Singer Cat Stevens not allowed in US.

[BobbieDog]

Will someone please diagram the grammar in the above sentences of BobbieDog?

Negative personal commentary is frowned upon newlamb. Far better if you simply ask for clarfication of anyhting you are struggling to understand.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Negative personal commentary is frowned upon newlamb. Far better if you simply ask for clarfication of anyhting you are struggling to understand.

Where do I begin?

 

[BarbB]

Negative personal commentary is frowned upon newlamb. Far better if you simply ask for clarfication of anyhting you are struggling to understand.

BobbieDog, I would but it would be for most of your posts. Please don't get me wrong - I think you are one of the smartest posters at CF, but your language is sometimes so formal I have problems.

 

[BobbieDog]

Your comments are unreasonable and that flags up a general weakness in your commentary which is now extant.

That is simply an ad hominem personal insulting.
I suppose I should be flattered, as this might indicate that you are struggling to rebut the issues.

 

[BobbieDog]

BobbieDog, I would but it would be for most of your posts. Please don't get me wrong - I think you are one of the smartest posters at CF, but your language is sometimes so formal I have problems.

When two peoples come to hate each other: and all that becomes embedded in a global conflict; then the matter is complex, and I for one can only rise to that challenge of comprehension, by being disciplined, and yes formal.

 

[Brad'sDad]

First of all, if you support terror, that is bad news. Second it is sad that the Palanstines are making life worse for the Isrealittes. And hopefully that will stop. But that has a long way to go.

I definitely agree.

Please point to one person here that supports terror. Surely there must be a rule on this forum that prohibits such people.

If there isn't such a rule, there oughta be.

 

[BobbieDog]

Where do I begin?

With the first simple thing that comes to mind.

 

[BobbieDog]

I have come across no one on this forum, who supports terror, as BradsDad is possibly defining terror.
The disagreements are to do with: what is to be called terror; whether we can understand the reasons for terror, even while condemning it; and what do we do in the extant world to reduce the frequency of terror.
Our problem is, that as we move from element to element in this, we pass through matters of our own identities: and things get out of hand; just as they do in the real world in which terror occurs.

 

[hyperborean]

If there isn't such a rule, there oughta be.

Well, report the terroist supporters to the Mods. If not then you may be breaking a rule on CF. Spell it out for us; which members support the slaughter of innocent people? Thats a simple task for you right?

 

[rahma]

Exactly, and that's the point. Anyone who donates to these charities is undertaking some great risks and should not be surprised about getting caught up in the dragnet.

No, my point was they are investigating almost every major Islamic charity, as well as most majori Islamic groups, ie the Muslim student Association, ISNA.

So Muslims, who are just doing their religious duty, now have to fear the US government deciding their group or charity has "terror" ties. That is what is so unnerving about the Yusuf Islam thing. Although he may have dropped off the radar for the rest of the world, to the Muslim communities in NA and England, he has been a constant source of peace, charity and protest against terror. If Yusuf Islam is not safe, none of us are.

Which event? The history of Hamas-Fatah relations begins with the eruption of the first intifada on December 8, 1987. It has long been an established fact that Hamas was a terrorist organization since the date of the first intifada in 1987. Stevens knew or certainly had reason to know of Hamas' violent goals.

Didn't you read the article I was refering to? It's not good to comment if you didn't know what I was commenting on. The event in question is from an article posted that claims Yusuf spoke at an event of a group that was a front for Hamas. Yusuf spoke at the event BEFORE the Canadian government declared it a front for Hamas. Thus, he didn't necessarily know it was a front for Hamas.

With the Holyland foundation, they didn't arrest all the charity workers, officefolk and people who had donated. They took the 4 guys on top, the ones they believe were funneling the money. Everyone else had no clue what was going on.

May I suggest you read Hamas' Covenant or Charter dated 18 August 1988. Do you have any comments on its goals? Do you agree/disagree with the following statements:

This is not the thread to discuss Hamas, but yes, I've read it. I am very familiar with the situation, as I have several friends living in Palestine.

If an organization is deemed to be a "front for terror," that is suggestive of the fact it may have been used for money-laundering and/or diverting funds to militant/terrorist groups.

Yes, but it was deemed that AFTER Yusuf spoke at their event

Again, that's because none of us has yet to see all the evidence. Colin Powell has made numerous statements to the effect that there was plenty of "serious evidence" in this case against Cat Stevens, and that U.S. immigration and law enforcement authorities were absolutely justified in diverting his flight and deporting him back to the UK.

Except American Muslims know Yusuf. He is our brother. We've seen all his actions, and seen him as the foremost voice for peace. If they have charges, bring them, but so far, they have not. The man has legitimate business interests in the United States, money invested, and he should not arbitrarily be kept out.

According to Jonathan Winer, who served at the State Department under Bill Clinton, Muslim charities "are as leaky as a sieve" because there is no mechanism in place to make sure they do not fund violence.

Some, not all, just as charities for the IRA abounded prior to the peace settlement.

