PDA

View Full Version : Muslim Brotherhood declares war, nobody notices


dmytryp
10-11-2010, 10:25 PM
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/10/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america
Read the whole piece
In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with one hundred times more activists than al-Qaida, issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.

whacko
10-11-2010, 11:18 PM
Fasten your seatbelt, this could get bumpy.:evil

Rowan
10-12-2010, 12:00 AM
I noticed. It's my job.

whacko
10-12-2010, 12:08 AM
I noticed. It's my job.

You're a seatbelt maker?;)

Rowan
10-12-2010, 12:09 AM
You're a seatbelt maker?;)
:ROFL: Not exactly... ;)

whacko
10-12-2010, 12:34 AM
Hi Rowan,

After reading your bio I hope you now work for Fed-Ex.:D

And if I've offended you...:flag:With a soupcon of :evil

Only kidding.

Regards

Whacko

blacbird
10-12-2010, 01:10 AM
I think it's long been assumed that the Muslim Brotherhood was de facto "at war" with the West. They are brothers in arms with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, are they not? Did this announcement in any way take you by surprise, dmytry?

Seems little more than a standard kind of terrorist public service announcement, similar to the stuff Ayman Al-Zawahiri has been pumping out every now and then for years.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 01:38 AM
I think it's long been assumed that the Muslim Brotherhood was de facto "at war" with the West. They are brothers in arms with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, are they not? Did this announcement in any way take you by surprise, dmytry?

Seems little more than a standard kind of terrorist public service announcement, similar to the stuff Ayman Al-Zawahiri has been pumping out every now and then for years.
Well, yes and no.
Their leader had openly ndorsed AQ tactics now.
As Rubin notes in the op article
This explicit formulation of a revolutionary program makes it a game-changer. It should be read by every Western decisionmaker and have a direct effect on policy because this development may affect people's lives in every Western country.

...snip

Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.

But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.


As to your broader point. It sure doesn't look like the West considers itself at war with the Brotherhood. Since one of the prevailent talking points is that the enemy is, to paraphrase RH's words, "a small bunch of cave-dwelling fanatics." Muslim Brotherhood is a very large organization with multiple fronts, a lot of well educated and influential members. The more distressing thing is that it is one of the strongest influences in Muslim communities in the West. Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front.

rugcat
10-12-2010, 02:02 AM
Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front.

"We at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with the entire American Muslim community are deeply saddened by the massive loss of life resulting from the tragic events of September 11. American Muslims utterly condemn the vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all American in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/CAIRstatementsontheeventsofSeptember11.aspx

Rowan
10-12-2010, 02:15 AM
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/cair_identified_by_the_fbi_as.php


CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Dallas--In testimony Tuesday, FBI Agent Lara Burns reported before the jury in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, right alongside HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Agent Burns further testified that CAIR received money from HLF - a claim that Nihad Awad blatantly denied in a congressional testimony in September of 2003 (http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/nihad.pdf).

Burns also said that both Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, CAIR co-founders (http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/lonk.pdf)who today serve as CAIR’s chairman emeritus and executive director, respectively, were also listed as individual members the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in America.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/federal-court-rules-against-hamas-linked-muslim-brotherhood-cair-islamic-supremaists-must-answer-to-.html


Federal Court Rules Against Hamas-Linked, Muslim Brotherhood CAIR
Islamic Supremacists Must Answer to Fraud Charges by Five Former Clients
"The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is a criminal organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the U.S.," Mr. Yerushalmi said referring to the fact that CAIR has been named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial..."

Smiling Ted
10-12-2010, 02:50 AM
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/CAIRstatementsontheeventsofSeptember11.aspx

Rugcat-

You might have missed the CAIR response to the attacks on on September 12, 2001 - when a CAIR spokesman claimed that Israel's Mossad was behind the attacks.

They learned quickly, though, and rarely said things like that again...in English.

rugcat
10-12-2010, 02:57 AM
Ah yes. The Atlas Shrugged blog, run by Pamela Geller, right wing queen of Muslim Bashers.

Postings on "Atlas Shrugs" have included a video suggesting Muslims have sex with goats, a doctored picture showing President Obama urinating on an American flag, and a fake image of new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in Nazi garb.

Geller has also accused Obama of anti-Semitism, said that he does the bidding of "Islamic overlords," and posted an essay suggesting that the president is the love child of Malcolm X.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/pamela-gellerqueen-of-mus_n_689709.html

Federal Court Rules Against Hamas-Linked, Muslim Brotherhood CAIR

The ruling you refer to was a request by CAIR to dismiss a fraud complaint, not a ruling on the facts, or terrorist activities.

As for Mr. Yerushalmi? Here's a little background on this fellow, "who is an advocate for criminalizing Islam itself and imposing 20-year sentences on practicing Muslims. Yes, really."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36930_Meet_the_Leaders_of_the_Anti-Mosque_Movement

I have no interest in debating this. Just reminding some of the newer members that a statement like "Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front." is not actually a fact, as it's being passed off. It is, to put it charitably, a right wing opinion. Or imo, more accurately, extremist right wing propaganda.

