As I wrote yesterday, in April of this year, the Muslim American Society Islamic Center in Philadelphia (MAS Philly) put a video of a children’s presentation on their Facebook page, a presentation calling for martyrdom and the killing of their opponents (clearly Israelis). It was a hate-filled and frightening video showing the indoctrination of young Muslim-American children, and a hint of the brainwashing going on beneath our radar in some Muslim communities.
Later in the day, I added that the Muslim American Society tendered a sort-of apology, saying that the songs had not been “properly vetted,” and that the performance was “an unintended mistake and an oversight”. I’m not sure how such a highly choreographed performance could be an “oversight,” much less a “mistake,” but there it is.
Now, it turns out, there was a similar “oversight and mistake” in 2017, when the same Center in Philadelphia posted a similar video on May 28. Here you can see the children (again, young ones) singing about martyrdom, about becoming “fedayeen” (guerrillas fighting in Israel and Palestine against the Israeli government) and so on. Like the first video, this one was posted by MEMRI (the transcript is here).
I don’t blame the kids, of course, for they’re too young to have created this presentation and to understand the ramifications of what they’re saying. The adults are responsible, and are creating another generation of haters.
It’s clear now that this is not a “mistake”, but a deliberate strategy to radicalize kids. And it’s happening in America, where Muslims are supposed to be integrating into American society and become de-radicalized. I’m sure that this is true for most of them, but this kind of thing makes me worry that these sentiments are more widespread than we know.
Anyone who believed this an accident is just foolish. But I will still maintain brainwashing and propaganda comes in all forms. If anyone cares to look the internet platforms owned and operated in this country provide tons of stuff from all forms of extremest. They just took down a large child porno ring operating on the internet. It was on the news this morning. They just band some bad really bad actors from facebook. It is just a tiny piece of the business.
I do think it was a kind of accident, in the sense that it was not meant to be distributed to a wider, non-Muslim audience. I don’t think it is foolish to suspect that.
I don’t think that’s what they meant by “accident”!
correct. I assumed the accident they attempted to portray was that it should not have been created in the first place. Who really wants to believe that.
You maybe right, I definitely hope so, but such are my suspicions (which, admittedly are just that, suspicions)
“feyadeen” — I think that’s “fedayeen.” It’s also what the Iraqi guerrillas who fought the US forces after the Iraq invasion (and dissolution of the Iraqi army) called themselves.
Fedayeen are ‘those willing to sacrifice themselves’ (from fidai, sacrifice). Mostly known from Palestinian guerilla fighters and terrorist infiltrators, but it has been used all over the Islamic World. It is eminently applicable to suicide bombers.
Yes, that was a typo, which I’ve fixed. The meaning is still the same.
sub
Kamala Harris just pledged that as POTUS,
Anti-semites were not on her long list of ‘haters’.
Ms Harris is married to a Jew, had 2 talks for AIPAC and has had nothing but praise for Isreal. In other words, I do not believe she is an antisemite.
Did she actually make a list of ‘haters’? Or are you just suspecting?
Where did I say she herself was an anti-semite? She gave a speech. In that speech, she gave examples of ‘haters’ who needed to be banned from platforms like FB. Anti-semites were not mentioned.
So she did give a list.
Do you have a link?
I was btw, not intending to imlpy you accused her of antisemitism, my apologies it appeared that way. I did not formulate properly, it definitely did sound that way. Sorry.
Harris spoke at the Detroit NAACP yesterday. Link below.
First off, a correction: Harris mentioned general anti-semitism, but not islamists/jihadists by name.
When discussing additional gun control, Harris lists several attacks by location:
– Sandy Hook
– Pulse Night Club
– Los Vegas
– Parkland
– Charleston
– Poway
Notably absent are San Bernardino and the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Harris then asserts that:
– Racism
– Sexism
– Anti-Semitism
– Islamophobia
– Homophobia
– Transphobia
“are real and have been given new fuel in the past two years.” Certainly she does not include islamic anti-semitism as being fueled by trump.
Harris concludes by identifying as domestic terrorism:
– Neo-Nazis marching on (!) Charlottesville;
– Black worshippers gunned down Charleston;
– Attack on a mosque in MN;
– “A man in a synagogue yelling anti-semitic slurs”;
– Black churches burned in Louisiana.
