patrick.net

YesYNot says

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Wow, well I see part of the problem right there. We should really edit that ASAP:

"I hereby declare, on oath on penalty of perjury and forfeiture of citizenship, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

As far as Daesh/ISIL are concerned, their snackbar is better than our snackbar, so taqiyya and dawa allow lying on oath to us in service to Islam. Also, the linked page says there are ways to waive parts of the oath; for example, many people can legally gain dual citizenship. Also, there are other ways of gaining entry without citizenship. Under invade&invite, refugees are allowed into NATO countries because NATO bombed and invaded their country and the military industrial complex wants them to come in and take revenge and justify surveillance. In the US, the federal government does not track refugees; thus enabling the needles to hide better in the haystack.

YesYNot says

Maybe it needs an update to explicitly cover religious groups who hold views in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the US.

ISIL/Daesh claim to be a sovereignty, so they would be covered, but anyone claiming to believe in Islam is implicitly holding views in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the US.

YesYNot says

I don't know how you can micromanage peoples thoughts, but some of the renouncing that you are talking about is covered by the oath of citizenship: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

I don't want to micro manage thoughts.
I want Muslims to make a declaration publicly and in written form that they renounce explicitly listed articles of faith.
And make this declaration repetitively, as a precondition to practicing their faith in the US.

Indeed this would resemble the oath of citizenship but apply to citizen as well and pertain specifically to Islam.
If some publicly disagree, they will be asked to explain why, and why they believe killing other people is ok.

YesYNot says

At the base, underlying conditions such as

poverty, corruption, religious conflict and

ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists

to exploit.

This is non-sense and absolute crap. It seeks to rationalize terrorism as caused by poverty, and dismisses the power of cult over the mind as a self-sufficient motivation.
You would think Jim Jones would have established that poverty is in no way a necessary pre-condition.

curious2 says

so taqiyya and dawa allow lying on oath to us in service to Islam

Again you are missing the fact that the religion hold on someone's mind is based on certain biases of the human mind that are no different than those exploited by propaganda.
A religion is nothing but the joint use of several propaganda techniques coupled with some self-reproducing characteristics.
This is why you can't say taqiyya and dawa take precedence. They are just drowned into the propaganda background.

Public declarations work whether they are sincere or not. Which is why you sometime see people collecting signatures in favor of a cause. This is not to use the signatures to convince someone else. This is to influence the people who sign.

YesYNot says

At the base, underlying conditions such as

poverty, corruption, religious conflict and

ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists

to exploit.

1. OBL was from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia, with a net worth of around $7 Billion Dollars.
1b. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi comes from a well-off family wealthy enough to allow him to be a lifetime religious scholar. His wife al-Dulami is from a family that counts multiple Emirs and Sheiks, obviously wealthy.
2. Corruption has been endemic in the middle east since the Bronze Age. Nothing new here.
3. Religious Conflict - yes, Sunni Supremacism.
4. Ethnic Strife in the Middle East is between Sunni Arabs and everyone else; but doesn't explain why those who voluntarily moved to Germany, France, etc. are starting to attack Europeans.

The Israelis know you have to deal with Arabs with strength, you have to beat them hard before you talk to them, because they only respect power. The European style of bending over for them only encourages them to become more forceful.

In the Arab World, the superior beats his inferior. Half the TV Shows in the MENA are about a "shamed" or "beaten" junior trying to take revenge on a "superior". The only difference between the action ones and the comedy ones is in the latter, the junior always fumbles at the end and gets even more humiliated.

The other terrorist attacks this month by Boko Haram and allegedly by Islamists in Turkey:
http://fusion.net/story/283391/why-is-the-american-media-mostly-ignoring-two-other-terror-attacks-that-happened-this-month/

I take the ones in Turkey with a big grain of salt, very possibly agent provocateur actions.

thunderlips11 says

The only difference between the action ones and the comedy ones is in the latter, the junior always fumbles at the end and gets even more humiliated.

Sounds like a biography of CIC.

bgamall4 says

File that under "B" for batshit.