As it turns out, CAIR is America's largest Muslim criminal organization whose criminal activities know no bounds," Yerushalmi continued.

Vince524
10-12-2010, 03:03 AM
Ok, I'm know this is going to sound stupid, but could someone explain all this to me in very simple terms. Use small words and short declarative sentences.

Thank you in advance.

Rowan
10-12-2010, 03:11 AM
I'm not interested in debating this either. Merely trying to demonstrate there are opposing views--others who believe CAIR is associated with the MB (in response to your post wherein CAIR professes their sympathy for the cowardly acts of 9-11). Which is not to say I support the arguments, stances or beliefs of any sources I quoted. I do, however, find the CT Blog to be an excellent resource.

I didn't get the impression Dmytryp was trying to pass it off as a fact. I believe he said:

Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front.

rugcat
10-12-2010, 03:17 AM
Ok, I'm know this is going to sound stupid, but could someone explain all this to me in very simple terms. Use small words and short declarative sentences.

Thank you in advance.Sure.

CAIR (The Council On American-Islamic Relations) is an advocacy group. They are Anti Israel, Pro Palestinian, and work to affect American opinion about that situation, making it more favorable to the Palestinians, as well as trying to show Islam in general in a favorable light.

Some people believe that they are actually a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent terrorist group similar to Al Qaeda, and potentially even more dangerous. These people believe that CAIR's true agenda is to subvert the US and aid terrorism in any way possible. Most who believe this are on the far political right.

I'm not a fan of CAIR. I do object to extremist views presented as fact.

Rowan
10-12-2010, 03:23 AM
Ok, I'm know this is going to sound stupid, but could someone explain all this to me in very simple terms. Use small words and short declarative sentences.

Thank you in advance.

You don't sound stupid!
Wikipedia might fit the bill for you:

CAIR --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
CAIR website: http://www.cair.com/

Muslim Brotherhood -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Here's their website: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
10-12-2010, 03:23 AM
CAIR (The Council On American-Islamic Relations) is an advocacy group. They are Anti Israel, Pro Palestinian, and work to affect American opinion about that situation, making it more favorable to the Palestinians, as well as trying to show Islam in general in a favorable light.

Some people believe that they are actually a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent terrorist group similar to Al Qaeda, and potentially even more dangerous. These people believe that CAIR's true agenda is to subvert the US and aid terrorism in any way possible.

So CAIR is like Sinn Fein?

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 03:40 AM
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/CAIRstatementsontheeventsofSeptember11.aspx


I have no interest in debating this. Just reminding some of the newer members that a statement like "Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front." is not actually a fact, as it's being passed off. It is, to put it charitably, a right wing opinion. Or imo, more accurately, extremist right wing propaganda.
You should know better.
What I said is, in fact, a fact, whether you like it or not. And it doesn't originate with "the right wing" whether extreme or not. CAIR is suspected by the DOJ, a known right wing organization, of being a Brotherhood front. It was listed as an inindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, where the main defendant was found guilty of funneling money to Hamas.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/360.pdf

Now you can go back to ignoring me, the extremist right winger that I am

EDIT: And here is a quote from your newfound source at littlegreenfootballs (it is interesting how Charles Johnson had suddenly become a darling of the left wing. Just to be clear, I have nothing against Johnson, even if I disagree with some things he writes)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33625_IPT-_FBI_Explains_CAIR_Cutoff

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not “an appropriate liaison partner” for the FBI because of evidence linking the organization and its founders to Hamas, an FBI assistant director said in a letter to a U.S. Senator.
“In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI,” Richard C. Powers, an assistant director in the FBI’s office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).
Today, the FBI is unsure whether the relationship between CAIR and Hamas ever was severed, Powers wrote.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 04:01 AM
One more post on CAIR funding and then we can close the issue and return to the OP.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/110.pdf

whacko
10-12-2010, 04:02 AM
So CAIR is like Sinn Fein?

Oh, good one.

But not really.:evil

Smiling Ted
10-12-2010, 08:57 AM
I'm not a fan of CAIR. I do object to extremist views presented as fact.

Here's the (much-footnoted) deal, straight from the Wikipedia:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that on August 7, 2007, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent testified at the Holy Land Foundation trial that CAIR was "listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee", that it had received money from the Foundation (conflicting with Nihad Awad's Congressional testimony), and that co-founders Awad and Omar Ahmad were "listed as individual members [of] the Brotherhood Palestine Committee in America."[50]

On October 22, 2007, the Holy Land Foundation trial ended in a mistrial.[47] CAIR stated that the reason for the mistrial, and no convictions on any of the charges, was that the charges were built on "fear, not facts."[51]

In 2008, the FBI discontinued its long-standing relationship with CAIR. Officials said the decision followed the conviction of the HLF directors for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, revelations that Nihal Awad had participated in planning meetings with HLF, and CAIR's failure to provide details of its ties to Hamas.[52][53]

During a 2008 retrial of the HLF case, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR "a front group for Hamas."[54] In January 2009, the FBI's DC office instructed all field offices to cut ties with CAIR, as the ban extended into the Obama administration.[55]