Again, the notable absence of instances like a man running down bicyclists while shouting allahu akbar.
The full speech is worth listening to if only for Harris’ ‘blacking up’ of her inflection with lots of ‘ima tell you’s’ and ‘to pochuye ke, mi belta kopeng?
vhttps://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/413704296074464/
No, there is no list of “haters”. Ms Harris reviles anti-semitism. and yes supports AIPAC and Israel. Just more baseless accusations from those who support other candidates, or via GOP dirty tricks operatives.
Drop your rocks and grab your ballot box, ’cause we’re in for a whole lotta these dirty tricks between now and election day 2020.
See Harris’ lists above.
Facebook and Instagram just banned several far-right extremist groups and individuals with histories of antisemitism as well as Louis Farrakhan.
Yes, those were the ones I heard about yesterday. Now Trump has complained about this as one would expect. Any censorship of his extreme right wing has to be bad. I hope the platforms throw all of these people off the net and get the soviets and Chinese off as well. So-called free speech on the internet has gone way over the top and must be policed and killed. These are privately owned firms anyway, so free speech does not apply. Hell, I would throw Trump off of twitter just for the lies.
tRump is probably the most divisive jerk operating freely in the US. Much of his spiel sets one group against another. The opposite of what a president should do. For that, I’d like to ban him from the country.
Talk about your authoritarianism!
Ken, that is good to hear (well I guess, not really sure, there is also this free speech thing).
Did they ban Mr Trump?
The thing is that many forums are inundated by trolls (the forums like The Hiil or Politico), many of whom I suspect to be emanating from (Russian?) troll farms.
These comment sections have really become a burden to read, only few interesting posts. among shouting, insulting and ridiculous conspiracy theories.
It strongly enhances my agreement with da Roolz. (initially I found them way too harsh, but I’m a ‘convert’ now. If ever I’ll start a site, I’ll shamelessly copy them -giving credit, of course)
As something of a free-speech absolutist, I’m opposed to anyone being banned from any monopolistic medium. But if somebody’s gonna get banned, and that somebody turns out to be the likes of Alex Jones or Louis Farrakhan, well then, tant pis.
Then you’re not a free-speech absolutist. A free-speech absolutist is for protecting speech he disagrees with most. I’m a free-speech absolutist.
Your reading comprehension seems to be failing you, rustybrown. What part of “I’m opposed to anyone being banned from any monopolistic medium” did you not understand?
But Facebook and Instagram are private companies, so there’s nothing you or I or the government under the First Amendment can do about it.
Unless you’re suggesting that private property like Facebook and Instagram be nationalized? What are you, anyway, some kinda closet communist?
My reading was fair as I was using the context you provided. You cited your being a free speech absolutist as a REASON for your opposition “to anyone being banned from any monopolistic medium”, then proceeded to acquiesce to the banning of voices you don’t like from those mediums. So you either shouldn’t have invoked your ‘free-speech absolutism’ in that context or admit that you’re NOT a ‘free-speech absolutism’ in that context.
Your words, your context, pal.
And your alternative to acquiescing in the banning of speech by a private company is … what exactly?
If they’re going to editorialize like publishers, make them abide by the rules required of publishers rather than those required of platforms.
And what “rules” of publishing are those? Private publishing companies aren’t bound by the First Amendment (you understand that, right?) and can’t be required to publish a damned thing they don’t want to, much less to publish an Alex Jones or a Louis Farrakhan.
Plus, that was no kind of answer to my question, Mister “I am a free speech absolutist.” What is your absolutist remedy when a non-governmental entity — platform OR publisher — bans (which is to say, declines to publish or give a platform to) speech?
Sorry, I thought you were up to speed on the publisher/platform debate regarding big tech. I should know better by now than to ever overestimate your knowledge of anything. This might help you:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
There’s another outré Ted Cruz notion that’s going nowhere fast — creeping statism, to boot, the wolf of socialism in libertarian sheep’s clothing. But it’s all about whose ox is getting gored.
And you really are a snotty little prick, ain’tcha?
Statism? Socialism? By debating and deciding how we’re going to manage a 21st century medium just as we’ve done in previous centuries? Shall we abandon all rules and responsibilities that we currently have for publishers because they’re all “creeping socialism”?
What’s your solution? No rules, no oversight, ever, no matter how monopolistic our information flow becomes? Be careful what you wish for because someday a character like Breitbart might be top dog of the information flow and start censoring outlets on your side of the ideological playing field.
