Last March, John T. Booker, a 20-year-old from Kansas, checked himself into a mental health facility for evaluation. Now, a year later, he faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, charged with attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction — the fake bomb that he was provided by undercover FBI informants.
Booker was arrested earlier this month in an alleged plot to attack a Kansas military base. Booker, who had reportedly been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, had publicly expressed violent and extremist views for roughly a year before FBI agents induced him to commit a criminal act that would land him behind bars.
In the United States today, individuals who make statements that could be construed as advocating violent extremism — even those who have mental health issues — often become the targets of law enforcement officials whose priority is putting people in prison, not helping them change course. Recognizing the shortcomings of such government efforts, new grassroots initiatives have emerged that seek to empower Muslim communities, rather than subject them to intensified intelligence and law enforcement scrutiny.
The “Safe Spaces Initiative,” launched by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, came into being after a series of cases perceived as government entrapment of troubled youth in the Muslim-American community. “The program was inspired by the case of Mohamed Mohamud, the purported Portland bomber,” said Alejandro Beutel, who helps run the program. “He was a 19-year-old kid who came from a broken home, had substance abuse and mental health issues. He started saying some things which alarmed his father, who then called the FBI.”
“But the FBI didn’t ‘help’ Mohamud,” Beutel said. “They introduced him to an informant who aggressively pushed him even further in a negative direction, ensuring that he would spend the next several decades of his life behind bars. If his father had gone to the community, and if they had the tools and confidence to deal with troubled youth like this, Mohamud might not have had his life destroyed as it was.”
It’s a pattern that has been repeated hundreds of times over the past decade: the FBI “foils” a terror plot, except the would-be terrorist’s only conspiracy is with government informants.
“There’s a perception among counterterrorism agents that they need to be producing something — they’re under pressure from above, and they start to feel like they’re better safe than sorry by locking troubled people up if there’s no other real option out there,” said Mubin Shaikh, who worked as an undercover agent for the Canadian Security Intelligence Services in several terrorism cases, and is now pursuing a Ph.D. in the psychology of radicalization. “Part of the reason that 14 years after 9/11 we don’t have a handle on this problem is that we continue to focus almost exclusively on things like ideology and religion, instead of grappling with more complex questions about community engagement, mental health, and how aggressive foreign policies inevitably generate terrorism,” Shaikh told The Intercept.
One of the major aims of Safe Spaces is to help communities understand their legal rights and ability to discuss politically sensitive issues without fear of government retribution. In the post-9/11 era, an endemic problem within Western Muslim communities has been the paranoia and suspicion generated by informants and other forms of surveillance, which have made people hesitant to engage with individuals perceived to exhibit anti-social behaviors. “People are so scared of the possibility of the FBI breathing down their neck, they just kick anyone expressing troubling views out of the mosque,” said Beutel.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who would eventually plant bombs at the Boston Marathon, was ejected from his local Boston mosque the year before the attack for making anti-American political statements. An attendee of his mosque who spoke with The Intercept suggested that the pervasive fear of government agent provocateurs among the congregation led many to choose disengagement from people who expressed troubling views, rather than trying to work with them to sway their opinions.
“Our goal is to treat Muslim communities like any other communities, not as something unique. We treat this as a public health program, not so-called ‘countering extremism’ in a way which stigmatizes an entire group within society,” said Beutel.
A 2014 Human Rights Watch report found that the FBI now maintains a network of 15,000 confidential informants throughout the country, the greatest number at any time in its history. As FBI Director James Comey recently commented, the agency has “investigations of people in various states of radicalizing in all 50 states.”
Harsh police tactics like mass surveillance and entrapment — widely viewed as discriminatory toward the most vulnerable members of the Muslim community — may also have the counterproductive effect of alienating Muslim minorities domestically. “Not all sting operations are created equal. Some can be employed in legitimate investigations,” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “But those cases which involve mentally ill people — or people who would have otherwise been unable to mount an attack on their own — create a sense in the community that they are being unfairly targeted.”
While criticizing these tactics, Patel is also cautious of “soft” intervention programs, which often come under the banner of “countering violent extremism.” “I am most troubled by programs that seek to identify at-risk individuals, particularly when schools are involved,” Patel said. “The risks of making mistakes are very high given that there is no consensus as to the indicators of someone who is going to become a terrorist.”
Approaches taken in Europe have had mixed results in dealing this issue. A program in Denmark has achieved positive results by seeking to rehabilitate returned foreign fighters and other individuals perceived to have been radicalized. Programs such as Prevent and Channel in the United Kingdom — which attempt to identify individuals at risk of radicalization and recommend either law enforcement intervention or the help of social services — have been more controversial, generating charges of McCarthyism from local Muslim communities.
Safe Spaces takes a different approach. “We need to provide guidance to communities about how to deal with law enforcement,” Beutel said. “The FBI are not our friends, but we are taxpayers, so to some degree we are their bosses. They have to be responsive to us.”
