Donald Trump wants to ban ALL Muslims entering the US

I know! Remember in the 1970's when napalm was all the rage? Then it got passe after that little Asian girl, and laser-guided bombs were the must-have munitions to kill any A-list Muslim. Then the 21st century got all effeminate, and water boarding was hawt, but it barely even killed people! Now each day I scan the Style section for the most avant garde way of targeting civilians. Turns out ISIS are way out in front in civilian-targeting fashion! And then . . .

TRUMP trumped ISIS by targeting civilians and their families. I guess 2016 has orange hair and family killing written all over it. Oh fickle history.

 

That is a tarded question and you are a tard.


To make it work something I will say as an american I don't feel great about the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital but I would be extremely disillusioned if it were done on purpose.

 

I'm not so sure the current ends justify the means. I don't think spreading democracy is as much the goal as securing geopolitical power/position and resources.

And even still, I am not so sure civilian collateral/death is an effective way of pulling a society over the good side.

 

John Esposito, the guy behind those Gallup polls, directly gets funded by the Wahhabi Islamists. He has been involved directly with organizations on terror watch lists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/john_l_esposito_apologist_for_wahhabi_islam.html

 

Just a couple of things ... First off your 100k figure is way off ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8574157.stm

The US wasn't alone in the raids and actually used about 200 less bombers then the UK during the main raid . Not so sure where the " totally unnecessary" part fits in either ...pretty sure there was a World War underway and Germany had initiated bombing civilian areas .During "The Blitz" Germany bombed civilian areas for almost a year straight,killing about 40,000 civilians

 

Good ad hominem

John Esposito - 40+ years as an academic on Islam
Stephen Schwartz - Some unknown journalist whose writing quality is almost as bad your's

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/stephen_schwartz/ - yeah you can definitely tell by his writing that he clearly doesn't have an agenda

Whereas you try to discredit a Gallup poll by using this little known writer who attempts to smear Esposito simply because his program at Georgetown University received money from a Saudi prince (who also happened to give similar contributions to other universities such as AUB, Cornell, Cambridge, and Harvard).

The fact that you have to go through such great lengths in an attempt to discredit a Gallup poll just displays how asinine you really are. But since that kind of illogical thinking is what your mind is accustomed to, the article you linked was posted for Campus Watch on MEForum, which is run by Daniel Pipes (the same guy who thinks the American government should set up internment camps for American Muslims).

 

http://www.cameraoncampus.org/blog/tag/john-esposito/

Notoriously anti-Israel (and, dare we say, anti-Semitic?) Georgetown University professor John Esposito has struck again.

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Esposito has become one of six Middle Eastern Studies directors at American universities to publicly embrace a total academic boycott of Israel:

Georgetown University Professor John Esposito is one of six Middle East Studies directors at American universities to embrace an academic boycott of Israel, according to a Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch report. The letter first was reported by Campus Watch last week.

The six directors signed a public letter vowing “not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions,” a move that ArabianBusiness.com says could conflict with promises the directors made for federal funds.

As heads of U.S. Department of Education Title VI National Resource Centers, Esposito and the other directors assured that they will “maintain linkages with overseas institutions of higher education and other organizations that may contribute to the teaching and research of the Center.”

This type of behavior is common for Esposito, who has issued statements in support of the Muslim Brotherhood:

But the move is quite consistent for Esposito, who, as the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has documented, has long supported the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in the United States. His Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University was staked with $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal in 2005.

Esposito served as an expert defense witness in the Hamas-financing prosecution against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation and five of its former officials. He describes Sami Al-Arian, a man documented as a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “a proud, dedicated and committed American … a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice.”

Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are committed to Israel’s destruction.

Esposito has repeatedly defended terrorist organizations Hamas and Hizballah. In a 2000 interview in the Middle East Affairs Journal, Esposito was asked if they were terrorist organizations. “One can’t make a clear statement about Hamas,” he said… Some actions by the military wing of Hamas can be seen as acts of resistance, but other actions are acts of retaliation particularly when they target civilians.”

In the same interview, Esposito defended Hizballah for operating “within the Lebanese political system functioning as a major player in parliament. But when it comes to the south it has been primarily a resistance movement…”

Esposito not only openly supports terrorist organizations, but also sees fit to cite and quote historically anti-Semitic publications, such as CounterPunch. He recently tweeted a link to a CounterPunch article attacking Shoa-survivor Elie Weisel for being “anti-Palestinian” and claiming (with no substantiating evidence) that Israeli soldiers have used Palestinian children as “soccer balls.”

According to the Middle East Forum, Esposito even recently participated in a panel on ISIS, during which he claimed that the group is comprised somewhat alienated Muslim Democrats and “disaffected youth” who feel that they “must act” because of reluctance to “‘speaking out and condemning’ the ‘things that are devastating’ of ‘traditional allies’ like Israel or Arab regimes.”

