change anyone. For years I've used plenty of sarcasm on this forum and Boutons is still crazy as fuck.

[rmt]

clearly false. might want to check your Google on that.

Muslims worldwide have widely denounced ISIS. check the local response in San Bernardino, you'll see there's not much to the claim that Muslims don't speak out against violence and terror.

I don't see it reported in msm e.g. google news had nothing on it

[Winehole23]

you're not looking very hard.

the stories aren't hard to find, if you're actually curious to find out what Muslims say about ISIS and terror attacks.

[angrydude]

Make Turkey stop supporting them.

[rmt]

you're not looking very hard.

the stories aren't hard to find, if you're actually curious to find out what Muslims say about ISIS and terror attacks.

I'm not looking for them now. My point is that if they were main stream/commonplace, I would have seen them on Google news, CNN, etc. a couple weeks back when the waves were flooded with news about the terror attacks. All I saw was the CAIR? group with the shooter's brother-in-law interview.

[Warlord23]

I'm not looking for them now. My point is that if they were main stream/commonplace, I would have seen them on Google news, CNN, etc. a couple weeks back when the waves were flooded with news about the terror attacks. All I saw was the CAIR? group with the shooter's brother-in-law interview.

CNN and Fox are all about clickbait headlines. It's much easier to cover controversial and incendiary stuff than stories which are empathetic but dull. But it's common sense that a large proportion of Muslims will hate ISIS, given that ISIS kills tens of thousands of Muslims.

Our lazy media and political commentators simplify this issue into a good-vs-evil debate because the population is stupid. How many Americans understand the Shia-Sunni divide? Remember Rubio telling Hannity that Obama doesn't want to hit ISIS hard because it would upset Iran? In any other western country he'd be a laughing stock, here he is supposed to be the smart guy in the GOP field. It's because of people like you who swallow the simple storylines that idiotic solutions (ban Muslims, carpet bomb the Middle East, take the oil etc) are given more coverage than the nuances of a complex issue.

[Winehole23]

Make Turkey stop supporting them.Not so easy. Turkey has interests in the region, and they're technically our ally.

[Winehole23]

I'm not looking for them now. My point is that if they were main stream/commonplace, I would have seen them on Google news, CNN, etc. a couple weeks back when the waves were flooded with news about the terror attacks. All I saw was the CAIR? group with the shooter's brother-in-law interview.you trust TV to be authoritative? how quaint.

[RandomGuy]

How about just countering ISIS effectively and killing the ever living shit out of them.

From the glorious bastard that called Obama a pussy on air
http://nypost.com/2015/12/20/how-to-crush-isis/

An American president with no military experience, little grasp of history and an outdated mental map of the Middle East.
Obama today? Yes, but potentially a Republican next year.

Ideology isn’t a strategy, and sound bites don’t win wars. The Islamic State caliphate (ISIS) and its rivals can be annihilated, but only if we have a clear objective, a realistic assessment of the means needed to achieve it and — above all — a president with the vision, courage and fortitude to lead.

ADVERTISING






What will it take? Here are the requirements for a serious military effort (only a military approach will stop ISIS):
Congress must declare war.
Congress needs to face up to its constitutional responsibilities with a declaration of war against “the Islamic State, al Qaeda, their affiliates and imitators and their supporters, wherever they are found.” War is no longer restricted to state-on-state violence, nor should its conduct depend on a president’s whimsy.
Define the mission.
The goal should be the uncompromising destruction of violent jihadi organizations. It shouldn’t include the reconstruction of artificial borders imposed on the Middle East by long-dead Europeans. Don’t cling to doomed governments.
Say less, do more and keep secrets.
Don’t announce operations or troop deployments for domestic political advantage. In the jihadi World Series, our team has to show up unexpectedly. Crack down on Pentagon leaks.
Stop pretending that war can be waged gently.
Kill the enemy. Accept that there will be civilian casualties and collateral damage. Get the lawyers out of the targeting process and off the battlefield. Rules of engagement should empower our troops, not shield our enemies.
The morbid “humanitarianism” of the left ignores the proven principle that winning fast spares lives. As a result of our reluctance to fight promptly, powerfully and ruthlessly, there are now 300,000 dead in Syria, untold numbers dead in Iraq and rising body counts elsewhere, with millions of refugees. And because our enemies know that we don’t strike populated areas, they base themselves in crowded neighborhoods, guaranteeing more civilian deaths.

Concentrate on effects, not numbers.
Our obsession with troop numbers is political, not practical. In a global war against Islamist fanatics, the troop strength required for missions will fluctuate. A vital operation in one country might require a few dozen special operators for one night, while an operation in another might demand 30,000 troops for three months. Anyway, the resolve with which force is applied is far more important than numbers.

Accomplish the mission and leave.
No nation-building. No occupations-by-another-name. Go in, do the job, get out. If you have to go back and do the job again later on, that’s still cheaper in blood and treasure than hanging around. What are called for are old-fashioned punitive expeditions, not nation-building where there are no nations. Surprise them; slaughter them; leave.
Conventional forces must think unconventionally.
Our forces must become more agile and operate under more-austere conditions. More bullets, fewer bases, no Baskin-Robbins. Mobility, speed and firepower are crucial. Think cavalry, not constabulary; saddle bags, not shipping containers.
Hyperexpensive weapons can be the enemy within.

At present, we’ll use a million-dollar precision-guided munition to take out two low-level terrorists at a checkpoint. As a result, we’ve drained our arsenal. While this is good news for the defense industry, it exposes the fallacy of a weapons-procurement process that assumes a short, decisive war against a compliant enemy.
Don’t make fun of the Russians for using cheap bombs on easy targets. We should be doing it, too. And inexpensive, old-fashioned napalm would be poetic justice for apocalyptic jihadis who burn captives to death.
Choose allies for their utility, not from habit.
In the broken territories formerly known as Syria and Iraq, we need to support those whose interests converge with ours, while cutting our losses where our largesse only helps other enemies. That means tacitly backing a Kurdish state; accepting a new Sunni-Arab (but non-Islamist-extremist) state straddling the old border; and cutting all support for the Iranian-dominated Baghdad government President Obama’s incompetence facilitated.
From Libya to Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must not let ill-drawn lines on old maps tyrannize our foreign policy.
Presidential support of our military.
This is the most important factor of all. Our troops and their leaders need to know that their commander-in-chief won’t betray them based on spurious claims from the media or anti-war activist groups; that he won’t lose his courage and resolve when things get ugly; and that he’ll be our military’s advocate, not its adversary.
Of course, there are myriad practical details to be addressed, from basing rights and overflight issues to the conflicting goals of third parties, such as Iran or Russia. Even in lean operations, logistics rule. And our military must relearn how to fight and win, escaping the thrall of political correctness.
We can defeat ISIS, but first we have to stop defeating ourselves.
Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer and the author, most recently, of “Valley of the Shadow.”

I see a whole lot of fail. The guy is pretending that every problem involves a hammer.