Shaikh, the former undercover agent, said he is in favor of sting operations in certain cases, but critical of the singularly punitive approach authorities generally take when dealing with individuals, particularly young people, who are suspected of being radicalized.
“Heavy-handed tactics don’t work,” he said. “The fact is that for many people, there needs to be a third option between locking them up in jail and just doing nothing if they might be a danger to themselves or others.”
Photo: Chris Hawley/AP
“countering violent extremism.” Says the country that sows violence all over the world and has 1,100 of its own people killed by police officers every year.
The NEWBURGH STING
Former FBI assistant director Thomas Fuentes:
“If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that ‘We won the war on terror and everything’s great,’ cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half. You know, it’s my opposite of Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’—it’s ‘Keep Fear Alive.’ Keep it alive.”
https://privacysos.org/node/1660
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t3WeAPUHVtc
Now that First Look is hiring, I am waiting with bated breath for this journalist (LOL) to team up with https://twitter.com/MarcieBianco/with_replies on an article about the racist, bigoted, “downward-punching” FBI “manufacturing” this:
” “The New Era”
To our brothers and sisters fighting for the Sake of Allah, we make dua for you and ask Allah to guide your bullets, terrify your enemies, and establish you in the Land. As our noble brother in the Phillipines said in his bayah, “This is the Golden Era, everyone who believes… is running for Shaheed”.
The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.
We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.
The next six months will be interesting, To our Amir Al Mu’mineen make dua for us and continue your reign, May Allah enoble your face.
May Allah send His peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhummad and all those who follow until the last Day.
–
Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki”
On the topic of the recent ‘Islamist terrorist plot’ in Texas: it is my impression that AFDI was provoking insane people who happened to consider themselves Muslims. The religiously-mad and the amorously-mad have much in common in this regard as both are wont to claim that another person has power over their life, over their ability to live/die, on the basis of certain idiosyncratically volatilizing words, etc., to which the aggrieved responds: “If you leave me I will die,” “If you leave me I will die and so will you,” “If you leave me we both will die but will be united in heaven!;” “If you draw this image you will die,” “If you draw this image I will die too,” “If you draw this image we both will die and I will be rewarded with love in heaven!”
Provoking demented people, whose mania involves an obsession with the gorier aspects of Islamic history, is of a larger well-established genre, one whose common (and dangerous) dynamics frequently implicate a topic that has come to mark an age, to the level of mania, with the most literally susceptible to mania responding as literal maniacs, i.e. illogically, impetuously, and often violently, without regard to their own or others’ well-being. Most people only come closest to encountering such dynamics, if at all, in sexual-affective relationships; but if one indefatigably seeks them out and sticks one’s neck out in a superfluity of other contexts (especially in those that have been mediatized ad nauseam and naturally have come to populate the imaginations of the already insane) one will not fail to find them.
Taking the solving of this social problem quickly out of the police domain would, and should, be our first intelligent action. The police do not have either the intelligence or the compassion to deal with this situation. Without compassion and understanding you have our present predicament called social war! It has nothing to do with law enforcement or policing either!
Where is Craig? Is he retrieving his grandmother from Yemen?
. . . Talking RADICAL ?? Who and what today isn’t?? The SUPREME COURT ?? APPOINTED A “PRESIDENT” ?? Can you get any more radical than that??
WAR – BASED – ON – LIES….. That isn’t radical … Special Operations Forces are all Radicals – they have to be ……We are entrapping and framing people – We spy on our own citizens…That’s not normal – it is radical…… AM I A RADICAL?? because I think?? Why aren’t you?? see something? – Say something? – Turn Your Neighbor In?? Yes/No – I’ve got a couple that when I see people digging a hole I ask how many bodies will fit…..
George Bush’s global WAR on/of terror – go anywhere – kill whoever – WE do not respect other countries borders – their customs habits – THAT’S INSANE – doing that prevents peace – perpetual war – THAT’S INSANE….
@Jose 03 May 2015 at 10:18 am
Morality doesn’t have to secular or religious. One doesn’t have to be religious or non-religious to reflect universally accepted qualities, such as selflessness, forgiveness, humility, love, peace, justice, doing unto others what one wants done unto oneself, generosity, lack of desire for power, control and resources, etc.
Well said… These days I find myself a liitle weary of the—I don’t know— just absurd amounts of top-down judgement I see in certain segments of my community (atheist,, for lack of a better term).
As if a few people can have the all the answers for everyone. As if all believers are the same…
It’s too close to my family’s history in this country: internment without trial for the crime of “Asian”. Such blanket judgements infuriate me. Not to mention that lives are at stake.
And I’m a woman and somewhat genderqueer, and a certain segment claims to be ginning up this nightmare on my behalf, and I want no part of it.
Sorry for the rant. Thanks for this comment, needed it.
Thanks for the feedback and sharing your story.
Take care,
Sure. What I’m referring to is theories of morality. There’s Divine Command Theory, which states that morality is dictated by a deity and can’t be questioned. Even if you think something about it is wrong, you have to follow it anyway. Secular Morality, on the other hand, is based on reason, evidence and a few basic assumptions humans would generally agree on.
