Why? They apparently feel that this would be blaming all of Islam or something, and Liberals seem to get very upset when anyone notes that certain portions of Islam are extremists
All of Islam Isn’t the Enemy
Is President Trump trying to make enemies of the entire Muslim world? That could well happen if he follows up his primitive ban on refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim nations with an order designating the Muslim Brotherhood — perhaps the most influential Islamist group in the Middle East — as a terrorist organization.
Such an order, now under consideration, would be seen by many Muslims as another attempt to vilify adherents of Islam. It appears to be part of a mission by the president and his closest advisers to heighten fears by promoting a dangerously exaggerated vision of an America under siege by what they call radical Islam.
If the NY Times feels that most Muslims are part of the MB, that would mean that most of them are extremists, who believe in the killing of Jews, the destruction of Israel, Sharia law, turning countries into Muslim theocracies bound to a caliphate, and that jihad against infidels is just fine, among other beliefs.
The United Kingdom had no problem designating the MB a terrorist organization, as it is “anti-democratic, openly supportive of terrorism, dedicated to establishing an Islamist government — and opposed to the rule of law, individual liberty, and equality.”
The struggle against extremism is complex, and solutions must be tailored both to the facts and to an understanding of the likely consequences.
The NY Times editorial board apparently has zero facts.
There are good reasons that the Brotherhood, with millions of members, doesn’t merit the terrorist designation. Rather than a single organization, it is a collection of groups and movements that can vary widely from country to country. While the Brotherhood calls for a society governed by Islamic law, it renounced violence decades ago, has supported elections and has become a political and social organization. Its branches often have tenuous connections to the original movement founded in Egypt in 1928.
Oh, brother, we are out in La La Land here. It supports elections in order to get its people in power using the established methods of government, the better to infiltrate and establish its principles. In Western nations, it’s using our systems of government, or “democratic” ideals, our founding documents, our laws, and our social mores against us. Many, many, many of its leaders, and members, still call for jihad and the killing of Jews.
But those advising Mr. Trump seem unwilling to draw distinctions. Stephen Bannon, the chief White House strategist, once called the Brotherhood “the foundation of modern terrorism.†And Frank Gaffney Jr., an anti-Muslim analyst who heads a small think tank, recently told The Times that the Brotherhood’s goals are “exactly the same†as those of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.
They pretty much are. It’s not just those people who say this. The facts are there.
It is wrongheaded and dangerous to tar all Brotherhood members with one brush. The Brotherhood is associated with political parties in Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen and even Israel, and runs schools and hospitals. Many of those parties are America’s partners. The governing party in Turkey, a NATO member, also hasconnections to the Brotherhood. If the group is named to the terrorism list, how will Washington continue these relationships without violating the law?
As to the last, Britain doesn’t seem to have a problem, nor do the other countries that have banned it. As to the first line, the NY Times has had no problem tarring others, particularly whites, white men, gun owners, Republicans, and Conservatives, among others, with that broad brush.
Mr. Trump made America look cruel and incompetent in the eyes of the world with his sweeping immigration edict. Now talk of branding the Brotherhood as a terrorist group has fueled darker fears of an administration intent on going after not just terrorists but Islam itself.
Again, if the NY Times believes that the MB represents Islam, then that’s saying that Islam is extremist, as are the practitioners. Discover The Networks has a long piece on the MB, worth the read, as does Counterjihad. The MB official statement in 2015 reads
“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.†[Ikhwanonline.com, 2015]
The MB is the root of most modern Islamic terrorism, as well as sets the conditions for extremist, repressive Islam. It teaches extremism. A great example is this David Horowitz video, where he engages with a member of the MSA, Muslim Student Association, of which many have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The NY Times EB seems Very Brave in taking the side of a group that kills gays, represses women, and wants to destroy all that the EB members hold dear.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
NY Times says Muslim Brotherhood can’t be terrorists; why, they run schools and hospitals.
Didn’t the Nazis run schools and hospitals?
Appeals court kicks so-called president in the balls:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/appeals-court-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-coming-thursday/ar-AAmMFn8?ocid=spartanntp
Speaking of terrorists, another Georgia white supremacist found with ricin, a favorite tool for terrorists.
http://www.myajc.com/news/local/north-georgia-man-under-investigation-after-alleged-ricin-exposure/PhpyvTeW9Tgz4zWAIAXAUK/
Why would a white supremacist have ricin?