U.S. Congressmen Sue Myrick (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Paul Broun (R-GA) wrote Attorney General Eric Holder on October 21, 2009, that they were very concerned about CAIR's relationships with terrorist groups, and requesting that the DOJ provide each Congressman a summary of DOJ's evidence and findings that led DOJ to name CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial.[56][57] The four Congressmen also wrote House of Representatives Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood a letter the same day asking that he work with members of the House Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Intelligence Committees to determine if CAIR was successful in placing interns in the committees' offices, to review FBI and DOJ evidence regarding CAIR's Hamas ties, and to determine whether CAIR is a security threat.[58]

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), "appalled", said "I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in denouncing this witch hunt."[59][60] She was echoed by Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, in a speech that included a statement by the House's Tri-Caucus.[61][62] The four Republican Congressmen, joined by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC), then wrote IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman on November 16, 2009, asking that CAIR be investigated for excessive lobbying and failing to register as a lobbying organization.[63][64]

So - you can argue that CAIR is not proven to have links to terrorist organizations. But considering the fact that the FBI believes they do, and has severed ties with them because of that belief, you can't say that folks who believe it are "extremists."

rugcat
10-12-2010, 10:05 AM
So - you can argue that CAIR is not proven to have links to terrorist organizations. But considering the fact that the FBI believes they do, and has severed ties with them because of that belief, you can't say that folks who believe it are "extremists."As I said, I'm not a fan of CAIR. They support the Palestinian cause, and believe Israel is an occupying power. It makes perfect sense to me that they would have links to organizations who have provided support to the Palestinian movement, including Hamas -- although those links are indirect at best.

But let's go back to the original statement -- it didn't talk about possible affiliations with Hamas, or support for groups that have engaged in terrorism. It said, specifically, that CAIR is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood -- meaning that is their primary focus, and whatever else they do is just a cover for their true intentions. That's what a front group is.

That is, indeed, not only unprovable, but right wing propaganda. If you google CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood, you will find page after page of right wing blogs and organizations asserting this -- and not one article from any other political persuasion.

Williebee
10-12-2010, 10:11 AM
Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front.

Just pointing it out. That, and that "suspicion" does not make a claim fact, except maybe on the news.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 10:14 AM
But let's go back to the original statement -- it didn't talk about possible affiliations with Hamas, or support for groups that have engaged in terrorism. It said, specifically, that CAIR is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood -- meaning that is their primary focus, and whatever else they do is just a cover for their true intentions. That's what a front group is.
Why are you misquoting me? My statement was that they are "at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front?" And as Ted quoted, they are. But even putting that aside, would you like me to produce quotes from Hamas charter saying it is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood? And even you can't deny that CAIR are both investigated and suspected of providing material support for Hamas. So, which part of my statement was right wing propaganda. Your attempts to paint everything that doesn't conform to your worldview as "rightwing propaganda" are getting tiresome.

That is, indeed, not only unprovable, but right wing propaganda. If you google CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood, you will find page after page of right wing blogs and organizations asserting this -- and not one article from any other political persuasion.
Are Investigative Project on Terrorism, DoJ, FBI "right wing blogs"? It is amazing how you would dig in your heels over something like this.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 10:18 AM
Just pointing it out. That, and that "suspicion" does not make a claim fact, except maybe on the news.
It makes the statement a fact. Because they are, in fact, suspected and investigated of being a front of the Brotherhood. It doesn't make them being a front a fact. Yoou , Rugcat or whomever can disagree with this suspicion and that'd your right, but the claims that my statement was not a fact but an opinion, or as Rugcat put it extreme right wing propaganda, is total bullshit.

Williebee
10-12-2010, 10:32 AM
D-- I agreed with you. The fact that you made the statement of suspicions IS a fact.

And now I have to point out the fact that a suspicion from one person can still be propaganda from someone else. Which, in fact, makes it not TOTAL bullshit.

And now that this demonstration of nitpicking has been... demonstrated. Can we all move on, please?

rugcat
10-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Why are you misquoting me? My statement was that they are "at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front?" When one says, as you did, that the Muslim Brotherhood is a grave danger to us, and that "at the very least they (CAIR) are suspected to be a Brotherhood front," the meaning of that phrase is clear -- that they are actually worse, and that the suspicion is only the tip of the iceberg.

Plus, by using the words, "are suspected," without attribution" you implied that the statement is not in dispute.

It's very much in dispute. I could say, with equal lack of honesty, that Mossad is, at the least, suspected of planning the 911 attacks. They are, by some.