ISIS ideology depends on this kind of stupidity to keep itself relevant, and this kind of hammering simply plays into their hands.

Sure you have to kill asshats, but ultimate victory will be to discredit the idea as much as the asshats carrying it out.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I see a whole lot of fail. The guy is pretending that every problem involves a hammer.

ISIS ideology depends on this kind of stupidity to keep itself relevant, and this kind of hammering simply plays into their hands.

Sure you have to kill asshats, but ultimate victory will be to discredit the idea as much as the asshats carrying it out.

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=f08_1424123423

Tier 1 discrediting

[RandomGuy]

CNN and Fox are all about clickbait headlines. It's much easier to cover controversial and incendiary stuff than stories which are empathetic but dull. But it's common sense that a large proportion of Muslims will hate ISIS, given that ISIS kills tens of thousands of Muslims.

Our lazy media and political commentators simplify this issue into a good-vs-evil debate because the population is stupid. How many Americans understand the Shia-Sunni divide? Remember Rubio telling Hannity that Obama doesn't want to hit ISIS hard because it would upset Iran? In any other western country he'd be a laughing stock, here he is supposed to be the smart guy in the GOP field. It's because of people like you who swallow the simple storylines that idiotic solutions (ban Muslims, carpet bomb the Middle East, take the oil etc) are given more coverage than the nuances of a complex issue.

bingo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/opinion/a-medieval-antidote-to-isis.html?_r=0

Interesting bit read on the physical paper this afternoon.


ISTANBUL — THE recent massacres in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., demonstrated, once again, the so-called Islamic State’s ability to win over disaffected Muslims. Using a mixture of textual literalism and self-righteous certainty, the extremist group is able to persuade young men and women from Pakistan to Belgium to pledge allegiance to it and commit violence in its name.

This is why the Islamic State’s religious ideology needs to be taken seriously. While it’s wrong to claim that the group’s thinking represents mainstream Islam, as Islamophobes so often do, it’s also wrong to pretend that the Islamic State has “nothing to do with Islam,” as many Islamophobia-wary Muslims like to say. Indeed, jihadist leaders are steeped in Islamic thought and teachings, even if they use their knowledge to perverse and brutal ends.

A good place to start understanding the Islamic State’s doctrine is by reading Dabiq, the digital English-language magazine that the group puts out every month. One of the most striking pieces I have seen in it was an 18-page article in March titled “Irja’: The Most Dangerous Bid’ah,” or heresy.

Unless you have some knowledge of medieval Islamic theology you probably have no idea what irja means. The word translates literally as “postponing.” It was a theological principle put forward by some Muslim scholars during the very first century of Islam. At the time, the Muslim world was going through a major civil war, as proto-Sunnis and proto-Shiites fought for power, and a third group called Khawarij (dissenters) were excommunicating and slaughtering both sides. In the face of this bloody chaos, the proponents of irja said that the burning question of who is a true Muslim should be “postponed” until the afterlife. Even a Muslim who abandoned all religious practice and committed many sins, they reasoned, could not be denounced as an “apostate.” Faith was a matter of the heart, something only God — not other human beings — could evaluate.

The scholars who put this forward became known as “murjia,” the upholders of irja, or, simply, “postponers.” The theology that they outlined could have been the basis for a tolerant, noncoercive, pluralistic Islam — an Islamic liberalism. Unfortunately, they did not have enough influence on the Muslim world. The school of thought disappeared quickly, only to go down in Sunni orthodoxy’s memory as one of the early “heretical sects.” The murjia left a mark on the more lenient side of Sunni Islam, represented by Hanafi-Maturidism, most popular in the Balkans, Turkey and Central Asia, but today there is virtually no Muslim group that identifies itself as murjia. The word irja is seldom heard in discussions of Islamic theology.

So why is the Islamic State so alarmed about this old “heresy”? The answer to this question can be found in the Dabiq article itself, where the authors accuse other Islamist rebel groups in Syria of irja. “These factions did not rule by the Shariah despite their control of ‘liberated’ territory,” the Islamic State writers note loathingly. In other words, they did not kill “apostates,” implement corporal punishment, or force women to cover themselves head to toe.

The groups that the Islamic State accuses of irja — many of them conservative Islamists — would probably not readily accept the label. In their religious texts, too, irja probably appears as heresy. But we should recognize that by “postponing” the imposition of religion and the punishment of sinners, they are engaged in de facto irja. Not out of principle perhaps, but out of pragmatism. (read rest at link above)

[RandomGuy]

How American Muslims plan to counter post-Paris backlash

Muslim leaders said Monday that they aim to register more voters and engage with young American Muslims to counter the lure of ISIS.
http://news.yahoo.com/american-muslims-plan-counter-post-paris-backlash-204551246.html

First steps in waging the real war against ISIS.

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.

[RandomGuy]

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=f08_1424123423

Tier 1 discrediting

Um, whut? Not clicking on a video at liveleak. Summary?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Um, whut? Not clicking on a video at liveleak. Summary?

Allergic to liveleak??? It's not anything graphic if that is what you are worried about. It's effective anti-ISIS like you were discussing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How American Muslims plan to counter post-Paris backlash

Muslim leaders said Monday that they aim to register more voters and engage with young American Muslims to counter the lure of ISIS.
http://news.yahoo.com/american-muslims-plan-counter-post-paris-backlash-204551246.html

First steps in waging the real war against ISIS.

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.
Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.

[TheSanityAnnex]

RG you're a bright dude never thought you'd be duped by CAIR.

[Spurminator]

I'm not looking for them now. My point is that if they were main stream/commonplace, I would have seen them on Google news, CNN, etc. a couple weeks back when the waves were flooded with news about the terror attacks. All I saw was the CAIR? group with the shooter's brother-in-law interview.

Don't ask questions you are too lazy to find the answers to.

[RandomGuy]

Why is it that none of the top people in the muslim communities/mosques don't come out against this violence? Is it that the radicalism is being taught in the mosques? I can't believe that the relatives and friends of radicalized muslims don't know what's going on. Or is it that they are afraid of their own lives?

Seriously? You want me to google that for you? Or does your preferred media outlet not show that to you? if not, why is that?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.

(sighs)

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.

[RandomGuy]

Why is it that none of the top people in the muslim communities/mosques don't come out against this violence? Is it that the radicalism is being taught in the mosques? I can't believe that the relatives and friends of radicalized muslims don't know what's going on. Or is it that they are afraid of their own lives?

Ah fuck it. Been a while since I google-pwned someone.


Several Muslim religious and political leaders officially denounced the attacks before the group took responsibility, including Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, who called them a “crime against humanity,” and Qatari foreign minister Khaled al-Attiyah, who said they were “heinous.” Rouhani had been scheduled to visit France as part of a wider European trip this weekend but has postponed his plans.
http://time.com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

[RandomGuy]

Indonesian President Joko Widodo, leader of the world’s most populous Muslim nation, said that”Indonesia condemns the violence that took place in Paris.”