Fortunately for America, right-wingers tend to be not very smart and are reliably incompetent.
“….the Brotherhood calls for a society governed by Islamic law”
Nuff said.
No Jeffery, the 9th Circuit kicked the country and the Constitution in the balls.
The 9th said the EO was too broad and it probably was. That part of the opinion is fine.
However, the 9th enjoined the EO from being rewritten. That’s not their call. They cannot say something is wrong with the order and then say “you can’t make it right.”
The 9th also said that “due process” extended to people who 1) had not been granted a visa and 2) had not even yet applied.
That’s against the law. The USC 1182 says the DHS and Secretary of State can deny visas. There is no requirement for a hearing as the 9th now says their is. They created a new law whole cloth and that is troubling on many issues.
The 9th also said that they didn’t think there was a threat from the countries in the order. That too is not their call. It is not up to the 9th to review the evidence for a country being placed on the do not travel list nor is it the 9th’s place to demand to see reports or evidence of terrorism threats. That is the strict area of the Executive Branch and the 9th has usurped that authority.
As I said, the ruling is probably correct in that the EO was too broad, but after that, the 9th made up new laws and new rules in order for this not to be resolved as any other TRO would be.
You look at the 9ths decision and see some sort of victory over Trump when in fact, while this is a set back for Trump, the 9th just gave a big middle finger to the Constitution.
You are probably happy about that too.
So what White House legal minds cobbled together this mess? The “goat rodeo” has served its purpose for
bannontrump, 1) it demonstrated his seriousness in getting after those Muslims for his base, 2) it allows him to denigrate federal judges, also for his base. Even as mentally stunted as trump is… even he must realize his “plan” has nothing to do with the safety of Americans.No disrepect but I place more faith in the legal knowledge of federal judges than in conservabloggers and
trumpbannon. At leastbannontrump had the common sense not to violate the court orders.I know that you cannot discuss the decision rationally Jeffery because your hatred blinds you so completely,
Furthermore, while you “defer” to judges (which you never do when decisions go against your beliefs) given your past, it hard for me to believe that you read the decision much less understand it.
As for the “legal minds” of judges, remember the the 9th is the most reversed Circuit in the land. That has some to do with the number and difficulty of cases they take, but it also comes from what many judicial scholars say is an attitude of making law rather than interpreting it.
Now I know you want to use this as some sort of indication of how terrible the legal team around Trump is, but I remind you that going back to Wilson, no President has a worse record in the Supreme Court than your buddy Obama.
(And he is going to lose another one too)
That should tell you something about your opinion of who has a good legal team around them.
Even a blind partisan such as you must admit that President Bannon’s roll-out of his travel ban was… flawed, right? The EO itself was most obviously chockablock with legal landmines, or do you agree with Sideshow Don that the fault lies with the citizenry and the so-called judiciary? Everyone else is wrong and trump is right?
Part of the problem is that Sideshow telegraphed his intentions, and especially his motivations, for months.
Do I “hate” trump? OMG, yes. He is how Republics end. You know the nation is threatened when the dense theocrat Pence looks acceptable by comparison.
\
The way Republics end Jeffery, is after an election is over the defeated side keeps fighting as if it’s not and turns an election into a religious jihad where each side must slay or be slain. That would be the left in America today.
Even a blind partisan such as you must admit that President Bannon’s roll-out of his travel ban was…
This is why you cannot have a civil discussion. I said the EO was overboard and yet you had to make a comment on being a “blind partisan.”
The EO had issues as do many laws and EO’s. That doesn’t mean the legal team was terrible or anything else you wish to subscribe to them in a partisan rage against Trump.
If the EO was flawed, there were legal remedies but the 9th refused those remedies. That tells you a great deal about the partisanship of the panel sitting on the bench. Are you going to attack those judges for being legal hacks too? I doubt it because, you don’t care about the ramification of their decision. They obliterated the separation of powers. That is not a good thing for the country.
You won’t see that because all you have is hatred in you and because of that, no discussion is possible with you.