Oh and btw, the Investigative Project on Terrorism is not some neutral investigatory body. It's the creation of Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us. Whatever you think of him, he has a preset belief that Muslims in America are out to get us.Emerson became widely known in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, when, appearing as an expert on CBS News, he theorized that the attack was the work of Islamic extremists. It turned out that Timothy McVeigh was responsible.[1] And:

As for IPT (which was founded after Emerson made Jihad in America), the organisation’s website states that it “does not accept funding from any government agency or religious institutions” and is funded through “charitable contributions from private U.S. individuals and foundations”. Emerson has refused to disclose the identity of these individuals and foundations, however, it is evident from IRS filings made by IPT’s donors that the organization is funded by many of the same foundations which fund America’s powerful Israel lobby.


http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 07:39 PM
When one says, as you did, that the Muslim Brotherhood is a grave danger to us, and that "at the very least they (CAIR) are suspected to be a Brotherhood front," the meaning of that phrase is clear -- that they are actually worse, and that the suspicion is only the tip of the iceberg.
Yes they are either suspected or they are in fact a front. I am not sure but based on the things I saw the suspicion is solid. Which is exactly what I meant. Maybe you can finally stop trying to put things into people's mouths and minds.

Plus, by using the words, "are suspected," without attribution" you implied that the statement is not in dispute.
Huh?
Since I didn't say they were a front, but that they were suspected of this, then, yes it is very much in dispute.


It's very much in dispute. I could say, with equal lack of honesty, that Mossad is, at the least, suspected of planning the 911 attacks. They are, by some.
Oh, really. When DoJ and FBI start an investigation, talk to me. Until then, enough with the straw men already. I told you in a rep, I've never read attlassshrugged and similar sources. Charles Johnson, whom you quoted in this very thread is of exact same position as I am on this issue.


Oh and btw, the Investigative Project on Terrorism is not some neutral investigatory body. It's the creation of Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us. Whatever you think of him, he has a preset belief that Muslims in America are out to get us. And:



http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism
Enough is enough. IPT routinely testifies as experts before Congress on these issues.
I have brought you a copy of a DoJ letter posted on IPT's site. I have brought you factual evidence of CAIR chief being caught lying about CAIR funding to Congress and forced to backtrack.
Do you have anything sunstantial to say or are you ever going to go for ad hominems and see right wing conspiracies and craziness everywhere.
Please provide a list of sources you find authoritative. I am warning you right now that our conversation can become very short if I use your tactics of dismissing things, as I have little faith in some sources. What better proof do you need that people you think objective aren't than the op. What news source apart from Rubin through MEMRI had reported this? Or do you feel that this isn't newsworthy? What news source routinely reports on what is said in Arabic by state controlled press and by state controlled Imams in some of the ME countries? And then you come after may sources because they do report it and brand them as "extremist right wingers"? WTF.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't believe I am even stooping to this level of arguing. Here are a couple of quotes from people about IPT. It isn't hard to find, just go to the IPT "about us page"
http://www.investigativeproject.org/about.php
(for some reason the bit doesn't copy, so you'll have to go to the page and scroll down a bit)
By the way, why did you quote powerbase and not Wiki?
Might it be that the quotes provided there didn't fit your preconcieved notion of Emerson.
This is what you said
Whatever you think of him, he has a preset belief that Muslims in America are out to get us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Emerson
Emerson noted at the outset that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not members of militant groups." But the message of the documentary was that seemingly respectable Muslim organizations have ties with militants who preach violence against moderate Muslims, as well as against Christians and Jews, and that charitable contributions to those organizations make their way to extremists. He documented meetings in American hotels at which Muslims called for a holy war, raised funds for terror organizations, and predicted that terror would ultimately come to the U.S.[2] (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/#cite_note-ha-1) He also filmed Muslim-American youth training with weapons in summer camps, and interviewed supporters of terror who operated under the cover of charitable organizations.[2] (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/#cite_note-ha-1)
Now, I am sure you have handy factual claims that disprove his film. Right?
For somebody who started this exchange with the assertion that I present opinion as fact, you sure do a lot of it. Projecting much?
EDIT: Powerbase is a venture of Spinwatch (http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/)
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Powerbase:About
To use your own technique, how can anybody suspect they are anything but an objective outfit. Pfft.

EDIT: your own quote should have been enough of a red flag for you. Phrases like "however, it is evident from IRS filings made by IPT’s donors that the organization is funded by many of the same foundations which fund America’s powerful Israel lobby." do not bode well for the objectivity of the source.
Look at their bit about funding. Look closely. They tar Jews for contibuting to pro-israeli groups as if this automatically makes them problematic. Is this really the source you want to use?

Rowan
10-12-2010, 09:30 PM
Enough is enough. IPT routinely testifies as experts before Congress on these issues.



http://www.investigativeproject.org/testimony/?&order=author&order_type=SORT_DESC&group=TRUE

rugcat
10-12-2010, 09:35 PM
I told you in a rep, I've never read attlassshrugged and similar sources. Rowan posted the link to Atlasshrugged. I replied to that. What does you having read it or not have to do with anything?Enough is enough. IPT routinely testifies as experts before Congress on these issues.And is lauded by the right and vilified by the left. All I've said is that Emerson is not objective, which is demonstrably true.
I have brought you a copy of a DoJ letter posted on IPT's site. I have brought you factual evidence of CAIR chief being caught lying about CAIR funding to Congress and forced to backtrack.This is not in dispute. Extrapolating that they are a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood is.
Do you have anything sunstantial to say or are you ever going to go for ad hominems and see right wing conspiracies and craziness everywhere.Well, as I pointed out, if you google CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood, all you see is a series of right wing sites reporting on this. Kind of hard not to see them.
Please provide a list of sources you find authoritative. Any major newspaper in the US. I am warning you right now that our conversation can become very short if I use your tactics of dismissing things, as I have little faith in some sources. If only that were true.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 09:51 PM
Rowan posted the link to Atlasshrugged. I replied to that. What does you having read it or not have to do with anything?
Based on that quote you claimed that the position is supported only by right wing and is in fact "right wing propaganda", which is demonstratably untrue.

