Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  11 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 10:08
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 10:08
Subject: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
In this and the next article, I am beginning to doubt Obama's loyalty
to the American nation. You interpret it for yourself.

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood
President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has
provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted
by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and
Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was
"oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate
it with "gender justice".
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV
discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist
Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy
and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the
world.
Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's
officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme
Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made
repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal
cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said
that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership
in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that
"promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what
Muslims admired least about the West.
She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because
they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common
perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or
justice for women, with sharia compliance.
"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."
Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which
decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly.

 However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of
men and women.
It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with
specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet
Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and
homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.
Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with
"maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem
unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this
perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and
Islam as a faith is not well understood."

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the
front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.
Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of
five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House.
Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's
determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim
Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion
in the Muslim world.
During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as
"to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is
Muslims want."

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss
Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.
“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been
exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice
perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset
that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a
cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged
earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.
“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant
mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should
Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam...


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 10:33
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 10:33
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
And now here Obama is attempting to appease the Taliban. It clearly
shows that Obama does not understand that there is only one kind of
Muslim, one who swears to submit to Allah and observe the 5 Pillars of
Islam. The Afghan is a Muslim, the Taliban is also a Muslim using the
same Koran and the same mosques and the same Imams. There is no
difference.

"Barack Obama 'sees role for Taliban in Afghanistan's future'
President Barack Obama is prepared to accept a role for the Taliban in
Afghanistan's political future in a major shift of policy towards the
Islamic radicals who are attacking US and British troops, it has been
reported.

By Philip Sherwell in New York
Published: 7:00AM BST 09 Oct 2009

As he assesses a request from his top commander in Afghanistan to
dispatch another 40,000 troops to fight the Taliban, he is also
"inclined" to send only as many as needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay.
The assessment was given to the Associated Press by a senior official
involved in Mr Obama's discussions with his top national security and
military advisors about Afghanistan strategy.

There is believed to be a growing favour in his war council for
differentiating between native Afghan Taliban factions and the foreign
extremists of al-Qaeda. Several of the president's advisors are
arguing that the Taliban are predominantly fighting against what is
perceived as Nato "occupation" while it is al Qaeda that poses a
threat to US defence.
Aides have made clear that Mr Obama is unlikely to reach a final
decision on strategy and troop numbers before the end of October.

But it seems increasingly unlikely that he will grant the request from
Gen Stanley McChrystal, the commander he appointed only this summer,
for an extra 40,000 US troops to join the 68,000 who will already be
in Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Gen McChrystal's recommendations have not been made public, but he is
widely reported to have warned that the US faces "failure" in
Afghanistan without his requested troop surge."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam...

On 9 Oct, 10:08, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 12:20
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 04:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 12:20
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
But it's for Nuclear Non-proliferation not Appeasement to Islam as
such.

On 9 Oct, 12:04, Kay <kaykay...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Kay  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 12:24
From: Kay <kaykay...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:24:43 -0400
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 12:24
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
He hasn't achieved non-proliferation.  I guess it is the thought that
counts?  I don't know the official reason for awarding him the honor.

On 10/9/09, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 12:40
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 04:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 12:40
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
US President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Committee said he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international
bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.

On 9 Oct, 12:20, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 Oct, 16:10
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri 9 Oct 2009 16:10
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian
committee is honouring his intentions more than his achievements.
After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he
will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his
term to get this award.
The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that
he is being given the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples."
This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W
Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to
change the world in their image.
The committee "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and
work for a world without nuclear weapons." But it also mentioned the
UN, climate change and the "strengthening" of democracy and human
rights.

On 9 Oct, 12:40, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 Oct, 11:29
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun 11 Oct 2009 11:29
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
 I may be rather cynical but I read the gesture quite differently.

Indirectly, the Swedish Nobel Peace Prize was awarded as an act of
appeasement to the Muslim world. This is what it says imho, "We
support Obama, because Obama is the first "Black-African western
leader (with roots in Islam)" who is reaching out and appeasing the
Islamic world, and we Swedish and Europeans applaud him and his
vision. We want to show you Muslims that we are not against Black-
African people or against people with Islamic connections. We support
movements for Peace at any price. "

That is what it clearly says to me. And I interpret it as
"APPEASEMENT."

The message it conveys is, "Islam has won."
Bukhari:V4B52N220       "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious
with terror.'"

The West are backing off because they are scared of us. That is the
message that is seen in the Islamic world.

On Oct 9, 4:10 pm, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

read more »


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cheech  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 11 Oct, 18:46
From: cheech <cheech...@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun 11 Oct 2009 18:46
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
Damn Elle, I would move to the UK to get away from all this except
it's even worse over there.

On Oct 11, 5:29 am, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

read more »


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 12 Oct, 16:32
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon 12 Oct 2009 16:32
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
Cheech, why, or why are our politicians so ignorant about Islam?

On 11 Oct, 18:46, cheech <cheech...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

...

read more »


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
yD  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 14 Oct, 19:22
From: yD <yaffad...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed 14 Oct 2009 19:22
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
I haven't seen any effort "to strengthen international diplomacy and
co-operation between peoples" unless you count speeches.  This prize
comes after Obama snubs the Dalai Lama!?!  A true man of peace.  But
in the past the peace prize has been given to people like Arafat and
Adams for, imo, saying the won't fight Jews and Protestants, even
though they continued.  As for Obama's intention to include the
Taliban in Afghani government, it looks more like the Taliban won't
let the western powers any say in their government.
Also, re the now sick-making President, he wasn't ging to attend a gay
rights fundraising dinner until he learned there was a march scheduled
the next day!  Interestingly, on Saturday he said he was behind gay
rights, including don't ask, don't tell; on Monday, however, it
appears there are "barriers" against that.  Time for action Mr.
President, your words are meaningless.
And, yes, I did vote for him.  I wanted Hillary Clinton, but the
delegates wanted Obama and now we've got him.
yD

On 11 Oct, 06:29, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

read more »


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
elle  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 15 Oct, 16:10
From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs 15 Oct 2009 16:10
Subject: Re: Barack Obama's Dangerous Path toward Islamic Appeasement
IMHO, when the chips are down, Obama's sweet words fall to pieces. He
is caught between the Devil and deep blue sea. He is playing the
appeasement game with the Islamists, but I am sure the Party members
would not allow him to go too far that way or he will show his true
Muslim colours.

If he really thinks he can get the Taliban to compromise and become
part of the civilised community, then i shows clearly that Obama has
no idea of "orthodox Islam." The Taliban will never, NEVER, compromise
of bend one millimetre to include Western Democratic principles to
contaminate Islam. The Taliban did not give in the the British, the
USSR, and will not give in to the US or NATO either, ever. If they are
included in any government, they will take it over. I have not know of
any Islamic regime that has compromised with Western values in the
history of mankind. It is like asking orthodox Jews to accept Islam as
equals in the eyes of god.

So if Obama appeases the Taliban and bring them into government, is
will be the same as surrendering to the Taliban.

On 14 Oct, 19:22, yD <yaffad...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

read more »


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google