Known wolf from a known wolf den
The NYPD had suspected New Jersey’s Masjid Omar Mosque, where jihadist Sayfullo Saipov reportedly worshipped, of having radical ties for over 10 years, allegedly keeping all its worshippers under watch.
Moreover, the FBI, which claims it had nothing to do with monitoring the mosque, interviewed Saipov as a potential Islamic terrorist in 2015, but ultimately let him go…
“The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing,” reported the Associated Press (AP)…
Although the “terrorism enterprise investigations” (TEIs) into mosques allow the NYPD to carry out surveillance for years, it has not reportedly yielded a criminally charged mosque or Islamic organization with serving as a jihadist organization.
What this tells us is that the police have been able to identify some of the places where jihadis find aid and comfort (and in some cases are created). These places are not only identified but investigated and monitored by infiltration and recording devices. And yet these efforts have not yielded the desired effects, which would included stopping someone such as Saipov.
What’s more, the FBI keeps encountering and even interrogating people who end up becoming mass murderers of the jihadi variety, and letting them go.
This is a kind of “good news bad news” scenario. The good news is that the authorities know where to look and are identifying the places where the bad apples lurk and even at times which apples are likely to go bad. The bad news is that they cannot seem to distinguish such people from the larger potential-jihadi crowd in these radical mosques and in particular they cannot seem to find a reason to detain them.
Our system protects liberty, particularly the liberty of citizens, and preventative detention of large groups of people without due cause is just not something we are willing to do. Nor is it something I think we should be willing to do, particularly to citizens. However, what about non-citizens such as Saipov? In other words, what about deportation? Here’s a list of reasons for deportation of legal residents such as Saipov. It’s rather long, but one of the items of particular interest might be this sort of thing:
…has engaged in or appears likely to engage in terrorist activity, or has incited terrorist activity, or is a representative a terrorist organization or group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or is a member of a terrorist organization (unless the person proves that he had no idea of its terrorist aims), or endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to do so, or has received military-type training from or on behalf a terrorist organization, or is the terrorist’s spouse or child, if the relevant activity took place within the last five years.
It’s that “appears likely to engage in terrorist activity” part that’s tricky yet potentially promising. How broadly or narrowly should this be defined? Someone like Saipov also had a wife and several children, and the children had apparently been born here and were citizens. What to do in a case such as that? And how dramatic should the red flags have to be before acting?
I am of the opinion that there is no reason we should be encouraging immigration through the diversity visa program from countries otherwise underrepresented in our immigration population (this is the program under which Saipov entered in 2010). That program is nonsensical and in this case it turned out to be self-destructive.
In addition, monitoring of mosques that are known to be hotbeds of radical Islamic jihadist thought is obviously inadequate at this point. Mosques, of course, are protected by the First Amendment, but if they’re preaching violence they’ve gone beyond the usual definition of “religion” and have segued into something quite different.
It’s not easy to draw the line, but in parts of Europe they have been far more Draconian than in this country. For example, in France:
French authorities shut down 20 mosques and prayer halls they found to be preaching radical Islamic ideology since December, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday.
“Fight against the #radicalization: since December 2015, twenty Muslim places of worship have been closed,” the Interior Ministry tweeted.
Of the country’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls, approximately 120 of them have been suspected by French authorities of preaching radical Salafism, a fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam, according to France 24.
“There is no place … in France for those who call for and incite hatred in prayer halls or in mosques ”¦ About 20 mosques have been closed, and there will be others,” Cazeneuve said.
Where does freedom of religion end and where does self-protection begin? I don’t think this is an easy question at all, but radical Islamic jihadism cloaks itself in the mantle of religious liberty, a liberty it would destroy if it had its way. Surely that should not be protected.
It’s common knowledge that these jihad s use rented trucks, so why hasnt the NYPD compiled a list of *persons of interest * that the truck company can scrutinize these customers like they probably do in Israel. ACLU will call it profiling I guess, but cmon public safety should be considered, they take you aside at the airports if you are suspicious & give you a grilling.
“they take you aside at the airports if you are suspicious & give you a grilling.”
BS…I’m white 55 & boring as all hell when I travel with my wife & 3 kids. All I want is my seat & a safe landing at my destination.
I routinely get the extra pat down & the magic wand on my junk. Trust me…they are not going to set Guinness records with those images…TSA is an assault on freedom & dignity. I hope W gets struck by lightning for that alone.
And the problem is Islam…always will be.
“There is no place … in France for those who call for and incite hatred…” Yes there is…it’s in every Koran.
Where does freedom of religion end and where does self-protection begin?
this is easy
Self protection is no longer valid
america is an oppressor state
and an oppressor has no right to self defense which would ammount to protecting that status quo, their superiority and negate the right of the oppressed to violence and class hatred…
didnt you pass your feminist courses when they went thorugh this stuff?