With so much evidence that Esposito is not an honest academic, and instead a polemical purveyor of distortion, we wonder: Is this really the type of “scholarship” with which Georgetown wants to be associated?

 

http://www.copticsolidarity.org/med...sposito-shills-for-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood

Georgetown’s John Esposito Shills for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

John Esposito, founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University, has signed an open letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron opposing his invitation to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Britain this week for talks. The letter stipulates that:

While not necessarily supporting deposed President [Mohamed] Morsi or the policies of his Freedom and Justice party, we note that he was democratically elected, and that his removal from office was effected by means of a military coup led by Sisi.

However, in 2012, Esposito happily appeared alongside members of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, for an ACMCU-hosted panel discussion at Georgetown. At the time, he and other Middle East studies academics were instrumental in whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood, downplaying its Islamist agenda, and encouraging—with great success—U.S. government cooperation.

This renders Esposito's objections to al-Sisi's visit suspect, much like his sudden antipathy towards "repressive and authoritarian" regimes, given that ACMCU has been bankrolled to the tune of $20 million by a member of the Saudi royal family, who rank among the most oppressive rulers on earth.

Esposito had the audacity to complain about "philanthropic support for Islamophobic authors and websites" in a recent interview with OnIslam (read Robert Spencer's response here). He directs the Bridge Initiative, an ACMCU project that, like its UC Berkeley predecessor, the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project, is dedicated to promulgating the myth of a shadowy "Islamophobic network" fueling the "anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry" that it claims has "increased exponentially in the United States and Europe." Esposito labels his work at the Bridge "protecting pluralism" from the "forces of evil," but, in reality, such apologias serve only to protect the evils of Islamism from legitimate criticism.

Is it any wonder then that Esposito and his ilk condemn al-Sisi, who, while remaining a strongman, has been one of the few Middle Eastern leaders to call for reform within Islam, to reach out to his country's Christian minority, and to fight Islamic terrorism? By Esposito's reckoning, that makes him a certified "Islamophobe."

 

Wolf to Georgetown: Detail Use of Saudi Millions

A U.S. congressman is asking Georgetown University about its academic scrutiny of Saudi Arabia and its use of $20 million donated by a Saudi prince in 2005.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote to Georgetown President John DeGioia Thursday, saying he was concerned about how the money was being spent at the university's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Of particular concern, Wolf said, was the university's role in training current and prospective U.S. foreign service personnel.


Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud, center, is seen with Georgetown president John J. DeGioia and John Esposito in this 2005 photograph. The prince gave Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding $20 million.
"The Saudi government continues to permit textbooks to contain inflammatory language about other religions," Wolf wrote. "Restrictions on civil society and political activists continue to be pervasive. No changes have been made to the underlying legal authority relating to non-Muslim worship that the Saudis have relied on to enforce these rules. The Saudis have cleansed their own country of religious liberties by severely restricting public religious expression to their interpretation and enforcement of wahhabism."

Wolf's letter seeks assurances the Georgetown center "maintains the impartiality and integrity of scholarship that befits so distinguished a university as Georgetown." He then asks whether:

• "the center has produced any analysis critical of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, in the fields of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women's rights, minority rights, protection for foreign workers, due process and the rule of law."

• "the center has examined Saudi links to extremism and terrorism, including the relationship between Saudi public education and the Kingdom-supported clerical establishment, on the one hand, and the rise of anti-American attitudes, extremism and violence in the Muslim world, on the other."

• "the center has examined or produced any critical study of the controversial religious textbooks produced by the government of Saudi Arabia that have been cited by the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and non-governmental groups for propagating extreme intolerance."

• "any of the Saudi-sourced finds have been used in the training, briefing or education of those going into or currently employed by the U.S. government.

Harvard University also received $20 million from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal but that is not addressed in the letter. Wolf is the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations and is co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

The answer to his questions likely will be no, said Martin Kramer, former director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and a fellow at Harvard and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Prince Alwaleed's money wasn't designed to stop academic scrutiny of Saudi Arabian society and policies, Kramer said. The Georgetown center wasn't doing that anyway. Rather, "It's a move to change the subject [and say the roots of terrorism lie elsewhere]. For the Saudis after 9/11, changing the subject is important."

The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is run by John Esposito. His research has not delved into aspects of Saudi society or human rights to determine why 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, or why so many of the foreign fighters in Iraq have been from the Kingdom. Rather, Kramer said, Esposito's research places U.S. policy under the microscope and finds it responsible for fostering anger and resentment.