More spirited responses came from ordinary people. On Twitter, many referred to the hashtag #TerrorismHasNoReligion, seeking divorce Islam from the dogma espoused by extremists.
same article.

[RandomGuy]

But in the midst of Islamic extremism, Arsalan Iftikhar tells NPR’s Michel Martin that a majority of Muslims prescribe to a peaceful interpretation of Islam.

Iftikhar adds that a wide range of mainstream Muslim scholars have actively condemned terrorism, and people like Osama bin Laden have “essentially yanked the microphone of global Muslims.”
http://muslimscondemningthings.tumblr.com/

[RandomGuy]

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful


Dr. Yahia Abdur-Rahman, from the Islamic Shurah Council of Southern California (ISCSC), offers Supplication For The Victims
Dr. Maher Hathout, from the the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and The Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC), condemns the attack and issues a statement. Click here to listen
Dr. Ahmad Sakr, from the Islamic Education Center (IEC), offers his condolences to the families of the victims and condemns the attack. Click here to listen

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), condemns the attack. Click here to listen
http://www.islamicity.org/1218/muslim-americans-condemn-attack/

[RandomGuy]

N.J. Muslim leaders strongly condemn terrorist attacks in Paris
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/11/muslim_leaders_from_around_nj_strongly_condemn_ter .html

[RandomGuy]

Al-Azhar: Islamic State Is Corrupt And “A Danger To Islam.” Lebanese paper The Daily Star reported that Al-Azhar’s Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority, denounced the Islamic State as a threat to Islam and said that the group both violates Sharia law and humanitarian law: “[They] give an opportunity for those who seek to harm us, to destroy us and interfere in our affairs with the [pretext of a] call to fight terrorism.” [The Daily Star, 8/13/14]

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html#ixzz3v6c8lM9g
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html#sxHWV4fx18ddxLTF.99

[RandomGuy]

Turkey’s Top Cleric: Islamic State’s Threats Are “Hugely Damaging,” “Truly Awful.” Turkey’s highest ranking cleric, Mehmet Gormez, decried the Islamic State’s declaration of a “caliphate” and argued that the statements were damaging to the Muslim community, according to Reuters:
“Such declarations have no legitimacy whatsoever,” Mehmet Gormez, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate, the highest religious authority in Turkey, which, although a majority Muslim country, has been a secular state since the 1920s.
“Since the caliphate was abolished … there have been movements that think they can pull together the Muslim world by re-establishing a caliphate, but they have nothing to do with reality, whether from a political or legal perspective.”
Gormez said death threats against non-Muslims made by the group, formerly known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), were hugely damaging.
“The statement made against Christians is truly awful. Islamic scholars need to focus on this (because) an inability to peacefully sustain other faiths and cultures heralds the collapse of a civilization,” he told Reuters in an interview. [Reuters, 7/22/14]


Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html#ixzz3v6cEUYQ4
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html#sxHWV4fx18ddxLTF.99

[RandomGuy]

Faith leaders join Muslim-Americans in Las Vegas to condemn terrorism — PHOTOS
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/faith-leaders-join-muslim-americans-las-vegas-condemn-terrorism-photos

[RandomGuy]

70,000 Muslim Clerics Issue Fatwa Condemning Terrorism
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-condemning-terrorism/

[RandomGuy]

U.S. Muslims ask why their religion's condemnation of violence often goes unheard
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-muslim-condemnation-20150509-story.html

[RandomGuy]

rmt

This took me less than a few minutes to find in google.

I will ask simply:

Why do you not know about this? Serious question.

[Drachen]

I don't see it reported in msm e.g. google news had nothing on it

Really? Even if all Muslims were totally down with this jihad thing, you don't think that they would denounced ISIS, an org that kills far more Muslims than any other group combined?

[TheSanityAnnex]

(sighs)

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.
Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

[Th'Pusher]

Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

You're scared of ISIS and CAIR.

[Th'Pusher]

Why do you let the terrorists win TSA?

[RandomGuy]

How American Muslims plan to counter post-Paris backlash

Muslim leaders said Monday that they aim to register more voters and engage with young American Muslims to counter the lure of ISIS.
http://news.yahoo.com/american-muslims-plan-counter-post-paris-backlash-204551246.html

First steps in waging the real war against ISIS.

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.


Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.


(sighs)

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.



Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

I guess I win my bet.

Re-stating something when asked for proof doesn't meet even clear the lowest bar for evidence.

Do you want me to be more specific, perhaps? Did you not understand the question?

What would suffice would be a statement by CAIR about their goals, with a link, and a statement from ISIS about their goals, and some link. That is what I am asking you for.

That way I can see for myself if what you said is true.

So, again, can you show me what evidence supports your statement? (assuming you care about the truth)

[hater]

Best solution: Stop supporting the Arab Gulf states and the Turkish mafia government tbqh.

Case solved.

[RandomGuy]

Best solution: Stop supporting the Arab Gulf states and the Turkish mafia government tbqh.

Case solved.

Define "support". What must be changed specifically?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I guess I win my bet.

Re-stating something when asked for proof doesn't meet even clear the lowest bar for evidence.

Do you want me to be more specific, perhaps? Did you not understand the question?

What would suffice would be a statement by CAIR about their goals, with a link, and a statement from ISIS about their goals, and some link. That is what I am asking you for.

That way I can see for myself if what you said is true.

So, again, can you show me what evidence supports your statement? (assuming you care about the truth)
You win the bet. Silly me for assuming two terrorist organizations had the exact same goals.

[RandomGuy]

How American Muslims plan to counter post-Paris backlash

Muslim leaders said Monday that they aim to register more voters and engage with young American Muslims to counter the lure of ISIS.
http://news.yahoo.com/american-muslims-plan-counter-post-paris-backlash-204551246.html

First steps in waging the real war against ISIS.

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.


Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.


(sighs)

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.



Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)



I guess I win my bet.

Re-stating something when asked for proof doesn't meet even clear the lowest bar for evidence.

Do you want me to be more specific, perhaps? Did you not understand the question?

What would suffice would be a statement by CAIR about their goals, with a link, and a statement from ISIS about their goals, and some link. That is what I am asking you for.

That way I can see for myself if what you said is true.

So, again, can you show me what evidence supports your statement? (assuming you care about the truth)


You win the bet. Silly me for assuming two terrorist organizations had the exact same goals.

Ah.

So, you don't really care about what is true or not? ( I assumed incorrectly that you care about what is true or not?)

[baseline bum]

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.

Communism was defeated because Gorbachev held onto power long enough for East Germany to escape the iron curtain, and because he refrained from shooting people as they crossed the checkpoint at the Berlin Wall. It's hard to believe East Germans didn't think Communism was dumb for the previous 45 years too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Ah.

So, you don't really care about what is true or not? ( I assumed incorrectly that you care about what is true or not?)
I do care, enlighten me.

[RandomGuy]

I do care, enlighten me.

So you do care what is true.

How do you determine what is true, then? What is your method?