Facts you won't read in mainstream media:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state
- Muslims will comprise the majority of the population of Brussels by 2030.
- The growth of the Muslim population has been accompanied by an increase in violent crime, which has made Brussels one of the most dangerous cities in Europe
- In Molenbeek, where an estimated 25% of the population is Muslim, the growing insecurity has forced multinational companies to leave the municipality.
- It reported an average of five new cases of rapes each week involving two or more offenders, in addition to an average of 57 rapes per week involving single violators.
- you can describe half of the Muslim students as anti-Semitic
- Since 2008, the most popular name in Brussels for baby boys has been Mohammed. It is also the most popular name for baby boys in Belgium's second-largest city, Antwerp, where an estimated 40% of elementary school children are Muslim.

Heraclitusstudent says

Facts you won't read in mainstream media:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state

Come on, now. That "gatestoneinsitute" is a dreadful propaganda outlet. If the truth is sufficient, propaganda should not be needed.

Dan8267 says

File that under...

it depends. For example, we fund our "allies" in Turkey, and they were reportedly buying a lot of oil from ISIL/Daesh. Our Saudi "allies" have also reportedly helped ISIL/Daesh. The photos of John McCain turned out to be fake, but W's Iraq invasion and NATO bombing Assad have also helped ISIL/Daesh tremendously. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see ISIL/Daesh using weapons captured from, or otherwise obtained with the help of, entities that we have supported.

Heraclitusstudent says

Public declarations work whether they are sincere or not.

They may have some effect, but beware of unintended consequences.

Consider the recent example where Muslim gunmen made people at a resort shout Aloha Snackbar, and killed anyone who refused. Suppose next they do that to you. Are you, based on one public "declaration", going to become a lifelong snackbar? Or, rather, are you going to hate them even more for threatening you and making you repeat their BS?

Now consider the context of NATO invade&invite. You've bombed their country, and financed ground militias to drive them out of their homes and into your country. After all that, when they have no place left to go, you demand they renounce their snackbar.

Will they sincerely renounce the snackbar, or will they say what you demand and then hate you even more for that? Some of each, I would guess, and maybe some crossover depending on what happens later in their lives.

bgamall4 says

He publicly

link?

Impossible. As far as we know Georgies has only one daily happy hour...

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

No. I blame you and the assholes in our military who made bad decisions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Were it not for Charles the Hammer you might be a Muslim devot bending over 5 times a day.

The very definition of cancer.
Heraclitusstudent says

These people are strong in their beliefs. They thrive on chaos and conflict. They reproduce much faster than the host

justme says

Come on, now. That "gatestoneinsitute" is a dreadful propaganda outlet. If the truth is sufficient, propaganda should not be needed.

What part of it is not true according to you? This is clearly verifiable from other sources.

bgamall4 says

Here is McCain saying

"...everyone in the national security team recommended arming ISIS, and the President by himself turned it down..."

IOW, McCain said the national security team recommended arming ISIL/Daesh, and the POTUS refused. McCain did not say, in that video, his own position. Also, I can't help wondering if he misspoke somehow or was quoted out of context; the clip runs only a few seconds, and the theme music sounds like one of your loopy conspiracy sites.

curious2 says

Consider the recent example where Muslim gunmen made people at a resort shout Aloha Snackbar, and killed anyone who refused. Suppose next they do that to you. Are you, based on one public "declaration", going to become a lifelong snackbar? Or, rather, are you going to hate them even more for threatening you and making you repeat their BS?

No this not how it works. The key is the reward has to be small.

This technique was used very effectively on American prisoner of wars in Korea held by the Chinese. Many returned to America espousing communist ideals.
The key was getting "confessions" that capitalism was flawed from them in exchange of small and decreasing rewards, such as reading mail from their family.
The reward had to be small so they attribute their own confession to free will are therefore forced to change their point of view to maintain consistency. This is based both on commitment and the rationalization trap.

Propaganda is not a trivial subject. It is used widely for religious, political and commercial ends and therefore must be studied. (though simply knowing how it works DOES NOT protect you from it).