So out of the two, do I think Secular Morality is a better system? I do.
Regarding the Chomsky-Harris exchange discussed below, I highly recommend reading the whole thing, and also PZ Myers’ analysis. PZ Myers’ blog is an atheist blog, and you should see the comments. Chomsky handed Harris one of most amazing intellectual and ethical ass-kickings I have ever had the pleasure to read.
Harris doesn’t even know how to respond to Chomsky. The best he can come up with is that he assumes Clinton meant well. Isn’t belief in implausible fairy tales the hallmark of religious dogma?
> STUPID PEOPLE…..DESCRIBE A TERRORIST…you can not stop an unknown shadow – Tall – Short – Fat – Skinny – Young – Old – Black – White – Green – Pink – Purple – short hair – Bald – Hippie Hairstyle
GO HIDE UNDER YOUR BED – – you can not stop what you can not see……… F R A U D……… Perpetual WAR LIES…. military spending up 45% since 9/11
The FBI and other ‘enforcement agencies’ (and now the The American Psychological Association (APA) as seen in another article here) treat humans just like they treat computers and the internet: as just another ‘thing’ to be manipulated, coerced, and broken using the mental malware of deceit and torture, figuratively and literally.
It’s just a another extension of our societies inability to communicate effectively with one another – to the extent that our fellow humans that actually do need mental health services are instead used to prop up the existing paradigm of the much-overblown ‘war on terror’ at the expense of our common humanity.
What’s actually being radicalized to any extent that will actually negatively affect our societies health and progress aren’t these individuals that are encouraged into situations that they’d likely never be in if not for the interjection of “law enforcement’ – the demonstrable radicalization is the corruption of our laws regarding basic civil rights and freedoms, as well as the absolutely inhumane idea that it’s OK to not extend the simplest of human dignities by making health care available to those that are demonstrably unwell.
Instead we take advantage of them. Now tell us all, FBI: who’s is it that’s sick?
Well, you can’t have a war on terror without terrorists.
Maybe they should stand-up and take a bow for their captive global audience.
“Bob Dylan- Masters of War ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm7FN-t3PY
Visit your U.S. congressional representatives at your regional branch of the Federal Reserve.
The Muslim community living in the US must learn to accept certain core American values. One of these is that people with mental illness should be imprisoned.
The community has also done a poor job of inciting its members to commit violent acts. This has created an enormous burden on the FBI, as it’s had to create a program of elaborate sting operations, hire a small army of paid informants and offer large cash rewards to anyone who will agree to place an FBI constructed bomb. The Muslim community must learn not to rely on the FBI to do everything for them. US police have killed 392 people so far this year (the number may have since increased since I posted the link). It is almost embarrassing to ask how many people terrorists in the US have killed in the same period.
So, if they don’t get their act together, I can imagine the FBI will lose interest and maybe start to initiate sting operations against local police forces. They could have an informant infiltrate the force, offer the local police free military surplus equipment and weapons, and then secretly videotape them as they plotted to use them on civilians, and arrest them before any damage was done.
“The community has also done a poor job of inciting its members to commit violent acts.”
As usual you raise valid points from your grave Mr. Mussolini.
In my humble opinion, “The “Safe Spaces Initiative,” launched by the Muslim Public Affairs Council” as outlined by Mr. Hussain, will help increase the awareness of community members to their shortcomings; and possibly contribute to a larger counter-culture population which generates positive improvements in National Security Agency endeavors but particularly in the area of FBI entrapment incentives and techniques.
This however, is a conceptually optimistic viewpoint which may have no basis in reality. Given your incarnation, you would be best able to assess the strategic utility of this program in international affairs.
You are completely misinformed by phony propaganda. You are demonizing a group, just like Germany scapegoated the Jews.
You are very susceptible to psychological behavior modification & mind control.
Don’t drink the Koolaid.
@Louise Cypher 02 May 2015 at 5:52 am
I gave you a detailed rebuttal of that, you still continued to squirm.
Now, get back to Islam’s primary source, the Qur’an, which sets Islam’s framework. Anything that conflicts that framework is un-Islamic.
Prove your assertions from the Qur’an and we’ll see what you come up with.
Stop deflecting.
I’m afraid that Ms. Cypher is nothing but a bot, which has been programmed with some insinuating phrases and condescending rejoinders. So trying to engage it in intelligent conversation will be almost as futile as discussions with the regular commenters.
I would imagine the programmers have reviewed the interactions on this site, and concluded that their bot should reduce its volume of comments. That is why it is no longer responding. In small samples, it can be mistaken for a human, but as its comments propagate, its limitations and nature start to become apparent. Random variation of the same phrases over and over, and the incorporation of key words from the comment to which it is responding, without showing any comprehension of the meaning behind the words, may be a human trait, but it is characteristic of bots as well. But the speling and gramar are too good, which ultimately gives it away.
However, this can be fixed by the programmers, so I’m sure it will be back.