I think you're missing the point. When someone has violated the law (whether knowingly or unknowingly), a constant recitation of their previous good deeds is irrelevant, and do not disprove the charge(s).

I guess you've never seen a character witness? Until charges are brought, until it is proven in a court of law, we give him the benefit of the doubt. If we see no charges, no evidence, all we have to judge him by is his huge list of good deeds. It is not in his character to support terror.

Bear in mind, since Hamas has been long deemed a terrorist organization, it was well within the purview of U.S. authorities to take the necessary preventive action they did. It is better to err on the side of caution than to allow a person into a country with a cloud as to whether or not they are a terrorist or sympathizer.

What has changed since they invited him to the White House a few months ago? All we want to know is why.

A little food for thought: Do you think that exculpates Hamas from being a terrorist organization? Do legitimate social service organizations routinely carry out suicide bombings?

There are many wings of Hamas. There is one wing that is violent. The rest fund education, hospitals, food services, etc. It does not legitimate the violence done by one branch, but neither should the violence illigitimate the good works done by all the others.

 

[BobbieDog]

As this thread has developed, and explored the issues raised: the focus on Islamic charities has come to seem to me, to be something of the nub of concern.
I wonder whether we here see an assault on a specifically Islamic way of doing. Islamic ways of giving. Islamic ways of banking. Islamic ecenomics. Islamic material support for the Palestinians.
Islam and the American (and Western capitalist) way: differ fundamentally on their approach to the material, their approach to money, their approach to interest; where these differences are reflected in the social forms which come to alternately grow abot them.
My fear is, that under pretext of instituting safequards in relation to terror prospect: that what some are about, is a back door determination to contain Islam, through reconfiguring the social forms of its adherents, to become in line with those of the American way.
This parallels the concerns to be had, when insistence on "democracy", on "human rights", on "free market" ways: so often seem to be a disquised determination to subvert Islamic social forms, and replace them with social forms synergistic with Western ways; such that true Islamic global participation is displaced by a continuation of an essentially Christian informed Western hegemony.

 

[Paula]

my point was they are investigating almost every major Islamic charity, as well as most majori Islamic groups, ie the Muslim student Association, ISNA.

I don't doubt they are. Considering the circumstances of America having been attacked and in light of subsequent repeated threats to our national security, such investigations should be expected. That is my point.

If Yusuf Islam is not safe, none of us are.

That's a bit of an overreaction. You cannot defend someone unless you're familiar with the circumstances of what happened. So it's important not to jump to premature, hasty conclusions. Again, Yusuf has made inquiry into the matter, and I'm sure more details will be forthcoming.

Didn't you read the article I was refering to? It's not good to comment if you didn't know what I was commenting on. The event in question is from an article posted that claims Yusuf spoke at an event of a group that was a front for Hamas. Yusuf spoke at the event BEFORE the Canadian government declared it a front for Hamas. Thus, he didn't necessarily know it was a front for Hamas.

Nice try, but no cigar. What makes you think that was Yusuf's only contribution, or that the Canadian event was the basis or sole reason for denial of his entry into the US? Don't forget, he was also deported from Israel in 2000 for "delivering funds to Hamas." This is why it's so important not to jump to conclusions.

This is not the thread to discuss Hamas, but yes, I've read it. I am very familiar with the situation, as I have several friends living in Palestine.

No matter, a simple "yes" or "no" answer would have sufficed; however, I do get the picture.

Except American Muslims know Yusuf. He is our brother. We've seen all his actions, and seen him as the foremost voice for peace. If they have charges, bring them, but so far, they have not.

Again, they don't have to. INS laws are far broader than criminal law in this country, and they were well within the scope and purview of their authority to deny him admission into the US.

The man has legitimate business interests in the United States, money invested, and he should not arbitrarily be kept out.

Again, not having seen the evidence, that conclusion is certainly invalid.

I guess you've never seen a character witness? Until charges are brought, until it is proven in a court of law, we give him the benefit of the doubt. If we see no charges, no evidence, all we have to judge him by is his huge list of good deeds. It is not in his character to support terror.

I guess you're not familiar with the INS deportation process; it is an administrative proceeding before the INS itself, not a criminal trial in a court of law. Immigration and criminal law are two entirely distinct entities. INS rules and regulations are far broader than our criminal laws, and as such, they have a great deal of latitude in deciding these matters. So they did have the right to turn Yusuf back to the UK if his name appeared on a watch list.

Further, in a criminal case, character witnesses do not prove or disprove the innocent or guilt of the accused. They only serve to appeal to the mercy of the Court in order to mitigate the sentence of the defendant, or to seek leniency in the final disposition of the matter if it's a civil or domestic relations case.

There are many wings of Hamas. There is one wing that is violent. The rest fund education, hospitals, food services, etc. It does not legitimate the violence done by one branch, but neither should the violence illigitimate the good works done by all the others.

I guess this is where you and the intelligence community differ. Hamas has long been classified as an illegal terrorist organization. Period.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Well, report the terroist supporters to the Mods. If not then you may be breaking a rule on CF. Spell it out for us; which members support the slaughter of innocent people? Thats a simple task for you right?

this might indicate that you are struggling to rebut the issues.