As far as cults are concerned I strongly recommend everyone to read this: http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/temp/w1.cults.pdf
You can count the ways in which this describes Islam.

Heraclitusstudent says

As far as cults are concerned I strongly recommend everyone to read this

OK, I read it, and enjoyed the reference to Kurt Vonnegut's granfalloon.

Having read it, I don't see how you expect your declaration to work, unless you are planning to confine subjects for an extended period, and btw many of the worst Muslim terrorists were formerly incarcerated for extended periods. For example, America incarcerated Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but let him go. Before that, America's client regime in Egypt incarcerated Ayman Al-Zawahiri but let him go. Perhaps you are implying that incarceration by the USA or its allies may offer opportunities for indoctrination that have not yet been utilized? IOW, are you suggesting replacing the traditional incarceration routines with a de-programming routine? The risk of relapse would probably remain quite high, particularly as people tend to keep in touch with families and the old country at least after release.

thunderlips11 says

1. OBL was from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia, with a net worth of around $7 Billion Dollars.

This and the other examples is a good point. Poverty is not required for terrorists, but it is the best recruiting tool for these top dogs to use to get followers, which they need. If Bin Laden were content to go blow himself up, he would have done so. He wanted to lead a movement, get others to blow themselves up, and get ladies, fame, etc. Somewhere you need to motivate young men to blow themselves up. A great source for those young men is people who are oppressed, because revenge is a great motivator. People who have had their families or people in their tribe killed and who face ongoing oppression would great targets. I think that this is human nature more than culture. That is why I think we can extrapolate that to what is happening in the ME. There are obviously people who want to go wage jihad for other reasons as well.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is non-sense and absolute crap. It seeks to rationalize terrorism as caused by poverty, and dismisses the power of cult over the mind as a self-sufficient motivation.

See above. It doesn't rationalize terrorism and doesn't state that poverty is a precondition. It states that poverty et al. create opportunities for terrorists to exploit. That means it creates a pipeline of people ripe for radicalization. The CIA disagrees with you.Heraclitusstudent says

I want Muslims to make a declaration publicly and in written form that they renounce explicitly listed articles of faith.
And make this declaration repetitively, as a precondition to practicing their faith in the US.

What do you want them to say exactly? And do you propose making everybody make some declaration before practicing their faith? How are you going to define practicing faith?

YesYNot says

See above. It doesn't rationalize terrorism and doesn't state that poverty is a precondition.

Yes absolutely: you are trying to say that if we eliminated poverty and bad economics, the problem would go away. It wouldn't, not in any substantial way. This is a cult. It is a problem of identity, that has cultural, as well as political roots. And this is a war of ideas. You can not see that just as a refuge for disaffected people.

YesYNot says

What do you want them to say exactly? And do you propose making everybody make some declaration before practicing their faith? How are you going to define practicing faith?

Let me remove the "as a precondition to practicing their faith". They are free to practice, but anyone who says they believe "polytheists or apostates should be killed" would be registered in a public way similar to sex offenders.

This is from an article in the Washington Post today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-isis-recruits-have-deep-criminal-roots/2016/03/23/89b2e590-f12e-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop_b

As Belgian police delve into the backgrounds of the men behind Tuesday’s attacks in Brussels, they are encountering a pattern familiar to investigators in Paris and other European cities targeted by the Islamic State: The shock troops used in the terrorist group’s signature attacks are largely men already well known to local law enforcement — not as religious radicals, but as criminals.
As it has done for years in the Middle East, the Islamic State appears to be finding a fruitful recruiting ground among Europe’s street gangs and petty criminals, drawing to itself legions of troubled young men and women from predominantly poor Muslim neighborhoods, U.S. and European officials and terrorism experts say. Some recruits have scant knowledge of Islam but, attracted by the group’s violent ideology, they become skilled and eager accomplices in carrying out acts of extraordinary cruelty.

Heraclitusstudent says

They are free to practice, but anyone who says they believe "polytheists or apostates should be killed" would be registered in a public way similar to sex offenders.

