Do CAIR and MAS, who are involved in this according to this story, believe that Jamaat al Tabligh (aka Tablighi Jamaat) is not a terrorist organization? Evidently they don't, judging from this story. On what grounds do they think this? What evidence do they have that DHS's finding that it is a terrorist group is wrong? Or is this outrage just part of a larger effort to hinder any anti-terror action? Do tell, Ibrahim.
From KVOA.com, with thanks to Twostellas:
Representatives from leading Islamic organizations are demanding that federal authorities allow an Arizona doctor to return home from Pakistan.Nadeem Hassan, a Pakistani who belongs to an Islamic group known as Jamaat al Tabligh, was forced out of the country last week under threat of indefinite detention based in part on a Homeland Security finding that the group is a terrorist organization.
Those moves infuriated Phoenix-area Muslims, who say Hassan is a peace-loving physician and Jamaat al Tabligh is a non-violent, apolitical missionary movement.
Russ Knocke, a Homeland Security spokesman in Washington, said Hassan's ouster from the United States "is an example of what we mean when we talk about restoring integrity to the immigration system."
Hassan had lived in the United States for more than 15 years, and practiced medicine at Maricopa Medical Center here under a temporary-work permit....
Knocke said there was no nefarious plan to revoke Hassan's green card while he was overseas, especially in a department that handles thousands of cases daily, and rejected assertions that discrimination was involved.
"We operate on intelligence," he said.
In revoking Hassan's green card, CIS said he committed fraud by failing to declare his leadership in a number of Muslim groups, including Jamaat al Tabligh and a mosque in Mesa.
"...Jamaat al Tabligh is a non-violent, apolitical missionary movement..."
'Sponsors' of terror on decline
Iran seen as lone state of peril to U.S.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
...Of the six nations identified by the State Department as terrorist sponsors, five of them -- North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Cuba -- are described by Homeland Security as a "diminishing concern." Iran, the final country on the list, alone is highlighted as a likely threat over the next five years.
Other predicted possible sponsors of attacks include Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistan-based group that has been linked to Muslims of America; Jamaat al Tabligh, an Islamic missionary organization that has a presence in the United States; and the American Dar Al Islam Movement.
But since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Tablighi Jamaat, once little known outside Muslim countries, has increasingly attracted the interest of federal investigators, cropping up on the margins of at least four high-profile terrorism cases.
It has been cited either as part of a cover story like Mr. Faris's, or as a springboard into militancy, as in the case of John Walker Lindh, the American serving time for aiding the Taliban.
The linked article is actually a rehash of the longer and original article on the first page of today's Arizona Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0128hassan0128.html
Hmm.
The Doctor and his wife, 'Amber'.
Everytime I catch a flight I'm subjected to a security check. And the primary reason for those checks is because of Muslims.
So, Doc, if you and the Mrs. have been inconvenienced because of the behavior of your Muslim brothers, well, sorry about the inconvenience. Perhaps you should have a word with them about the problem they've created.
And if you really are a member of a terrorist organization, well, the tactic that's keeping you over there has made my day.
But I wonder about Amber. Why wasn't she allowed to return?
Knocke... rejected assertions that discrimination was involved.
"We operate on intelligence," he said.
Intelligence without discrimination is worthless.
Dis*crim`i*na"tion, n. [L. discriminatio -- the contrasting of opposite thoughts.]
1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences.
2. The state of being discriminated, distinguished, or set apart. Sir J. Reynolds.
4. The quality of being discriminating; faculty of nicely distinguishing; acute discernment; as, to show great discrimination in the choice of means.
5. That which discriminates; mark of distinction. Syn. -- Discernment; penetration; clearness; acuteness; judgment; distinction. See Discernment.
No, I hope US don´t allow it.
Time to boot these guys out, the enraged ones. As
has been pointed out, it is a bridge we need to
cross, a real pons asinorum. Can't square the
circle, can't make a moderate muslim. Expel now.
This idiot doctor (Wife named Amber?? What's her real name, her Muslim name? No way has she not converted) is here on a green card. he should have kept his nose clean. If I were a *legal resident alien* in a foreign country I would do my best to conform to the laws and mores of that nation. Today these Muhammadan pests think they can alight in the United States and dictate the terms of their legal residence.
At least this duo is one step up from our millions of illegal immigrants who try to bend and dictate the terms of their continuing residence here.
Good point Dr. Pepper.
I've been digging a little deeper into this issue, language is how we understand and express perceptions of reality.
Some thoughts(not finished):
------
The words "democracy" and "discrimination".
___
"Democracy" is not inherrently "good".
This used to be "common-knowledge"(except to the leftists and other totalitarians).
Notice how that word (democracy, not democratic)has been promoted in a purely positive light by the information institutions that dominate society? The occasional voice who challenges it is over-whelmed 95 to 1 by the positive propagandists.