^a clear case of Cypherophobia
I think the wise man got you there.
But take it in a positive way as a constructive critique of the “Louise Cypher” bot. It’s not that difficult to fix bugs and add new features. We have seen it with the “Craig Summers” bot. it’s very well refined and the programming is impeccable.
So learn from that bot. Bots learn more from other bots than they do from non-bots.
Once the programmers have fixed the code, I’m sure you’ll be able to quote the Qur’anic verses and provide YOUR analysis, instead of the analyses of the Pam Geller types.
The programmers used Pamela Geller as a template when they constructed their Louise Cypher bot.
Possibly a bot or possibly human Mr. Mussolini…but most certainly programmed to troll.
This particular one has been programmed with some familiar characteristic catch phrases which I have discussed in the past with others manifesting in the comment sections on TI. In fact, it had it’s own special counter-programmed message.
Here it is: “Troll Lol Song”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqdqyvcJtig
“it’s”
*its
Little programming glitch there…..
Try a pictorial….
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
Get a new program.
“glitch”
*chuckle*
That was me correcting your grammar, dummy.
Proof is in the pudding…”dear”
As a singular bot the correct grammar is “it’s”.
If you have been programmed as part of sock-puppet collective, which I suspect….then you would still need to consider a collective possessive sense in which the correct grammar would be: its’
Some type of comprehension regarding pictorial analysis would also be desirable but that would require direct human intervention in performing complex mental tasks.
Much as it pains me to do this, Lyra, “In fact, it had it’s own”… really should be “In fact, it had its own” (“it’s” being a contraction of “it is” and “its” being the possessive.)
Quite true, peanuts. But neither one of the combatants cares. The sniping about things grammatical is just a proxy war over whose opinion is correct. Futile, naturally, because in this case correctness is not determined by grammar or spelling or punctuation.
In the interest of contributing to future comments that conform to the rules of English, here is a suggestion: try changing the word to “his/her” and to “it is” and see which change sounds sillier.
“So trying to engage it in intelligent conversation will be almost as futile as discussions with the regular commenters.”
A genuine chuckle. Well done Mr. Mussolini (now there’s a line I never thought I’d utter).
But if you want to witness a *genuine* example of futility, here is Sam Harris talking to a brick wall named Noam Chomsky:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
So, you’re a Sam Harris’ fan. This tells a lot about you.
I see that you’re still commenting here, but have not provided a list of Qur’anic verses that you think sanction harming the innocent non-combatants.
This means only one thing: no such verses exist and you tried to dis-inform the readers when you originally hurled two verses from the Qur’an, verses that I showed you do not sanction harming the innocent non-combatants, of which you had no rebuttal.
You have obviously not studied the Qur’an, and, since the Qur’an does not sanction harming the non-combatants and is actually quite anti-murder, this means that those Muslims who are harming the non-combatants are in violation of the Qur’an.
They may base their actions on something, but not the Qur’an, which is the primary source of Islam and the only source that claims to have descended from the highest plane of reality/consciousness.
Other sources do not make such a claim and were based on oral traditions that were compiled a few hundred years after the Prophet (S) left this world.
Moreover, the actions of these misguided are more political than religious. But that’s a discussion for some other time and place and for other people to have.
So, you’re a Sam Harris’ fan. This tells a lot about you…. – Sufi Muslim
Sam Harris is pretty good when he tries to explain the ridiculousness of religious dogma, but when it comes to foreign policy, and even secular morality, he needs to defer to his intellectual superiors, such as Chomsky.
If you look at Sam Harris’ arguments, they are primarily based on the assumption of cultural superiority as it exists in his imagination, not on anything that has actually occurred, e.g. “Consider the recent conflict in Iraq: If the situation had been reversed, what are the chances that the Iraqi Republican Guard, attempting to execute a regime change on the Potomac, would have taken the same degree of care to minimize civilian casualties?”
“his intellectual superiors, such as Chomsky”
A genuine chuckle. Thanks for that.
Genuinely chuckling with the program loop code….
“American Revolution Song:The Revolutionary Alphabet”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMZg4aeE5pE
Meanwhile….on the banks of the Potomac; we thought we’d have our own little revolution.
“Mason Williams – Classical Gas”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhMuCiAe6vA&playnext=1&list=AL94UKMTqg-9DSvip6XN0CxUtJcUu3NMaX
BTW, Chomsky completely destroys Harris’ simplistic arguments. Here’s but one example:
What bothers me most about Harris is that he’s one of the foremost proponents of Secular Morality. Unfortunately, someone who supports torture and violations of civil liberties in the name of security is the worst representative the concept of Secular Morality could possibly have.
@Louise Cypher 02 May 2015 at 8:29 am
So, just like other commenters who could never engage in a discussion on the Qur’an, you are also fleeing.
The conclusion is the same as ever before: There is absolutely NO BASIS for terrorism in Islam’s primary source, The Qur’an!
This is why you have been squirming and deflecting since yesterday, after initially hurling a couple of verses from the Qur’an to misinform the readers, and I decided to challenge you on it.