"He's not doing anything he wasn't doing before he got the Saudi money, he was doing it anyway," Kramer said. "The Saudis just rewarded him for it."

Esposito has a history of minimizing the threat of Islamic extremism and supporting Islamist regimes and movements. He has praised Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi as an intellectual who "reinterpreted Islamic principles to reconcile Islam with democratization and multiparty political systems and recast and expand traditional doctrine regarding the status (dhimmi) of non-Muslim minorities."

Qaradawi has expressed support for the killing of American forces in Iraq and praised Palestinian suicide bombers, writing "it is wrong to consider these acts as 'suicidal,' because these are heroic acts of martyrdom, which are in fact very different from suicide."

In the summer of 2001, Esposito criticized those who emphasize the threat Osama bin Laden posed. "There's a danger in making Bin Laden the poster boy of global terrorism, and not realizing that there are a lot of other forces involved in global terrorism," Esposito wrote in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. "Bin Laden has become the new symbol, following in the footsteps of Qaddafi, Khomeini, and Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman. Bin Laden is a perfect media symbol: He's tall, gaunt, striking, and always has a Kalashnikov with him. As long as we focus on these images we continue to see Islam and Islamic activism through the prism of ayatollahs and Iran, of Bin Laden and the Afghan Arabs."

In addition to his academic work, Esposito has been allied with a series of people directly involved in terrorist and extremist movements. He continues to consider Sami Al-Arian, an acknowledged member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to be a friend and "[o]ne of the most impressive people I have met under fire."

He served on the Board of Advisory Editors for the Middle East Affairs Journal, published by United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). The UASR was established by Hamas Deputy Political Director Mousa Abu Marzook and run by Ahmed Yousef, now a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

When the gift was made, the $20 million was reportedly designed to finance scholarships, three faculty chairs and expand academic outreach to "beef up" what the center already had in place.

In 2001, Alwaleed's attempt to donate $10 million to a fund for 9/11 victims was rejected by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after Alwaleed suggested U.S. policy contributed to the attacks. In a news release, Alwaleed called on the U.S. to reexamine its Middle East policies "and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

Esposito defended the Prince's statement, saying "He was expressing his enormous sympathy with the United States but also trying to give people the context in which this [terrorist attack] occurred."

In addition to probing how the prince's money is being used at Georgetown, Wolf is asking the Bush Administration similar questions in opposition to a proposed $20 billion arms sale to the Saudi government.

In 2006, Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom issued a report on Saudi Arabian education. Despite claims that it modernized its curriculum and text books to remove intolerant and extreme references, the study found "an ideology of hatred toward people, including Muslims, who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of Islam."

Nina Shea, the report's author and then-director of the Freedom House center, penned an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on May 21, 2006 saying, "The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the 'polytheists' and 'infidels').

This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to 'spread the faith.'"

Among the many examples Shea cited was this, from a sixth grade textbook:

Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power.

The heart of Wolf's concern in both his letter to Georgetown, his alma mater, and in his opposition to the arms sales, appears to be a question of how reliable an ally Saudi Arabia is in the fight against terrorism and extremism. In addition, Wolf seems concerned over a cumulative effect Saudi interest in the U.S. has on policy. The letter notes a request to the Government Accounting Office about investigating "the revolving door" of senior officials who leave government only to lobby on behalf of governments where they previously served. And he specifically asks Georgetown about training current and future foreign service officers.

He notes that there has been a fair amount of promising talk, but "the Saudi government's promises remain unfulfilled."

 

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1443/john-esposito-reputation-vs-reality

John Esposito: Reputation vs. Reality

John Esposito has enjoyed substantial respect in his role as a Georgetown University professor of Religion and International Affairs, specializing in Islamic studies, as well as the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.

But whether he deserves that respect is put in serious doubt when assessing his cozy ties with radical Islamists and his repeated defense of their ideology -- a relationship that is detailed in a newly issued report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).

The report acknowledges Esposito's impressive pedigree as an award-winning professor, an author of more than 30 books, a consultant for the Gallup polling organization and an expert on Islam frequently called upon to brief government agencies including the State Department, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and various branches of the military.

But it determines that his "outspoken defense of radical Islam calls his reliability as an objective academic and impartial educator into question."

"Esposito's academic standing provides him an opportunity to defend radical Islam and promote its ideology - including defending terrorist organizations and those who support them, advocating for Islamist regimes, praising radical Islamists and their apologists, and downplaying the threat of Islamist violence and involvement with Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in the U.S.," the report declares.

"Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly," it notes, "than Esposito's intimate working relationship with two organizations considered Muslim Brotherhood fronts by federal prosecutors" -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Both groups are cited in court evidence detailing a Hamas support operation in the United States.