And is lauded by the right and vilified by the left. All I've said is that Emerson is not objective, which is demonstrably true.
It is? Then demonstrate it. In fact, it is your opinion and an opinion of some left wing commentators.
By the way, are Brad Sherman, Richard A. Clarke, Oliver Revell, Dennis Lormell, Steven Pomerantz and Bob Blitzer notable right wingers?

In fact, look at the wiki page. Really look at the criticisms there. Some of them turned untrue and some are just opinions unsupported by anything and relatively weak. It hardly qualifies to even be called "vilified by the left".

EDIT: You know what, provide links to sources that follow your own guidelines for being objective that actually vilify Emerson.
If you google him, you get blogs, counterpunch and powerbase. By your own standards, not exactly stellar sources.
This is not in dispute. Extrapolating that they are a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood is.
I said they were suspected by the DoJ and the FBI of being a front for the Brotherhood. And these letters show this, as well as testimony Rowan brought. You called that "right wing propaganda".

Well, as I pointed out, if you google CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood, all you see is a series of right wing sites reporting on this. Kind of hard not to see them.
Does it mean they are automatically incorrect? Does it mean that DoJ and the FBI cases are untrue? Does it bode well for the objectivity of the sources you deem authoritative that they don't report on the cases?


Any major newspaper in the US.
I see. So, if major newspapers in US don't report on an issue that means it doesn't happen? Kinda like with the tree.
As I said, the op story is the prime example of your "authoritative" sources being a wee bit behind the times. Which major newspaper reported on this?

It's a nice catch 22. The papers don't report it, leaving it to sources like GLORIA and MEMRI. Then when it's brought up, you can safely say that the source is biase/neo-cons/right wing propaganda and dismiss it, without ever actually addressing the issues.

rugcat
10-12-2010, 10:28 PM
It's a nice catch 22. The papers don't report it, leaving it to sources like GLORIA and MEMRI. Then when it's brought up, you can safely say that the source is biase/neo-cons/right wing propaganda and dismiss it, without ever actually addressing the issues.This is pretty much standard right wing rhetoric. The mainstream media ignores the important true stories and the "truth" is only to be found in right wing sources. Then the right demands you disprove it.

You've taken this far afield. You believe that the evidence for CAIR being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood is strong. In fact, for you it seems obvious. As it does to many on the right, and all of those on the lunatic right fringe.

To me, that belief is agenda driven nonsense.

And if you wish to believe IDP and Emerson are an objective source, unconnected to the right wing, more power to you. Imo he's a typical neocon, like Frank Gaffney, et al. Anyone who cares one way or the other can google him and judge for themselves.

dmytryp
10-12-2010, 10:42 PM
This is pretty much standard right wing rhetoric. The mainstream media ignores the important true stories and the "truth" is only to be found in right wing sources. Then the right demands you disprove it.
Nonsense. I gave you two specific examples. Where are the reports about the HLF case and CAIR's involvement in it? Where are the reports about the speech by Brotherhood head in the OP. Now, if in a later conversation I bring Rubin and Emerson as source because the papers didn't report it, you call the sources dubios and ignore them.

You've taken this far afield. You believe that the evidence for CAIR being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood is strong. In fact, for you it seems obvious. As it does to many on the right, and all of those on the lunatic right fringe.
Stop lying and misquoting me. Have some integrity.

This is what I said
Yes they are either suspected or they are in fact a front. I am not sure but based on the things I saw the suspicion is solid. Which is exactly what I meant.
What part of "I am not sure" you don't get?
I ask you again. Do DoJ and FBI constitute right wing?


And if you wish to believe IDP and Emerson are an objective source, unconnected to the right wing, more power to you. Imo he's a typical neocon, like Frank Gaffney, et al. Anyone who cares one way or the other can google him and judge for themselves.
Ah, I see. So this is no longer "demonstratably true", but actually a belief, and opinion on your part. Glad we ironed that out.

Way to pull out that derogatory "necocon" label. An end to conversation, right? How can anybody believe him if he is a "neocon"? Right?

To sum up. You don't have anything to disprove evidence presented of CAIR's ties to Hamas and Bortherhood. Nada. Zilch. You have no evidence to support the assertion that anything Emerson says is untrue. Nada. Zilch. You can't even present suport from mainstream sources of him being called untrustworthy or "vilified" (well, except for CAIR trying to do it). You made an implicit personal shot at me in your initial posts here by claiming that the only ones suspecting CAIR of being a Brotherhood front are extreme right wing nut jobs. When faced with evidence, you chose ad-hominems against people who compiled the evidence and to dig in your heels about CAIR in general. And you've successfully derailed this thread.
Thanks for playing.