The doors are open. Whenever you feel like it, produce the Qur’anic verses that you think sanction harming the innocent and we will see what you come up with.
But you can’t, so you won’t.
What this also proves is that whosoever engages in harming the innocent is in violation of the Qur’an!
@Louise Cypher 01 May 2015 at 7:58 pm
Now, you are threatening me with a drone strike.
Shame on you!
Um…so what does this new program actually do?
Didn’t find a clear description in the article
And how does it avoid the problems of the other programs mentioned
From the story: led many to choose disengagement from people who expressed troubling views, rather than trying to work with them to sway their opinions.
“Our goal is to treat Muslim communities like any other communities, not as something unique. We treat this as a public health program,
I wonder if this is going to turn into unwelcome “re-education” or brainwashing. Should we interfere with people who express religious or political disturbing opinions? Don’t they have a right to an opinion? How do we know that these people are mentally unbalanced rather than being sincere believers in a religious/political doctrine that we reject? Why would we interfere with beliefs and opinions? Don’t we punish actions rather than opinions?
On the other hand, judging from the comments that FBI agents made to each other regarding their targets, the agents are pretty good at recognizing mental and/or intellectual deficiency, so maybe we can give the agents orders to refer targets to counseling when it becomes apparent that the target couldn’t mount an attack and is just saying worrisome things.
People who report that voices are telling them to do bad things would of course be considered mentally ill. I’m not suggesting that mental illness does not exist. But to classify political dissidents as mentally ill sounds like totalitarian regimes of yore.
In theory, running a ‘sting’ on a mentally ill person would lead, not to trial and prison, but to a commitment proceeding. After all, if actual murder could at times be attributed to insanity, the same is true of participation in an elaborate government set-up. We can’t be too confident that any given person is ‘incapable’ of launching an attack (pushing someone off a train platform was always a favorite of the psychiatric set), nor should we allow what I’d call ‘less-than-legal alternatives’ to stings and prison to end up being adjuncts that are used on people who never would have merited a genuine law enforcement operation.
@Louise Cypher
You quoted two Quranic verses and stated that the basis of harming the innocent non-combatants is Islam’s primary source, the Quran.
I gave you my analysis of those two verses to show you were wrong. You know where my analysis is.
I ask you to show me how my analysis is wrong.
Also, list some other verses from the Quran and prove that these verses sanction harming the non-combatants.
I expect to see your response here tomorrow morning.
Good Night.
“I expect to see your response here tomorrow morning.”
LOL
Very well, it’s morning. Where is YOUR analysis of verses of the Qur’an that sanction killing innocent civilians?
You can’t produce one!
Why?
Because no such verses exist!
I have been studying (as opposed to reading) the Qur’an for 6 decades. So I know that it does not sanction the killing of innocent non-combatants.
See “Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism” by Juan Cole.
“Because no such verses exist!”
I already posted them ages ago,
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/01/fbi-needs-stop-manufacturing-terrorist-plots/#comment-128983
but this place has such an awful commenting system that it’s obviously hard to see what is going on.
Glenn should really ask his BFF Snowden to code something better.
By the way, you *really* don’t need to waste your time on responding to my claims. I think it is safe to say our respective cases are understandable to all interested parties.
The facts that these verses *exist* in the textual form that we can all see, and that there *are* Muslims interpreting them in the sense that they allow their atrocities, are both *incontrovertible* and they will not go away whatever you say.
No, you did not. So far, you have only hurled two Qur’anic verses and claimed that the basis of terrorism is none other than Islam’s primary source, the Qur’an.
I gave you a detailed analysis of those two verses to show you that those verses were not sanctioning the killings of innocent non-combatants, but you never provided your rebuttal.
So I have been giving you a chance to redeem yourself and list the verses you think sanction terrorism (harming the innocent non-combatants) and provide YOUR analysis of them to prove your assertion.
But, you are squirming and deflecting.
It shouldn’t be so difficult for you. The Qur’an is relatively short and condensed book. It either sanctions terrorism or it does not. If it does, where are the verses that do?
So, stick to the subject, which is the Qur’an — a subject you yourself chose when you hurled those verses from it.
List all the verses of the Qur’an that you think sanction terrorism, which is essentially murder of innocent.
If you can’t, and I know you can’t, because they don’t exist, then know that you have been lying and deceiving and spreading disinformation here.
Once we have analyzed the Qur’an, we can move on to the secondary sources of Islam. But know that it’s the Qur’an that sets Islam’s framework — an outline of it — and ALL other sources must be examined in light of the Qur’an, not the other way around.
So, stop squirming and deflecting, and show me the Qur’anic verses that you think sanction killing of innocent non-combatants. The longer you delay, the more it becomes obvious that you are not capable of reading the Qur’an yourself. You rely on anti-Islam websites. You need to think for yourself and non rely of the Pam Gellers of the world to understand the Qur’an.
I’ve been very patient with you and I’ll continue to be patient with you today.