Here are some of the highlights presented in the report:

Esposito has worked with, or defended, three entities which comprised the "Palestine Committee," a U.S-based committee established to help Hamas politically and financially. He appeared as a defense expert witness in the 2008 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), repeatedly appears at fundraisers for CAIR -- a group whose two key founders participated in a secret 1993 meeting called to discuss ways to derail the new Oslo Peace Accord -- and co-sponsored a conference with the UASR. UASR was created by Hamas deputy political director Mousa Abu Marzook and directed by Ahmed Yousef, now the Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

The professor has made repeated statements defending the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hizballah. A 2006 article published in the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted him as saying, "some object to sitting at the same table to engage in a dialogue with Hamas or Hizballah but I see no problem with that." He made that and similar statements portraying Hamas and Hizballah as legitimate political parties with whom the United States should negotiate well after both were designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department.

In an article in the September 2006 edition of Harvard International Review, Esposito criticized the United States and Europe for condemning Hamas, writing that "despite HAMAS' victory in free and democratic elections, [they] failed to give the party full recognition and support."

He has been similarly loath to condemn Hizballah. While in the past "there were times when it engaged in aggressive actions that clearly could be seen as terrorist actions," he said in an interview with the Middle East Affairs Journal in 2000, "Hezbollah in recent years has shown that it operates within the Lebanese political system functioning as a major player in parliament. But when it comes to the south it has been primarily a resistance movement…. Hezbollah has made it clear that such actions would not exist if the Israelis would pull out of the south. Many outsiders refuse to see the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon as an occupation and as illegal."

The same predisposition to reject terrorist motives characterizes Esposito's attitude toward the Muslim Brotherhood. When shown an internal Palestine Committee memo that described the Brotherhood's goal as "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hand of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions," during his HLF trial testimony, he doubted the memo's authenticity:

"If it is authentic, it would be made by a radical or terrorist organization. That is not something that I would associate with the Muslim Brotherhood….. You wouldn't guess that it was a Muslim Brotherhood statement."

Esposito also defended the Tunisian political group An-Nahda, also known as the Renaissance Party. An-Nahda is outlawed in Tunisia for its use of violence.

The professor remains a self-described "very close friend" of former University of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian, cited in court evidence as a former board member of the terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. Despite Al-Arian's admitted ties, Esposito continues to laud him as "an extraordinarily bright, articulate scholar and intellectual-activist, a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice."

"God help Sami Al-Arian in terms of this administration and many others who have to live through this," he said at a CAIR Dallas banquet in August 2007.

Esposito has engaged in a series of academic partnerships with Azzam Tamimi, a known member of Hamas since at least 1999 and a man who has repeatedly praised suicide bombings. Speaking in South Africa in July 2002, Tamimi declared, "Do not call them suicide bombers, call them shuhada [martyrs] as they have not escaped the miseries of life. They gave their life. Life is sacred, but some things like truth and justice are more sacred than life."

Esposito has praised Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood known for his militant religious rulings and political commentary in support of terrorism and suicide bombings, as well as his fatwa stating that Muslims killed while fighting American forces in Iraq are martyrs. Commenting on suicide bombings in April 2001 Qaradawi said, "they are not suicide operations…these are heroic martyrdom operations."

In spite of such rhetoric, in a 2003 article in the Boston Review, Esposito included Qaradawi on a list of religious scholars with a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights."

More broadly, Esposito has consistently downplayed the threat of Islamic violence. "Some hold the Muslims guilty until proven innocent. It is also possible to use words and terms that offend Muslims but that are unacceptable about others, such as Jews or Americans of African origin," Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted him as saying in May 2006. That same year he wrote in the Harvard International Review that it is vital to recognize that "widespread anti-Americanism among mainstream Muslims and Islamists results from what the United States does- its policies and actions."

What consequences have all these questionable positions and relationships carried for Esposito?

None to speak of, the IPT report suggests. "Esposito's coziness with terrorist supporters, and his frequent criticism of U.S. policy as a cause of terrorism has not hurt his standing with government officials," it notes. Indeed, the State Department continues to book the professor "to address international audiences about life for Muslims in America and to advance his argument that better understanding of religious and cultural differences is a key to a more peaceful world."

 

Who's the guy in black and white?

 

Mussolini

 

Actually the raid was ordered by the British. Just sayin.'

 

You're fired.

 

There are terrorists of all religions and political ideologies. Anarchists, far left, ecoterrorists, neo nazis etc etc. Make your pick.

 

Also followers of Carly Fiorina.

 

Yea I'm tired of those damn ecoterrorists,every time I turn on the news

 

Name them that pose the biggest threat.

 

Now how about you tell us how many Americans have been killed by ISIS. (Hint: less than 20 Americans were killed by all terrorists in the world in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009.)