EDIT: By the way, thank you so much for illustrating my point ot BB. He claimed that everybody knew US was already at war with the Muslim Brotherhood, to which I replied as an example about CAIR. A group that is suspected by the FBI and DoJ of ties to Brotherhood, yet deemed trustworthy by a lot of people. Which you amply demonstrated by completely dismissing the allegations without even addressing them. People like Emerson who talk about the Muslim Brotherhood in US are almost automatically branded neo-cons and Islamophobes, regardless of the verasity of their claims.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 12:16 AM
I have a suggestion, Rugcat. Please, list here sources (i.e. analysts) dealing with terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the likes that you don't consider neo-cons/right wingers etc.
Give one source. Just one. That deals factually with what Emerson says. Not just calls him Islamophobe or neocon or right winger or accuse him getting funded from "the same sources that fund the powerful Israeli lobby" (DNC would qualify under that rubric, by the way), but actually factually disproves anything he says. The guy had repeatedly testified before anything that moves and deals with terrorism. Surely, if he is a nutjob and a liar, it would be easy to find factual analysis disproving him.

rugcat
10-13-2010, 12:45 AM
This is, as usual, a pointless discussion which could go on forever.

I simply reiterate that if anyone is still interested, (which i greatly doubt) they should google Seven Emerson. There is plenty of info on him, and people can draw their own conclusions.

ETA:

Surely, if he is a nutjob and a liar, it would be easy to find factual analysis disproving him.

OK. for the vaguely curious: http://www.counterpunch.org/emerson05192003.html

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 01:04 AM
So we can put to rest the discussion who exactly suspect CAIR of being a MB front, and whether it is just a figment of right wing craziness. Here is the link to official list of unindicted co-conspirators (see page 5)
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf

III. The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US
Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations
1. Abdel Haleem Ashqar, aka Abdel Hassan
2. Ahmed Agha
3. Akram Kharoubi
4. Al Aqsa Educational Fund
5. American Middle Eastern League, aka AMEL
6. Ayman Ismail
7. Ayman Sharawi
8. Ayman Siraj Eddin
9. Basman Elashi
10. Bayan Elashi
11. Council on American Islamic Relations, aka CAIR
12. Dalell Mohamed
13. Fawaz Mushtaha, aka Abu Mosab
14. Fayez Idlebi
15. Ghassan Dahduli
16. Hamoud Salem
17. Hassan Sabri
18. Hazim Elashi
19. IAP Information Office
20. Ibrahim Al Samneh
bolding mine
Again, that doesn't necessarily means that CAIR is in fact a Brotherhood front, but to claim that the only ones claiming this are extreme right wingers is bs, unless US gov is considered to be an extreme right winger.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 01:10 AM
OK. for the vaguely curious: http://www.counterpunch.org/emerson05192003.html
Counterpunch? Really? And you have anything to say about my sources. :roll:

But really. Have you read the piece? What exactly does it dispute factually? It is a report on Emerson filing a defamation suit. With no sources but unverifiable second hand sound bites. No actual links to testimonies. No actual links to factually disproving Emerson's statements.

backslashbaby
10-13-2010, 01:12 AM
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1920
The Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International--a publication that features the work of freelance journalist Steven Emerson--released a press release responding to the magazine Extra!, which ran an article (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1443) critical of Emerson's reporting. The press release features the same kind of inaccurate and reckless charges that Extra! said were characteristic of Emerson's work.

Extra! is the magazine of the media watch group FAIR. The article, which appears in the magazine's January/February 1999 issue, was written by John Sugg, senior editor of the Tampa newspaper The Weekly Planet.

The Journal's press release asserts that it has "uncovered evidence that Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) together with Tampa Weekly Planet editor John Sugg and a radical Islamic group called the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have collectively fabricated evidence in manufacturing a conspiracy against investigative journalist and terrorism expert Steven Emerson."

In fact, CAIR independently issued a press release on the Extra! article after it appeared. The group had no role in the article's assignment, writing or editing. What the Journal refers to as a conspiracy, most people would call a writer producing an article for a magazine.

The press release describes FAIR as "an ultra-left wing group that has defended Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, supported Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists, and even promoted a known anti-Semite." Here the Journal seems to share Emerson's chronic inability to differentiate between criticism of U.S. policies and endorsement of the targets of those policies. FAIR, of course, has never defended the actions of Saddam Hussein or supported terrorism of any kind. As for the "known anti-Semite," FAIR (whose founder and executive director is Jeff Cohen) has no idea whom the Journal is talking about.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1443
The original article, certainly interesting

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 01:38 AM
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1920


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1443
The original article, certainly interesting
Extremely. It is from 1999 and uses a good bunch of conspiracies similar to what it accuses Emerson of using -- such as Israeli funding, right wing, dropping Likud name for more weight etc.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 01:42 AM
I will bow out, unless the thread returns to the op.

backslashbaby
10-13-2010, 02:02 AM
I honestly don't know exactly what to think of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood and how seriously to take it all.