That sounds good, but it's difficult to implement. There are plenty of white supremacists who say terrible things. They only go to jail if the incite violence. You'd be changing our laws quite a lot to implement that.

curious2 says

I don't see how you expect your declaration to work, unless you are planning to confine subjects for an extended period, and btw many of the worst Muslim terrorists were formerly incarcerated for extended periods.

First, I'm just pointing out that simply making a public declaration has an influence on people thoughts, that they do not control.

Second, what I'm really getting to, and I explained already, is that today no one is challenging the ideas in Islam. These are medieval evil ideas, worse than national socialism. Yet middle-eastern countries are actively exporting these without any protest from anyone. These ideas are openly taught in the US, and no one says anything in the name of freedom of religion and for fear of offending someone. These fucking ideas get a free pass.

This has to stop. We have to attack head-front the core of these ideas. And this starts with having a discussion with "moderate" muslims and getting them to recognize that these ideas are just plain evil and unnecessary to a spiritual pursuit. Therefore they should make a public renunciation of such beliefs.

And again, those who won't ARE NOT MODERATE. They belong in a database of extremist people. A public one.

All this is just one part of a total war against these ideas:
- The media should focus on any evil committed in the name of these ideas and specifically link the ideas to the resulting suffering.
- The US should put an end to any alliance with countries that are exporting these ideas. These are not out friends. It has to be made clear and official.
- Public education has to focus on explaining why they are bad.
- we can even add a section in the pledge of allegiance specifically on that.
- etc....

YesYNot says

That sounds good, but it's difficult to implement. ...You'd be changing our laws quite a lot to implement that.

Yeah but this is critical. Obama says ISIS is not an existential threat.
He says that based on military, industrial capacity. This is irrelevant. The Roman empire fell to the Christians cult and the same can happen again, particularly in Europe.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah but this is critical.

It would come at the expense of freedom of speech, so you'd have to have a dam good argument. In light of the quote from the WaPo article I cited above, it looks more like the CIA had it right in their report 13 yrs ago.

YesYNot says

The shock troops used in the terrorist group’s signature attacks are largely men already well known to local law enforcement — not as religious radicals, but as criminals.

The world is made of billions of poor people. Most live in desperate situations. Many are criminals.
Most of them are not Muslim terrorists.
This is just not the right variable.

It also assumes the richer educated people are immune to the power of a cult. This is not the case.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah but this is critical.

It would come at the expense of freedom of speech, so you'd have to have a dam good argument. In light of the quote from the WaPo article I cited above, it looks more like the CIA had it right in their report 13 yrs ago.

Why expense of free speech? I never said I would restrict free speech.

Heraclitusstudent says

The world is made of billions of poor people. Most live in desperate situations. Many are criminals.

Most of them are not Muslim terrorists.

This is just not the right variable.

It also assumes the richer educated people are immune to the power of a cult. This is not the case.

Soviet soldiers called the mujahadeen islamic fighters in eastern soviet republics "dushman" which translates into "man who suffocates". For a soviet soldier to say that, it just shows you what kind of barbarism they must have encountered.

YesYNot says

There are plenty of white supremacists who say terrible things.

Muslim medieval ideas are not shamed in US media with the same passion and energy as white supremacists ideas and/or anti-transgender bigots.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why expense of free speech? I never said I would restrict free speech.

Freedom of speech says that someone is allowed to say that nonbelievers should be killed. Our constitution and current laws protect the ability to say this. Once you actually kill someone, you are on the wrong side of the law. If you tell someone to kill someone, and they go out and do it, you are on the wrong side of the law. As far as I know, sex offenders are on a list for something they were convicted of, not for something they thought or said.

Heraclitusstudent says

Muslim medieval ideas are not shamed in US media with the same passion and energy as white supremacists ideas and/or anti-transgender bigots.

Terrorist ideas are most certainly shamed more so than anything I can think of.
Most of sharia is shamed as well, as it should be. It is so far outside of what we consider right and wrong.