[TheSanityAnnex]

So you do care what is true.

How do you determine what is true, then? What is your method?
Are you going draw the distinctions between ISIS and CAIR's endgame or what?

[hater]

Define "support". What must be changed specifically?

Financial, ideological, militar, logistical, etc,etc

[boutons_deux]

ISIS, Facing Losses, Releases Recording Said to Be of Leader


The Islamic State on Saturday released an audio recording of a speech purportedly made by the organization’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in which he implored more Muslims to fight on behalf of his increasingly besieged group.

The authenticity of the recording could not be confirmed. It appeared to be Mr. Baghdadi’s first public address since May, and it followed reports that he had been either killed or gravely wounded by airstrikes.

The speech was released on jihadist social media accounts after a string of defeats for the Islamic State in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and amid intensifying bombardment by an American-led military coalition in both Syria and Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).

A defeat in Ramadi would be the fourth major loss for the Islamic State in Iraq since April, when Iraqi forces and Shiite militias drove the group out of Tikrit.

Security officials in northern Iraq said on Saturday that Kurdish and American forces had carried out a major assault on Islamic State-held territory west of Kirkuk, in a town called Al Riyadh. Two senior militant leaders were killed and several others were captured, Gen. Sarhad Kadir, a police commander in Kirkuk, said.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/world/middleeast/isis-facing-losses-releases-recording-said-to-be-of-leader.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Meanwhile the talk-tough-but-dickless-chickenshit Repugs...

A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS

The omnibus spending bill (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR2029-AMNT1final.pdf) Congress passed this month includes several explicit mentions of the military campaign against the Islamic State and a $58.7 billion budget line (http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Summary%20of%20FY16%20Omnibus_1.pdf) that will allow the Pentagon to continue fighting the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria with bombs and, increasingly, troops on the ground.

That may be as close as Congress comes to authorizing war against the Islamic State for the foreseeable future. After a couple of halfhearted attempts, the White House and leaders in the House and Senate appear to have given up on drafting a new authorization for the use of military force that would set clear parameters for the escalating conflict.

That may be politically expedient for lawmakers who see no political gain, and plenty of risk, in casting a vote that could come back to haunt them. But by abdicating one of their most important responsibilities under the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war, lawmakers are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/a-fearful-congress-sits-out-the-war-against-isis.html

[mingus]

http://muslimscondemningthings.tumblr.com/


http://muslimscondemningthings.tumblr.com/

I think where people, like TSA and many of them, quite understandably but not justifiably get confused is by their inability to reconcile the idea that fundamentalism =/= terrorism, that you can be an Islamic fundamentalist and not a Jihadist. These are two perfectly reconcilable facts.

The media feeds the idea that Islamic literacy & religiosity are antecedent to Jihadism. Not true. Sometimes it is, but a lot of the times Islam is just whored around to justify ethnic (as opposed to religious) views & goals (ie Arab) of oppression and responses to it. It's being "marketed" to disaffected, marginalized, prejudicialized Muslim "youth" in and outside of the ME. It's explains how terrorists draw their ranks from disparate countries. These terrorists are being unified under a different pretense than religion. Religion is the scapegoat. As it usually is.

[Winehole23]

How about just countering Iraq effectively and killing the ever living shit out of them.
Fify.

It won't work -- that's what led to ISIS in the first place.

Force will be one of the levers, but it can't be the only one; any lasting political solution will have to be negotiated.

[RandomGuy]

How American Muslims plan to counter post-Paris backlash

Muslim leaders said Monday that they aim to register more voters and engage with young American Muslims to counter the lure of ISIS.
http://news.yahoo.com/american-muslims-plan-counter-post-paris-backlash-204551246.html

First steps in waging the real war against ISIS.

I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.


Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.


(sighs)

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.



Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)



I guess I win my bet.

Re-stating something when asked for proof doesn't meet even clear the lowest bar for evidence.

Do you want me to be more specific, perhaps? Did you not understand the question?

What would suffice would be a statement by CAIR about their goals, with a link, and a statement from ISIS about their goals, and some link. That is what I am asking you for.

That way I can see for myself if what you said is true.

So, again, can you show me what evidence supports your statement? (assuming you care about the truth)


You win the bet. Silly me for assuming two terrorist organizations had the exact same goals.


Ah.

So, you don't really care about what is true or not? ( I assumed incorrectly that you care about what is true or not?)


Are you going draw the distinctions between ISIS and CAIR's endgame or what?

Not really an answer.

You made the claims "CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to" and "[the] two [are] terrorist organizations"

I asked you to show how that is so. Your claims, your burden of proof. You declined, for whatever reason, my guess is simple laziness.

We then moved to whether you cared about the truth, you said you did, and I asked a more basic question, which you also dodged.

So, at this point it then becomes reasonable assume that you are either lazy and unwilling to answer, or lying when you say you care about the truth, although it is possible to be lazy and lying about that.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is pretty easy.

There is no evidence CAIR is a terrorist organization, nor is there any evidence that it has the same goals or propaganda as ISIS.




CAIR's vision is to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding.

CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CORE PRINCIPLES

CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.

Condemning violence seems to be somewhat at odds with claims of CAIR being a "terrorist" organization. I have now provided proof, in the form of direct statements by one of the organizations under discussion. You have not. We can now begin to form some fair model of what is true. Usually when one claim has evidence, and the the other doesn't, a reasonable, honest person will give more weight to the side with evidence.

Maybe you don't understand the word "terrorist"? I would suggest you google the term, if that is the case.

[boutons_deux]

CAIR is Muslim, so rightwingnut robots have been programmed to trash it automatically. Rightwingnut robot programs are immune to facts

[RandomGuy]

Financial, ideological, militar, logistical, etc,etc

Um, not really helping. Those are just nouns. Ponies, puppets, and pandas. That is how we get rid of the "Turkish mafia government".

So you want sanctions on Turkey? A NATO ally?

Do we give up the NATO treaty? Is that what you want us to do? Help me out here. You want the policy, flesh it out, let's see if it stands on its own.

[RandomGuy]

CAIR is Muslim, so rightwingnut robots have been programmed to trash it automatically. Rightwingnut robot programs are immune to facts


Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.

- See more at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.WiLyJ4ma.dpuf

You are right about that.

Being skeptical, truly skeptical, requires work. Most people, as TheSanityAnnex so aptly demonstrates, are just too lazy to bother.

[mingus]

Communication is triangular so to speak. It involves a message, a messenger and a recipient. True, the recipient may be closed-minded and un-open. It may be just as likely and just as important that the messenger is a dickhead and/or partisan that can't effectively communicate a message.