Start a new thread with your analysis of the Qur’an if you wish.
Let’s see what you come up with.
We can also focus on these verses:
Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).
5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
What do YOU think these verses are saying?
Aren’t they rejecting murder of the innocent? If not, then exactly what are they making unlawful?
Then there are these verses:
The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256).
Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Qur’an.
Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.
Doesn’t this verse rejecting apostasy? The “no compulsion” works both ways: a) Do not impose a religion on anyone, and b) Do not force people to stay with their religion and let them leave if they want to.
What, in YOUR opinion (not the opinion of the Pam Gellers of the world), is this verse indicating?
Reflect on it.
What’s with all this calling them sting operations? There’s already a perfectly good word: entrapment.
Nonsense. Entrapment is inducing a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been *unlikely* or *unwilling* to commit. Here, we have would-be terrorists who supply the only actually important ingredient – their *will* to commit heinous acts of terror against innocent civilians – and who would otherwise have perpetrated the same acts, just with real explosives instead of fake ones.
Go get an education, dear.
But as your opinion is worthless, your comment is like unto evaporating snowflakes on a fir tree on a Vermont spring morning, only considerably less profound.
Good answer!
That really, really hurts.
@Louise Cypher 01 May 2015 at 7:45 pm
That really, really hurts.
==================
I suggest you channel that feeling of hurt into something more positive by seeing goodness in the Muslims, and stop stereotyping them. Reflect on all my replies to you and dive into their meanings.
Get some of these eBooks on Sufism: http://www.zahrapublications.com
Take care, will catch up tomorrow.
You take care too, and watch out for that buzzing sound. It may be a bee, but then again it may not.
“Thank you”
You’re very welcome, dear. It’s good to learn something new, isn’t it?
If you look at the legal definition, the key part of entrapment is whether the planning originated with the accused or with the government. In addition to this, if the accused had to be persuaded, coerced or tricked into committing the crime, where he otherwise would not have committed it, then it’s entrapment. A lot of these cases seem to fit that standard.
I am certain that all these Muslim terrorists will be happy to have you in their defense teams. Their liberty is just a Jose away.
To me it is ridiculous to spend millions of dollars on an investigation, linking people up with fake terror supporters, providing people with fake bombs, helping them plot fake attacks. Why not spend that money on persuading people to choose a more righteous path. Perhaps many of these people are looking for purpose and meaning, and the informants are simply providing them with that. With the right kind of attention, many people can be convinced to do something they would not ordinarily have the means or inclination to do. The case in BC is a real eye opener for me to this murky world of informants. The couple involved are drug addicted, poor, extremely vulnerable. I am sure they would have just as easily agreed to build houses in Nepal, than build bombs, if they were advised that they could benefit spiritually from the former.
Assume away, but a reply is here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/29/life-death-al-qaeda-spokesman/#comment-128913
OK. We get that you hate Muslims. Relevance?
You are an idiot, doing what all idiots who have no real arguments do: changing the terms of the debate and using silly accusations that you think can shut it down. It’s like that moronic term, “Islamophobia”.
I hate *Islam*: a barbarian, medieval, misogynist, death-worshiping cult. Of course I don’t hate Muslims. Muslims are Islam’s original victims.
“Relevance?”
None to this article, as you would have realized yourself if your IQ was in at least double digits.
None of what you say is MY Islam or the Islams of many, many, Muslims.
What you hate is your understanding of Islam, which is not shared by me or many Muslims I know.
My understanding of Islam is unimportant; you need to convince your co-religionists who think like this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpZbVI5CQAAL29-.jpg
Louise Cypher 01 May 2015 at 8:10 pm
My understanding of Islam is unimportant; you need to convince your co-religionists who think like this
======================
It’s very important and relevant, because you are the one who stated that you hated Islam and said that it is “barbarian, medieval, misogynist, death-worshiping cult.”
But none of that applies to my Islam or the Islam of many Muslims.
So the Islam you hate is not our Islams, it’s YOUR Islam, that is, YOUR understanding of what Islam is. You’ve created an image AND understanding of what you think Islam is and THAT’S what you hate.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand what I’m saying?
Again:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpZbVI5CQAAL29-.jpg
This photograph – and countless others, far more heinous – is not a document of *my* understanding of Islam. I didn’t invent this in my mind, so that I could have some phantom to hate. It is a document of the *real world Islam*, as it *actually exists*, unconcerned with your views on what Quran “actually” says. That is what is important.
So, to reiterate, you need to convince your co-religionists who think like that. My understanding of Islam is unimportant in the great scheme of things.
I completely reject that. You did refer to Muslims in your little rant.
It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t hate blacks, I just think they are generally a bunch of criminals.” Isn’t that bigotry?
“I completely reject that. ”
LOL.
You may suffer from some serious reading comprehension issues, but in that case have a literate adult explain to you, slowly, why *referring* to *a number of* Muslims – in this case stating the *fact* that *millions of Muslims worldwide* support Islamic State, and simply quoting the poll results which are completely reliable – and show that a significant percentage of Muslims worldwide hold despicable views – isn’t “kind of” saying they are “generally criminals”.