I’m absolutely sure you’d be singing a different tune then, but intellectual integrity doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
What happened to libertarian conservatives and their love of “market solutions” (rather than solutions imposed top down by the State)? You don’t like the way Facebook and Instagram conduct their businesses? Start your own competition.
Don’t you alt-right types already have “Trump Town” and “Gab”?
I’ve never been a libertarian conservative and you’re still misrepresenting the issue in a simplistic way. Assuming media platforms will only get more monopolistic, how is it not “top down” letting one or two multi-billionaires decide what we can or cannot see? And we can’t vote them out of office if we don’t like their decisions. I’ll ask you again, what’s your solution? Throw your hands in the air and say “whatever”?
The “start your own completion” argument is misguided in this case. For one thing, existing media monopolies and other financial and supportive monopolies conspire to freeze the competition out. For instance, many conservative alternatives (like Gab) are being blacklisted and boycotted by PayPal and the likes. Also, some monopolies are so big it’s nonsensical to suggest starting an alternative. “Ya don’t like Ma Bell? Start your own phone company!”
Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and revered leader of the Palestinian national movement, spent most of WWII in Berlin as an associate of and radio broadcaster for the Third Reich. The Mufti’s presence there was, of course, simply one of those accidental oversights, due to improper vetting of Herr Hitler’s regime.
I didn’t know about that. But Understandable. Herr Hitler,please ‘kill all of them , spread the hatred of them world wide , before they decide return to their homeland, and establish the State of Israel,where anyone of Jewish Heritage can be a citizen. So happens that when the State of Israel became a State and Member of the United Nations, those who lived there, fled ASAP choosing to leave rather than have to endure Jews returning home. Rejecting Israels offer to stay in their homes and live with them in peace.
Ummah means community. A group of Americans (and immigrants) celebrate their community by teaching their children to dream about chopping off heads of their political enemies. Think about that.
I do not care about the national organization but everybody who goes to that Islamic center is barbaric. I support their right to say despicable things but they encourage their children to be evil. I feel for the children.
The immigrants should not be granted citizenship nor have their visa extended. We are stuck with any of them who are citizens.
I think you are way to radical there. However, I agree that granting citizenship should be conditional on adhering to the US constitution, and a pledge not to diss the society you are requesting to become part of. I mean, is that unreasonable?
Teddy Rooseveldt was quite clear, you advocate polygyny? Not suited.
I’m not necessarily advocating Teddy’s stance, but he had a point.
@Nicolaas Thank you, fro making me think about what I said. First of all, I do not want them in the country because I think they make our country worse and more violent. But we are live by the rule of law so I should not go by my feelings.
Prospective citizens must show “good moral character” in order for their citizenship to be approved. In my quick research, for citizenship this seems to be related mostly to crimes plus polygamy, drunkenness and failure to pay child support. In other part of law, bigotry can be used to say you are not of moral characters.
I do think we should have laws to prevent people who have violent, bigoted ideas from entering our country. I am not sure how this should be accomplished.
That’s why bad people like me want immigration control: once a democratic country lets in such extremists, there is practically nothing it can do about them.
Almost all of us want immigration control, even those of us who think Trump is a disgrace to the office and the nation. What a just and sane people want is for those we know or suspect to be extremists to be denied entry but not to enforce a blanket denial to people simply because they happen to come from the same place.
Alas, it is no longer possible for fairness and reason to inform any immigration policy. Indeed, the concepts have no place in politics or social commentary today. They are lost to time; quaint old notions in a brave new world.
Well said, Edward.
“What a just and sane people want is for those we know or suspect to be extremists to be denied entry but not to enforce a blanket denial to people simply because they happen to come from the same place.”
What if there happen to be an inordinately large number of extremists in a certain place and that place is a failed state so ripe with corruption, fraud and bad governance that it’s impossible to tell the extremists from the non-extremists? Are you for a blanket denial from that place then?
I imagine that, during the Philippine-American War, when Theodore Roosevelt was POTUS, the leaders of the First Philippine Republic had certain entry requirements of Americans. I’m also reminded of Roosevelt’s congenial, noble assessment of Thomas Paine (“filthy little atheist”).
You guys are lucky that you don’t have people like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiz_Mohammad