I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Robin Morgan
once this became the dialectic for feminists, then racialists had it too on the united fronts stuff… (even making a joke in movies if you know which ones to look at… jokes like what do you call a white man who hates blacks? a racist… what do you call a black man who hates whites? smart!!! that goes back to the 70s)
they are very proud of it and you can go read, but then you will have to accept what tacitally was supported is whats confusing you.. cause just as the teachers didnt tell the parents and students of the racist courses dialectical games, they are not going ot tell you till its way too late.
ie. if they told you and you beleive you woudl fight back
but since they dont, and you have to be told by someone else, you get to negate what is there, never look and do ont understand waht is going on around you and where its from..
they are very proud of this.. they take the credit and all that, and even say so.. but that means nothing to those who dont want that to be the reality… sadly, it is, and its pretty much unopposed!!
which is why 10 years ago i said we are going to fall eventually / you cant remove th bias when the persons needed to do it wont see it cause of too much ego, too litte knowing, many assumptions (The biggest being crazy stuff like that isnt normal, so that one doesnt know it is normal and there is a generatio coming up that makes the current crazy one look like pastoral puritans)
by the way, i mentioned the wolf group the first day it happened and brougth them up and gave you the whole story of the russians behind it using the turks and so on…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nonviolence actually pretends that defending ourselves against our oppressors is immoral.
the reason your always confused and such is that you dont believe that these people are driving the truck and dominant while you think their stuff is not valid!!! there is only one main group driving this, and its sister groups with it – and since your a de facto member and its normalized for your whole life you will NEVER ever examine it for what it actually has done,said etc..
so here is what THEY put together that everyone your confused by is going by… these are the rules for oppressors and oppressed and if you learn them you wont be confused any more and ask dumb questoins (dumb because to them your an ignorant on the right who doesnt know and you show it by asking what everyone edumacated knows)
Oppressed peoples have a fundamental right to self defense [oppressors do NOT] This self defense is characterized as “violence” because revolution is only seen as legitimate when it’s on the terms of the oppressors. – so islam is defending itself, women are defending themselves, black lives matter is dfending itself!!!
Nonviolence is a means of controlling the most rebellious of the oppressed. Nonviolence as an ideology is most often used to portray the violence of the oppressed as ‘irrational’ and the violence of the oppressor as ‘rational.’
[so they see islamic oppressed by the west as fighting against the false rational violence of the oppressors… you want to pass the grade you better get it… ]
in order for non violence to work your opposition must hav ea concsience and of course white heterosexual cis gendered fascists at birth dont have that..
There is honor in fighting back
which is why you an oppressor white woman of an oppressor nation have no righ tto self defense.. got it. when the oppressors defend themselves they are preserving the oppression…
[this comes actually from nazi germany repackages like a lot of feminist stuff, after all, sanger and ernst rudin really hit it off and the groups that did went cryptic afterwards and went for the womens movement because the men will do what the women want.. ]
unless you take these courses and thingsd which are the new norm post feminism revolutionary politics of 68 and onwards… then you dont know why they think they way they do…
[right, they are not racist.. didnt you notice that in the knock out game and that.. their violence is fightinf for freedom so how can it be racist? of course you guys try to make sene of this and call them crazy, but if you were taght this, or learned it they make sense thruogh this. better to imagine and make up i guess.]
to them and the left your right to self defense is the right of the oppressors to use force to maintain the status quo against the race groups, gays, islam, women, etc.
duh.
you really should read what the new schools been puttng out for the past 30 years
Your last paragraph is prophetic. If only every media organization would broadcast it or print it in Banner, 30 pt., Bold. Thank you for expressing so clearly what Iv’e been thinking for the past 15 years.
Marquet law review
Feminist (or “Feminist”) reform of Self-defense law: some critical reflections
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5028&context=mulr
AND
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feminist Philosophy of Law
Legal standards of reasonableness are another area where feminist philosophers of law strive to reveal male norms. In areas of the law from criminal law (would a reasonable person believe that the threat of harm was sufficient to require the use of force in self-defense?)
through al this your going to find that the laws on self defense were deemed masculine and not good, just as the laws were deemed by the panthers to be writtenby whites and so not good..
got it? what? you never bothered?
then i just replaced feminist with islam and got..