That would be opinion; these are simply statements of fact.
A member of the Dawkins, Harris cults of personality, I assume? This may come as a surprise to you, but blanket assumptions about a vast number of people is usually called bigotry, is assumed to the product of hatred and fear, not born (as Darris would have you believe) out of a rarefied analysis by the bishops of reason.
This person just told you what his experience is, and you told him it was something else. How arrogant.
“blanket assumptions”
Not at all, dear. No “assumptions” involved. Simply stating the facts. Let’s look at them again:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7jJ6sOCUAELob6.jpg
No wonder you and your fellow traveler “Jose” glossed over that.
What Louise doesn’t seem to get is that statistics don’t justify bigotry. Prevalence of crime in the black community doesn’t justify bigotry or violence against blacks, for example. It simply points to a social phenomenon whose root causes need to be understood and addressed.
Yes, some people have irrational beliefs. What are you saying exactly? That because of these statistics Muslims can be presumed guilty a priori? If that’s not it, seriously, what was your point?
Louise: the technical snag you’re hitting here is that when you say ‘a barbarian, medieval, misogynist, death-worshiping cult’, you create ambiguity about whether you’re talking about Muhammad or about Muslims in general, i.e. whether it is a cult following a barbarian or made up of barbarians. Your strength here is that no one can win the argument that Muhammad didn’t rob caravans and assassinate critics, nor can they claim that there are not modern day followers who do similar things claiming religious motivation. But to be properly correct you have to recognize that many worshippers do manage to convince themselves that this is not what they are about.
“a cult following a barbarian or made up of barbarians”
The former.
“no one can win the argument that Muhammad didn’t rob caravans and assassinate critics, nor can they claim that there are not modern day followers who do similar things claiming religious motivation. ”
Indeed.
“But to be properly correct you have to recognize that many worshippers do manage to convince themselves that this is not what they are about.”
Oh, I am *100%* with you on that. Otherwise, it would be a much bigger carnage out there than there already is.
@Louise Cypher 01 May 2015 at 8:56 pm
Again:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpZbVI5CQAAL29-.jpg
This photograph – and countless others, far more heinous – is not a document of *my* understanding of Islam. I didn’t invent this in my mind, so that I could have some phantom to hate. It is a document of the *real world Islam*, as it *actually exists*, unconcerned with your views on what Quran “actually” says. That is what is important.
So, to reiterate, you need to convince your co-religionists who think like that. My understanding of Islam is unimportant in the great scheme of things.
No, no need to squirm.
You must produce the Qur’anic verses, quote them here and present YOUR understanding of them.
I am having a discussion with YOU and not ANYONE ELSE!
I know MY co-religionists very well. NONE OF THEM SUPPORTS HARMING THE INNOCENT!!!
The reason you are squirming is because you know very well that the primary source of Islam, The Qur’an, DOES NOT SANCTION MURDER OF INNOCENT.
“NONE OF THEM SUPPORTS HARMING THE INNOCENT!!!”
Calm down dear, and stop shouting.
“The reason you are squirming ”
*chuckle*
I consider this exchange to be over.
And my reply to you is here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/29/life-death-al-qaeda-spokesman/#comment-128939
Prove that the basis of terrorism (harming the non-combatants) has its basis in the Quran as you originally claimed.
Quote the Quranic verses and your analysis of them.
I already refuted you on the two verses you quoted to make your claim, but, instead of pointing out your analysis of them you just brushed my analysis aside as irrelevant.
I also gave you a link to an article by Juan Cole in which he showed how terrorism is forbidden in the Quran, but you’ve not rebut that either.
“I already refuted you”
You did no such thing. You simply offered your interpretation. Islamic State’s interpretation of Quran is equally valid – and equally Islamic – for all real-world intents and purposes. And if you look at Mohammed’s life, more in line with it:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
There is no need for you to continue with this, really, as much as I enjoy your prose.
I’m sure Pam Geller and Robert Spencer are your heros and teachers of Islam.
You did not refute me. You just ignored my analyses.
I challenge you to show that the primary source of Islam, the Quran, sanctions killing innocent non-combatants.
The Quran is the ultimate source of Islam and provides its framework and sets its parameters.
We’ll discuss the secondary sources later. Stick to the Quran, which is what you quoted originally and claimed that the basis of terrorism is the Quran.
Now, don’t squirm. Show me the Quranic verses to prove your assertion.
pbs.twimg.com/media/B7Q9qQ8CQAAFEtT.jpg
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
But really,as I said: there is no need for you to continue with this, as much as I enjoy your prose.
I also refuted you here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/29/life-death-al-qaeda-spokesman/#comment-128321
No rebuttal from you of that either.
A simple rule about how to read The Intercept writers, on here or on twitter: look for the *terms in scare quotes*; they are the actual truth of the matter (radicalization, which is a clear and present danger despite the silly attempts to convince us that it’s all FBI; terrorism, which is a real threat to our civilization, despite the silly attempts to convince us that it isn’t; secular West, which is a real and actual thing despite the silly attempts to convince us that it isn’t, etc.)