I can only rise to the challenge of comprehension of why I have just been rhetorically berated in a reckless and haphazard manner. This will be offensive to the nebulae of the outer galactical reaches of the third nostril as auto logout looms in the stratospheric realm. Can you diggit?

 

[BobbieDog]

I guess this is where you and the intelligence community differ. Hamas has long been classified as an illegal terrorist organization. Period.

That is insightful commentary Paula: and exactly the grounds of concern for many.
This seems to be another example, of where US agencies take something complex, with subtle architecture, and the full 256 shades of the grey scale: and in dealing with it as if it were a black and white, either or, o-1, for us or agin us matter; they come to do gross injustice, both to the facts of the case, and to subjects involved.

 

[BobbieDog]

I can only rise to the challenge of comprehension of why I have just been rhetorically berated in a reckless and haphazard manner. This will be offensive to the nebulae of the outer galactical reaches of the third nostril as auto logout looms in the stratospheric realm. Can you diggit?

Sure I can decode all that.
You begin by loosing touch with what is being discussed: the perspectives are just getting to complex; maybe you just got bored
You then try, and quickly tire of knock-about sarcasm.
So now you feel like trying the linguistic randomness of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
All good clean stuff.

 

[Lorena]

Also, keep in mind that the majority of Hamas' money goes towards social services in Palestine, not terrorism.

I guess we could also say the Mafia has some social benefits even though they have been linked to committing violent crimes and engage in illegal activities like murder, weapons smuggling, drug trafficking, etc.

 

[BobbieDog]

I guess we could also say the Mafia has some social benefits even though they have been linked to committing violent crimes and engage in illegal activities like murder, weapons smuggling, drug trafficking, etc.

Not quite a parallel Lorena. Rahma suggests that the majority of Hamas's money goes towards affirmative social projects. With the Mafia, the majority of monies will go towards maintaining the organisation, developing the organisation, and personally rewarding its stakeholders. The better parallel would probably be with the USA: where while some of its wealth undoubtedly goes to finance dark action; by far the largest part of its tax treasures finance desirable social projects.

 

[Lorena]

Not quite a parallel Lorena. Rahma suggests that the majority of Hamas's money goes towards affirmative social projects. With the Mafia, the majority of monies will go towards maintaining the organisation, developing the organisation, and personally rewarding its stakeholders. The better parallel would probably be with the USA: where while some of its wealth undoubtedly goes to finance dark action; by far the largest part of its tax treasures finance desirable social projects.

Your parallel to America isn't accurate at all and it smacks of hatred and prejudice towards our way of life.

My point is you still wouldn't donate to any charity that has ties to organized crime or illegal activity. The Mafia has been said to steal from the rich and give to the poor. They have been known to do good works in their own communities, but it doesn't justify their violence. So if you contribute to something that you know is illegal, you would be helping their cause.

 

[BobbieDog]

Your parallel to America isn't accurate at all and it smacks of hatred and prejudice towards our way of life.

That's a strong claim Lorena.
Could you point to where I say anyhting that justifies this charge against me?
Do you feel that when I say that: "by far the largest part of its (America's) tax treasures finance desirable social projects"; that this evidences a "hatred and prejudice" towards America?
Makes me wonder just what would constitute approval of America, in your eyes.

 

[Paula]

As this thread has developed, and explored the issues raised: the focus on Islamic charities has come to seem to me, to be something of the nub of concern.
I wonder whether we here see an assault on a specifically Islamic way of doing. Islamic ways of giving. Islamic ways of banking. Islamic ecenomics. Islamic material support for the Palestinians.
Islam and the American (and Western capitalist) way: differ fundamentally on their approach to the material, their approach to money, their approach to interest; where these differences are reflected in the social forms which come to alternately grow abot them.
My fear is, that under pretext of instituting safequards in relation to terror prospect: that what some are about, is a back door determination to contain Islam, through reconfiguring the social forms of its adherents, to become in line with those of the American way.

Several points:

First, America is not the only country investigating Islamic front organizations and freezing their assets. By necessity, this has been done all over the world since 9/11 by many countries as a means of controlling terrorism. Blaming America for everything is overly simplistic and polarizing.

Secondly, there are alternative ways in place if one wants to contribute to a reputable, legitimate cause, i.e., international organizations such as the Red Cross, UNICEF, UNRWA, Save the Children, etc. designate funds for Palestinian refugees. Hence, people are not being prevented from contributing to Palestinian causes, so long as they are legal. There is no shortage of legitimate charities from which to choose.

Third, I would underscore the need for assimilation of Western democratic principles, laws, etc. for any Muslim living in a democratic society. If an organization has been declared illegal by civil authority, that law must be respected or consequences will ensue.

Finally, as has been pointed out to you previously, Shar'ia Law and secular law are incompatible and cannot coexist, as one is the antithesis of the other. So quite obviously, what results is culture clash.