Self-defense in Islamic and International Law
JihÄd as Defense: Just-war theory in the Quran and Sunnah
Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law
while you guys talk about bs, they are working hard on all these other serious things that once in place and acted upon, become your next series of bs to wonder about… funny to watch..
on another note, here is one of those originators of these ideas.. lets have a round of applause for a real woman, robin morgan…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Let’s run it on down. White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today. Yet who is controlling the supposed revolution to change all that? White males (yes, yes, even with their pasty fingers back in black and brown pies again). It just could make one a bit uneasy. It seems obvious that a legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, and white women—with men relating to that as best they can. A genuine Left doesn’t consider anyone’s suffering irrelevant, or titillating; nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the bottom (and functioning as objectified prizes or “coin” as well). Goodbye to all that.
“Goodbye to All That”, 1970 in Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist, p 123
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group–skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism–the oppressed have no alternative–for they have no power–but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men–but in the short run it’s going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women–kill your fathers, not your mothers.
“Goodbye to All That”, 1970 in Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist, p 126
by the way, this applied to countries
which is why isreal declared an oppressor state has no right to self defense on the left.. duhmmies..
NO. Israel has NO Right of Self-Defense against Palestine.
https://storify.com/occpal/no-israel-has-no-right-of-self-defense-against-pal
I hope W gets struck by lightning for that alone.
W was against the TSA, why don’t you remember?
Trum was for putting HRC into jail when he becomes President. Well, who is the President now, and is HRC in jail…
DC is a little complicated.
Neo: “….radical Islamic jihadism cloaks itself in the mantle of religious liberty, a liberty it would destroy if it had its way.”
Yep. It’s the ideology. A belief in establishing a worldwide Muslim theocracy by any means necessary is something that is unacceptable in a country that believes in democracy with separation of church and state. It is really that simple. That is the core Salafi/Wahhabi ideology. That makes it a threat to all non-believers worldwide. Preach, believe, and act on Salafi/Wahhabi ideology and you are an enemy of all free humans. We must act accordingly. Expose the Salafi/Wahhabi doctrine for what it is – a scheme for world domination not unlike Hitler’s Third Reich, Imperial Japan’s, or the Communist USSR’s. Make the doctrine known widely. Isolate it. Personalize it. Let all those who do not subscribe to such a heinous doctrine know how it threatens them. Unite with all who don’t accept the Salafi/Wahhabi doctrine and defeat it theologically, logically, and on the battlefield.
Islam is no different than the Vatican was when they tried Jean De Arc and burned her at the stake for wearing men’s clothing.
Or in 1200. Or when they did this. https://romecorruptedchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/a-time-when-the-bible-was-banned-and-burned/
It took several religious wars to fight off the State Religion of the Vatican. And it took the Pilgrims exiling themselves to the Americas, to escape from the power of the Church of England, another State Religion.
Islam’s status is an eye sore because it reminds Westerners so often of the things they were made to forget. And the things nobody teaches them.
Ymarsakar:
It was not the Vatican as a whole that tried Joan. In fact, they fairly quickly condemned the verdict:
See also this.
Fairly quickly? What are you talking about.
First session: Wednesday, February 21, 1431[edit]
After being brought before the court, the proceedings were explained to Joan and an exhortation was delivered to her by Bishop Cauchon, following which she was required to take an oath concerning her testimony.
Question: Do you swear to speak the truth in answer to such questions as are put to you?
Joan: I do not know what you wish to examine me on. Perhaps you might ask such things that I would not tell.
Question: Will you swear to speak the truth upon those things which are asked you concerning the faith, which you know?
Joan: Concerning my father and my mother, and what I have done since I took the road to France, I will gladly swear to tell the truth. But concerning my revelations from God, these I have never told or revealed to anyone, save only to Charles, my King. And I will not reveal them to save my head.
4 months. They had months to do something except support the Inquisitors and Priests involved.
1431 to 1457, too quick to see?
The authority to try heretics comes from the Vatican. Are you trying to create a technical excuse that because Mueller is part of the Trum Admin, Trum is not responsible for Mueller’s actions?
Well okay, what about the actions of his admin Trum had affirmed. Or to use another popular example, is Bush II responsible for the TSA? Yes and no. From what authority was the TSA created in the modern sense? Somebody in the White House.
Pilate is not responsible for crucifying Jesus, because the responsibility rests with the people who knowingly condemned an innocent person to death as a criminal. And whatever responsibility Pilate had, it would have went to his authorities who authorized his powers and limited his choices. While Pilate can wash his hands, Trum wash his hands of Mueller (after firing him), the Vatican cannot wash their hands of the authority given to trials of Inquisition against heretics merely because somebody didn’t get enough of a bribe a few decades later.
Excommunicating dead people is easy. When they are alive, as HRC is alive, the palm gets greased in the Vatican to keep it that way.
Why do you keep reading Leftist tracks, Art, and then posting it here and then reading/thinking even more over them… no wonder they can take over your mind.
Do you know what happens when someone on the autistic spectrum spends too much time reading and emulating Leftist philosophy? They become who they fight/hate.