The West engaged in two devastating “civil wars” in the last century.
The civilization survived.
The biggest terrorist attacks in this century were the evil acts of 911.
The entire Western survived, including NY.
The Western civilization is extremely strong in every way you can imagine.
Have some faith and confidence in the strength of the Western civilization.
P.S. You did not respond to my analyses in other threads. Shall I assume that you’re not capable of refuting my analyses of the verses you presented from the Quran?
You missed the point. Of course terrorism exists and is dangerous. Unless you are a government troll, try to think outside the existing narrative of terrorists behind every tree, and they’re coming to get us. The article plainly admits a useful place for stings, when they are for real threats, not ones where the FBI supplies everything, from the money, to transportation, to the fake bombs. Haven’t you had enough war, especially when none of them have provided their intended results?
“Of course terrorism exists and is dangerous.”
Not in The Gospel According to St. Glenn it doesn’t.
“where the FBI supplies everything, from the money, to transportation, to the fake bombs.”
Not everything. You fail to mention – naturally, because it utterly demolishes your and Hussain’s point – the only *actually important thing* : the *will* these Muslims show to engage in heinous acts of terror against innocent civilians. If the FBI wasn’t there catching them, and foiling their plots (not “foiling” – another truth-marker in this article), their will would find another way. You can’t blame the big bad West for that will to harm the innocents. And that will is precisely why they deserve to be locked up and the key to their cells thrown away.
Read this and rebut:
http://www.minhajbooks.com/images-books/Edict-Terrorism-Fitna-Khawarij/Edict-Terrorism-Fitna-Khawarij_1.pdf
Terrorists who claim to be Muslims are actually the Kharijites the Prophet (S) warned his (S) followers against.
Have you read many of the reports concerning these sting operations? The FBI agents have to push the Muslim targets to get them to do any concrete planning and preparation. That’s why the FBI supplies the weapons and trains the targets how to use them. That’s why the FBI provides the fake bombs. The FBI agents worry that they aren’t going to be able to motivate the target to go through with the plot that the FBI agents have developed. The targets are not believable as terrorists. They talk about jihad but have never held a gun, don’t know how to build a bomb, and in one case couldn’t even prevent mom from confiscating the passport. They are no more likely to carry out a violent attack than the chickenhawks in Congress are to sign up for active military duty.
Irrelevant. That is all not only perfectly legal, but necessary to foil these very real plots. Let me repeat, because you obviously don’t understand the issue:
FBI agents *do not force* these terrorists to try to perpetrate their terrorist acts. It is their own choice. Their will.
It’s frankly shocking to see so many people on here feigning that they don’t understand it, babbling about the supposed “entrapment” without even being aware of what the term covers, and blaming FBI for “manufacturing terrorist plots”, as the URL says here
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/01/fbi-needs-stop-manufacturing-terrorist-plots/
That is a *serious* charge against the FBI. And a lie.
You answered my question. No, you have not read the reports. As shown in their recorded conversations, the FBI agents themselves doubt the motivation of their targets to carry out what you call the “very real plots” that the FBI agents have developed and are trying to persuade their targets to adopt.
I am convinced Lousie Cypher is actually that lover of Islam , Pam Geller…trolling the Intercept . It is quite obvious she loves the negative attention she is getting.
“trolling”
Simply having some spare time so decided to see what all the terror-appeasing kids are doing these days.
“It is quite obvious she loves the negative”
Sadly, you’re incorrect. The negativity and denialism of the posters on display here – 99.99% of whom are willfully blind regarding the dangers Muslim terrorism represents – pains me deeply.
Yet, it is you who threatened a commenter here with a drone strike. Muslims have gotten into trouble joking about violence on the web or using words and phrases that seem threatening even though they are used metaphorically.
I have a very simple solution for you:
Get these books and dive into them:
1. “Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God”
2. “The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Suny Series in Islamic Spirituality)”
Both, by William Chittick
Your assessment is intentionally simplistic. It’s not that people here think there’s zero danger from Islamic terrorism. Rather, (1) the world has much bigger actual problems, and (2) terrorism doesn’t exist just because — it’s demonstrably blowback. What are the odds that any of us here might be killed by a terrorist? You have greater odds of being killed by a cop, or bees for that matter.
And about your focus on Islam, you do know that terrorism exists outside the politics of religion, right? There have been entirely secular groups that engage in terrorism, such as Shinning Path in Peru. I realize I’m wasting my time because I don’t think you’re truly interested in trying to understand how terrorism comes about. To you, it seems to be little more than a talking point, a way to argue cultural superiority.
What actually undermines religious dogma is education, science, that sort of thing. Telling people how primitive and barbaric their culture is, and how enlightened yours is in comparison, probably won’t work.
We really need to focus on keeping marijuana offenders out of fail before we focus on keep people with mental illnesses who attempt terrorist activities out of jail.