Unfortunately, some rabid anti-Muslim types are trying to get me to boycott Campbell's soup in the name of thwarting these groups*. It's out of hand.

This post makes me take it more seriously than I did before I read it, so that's good, anyway.

* http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/m-m-m-m-m-muslim-brotherhood-good.html

eta: a snippet:
Campbell's Soup Canada is about to go halal. (http://www.campbellsoup.ca/en/products/health.asp?label=halal) No biggie, right? Wrong. It is doing so under the auspices of the Islamic Society of North America, a Wahhabi-funded racket (http://discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6178) that is said to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood....

Vince524
10-13-2010, 02:09 AM
Unfortunately, some rabid anti-Muslim types are trying to get me to boycott Campbell's soup in the name of thwarting these groups*. It's out of hand.



I read about that. I didn't get the fuss. Isn't it the same thing as making soup kosher?

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 02:17 AM
Look, I suggest finding better sources than attlassshrugs. Pamela Geller might be right about some things, but they are drowned by a lot of filth.

There isn't much to know about CAIR and ISNA with relation to the MB. The two outfits were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF (Holy Land Foundation) case where the accused were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas. FBI had subsequently severed ties with CAIR as the representative of the Muslim community.
This doesn't mean that they are ready to wage jihad in America or whatever. It does mean, that anybody dealing with them should take care and should be aware of these things, especially if we are talking about official gov and law enforcement groups.
As to Muslim Brotherhood in general -- it is extremely dangerous organisation with hundreds of thousands active members, and having offshoots in most of the Arab world. It is being held under the thumb in Egypt and Syria (one of the ironies where the father of the current ruler crushed MB revolt by killing 10-20k people in a couple of days in a city called Hama). Egypt is coming to a crossroads where Mubarak is either going to die or step down. MB has a lot of popular support and things might get very ugly.

backslashbaby
10-13-2010, 02:24 AM
Look, I suggest finding better sources than attlassshrugs. Pamela Geller might be right about some things, but they are drowned by a lot of filth.

There isn't much to know about CAIR and ISNA with relation to the MB. The two outfits were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF (Holy Land Foundation) case where the accused were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas. FBI had subsequently severed ties with CAIR as the representative of the Muslim community.
This doesn't mean that they are ready to wage jihad in America or whatever. It does mean, that anybody dealing with them should take care and should be aware of these things, especially if we are talking about official gov and law enforcement groups.
As to Muslim Brotherhood in general -- it is extremely dangerous organisation with hundreds of thousands active members, and having offshoots in most of the Arab world. It is being held under the thumb in Egypt and Syria (one of the ironies where the father of the current ruler crushed MB revolt by killing 10-20k people in a couple of days in a city called Hama). Egypt is coming to a crossroads where Mubarak is either going to die or step down. MB has a lot of popular support and things might get very ugly.

I'll certainly take the names more seriously, then. That is very interesting and important to keep up with, yes.


Vince - no, silly. It's a takeover of the world, not just a dietary-religious thing ;)

rugcat
10-13-2010, 02:44 AM
Counterpunch? Really? And you have anything to say about my sources. :roll:

But really. Have you read the piece? What exactly does it dispute factually? It is a report on Emerson filing a defamation suit.Actually, it's a simple report about how a paper accused Emerson of fabricating evidence, Emerson sued, and then for some reason withdrew his lawsuit. Perhaps he didn't want to dispute the facts about whether he fabricated stuff in a court of law under oath.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 02:54 AM
Actually, it's a simple report about how a paper accused Emerson of fabricating evidence, Emerson sued, and then for some reason withdrew his lawsuit. Perhaps he didn't want to dispute the facts about whether he fabricated stuff in a court of law under oath.
Or for some other reason. Have you read the original article? It is unnamed sources, no official reaction etc. Stuff which is hard to prove the author weren't actually told or if he was knew wasn't true -- hence somewhat hard to prove defamation (as well as to prove defamation you actually have to prove material damage, if I am not mistaken).

Crap. I can't help myslef.
This thread isn't about Emerson. It isn't even about CAIR. You've latched on my statement which was demonstratably true and then turned it into a discussion of sources again.

EDIT: The discussion of Emerson's and IPT's credibility is doubly strange since he is considered credible enough to supply info to the FBI and to testify for the gov (if I am not mistaken, much of the work on the HLF was done by him and his group). Yeah, some people call him an Islamophobe. As you pointed out, some people say Mossad is behind 9/11.

rugcat
10-13-2010, 02:56 AM
I'll certainly take the names more seriously, then. That is very interesting and important to keep up with, yes.I think the suspician that groups like CAIR, who are anti Israel, have relations with groups like Hamas and are not forthcoming about what those relations are is a reasonable suspician, whether provable or not.

However, what I'm taking about as right wing paranoia is something very different. It's the idea that CAIR is basically a terrorist front group with a secret agenda to destroy the US. As in, Steve Emerson again, this time about the Muslim American Society:“It is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.,” said Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The agenda of the MAS is to … impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy.” [...]So there are two de facto Muslim front groups promoting secret jihad, apparently.

also: He posited a conspiracy theory that there was a plot within the Pentagon to help the Muslim Brotherhood take over the United States and impose an Islamic caliphate:

COLMES: When you say Islamic penetration, are you talking about just one person, or are you saying there’s widespread penetration, people who want jihad against the United States working — literally working in the Pentagon.