[boutons_deux]

Here’s how ISIS uses amphetamines to create brainwashed, psychotic killing-machines

officials are reporting that ISIS is supplying its fighters with an amphetamine called “Captagon” (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/syria-fighters-amphetamine/index.html?sr=twCNN112115syria-fighters-amphetamine0236AMVODtopPhoto&linkId=18934607). This Adderall for jihadists—or as Stephen Colbert has called it, “Jihadderall”—allows soldiers to fight for days on end without sleep, and instills in them a feeling of invincibility. One captured ISIS militant told CNN that these pills have effects that “make you go to battle not caring if you live or die.” But in addition to powerful side effects that include both auditory and visual hallucinations, scientific studies show that long term amphetamine use can damage areas of the brain that lead to more psychotic behavior, as well as a hindered ability to doubt or resist instruction. As a result, Captagon may be creating an army of brainwashed, psychotic, fearless fighters who won’t think twice about harming others or even themselves.

Courage Pills Or Crazy Pills?

After the ISIS attacks in Paris last month, French police raided a suburb and found needles that were used by the terrorists to inject Captagon (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article45316056.html), presumably to allow them to keep calm as they carried out the barbaric attack. Reports from Kurdish civilians (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-kobane-drug-crazed-isis-savages-4423619) who escaped ISIS forces in the Syrian city of Kobane described them as drug crazed. “They are filthy, with straggly beards and long black nails. They have lots of pills with them that they all keep taking. It seems to make them more crazy if anything.”

In recent years, the drug has become increasingly popular all over the Middle East (http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/jan/13/captagon-amphetamine-syria-war-middle-east), generating millions of dollars in revenue inside Syria alone. Many experts believe that ISIS is also trafficking the drug to help finance their war.

Captagon was originally developed in the 1960s as a drug used to treat hyperactivitydisorders, but was later banned for causing serious hallucinations and being highly addictive. It is much cheaper and easier to make than most amphetamines, and is mass-produced in Lebanon for just pennies (http://world.time.com/2013/10/28/syrias-breaking-bad-are-amphetamines-funding-the-war/). This may allow ISIS to distribute it widely amongst its fighters, but also to make a high profit off trafficking, since the drug is often sold for around $20 a pill in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/heres-how-isis-uses-amphetamines-to-create-brainwashed-psychotic-killing-machines/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenethylline

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not really an answer.

You made the claims "CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to" and "[the] two [are] terrorist organizations"

I asked you to show how that is so. Your claims, your burden of proof. You declined, for whatever reason, my guess is simple laziness.

We then moved to whether you cared about the truth, you said you did, and I asked a more basic question, which you also dodged.

So, at this point it then becomes reasonable assume that you are either lazy and unwilling to answer, or lying when you say you care about the truth, although it is possible to be lazy and lying about that.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is pretty easy.

There is no evidence CAIR is a terrorist organization, nor is there any evidence that it has the same goals or propaganda as ISIS.




Condemning violence seems to be somewhat at odds with claims of CAIR being a "terrorist" organization. I have now provided proof, in the form of direct statements by one of the organizations under discussion. You have not. We can now begin to form some fair model of what is true. Usually when one claim has evidence, and the the other doesn't, a reasonable, honest person will give more weight to the side with evidence.

Maybe you don't understand the word "terrorist"? I would suggest you google the term, if that is the case.

LOL taking CAIR's statement as truth and presenting that as your evidence.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

CAIR supports terrorist organizations and has top members in prison on terrorist charges, need more evidence?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not really an answer.

You made the claims "CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to" and "[the] two [are] terrorist organizations"

I asked you to show how that is so. Your claims, your burden of proof. You declined, for whatever reason, my guess is simple laziness.

We then moved to whether you cared about the truth, you said you did, and I asked a more basic question, which you also dodged.

So, at this point it then becomes reasonable assume that you are either lazy and unwilling to answer, or lying when you say you care about the truth, although it is possible to be lazy and lying about that.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is pretty easy.

There is no evidence CAIR is a terrorist organization, nor is there any evidence that it has the same goals or propaganda as ISIS.




Condemning violence seems to be somewhat at odds with claims of CAIR being a "terrorist" organization. I have now provided proof, in the form of direct statements by one of the organizations under discussion. You have not. We can now begin to form some fair model of what is true. Usually when one claim has evidence, and the the other doesn't, a reasonable, honest person will give more weight to the side with evidence.

Maybe you don't understand the word "terrorist"? I would suggest you google the term, if that is the case.

Co-founder Nihad Awad asserted at a 1994 meeting at Barry University, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1994 trial which had resulted in the conviction of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who had perpetrated the previous year's World Trade Center bombing was "a travesty of justice."
On February 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York imam Siraj Wahhaj (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=716) as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in Islamic Group (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6300) leader Omar Abdel Rahman (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1685)'s foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.
On June 6, 2006, CAIR's Ohio affiliate held a large fundraiser (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27211) in honor of Siraj Wahhaj. Following the event, CAIR-Ohio issued a press release (http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2174&theType=NR) heralding the more than $100,000 that Wahhaj had helped raise that evening for the organization’s “civil liberties work.”
In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy." According to CAIR, this depiction was "offensive to Muslims."
In 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. According to Ibrahim Hooper, the bombings resulted from "misunderstandings of both sides."

In September 2003, CAIR's former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=715), pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Federal investigators said that a group Khafagi founded, the Islamic Assembly of North America (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6457), had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States. Khafagi’s illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR (http://anti-cair-net.org/Response.html).

In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=729), a founding Board member of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. That same month, Elashi was charged with having provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running HLF. In April 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook, who was Elashi's brother-in-law. Elashi's illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR, whose Dallas-Fort Worth chapter depicted the Elashis’ indictment as “a war on Islam and Muslims.”

On September 6, 2001, the day that federal agents first raided Infocom’s headquarters, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad denounced the U.S. government for “tak us back to the McCarthy era.”

FBI wiretap evidence (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) which was introduced during the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6181) (a trial that explored HLF's financial ties to Hamas), proved that Nihad Awad had attended a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and operatives who collaborated on a plan to disguise funding for Hamas as charitable donations.

CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=967) was named, in the same 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, as an unindicted co-conspirator with HLF. During the trial, evidence was supplied proving that Ahmad had attended, along with Nihad Awad, the aforementioned 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and operatives. Moreover, prosecutors described Ahmad as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386)'s "Palestine Committee" in America.

The home of Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR's directors, was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026). FBI agents also searched the offices of Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, al-Hanooti's Michigan- and Washington DC-based consulting firm that investigators suspect to be a front supporting the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq.

Al-Hanooti is an ethnic Palestinian who, according to (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) a 2001 FBI report, "collected over $6 million for support of Hamas" and attended, along with CAIR and Holy Land Foundation (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6181) officials, the previously cited Hamas fundraising summit in Philadelphia in 1993. Currently a prayer leader at a Washington-area mosque that aided some of the 9/11 hijackers, he is a relative (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) of Shiek Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Muthanna al-Hanooti formerly helped run (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) an organization called LIFE for Relief and Development, a suspected Hamas terror front whose Michigan offices were raided by the FBI in September 2006, and whose Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops in 2004.