Characterizing Islam as the terrorists do is generally not done by Westerners. That is probably because (1) many Islamic scholars feel that is not correct. (2) many Mulsims feel it is incorrect. (3) our strategy is to convince most Muslims to reject the terrorist interpretation on Islam.

Muslim governments use religion to demonize the West in order to galvanize support for themselves. That's a classic strategy of corrupt or paranoid leaders. Trump and Cruz employ the same strategy, but they are not as bad as the religious nationalists in Muslim countries.

YesYNot says

Freedom of speech says that someone is allowed to say that nonbelievers should be killed.

Sure and I never said extremists are not allowed to say that. Just that they would be put in a database of extremists.

Though obviously this could be labeled hate speech and harassment.

YesYNot says

Terrorist ideas are most certainly shamed more so than anything I can think of.

No it isn't. I almost never hear media talking about this, and if they do, they refer to Shariah in vague terms not specific ideas.
Anything that can be seen as making the Muslim community feel uncomfortable or targeted is absolute taboo in the US, and automatically sends a wave of leftists defending them.
No one is ever singled out for belief such as "polytheists should be killed".
But many people are singled out for being white supremacists.

On the foreign policy front, Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most extreme regime actively spreading its nefarious ideology, is seen as a US allies.
etc, etc....

YesYNot says

Characterizing Islam as the terrorists do is generally not done by Westerners. That is probably because (1) many Islamic scholars feel that is not correct. (2) many Mulsims feel it is incorrect. (3) our strategy is to convince most Muslims to reject the terrorist interpretation on Islam.

I never said Islam should be characterized as terrorist. I said specific ideas should be denounced as evil. Do you see a difference?

Heraclitusstudent says

Though obviously this could be labeled hate speech and harassment.

Hate speech is protected. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist speech and created the "imminent danger" test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[82]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[83] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[84] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [85]

Heraclitusstudent says

I never said Islam should be characterized as terrorist. I said specific ideas should be denounced as evil. Do you see a difference?

Yes. And I'm saying the only one that is generally not done is to disparage Islam in general.

Heraclitusstudent says

YesYNot says

Terrorist ideas are most certainly shamed more so than anything I can think of.

No it isn't. I almost never hear media talking about this,

When you watch the news, are terrorists praised, or are they roundly rejected? People celebrate killing terrorists. Trumpies even celebrate the idea of killing their families as well.

YesYNot says

Muslim governments use religion to demonize the West in order to galvanize support for themselves. That's a classic strategy of corrupt or paranoid leaders.

That's a total misunderstanding of politics. In politics you always demonize the other side.
The only difference here is that they use religion.

As far as Trump is concerned: it should be understood that you can't have a people regularly bombed and slaughtered and expect them to just take it and harbor no resentment. And simple people will NOT make nuances such as this guy is moderate, this one is not . The west is not superior in that regard. If nothing is done, this issue WILL end up as a direct religious war. Trump is just a symptom of more of that to come.

YesYNot says

Hate speech is protected.

Sure fine. Still in the current context, registering extremists is appropriate.

Heraclitusstudent says

That's a total misunderstanding of politics. In politics you always demonize the other side.

The only difference here is that they use religion.

No, Trump is doing this. Obama is not. Trumpies say this is because Obama is a pussy Muslim traitor.

Heraclitusstudent says

As far as Trump is concerned: it should be understood that you can't have a people regularly bombed and slaughtered and expect them to just take it and harbor no resentment.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that Muslims are not going to sit there and take it with no resentment when we do it to them, or we will not take it with no resentment when they occasionally strike back. Either way, there is always resentment. The more that politicians vilify the other side in order to win elections or prevent uprisings, the more likely the populace will be out with pitchforks when there is an attack.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sure fine. Still in the current context, registering extremists is appropriate.

I don't know. I'm sure that our defense agencies are keeping tabs of major hate groups to the extent that they make statements in public or on web sites. Putting them on a publicly available national registry is probably not legal, but I'm not a lawyer, so who knows. Generally, the supremacists leaders are publicly known anyways. Followers and people who comment on web sites are probably not tracked as closely.