There is an interesting phenomenon in society that seems to create an obsessional(almost like the obsessive-compulsive hand-washer) repetition of certain words in a certain narrow light for the purpose of redefining the MEANING of the words. The general effect, which is very subtle, is to create a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION to certain words. This is an attempt to infer a MORAL CONNECTION to these words, where none actually exists, they are in fact morally Neutral.
What they do is tap into EMOTION and BIND it to certain words, and when emotion is exploited logic and reason are crippled. (THE GOAL).
Yes, anyone can go to a dictionary to look up the various meanings, but, dictionaries are REVISED.
And in fact can be co-opted by programed POPULAR usage. "Discrimination" is another word like this. Is there not an emotional, knee-jerk sensation that is so subtle as to make it barely perceptible to the individual but nevertheless immediately betrays a moral tone to the word? Is there not this sensation that is deep in the consciousness that says: "discrimination is bad", "I cannot be associated with this word because it is "bad""? "If I am associated with "discrimination" I will be ostracized,an outcast from society" ?
Here are the 1828 Webster's definition of the words discriminate and discrimination:
DISCRIMINATE, v.t. [l., difference, distinction; differently applied; Gr., L.]
1. To distinguish; to observe the difference between; as, we may usually discriminate true from false modesty.
2. To separate; to select from others; to make a distinction between; as, in the last judgment, the righteous will be discriminated from the wicked.
3. To mark with notes of difference; to distinguish by some note or mark. We discriminate animals by names, as nature has discriminated them by different shapes and habits.
DISCRIMINATE, v.i.
1. To make a difference or distinction; as, in the application of law, and the punishment of crimes, the judge should discriminate between degrees of guilt.
2. To observe or note a difference; to distinguish; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
DISCRIMINATE, a. Distinguished; having the difference marked.
====================================================
DISCRIMINATION, n.
1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.
2. The state of being distinguished.
3. Mark of distinction.
===================================================
My Webster's Third Edition New International Dictionary(unabridged) which was began in the 1930's and published in 1961 has the additional definitions that have a connotation that infers a negative aspect upon the word. (or one could say; a negative cannotation). Connotation ie.: "frame of reference".
The above is also present in the 1913 Webster's dictionary, though less specific.
___
My problem with this is it seems illogical. How and why does a completely NEUTRAL/OBJECTIVE word: discriminate, and it's offspring - suddenly develop a negative connotation? I think it's obvious, it's a perversion, subversion and corruption of language/linguistics. It was allowed and perhaps promoted as a correct description of belief and behavior that had no basis in fact or reality. The definitions above clearly describe an intellectual TOOL, in effect an inanimate object to be used in conjunction with logic and reason to DETERMINE TRUTH or FALSEHOOD or the positive vs. the negative.
One does NOT "discriminate against" someone or some group. One can only use "discrimination" to become cognizant of (F)ACTUAL differences, of (F)ACTUAL distinctions, of (F)ACTUAL contradictions, of (F)ACTUAL quality or inferiority. To discriminate or the act of discrimination HAS NO RELATION TO RACIST or any other PREJUDICIAL, illogical, or EMOTIONALIZED "thought-process".
Discrimination requires facts. Discrimination requires objectivity. Discrimination is an intellectual exersize, completely imprisoned in the mind. Discrimination does not "act" against anybody or anything. The "act"(which includes verbalization) is separate, and it may or may not be based on legitimate application of discriminating(reasonable and logical) thought.
If one has a pre-concieved notion and only pursues facts that support that notion that is not discrimination, that is EMOTIONAL BIAS, and has no legitimacy whatsoever in the realm of truth or quality. It may accidentally, or inadvertently end up being on the side of truth, but that is just an example of COINCIDENCE, which is a paralell conclusion/determination/observation that is non-supportable or repeatable using it's base "reasoning" methodology or criteria, which means it is an UNWISE mode of thought if truth is the objective.
So what is the purpose of language corruption?? And there are many, many more examples. Is it some dark conspiracy?? "They" would like that to be the only possibility, because "they" can easily discredit such a assertion. And at the same time certify those who can see a pattern of subversion and corruption and who attempt to expose it, as "paranoid" or insane. A real danger to a non-conformist. Oh, yes, I am fully cognizant that many will consider my interpretations as "disturbed" or delusional, but not all will. This I know too, because the entire population is not under the spell of emotionalized thought patterns.
Some did'nt pay much attention in the government indoctrination centers called "schools", many don't live in the big cities where the P.C. doctrine is like an Iron-Curtain that suffocates "deviationism" otherwise known as logic and reason. Not all plug their minds into the Matrix-like virtual-reality of the television long enough to completely erase independant thought. Though complete disconnection, except for occasions of disinterested observation of evolving Matrix phenomenon, is most healthy in my opinion.
Is there dispute that mass-media is a control apparatus? Is there dispute that there are specific messages inserted into almost all programing that targets the audience's emotions and then rationalizes the message in a biased, dishonest way? Grabbing hold of the emotions is a trick upon which to set up the conditions for deception and manipulation. Any con-artist knows that. Beware. Then there is the function of the virtual-reality as distraction, where messages are less important than numbing the mind. Also, a substitution for real-world interaction where opinions conflict, and one may have to acknowledge being wrong. But the herd mentality discourages conflict.