In March 2011, al-Hanooti was sentenced (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=277349) to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq. According to the FBI (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=277349), al-Hanooti also raised more than $6 million for support of Hamas and was present with CAIR and Holy Land Foundation officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held in Philadelphia during the 1990s.

Randall Todd Royer (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=717), who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with Lashkar-I-Taiba (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6459), an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department's international terror list. He was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearm-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Royer's illegal activities took place while he was employed by CAIR (http://anti-cair-net.org/Response.html).

Onetime CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=886) was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6355), which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

During the 2005 trial of Sami Al-Arian (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=671), who was a key figure for Palestinian Islamic Jihad (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6448) in the United States, Ahmed Bedier of CAIR’s Florida branch emerged as one of Al-Arian’s most vocal advocates.

In the aftermath of 9/11, federal agents raided (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) the Washington-area home of CAIR civil rights coordinator Laura Jaghlit as part of a probe into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1395), a director of the Saudi-backed SAAR Foundation (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6397), is a suspect in the still-active (as of January 2008) investigation.

Abdurahman Alamoudi (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1311), one of CAIR's former directors, is a supporter of both Hamas (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6204) and Hezbollah (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6256), and is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for terrorism-related convictions.

Current CAIR board member Nabil Sadoun co-founded (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026), along with Mousa (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=676)Abu Marzook (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=676), the United Association for Studies and Research (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6458) (UASR), which investigators consider to be a key Hamas front in America. Sadoun now sits on UASR's board.

Current CAIR research director Mohamed Nimer previously served (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) as a Board Director for UASR.

One of CAIR's founding directors, Rafeeq Jaber (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=677), is a supporter (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) of Hezbollah and served as the longtime President of the Islamic Association for Palestine (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6215).

CAIR Board member Hamza Yusuf (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1062) was investigated by the FBI shortly after 9/11 because, just two days before the attacks, he had told a Muslim audience: "This country [the U.S.] is facing a terrible fate and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned. It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands."
The foregoing affiliations have drawn the notice of numerous commentators:


Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counter-terrorism, has stated that “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

WorldNetDaily quotes an FBI veteran as saying (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026): "Their [CAIR's] offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters."

The family of John P. O’Neill, Sr., the former FBI counter-terrorism chief who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having “been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism” responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Terrorism expert Steven Emerson, citing federal law enforcement sources and internal documents, characterizes CAIR as “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2037) has said (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/), "CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect."

On September 17, 2003, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that CAIR co-founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad have "intimate links with Hamas." He later remarked that "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism."

According to (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59026) U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick (R - North Carolina), co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus: "Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States."

During September 2003 hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, Chairman Jon Kyl noted the connections between such groups as CAIR and the Saudi government, stating (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9981): “A small group of organizations based in the U.S. with Saudi backing and support is well advanced in its four-decade effort to control Islam in America -- from mosques, universities and community centers to our prisons and even within our military. Moderate Muslims who love America and want to be part of our great country are being forced out of those institutions.”

A number of American Muslims have made similar observations:


The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, who published [I]Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”

Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) called CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States. Jamal Hasan, also of CDT, said that CAIR’s goal is to spread “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.”

According to Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, CAIR and similar groups “condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism,” and adds that “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.”

[RandomGuy]

LOL taking CAIR's statement as truth and presenting that as your evidence.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

CAIR supports terrorist organizations and has top members in prison on terrorist charges, need more evidence?

Well there you go. A copy pasta bit of evidence from someone with an obvious axe to grind. That is at least more than you have done so far, and moderately supportive of your assertion, if one filters the presentation though the obvious bias.

I skimmed it, so I didn't read through it very carefully, so maybe you can help me with something.

How many actual acts of violence have members of CAIR committed or has CAIR claimed responsibility for? I think we can both agree that is a basic function of terrorist organizations.

[Th'Pusher]

http://oilpro.com/post/21123/russian-spies-say-12000-oil-smuggling-trucks-lined-up-turkey-iraq

Russia claims its ISIS oil, Kurds claiming oil is from Kurdish oilfields.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well there you go. A copy pasta bit of evidence from someone with an obvious axe to grind. That is at least more than you have done so far, and moderately supportive of your assertion, if one filters the presentation though the obvious bias.

I skimmed it, so I didn't read through it very carefully, so maybe you can help me with something.

How many actual acts of violence have members of CAIR committed or has CAIR claimed responsibility for? I think we can both agree that is a basic function of terrorist organizations.




Condemning violence seems to be somewhat at odds with claims of CAIR being a "terrorist" organization. I have now provided proof, in the form of direct statements by one of the organizations under discussion. You have not. We can now begin to form some fair model of what is true. Usually when one claim has evidence, and the the other doesn't, a reasonable, honest person will give more weight to the side with evidence.

You copy paste a CAIR mission statement and think that was unbiased and passes as proof they don't support terrorist organizations? :lol An honest person who isn't lazily skimming articles can clearly see what side is more heavily weighted with evidence.

[RandomGuy]

Communication is triangular so to speak. It involves a message, a messenger and a recipient. True, the recipient may be closed-minded and un-open. It may be just as likely and just as important that the messenger is a dickhead and/or partisan that can't effectively communicate a message.

Indeed. I would agree. Communication is far more effective generally when one is not a dickhead.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Indeed. I would agree. Communication is far more effective generally when one is not a dickhead.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/265.pdf

[TheSanityAnnex]

Indeed. I would agree. Communication is far more effective generally when one is not a dickhead.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf) in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-front-group-and.html).
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/238.pdf) obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/440.pdf), evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/701.pdf) of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial (http://www.investigativeproject.org/527/confusion-clouds-hlf-verdicts) in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions (http://www.investigativeproject.org/865/hlf-officials-convicted-on-all-counts) of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/730.pdf) the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/479.pdf) on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request.
The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas.
For example, prosecutors introduced transcripts of wiretaps from a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of the Palestine Committee, called to order by Ahmad (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/183.pdf) (see page 10 of the hyperlink) and attended by Awad. In that meeting, Ahmad and others discussed the need to create a new political organization seemingly unconnected to Hamas or the Brotherhood.
In one excerpt (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/185.pdf), (see page 4 of the link) an unidentified male said: "We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner, we are place in a corner. It is known who we are, we are marked and I believe there should be a new neutral organization which works on both sides."
CAIR was founded a year later, in 1994, by Ahmad and Awad. In March 1994, Awad was taped (http://www.investigativeproject.org/223/cairs-awad-in-support-of-the-hamas-movement) at Miami's Barry University publicly declaring his support for Hamas: "I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO," Awad said.
A July 30, 1994 agenda (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/717.pdf) for the Palestine Committee, seized by federal agents and introduced at trial, showed that "suggestions to develop the work" of HLF, CAIR and other organizations was on the agenda.
Under the heading "The need for trained resources in the media and political fields," the agenda said: "No doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide."
By 1995, CAIR was conducting public relations work to counter the US detention of Mousa Abu Marzook, the Hamas official and Palestine Committee member who was also head of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US.
A transcript (http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/cair_supportmarzook.pdf) of an August 1995 phone call intercepted by government investigators showed HLF officials Shukri Abu Baker and Ghassan Elashi talking about CAIR's efforts (see page 12 of the link).
Days before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI raided the offices of Infocom, a Texas internet company connected to HLF. CAIR's Nihad Awad appeared at a press conference (http://web.archive.org/web/20011012101228/www.iap.org/theraid.htm) outside Infocom headquarters to denounce what he called an "anti-Muslim witch hunt."
CAIR remained a vocal player in the public debate after 9/11. It developed relationships with members of Congress (http://www.investigativeproject.org/791/congress-cozying-up-to-cair). FBI officials frequently attended CAIR fundraising banquets, and CAIR cited such contacts in its own literature and Web site as evidence of its good standing with the government.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions

[boutons_deux]

Muslims hilariously respond to ISIL leader’s call for recruits
http://qz.com/583097/mom-said-no-only-if-theres-free-pizza-muslims-hilariously-respond-to-isil-leaders-call-for-recruits/?utm_source=atlfb

[RandomGuy]

...
I would point out that communism wasn't defeated as an ideology because we killed all the communists. We won, when the idea was discredited as being dumb.


Why do you continue to post articles referencing CAIR and their thoughts on the matter? CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to.


...
Draw the parallels. Give me examples of actual ISIS propaganda, and statements by CAIR in context, and show me how they are "exactly the same". If they are exact, I would expect it would be easy for you.

My bet:
You can't show it, and are likely too lazy to try. You have a cartoonishly simplified version of both in your head that you will be unable to reconcile using your own words.


Replace ISIS with CAIR. Same goal.
ISIS leaders know that they cannot destroy the United States. What they hope to do is to divide the American people and scare us,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)


I guess I win my bet.

Re-stating something when asked for proof doesn't meet even clear the lowest bar for evidence.
Do you want me to be more specific, perhaps? Did you not understand the question?
What would suffice would be a statement by CAIR about their goals, with a link, and a statement from ISIS about their goals, and some link. That is what I am asking you for.
That way I can see for myself if what you said is true.
So, again, can you show me what evidence supports your statement? (assuming you care about the truth)


You win the bet. Silly me for assuming two terrorist organizations had the exact same goals.


... So, you don't really care about what is true or not? ( I assumed incorrectly that you care about what is true or not?)


Are you going draw the distinctions between ISIS and CAIR's endgame or what?


Not really an answer.

You made the claims "CAIR is spreading the exact ISIS propaganda you are opposed to" and "[the] two [are] terrorist organizations"

I asked you to show how that is so. Your claims, your burden of proof. ...

We then moved to whether you cared about the truth, you said you did, and I asked a more basic question, which you also dodged.
...
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is pretty easy.

There is no evidence CAIR is a terrorist organization, nor is there any evidence that it has the same goals or propaganda as ISIS.


VISION AND MISSION statement, CAIR website
CAIR's vision is to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding.

CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CORE PRINCIPLES


CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.




Condemning violence seems to be somewhat at odds with claims of CAIR being a "terrorist" organization. I have now provided proof, in the form of direct statements by one of the organizations under discussion. You have not. We can now begin to form some fair model of what is true. Usually when one claim has evidence, and the the other doesn't, a reasonable, honest person will give more weight to the side with evidence.

...


You copy paste a CAIR mission statement and think that was unbiased and passes as proof they don't support terrorist organizations? :lol An honest person who isn't lazily skimming articles can clearly see what side is more heavily weighted with evidence.

Read a bit more carefully. I said that their mission statement was "proof". Not "good proof" not "all the proof necessary to evaluate your claim that it was a terrorist organization", but merely "proof". The omission of qualifiers was very deliberate.

One should be somewhat skeptical of public statements of groups, since those tend to be polished versions of underlying views, although public statements of groups tend to be put out after a lot of vetting and careful consideration.

What is relevant is the official condemnation of violence against civilians. Heartfelt or not, official public statements matter.

Is officially condemning violence consistent with the actions of a "terrorist organization"?

[RandomGuy]

[Long list of things culled from an obviously biased source.


One should also be skeptical of such lists, as there is an obvious methodology of cherry-picking. Once you start seeing things like "in 1994 someone said" and "may have been alleged", you should start discounting the weight of such evidence. Short quotes, out of context are not the hallmarks of someone trying to be intellectually honest.

What you also have are quite a few things by some members, but again, nothing specific or officially endorsed. Again, not overly strong evidence. It is possible for individual members and views to not fully represent an entire organization.

Digging into it a bit, your copy pasta contains an interpretation of CAIR by "terrorism expert Steven Emerson... characterizing CAIR" This is the same guy who claimed that there are places in Europe that are "no-go zones" where Muslims are apparently in complete control.

"In Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in," he said. Leading the British Prime Minister to comment: “Frankly I choked on my porridge and thought it must be April’s Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11340399/David-Cameron-US-terror-expert-Steve-Emerson-is-a-complete-idiot.html

One can't discount other things this guy says completely, but one should start weighing his interpretations of facts much less. The fact that his statements are on your list, further diminishes the credibility of the other characterizations.

That said, you have founders and board members being convicted of things that should give one pause. These are not rank and file members. The most convincing parts though were at the end.


A number of American Muslims have made similar observations:

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, who published Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”
Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) called CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States. Jamal Hasan, also of CDT, said that CAIR’s goal is to spread “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.”
According to Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, CAIR and similar groups “condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism,” and adds that “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.”

Overall, moderately convincing. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Why is it that none of the top people in the muslim communities/mosques don't come out against this violence? Is it that the radicalism is being taught in the mosques? I can't believe that the relatives and friends of radicalized muslims don't know what's going on. Or is it that they are afraid of their own lives?

http://www.freemuslims.org/about/nawash.php

I gave a bunch of other quotes you seem not to have seen.

[TheSanityAnnex]

One should also be skeptical of such lists, as there is an obvious methodology of cherry-picking. Once you start seeing things like "in 1994 someone said" and "may have been alleged", you should start discounting the weight of such evidence. Short quotes, out of context are not the hallmarks of someone trying to be intellectually honest.

What you also have are quite a few things by some members, but again, nothing specific or officially endorsed. Again, not overly strong evidence. It is possible for individual members and views to not fully represent an entire organization.

Digging into it a bit, your copy pasta contains an interpretation of CAIR by "terrorism expert Steven Emerson... characterizing CAIR" This is the same guy who claimed that there are places in Europe that are "no-go zones" where Muslims are apparently in complete control.
"In Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in," he said. Leading the British Prime Minister to comment: “Frankly I choked on my porridge and thought it must be April’s Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11340399/David-Cameron-US-terror-expert-Steve-Emerson-is-a-complete-idiot.html

One can't discount other things this guy says completely, but one should start weighing his interpretations of facts much less. The fact that his statements are on your list, further diminishes the credibility of the other characterizations.