EMERSON: Yes. We know that from the trials of former military members who were brought up on charges — carrying out jihad. [...]

COLMES: And they want to destroy the United States, these people working internally. It was like a fifth column in there.

EMERSON: You got it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/emerson-ellison/

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 03:04 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/emerson-ellison/
That's just crazy talk. There couldn't possibly be jihadis working in US military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting)

rugcat
10-13-2010, 03:09 AM
Crap. I can't help myslef.
This thread isn't about Emerson. It isn't even about CAIR. You've latched on my statement which was demonstratably true and then turned it into a discussion of sources again.Actually, this started when you warned in the OP about the danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood,(which I agree with, btw) and followed that up with your worry that they have influence on western muslims, citing CAIR who you termed "at the very least suspected of being a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood."

When I pointed out that basically the only people suspecting CAIR to be a "front group" are agenda driven rightists, you're the one who brought up IDP as proof of a responsible, unbiased source. And since IDP is in essence Steven Emerson, my questioning of his credentials and bias is certainly germane.

rugcat
10-13-2010, 03:14 AM
That's just crazy talk. There couldn't possibly be jihadis working in US military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting)Well, if you read the quote I provided, Colmes specifically asks if he's talking about one person, or a "widespread penetration" of the pentagon.

This "fifth column" is what Emerson confirms is the problem.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 03:21 AM
So, are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for there to be more potential jihadis in the US military?
By the way, is it possible that one of the reasons MAS was named as a front for MB because its founders were MB members and MAS doesn't deny that?

By the way, from link in post 37
VII. The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US
Muslim Brotherhood:
1. Abdel Rahman Alamoudi
2. Gaddor Ibrahim Saidi
3. Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA
4. Muslim Arab Youth Association, aka MAYA
5. Nizar Minshar
6. North American Islamic Trust, aka NAIT
7. Raed Awad
8. Tareq Suwaidan
bolding mine. That makes it another major American Muslim organization being accused by US gov of being a Muslim Brotherhood front. But it's all in right wing extremists' head. I repeat once again. There is enough of a base for official US gov to publicly list them as such. We are not talking about some individual bloggers accusing them of misdeeds. And that's what you are failing to get from my posts.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 03:25 AM
Actually, this started when you warned in the OP about the danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood,(which I agree with, btw) and followed that up with your worry that they have influence on western muslims, citing CAIR who you termed "at the very least suspected of being a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood."
Actually, that was in response to BB's claim that everybody knew the MB were a dnager.
As I previously said. My statement is demonstratably true.

When I pointed out that basically the only people suspecting CAIR to be a "front group" are agenda driven rightists, you're the one who brought up IDP as proof of a responsible, unbiased source. And since IDP is in essence Steven Emerson, my questioning of his credentials and bias is certainly germane.
Not really. I brought US gov documents cited through IDP of CAIR being accused of being a MB front. I asked whether you considered FBI, DoJ and IPT to be "rightwing propaganda outfits". You ignored the FBI and the Doj and proceeded on Emerson's credentials.

dmytryp
10-13-2010, 03:38 AM
Let's try this point by point, as I see that more complex approach isn't working.
1. Do you dispute CAIR was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in HLF case of funneling money to Hamas?

2. Do you dispute they were listed as "entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations" (see post 37)?

3. Do you dispute that Hamas is a known offshoot of MB?

If the answer is "no" to the above questions, I really don't understand how you can object (even without anything else) of CAIR being named as suspect of being a front of MB or at the very least not accuse those who do of being paranoid right wingers.

Rowan
10-13-2010, 03:53 AM
Let's try this point by point, as I see that more complex approach isn't working.
1. Do you dispute CAIR was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in HLF case of funneling money to Hamas?

2. Do you dispute they were listed as "entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations" (see post 37)?

3. Do you dispute that Hamas is a known offshoot of MB?

If the answer is "no" to the above questions, I really don't understand how you can object (even without anything else) of CAIR being named as suspect of being a front of MB or at the very least not accuse those who do of being paranoid right wingers.

Bolded, red is mine.

Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of the accusations that anyone who entertains this idea is a right wing extremist (not by Dmytryp, but by Rugrat). I think Rugrat has stated this at least five times, if not more.

This all goes back to Dmytryp's earlier statement:

Consider that CAIR is at the very least suspected to be a Brotherhood front.

Note: Dmytryp didn't run in here, foaming at the mouth, proclaiming CAIR to be on the verge of destroying the U.S. The statement, as worded, is factual. They are suspected of being a Brotherhood front. By. The. FBI. You know, that criminal investigative branch of the DOJ? I'm sure an attack on the FBI's integrity will follow. :Shrug:

That's all I'm going to say on the matter because... [I'll refrain from finishing this statement :)].

Williebee
10-13-2010, 04:07 AM
Time out, the band needs a break.