The TV is never wrong, it provides both information and conclusions. But they always give both sides of the issue right? But the actual constitution and implementation of the mass-media complex is such that they don't really have a vested interest in promoting truth and reality, why? because truth and reality is the enemy, and will most certainly destroy the Matrix complex-- they'd have to get a real job then.
kentim, excellent post. I'm printing it to hand out to some very liberal friends who say I discriminate against muslims and therefore are . .
gasp! . . . a bigot.
Thanks poetess, and good luck.
kentim, great post! I have said all along that words MEAN things. It seems that the language is corrupted to meet the ideals of the propagandist.
I posted on this before--if you have JT in your neighborhood, you have violence coming. They use the religious missionary movement as a cover. Some are genuinely proselytizing, but they exist to move very bad people around under cover. If you have JT in your neighborhood, fight it at all costs. They are of the quick suicide variety, not the slow strangulation variety, despite all outward appearances.
Nota Bene.
Kafir Nonbeliever: "I am here because I am aware of the dangers of Islam."
I am not here to defend Islam or communism as some have alluded. I believe Islam is a brutal medieval stagnant sexist messianic belief system requiring total submission to their God. There is much more but I am not debating right and wrong with Islam, either sunni, shi'ite or other.
I believe the CIA learned something significant about Muslims when they trained armed and funded the majahideen in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded, the CIA went into "Hot War" mode, spending billions and sending thousands of tons of equipment to the Muslim majahideen. They set up training camps in Pakistan, madrasas, where jihadist Islam was taught alongside weapons and techniques. The CIA imported Islamist fundimentalists from around the world to join in the training and battle against the Soviets.
Kafir Nonbeliever: "Bush is the leader of the free world."
I am sorry but Bush is a liar and a cheat and totally corrupt, as is his party.
Kafir Nonbeliever: " do not fool yourself into thinking Bush created the Islamic republic of Iran."
Of course not, not alone. I believe Iran has been groomed for this role since the CIA discovered the Muslim majahideen in Afghanistan. I think the US oversetimated the Iranians ability to commit war when it lost hideously to the Iraqis. Even after Bush Sr. went in and trashed Iraq the first time, Iran still didn't have the balls or where-with-all to conquer Iraq. Now that Bush Jr. has thoroughly destroyed Iraq a singular force the Iranians don't even have to invade - they can now just assume control of Iraq as part of the Sunni led elected parliment (thank you George W. Bush).
Ever wonder why Sadr had a get-out-of-jail card with the American forces in Iraq? Do a little checking of his connection to Iran.
This is getting too long but I would like to thank you for your reasoned and logical response to my revelations concerning US motives and interests - it is certainly NOT what it seems on the surface.
United States citizens and the world for that matter are being duped as to the real agenda behind American activities in the Guld and Middle East as well.
The people behind these activities are working for what they believe is the best course for the United States and it's interests - they truly believe in what they are doing. And in the short term, they may be right.
Employment will increase in high paying high technology fields of manufacture and investment in military research. Billions in US dollars will be repariated as foriegn allies retool for the new nuclear "Cold War". US Patriotism will create a new "Buy American" movement that may save the US auto industry and could resurrect domestic production in some traditional fields (clothing, electronics,appliances).
The US could again proudly wear the mantle of World Peacemaker, even if it is all a farce.
Best regards Kafir Nonbeliever, we will talk again some more.
CD 'Bar' Baric
Nadeem Hassan, a Pakistani who belongs to an Islamic group known as Jamaat al Tabligh, was forced out of the country last week under threat of indefinite detention based in part on a Homeland Security finding that the group is a terrorist organization.
No one born outside of America, except to an American parent, has the right to come to and live in America.
Aliens can apply to visit and work in America under our laws. This is a granted privilege and not a right.
At any time, our American federal government has the right to revoke this privilege and expel any non-citizen from America without cause. Our liberal federal courts have tried to make it nearly impossible to do this, but with Alito coming into the US Supreme Court this will change so America can protect it citizens from those in our country that should not be here without having to resort to the courts to expel them.
If you are an alien visitor in America and break our laws you should suffer the penalties for your crimes and then be expelled.
This is a start. It is great to see that the American federal government is starting to protect its citizens.
The Texican.
It is better to fight and die free than to ever live in oppression.
The Texican.
It is better to fight and die free than to ever live in oppression.
Homeland Security is right to kick Nadeem Hassan out of the country. I hope this is just the beginning. Non-citizens have no right to remain in this country, & we are perfectly justified in requiring those to leave who have ties to any group which may be threatening.
HS, stand firm. Do not cave in to pressure from Muslim groups to bring this man back. Protecting US. citizens is far more important than being popular to non-citizens.