That said, you have founders and board members being convicted of things that should give one pause. These are not rank and file members. The most convincing parts though were at the end.



Overall, moderately convincing. Thank you.

Emerson's comment on Birmingham specifically was indeed idiotic, but he was correct in saying there are no-go zones in Europe.

National newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, explicitly using the term “no-go zones”:
http://www.svd.se/opinion/ledarsidan/55-no-go-zoner-i-sverige-minner-om-parallellsamhallen_4051399.svd


National newspaper Aftonbladet on the rampant ISIS recruitment taking place in these areas:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article20427940.ab


Dr Magnus Ranstorp on the rapid growth of radicalized Islamists (in English):

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/23/from_the_welfare_state_to_the_caliphate_sweden_isl amic_state_syria_iraq_foreign_fighters/


An article about the police incident deserting their own and ceding control to criminals in Landskrona. They literally use the term in the headline, adding that the police are now pulling out of the area:

http://hd.se/landskrona/2014/07/28/kriminella-far-fritt-spelrum-i/


The local police chief explaining why the officers are not to exit their vehicles and make arrests:

http://www.hd.se/lokalt/landskrona/2014/07/28/brottslighet-kan-lagforas-inifran-polisbilarna/


More from the police chief on how they now deal with the area:

http://hd.se/landskrona/2014/08/01/polischef-svarar-om-prioriteringar/


Also, if these areas do not exist, why is the ambulance union demanding military-grade protection gear to enter them?

http://mobil.svd.se/nyheter/ambulansfacket-kraver-skyddsutrustning_svd-4094045


Another article interviewing the ambulance union chief on why they need bulletproof vests, helmets and similar gear:

http://magasinetneo.se/artiklar/det-ar-definitivt-ett-nytt-fenomen-att-vi-ar-sa-utsatta/
As for the police report (http://polisen.se/Aktuellt/Rapporter-och-publikationer/Rapporter/Publicerat---Nationellt/Ovriga-rapporterutredningar/Kriminella-natverk-med-stor-paverkan-i-lokalsamhallet/), it clearly states that there are indeed informal courts and parallel justice systems (page 12, third paragraph (3.4.3)). Anyone who has read about Södertäljenätverket knows how broad the extent of this clan-based influence can be.
http://polisen.se/Aktuellt/Rapporter-och-publikationer/Rapporter/Publicerat—Nationellt/Ovriga-rapporterutredningar/Kriminella-natverk-med-stor-paverkan-i-lokalsamhallet/ (http://polisen.se/Aktuellt/Rapporter-och-publikationer/Rapporter/Publicerat---Nationellt/Ovriga-rapporterutredningar/Kriminella-natverk-med-stor-paverkan-i-lokalsamhallet/)
The vehicle checkpoints are mentioned on page 15, fourth paragraph (3.5.3).
On page 13, second paragraph (3.4.4) you find the frequent attacks on police. Here is just one of many news stories on how police have to install shatterproof glass on their vehicles because they get rocks hurled at them whenever entering these areas:
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/abc/nya-super-rutor-ska-skydda-polisen-fran-stenkastande-gang

[boutons_deux]

Libya oil guards clash with Islamic State near biggest terminal

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/01/04/libya-oil-guards-clash-with-islamic-state-near-biggest-terminal/

[boutons_deux]

Broke ISIS Cuts Salaries After Obama Blast Literally Blows Up Their Cash

the United States has continued making substantial progress in the war against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL).

The Coalition Joint Task Force for Operation Inherent Resolve (https://twitter.com/CJTFOIR) announced in January (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-lost-40-percent-territory-iraq-20-percent-syria-coalition-n490426) that the terrorist group has lost 40% of its territory in Iraq and 20% of its territory in Syria, as airstrike-supported offensives by Iraqi security forces liberated the major cities of Ramadi and Tikrit. US forces also eliminated the commander of the Baaj (http://aranews.net/2016/01/isis-commander-killed-in-u-s-strike-north-iraq/) district of Mosul, Hajim Ahmed al-Aswad, earlier this morning.

Recent events have thrown yet another wrench into the operations of Daesh. A coalition airstrike recently took out a “cash storage” facility in Mosul that held millions of dollars; prompting the terrorist group to announce it will be forced to cut their fighters’ salaries in half.

The fighters used to make between $400 and $1,200 a month, plus a $50 stipend for their wives and $25 for each child. The coalition has been specifically targeting the other main source of money for Daesh, taking out oil refiners and transportation trucks that smuggle illegal oil. That oil then resold for huge profits, ironically to their own enemies, the Syrian Assad Regime, and possibly to Turke (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/isis-is-the-con-ed-of-syria.html)y, which has long turned a blind eye to the terrorists over the border in hopes they will destroy the Kurdish rebels that are vying for their independence.

Daesh makes most of its money by extorting it from the local population, but the coalition’s efforts to cut off other sources of income are proving fruitful. As their finances fail, pressure from inside their little “caliphate” will continue to grow. Daesh will soon learn that actual governance is much harder than terrorizing civilians. As CNN noted (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/news/world/isis-salary-cuts/):


http://cat.sv.us.criteo.com/delivery/lg.php?cppv=1&cpp=th6Cd3xkRXM3ZDhxRTRFT3F1cHU0SVR4Ujh1R1RvM3RTK0 paVGtrYWJBWUgrMWpmQm1zaW9GUGx4MVRta2NlVllQNlJkbFIw UW9ZL0JMODhtNStWY3hORm5hZU9nYkt6b0REeUFRT2hIdW8wcl g4a1BvenludVU5aWJYMUlDMVJVRnozYmQ4U0hRMlRJZ0FmMFpl eVdHK3p4YTRjVWhXd1FHdHd1TGQ2aFFwMWc5ZWlZMS82djFpSG 1hTTJRVXI2cW03Lyt8http://sync.mathtag.com/sync/img?type=sync&mt_exid=20&redir=http%3a%2f%2fdis.criteo.com%2frex%2fmatch.as px%3fc%3d2%26uid%3d%5bMM_UUID%5d


Another source of financial pressure is the massive cost of operating a functioning government. ISIS provides public services and collects taxes. That means it has to pay for infrastructure and civilian employee salaries. To keep the lights on, it pays highly skilled engineers and technicians, who can make upwards of $1,500 a month, according to an investigative team of UN researchers. ISIS also subsidizes the cost of bread for the public, experts say.


As their cobbled-together “state” slowly collapses around them, the subdued population will be less and less tolerant of their cruel overlords. President Obama’s strategy for defeating Daesh is making huge progress, no matter how loudly the Republicans wail that it isn’t.

The light at the end of the tunnel is visible; it will be up to our next President to ensure that the right steps are taken to restore order and the rule of law in a volatile region, and to prevent the group from simply reforming under a different name.

You can watch millions of terror-dollars flutter into the air in this video:

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/broke-isis-cuts-salaries-after-obama-blast-literally-blows-up-their-cash/