Since the US is "apparently" at war with ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), should we have a formal Congressional Declaration of War (DAW) against the group, as allowed in the Constitution? It's a reasonable question, even though the proposal is now being put forth by Sen. Rand Paul--not a favorite here.
ISIS has, on many occasions, stated it is at war with the USA and urged its combatants in Iraq and Syria and its supporters in Europe and North American to kill Americans. The US is now bombing ISIS targets throughout the middle east--which action I support. Several questions:
***Why just ISIS--why not include Al Queda, Boko Haram and other jihadi groups?
It sounds like a no-brainer, right? It's like should Al Queda members and supporters be deported. But they are here-see video below from the Netherlands. Those flags are ISIS flags. How is this possible?
Yes we in the west are tolerant and believe in freedom of speech and assembly. But to allow ISIS supporters--who support the murder or forced conversion of any non-Muslims, enslavement of women, and murder of homosexuals to demonstrate. In Holland. This is shocking.
Yesterday I wrote a Diary about an Italian Imam who advocated killing all the Jews. You can see the you-tube of these hateful remarks in my Diary--link below:
I also expressed the recomendation that this individual be deported from Italy. Today we read that Italian authorities have indeed ordered his deportation. Great news as far as I am concerned.
Raoudi Albdelbar, an imam from San Dona di Piave near Venice, was accused of creating a serious disturbance to public order, threatening national security and promoting religious discrimination, the ministry said in a statement.
"It is unacceptable for a sermon to be delivered that is clearly antisemitic in character, with explicit incitements to violence and religious hatred," Interior Minister Angelino Alfano said in the statement.
In additon to being anti-semetic the radical islamists are anti-Christian, homophobic, misogynistic and want to force sharia law on other Muslims.
In the Hamas/Israel war diaries here, some posters have questioned me when I've asserted that the radical islamists--like Hamas--want to eliminate the Jews. Videos like this one say otherwise. I understand that some may not like the source--MEMRI--which is pro-Israel, however the tape is for real, and quite scary.
I hope that this IMAM is, at a minimum, deported from Italy forthwith, and that others like him are not allowed into the west. I'm also posting this to expose the hate that is emanating from the radicals.
I appreciate the opportunity to post this Diary.
Yes the Palestinian Arabs have nationalistic aspirations and I acknowledge that is one important reason for the current Israel/Hamas war. However, as I've been posting here, Hamas primary motivation is religious. Their charter, tapes, books, videos and speeches of their public leaders all profess their radical islamist ideology.
Here is Hamas Charter:
In addition to calling for the destruction of Israel (what else is new?), I think any fair reading of the document would have to say it is immersed in radical islam.
A while ago I wrote a diary Ban the Veil in which I proposed that all public mask wearing--not just the veil-- should be banned. The diary got alot of comments and discussion--and my poll showed a surprisingly sizeable minority (44%) at Dkos favored the idea. I don't want to go thru all the arguments for banning the veil--but they can be summarized as:
1. it's misognynistic
2. it presents a security threat
3. it goes against my concept of a civil society
Here is a link to that diary.
Now we have the UK riots where many of the looters are wearing bandanas and ski masks.
We all know why they are doing this: to hide their faces. In London today, as in many other UK cities, there are innumerable CATV cameras recording away, not to mention all the video and photo cameras folks now carry on their cell phones. The looters and robbers are thinking something like this:
I think the police are hesitant or afraid to stop us even by using water cannon, tear gas, or rubber bullets, but perhaps, after the riots are over (or even sooner), I don't want anyone to see my face on tape and arrest me for rioting or looting. If I'm not arrested now, a video of me stealing and vandalizing may be circulated--thru new media--and it may get me arrested later or otherwise prove embarrassing and cause problems for me the future.
So the "mask wearing" part of my original diary (emphasizing security concerns) may be more important than I thought.
Should we ban public mask wearing to discourage criminal activity such as we now see in the UK?
Yesterday French President Nicholas Sarkozy proposed that France ban the Burka for women in public:
Sarkozy Backs Drive to Eliminate the Burka
"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity," Mr. Sarkozy said. "The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women."
A further concern is public security: With all the video cameras and security devices in public places, how can we allow one group to be an exception to the cameras by, in effect, wearing masks? Especially in public buildings and on public transport.
I think President Sarkozy is right. Both from concern of public security and subjugation of women, western countries should prohibit public veil wearing as a mater of public policy.
In President Obama's 60 Minutes interview today, he said that
some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go. But he says the Bush administration's policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is "unsustainable,' and has only fueled anti-American sentiments.
The desire to eliminate the Gitmo facility has raised the issue of premature release of prisoners. Related issues are:
- when we are ready to release a Gitmo prisoner, in some cases the country of origin does not want them back.
- or the country of origin may take them back, but only to torture and kill them--a scenario we in the west find a violation of our norms of civilized behavior.
During the presidential campaign Barak Obama said he would deploy more troops to win the war in Afghanistan, while decreasing troop levels in Iraq. Following the 911 jihad attacks, I supported the original decision to go to war in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. We succeeded in driving the Taliban out of power and helped to set up a democratic form of government. Now, 8 years after 911, how much longer do we continue this fight and what should our goals be in that operation?
Last week, President Obama decided to increase US Troops strength in Afghanistan by 17,000.
Our goals should be defensive--basically a holding action, to prevent the Taliban from taking control again. Afghanistan and North Pakistan are huge areas and I can’t see the US continually carrying out ground operations accross this vast countryside. Let’s redefine "winning" in Afganistan to a more modest "not allowing the Taliban to take over again." If the Afghan Gov’t wants to "win" by "liberating" the entire country, then let them (I hope they succeed) but our war aims should be limited.
Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parlament, is being prosecuted for "insulting" and "spreading hate" against Muslims, or hate speech. In the NY Times of 1/30/2009, Ian Buruma discussed the case: Totally Tolerant, Up to a Point I agree with Buruma when he says:
Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.
Buruma further informs us that
Dutch criminal law can be invoked against anyone who "deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation."
The author thinks Wilders has gone over the line, forcing government prosecutors to do something
Yesterday David Miliband, The British Foreign Secretary questioned the use of the term "war on terror" to describe the many attacks since 911
War on Terrorism a Mistake Says British Minister
"Historians will judge whether it has done more harm than good," he said, adding that, in his opinion, the strategy had been dangerously counterproductive, helping otherwise disparate groups find common cause against the West.
"The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common," he said, in a clear reference to the rhetoric of the Bush era.
I have ready numerous diaries and posts where Israel is villified because of the displacement on the Palestinians arabs in 1948 during the first Israel/Palestinian War. The details usually rely on references and quotes from two books.
Benny Morris--The Making of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49 (1989)
Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2007).
While I don't expect many of the anti-Israel posters and diarists here to change their minds about the history of the area, it struck me that it may be worthwhile letting open-minded readers of DKos know that much of the history and interpretation of same has been challenged.
One of those presenting a different scholarship and view is Efraim Karsh who is head of Mediterranean Studies at King’s College, University of London, and the author most recently of Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).